Areal Linguistics within the Phonological Atlas of Europe: Loan Phonemes and their Distribution 9783110672602, 9783110672435

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Contents
List of Abbreviations
List of Figures
List of Maps
List of Tables
Part A: The Phonological Atlas of Europe – Ground Plan
1 Introduction
2 Goals
3 In a nutshell: the phenomena featured in Phon@Europe
4 Previous research
5 Theory
6 Methodology
7 Frame of reference
8 Terminology
9 Conventions
10 Europe
11 Sample
12 Sources
13 Data
14 Maps and chapters
Part B: Loan Phonemes in Europe – Qualities, Quantities, and Geography
15 Loan phonemes
16 Two globally-oriented projects on loan phonemes
17 Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe. Part 1
17 Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe. Part 2
18 Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes
19 Conclusions
References
Index of Authors
Index of Languages
Index of Subjects
Appendix 1: Sample
Appendix 2: Maps

Citation preview

Thomas Stolz, Nataliya Levkovych Areal Linguistics within the Phonological Atlas of Europe

Studia Typologica

Beihefte / Supplements STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung Language Typology and Universals Editors Thomas Stolz, François Jacquesson, Pieter C. Muysken Editorial Board Michael Cysouw (Marburg), Ray Fabri (Malta), Steven Roger Fischer (Auckland), Bernhard Hurch (Graz), Bernd Kortmann (Freiburg), Nicole Nau (Poznán), Ignazio Putzu (Cagliari), Stavros Skopeteas (Göttingen), Johan van der Auwera (Antwerpen), Elisabeth Verhoeven (Berlin), Ljuba Veselinova (Stockholm)

Volume 25

Thomas Stolz, Nataliya Levkovych

Areal Linguistics within the Phonological Atlas of Europe Loan Phonemes and their Distribution In cooperation with Beke Seefried

ISBN 978-3-11-067243-5 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-067260-2 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-067273-2 ISSN 1617-2957 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021938397 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Alpha-C/iStock/Thinkstock Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

| ‘Een mooie kaart.’ ‘Ja, ik ben er ook wel tevreden over,’ zei Wiegersma. ‘Duidelijke grenzen,’ zei Maarten goedkeurend, zich wat verder naar voren buigend om een detail van dichterbij te bekeken. ‘Hoe je ze verklaren moet mag God weten, maar de kaart is in ieder geval mooi.’ (J.J. Voskuil, Het Bureau 2: Vuile handen, 239)

Acknowledgments Nuclear versions of the ideas from which our project Phon@Europe has developed were presented on different occasions in the format of talks which we list here in their chronological order:  May 2006, On being monosyllabic, [Linguistics Festival, University of Bremen]  January 2011, The geography of phonological phenomena in Europe, [Workshop Landscape Linguistics, CNRS, Paris]  December 2011, Europhonology, [Leipzig-Bremen Workshop, Max-Planck-Institute EVA, Leipzig]  November 2012, Arealphonologie Europas, [Ringvorlesung, University of Flensburg]  February 2013, EUROPHONOLOGIE – Sinn und Nutzen einer areal-phonologischen Bestandsaufnahme im europäischen Rahmen, [Linguistisches Kolloquium, University of Bremen]  December 2013, Die Breiten- und Längengrade der Europhonologie, [guest lecture, Jacobs-University Bremen]  July 2016, The Bremen project on comparative areal phonology, [Workshop Areal Phonology, Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg Delmenhorst]  March 2019, Progress report on the Phonological Atlas of Europe, [LeipzigBremen Workshop on Grammatical Universals and Typology, University of Leipzig]  September 2019, The phonological landscape of Europe in areal-typological perspective, [ALT, Pavia]  March 2020, Der Platz des Deutschen im Phonologischen Atlas Europas, [56th Annual Meeting of the IDS, Mannheim] This succession of talks reflects our focus on those topics which are addressed in Part A of this book. Loan phonemes crossed our minds only relatively recently in 2018 when we started to think seriously about finding a suitable appetizer to promote Phon@Europe. We have dedicated ourselves to this topic for about twelve months starting in autumn 2019 to finalize Part B in October 2020. In the course of the fifteen years in which we occupied ourselves – on and off and without financial support – with the areal phonology of Europe we received valuable input from a host of colleagues from many places. We are especially grateful to Cormac Anderson (Jena), Darja Appelganz-Dërmaku (Leipzig), Norbert Boretzky (Bochum), Wolfgang Dahmen (Jena), Diana Forker (Jena), Elin Fredsted (Flensburg), Eitan Grossman (Jerusalem), Lutz Gunkel (Mannheim), Jonathan Harrington (Munich), Martin Haspelmath (Leipzig), Gerd

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-201

VIII | Acknowledgments

Hentschel (Oldenburg), François Jacquesson (Paris), Uršula Krevs-Birk (Ljubljana), Manfred Krifka (Berlin), Martin Joachim Kümmel (Jena), Ian Maddieson (Berkeley), Lev Michael (Berkeley), Steven Moran (Zürich), Claire Moyse-Faurie (Paris), Paula Müller (Bremen), Dmitry Nikolaev (Jerusalem), Hitomi Otsuka (Halle), Vanessa Pauls (Bremen), Jörg Peters (Oldenburg), Paolo Ramat (Pavia), Erich Round (Jena), Andrea Scala (Milan), Elena Stadnik (Krems), Christel Stolz (Bremen), Aina Urdze (Bremen), Martine Vanhove (Paris), Angelika Wöllstein (Mannheim), and Gisela Zifonoun (Mannheim) for their help with matters related to the prehistory of this study. All responsibility for the contents and the form in which the ideas are expressed remain entirely ours of course. Bremen, October 2020

Contents Acknowledgments | VII List of Abbreviations | XV List of Figures | XVII List of Maps | XXI List of Tables | XXIII

Part A: The Phonological Atlas of Europe – Ground Plan  1

Introduction | 3

2 2.1 2.2

Goals | 7 The major objectives of Phon@Europe | 7 This study’s targets | 8

3

In a nutshell: the phenomena featured in Phon@Europe | 11

4 4.1 4.1.1

Previous research | 14 Outside Phon@Europe | 14 Linguistic areas within Europe according to Haarmann (1976b) | 16 4.1.2 Linguistic areas within Europe according to Décsy (2000a) | 18 4.1.3 Europemes – no space for the spectacular (Haarmann 1976a) | 27 4.1.4 Pan-Europeanisms and related issues (Décsy 2000b) | 33 4.1.4.1 The shared minimum | 34 4.1.4.2 Extensions | 35 4.1.5 The boring continent (Ternes 1998, 2010) | 42 4.1.6 Wrapping up the past | 50 4.2 Within Phon@Europe | 52 4.2.1 The very first steps (Stolz 2006) | 53 4.2.2 Monosyllables (Stolz 2007) | 54 4.2.3 S(h)ibilants and affricates (Stolz 2010) | 58 4.2.4 Liquids (Stolz et al. 2010) | 60

X | Contents

4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8 4.2.9

Velar and postvelar fricatives (Stolz et al. 2011a) | 61 Rara and rarissima (Stolz et al. 2012a) | 63 The final rehearsal (Stolz and Levkovych 2017) | 64 Combining the incompatible (Levkovych et al. 2019) | 65 The insights we have gained – a synopsis | 66

5 5.1 5.2

Theory | 68 Phonology | 68 Areal linguistics vs. linguistic areas | 71

6

Methodology | 76

7

Frame of reference | 79

8

Terminology | 82

9

Conventions | 83

10

Europe | 86

11 11.1 11.2 11.3

Sample | 89 Size | 89 Composition | 91 Distribution | 95

12

Sources | 97

13 13.1 13.2

Data | 100 Good vs. bad candidates | 100 Interpretative challenges | 101

14 14.1 14.2

Maps and chapters | 105 Maps | 106 Chapters | 110

Contents | XI

Part B: Loan Phonemes in Europe – Qualities, Quantities, and Geography 15 15.1 15.2

Loan phonemes | 115 Areality, language contact, and loanwords | 116 Different types of loan phonemes | 118

16 16.1 16.2

Two globally-oriented projects on loan phonemes | 126 Loan phonemes in Maddieson (1984, 1986) | 126 Loan phonemes in Eisen (2019) | 130

17 17.1

Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe | 133 Loan phonemes and phonological classes (with special focus on quantitative aspects) | 133 17.1.1 EDLs: (Frequent) borrowers vs. non-borrowers | 134 17.1.2 Loan phonemes: how many and how often | 145 17.1.2.1 Phonological parameters of vowels | 149 17.1.2.1.1 Backness | 149 17.1.2.1.2 Height | 153 17.1.2.1.3 Closure | 156 17.1.2.1.4 Rounding | 158 17.1.2.1.5 Preliminary conclusions | 161 17.1.2.2 Phonological parameters of consonants | 163 17.1.2.2.1 Place of articulation | 163 17.1.2.2.2 Manner of articulation | 171 17.1.2.2.3 Phonation | 176 17.1.2.2.4 Secondary articulation | 179 17.1.2.2.5 Preliminary conclusions | 180 17.2 The diffusion of individual loan phonemes in Europe (qualitative and quantitative aspects) | 183 17.2.1 LP vowels – hierarchy | 185 17.2.2 Distribution of individual LP vowels | 186 17.2.2.1 /y/ | 186 17.2.2.2 /ø/ | 201 17.2.2.3 /ɨ/ | 204 17.2.2.4 /æ/ | 207 17.2.2.5 /ə/ | 209 17.2.2.6 /o/ | 211 17.2.2.7 Singularities | 214

XII | Contents

17.2.2.8 17.2.2.9 17.2.3 17.2.4 17.2.4.1 17.2.4.2 17.2.4.3 17.2.4.4 17.2.4.5 17.2.4.6 17.2.4.7 17.2.4.8 17.2.4.9 17.2.4.10 17.2.4.11 17.2.4.12 17.2.4.13 17.2.4.14 17.2.4.15 17.2.4.16 17.2.4.17 17.2.4.18 17.2.4.19 17.2.4.20 17.2.4.21 17.2.4.22 17.2.4.23 17.2.4.24 17.2.4.25 17.2.4.26 17.2.4.27 17.2.4.28 17.2.4.29 17.2.4.30 17.3 17.3.1 17.3.2 17.3.3

Secondary properties | 216 LP vowels in retrospect | 223 LP consonants – hierarchy | 228 Distribution of individual LP consonants | 230 /f/ | 231 /ʒ/ | 259 /x/ | 277 /ʤ/ | 292 /ʦ/ | 306 /g/ | 318 /v/ | 329 /ʧ/ | 339 /z/ | 349 /ʣ/ | 360 /ʃ/ | 367 /h/ | 374 /ɣ/ | 380 /ɲ/ | 386 /b/ | 391 /θ/ | 395 /ð/ | 400 /ʎ/ | 405 /ʕ/ | 409 /d/ | 413 /ʔ/ | 417 /k/ | 419 /ç/ | 423 /ħ/ | 426 /p/ | 429 /c/ | 432 /w/ | 435 Singularities | 439 Secondary articulation, gemination, and non-pulmonic consonants | 444 LP consonants in retrospect | 456 Patterns | 469 Genealogy | 470 Geography | 479 LP pairs (and chains) | 485

Contents | XIII

18 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4

Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes | 504 On becoming (dis)similar | 504 Donors | 511 What remains unaffected by borrowing | 515 Absentees | 520

19

Conclusions | 524

References | 533 Index of Authors | 559 Index of Languages | 566 Index of Subjects | 573 Appendix 1: Sample | 577 Appendix 2: Maps | 587

List of Abbreviations C E EDL IE LP M N S SAE V W

consonant/center (nonant) east(ern) European doculect Indo-European loan phoneme mid (nonant) north(ern) south(ern) Standard Average European vowel west(ern)

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-203

List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26 Figure 27 Figure 28 Figure 29 Figure 30 Figure 31 Figure 32 Figure 33 Figure 34 Figure 35

Number of EDLs attesting to s(h)ibilants and affricates according to Stolz (2010)  | 58 Number of EDLs attesting to liquid phonemes according to Stolz et al. (2010: 106)  | 60 Occurrences of velar and postvelar fricatives in Europe according to Stolz et al. (2011a: 103)  | 62 Number of phonemic velar and postvelar fricatives in sample languages according to Stolz et al. (2011a: 104)  | 62 Growing size of EDL samples  | 90 Genetic affiliation of the EDLs (absolute numbers)  | 93 Genetic affiliation of the EDLs (shares)  | 94 Representatives of the branches of Indo-European (absolute numbers)  | 94 Shares of the branches within the Indo-European component  | 95 Shares of borrowers and non-borrowers  | 134 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers per phylum (absolute numbers)  | 135 Three shares compared per phylum  | 136 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers per phylum (shares)  | 137 Shares of borrowers and non-borrowers according to basic categories of the nonants  | 140 Shares of frequent borrowers according to basic categories of the nonants  | 142 Shares of Indo-European and non-Indo-European EDLs among frequent borrowers  | 143 Shares of Indo-European and non-Indo-European EDLs among infrequent borrowers  | 145 Shares of loan phonemes vs. phonemes unaffected by borrowing  | 146 Shares of vowels and consonants with LPs  | 146 Shares of LP consonants and LP vowels  | 147 Shares of EDLs with LP vowels, LP consonants, or both (Maddieson 1984 vs. this study)  | 148 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of backness  | 150 Shares of backness categories in the European vowel inventory  | 152 Shares of LP vowels per backness category  | 152 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of height  | 153 Shares of height categories in the European vowel inventory  | 155 Shares of LP vowels per height category  | 155 Shares of LP vowels per closure category  | 156 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of closure categories  | 157 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of rounding  | 159 Shares of rounding categories in the European vowel inventory  | 160 Shares of LP vowels per rounding category  | 161 Shares of borrowers per place of articulation  | 165 Shares of places of articulation in the European consonant inventory  | 170 Shares of LP consonants per place of articulation  | 171

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-204

XVIII | List of Figures

Figure 36 Figure 37 Figure 38 Figure 39 Figure 40 Figure 41 Figure 42 Figure 43 Figure 44 Figure 45 Figure 46 Figure 47 Figure 48 Figure 49 Figure 50 Figure 51 Figure 52 Figure 53 Figure 54 Figure 55 Figure 56 Figure 57 Figure 58 Figure 59 Figure 60 Figure 61 Figure 62 Figure 63 Figure 64 Figure 65 Figure 66 Figure 67 Figure 68 Figure 69 Figure 70 Figure 71 Figure 72 Figure 73 Figure 74 Figure 75 Figure 76 Figure 77 Figure 78 Figure 79 Figure 80

Shares of borrowers per manner of articulation  | 173 Shares of manners of articulation in the European consonant inventory  | 175 Shares of LP consonants per manner of articulation  | 176 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of phonation  | 177 Shares of voiced/voiceless in the European consonant inventory  | 178 Shares of LP consonants per phonation category  | 178 Shares of types of secondary articulations  | 179 Shares of EDLs with and without secondary articulation  | 180 LP vowels ranked according to frequency of borrowing  | 185 Share of LP /y/ in the sample  | 187 Share of LP /ø/ in the sample  | 201 Share of LP /ɨ/ in the sample  | 205 Share of LP /æ/ in the sample  | 207 Share of LP /ə/ in the sample  | 209 Share of LP /o/ in the sample  | 212 Isolated cases of LP vowels within the sample  | 215 Chain of vowel-borrowers  | 224 Chain of LP vowels  | 224 LP consonants ranked according to frequency of borrowing  | 228 Shares of individual LP consonants of all cases of borrowing in Phon@Europe and Eisen (2019)  | 230 Share of LP /f/ in the sample  | 232 Genealogic distribution of /f/-borrowers  | 233 Share of LP /ʒ/ in the sample  | 259 Genealogic distribution of /ʒ/-borrowers  | 260 Share of LP /x/ in the sample  | 279 Genealogic distribution of /x/-borrowers  | 279 Share of LP /ʤ/ in the sample  | 293 Genealogic distribution of /ʤ/-borrowers  | 294 Share of LP /ʦ/ in the sample  | 306 Genealogic distribution of /ʦ/-borrowers  | 307 Share of LP /g/ in the sample  | 318 Genealogic distribution of /g/-borrowers  | 319 Share of LP /v/ in the sample  | 330 Genealogic distribution of /v/-borrowers  | 330 Share of LP /ʧ/ in the sample  | 339 Genealogic distribution of /ʧ/-borrowers  | 340 Share of LP /z/ in the sample  | 349 Genealogic distribution of /z/-borrowers  | 350 Share of LP /ʣ/ in the sample  | 360 Genealogic distribution of /ʣ/-borrowers  | 361 Share of LP /ʃ/ in the sample  | 368 Genealogic distribution of /ʃ/-borrowers  | 369 Share of LP /h/ in the sample  | 375 Genealogic distribution of /h/-borrowers  | 375 Share of LP /ɣ/ in the sample  | 380

List of Figures | XIX

Figure 81 Figure 82 Figure 83 Figure 84 Figure 85 Figure 86 Figure 87 Figure 88 Figure 89 Figure 90 Figure 91 Figure 92 Figure 93 Figure 94 Figure 95 Figure 96 Figure 97 Figure 98 Figure 99 Figure 100 Figure 101 Figure 102 Figure 103 Figure 104 Figure 105 Figure 106 Figure 107 Figure 108 Figure 109 Figure 110 Figure 111 Figure 112 Figure 113 Figure 114 Figure 115 Figure 116 Figure 117 Figure 118 Figure 119 Figure 120 Figure 121 Figure 122 Figure 123

Share of LP /ɲ/ in the sample  | 387 Genealogic distribution of /ɲ/-borrowers  | 387 Share of LP /b/ in the sample  | 391 Genealogic distribution of /b/-borrowers  | 392 Share of LP /θ/ in the sample  | 396 Genealogic distribution of /θ/-borrowers  | 397 Share of LP /ð/ in the sample  | 401 Genealogic distribution of /ð/-borrowers  | 402 Share of LP /ʎ/ in the sample  | 405 Genealogic distribution of /ʎ/-borrowers  | 406 Share of LP /ʕ/ in the sample  | 409 Genealogic distribution of /ʕ/-borrowers  | 410 Share of LP /d/ in the sample  | 413 Genealogic distribution of /d/-borrowers  | 414 Share of LP /ʔ/ in the sample  | 417 Share of LP /k/ in the sample  | 420 Genealogic distribution of /k/-borrowers  | 420 Share of LP /ç/ in the sample  | 423 Genealogic distribution of /ç/-borrowers  | 424 Share of LP /ħ/ in the sample  | 427 Share of LP /p/ in the sample  | 429 Share of LP /c/ in the sample  | 432 Genealogic distribution of /c/-borrowers  | 433 Share of LP /w/ in the sample  | 436 Genealogic distribution of /w/-borrowers  | 436 Isolated cases of LP consonants within the sample  | 440 Genealogic distribution of borrowers of isolated cases  | 443 Putative LP consonants ranked according to frequency of borrowing  | 445 Palatalized consonants: autochthonous vs. supposedly borrowed  | 447 Putative labialized/pharyngealized/ejective LPs vs. autochthonous phonemes  | 452 Approved LP consonants ranked according to frequency of borrowing  | 454 Genealogic distribution of borrowers with LPs with secondary articulation  | 455 Leaving the functional niche in three steps  | 458 From allophone to phoneme in three step  | 460 Degree of association within LP pairs (consonants)  | 465 Comparison of LP shares (Non-singularities in Phon@Europe)  | 467 Comparison of LP turnouts (Singularities in Phon@Europe)  | 468 Shares of individually and multiply borrowed LPs per phylum  | 470 Coverage of most extended LP isogloss per phylum  | 472 Shares of individually and multiply borrowed LPs within Indo-European  | 473 Coverage of most extended isogloss per branch of Indo-European  | 475 Shares of individually and multiply borrowed LPs per nonant  | 479 Isogloss extensions (n > 2 EDLs) across genetic and geographic categories  | 481

XX | List of Figures

Figure 124 Figure 125 Figure 126 Figure 127 Figure 128 Figure 129 Figure 130 Figure 131 Figure 132 Figure 133 Figure 134 Figure 135 Figure 136

Coverage of most extended isogloss per nonant  | 481 Coverage of most extended isogloss across genetic and geographic categories  | 482 Frequency of LP consonants as A (with consonantal B)  | 487 Shares of consonantal LP pairs (types)  | 490 Number of borrowers per length of LP chains  | 498 Russification of the inventory of consonants in Olonets  | 505 Increasing shares of consonant phonemes  | 507 Points gained in the transition from PAST to PRESENT  | 508 Romancization of the inventory of consonants in Basque  | 510 Shares of donor languages  | 513 Shares of nonants in the domain of absentees  | 520 Genetic background of absentees  | 521 Shares of branches of Indo-European absentees  | 522

List of Maps Map I Map II Map III Map IV Map V Map VI Map VII Map VIII Map IX Map X Map XI Map XII Map XIII Map XIV Map XV Map XVI Map XVII Map XVIII Map XIX Map XX Map XXI Map XXII Map XXIII Map XXIV Map XXV Map XXVI Map XXVII Map XXVIII Map XXIX Map XXX Map XXXI Map XXXII Map XXXIII

Ejectives in the Caucasus region including Ossetic and Eastern Armenian (Blevins 2017: 102)  | 587 Front rounded vowels in Central and Western Europe (Blevins 2017: 106)  | 588 Final obstruent devoicing in Europe (Blevins 2017: 95)  | 589 Principal locations of pre- and postaspiration in Scandinavia and the North Atlantic (Blevins 2017: 108 – originally from Helgason 2002: 3)  | 590 Distribution of phonemic and allophonic /θ/ ~ [θ], /ð/ ~ [ð], and /ɣ/ ~ [ɣ] in Europe with reference to Décsy’s (2000a) sample  | 591 Distribution of /h/ and /x/ in Décsy’s (2000b) sample  | 592 Distribution of [uvular] in Ternes’s (1998, 2010) sample  | 593 Distribution of rounded front vowels and phonemic quantity in Stolz (2006)  | 594 High vs. low turnouts of monosyllables across EDLs in Stolz (2007)  | 595 S(h)ibilants and affricates in Europe according to Stolz (2010)  | 596 Different number of s(h)ibilants and affricates in east and west according to Stolz (2010)  | 597 European regions with an abundance of infrequent types of liquids according to Stolz et al. (2010: 114)  | 598 Number of (post)velar fricatives in Europe according to Stolz et al. (2011a)  | 599 EDLs with phonological rara and rarissima according to Stolz et al. (2012a: 18)  | 600 Absence of majoritarian and presence of minoritarian configurations in combination (Stolz and Levkovych 2017: 151)  | 601 Predicative possession and secondary articulation in Europe according to Levkovych et al. (2019)  | 602 Projekteuropa as conceived for Phon@Europe  | 603 Geographical location of the EDLs  | 604 Density of EDLs in northern Italy and adjacent areas  | 605 Density of EDLs in the Caucasus  | 606 Europe divided into nine sections (nonants)  | 607 The European geography of loan phonemes based on Maddieson (1984)  | 608 The geography of borrowers and non-borrowers in Europe  | 609 The geography of frequent borrowers in Europe  | 610 The geography of LP consonants and LP vowels  | 611 Location of borrowers of front, back, or central vowels  | 612 Location of borrowers of high, mid, or low vowels  | 613 Location of borrowers of closed, open, or neutral vowels  | 614 Location of borrowers of rounded, unrounded, or neutral vowels  | 615 Location of borrowers of labiodentals  | 616 Location of borrowers of postalveolars  | 617 Location of borrowers of velars  | 618 Location of borrowers of denti-alveolars  | 619

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-205

XXII | List of Maps

Map XXXIV Map XXXV Map XXXVI Map XXXVII Map XXXVIII Map XXXIX Map XL Map XLI Map XLII Map XLIII Map XLIV Map XLV Map XLVI Map XLVII Map XLVIII Map XLIX Map L Map LI Map LII Map LIII Map LIV Map LV Map LVI Map LVII Map LVIII Map LIX Map LX Map LXI Map LXII Map LXIII Map LXIV Map LXV Map LXVI Map LXVII Map LXVIII Map LXIX Map LXX Map LXXI Map LXXII Map LXXIII Map LXXIV Map LXXV Map LXXVI Map LXXVII Map LXXVIII Map LXXIX Map LXXX

Location of borrowers of pharyngeals or epiglottals  | 620 Location of borrowers of glottals or palatals  | 621 Location of borrowers of bilabials, labial-velars, or uvulars  | 622 Location of borrowers of fricatives  | 623 Location of borrowers of manners of articulation other than fricatives  | 624 The geography of borrowers in the domain of phonation  | 625 The distribution of rounded front vowels in the Caucasian region  | 626 The geography of /y/  | 627 The geography of /ø/  | 628 The geography of /ɨ/  | 629 The geography of /æ/  | 630 The geography of /ə/  | 631 The geography of /o/  | 632 The geography of borrowers of single vowels  | 633 The geography of /f/  | 634 The geography of /ʒ/  | 635 The geography of /x/  | 636 The geography of /ʤ/  | 637 The geography of /ʦ/  | 638 The geography of /g/  | 639 The geography of /v/  | 640 The geography of /ʧ/  | 641 The geography of /z/  | 642 The geography of /ʣ/  | 643 The geography of /ʃ/  | 644 The geography of /h/  | 645 The geography of /ɣ/  | 646 The geography of /ɲ/  | 647 The geography of /b/  | 648 The geography of /θ/  | 649 The geography of /ð/  | 650 The geography of /ʎ/  | 651 The geography of /ʕ/  | 652 The geography of /d/  | 653 The geography of /ʔ/  | 654 The geography of /k/  | 655 The geography of /ç/  | 656 The geography of /ħ/  | 657 The geography of /p/  | 658 The geography of /c/  | 659 The geography of /w/  | 660 The geography of borrowers with isolated cases of LPs  | 661 The geography of borrowers with LPs with secondary articulation  | 662 EDLs with the ternary set /f/, /ʒ/, and /x/  | 663 Successful donors and their replicas  | 664 Concentration of Caucasian secondary properties replicas  | 665 Identification of EDLs by glossonym replicas  | 666

List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Table 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33

Pan-European consonantal phonemes according to Décsy (2000b: 343)  | 35 Maximum inventory of vowel phonemes in Europe according to Décsy (2000b: 342)  | 36 Maximum inventory of consonantal phonemes in Europe according to Décsy (2000b: 344)  | 38 Distribution of /h/ and /x/ in Décsy’s (2000b) sample  | 40 Rank order of monosyllabicity of EDLs according to Stolz (2007: 107–108)  | 56 Consonant phonemes of Mari (Hill) according to Alhoniemi (1993: 20)  | 102 Consonant phonemes of Mari (Hill) – Phon@Europe version  | 104 Distribution of EDLs over the nonants  | 109 LPs in the EDLs of Maddieson’s sample (1984)  | 127 Distribution of Maddieson’s LPs over nonants  | 128 Frequently borrowing EDLs according to Eisen (2019: 28 and 30)  | 130 The eight most frequent LPs in Maddieson (1984) and Eisen (2019)  | 131 Borrowers and non-borrowers in the sample  | 137 Distribution of borrowers and non-borrowers over nonants  | 139 Ranking order of frequent borrowers  | 140 Distribution of frequent borrowers over nonants  | 141 Ranking order of infrequent borrowers  | 143 Distribution of LP consonants and vowels over the nonants  | 148 Distribution of borrowers of front, back, or central vowels over the nonants  | 151 Distribution of borrowers of high, mid, or low vowels over the nonants  | 154 Distribution of borrowers of closed, open, and neutral vowels over the nonants  | 157 Distribution of borrowers of rounded, unrounded, or neutral vowels over the nonants  | 159 Hierarchies of vowel categories with LP vowels  | 162 EDLs per place of articulation  | 163 Distribution of borrowers of labiodentals over the nonants  | 166 Distribution of borrowers of postalveolars over the nonants  | 166 Distribution of borrowers of velars over the nonants  | 167 Distribution of borrowers of denti-alveolars over the nonants  | 167 Distribution of borrowers of pharyngeals and epiglottals over the nonants  | 168 Distribution of borrowers of glottals and palatals over the nonants  | 168 Distribution of borrowers of bilabials, labial-velars, and uvulars over the nonants  | 169 Shares and absolute numbers for places of articulation in the European consonant inventory  | 169 EDLs/borrowers per manner of articulation  | 172

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-206

XXIV | List of Tables

Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Table 53 Table 54 Table 55 Table 56 Table 57 Table 58 Table 59 Table 60 Table 61 Table 62 Table 63 Table 64 Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Table 70 Table 71

Distribution of borrowers of fricatives and other manners of articulation over the nonants  | 173 Shares and absolute numbers for manners of articulation in the European consonant inventory  | 174 Distribution of borrowers of consonants according to phonation over the nonants  | 177 Hierarchies of consonant categories with LP consonants  | 182 Diffusion of LP /y/ in northern varieties of Basque (adapted from Haase 1993: 30)  | 190 Distribution of /y/-borrowers over the nonants  | 199 Zuberoan vowel system according to Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 18)  | 200 Distribution of /ø/-borrowers over the nonants  | 204 Distribution of /ɨ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 206 The vowel system of Polska Roma according to Matras (2002: 62)  | 207 Distribution of /æ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 208 The vowel system of Udi (Nidž) according to Schulze-Fürhoff (1994: 454)  | 209 Distribution of /ə/-borrowers over the nonants  | 211 Distribution of /o/-borrowers over the nonants  | 213 Latvian vowel system according to Auziņa (2013: 47)  | 214 Distribution of borrowers of single vowels over the nonants  | 216 Turkish vowel system according to Göksel and Kerslake (2005: 10–13)  | 218 Seeltersk vowel system according to Fort (2001: 411)  | 219 Short vowels of Çukurova Arabic according to Procházka (2002: 27–28)  | 221 Complete vowel system of Çukurova Arabic  | 221 Vowel borrowers per phylum  | 223 Slavic /f/-languages vs. Slavic /f/-less languages  | 234 Uralic /f/-languages vs. Uralic /f/-less languages  | 240 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /f/ in Turkic  | 243 Nakh-Daghestanian /f/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /f/-less languages  | 246 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /f/ in Baltic  | 247 Indo-Iranian /f/-borrowers vs. Indo-Iranian non-borrowers  | 249 Afro-Asiatic /f/-borrowers vs. Afro-Asiatic non-borrowers  | 251 Kartvelian /f/-borrowers vs. Kartvelian /f/-less EDLs  | 251 Distribution of /f/-borrowers over the nonants  | 257 Co-occurrence of (LP) /f/ and (LP) /v/  | 257 Turkic /ʒ/-languages vs. Turkic /ʒ/-less languages  | 261 Celtic /ʒ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʒ/-less languages  | 263 Indo-Iranian /ʒ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ʒ/-less languages  | 265 Romance /ʒ/-languages vs. Romance /ʒ/-less languages  | 266 Germanic /ʒ/-borrowers vs. Germanic /ʒ/-less EDLs  | 269 Uralic /ʒ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʒ/-less languages  | 272 Distribution of /ʒ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 276

List of Tables | XXV

Table 72 Table 73 Table 74 Table 75 Table 76 Table 77 Table 78 Table 79 Table 80 Table 81 Table 82 Table 83 Table 84 Table 85 Table 86 Table 87 Table 88 Table 89 Table 90 Table 91 Table 92 Table 93 Table 94 Table 95 Table 96 Table 97 Table 98 Table 99 Table 100 Table 101 Table 102 Table 103 Table 104 Table 105 Table 106 Table 107 Table 108 Table 109 Table 110 Table 111 Table 112 Table 113 Table 114 Table 115 Table 116

Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʃ/ and (LP) /ʒ/  | 277 Uralic /x/-languages vs. Uralic /x/-less languages  | 280 Borrowers of /x/ vs. /x/-less language in Baltic  | 281 Romance /x/-languages vs. Romance /x/-less languages  | 282 Turkic /x/-languages vs. Turkic /x/-less languages  | 287 Nakh-Daghestanian /x/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /x/-less languages  | 288 Distribution of /x/-borrowers over the nonants  | 291 Co-occurrence of (LP) /x/ and (LP) /ɣ/  | 292 Germanic /ʤ/-borrowers vs. Germanic /ʤ/-less languages  | 294 Slavic /ʤ/-languages vs. Slavic /ʤ/-less languages  | 297 Celtic /ʤ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʤ/-less languages  | 298 Romance /ʤ/-languages vs. Romance /ʤ/-less languages  | 299 Uralic /ʤ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʤ/-less languages  | 301 Afro-Asiatic /ʤ/-languages vs. Afro-Asiatic /ʤ/-less languages  | 302 Nakh-Daghestanian /ʤ/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /ʤ/-less languages  | 303 Distribution of /ʤ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 305 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʧ/ and (LP) /ʤ/  | 305 Turkic /ʦ/-languages vs. Turkic /ʦ/-less languages  | 308 Uralic /ʦ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʦ/-less languages  | 310 Romance /ʦ/-languages vs. Romance /ʦ/-less languages  | 313 Germanic /ʦ/-languages vs. Germanic /ʦ/-less languages  | 314 Indo-Iranian /ʦ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ʦ/-less languages  | 315 Distribution of /ʦ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 316 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʦ/ and (LP) /ʣ/  | 317 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /g/ in Slavic  | 320 Uralic /g/-languages vs. Uralic /g/-less languages  | 321 Turkic /g/-languages vs. Turkic /g/-less languages  | 324 Germanic /g/-languages vs. Germanic /g/-less languages  | 325 Afro-Asiatic /g/-languages vs. Afro-Asiatic /g/-less languages  | 326 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /g/ in Abkhaz-Adyghe  | 327 Distribution of /g/-borrowers over the nonants  | 328 Co-occurrence of (LP) /k/ and (LP) /g/  | 329 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /v/ in Turkic  | 331 Germanic /v/-languages vs. Germanic /v/-less languages  | 332 Afro-Asiatic /v/-languages vs. Afro-Asiatic /v/-less languages  | 333 Slavic /v/-languages vs. Slavic /v/-less languages  | 335 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /v/ in Abkhaz-Adyghe  | 336 Distribution of /v/-borrowers over the nonants  | 338 Co-occurrence of (LP) /v/ and (LP) /w/  | 338 Turkic /ʧ/-languages vs. Turkic /ʧ/-less languages  | 342 Uralic /ʧ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʧ/-less languages  | 342 Germanic /ʧ/-languages vs. Germanic /ʧ/-less languages  | 344 Celtic /ʧ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʧ/-less languages  | 346 Romance /ʧ/-languages vs. Romance /ʧ/-less languages  | 347 Distribution of /ʧ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 348

XXVI | List of Tables

Table 117 Table 118 Table 119 Table 120 Table 121 Table 122 Table 123 Table 124 Table 125 Table 126 Table 127 Table 128 Table 129 Table 130 Table 131 Table 132 Table 133 Table 134 Table 135 Table 136 Table 137 Table 138 Table 139 Table 140 Table 141 Table 142 Table 143 Table 144 Table 145 Table 146 Table 147 Table 148 Table 149 Table 150 Table 151 Table 152 Table 153 Table 154 Table 155 Table 156 Table 157 Table 158 Table 159 Table 160 Table 161

Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʧ/ and (LP) /ʦ/  | 348 Romance /z/-languages vs. Romance /z/-less languages  | 351 Germanic /z/-languages vs. Germanic /z/-less languages  | 353 Indo-Iranian /z/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /z/-less languages  | 354 Uralic /z/-languages vs. Uralic /z/-less languages  | 356 Celtic /z/-languages vs. Celtic /z/-less languages  | 358 Distribution of /z/-borrowers over the nonants  | 359 Co-occurrence of (LP) /s/ and (LP) /z/  | 359 Slavic /ʣ/-languages vs. Slavic /ʣ/-less languages  | 361 Indo-Iranian /ʣ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ʣ/-less languages  | 363 Romance /ʣ/-languages vs. Romance /ʣ/-less languages  | 364 Distribution of /ʣ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 366 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʣ/ and (LP) /ʤ/  | 367 Celtic /ʃ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʃ/-less languages  | 369 Uralic /ʃ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʃ/-less languages  | 370 Germanic /ʃ/-languages vs. Germanic /ʃ/-less languages  | 372 Distribution of /ʃ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 373 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʃ/ and /s/  | 374 Turkic /h/-languages vs. Turkic /h/-less languages  | 376 Indo-Iranian /h/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /h/-less languages  | 377 Distribution of /h/-borrowers over the nonants  | 379 Co-occurrence of (LP) /h/ and (LP) /x/  | 379 Romance /ɣ/-languages vs. Romance /ɣ/-less languages  | 381 Baltic /ɣ/-borrowers vs. Baltic /ɣ/-less languages  | 383 Indo-Iranian /ɣ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ɣ/-less languages  | 384 Distribution of /ɣ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 385 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɣ/ and (LP) /ʁ/  | 385 Romance /ɲ/-languages vs. Romance /ɲ/-less languages  | 388 Celtic /ɲ/-languages vs. Celtic /ɲ/-less languages  | 389 Distribution of /ɲ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 390 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɲ/ and (LP) /ŋ/  | 390 Uralic /b/-languages vs. Uralic /b/-less languages  | 392 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /b/ in Turkic  | 393 Distribution of /b/-borrowers over the nonants  | 394 Co-occurrence of (LP) /p/ and (LP) /b/  | 395 Romance /θ/-languages vs. Romance /θ/-less languages  | 397 Distribution of /θ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 399 Co-occurrence of (LP) /θ/ and (LP) /ð/  | 400 Romance /ð/-languages vs. Romance /ð/-less languages  | 402 Distribution of /ð/-borrowers over the nonants  | 404 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɣ/ and (LP) /ð/  | 404 Celtic /ʎ/-borrowers vs. Celtic /ʎ/-less languages  | 407 Distribution of /ʎ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 407 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɲ/ and (LP) /ʎ/  | 408 Nakh-Daghestanian /ʕ/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /ʕ/-less languages  | 410

List of Tables | XXVII

Table 162 Table 163 Table 164 Table 165 Table 166 Table 167 Table 168 Table 169 Table 170 Table 171 Table 172 Table 173 Table 174 Table 175 Table 176 Table 177 Table 178 Table 179 Table 180 Table 181 Table 182 Table 183 Table 184 Table 185 Table 186 Table 187 Table 188 Table 189 Table 190 Table 191 Table 192 Table 193 Table 194 Table 195 Table 196 Table 197 Table 198 Table 199 Table 200

Abkhaz-Adyghe /ʕ/-languages vs. Abkhaz-Adyghe /ʕ/-less languages  | 411 Distribution of /ʕ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 412 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ħ/ and (LP) /ʕ/  | 412 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /d/ in Turkic  | 414 Uralic /d/-languages vs. Uralic /d/-less languages  | 415 Distribution of /d/-borrowers over the nonants  | 416 Co-occurrence of /t/ and (LP) /d/  | 416 Turkic /ʔ/-borrowers vs. Turkic /ʔ/-less languages  | 418 Distribution of /ʔ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 418 Co-occurrence of (LP) /h/ and (LP) /ʔ/  | 419 Turkic /k/-languages vs. Turkic /k/-less languages  | 421 Distribution of /k/-borrowers over the nonants  | 422 Co-occurrence of (LP) /k/ and (LP) /q/  | 422 Abkhaz-Adyghe /ç/-languages vs. Abkhaz-Adyghe /ç/-less languages  | 424 Distribution of /ç/-borrowers over the nonants  | 425 Co-occurrence of (LP) /x/ and (LP) /ç/  | 426 Nakh-Daghestanian /ħ/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /ħ/-less languages  | 427 Distribution of /ħ/-borrowers over the nonants  | 428 Co-occurrence of (LP) /ħ/ and (LP) /h/  | 428 Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /p/ in Afro-Asiatic  | 430 Distribution of /p/-borrowers over the nonants  | 431 Co-occurrence of (LP) /p/ and /t/  | 431 Uralic /c/-languages vs. Uralic /c/-less languages  | 433 Slavic /c/-languages vs. Slavic /c/-less languages  | 434 Distribution of /c/-borrowers over the nonants  | 434 Co-occurrence of (LP) /c/ and (LP) /ɟ/  | 435 Nakh-Daghestanian /w/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /w/-less languages  | 437 Indo-Iranian /w/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /w/-less languages  | 438 Distribution of /w/-borrowers over the nonants  | 438 Co-occurrence of /j/ and (LP) /w/  | 439 Distribution of borrowers of isolated consonant LPs over the nonants  | 443 Distribution of borrowers of LPs with secondary articulation over the nonants  | 455 LP consonants which are also attested in onomatopoeia  | 458 LP consonants which are connected to the phonematization of allophones  | 460 How to compute the degree of association  | 464 Extension of isoglosses and participation per phylum  | 471 Extension of isoglosses and participation per branch of Indo-European  | 474 Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for phyla (absolute)  | 476 Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for phyla (ratio)  | 476

XXVIII | List of Tables

Table 201 Table 202 Table 203 Table 204 Table 205 Table 206 Table 207 Table 208 Table 209 Table 210 Table 211 Table 212 Table 213 Table 214 Table 215 Table 216 Table 217 Table 218 Table 219 Table 220 Table 221 Table 222 Table 223

Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for branches of Indo-European (absolute)  | 477 Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for branches of Indo-European (ratio)  | 478 Extension of isoglosses and participation per nonant  | 480 Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for nonants (absolute)  | 483 Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for nonants (ratio)  | 483 LP pairs with a vocalic B  | 485 LP pairs with a consonantal B  | 486 Unilateral implications which occur in two or more EDLs  | 487 Frequency of pairwise combinations of LP vowels  | 488 Consonantal LP pairs (tokens n > 1)  | 490 Comparison of phonological properties of frequent LP pairs involving /f/  | 491 Comparison of phonological properties of frequent LP pairs involving /ʒ/  | 492 Consonantal LP pairs (tokens n = 1)  | 493 Consonantal LP pairs with parallel borrowing  | 494 Consonantal LP chains borrowed by several EDLs  | 498 Properties of the members of frequently borrowed chains  | 499 LP chains with three members (one borrower per chain)  | 499 LP chains with four members (one borrower per chain)  | 500 LP chains with five to eleven members (one borrower per chain)  | 500 Chains within chains  | 501 Vowel phonemes which escape borrowing  | 515 Consonant phonemes which escape borrowing  | 517 Distribution of EDLs with Caucasian secondary properties over the nonants  | 519

| Part A: The Phonological Atlas of Europe – Ground Plan

1 Introduction In their introduction to the volume on The Languages and Linguistics of Europe, the editors speculate that “it may seem to many that the languages spoken in Europe [] are all too well known” (Kortmann and Auwera 2011: xvii) – an assumption the readers of the volume are invited “to reassess […] and to acknowledge the many fascinating facets of the linguistic[] landscape of Europe not or little known outside a small community of experts.” (Kortmann and Auwera 2011: xvii). Surprisingly, one of these largely unexplored domains is segmental phonology, meaning: our knowledge about one of the major levels of the language system in general is severely limited as to the languages of Europe (henceforth: EDLs = European doculects (Bowern 2008: 8; Good and Cysouw 2013)) as a group. There is of course a plethora of studies dedicated to the phonology of individual languages of the continent. It suffices to think of those titles in the series The Phonology of the World’s Languages which focus on particular EDLs such as: Armenian (Vaux 1998), Catalan (Wheeler 2005), Danish (Basbøll 2005), Dutch (Booij 2012), English (Hammond 1992), German (Wiese 1996), Hungarian (Siptár and Törkenczy 2000), Icelandic and Faroese (Árnason 2011), Italian (Krämer 2009), Norwegian (Kristoffersen 2000), Polish (Gussmann 2007), Portuguese (Mateus and d’Andrade 2000), Slovak (Rubach 1993), Swedish (Riad 2014), and Welsh (Hannahs 2013). This abundance of language-specific investigations notwithstanding, except for the European components of globally oriented collections of phoneme inventories to be mentioned in Section 12, there is as yet no dedicated pan-European data collection and assessment of phonological phenomena. It is the main task of our study to prove that it makes sense linguistically to fill this gap as soon as possible. Our research topic has been skipped within the framework of the huge EUROTYP project which had its heyday in the 1990s and the early new millennium. EUROTYP deserves appraisal for covering many typologically interesting phenomena in a sizable sample so that our wisdom as to structural properties of and their distribution across numerous EDLs has increased considerably. Most of the phenomena scrutinized by EUROTYP are of morpho-syntactic nature and the same holds for the major features of Standard Average European (henceforth: SAE) (Auwera 2011: 293). One of the eight volumes resulting from EUROTYP is dedicated to word prosodic systems (Hulst 1999), meaning: specific aspects of the suprasegmental phonology of EDLs are taken account of as well.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-001

4 | Introduction

In contrast, the segmental phonology of EDLs is paid hardly any attention. The absence of a volume on segmental phonology is puzzling. Is there an independent reason for studying in-depth clitics in the EDLs (Riemsdijk 1999) whereas segmental phonological phenomena are tacitly passed over when all EDLs have a phonological system but some of them might lack evidence of clitics? By way of explanation for this remarkable lack of interest in segmental phonology, Haspelmath (2001: 1493) (referring to Jakobson 1931: 182) states that he is “not aware of any phonological properties characteristic of the core European languages”. The “core European languages” are (largely) identical to the SAE languages. SAE languages are only a subgroup of the EDLs and it is therefore doubtful whether the negative statement also covers EDLs which are situated outside the supposed core area. In previous studies of so diverse phenomena as the alienability correlation (Stolz et al. 2008) and total reduplication (Stolz et al. 2011b), we have shown that by no means all EDLs behave alike and very often EDLs on the periphery display unexpected behavior. With reference to the topic under inspection, Haspelmath admits that “[p]erhaps phonologists have not looked hard enough”, but he agrees with Ternes (1998) who claims that in phonology, there is nothing remarkable about EDLs from a global perspective (see Section 4.1.5). This judgment invokes Dahl’s (1990: 3) question which was meant to justify the endeavor of EUROTYP and thus prevent any criticism of Eurocentrism: “[I]n what respects are European languages special and to what extent are structures you find there ‘marked’?”1 We argue, however, that “stressing the ‘exotic’ features of European […] languages” (Dahl 1990: 7) is methodologically inappropriate in the domain of segmental phonology because we are still largely in the dark about the areal aspects of the phonological systems of EDLs (no matter that Dahl too refers primarily to the SAE languages). Counting exclusively on the spectacular, in a manner of speaking, is thus premature. In this sense, we side with Kortmann and Auwera (2011: xv) who make Eurocentricity the program of their volume because before we can decide whether Europe is phonologically unremarkable (or not) we need to take stock of what commonalities and idiosyncrasies there are in the EDLs’ segmental phonologies, in the first place. In ethical terms, linguistics cannot limit itself to investigating rara and rarissima (Wohlgemuth and Cysouw 2010) – no matter how insightful their study undoubtedly is. Our discipline is also responsible for comprehensively describing what languages have in store structurally independent of the nature || 1 In direct quotes, except otherwise stated, we keep the original graphic means of marking out parts of the text as special (such as inverted commas for emphasis or the like).

Introduction | 5

of the phenomena under scrutiny – be they trivial or extraordinary from a crosslinguistic point of view. Even if the above putative lack of surprises in the domain of EDL phonology can be shown to be correct, this must be proved on the basis of sufficiently robust empirical evidence. What has haunted studies of the areal phonology of EDLs additionally is the preoccupation with identifying isoglosses in which ideally all or at least the vast majority of the EDLs participate. This search for common and/or essential European traits in the phonological domain leads us astray since it presupposes the existence of something (i.e. phonological Euroversals) which ultimately might fail to show up at all. It is much better therefore to adopt a kind of inductive grassroots approach by way of determining what phenomena are attested where and how they cluster, if at all. As long as the data have not been collected, classified, presented, and analyzed adequately, our understanding of the areal phonology of EDLs must remain fragmentary and speculative. There is thus an urgent need for filling the gap in EUROTYP’s original program by way of complementing it with the Phonological Atlas of Europe (= Phon@Europe). We intend to publish this atlas in the foreseeable future. Since – for mostly practical reasons to be exposed in the subsequent sections – phonological atlases which have scope over macro-areas of the size of an entire continent are still exceptional, Phon@Europe might serve as a pattern for likeminded projects which investigate the phonologies of languages elsewhere on the globe. To demonstrate that it is worthwhile conducting this project, in what follows, we outline the basic facts of Phon@Europe in Part A of this study. Part B contains an in-depth case study which is meant as an appetizer for the atlas itself. The two parts are related to each other in an admittedly peculiar way. Several of the rules and regulations laid down in Part A are not obeyed in Part B because the latter focuses on aspects of the areal phonology of Europe which are not in the scope of the future atlas-to-be. In Part B we seize the opportunity of addressing topics which will not be taken up again in the framework of Phon@Europe and thus allow us to approach them in a less rigid way. Wherever deviations from the principles formulated in Part A are necessary for conducting the case study in Part B we disclose them explicitly. We first sketch the goals of Phon@Europe and the (not only technical) prerequisites for reaching them as well as the aims of this study in Section 2. In Section 3, we identify the research object of Phon@Europe. Section 4 gives an account of previous related research. Section 5 informs on the theory-related aspects of the project whereas methodology is at issue in Section 6. Our frame of reference is presented in Section 7. The terminology we use and further conventions are explained in Sections 8 and 9, respectively. A definition of what we

6 | Introduction

mean by Europe is provided in Section 10. The sample as such is the topic of Section 11. In Section 12, we introduce the sources from which we draw the data. Section 13 addresses the problems of finding appropriate empirical data. The cartographic side of the project is discussed alongside the description of the chapters of the atlas in Section 14. In Sections 15–18, the feasibility of Phon@Europe is tested empirically in an extended investigation of the qualitative, quantitative, and geo-linguistic aspects of loan phonemes (henceforth LPs, except section titles) in EDLs. The general conclusions are drawn in Section 19.

2 Goals Two different kinds of goals have to be distinguished. First of all, those of Phon@Europe need to be spelled out to set the scene for the atlas in general and the case study as presented in Part B in particular. In addition, it is also necessary to define the aims of this study in relation to the larger framework of Phon@Europe. We set out with the former in Section 2.1 and briefly clarify to what end we have written this monograph (= Section 2.2). In the same Section 2.2, we also present two hypotheses which guide us through the case-study in Part B.

2.1 The major objectives of Phon@Europe First and foremost, Phon@Europe is intended to provide the first areal-linguistic survey ever of the synchronic distribution of selected essential phonological phenomena in Europe. The project takes stock of their synchronic presence in or absence from and realization form in the EDLs of our sample. This means that the project documents hitherto summarily neglected linguistic facts across a pan-European sample. Phon@Europe thus contributes substantially to our comprehension of the structural homogeneity/heterogeneity of the EDLs. In this way, the atlas may serve as a reference work for follow-up studies which investigate say, the areality of particular phonological issues. We emphasize that we do not presuppose the existence of a linguistic area or Sprachbund Europe. Similarly, we do not assume a priori that there are certain regional linguistic areas within Europe. Only a posteriori will it be possible to decide whether isoglosses cluster in such a way that they neatly separate one geographical neighborhood from the other. This means that only the atlas can tell us how Europe is structured in terms of its areal phonological properties. These and further matters are elaborated upon in Section 5.2. Since the atlas focuses on a small selection of phenomena to be identified in Section 3, it can be considered to function as the first volume of a series of atlases-to-be which treat of topics which, for reasons of practicality, have to be skipped in our own atlas. Phon@Europe pioneers the comprehensive documentation and evaluation of the phonology of EDLs to be achieved in the course of future investigations. Phon@Europe delivers fresh input for areal linguistics, areal typology, phonology, language contact studies, and related disciplines (see Sections 5 and 15).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-002

8 | Goals

The atlas complements EUROTYP in the domain of segmental phonology. In accordance with the practice of EUROTYP, all phenomena under inspection are subject to qualitative and quantitative analyses which result in dedicated chapters of varying length. In contrast to EUROTYP, however, Phon@Europe emphasizes the importance of linguistic cartography inspired by the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) without, however, employing exactly the same principles as the bestselling precursor (see Sections 4, 6, and 14). The presentation and discussion of each phenomenon is accompanied by maps on which its distribution in Europe is marked. The organization of chapters and maps is explained in more detail in Section 14. At this point, it suffices to mention that at least some of the maps give evidence of potential areal patterns which, in turn, invite a language-contact oriented diachronic interpretation. We do not claim that this is the case with each and every map. Moreover, diachronic issues are not of primary importance to the atlas whose raison d’être number one is painting the picture of the areal phonological situation in Europe as of now. The dominance of synchrony does by no means preclude the possibility to interpret the facts dynamically in the sense that areal patterns wherever they are discernible on the maps might reflect the diffusion or regression of certain properties in time and space. In the atlas, we will address diachrony only sparingly provided the historical information given in our sources is sufficiently reliable. As argued subsequently in Section 2.2, it is no coincidence that the case-study in Part B meets these criteria because it is meant to show what the phonology of EDLs has on offer areal-linguistically. In contrast to the future atlas, however, Part B requires the discussion of diachronic issues as well to make sure that a given phoneme has indeed been borrowed.

2.2 This study’s targets This study has a twofold goal. In Part A, it introduces Phon@Europe as a linguistic project and the general idea of creating a phonological atlas of Europe whose background in theory, methodology, and history of thought, internal organization, empirical basis, and orientation are outlined to prepare the interested readership for the published version of the atlas. We consider this book a prequel to the proper atlas in which we are at liberty to discuss a number of issues and thus avoid burdening the atlas with too heavy a load of chapters dealing with problems of a more general nature. However, this study’s function is neither restricted to being a preparatory sketch of what the atlas will ultimately look like nor does it only save the atlas from having to address too many side-issues.

This study’s targets | 9

Part B especially is meant to prove that scrutinizing the areal phonology of EDLs more closely will provide linguistically meaningful new insights into the diffusion of structural properties in space. The phenomena to be reviewed in Part B are indicative of the non-random distribution of certain phonological units over the EDLs of our sample. We look into the possibility that the distribution is determined by factors such as genetic2 affiliation, language type, and/or geographic neighborhood, i.e. language contact. What also transpires from our presentation and interpretation of the facts is the necessity of taking account of the EDLs’ segmental phonology on a grand scale so that all relevant phenomena can be viewed together. To this end, the observed facts must be easy to visualize – an expectation which is met best when maps are used. Under these conditions, it becomes likely that the phonological atlas-to-be will reveal areal patterns which can be compared to and jointly evaluated with the results of many of the projects conducted under the umbrella of EUROTYP. It may further serve as input for comparative investigations of the areality of phenomena which belong to different levels of grammar such as phonology and predicative possession (Levkovych et al. 2019). To prove our point, we test the tenability of the two hypotheses H0 and HA in the case study below. [H0] Zero Hypothesis The distribution of phonological phenomena across the EDLs is random, i.e. no correlation whatsoever with any potentially determining factor comes to the fore. [HA] Alternative Hypothesis The distribution of phonological phenomena across the EDLs is determined by certain factors such that genetically, typologically, and/or areally defined patterns arise. Even in case H0 can be shown to be correct, the Phon@Europe project is not put at stake because in spite of the fact that the atlas would not yield any interesting results beyond the randomness of the distribution of the phenomena the atlas itself would still be valuable as a resource of general information. If HA wins the competition we can be absolutely sure that our research will have an added value, namely that of providing especially areal linguistics and language con-

|| 2 Unless otherwise stated, we use the term genetic and derivations thereof exclusively for historical relationships between languages. No biological reading is invited. Alternatively, the term genealogical is made use of too.

10 | Goals

tact studies with formerly unacknowledged empirical facts which call for being integrated into the respective theoretical frameworks of the research programs. For the purpose of this study, it is sufficient that HA captures the empirical facts better than H0. It does not necessarily follow that HA is correct in each of the cases which are featured in the atlas. We argue that it is also interesting for linguistics to see which phenomena are determined by the above factors and which are not. The case study in Part B looks into the distribution of LPs across the EDLs in order to determine whether phonological borrowing is random or rule-governed. We start from the assumption that the latter is the case. Muysken (2008: 11) assumes that [i]n periods of population movements and increased communication between hitherto separate populations, intense dialect contact may lead to linguistic levelling: morphological simplification and compromise phonological traits [added emphasis].

Migration waves as ultimate cause of the emergence of linguistic areas are prominently discussed by Ramat (2011). To our minds, convergence is not always the consequence of major migratory movements. Likewise, leveling in the sense of the above quote is not the only option when it comes to phonological borrowings. We agree, however, with Muysken’s implicit idea that borrowings in the domain of phonology obey certain rules. As the discussion in Part B suggests, it is possible to formulate generalizations, put forward quasi-implicational relations, and make predictions as to the borrowing behavior of EDLs. On this basis, it is further possible to hypothesize about the diffusion of phonological borrowings over languages in general. Section 3 identifies those phenomena which are featured in the atlas and ultimately also in the case study.

3 In a nutshell: the phenomena featured in Phon@Europe In this section, we very briefly identify the core concept of our approach. For further and more detailed information as to the kind of phonological units Phon@Europe accounts for the reader is referred to Section 13 below. To avoid misunderstandings, we feel impelled to repeat that Phon@Europe contributes primarily to the areal linguistics of Europe. It is not intended to prove or disprove any claims which belong to the domain of phonological theory. Besides complementing the as yet fragmentary linguistic picture of Europe, the phonological phenomena under inspection serve solely as pieces of evidence for or against ideas about the structural convergence and divergence of EDLs. Whether anything we say can also be exploited for arguing for or against certain issues of theoretical phonology is for phonologists to decide. The focus of Phon@Europe is on the phonemics of our sample languages, i.e. in accordance with Gordon (2016: 43–82) we presuppose that there are phonemes in the first place. This decision is mainly motivated by practicality since for the overwhelming majority of our sample languages (see Sections 11–13) phonological issues are either addressed from the perspective of an often only implicit structuralistminded mainstream approach or have been described in widely incompatible (and sometimes only ephemeral) formats. To overcome the problems posed by the multitude of competing phonological models, we opt for an unspecific but nevertheless traditional phoneme-based approach. We thus follow Haspelmath’s (2010a) appeal to do typology on the basis of Framework-free Grammatical Theory and apply his ideas to the domain of areal phonology. Whether it is technically possible at all to conduct an areal-linguistic survey of the EDLs’ phonology on the basis of a formal phonological theory – no matter how avant-garde it happens to be – is a question we cannot answer within the framework of Phon@Europe. Nevertheless, it seems clear to us that generative phonology and OT phonology as sketched in Paster (2010) and Gouskova (2010), respectively are designed to serve purposes other than those of areal linguistics. Note that we do not deny that the above and other theories have their merits outside the realm of areal phonology! It should not go unmentioned that making the phoneme the point of reference for our project does not at all mean that we have made it easy for us. To the contrary, Section 13 reveals that as to phonemes the old English saying One man’s meat is another man’s poison nicely describes the situation in the extant literature (Altmann and Lehfeldt 1980: 106). There is a lot of work to be done before one can confidently claim to have compared like with like. In Sections 5.1 and 13 we dis-

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-003

12 | In a nutshell: the phenomena featured in Phon@Europe

close how we have solved the problems which arise from the extant variation in the domain of the descriptive phonology of EDLs. In the interest of our project, we rely on countable and systematically classifiable units (Altmann and Lehfeldt 1980: 103–107). This is why we deliberately refrain from deconstructing the phoneme as a linguistic category. Working with the phoneme allows us to address a number of phenomena whose distribution over the EDLs can be visualized on maps. The choice of phenomena – each of which being entitled to a chapter of its own in the atlas – is partly inspired by the many contributions of Maddieson’s (2005a–m), Hajek (2005), and Anderson (2005) to the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS) as well as by the segment chapters in the phonology section of the Atlas of Pidgin & Creole Language Structures (APiCS) which go to the credit of Haspelmath (2013a–k). The work of our predecessors not only shows that it is practically feasible and linguistically insightful to record phonological phenomena on the world map but also gives us an idea of what kind of topics can be addressed in this way. On Phon@Europe’s agenda, we find both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the phonemics of the sample languages (Grawunder 2017: 368–383). To start with, the size of the phoneme inventories will be determined. For each EDL, the consonant-vowel ratio needs to be calculated too. We also investigate how many consonantal phonemes share the same place of articulation or the same manner of articulation in order to determine different degrees of density within the phoneme systems. We answer the question of how many places of articulation and how many manners of articulation are phonemically made use of in the individual EDLs. The presence of phonemically relevant secondary articulations is assessed quantitatively. Length distinctions are also taken account of. Vowels are treated analogously. In terms of qualities, we trace the presence/absence of major phonological classes down to individual phonemes, i.e. we start with the hierarchically highest level (= the distinction of pulmonic vs. non-pulmonic) and work our way down to units such as /p/ via intermediate levels such as phonation, etc. As Section 13 reveals, there are many more questions Phon@Europe is confident to answer. That studying the above and further phenomena makes sense areally can be understood from Blevins (2017) who provides maps for the distribution of ejectives in the Caucasus (= Map I) and of rounded front vowels in Europe (= Map II) with isoglosses which yield neatly delimited areas.3 We come back to these and the following maps from Blevins (2017) in Section 14.1. || 3 Those maps which are referred to in Part A are either reproductions from already published cartographic material or reflect our interpretation of the information given in publications of

In a nutshell: the phenomena featured in Phon@Europe | 13

With her maps and discussion of the diffusion of final devoicing (= Map III) and pre- vs. postaspiration (= Map IV) in Europe, Blevins (2017: 93–96, 107–109) also shows that it is possible in principle to take account of allophony and subphonemic phenomena as well. Blevins’s maps provide pieces of evidence in favor of HA because they show that EDLs share properties with their genetically unrelated or only distantly related neighbors. Areality seems to be stronger than family relationships. For practical reasons, we have decided against including phonological processes such as assimilation or word-external sandhi (Andersen 1986) in the atlas systematically. This domain in itself is rich enough to require a second volume of the atlas-to-be. The same holds for phonotactics, syllable structure, and certain suprasegmentals such as tone (Maddieson 2005j–k; Goedemans and Hulst 2005a–d; Maurer 2013a–c). For the time being Phon@Europe concentrates on proper segmental phonemics with just a glimpse at suprasegmental properties such as quantity and nasalization. We expect that generative and OT accounts of phonological processes as featured in Paster (2010) and Gouskova (2010) will have more to say on these issues than they can contribute to phonemics in the narrow sense of the term. The decisions we have taken to limit the initial phase of our research program have not popped up out of the blue. They have a relatively long prehistory from the chronology of which it emerges that it is sensible to start anew from a basis that is easy to control. Section 4 recounts the history of thought in the domain of the areal phonology of Europe.

|| others who have not provided maps themselves. Maps I–IV and XV are direct copies of the originals. All other maps are of our own making based on the information provided in our sources. The phenomena, EDLs, and areas of diffusion featured on these maps are exclusively those which are mentioned in the sources we discuss. No attempt was made to synchronize the maps with our own database which will be relevant only (and exclusively) in Part B.

4 Previous research 4.1 Outside Phon@Europe Two kinds of areal-linguistic studies of phonological aspects of EDLs have to be distinguished. First of all, there are several projects which inquire into phonological issues as attested in certain sub-regions of Europe. Interesting for Phon@Europe are especially those scenarios which involve neighboring languages of different genetic affiliation. Wagner (1964) inspects the Northwest of Europe.4 The Circum-Baltic languages are investigated by Eliasson (2000) and Ewels (2009). In these cases and others like them, the focus is on specific phonological phenomena and not on the entire phonological systems of the sample languages. What the above studies show nevertheless is the partial convergence in the phonological domain of certain subsets of the EDLs. It is probable therefore that many more instances of convergence can be detected if we widen the scope to cover Europe in its entirety. This brings us to the second type of areally-minded studies of the EDLs’ phonology. In most of these cases, phonology forms part of a more general comparison of the EDLs. In his seminal study Der Bau der europäischen Sprachen, Lewy (1942, 1964) mentions phonological matters only in passing – his remarks being confined mostly to stress site and stress type, i.e., he is interested in suprasegmental matters albeit it only marginally. Lewy’s distant successors have more to say on phonology. Superficially, this is also the case with Brosnahan (1961) who – inspired by the work of the geneticist Darlington (1947) – approaches the areal phonology of Europe from a biological perspective by way of plotting the synchronic distribution of phonological properties unto the map of blood-group distribution in Europe. Phonological isoglosses, sound change, and borrowing are given a bio-genetic explanation (Brosnahan 1961: 63–72). Pace Crystal (1997: 33), we do not subscribe in any way to this theory whose impact on contemporary areal linguistics is minimal, if at all. Malmberg (1963: 183) criticizes Brosnahan and Darlington not the least because of the quality of the maps they provide for the distribution of phonological phenomena. These maps will be referred to in the appropriate contexts below. In the subsequent sections, we focus on the work of three authors. The contributions by Haarmann (1976a–b) and Décsy (2000a–b) are presented in a slightly counter-chronological order starting with Haarmann (1976b) in Section

|| 4 For a critical assessment of Wagner’s approach, cf. Stolz (2005).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-004

Outside Phon@Europe | 15

4.1.1 to facilitate comparison of thematically similar publications.5 We discuss the two volumes of Décsy’s The Linguistic Identity of Europe separately because it makes sense to sandwich the review of Haarmann (1976a) (= Section 4.1.3) between that of Décsy (2000a) (= Section 4.1.2) and Décsy (2000b) (= Section 4.1.4). Section 4.1.5 evaluates the ideas exposed in Ternes (1998, 2010).6 In Section 4.1.6, we very briefly and summarily characterize the previous research. None of the three authors sufficiently discloses the sources from which he draws examples of and information about the phonology of the EDLs of his sample. This precludes the possibility to check the correctness of the analysis in cases of doubt. We therefore have to rely on our own database when it comes to addressing controversial issues arising from the texts under inspection. Wherever we discuss these and other matters in connection with the work of our predecessors we strictly respect the composition of their samples, i.e., only those EDLs are inspected which are explicitly mentioned in the publication under scrutiny. In the case of unclear reference (Which variety of Saami is meant?) we check our database for a variety that fits the analysis of the author. If no variety meets this criterion, the analysis is registered as questionable. Since none of the authors provides maps featuring the phenomena they discuss, the maps included in Section 4.1 are all of our making. Nevertheless, these maps faithfully (and exclusively) reflect what the sources under review tell the readers about the distribution of certain phonological phenomena. All questions related to the above authors’ concept of Europe, the size and composition of their samples are addressed separately in due course in the appropriate sections of Part A. For another detailed literature report on the history of thought in the domain of the areal linguistics of Europe (including EUROTYP), the reader is || 5 The relationship between the different texts of the two authors is intricate to say the least. It is not always clear who came up first with a given idea. There are sometimes almost identical wordings when it comes to describing phenomena of interest so that it seems that the one scholar has probably copied from the other. Since Haarmann and Décsy do not refer to each other (except for general statements in Haarmann 1976b) it is difficult to accept these cases as instances of indirect quotations. We do not want to get entangled in the question of to whom the copyright belongs metonymically speaking. Therefore, we refrain from investigating the “real” origins of a given idea. 6 We acknowledge that determining the areal phonology of Europe (or any other macro-area, for that matter) is no mean feat and a particularly difficult task at that. We therefore take our hats off to the scholars whose contributions are reviewed in the subsequent sections. Their work has paved the way for us. Our criticism of their achievements is possible only with the benefit of hindsight and might thus sound unfair. Nevertheless, we deem it necessary to evaluate our predecessors’ work strictly since their shortcomings teach us a lesson not to commit the same mistakes in the framework of Phon@Europe.

16 | Previous research

referred to Heine and Kuteva (2006: 1–43) who, however, focus on matters other than phonology.

4.1.1 Linguistic areas within Europe according to Haarmann (1976b) Haarmann (1976b) surveys seven different Sprachbünde within the confines of Europe.7 This alone is suggestive of support for HA. For four of these continentinternal linguistic areas, the author identifies characteristic phonological properties shared by the member languages of a given Sprachbund. We briefly recapitulate Haarmann’s characterization of the phonological side of the four above mentioned European Sprachbünde. Those linguistic areas which are described without reference to phonology are the Sprachbund of the British Isles, the SAElanguages8, and the Eurafrican Sprachbund with the latter being a problematic case also in Haarmann’s (1976b: 138–139) own perception. 1) Balkan Sprachbund (Haarmann 1976b: 79–80) a) presence of unrounded central vowel phonemes /ɨ/9 and /ə/, b) absence of phonemic vowel length (exception: Gagauz10), c) low frequency or absence of diphthongs (exceptions: Romanian, Moldavian), d) high proportion of consonants (exception: Romanian); 2) Danubian Sprachbund (Haarmann 1976b: 99–102) a) presence of phonemic vowel length, b) /h/ and /x/ are distinct phonemes, c) fixed – mostly word-initial – stress site (exception: German), d) final devoicing (exception: Hungarian); 3) Baltic Sprachbund (Haarmann 1976b: 107–111) a) rich vowel inventories, b) /ɛ/ and /æ/11 are distinct phonemes, c) presence of phonemic vowel length,

|| 7 Altmann (1977) reviews Haarmann (1976b) from the point of view of Quantitative Linguistics. 8 The absence of phonological characteristics from Haarmann (1976b: 123–127) fits in with the negative statement of Haspelmath as to phonological commonalities of the SAE-languages quoted in Section 1. 9 Haarmann (1976b: 79) represents this vowel as /y/. 10 Wherever we cite our sources directly or indirectly, except otherwise stated, we use the glossonyms as presented in the original. The glossonyms used in the framework of Phon@Europe are introduced in Section 11. 11 Haarmann (1976b: 107) represents this vowel as /ä/.

Outside Phon@Europe | 17

d) numerous diphthongs, e) weakly developed phonemic palatalization (exception: Livonian), f) fixed word-initial stress site, g) polytonicity; 4) Eurasian Sprachbund (Haarmann 1976b: 128–133) a) monotonicity, b) phonemic palatalization. We refrain from discussing in detail the tenability of Haarmann’s analyses which will inevitably be put to the test when the isoglosses appear on the maps of the atlas. At this point, it suffices to highlight the following aspects. The above criteria are not always shared by all members of a given Sprachbund. Haarmann (1976b) identifies several languages which behave exceptionally. These odd ones out are added in brackets above. Moreover, some properties are mentioned for several Sprachbünde (cf. 2a and 2c for the Danubian Sprachbund, 3c and 3f for the Baltic Sprachbund). For yet other traits, Haarmann (1976b) emphasizes that they do not belong exclusively to the Sprachbund under scrutiny. What makes them special, however, is their co-occurrence with another property to yield a unique combination such as polytonicity and fixed word-initial stress in the Baltic Sprachbund (Haarmann 1976b: 110–111) and monotonicity and palatalization in the Eurasian Sprachbund (Haarmann 1976b: 128–129). The phonological properties which serve as distinctive features of the Sprachbünde range from concrete individual phonemes via the consonantvowel ratio to secondary articulation and suprasegmental categories. This means that areality can manifest itself on different levels of abstraction and in different domains (qualities and/or quantities). What transpires additionally from Haarmann’s (1976b) account of the linguistic areas of Europe is that a) phonology is not always involved in the characterization of a given Sprachbund, b) several Sprachbünde may share some phonological features, c) individual members of different Sprachbünde may share properties, d) members of a given Sprachbund may not participate in an isogloss. There is thus space for more or less pronounced heterogeneity. This heterogeneity, in turn, suggests that starting from preconceived ideas about the existence and composition of Sprachbünde is perhaps not the best choice methodologically. At the same time, the catalogue of Sprachbünde does not provide the full picture of the areal phonology of Europe because it privileges only a very small number of phonological phenomena and neglects the identification of isogloss-

18 | Previous research

es which cut across the putative boundaries of the linguistic areas such as the co-presence of /h/ and /x/ which is by no means a monopoly of the Danubian Sprachbund as shown in Stolz (2004). This problem is even more evident in the case of Décsy (2000a).

4.1.2 Linguistic areas within Europe according to Décsy (2000a) In a highly problematic account of the linguistic identity of Europe, Décsy (2000a) puts forward supposedly distinctive phonological properties for seven of his ten sub-groupings of the EDLs.12 This practice supports HA – but unfortunately with a relatively wide margin for errors. No shared phonological properties are reported for the languages of the Littoral Zone (Décsy 2000a: 105–118) and the heterogeneous classes of the Language Isolates (Décsy 2000a: 236–241) and Diaspora Languages (Décsy 2000a: 242–257).13 The members of these three groups of languages do not only fail to share traits in the phonological domain. There simply are no structural properties at all which support the idea that these languages belong together somehow. This is no surprise since we are dealing with mixed bags, in manner of speaking. The languages are lumped together on account of arbitrary socio-cultural criteria such as so-called “maritime factors” (Décsy 2000a: 105) which supposedly link Frisian, Dutch, Basque, Spanish, Portuguese, and Maltese to each other. In none of the three doubtful groups under scrutiny do the member languages occupy geographically adjacent territories. The so-called Language Isolates (Luxembourgish, Romansch, Sorbian, and Gagauz) fall under one and the same rubric because their speech communities happen to be small or difficult to subsume under one of the major zones (Décsy 2000a: 236). Similarly, the Diaspora Languages form a group of their own because they all “have no exclusive territory of their own” (Décsy 2000a: 242). It is telling when Décsy (2000a: 55) explains how he selected the members of the SAE Zone:

|| 12 For a more detailed review of Décsy (2000a–b), the reader is referred to Stolz (2004). As a matter of fact, Haarmann (1976b: 71–74) comments on the original German version of Décsy’s much more elaborate two-volume package. Haarmann’s criticism of some aspects of Décsy (1973) has not led to any discernible corrections in Décsy (2000a–b). 13 For the three Jewish Diaspora languages Yiddish, Ladino, and Karaim the author mentions “structural similarities” such as loans from Hebrew and Aramaic, “a special tonal stress”, and “the practice to accompany oral expressions with gestures” (Décsy 2000a: 244). Neither Romani nor (Western) Armenian, the two other members of this group, seems to share these properties in the view of the author.

Outside Phon@Europe | 19

On the basis of the internal structural features one may unhesitatingly assign to the SAE Zone such languages as Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Frisian and a few languages in the western part of the Viking Zone []. However, as a basic point of departure we selected only major languages (those having more than 50 million speakers) for this group. For this reason Russian is treated in this chapter too. Some importa[]nt SAE features are absent from Russian [].

It is very unlikely that this crude mixture of socio-linguistic and extra-linguistic (ad hoc) criteria (to the detriment of proper structure-based criteria) yields results which are up to the standards of the discipline. This judgment also holds for those of Décsy’s zones for which structural properties are said to be distinctive. We review the seven zones exclusively with reference to the phonological part of the lists of shared features.14 The exceptions mentioned in brackets are based on Décsy’s own observations. Those properties which are mentioned for more than just one of the zones are cross-referenced. Décsy’s sample comprises 62 EDLs. 1) SAE-Zone [= German, French, English, Italian, Russian] (Décsy 2000a: 54) a) atonic vowels are subject to reduction, b) first syllable stress prevails (exception: Russian) [cf. 2h, 3a, 5a]; 2) Viking Zone [= Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Faroese15, Irish, Scottish-Gaelic16, Welsh, Breton, Swedish, Saami17, Finnish, Veps18] (Décsy 2000a: 78–79) a) the presence of interdental and velar fricatives /θ/19, /ð/, and /ɣ/20, b) sandhi across word-boundaries (widely employed) [cf. 5g], c) “features of transition and assimilation at the boundaries of syllable”, d) umlaut (widely employed) [cf. 6e], e) consonant gradation (plays a major role), f) presence of /h/ [cf. 5f], g) absence of final devoicing, || 14 Stolz et al. (2011a) provide an elaborate deconstruction of Décsy (2000a) with particular reference to the many doubtful aspects of his list of areally meaningful phonological properties. 15 “Faeroese” in the original. 16 “Scotch-Gallic” in the original. 17 “Lapp” in the original. 18 “Vepsian” in the original. 19 With one exception, the author uses neither phonological brackets nor IPA symbols (the interdental and velar fricatives for instance are represented as , , and ). It cannot be ruled out that he sometimes refers to mere allophones. For the identification of the areally significant features, we translate his statements into representations of proper phonemes. The question of the status of the phonological units, however, is relevant for the subsequent discussion. 20 Décsy (2000a: 78) illustrates this consonant with English night assuming that still represents a voiced velar fricative as in earlier periods of the English language history as in Old English (Minkova 2014: 102–103).

20 | Previous research

h) word-initial stress (widely employed) [cf. 1b, 3a, 5a]; 3) Peipus Zone [= Estonian, Votic, Livonian, Latvian] (Décsy 2000a: 120–121) a) word-initial stress [cf. 1b, 2h, 5a], b) numerous diphthongs, c) co-presence of /ɛ/ and /æ/, d) no original shibilants /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ (exception: Latvian), e) polytonicity, f) phonemic quantity [cf. 5b], g) “predisposition towards palatal correlation” [cf. 4j]; 4) Rokytno Zone [= Polish, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Kashubian] (Décsy 2000a: 132) a) absence of phonemic quantity [cf. 6b, 7b], b) mobile word accent (exceptions: Polish and Kashubian) [cf. 6a], c) no vowel reduction in unstressed syllables (exception: Belarusian) [cf. 5d], d) absence of diphthongs (exception: Lithuanian) [cf. 6d], e) presence of /ɦ/, f) numerous fricatives, g) vowel and consonant alternations [cf. 6f], h) absence of /æ/ (exception: Lithuanian), i) vocalization of /ɫ/ in syllable-final position, j) palatalization [cf. 3g]; 5) Danube Zone [= Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian] (Décsy 2000a: 152) a) word-initial stress (widely spread) (exception: Slovene21 and SerboCroatian) [cf. 1b, 2h, 3a], b) phonemic vowel length [cf. 3f], c) “minor role of diphthongs”, d) no vowel reduction in unstressed syllables (exception: Slovene) [cf. 4c], e) no restrictions on the distribution of vowels over syllables (exception: Slovene), f) presence of /h/ [cf. 2f], g) sandhi across word-boundaries [cf. 2b], h) final devoicing [cf. 7c], i) vowel apocope occurs but no vowel syncope, j) quantity alternations;

|| 21 “Slovene” in the original (elsewhere in the text, the author also uses the glossonym Slovenian).

Outside Phon@Europe | 21

6) Balkan Zone [= Romanian22, Moldavian23, Bulgarian, Macedonian24, Albanian, Greek, Turkish] (Décsy 2000a: 182) a) mobile accent [cf. 4b], b) no phonemic quantity [cf. 4a, 7b], c) marked predominance of consonants over vowels, d) absence of diphthongs (exception: Romanian) [cf. 4d], e) umlaut [cf. 2d], f) consonant alternations [cf. 4g]; 7) Kama Zone [= Chuvash, Mari25, Tatar, Bashkir, Udmurt26, Mordvin, Komi27, Nenets28, Kalmyk] (Décsy 2000a: 215) a) presence of /ə/29, b) no phonemic quantity (exceptions: Nenets and Kalmyk) [cf. 4a, 6b], c) final devoicing [cf. 5h], d) absence of /h/ except in loanwords (exception: Bashkir), e) no palatalization correlation (exceptions: Mordvin and Yurak). Décsy’s catalogue of phonological characteristics resembles that of Haarmann (1976b) reviewed in the foregoing section insofar as individual phonemes are featured on the list alongside secondary articulation (= palatalization), suprasegmentals (= quantity, stress site), sandhi phenomena, and allophony/morphonology (= final devoicing, umlaut, consonant gradation, alternations). Besides qualitative properties, there are also vague quantitative statements such as “numerous fricatives” in the Rokytno Zone. Décsy (2000a) takes account not only of the presence of certain properties (e.g. interdental and velar fricatives in the Viking Zone) but also of their absence (e.g. absence of diphthongs in the Balkan Zone), i.e. positive and negative evidence is accepted as proof of a Sprachbund. Two aspects especially distinguish Décsy’s list of properties from that of Haarmann’s. First of all, Décsy allows for many more cases of properties which are characteristic of several zones. Word-initial stress site, for instance, is mentioned four times, namely for the SAE Zone, the Viking Zone, Peipus Zone, and || 22 “Rumanian” in the original. 23 “Moldovan” in the original. 24 In the original, only as alternative glossonym of “Makedonian”. 25 In the original, only as alternative glossonym of “Cheremis”. 26 “Votyak” in the original. 27 In the original, only as alternative glossonym of “Zyryan”. 28 In the original, only as alternative glossonym of “Yurak”. 29 The schwa is put in phonetic brackets and appears as [ə] in the original.

22 | Previous research

Danube Zone. The author does not realize (or acknowledge) that this may be evidence of an extended isogloss which simply ignores the putative boundaries of the zones. Note that with reference to final devoicing in the Danube Zone, Décsy (2000a: 152) claims that this is “a common phenomenon between Germany and Japan in entire northern Eurasia”, meaning: the possibility that isoglosses do not stop at the borderline of a Sprachbund is recognized by the author occasionally but not systematically. Secondly, many of the quantitative statements are relatively vague in Décsy’s text (e.g. “minor role of diphthongs” in the Danube Zone). It remains unclear what the yardstick is when a phenomenon is said to be widely spread, prevails or, the other way round, is only of minor importance. To illustrate that some of Décsy’s hypotheses rest on shaky ground, we take a closer look at the first phonological property given for the Viking Zone, i.e. the presence of the interdental fricatives /θ/, /ð/ and the voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ (Stolz et al. 2011a: 92 fn. 15). In the second volume of The Linguistic Identity of Europe, Décsy (2000b: 346) states that [t]he sound gh is spread throughout the outermost west (the Viking Zone) and the East (the Turkic languages), usually where th and dh are or were present (Finnish, Lapp, Spanish, Bashkir).

The following two questions arise in connection with this quote. The answers given below take exclusively account of the evidence found in those EDLs which belong to Décsy’s own sample. (a) Question: Do all members of the Viking Zone give evidence of the existence of the fricatives under inspection? Answer: Let us assume that the phonological units in question are meant to have phoneme status. Under this condition, none of the members of the Viking Zone attests to all three of the fricatives. Moreover, this triplet of fricatives is absent from Finnish (Fromm 1982), Veps (Zajceva 1981), Faroese (Árnason 2011), Norwegian (Kristoffersen 2000), Swedish (Riad 2014), and Breton (Ternes 1992) synchronically. This means that exactly half of the members of the Viking Zone fail to display the supposedly common property! For Swedish allegro speech, Lindqvist (2007: 63–64) concedes that /g/ may be realized as [ɣ] in intervocalic position between two identical low or back vowels. Similarly, Thráinsson et al. (2004: 50) state that there is no trace of the voiced velar fricative in Faroese “except for some dialectal (or idiolectal) occurrences.” The authors refer to the Faroese variety of Sandoy where [ɣ] occurs as voice-assimilated alternative of [x] which, in turn, seems to be an allophone of /g̊/ in preconsonantal position (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 45).

Outside Phon@Europe | 23

Only two members of the Viking Zone have two of the three fricatives as phonemes. Welsh boasts the phonemic opposition of the interdental fricatives /θ/ ≠ /ð/ whereas the voiced velar fricative is absent completely from the phonological system including allophones (Hannahs 2013: 21–22). The same situation is found in Saami (Northern Enontekiö) as described by Sammallahti (1998) where /θ/ and /ð/ are distinct phonemes whereas the velar fricative is not made mention of. Note that other Saami languages do not give evidence of the interdental fricatives and that it is doubtful that Décsy (2000a: 99–101) had exactly Saami (Northern Enontekiö) in mind when he described what he called “Lapp”. The Icelandic situation is different in the sense that the voiced fricatives are in complementary distribution with their voiceless counterparts. According to Thráinsson et al. (2004), [ð] is restricted to the position V_V whereas [θ] occurs elsewhere. Intervocalic [ɣ] is related to preconsonantal and syllable-final [x]. Since the voiceless allophones lay claim to a greater number of contexts in which their use is legitimate, we postulate the existence of two phonemes with two allophones each, namely /θ/ with the positional allophones [θ] and [ð] and /x/ with the positional allophones [x] and [ɣ]. In the case of Danish (Basbøll 2005: 64), only /ð/ is given phoneme status with the proviso that it only occurs in syllable-final position. Neither /θ/, [θ] nor /ɣ/, [ɣ] are mentioned. The two Goidelic EDLs, Irish (Ní Chasaide 1999) and Scottish-Gaelic (Lamb 2003) are the only representatives of the Viking Zone which assign phoneme status to /ɣ/ alone. The previous paragraphs have shown that the presence of the interdental and voiced velar fricatives can hardly be taken as a robust diagnostic for an EDL’s membership in the Viking Zone. The fricatives are absent from six out of twelve EDLs of this zone. Of the remaining half a dozen, three give evidence of only one of three fricatives. Icelandic is the only example of a member of the Viking Zone that employs all three of the fricatives but two of them only as allophones. How can it be that Décsy (2000a) promotes these fricatives to the status of characteristic trait of the Viking Zone nevertheless? Most probably, he has been led astray by diachrony (and perhaps also by orthography). For Veps and Finnish, for instance, the existence of */ð/ and */ɣ/ can be assumed for earlier diachronic stages such as the common but undocumented Finnic period (Laanest 1982: 100–101). In the case of /ð/, there is evidence that it existed in western varieties of Finnish prior to the spread of the norm of the modern standard (Laanest 1982: 133). Similarly, the existence of /θ/, /ð/, and /ɣ/ is commonly assumed for Common North Germanic (Beito 1970: 69) but, as in the Finnic case, these fricatives have fallen victim to sound change in most of the North Germanic languages so that they are absent from the contemporary phonological systems. Watkins (1992: 14–15) tells us that Old Welsh /ɣ/ disappeared from

24 | Previous research

the phonological system around the 12th century AD. In Middle Breton (12th– 17th century AD), the interdental fricatives [θ] and [ð] were represented indiscriminately by the grapheme (or the diagraph ) (Lewis and Piette 1990: 10). The voiced velar fricative seems to have dropped from the system earlier than the interdental fricatives. In the past, the fricatives were more widely diffused over the Viking Zone. This erstwhile distribution has undergone drastic changes in the course of history so that nowadays the presence/absence of any of the three fricatives cannot be considered to be synchronically crucial in areallinguistic perspective.30 (b) Question: Do EDLs outside the Viking Zone attest to the presence of /θ/ and/or /ð/ and/or /ɣ/? Answer: If we look exclusively at EDLs of Décsy’s sample situated outside the Viking Zone, we notice that the three fricatives are more frequently attested in EDLs which belong to other zones. There are altogether fifteen EDLs which attest to the property under inspection although they do not count among the members of the Viking Zone. Outsiders to this zone outnumber the members of the Viking Zone by a ration 2.5-to-1 as to the realization of the property. As will become clear in Sections 17.2.4.13 and 17.2.4.16–17, the disproportion is even greater if LPs are taken account of. In two EDLs beyond the confines of the Viking Zone, all three of them enjoy phoneme status. This is the case with the Turkic language Bashkir (Juldašev 1981) which is a member of the Kama Zone. The phenomenon is also known in the Balkan Zone. In Greek too, /θ/, /ð/, and /ɣ/ are distinct phonemes – the latter with the allophones [j] before front vowels and [ɣ] in all other positions (Ruge 2001: 20). Back to the Kama Zone, Mari gives evidence of the voiced fricatives /ð/ and /ɣ/ as members of its phoneme chart (Alhoniemi 1993). And also in the Balkan Zone, there is a second EDL which has two of the fricatives as phonemes. Albanian attests to phonemic /θ/ and /ð/ but the voiced velar fricative is not part of the system (Buchholz and Fiedler 1987: 37). Like Albanian, the SAElanguage English has the two interdental fricatives as phonemes (Hammond 1992). In Spanish, only the voiceless /θ/ is a phoneme of its own whereas [ð] and [ɣ] are positional allophones of /d/ and /g/, respectively (Blaser 2007). In European Portuguese, none of the fricatives has phoneme status but the two voiced

|| 30 The shrinking of the area of interdental fricatives in Europe – already addressed by Darlington (1947) – is a showcase of Brosnahan’s (1961: 46–72) who provides two maps capturing the diachronic processes (Brosnahan 1961: 56–57) which are favorably discussed by Crystal (1997: 33).

Outside Phon@Europe | 25

fricatives are attested as positional allophones of the corresponding voiced plosives, i.e. [ð] occurs intervocalically for /d/ and [ɣ] represents /g/ in the same position (Azevedo 2005). We find phonemic /ɣ/ in Dutch (Booij 2012) and (West) Frisian (Hoekstra 2001). Four (= the majority of the) members of the so-called Littoral Zone give evidence of a property which should be characteristic of a different zone. Phonemic /ɣ/ is furthermore attested in: Belarusian (Rokytno Zone) (Burlyka and Padlužny 1989), (Crimean) Tatar (Kavitskaya 2010) and Kalmyk (Street 1959) (both from the Kama Zone), Karaim (Musaev 1997) and (North Russian) Romani (Wentzel and Klemm 1980) (both Diaspora Languages), and Luxembourgish (Keller 1961) (Language Isolate). Historically, all three fricatives had phoneme status in Maltese as well but disappeared from the language before its official norm was established in the early 20th century (Cardona 1997: 17–24; Puech 2018: 16–33). Turkish too lost erstwhile /ɣ/ on account of regular sound change (Mansuroğlu 1959b: 165–166). Similarly, /ɣ/ was lost from Old English after 950 AD (Minkova 2014: 82–85). Of 62 sample languages, twenty-one fulfil the criterion that should have been the monopoly of the Viking Zone. Half of the twelve members of this zone side with the majority of the EDLs associated with other zones. Fifteen EDLs outside the Viking Zone attest to one, two, or three of the fricatives whereas fifty other EDLs which belong to zones other than that of the Viking Zone lack evidence of the fricatives. In the Viking Zone, the fricatives affect 50 % of the EDLs. Outside the Viking Zone, the share is down to 27 %. However, in the Kama Zone the percentage is as high as 44 % and in the Littoral Zone it even reaches 67 %. That there is no close relationship between the members of the Viking Zone and the presence of the three fricatives comes nicely to the fore if we show the distribution of the EDLs which meet Décsy’s criterion on a map. Map V is populated exclusively by EDLs which belong to Décsy’s sample.31 Those EDLs which attest to one, two, or all three of the fricatives are identified by black dots on the map. In addition, those members of the Viking Zone which lack any evidence of the fricatives are represented by empty circles. The boundaries of the Viking Zone are indicated by a dotted line with the zone itself being marked by grey

|| 31 The location of the EDLs featured on the maps throughout Section 4 is only approximate. Décsy (2000a–b), Haarmann (1976a–b), and Ternes (1998, 2010) do not always specify exactly which variety of a given EDL they refer to. As to our own texts published in preparation of the atlas, the situation is similar at times because some glossonyms are used indiscriminately for a wide range of varieties not all of which attest to identical phonological properties.

26 | Previous research

shading. For each of the three fricatives, the EDLs which attest to it are joined to each other by an isogloss. What we see immediately is that the line which separates the Viking Zone from the rest of Europe is not impenetrable but allows for all three of the isoglosses to cross the border. For each of the isoglosses, the longest stretch is situated outside the Viking Zone. The isoglosses of the two interdentals (green = /θ/, blue = /ð/) each count three EDLs from within the zone as opposed to five from outside the zone. This numerical discrepancy is especially evident in the case of /ɣ/ (red line). The isogloss also counts only three languages from the Viking Zone but thirteen from outside the zone. Eight of Décsy’s zones or groups of languages are involved in the isoglosses. There is thus no special relationship between the Viking Zone and the fricatives in question. On Map V, the isoglosses cluster especially in the westernmost parts of Europe. In addition, there are other pockets in the southern Balkans and the Kama region. The European North as such is not more of a hotbed of the fricatives than other parts of the continent. Sections 17.2.4.13, 17.2.4.16, and 17.2.4.17 contain descriptions of the updated versions of Map V (= Maps LX, LXIII and LXIV) which reflect the distribution of the above fricatives on the basis of a much bigger sample. The situation captured by these updated maps looks different not the least because they also account for cases of loan-fricatives. Décsy’s approach fails to adequately capture the distribution of phonological properties in Europe. Owing to his preoccupation with the regionally limited Sprachbünde, Décsy is forced to cut the extended isoglosses into several smaller strings. In this way, one easily fails to recognize that the isoglosses seem to form a circle around a central European region from which the fricatives are largely absent. Simplifying, one may claim that the isoglosses run along a peripheral pathway on the outskirts of the continent. Only the branch of the /ɣ/-isogloss which turns westward from the Kama Zone does not fit the picture. Decsy’s practice blurs the areal phonological picture. It is detrimental to the areal phonology of Europe to work along the lines of Décsy (2000a) and Haarmann (1976b). We also learn from the above that it is nonsensical to mix diachronic and synchronic perspectives when one aims at establishing the present state of affairs. Equally importantly, Décsy’s failure is indicative of the necessity to limit the scope of one’s research to as small a domain as possible. Décsy (2000a) and Haarmann (1976b) simply want to achieve too much in one go by way of covering segmental, suprasegmental, phonotactic, morphonological and further aspects at the same time. To our mind, it makes much more sense to start from determining how things are on the most essential level first before one may set out to study further phonological aspects. For Phon@Europe, it is better to neglect all predefined internal linguistic

Outside Phon@Europe | 27

boundaries which delimit the traditionally assumed Sprachbünde and start from the phonological phenomena themselves to determine the exact extent of an isogloss. Stadnik (2002) adopts a similar approach in her study of the diffusion of palatalization in the languages of Europe and Asia. In the same vein, we propose to establish the areality of the phonemics of the EDLs in the atlas to provide the basis for further studies which might themselves justify the publication of dedicated follow-up volumes of the atlas.

4.1.3 Europemes – no space for the spectacular (Haarmann 1976a) As mentioned above, there is a different strand of research, namely the quest for exclusive pan-European properties. What is shared by all EDLs and what is uniquely European? These twin questions presuppose a high degree of homogeneity which in turn is a challenge to HA. Incidentally, the two authors discussed in the previous Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 also contributed to this second area of interest. In this section we evaluate what Haarmann (1976a) has to say. Subsequently, Décsy’s (2000b) ideas are reviewed in Section 4.1.4. Haarmann (1976a: 108–116) puts forward sixteen so-called Europemes, i.e. linguistic properties common to all EDLs (without claiming that any of the properties is unique to the EDLs).32 The first four of the Europemes address phonological issues. For convenience, Europemes 1–4 are reproduced in English here (Haarmann 1976a: 108–109). – Europeme 1: In no EDL, the number of simple segmental phonemes33 is lower than ten or exceeds 110 units. – Europeme 2: In each EDL, consonantal phonemes outnumber vowel phonemes. The consonant-vowel ratio is always higher than 1-to-1. – Europeme 3: In each EDL, maximally only a third of the theoretically possible combinations of consonantal phonemes is realized. – Europeme 4: The basic syllable structure shared by all EDLs is (C)V(C)(C). It strikes the eye that none of these Europemes seems to be particularly European. At the time of the publication of Haarmann’s (1976a) booklet, the Europemes

|| 32 The general problems which arise from Haarmann’s Europemes are addressed in Stolz (2006: 281–282). The term itself seems to be a coining of Décsy’s (Stolz 2004: 315). 33 Haarmann (1976a: 108, fn.) explains that “simple” excludes diphthongs “und andere Phonemkombinationen” [and other combinations of phonemes]. In connection with this vague statement, the question arises how affricates are treated in his approach.

28 | Previous research

must have sounded like rephrased universals. None of the Europemes describes properties which are exclusive to EDLs. To make Europeme 1 special it would have been necessary to show that the range for the variation in size of the phoneme inventories is either wider or much more restricted in Europe than elsewhere. In the case of the EDLs, the upper limit is defined by Kildin Saami for which Haarmann (1976a: 108) assumes slightly more than 100 phonemes.34 Since it is also said that no EDL is equipped with an especially small phoneme inventory (Haarmann 1976a: 113), one wonders which EDL is found at the opposing end of the scale. Similarly, Europeme 2 states the obvious because it could be applied to (almost) any language in the world. Haarmann (1976a: 108) claims that Norwegian and (West) Frisian yield consonant-vowel ratios close to 1-to-1. To determine whether any of this lets EDLs stand out from the languages of the world some comparative data from outside Europe would have been called for. The same holds for Europeme 3. Do languages from other parts of the world exploit less or considerably more of the logically possible phoneme combinations? As to Europeme 4, Haarmann (1976a: 109) mentions that syllables can be much more complex in EDLs. The common template as stated in Europeme 4 above is assumed to be typical of most of the Uralic and Turkic EDLs of Haarmann’s sample. Chances are that (C)V(C)(C) is less typically European than perhaps the more complex syllable structures which, however, are no longer pan-European. In principle, Europemes 1–4 indirectly tell us that there is variation in Europe since they define ranges within which the EDLs oscillate. In contrast to their lack of utility in the domain of characterizing Europe as linguistically different from other macro-areas, the Europemes 1–4 are helpful for Phon@Europe. Where there is variation it needs to be shown how the variation is spelled out, meaning: we have to compare the EDLs to each other with reference to the ranges mentioned in Europemes 1–4. In the context of an areal linguistic study of Europe, it makes perfect sense to correlate the behavior of the EDLs with their location on the map of the continent to see whether any matches can be found. As already mentioned, neither Haarmann (1976a–b) nor Décsy (2000a–b) provide maps for the phenomena they discuss. Except the record holder Kildin with its supposedly more than 100 phonemes, it is not guaranteed that one can predict whether or not a given language belongs to the EDLs if it fulfils the criteria of the Europemes 1–4. A further downside of the

|| 34 From Haarmann’s (1976a: 108) information given in connection to Europeme 1 it results that the huge size of the phoneme chart of Kildin Saami is what counts most because this EDL exceeds the formerly assumed universal maximum of 70 phonemes by far.

Outside Phon@Europe | 29

Europemes 1–4 is that they strongly support the idea that there is nothing special about EDLs in the realm of phonology – and that it is therefore to no avail to investigate their phonology areal-linguistically in the first place. Haarmann (1976a: 116) lends further support to this impression when he argues that “[d]ie meisten majoritären sowie minoritären Konsonantenphoneme treten ohne erkennbare genetische und/oder areal bedingte Einschränkungen auf“.35 Below the level of the Europemes, Haarmann (1976a) distinguishes majoritarian and minoritarian phonological properties which are shared either by more than 50 % of the 65 EDLs of his sample or less than 50 % thereof, respectively. This distinction is another indicator of variation. In the above quote, however, Haarmann (1976a) denies the possibility that majoritarian or minoritarian phenomena obey genetic or areal restrictions and thus puts forward arguments in favor of H0. If their distribution across the sample is largely arbitrary from the point of view of areality, how come that there are Sprachbünde in Europe which are characterized (inter alia) by phonological properties? On the other hand, Europeme 4 yields a division of Haarmann’s EDLs in two groups, namely Turkic and Uralic languages with relatively simple syllable structures as opposed to (presumably) Indo-European languages with more complex syllable structures. This is a clear case of a genetically-based split of the sample. Moreover, since the Turkic and Uralic languages cluster in the eastern half of Europe, it is only logical that simple syllable structures also have a stronghold in the European east. The different genetic preferences epiphenomenally go hand in hand with areal differences. Haarmann (1976a: 113–125) mentions several majoritarian and minoritarian phenomena in the domain of phonology. In (a)–(u), we highlight those cases which are connected to geography in bold; underlining is used to mark those cases where the author’s analysis is not correct; italics are used for explicitly mentioned instances of loanwords. Among other things, he claims that a) most of the EDLs belong to the class of languages with a “normal” number of phonemes; owing to the palatalization correlation, the number of phonemes tends to be bigger in easterly EDLs (typically situated in Eurasia, i.e. on the European territory of the former Soviet Union) than in those of western Europe; b) the average consonant-vowel ratio in Europe ranges between 2-to-1 and 4-to1; deviations in both directions are said to be infrequent;

|| 35 Our translation: “most of the majoritarian and minoritarian consonant phonemes are attested without any discernible genetic and/or areal restrictions.”

30 | Previous research

c) there are more EDLs which lack rounded front vowels than there are EDLs which attest to this phonological class; d) unrounded central vowels are attested mostly in languages of eastern and southeastern Europe; /ə/ is more widely distributed than /ɨ/; e) diphthongs are attested in the majority of the EDLs whereas they are absent only from a minority of the EDLs; triphthongs, however, are exceptional; f) diphthongs are especially common in EDLs whose system of vowel phonemes is highly differentiated; g) nasal vowels are so infrequent that they might constitute a so-called “Isolationismus” [isolated trait] (see (t)–(u) below); Bold face marks those properties which Haarmann connects with geography. EDLs in the (south)-east behave differently from those in the west. There is thus already a certain degree of areality involved. In addition, Haarmann (1976a: 115–116) also looks at the distribution of individual consonantal phonemes, namely h) /d/ is absent from Mari36; in Chuvash, it is restricted to Russian loanwords; similarly, the voiced denti-alveolar plosive is a contact-induced innovation in Finnish; this is also the case for the smaller Uralic EDLs in the former Soviet Union; i) /g/ is absent from Mari and Finnish; j) /b/ lacks in Chuvash and is restricted to loanwords in Finnish; k) /f/ lacks in Basque; in Zyrian, Udmurt, Karelian, and Kalmyk, it occurs only in recent Russian loanwords; l) /v/ is absent from Spanish, Occitan, Basque. The absence of /f/ from Basque is an error because the phoneme is wellestablished in the language albeit almost exclusively in (old) loanwords (Haase 1993: 29) (see Section 17.2.4.1). For the Kama Zone, Décsy (2000a) assumed that /h/ is confined to the domain of loanwords (see Section 4.1.2). If we add this case to those mentioned in (h), (j), and (k), we get a first inkling of the role LPs play in the shaping of the areal phonology of Europe – not the least in the easterly regions of the continent. The above cases will all be reviewed thoroughly in Part B of this study.

|| 36 For several of his sample languages, Haarmann (1976a) employs German glossonyms such as “Čeremissisch” for Mari which are outdated presently. We have replaced them throughout with the actually preferred English terms.

Outside Phon@Europe | 31

To prove his point that many phonological phenomena are randomly distributed over the EDLs, Haarmann (1976a: 116) mentions the following examples: m) /ʃ/ is attested in Portuguese, German, Russian, Mordvin (Moksha), Tatar, etc. (cf. Map X); n) /ʒ/ is attested in French, Russian, Udmurt, etc. (cf. Map X); o) /X/ (= velar fricative archi-phoneme) is attested in Dutch, Russian, Welsh, Spanish, German, etc. (cf. Maps VI and XIII); p) /θ/ is attested in English, Welsh, Spanish, Greek, etc. (cf. Map V in the previous section); q) affricates of different kinds belong to the phoneme inventories of languages like Portuguese, German, Greek, Saami, Bashkir, Russian, etc. (cf. Map X). The existence of affricates in (European) Portuguese is an error as there simply are none (Azevedo 2005). Furthermore, the short list from (m) to (q) suffers from the compilator’s refusal to be exhaustive. There is the ubiquitous “etc.” at the end of every statement so that it is up to the reader to check whether something areally meaningful might emerge if one takes account of the total length of the isoglosses. We argue that the distribution is not as arbitrary as Haarmann wants to make us believe. In Section 17, it is shown that LPs are again prominently featured in the areal patterns that arise. Haarmann (1976a: 116) concedes the possibility of making areally significant negative statements about the distribution of phonemes. Thus, according to Haarmann, the absence of phonemes may yield areal patterns whereas the presence of phonemes often fails to do so. The author emphasizes that it is possible to state that a given phenomenon does not occur in certain regions whereas it is impossible to make similar (but positive) statements as to the density with which a given phenomenon is attested in a region. He adds only two further examples, namely r) /h/ exists in Welsh, German, Czech, Moldavian, Finnish, etc. but lacks in most of the Romance languages (cf. Map VI); s) /j/ is a phoneme in German, Czech, etc. whereas it is absent from the Romance languages with the exception of French. With (r) and (s), there is the same problem as before. The list of EDLs which attest to the phenomena is not given in full so that it remains unclear whether areality plays a role or not. Haarmann also does not tell his readers whether the Romance languages are the only ones which lack the phonemes under inspection. Interestingly, the behavior of the bulk of the Romance languages speaks in favor of a relatively strong genetic factor which determines whether a given

32 | Previous research

phoneme forms part of the system of a given EDL. Since the Romance languages occupy a southerly position on the European map, it can be concluded that both /h/ and /j/ are underrepresented in the European south. In (t)–(u), we add two examples of properties which because of their restricted distribution across Haarmann’s (1976a: 147–152) sample are considered instances of idiosyncrasies (“Isolationismen”). t) differentiation of the liquids beyond the binary opposition rhotic /r/ ≠ lateral /l/: voiced and voiceless liquids (sometimes only on the allophonic level and only for one of the liquids) are reported for Mordvin (Moksha), Welsh, Irish, Sardinian (Logodurese), and Basque; further differentiations are identified for Czech, Kashubian, and Maltese; u) differentiation of quantities beyond the binary opposition [short] ≠ [long]: Estonian (for vowels and consonants) and Nenets (only for vowels) give evidence of the existence of three phonemically distinct quantities [short] ≠ [long] ≠ [overlong]. As to Maltese, we are dealing with an orthography-induced mistake since there is the digraph in the official Maltese orthography which is still called għajn but never pronounced as such. The assumed existence of the voiced uvular fricative /ʁ/ is an anachronism as this phoneme has disappeared from the vast majority of the local varieties and has never made it into the standard (Hume et al. 2009: 15–16). We also take issue with Haarmann’s assumption that the voiceless rhotic is only a positional allophone of /r/ in the two Celtic languages. In the case of Welsh, voiceless liquids are strictly phonemic in northern varieties and those southern varieties which also have /h/ as a phoneme (Hannahs 2013: 22 fn. 8). The dialectal fragmentation is also relevant for the interpretation of the Irish facts. For most of the varieties, Haarmann’s analysis seems to hold whereas in (Southern) Irish of West Muskerry as described by Ó Cuív (1975), all alveolar sonorants – including the rhotic – display a phonemic distinction on the parameter of voice. In their survey of the rhotics across the Basque dialect continuum, Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 29–31) do not mention any contrast based on phonation. What they mention instead are oppositions of tap /ɾ/ and trill /r/ with the latter being replaced by /ʀ/ in northerly varieties of Basque (see Section 4.1.5). We are not sure about the supposed existence of the voiceless lateral approximant /l̥/ in Sardinian (Logodurese) since this putative phoneme is mentioned nowhere in our sources. Chances are that it has been mixed up with the retroflex geminate [ɖɖ] – the intervocalic realization of the lateral approximant /l/ (often written ) (Loporcaro 2013: 167).

Outside Phon@Europe | 33

The occasional erroneous analysis notwithstanding, Haarmann’s (1976a) concept of areal idiosyncrasies is important for Phon@Europe. Haarmann (1976a: 147) claims that it is typical of the idiosyncrasies that their existence in a given language can be explained neither genetically nor areally. More precisely, no other language of the same phylum shares the feature, no genetically unrelated neighbor displays the same property. As Welsh and Irish as members of the Celtic branch of Indo-European and the two Slavic languages Czech and Kashubian show, identical genetic affiliation is not necessarily an obstacle. A closer look at other EDLs might reveal that neighborhood does not block the occurrence of shared “idiosyncrasies” either. Since Haarmann’s discussion of the data is selective and rather short, it cannot be counted out that some of the supposed Isolationismen are more widespread than assumed and that there are other phenomena which are much better entitled to the status of idiosyncrasy. To determine whether this is indeed the case, the atlas is an invaluable tool. The hypothetical possibility that there are Isolationismen in Europe in the first place is suggestive of a certain degree of linguistic diversity which seems to be generally downplayed in the extant literature on the areal phonology of Europe. Phon@Europe will show to what extent idiosyncrasies contribute to shaping the linguistic landscape of the continent. Haarmann’s account remains fragmentary. The way he provides evidence to prove his points is problematic. It would have been helpful if the author had chosen to visualize the distribution of the phenomena on maps. Enumerating glossonyms selectively is not the best way of detecting areality. We argue that both the presence and the absence of certain phonemes may be captured in the shape of isoglosses. The absence of otherwise common phonemes is the theme of Maddieson (2005l) and will also be given attention within the framework of Phon@Europe.

4.1.4 Pan-Europeanisms and related issues (Décsy 2000b) In contrast to Haarmann’s (1976a) Europemes 1–4, those put forward by Décsy (2000b) are relatively concrete as they make statements about individual phonemes or sets of phonemes (alternatively, i.e. without intended change of meaning, termed “sounds” by the author). Décsy (2000b: 341–344), for instance, draws up supposedly pan-European vowel and consonant inventories in the sense that all EDLs of his sample have these phonemes in common no matter how different their phoneme charts are in size. In principle, pan-Europeanisms would result in a map on which all the EDLs featured on it participate in one and the same isogloss and/or are represented by identically colored dots. Indistinctive maps of this kind, especially if they reflect cross-linguistically common

34 | Previous research

phenomena, are superfluous. Maps are interesting areal-linguistically provided they mirror at least some variation, i.e. a minimum of two options is presupposed. If all EDLs share the same property, there is no variation.

4.1.4.1 The shared minimum In implicit agreement with Haarmann (1976a: 37), Décsy (2000b: 342) claims that there is no EDL which does not have the five vowel phonemes /i/, /e/, /a/, /o/, /u/. We assume that /e/ and /o/ are /E/ and /O/, i.e. archiphonemes which cover both open and closed options. The author adds that Maltese originally lacked the two mid-closed vowels /e/ and /o/ which entered the language later via contact with Italian and English. This is an interesting observation which teaches us that prototypical features of the area under scrutiny can also be acquired in the course of a given language’s history, meaning: what is panEuropean today might not have been so in the past. In connection to the issue of contact-induced convergence, it strikes the eye that /o/ forms part of the phoneme system of Latvian (Endzelīns 1951: 24) and Chuvash (Krueger 1961) also only if loanwords are taken account of too. It is interesting that /o/ is recurrently involved in (admittedly not very frequent) processes of convergence (see Section 17.2.2.6). In terms of the areal phonology it makes a big difference whether loan-phonemes are allowed on board or not. With reference to this general methodological issue, Décsy (2000a–b) is very inconsistent – and so is Haarmann (1976a–b) too – so that the necessity arises to describe the areal phonology of Europe anew and twice, viz. first with and then without LPs to see to what extent language contact has made Europe look relatively homogeneous in the domain of phonology. In Part B of this study, we demonstrate that this double-entry bookkeeping makes sense. In his search for phonological pan-Europeanisms, Décsy (2000b: 343) does not stop at the vowel chart. He also proposes a system of ten consonantal phonemes supposedly shared by all EDLs. Note that the author is not sure of the exact numbers himself since he claims that there are only “eight ‘basic phonemes’” (Décsy 2000b: 344). The system of ten phonemes – termed “very archaic” by Décsy (2000b: 343) – is reproduced as Table 1 with the necessary (mostly) terminological adjustments. The cells of the voiced labiodental fricative /v/ and the palatal fricative /ʝ/ are shaded grey because their occupants are giving us some headache. First of all, it remains unclear whether the author refers to proper fricatives /v/ and /ʝ/ or to the approximants /w/ and /j/. Secondly, given that the samples of Décsy (2000b) and Haarmann (1976a) are largely identical, we are surprised to see that

Outside Phon@Europe | 35

the latter excludes /v/ and /j/ (and indirectly also the possible alternatives /w/ and /ʝ/) from the list of common European consonants (Haarmann 1976a: 116) whereas the other promotes the same elements to the status of pan-European phonemes (Décsy 2000b: 343). Table 1: Pan-European consonantal phonemes according to Décsy (2000b: 343).

Manner of articulation

Place of articulation bilabial

fricatives

plosives

nasals

labiodental

/p/

denti-alveolar

palatal

/t/

–voice

velar /k/

/s/

+voice

/v/ /m/

/ʝ/ /n/

lateral

/l/

trill

/r/

Superficially, the issue may seem petty-minded. However, it is phonologically important because, depending on the analysis, the above system could either be simplified by deleting /v/ and /ʝ/ from it and thus abolishing the only cases where the feature [+voice] pops up or /v/ and /ʝ/ have to be replaced systematically with /w/ and /j/. In the latter case, the pan-European inventory would comprise an additional phonological class, namely that of the approximants. As it seems, none of the samples used by the two authors discussed in this and the previous sections supports the idea that any of the competing candidates (= /j/ vs. /ʝ/ and /w/ vs. /v/) is represented in 100 % of the EDLs. This means that neither the analysis which assumes a class of voiced fricatives nor the alternative with approximants is widely enough diffused to satisfy the conditions of a pan-European phoneme. To settle this issue, it is also helpful to check to what extent the phonemes in question are involved in contact-borne transfer. We will address this issue in Sections 17.2.4.7 and 17.2.4.27 below. As to the validity of the phoneme chart in Table 1, serious doubts are inevitable.

4.1.4.2 Extensions Décsy (2000b) also looks beyond the common core of the phonological systems of his EDLs. He achieves this by way of adding up all vowel and consonant phonemes found in Europe. It is interesting to have a look at these charts because

36 | Previous research

they might give us an idea of the range of variation that characterizes the areal phonology of Europe.37 The presentation of these maximal inventories is problematic and requires quite some interpretation. Tables 2–3 are therefore to be taken with a grain of salt because chances are that we have missed some crucial points. We first scrutinize the enlarged vowel inventory. According to Décsy (2000b: 342), “[t]here are a number of languages [] in which some additional vowels occur.” Superficially, this choice of words sounds as if we are dealing only with some irrelevant additions to the pan-European inventory. However, the number of vowel phonemes increases from five to eleven and thus more than doubles its size. We reproduce the system in Table 2 again with the necessary terminological and sundry modifications. Those phonemes which already belong to the pan-European minimum are marked by grey shading. Table 2: Maximum inventory of vowel phonemes in Europe according to Décsy (2000b: 342).

front

front rounded

central

back

high

/i/

/y/

/ɨ/

/u/

mid-closed

/e/

/ø/

mid-neutral

/o/ /ə/

mid-open

/ɛ/

low

/a/

/œ/

The interpretation of Décsy’s system is particularly difficult in the case of /ɛ/. The author uses they symbol to represent the phoneme. The very same symbol is used in Décsy (2000a) for /æ/. It cannot be ruled out completely that the intended phoneme is a low front /a/ because Décsy (2000b: 343) claims that “[i]n a language in which ä is present, the a is articulated in back (a dark or labial a []).” This low back rounded vowel /ɑ/ is a problem in itself because it is illustrated with Swedish which is commonly pronounced [oː] (Lindqvist 2007: 90). Décsy seems to refer to Swedish phonology as of the period prior to the 14th century (Lindqvist 2007: 92–93). For the sake of the argument, if we assume that Décsy’s is meant to represent the mid-open front vowel /ɛ/ it comes as a surprise that the corresponding mid-open back vowel /ɔ/ is missing

|| 37 These extended systems are the result of a simple addition of all phonemes that are attested in Décsy’s sample. This means that they do not reflect the system of an individual EDL.

Outside Phon@Europe | 37

from Table 2. The absence of /ɔ/ is inexplicable since it is attested as a phoneme distinct from /o/ in EDLs like the Belarusian variety of Gervjaty (Sudnik 1975), Breton (Ternes 1992), Danish (Basbøll 2005), and Italian (Dardano and Trifone 2008) which form part of Décsy’s sample. The infamous cannot represent /æ/. There are EDLs which make a phonemic distinction between /ɛ/ and /æ/ such as Danish (Basbøll 2005). Whether all this speaks for or against interpreting Décsys as /ɛ/ cannot be clarified further since we lack sufficient information about the author’s original intentions. What seems to be questionable about Table 2 additionally is the absence of – /ʉ/ as attested in Bashkir (Juldašev 1981), (West) Frisian (Hoekstra 2001), Livonian (Moseley 2002), Norwegian (Kristoffersen 2000), and Swedish (Lindqvist 2007); – /ɯ/ as in Gagauz (Pokrovskaja 1964), Karaim (Musaev 1997), Scottish-Gaelic (Lamb 2003), and Tatar (Comrie 1997b); it is possible that the author has lumped together this phoneme and /ɨ/; if this is correct then Décsy’s (2000b: 342) assumption that /ɨ/ is phonemic only in eastern Europe has to be revised; – /ɤ/ as reported for Bashkir (Juldašev 1981), Chuvash (Krueger 1961), Estonian (Hasselblatt 2001), Livonian (Moseley 2002), Mari (Alhoniemi 1993), Scottish-Gaelic (Lamb 2003), and Tatar (Comrie 1997b); the author has probably mixed up the unrounded mid-closed back vowel /ɤ/ with the unrounded mid-closed central vowel /ɘ/; – /ʌ/ as mentioned for English (Gramley and Pätzold 2004), Komi(-Permyak) (Lytkin 1961), and Mordvin (Keresztes 1990). Moreover, Décsy (2000b: 342) wrongly assumes that /y/ is “present only in the northwest and outermost east” but ignores the existence of this phoneme in Albanian (Buchholz and Fiedler 1987: 28) (see Map II). The schwa is another problem because it is represented by different symbols, viz. and . In the latter case the symbol is ambiguous with the mid-closed front vowel /e/. The reliability of Décsy’s hypotheses about the distribution of vowel phonemes in Europe is severely impaired. Not everything that is said is absolutely wrong. However, the general sloppiness with which the data are presented and interpreted limits the value of the observations. The many problems notwithstanding, Décsy’s account of the distribution of the vowel phonemes across his sample clearly speaks in favor of the existence of areal patterns some of which manifest themselves only in relatively vague quantitative differences between EDLs in the west and those in the east of the continent. No matter how debatable the issues are they are supportive of HA.

38 | Previous research

In analogy to the extended vowel system in Table 2, Décsy (2000b: 344) provides a table in which all the consonantal phonemes he identified in the EDLs are listed. This system is reproduced in Table 3. The interpretation of the original table is made difficult because not only is the column for the manners of articulation missing but there are also formatting errors (e.g. palatal consonants like /c/ are registered as alveolar) and Décsy’s awkward self-made symbols (with, for instance, representing the voiced glottal fricative /ɦ/). In addition, there are parallel bracketed symbols of a different make (e.g. alongside for the voiceless alveolar affricate) and a single case of an allophone, viz. the velar nasal [ŋ] (which, by the way, occupies a slot in the column of the glottal place of articulation – termed laryngeal in the original). In Table 3, grey-shaded cells host the symbols of the supposedly basic pan-European phonemes of Table 1. Additionally, there is yellow shading for the controversial cases of /β/ and /rj/. Décsy (2000b: 343) counts 33 phonemes but lists 34 in his table. Table 3: Maximum inventory of consonantal phonemes in Europe according to Décsy (2000b: 344).

Manner

Place of articulation labiodental

dental

alveolar

postalveolar

palatal

velar

–voice

/p/

/t/

/c/

/k/

+voice

/b/

/d/

/ɟ/

/g/

–voice tive

affricate frica-

plosive

bilabial

glottal

/f/

/θ/

/s/

/ʃ/

/ç/

/x/

/h/

/v/

/ð/

/z/

/ʒ/

/ʝ/

/ɣ/

/ɦ/

–voice

/ʦ/

/ʧ/

+voice

/ʣ/

/ʤ/

+voice

nasal

/β/

/n/

/ɲ/

lateral

/m/

/l/

/ʎ/

trill

/r/

/rj/

The symbol Décsy (2000b: 344) uses for the voiced bilabial fricative is /w/. We are not sure whether it is meant to represent a fricative or an approximant. Décsy’s (2000b: 345) own explanations leave the matter unsolved. Secondary articulations such as palatalization are explicitly counted out (Décsy 2000b: 344), i.e. only palatal consonants should be taken into account. If palatalization

Outside Phon@Europe | 39

is not admitted to the system, why is there /rj/ when it can only be the result of palatalization as there is no basic palatal rhotic in the first place? In point of fact, Table 3 fails to cover the range of consonantal phonemes of Décsy’s sample. The author himself mentions a number of “rather unusual consonants [which] were not listed in the table” (Décsy 2000b: 345) such as the (typically German) affricate /pf/ (Wiese 1996: 13–14) and the (typically Czech) alveolar trill fricative /r̝/ (Dankovičová 1999: 71). The voiceless sonorants attested in Celtic languages and Mordvin fall under the same rubric (Décsy 2000b: 346). The situation is aggravated by the absence of the glottal plosive /ʔ/ which is a phoneme in Maltese which, in turn, is one of Décsy’s sample languages.38 Similarly, the Polish alveolo-palatal fricatives /ɕ/ and /ʑ/ and the corresponding affricates (Strutyński 1997) are missing from Table 3. Further absentees are among others the uvular trill /ʀ/ as attested in French (Meisenburg and Selig 2006), the voiced uvular fricative /ʁ/ as reported for Danish (Basbøll 2005) and Portuguese (Azevedo 2005), the voiced labial-palatal approximant /ɥ/ in French (Meisenburg and Selig 2006), and the English alveolar approximant /ɹ/ (Gramley and Pätzold 2004). No mention is made of EDLs which distinguish flap/tap /ɾ/ and trill /r/ like Albanian (Buchholz and Fiedler 1987). Rhotics seem to receive the least amount of care from the author. To cut a long story short: It does not suffice to check Table 3 to get the full picture of the diversity of the European phoneme inventory in the domain of consonants.39 To Décsy’s mind, /x/ and /h/ are “[n]ew consonants” whose distribution across the EDLs can be captured by a “more or less valid regular law [stating] that ch (the ach-sound) and h are mutually exclusive (exceptions are High German, Czech, Slovak, Ukrainian, Sorbian, etc.)” (Décsy 2000b: 346). The contradictory specification that a supposed law is regular but at the same time only more or less valid catches our attention because the proponent of the law already mentions five exceptions and the “etc.” is suggestive of potentially many more exceptions. Haarmann (1976b: 100) takes the distinction /x/ ≠ /h/ to be a characteristic trait of the Danubian Sprachbund (see Section 4.1.1 above). What will remain of the law if it is made to stand the test against the empirical data? || 38 Note that Décsy (2000b: 345) is aware of the existence of the glottal plosive but he mentions it only as the evolutionary source of the glottal fricative /h/. 39 In contrast to the discussion of the vowels, Décsy (2000b: 344–346) does not touch upon the areal distribution of the additional consonants in Europe but shows an interest in the patterns of their diachronic origins and thus argues in a way which nowadays is associated with Evolutionary Phonology (Blevins 2007). Note that Décsy (2000b: 342–346) repeatedly mentions connections of some of his European phenomena with languages spoken elsewhere on the globe such as Chinese, Thai, and Paleosiberian languages.

40 | Previous research

According to Stolz (2004: 315–316), the law can be shown to be only a preference slightly above the 50 %-mark of probability. In Table 4, the EDLs of Décsy’s sample are classified according to the presence or absence of the phonemes under inspection. Table 4 is a modified version of the corresponding table in Stolz (2004). Like Décsy himself we subsume instances of uvular /χ/ under /x/ and those of /ɦ/ under /h/. Boldface marks those EDLs for which it is crucial for the classification which variety is taken account of, meaning: Mari (Meadow) lacks both fricatives whereas Mari (Hill) attests to /x/ (Alhoniemi 1993). In the case of Saami, Central South Saami only has /h/ (Hasselbrink 1965) whereas Kildin Saami (Kert 1971) gives evidence of both /x/ and /h/. As will be shown in Sections 17.2.4.3 and 17.2.4.12, the fricatives under inspection are frequently borrowed. Moreover, if only one of them is properly phonemic it is often difficult to decide whether we are dealing with /h/ or /x/ (or any other voiceless postvelar fricative). Table 4: Distribution of /h/ and /x/ in Décsy’s (2000b) sample.

Option I

Option II

Option III

either /h/ or /x/

both /h/ and /x/

neither /h/ nor /x/

Albanian, Basque, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Chuvash, Danish, English, Estonian, Faroese, Finnish, Greek, Hungarian, Kalmyk, Kashubian, Komi, Ladino, Livonian, Macedonian, Maltese, Moldavian, Mordvin, Nenets, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian, Romansch, Russian, Saami, SerboCroatian, Slovenian, Spanish, Turkish, Udmurt

Armenian, Bashkir, Breton, Czech, Dutch, Frisian, Gagauz, German, Icelandic, Irish, Karaim, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Romani, Scottish-Gaelic, Slovak, Sorbian, Swedish, Tatar, Ukrainian, Veps, Votic, Welsh, Yiddish

French, Italian, Mari, Portuguese

33 EDLs = 53 %

25 EDLs = 40 %

4 EDLs = 7 %

The co-presence of /h/ and /x/ in one and the same phonological system is confirmed for 40 % of Décsy’s sample languages. This is too big a share to claim that the supposed law against the combination of the two fricatives is “regular” and “valid”. As a matter of fact, the coexistence of the velar and the glottal fricative is one of two major options the EDLs can choose from. On Map VI, the geographical distribution of the three options – no voiceless velar/glottal fricative,

Outside Phon@Europe | 41

one voiceless velar or glottal fricative, two fricatives (one voiceless velar and one voiceless glottal) – is made visible. Even on the basis of Map VI with its somewhat doubtful input from Décsy (2000b), it is possible to identify certain areal patterns. The EDLs which attest to both of the fricatives (represented by green dots) occupy the space which is wedged between the northerly and southerly areas where the EDLs with only one of the fricatives are situated (represented by red dots). Three of four EDLs which lack the fricatives completely are to be found in the western half of the continent where they separate the territories of the two major options from each other (blue dots). The green and the red dots are distributed over the maps in such a way that it is possible to identify potential areas whose location and extension are suggested by light green and reddish shading, respectively. The isoglosses cut across genetic relationships but link geographical neighbors to each other. Option I in Table 4 unites Germanic, Slavic, Romance, Greek, Albanian, Uralic, and Turkic EDLs. Option II is chosen by Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Indo-Aryan, Uralic, and Turkic EDLs. Romance and Uralic EDLs are represented under Option III. There is thus considerable genetic diversity. On the other hand, EDLs in the north, south, and east are especially strong under Option I, whereas Option II is mainly associated with the west and the center of the continent. Option I is strong in the Balkans but also elsewhere. In Sections 17.2.4.3 and 17.2.4.12, revised versions of Map VI will be presented as Maps L and LIX to check whether the areal patterning can be corroborated on the basis of our larger sample. Moreover, there will be a plethora of other maps which make the most of the fact that all the phonemes featured on Maps V–VI belong to the class of fricatives. To close this section, we emphasize that in spite of its many deficiencies, Décsy’s contribution has the merit of suggesting to us that there is variation in the domain of phonology in Europe which calls for being described comprehensively. The same holds for Haarmann’s work which strongly suggests that it makes more sense to investigate the distribution of individual properties across the EDLs than to search for the quintessential European in the domain of phonology. Both authors have tried their best to find pan-Europeanisms – and they largely failed. However, while they were desperately looking for Europemes they dug up a lot of interesting pieces of evidence for the areality of certain phonological properties. These findings have inspired us to set up Phon@Europe in the first place.

42 | Previous research

4.1.5 The boring continent (Ternes 1998, 2010) In two largely identical articles, Ternes (1998, 2010) sets the pace for a finegrained analysis of the phonological facts as attested in the EDLs. Only in the more recent version does the author refer to the work of Décsy (1973) and Haarmann (1976a) – in passing (Ternes 2010: 577 fn. 1). In point of fact, a detailed discussion of their hypotheses is not necessary for Ternes because he approaches the subject from a completely different angle. Where his predecessors start from pre-established areal-linguistic categories, Ternes looks at the EDLs from the point of view of phonology. This change of perspective allows Ternes (1998, 2010) to liberate his study from the heavy load of corroborating the existence of certain continent-internal linguistic areas which, as we have seen in the previous sections, has proved to be often detrimental to recognizing certain patterns and relations between EDLs and/or phonological phenomena. The earlier version (Ternes 1998: 139) was written in memoriam Johannes Bechert – one of the initiators of the EUROTYP project – and therefore a direct connection to the goals and ideas of EUROTYP was claimed to exist. In Ternes (2010), this connection is no longer made explicit. The general character of the two versions is the same nevertheless. The author studies the areal phonology of Europe from the outside, meaning he compares the European area in its entirety to other linguistic areas in order to disprove Dahl’s (1990) idea of the exotic character of SAE languages mentioned in the introduction (see Section 1). At the same time, Ternes (1998: 139, 2010: 577) concedes that in doing so he will also shed light on the internal differentiation of Europe but only to a limited extent. The focus is thus on pan-Europeanisms and their potential crosslinguistic “uniqueness”. Observations on the heterogeneity of the EDLs as to their phonological properties are occasional by-products of Ternes’s research. Ternes’s line of argumentation is such that both H0 and HA are given support. In contrast to Décsy (1973, 2000a–b) and Haarmann (1976a–b), Ternes (1998, 2010) takes phonological categories for guidance through his study. These categories are ticked off in a top-down order. The properties of the EDLs are checked against these parameters. What blurs the picture is the lack of consistency with which this procedure is applied. The sample whose composition is not disclosed anywhere and the different phenomena are illustrated with reference to varying numbers of different EDLs. In this way, the exact distribution of the properties across the sample and the continent remains largely unclear. This is the effect of the author’s principal aim of comparing Europe to other macro-areas. The great advantage of Ternes’s approach is the organization of the investigation according to the requirements of descriptive phonology. In what follows,

Outside Phon@Europe | 43

we go through Ternes’s texts section-by-section to summarize his observations with reference to the areal phonology of the EDLs. Our comments follow below. We skip all comparative remarks the author makes as to other macro-areas outside of Europe. Apart from the titles of the subsequent paragraphs, boldface marks those phenomena for which the author assumes areality, namely retroflexion, palatalization, aspiration, and uvular rhotics. – airstream mechanisms: In Europe, only the pulmonic egressive airstream mechanism is attested (Ternes 1998: 140, 2010: 578); – size of phoneme inventories: The average size of a European phoneme inventory is neither large nor small in global perspective. With 45 phonemes, (standard) Scottish-Gaelic is said to yield one of the largest inventories in Europe (no mention is made of Haarmann’s top-ranking EDL Kildin Saami (see Section 4.1.3)) (Ternes 1998: 140–141, 2010: 579); – consonant-vowel ratios: The ratios are characterized as unremarkable. The author hypothesizes that in global perspective the ratios might be relatively low because the EDLs usually fail to yield a sizable turnout for consonants whereas the number of vowels is relatively high (Ternes 1998: 142, 2010: 580); – vowels – classes: four types of vowel systems are attested in Europe; EDLs with two classes (front vs. back) are widely common in Romance, Baltic, and Slavic but by no means exclusive; the binary type is probably underrepresented in Europe; the type involving three classes of vowels with front rounded vowels is claimed to be characteristic for Europe since it is attested not only in many (but not all) Uralic and Germanic languages but also in some Romance languages in western Europe (cf. Map II above and Sections 4.2 and 17.2.2.1–17.2.2.2 below); the type involving three classes of vowels with unrounded central/back vowels is said to be less widely distributed and the EDLs attesting to it do not constitute a continuous area since the type occupies only isolated pockets; cross-linguistically infrequent systems with four classes (combining rounded front vowels with unrounded central/back vowels) are described as only marginally represented in Europe (Estonian, Albanian, Turkish) (Ternes 1998: 142–143, 2010: 581–582); – height distinctions: the number of height distinctions is relatively high in Europe; four height distinctions are common in Germanic, Romance, and Baltic although there are also pairs of sister languages which differ as to the number of height distinctions (such as Spanish

44 | Previous research

–

with three vs. Catalan with four height distinctions) (Ternes 1998: 143, 2010: 582); – nasalization: nasalization is synchronically rare in Europe; the distribution is such that no geographic or genetic foci are discernible (Ternes 1998: 143–144, 2010: 583); – diphthongs: Europe is particularly rich in the domain of diphthongs; Germanic, Celtic, and Finnic languages are notorious for their sizable inventory of diphthongs (Ternes 1998: 144, 2010: 583); consonants – places of articulation: labial, denti-alveolar, palatal, velar, and glottal places of articulation are also common in Europe with geneticallybased preferences for palatal and glottal phonemes: /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ occur typically in Romance whereas they are generally absent from Germanic languages, /h/ is attested throughout the Germanic branch of IndoEuropean whereas it is widely uncommon in Romance (cf. Map VI); uvular and pharyngeal places of articulation are excluded from EDLs (see discussion below); the infrequent retroflex place of articulation yields an areal pattern in northern Europe; apart from retroflexion, Europe has nothing special on offer as to the places of articulation (Ternes 1998: 145, 2010: 584); – manner of articulation: all manners of articulation are attested in Europe; fricatives are perhaps slightly overrepresented (cf. Section 17.1.2.2.2); within Europe, there are marked differences in the distribution of affricates (frequent in Slavic but infrequent in Germanic, Celtic, and Finnic) and shibilants with the latter being absent from a number of EDLs (cf. Sections 4.2.3 and 17.1.2.2.2); the tendency towards phonemic differentiation in the domain of sonorants is emphasized; with reference to rhotics, the areally significant distribution of the uvular trill /ʀ/ is mentioned (cf. discussion below and Map XII) (Ternes 1998: 145–146, 2010: 585–586); – correlations: EDLs display only a small range of phonemically relevant correlations; palatalization is the most important correlation with hotbeds in eastern Europe (eastern Slavic) and in the Goidelic branch of Celtic in the extreme west; the voice correlation is so common in Europe that its absence from or fragmentary presence in languages like Finnish counts as exceptional; phonemic aspiration is infrequent but there is an areal connection between Icelandic and Scottish-Gaelic; purely phonetic aspiration of voiceless plosives is

Outside Phon@Europe | 45

common in Germanic (exception: Dutch), Celtic, and Turkish; elsewhere aspiration is absent (Ternes 1998: 146–147, 2010: 587); – suprasegmentals – quantity: phonemic quantity is relatively strong in Europe (see Section 4.2); vowels are especially subject to quantity distinctions although there is language-specific variation; Romance languages seldom display phonemic quantity whereas it is widely common in Germanic, Celtic, Baltic, and in some Slavic languages; except Italian, Indo-European EDLs do not allow for phonemic quantity with consonants which in turn is well-established in Finnic, Hungarian, and Maltese – all EDLs which give evidence of phonemic quantity with vowels and consonants (Ternes 1998: 147–148, 2010: 587–588); – stress site: many types are represented in the continent; the picture is very heterogeneous; non-Indo-European EDLs are characterized mostly by fixed stress site (Ternes 1998: 148, 2010: 588–589); – tone: among the EDLs there are many examples of restricted tone languages (aka pitch-accent languages); they do not yield a continuous area (Ternes 1998: 148–149, 2010: 589–590); – phonotactics and syllable structure: the complexity of European syllable structure exceeds the global average on account of the possibility to combine consonants at the margins (Ternes 1998: 149, 2010: 590–591); – morphophonology – final devoicing: the phenomenon cuts across the different language families (Ternes 2010: 591) (see Map III); – vowel harmony: the phenomenon is unknown in the Indo-European EDLs whereas it is common in Turkic EDLs and some of the Uralic EDLs (Ternes 2010: 591); – umlaut: umlaut is a relatively well-established phenomenon in Germanic and Celtic whereas it is attested only occasionally in Romance and Slavic (Ternes 2010: 592); – varia: further stem alternations caused by ablaut, diphthongization, consonant alternations, mutations, gradation are summarily mentioned as factors which render the shape of the word variable; this variability is considered a characteristic trait of EDLs (Ternes 2010: 592); – diachrony: in the course of the history of the better documented EDLs, the author identifies the following processes: (1) increase of vowel classes, (2) strengthening of the palatal place of articulation, (3) emergence of the phoneme /ʃ/, (4) increase of fricatives (cf. Section 17.1.2.2.2), (5) weakening of (apical) trill /r/ to velar/uvular realizations (cf. discussion below), (6) decrease of

46 | Previous research

vowel quantity, (7) increase of vowel qualities, (8) decrease of consonantal quantity, (9) increase of the importance of distinctive stress site, (10) language-specific changes of tonal accents (Ternes 1998: 150, 2010: 592–593). For the sake of brevity, of the many hypotheses put forward by Ternes (1998, 2010), we pick out those which pertain to the postvelar places of articulation and further aspects indirectly related to them. This choice of example is motivated by the possibility to anticipate part of an important discussion about a general problem which will haunt us again in Section 5.1. In Ternes (1998: 145), the claim is made that uvular and pharyngeal places of articulation are excluded from Europe with the notable exception of Maltese where the pharyngeal fricative /ħ/ is assumed to exist. According to Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 301), this phoneme comes in three realizations, namely voiceless velar fricative [x], voiceless glottal fricative [h], and voiceless pharyngeal fricative [ħ]. Borg (1997b: 260) claims that the different pronunciations of the fricative “do not appear to correlate with speakers’ sociolectal backgrounds or with dialect boundaries.” Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 301– 302) on the other hand assume that the pronunciation depends on “the vocalic context that follows it.” This is tantamount to assuming the differentiation of three context-dependent allophones in complementary distribution. Accordingly, Borg (1997b) and Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997) represent the phoneme as /h/. The feature [pharyngeal] as such is not considered to be phonemically crucial (see Section 4.1.3 for a brief discussion of the għajn). This demotion of the feature [pharyngeal] from phonemic to allophonic is in line with Ternes’s above argument against the existence of (phonemically relevant) uvular and pharyngeal places of articulation in Europe. At closer inspection, however, Ternes’s generalization turns out to be too strong. In his short discussion of the differentiation in the domain of the rhotics, Ternes (1998: 146, 2010: 586) mentions the uvular trill [ʀ] as attested in French, German, Danish, and southern varieties of Swedish with a tendency to diffuse further, e.g. to Breton and as mentioned in Section 4.1.3 also to northerly varieties of Basque. This is one of the very few instances which count as examples of areality in Ternes’s work. The same topic is given particular attention by Chambers and Trudgill (1980: 186–191) who dedicate a section and several maps in their textbook on dialectology to the spread of uvular rhotics in Europe (based on prior work by Trudgill 1974). Their account of the phenomenon is sociolinguistically wellinformed so that it is possible to paint a more differentiated picture than that resulting from Ternes’s studies. Chambers and Trudgill (1980) show that uvular

Outside Phon@Europe | 47

rhotics are also common in Piemontese and some urban varieties of Norwegian (e.g. at Bergen) whereas they fail to recognize the presence of /ʀ/ in Basque varieties in France. As to Ternes’s own argumentation, we are dealing with a contradiction. If the uvular place of articulation is ruled out for EDLs generally, it should be offlimits also in the case of the rhotics. Moreover, Ternes (2010: 593) registers the change from apical trill to uvular realizations among the observable diachronic processes which affect the phonologies of EDLs. In connection to these issues, several comments are necessary. In both publications, Ternes (1998: 146, 2010: 584) employs phonetic brackets for the uvular trill [ʀ] and speaks of realizations in lieu of proper phonemes. As is common practice in phonology, the rhotic phoneme – if it is the only rhotic in a given system – is represented by /r/ independent of the precise coordinates, i.e. place and manner of articulation. The symbol used for the phoneme is reminiscent of the phonetic symbol [r] for the apico-alveolar trill. That this identity has a serious disadvantage will result from the subsequent discussion. Assuming a trill for the entire area of diffusion of the uvular place of articulation with rhotics is questionable. According to Booij (2012: 8), the Dutch rhotic /r/ may be realized as an alveolar roll [r] (in particular in utterance-initial position), as an alveolar flap [ɾ], as a uvular roll [ʀ], as a uvular fricative [χ], or as a uvular approximant [ʁ]. In postvocalic position /r/ may also be realized as a palatal approximant similar to [j]. This is a matter of individual and regional variation.

In an alternative account of Dutch phonology, Gussenhoven (1999: 74) states that “[t]he phoneme /r/ tends to be alveolar in Belgium, in Amsterdam and in the north-east of the Netherlands, but uvular elsewhere.” The wide range of realizations notwithstanding, Gussenhoven (1999: 74) employs the symbol /ɾ/ for the (alveolar) flap/tap to represent the rhotic phoneme in Dutch. Booij (2012: 7) uses /r/ which occupies the cell of an alveolar liquid in the phoneme chart (as cell-mate of /l/). The authors do not explain their choice of phoneme (symbol). One may only guess that either the size of the area of the Dutch speech-territory in which a given pronunciation dominates has been decisive or some implicit ideas that a given position (i.e. the wordinitial slot) is prominent enough to determine what the “underlying” phoneme looks like. Several of the possible realizations of Dutch /r/ ~ /ɾ/ are located at a place of articulation which Ternes rules out for EDLs. For Polish, too Gussmann (2007: 27) speaks of “tremendous variation” to which the rhotic is subject ranging from the alveolar trill [r] via the uvular trill [ʀ] and the uvular fricative [ʁ] to the approximant [ɹ]. No matter that the quoted author considers this variation to

48 | Previous research

be phonologically irrelevant, the fact remains that the feature [uvular] is by no means categorically barred from the EDLs. Moreover, where Booij (2012) assumes a voiceless velar fricative /x/ (which seems to be a southerly property) Gussenhoven (1999: 74) has a voiceless uvular fricative /χ/ which is the only option for speakers of Dutch north of the rivers Rhine, Meuse, and Waal. Whether the feature [uvular] makes a difference phonemically depends on the choice of variety of this EDL. In the case of Danish, Basbøll (2005: 62) describes the rhotic /r/ as “uvular (fricative or) non-lateral approximant” i.e. as [ʁ]. In principle, nothing speaks against representing the only rhotic of Danish with the same symbol /ʁ/ (in lieu of the usual practice of using /r/). For Portuguese, Azevedo (2005) assumes a phonemic opposition between tap/flap /ɾ/ and uvular fricative /ʁ/.40 There is also evidence of /ʁ/ ≠ /r/ in Tatar where the uvular fricative is attested in loanwords. In the same EDL, the voiceless uvular fricative /χ/ is registered among the LPs stemming from Arabic or Persian (Comrie 1997b: 901–902)41 (see Section 17.2.4.28). For both northern and southern Welsh, Hannahs (2013: 16–17) argues in favor of a voiceless uvular fricative /χ/ in lieu of the often defended analysis as voiceless velar fricative /x/. For Scottish Gaelic, Lamb (2003) assumes two phonemically distinct rhotics, viz. apical trill /r/ vs. uvular trill /ʀ/. It is remarkable that in his description of the Scottish-Gaelic variety of Applecross, Ternes (2006: 25) himself argues that /r/ and /ʀ/ are two distinct phonemes. As an addendum, we mention the glottal plosive /ʔ/. For the EDLs of his sample, Ternes (2010: 584) recognizes its existence only for German – and apparently only on the sub-phonemic level since the transcription involves phonetic brackets, i.e. [ʔ]. This corresponds to the general consensus not to assign phoneme status to the glottal plosive in German although it has peculiar distributional properties (Wiese 1996: 16 and 58–61). However, in Ternes’s sample, there is in fact an EDL which gives evidence of the phoneme /ʔ/. This language is Maltese. Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 300) emphasize that there is some regional variation as to the realization of this phoneme which covers inter

|| 40 Mateus and d’Andrade (2000: 12 and 15–16) postulate the opposition /ɾ/ ≠ /ʀ/ with an optional realization of the latter as voiceless velar fricative [x] in Brazilian Portuguese only. Cunha and Cintra (1989: 46) clearly state, however, that the fricativization of the former apical trill is common in Portugal as well – especially in Lisbon. Moreover, the authors also mention the feature [uvular] for the rhotic in European Portuguese. The Portuguese case is another instance of the dependence of one’s generalizations on the varieties which are allowed on board of the sample. 41 Note that Comrie (1997b: 901) distinguishes front velar from back velar. We interpret this as an opposition of velar and uvular places of articulation.

Outside Phon@Europe | 49

alia uvular and glottal places of articulation (Borg 1997b: 262–263). Glottal and uvular plosives are occasionally registered also for other EDLs which seem to belong to the sample Ternes made use of. Tatar has phonemic /ʔ/ only in loans from Arabic and Persian (Comrie 1997b: 901) (see Section 17.2.4.21). A voiceless uvular plosive /q/ is attested in Bashkir (Juldašev 1981) and Tatar (Comrie 1997b: 901) – in the latter case again only in loanwords (see Section 17.2.4.28). The above findings amount to the following conclusion: It is true that uvular rhotics and uvular plosives are only marginally attested in Europe. However, they occur frequently enough to challenge the hypothesis that the uvular place of articulation is inaccessible for EDLs. There is no categorical ban on the uvular place of articulation although it is made use of only occasionally. Add to this the fact that there is a very tiny minority of EDLs which attest to the phoneme /ʔ/ and one must come to the conclusion that Ternes’s account cannot be the final word on the areal phonology of Europe. Moreover, Map VII is indicative of areality also in connection with the feature [uvular]. On the basis of the above paragraphs, it is possible to draw a map on which those EDLs which give evidence of [uvular] at least phonetically are placed on the periphery of the continent the only exception being the area of diffusion from France to southern Sweden. On Map VII, those EDLs which attested to [uvular] according to Ternes (1998, 2010) are represented by black dots. The grey-shaded area marks the space in which the feature has spread from French to its neighbors. The fact that a given property is banned from most of the EDLs so that it winds up at different locations on the margins of the continent is in itself an areal phenomenon. There is a large almost continent-wide area where [uvular] has no foothold. This area is surrounded by isolated EDLs which tolerate [uvular] in their phonological systems. Historically, the diffusion from French eastwards into the Germanic EDLs also started from the geographical periphery, namely from the westernmost section of the European mainland. In the more recent version of his study, Ternes (2010: 593) refers to Haarmann’s (1976a) concept of the Europeme. To Ternes’s mind, the term can be interpreted in three different ways. a) It refers to properties which are unique to Europe. Ternes (2010: 593) denies that phonological properties of this kind exist. b) It refers to properties which are common to all EDLs without being proper universals. The author considers the exclusive employment of the pulmonicegressive airstream mechanism and the absence of genuine tone languages to fulfill this criterion. c) It refers to properties which are strong in Europe and exceed the global average so that they characterize EDLs in a specific way. In connection to this reading of Europeme, Ternes (2010: 593) mentions the high number of vowel

50 | Previous research

qualities, the high number of diphthongs, variable stress site, the complex syllable structure, and the morphophonological variability of stems. However, Ternes (2010: 593) argues that the EDLs do not display extreme values. To his mind, within the confines of Europe, the situation is very heterogeneous with pronounced differences between the different genetic groups, from EDL to EDL, and even among the varieties of one and the same EDL. Remarks of this kind suggest that Europe does not form a phonological monolith but displays internal variation. On the other hand, with reference to the SAE language, Ternes (2010: 594) speaks of a markedly reduced range of variation in comparison to EDLs which do not belong to the core of the European area. In the earlier version, Ternes (1998: 150) concludes that EDLs can be classified as average or examples of mediocrity (“Mittelmäßigkeit”). The many interesting observations on certain phenomena notwithstanding, it is impossible to satisfactorily reconstruct the areal-linguistic map of Europe from either of the two papers. We strongly reject the impression that Europe is largely uninteresting in the domain of phonology. To the contrary, we assume that if we only inspect the EDLs more closely we will detect a hitherto largely ignored but rich phenomenology which is worthwhile investigating. Before we summarize our reviews of the previous linguistic work on our topic in Section 4.1.6 we want to mention two advantages of Ternes’s (1998, 2010) approach. First of all, the organization of his studies along the lines of phonological categories serves as an inspiration for Phon@Europe in general. We strongly believe that this perspective promises many more insights than can be gained by starting from areal matters first. Secondly, in contrast to Haarmann (1976a–b) and Décsy (2000a–b), Ternes (1998, 2010) also accounts for dialectal evidence. This broadening of the empirical basis is also relevant for Phon@Europe and plays a crucial role for the size and composition of our sample as described in Section 11.

4.1.6 Wrapping up the past To conclude this section, it can be said that the main interest of previous research on the phonology of EDLs was directed towards the identification of European phonological commonalities. As to the distribution of properties across the EDLs, the information given in the extant literature remains fragmentary and every once in a while it can also be shown to be wrong. Haarmann’s Europemes (Haarmann 1976a), Décsy’s pan-Europeanisms (Décsy 2000b), and Ternes’s statement of mediocrity (Ternes 1998, 2010) invoke H0. Superficially,

Outside Phon@Europe | 51

there seems to be too little variation anyway to require the identification of isoglosses. Or the other way round, Europe constitutes a phonological patchwork that defies every attempt at finding an areal logic behind the distribution of the phenomena. In sum, the previous accounts of the areal phonology of Europe are such that they preclude the possibility of identifying any evidence in favor of HA. The close reading of the texts under scrutiny reveals, however, that the authors frequently albeit unsystematically refer to genetic and/or areal preferences. This means that HA might not be completely wrong after all. Our predecessors have not looked into this possibility further. This is a task which we will take upon us in the project Phon@Europe. Our at times severe criticism of the above three authors notwithstanding, we acknowledge that we can build our own project on the foundation they have laid. The main problem the work of Haarmann, Décsy, and Ternes suffers from is self-made, in a manner of speaking. Ambition made them addressing too many issues too fast only to jump to premature conclusions. We have learned from their experience not to aspire at adequately solving all the problems associated with the areal phonology of Europe in one go. To our minds, it does not make much sense to try to analyze the phonotactics of the EDLs when and if there are still so many open questions as to the phonemics of the very same languages. It is better to limit the scope of our project – at least initially – to a basic phonological level such as the size and composition of the phoneme systems. As will become clear from the discussion in the subsequent sections, determining how a phoneme inventory looks like in a given EDL alone is already so demanding a challenge that it is beyond our comprehension how anybody would want to multiply the chore by covering many more domains of phonology. We prefer investigating phonemics in-depth in areal perspective in lieu of touching upon several issues without doing any of them justice. The above scholars’ failure to recognize areal patterns is explicable with reference to their unexplained refusal to plot their data on maps. None of their publications is accompanied by cartographic material which would help the reader to understand how the properties featured in the main body of the texts are distributed areally. The general absence of maps perhaps reflects the authors’ limited interest in the details of the internal diversity of Europe. It is high time that the extent of this diversity is studied under the looking-glass – and with the help of linguistic cartography. This is why the atlas is a must. Section 4.2 shows how the members of the project team developed the basic ideas of Phon@Europe in the course of time.

52 | Previous research

4.2 Within Phon@Europe This section contains a retrospective of our own work for Phon@Europe. The preparatory phase predating this study reaches as far back as 2006. Since then eight publications of ours on areal-phonological matters have seen the light of day. In the beginning, we still had relatively crude and naïve ideas about almost every aspect of the project that slowly took shape over the next fourteen years. We acknowledge that many of the critical remarks made in the previous sections could easily be directed to us especially in connection with the earliest of our studies. Meanwhile these initial problems have been solved so that we are now in a position to let the atlas become reality. The Bremen research team always had a special interest in the areal linguistics of Europe. From a typological perspective, phenomena so diverse as comitatives and instrumental (Stolz et al. 2006), possession splits (Stolz et al. 2008), total reduplication (Stolz et al. 2011b), comparative constructions (Stolz 2013), spatial interrogatives (Stolz et al. 2017), etc. have been investigated on a grand scale. Parallel to this interest in primarily grammatical issues, there was also the feeling that one should not forget phonology when it comes to complementing the linguistic jigsaw puzzle of Europe. The original inspiration for Phon@Europe is linked to the phonology section of the WALS and the many maps therein which in their vast majority go to the credit of Maddieson (2005a–m). These maps are indicative of the possibility to present cross-linguistic phonological facts in an areal-linguistically meaningful way. With some three dozen languages, EDLs form only a relatively small component of Maddieson’s world-wide sample so that it is impossible to get a grasp on the range of variation within Europe from the world maps provided in the WALS. If it is feasible to do phonological cartography for the entire world the idea suggests itself that it must also be possible to zoom in on Europe to draw more detailed maps for this continent alone. In chronological order, we briefly present those publications of ours which have a bearing on Phon@Europe. Note that the size of the EDL sample has increased substantially and its internal composition has also been subject to changes over time. Similarly, there are also modifications in the domains of theory, methodology, and terminology.

Within Phon@Europe | 53

4.2.1 The very first steps (Stolz 2006) Only two sections of this paper on Europe as a linguistic area are dedicated to phonological issues, namely the distribution in Europe of (a) the rounded front vowels /y/ and /ø/ (cf. Map II), and of (b) phonemic quantity with vowels and/or consonants. These properties are also touched upon by Ternes (1998, 2010) and Haarmann (1976a). Brosnahan (1961: 104–107) provides a map for the distribution of rounded front vowels which excludes the entire Turkic language family and sundry EDLs with /y/ and /ø/ in the east of the continent. In contrast, Chambers and Trudgill’s (1980: 184–185) account skips Albanian, Estonian, Faroese, Hungarian, and further Uralic, Turkic and sundry EDLs with rounded front vowels. Crystal (1997: 33) features the latter map emphasizing that it faithfully records the absence of this class of vowels from southern varieties of German. As to (a), Maddieson’s (2005i: 52) map is too sparsely populated to show that rounded front vowels are particularly strong in the Northwest of Europe. Moreover, the diffusion into varieties of Basque and Breton, etc. is not visible (Ternes 2010: 581; Blevins 2017: 106). Phonemic geminates and long vowels are treated under the rubric of suprasegmental properties by Ternes (2010: 588). The sample used for Stolz (2006) comprised 51 EDLs thirty-one (= 61 %) of which do not have any rounded vowels, eighteen (= 35 %) attest to both /y/ and /ø/ whereas two (= 4 %) give evidence only of /y/. In the case of (b), twenty-five (= 49 %) of the EDLs have distinctive vowel length and six EDLs (= 12 %) display phonemic quantity with consonants. In four EDLs of the latter group quantity is relevant both for vowels and consonants. This means not only that 8 % of the EDLs are examples of languages with pervasive (= vocalic and consonantal) phonemic quantity but also that phonemic quantity is relevant for twenty-seven EDLs which is equivalent to a share of 53 %. Of the two properties (a) and (b), quantity is thus the more wide-spread phenomenon. It is interesting to see that the isoglosses of (a) and (b) yield a large area of overlap without being identical though. To render this partial overlap visible, we conflate the information given for each isogloss separately in Figures 1–2 in Stolz (2006: 286–287) in Map VIII.42

|| 42 The maps we present in this review of our prior work reflect the state of knowledge we had at the time of writing a given paper. Except the occasional correction of factual errors, we have not modified the maps on the basis of our present database. Some maps haven been taken over directly from the original publication. In other cases, maps had to be drawn anew either for purely technical reasons or because the information originally distributed over several maps had to be united on one map.

54 | Previous research

The colors red and green distinguish the regions in which rounded front vowels and phonemic length are attested, respectively. The EDLs which have both rounded front vowels and phonemic quantity occupy the region which is shaded brownish-grey. This zone where the two isoglosses coincide is populated by the North-Germanic EDLs, their relatives Dutch, Frisian, and German as well as Breton, Rhaeto-Romance, the Finnic EDLs and Hungarian. The Germanic branch of Indo-European is numerically strongest. Interestingly, EDLs of three other genetically defined groups (Celtic, Romance, Uralic) also participate in both isoglosses. Scandinavia and adjacent regions down southwards to the Alps and the Puszta host those EDLs which are affected by both (a) and (b). The existence of these isoglosses and their partial overlap speak in favor of HA. Moreover, Map VIII suggests that we might gain more insights from trying to relate several isoglosses to each other than from looking exclusively at single isoglosses in isolation. To the best of our knowledge, neither Haarmann (1976a– b) nor Décsy (2000a–b) nor Ternes (1998, 2010) has attempted to compare isoglosses. In Part B of this study, it will be shown that without comparing areas of diffusion one is bound to miss important aspects of the areal phonology of Europe (see especially Sections 17.3 and 18).

4.2.2 Monosyllables (Stolz 2007) The topic of this paper is only marginally connected to the major theme of Phon@Europe. It marked the beginning on the largely abortive project on the phonology, grammar, and lexicon of monosyllables in Europe (Stolz et al. 2012b). On the basis of the extended Swadesh list (with 207 entries), the EDLs are checked, among other things, for the number of monosyllables in the so-called core vocabulary. Europe is divided into four quadrants (= northwest, southwest, northeast, and southeast) with a view to generalize over groups of EDLs without having to refer to established geographical regions. The 50 EDLs (including Greenlandic for comparative purposes) are unevenly distributed over the quadrants. From the quantitative evaluation, areal patterns emerge which testify to a division of Europe in two. There is the northwestern quadrant (plus immediately adjacent EDLs) which is characterized by a share of monosyllables which equals or surpasses 50 % of the core vocabulary. Everywhere else in Europe, EDLs with less than 50 % monosyllables in their core vocabulary dominate the scene. This

Within Phon@Europe | 55

situation is reflected by Map IX which is based on Map 2 of Stolz’s (2007: 121).43 We have removed Greenlandic from the map but keep it in mind for the subsequent calculations. On Map IX, the black dots represent EDLs which boast 50 % or more monosyllables. Except Faroese, all occupants of the northwestern quadrant fulfill this criterion, i.e., fourteen (= 93 %) of fifteen EDLs in the northwest prefer monosyllables in their core vocabularies. In each of the three remaining quadrants, the number of EDLs with shares of monosyllables lower than 50 % is bigger than that of the EDLs which are more monosyllable-friendly. The shares of monosyllables range from 25 % (= southwest) to 28 % (= southeast) and 29 % (= northeast). If we partition the continent in two parts only, we get the following results. In case of a division into north and south, the results are equally clear. The monosyllable-friendly EDLs account for 73 % of all EDLs in the north but only for 27 % of the EDLs situated in the south. If the dividing line runs vertically across Europe, the share of monosyllable-friendly EDLs rises to 70 % in the west whereas it reaches only 28 % in the east. The preference for monosyllabicity is thus largely a northern and western property. This general tendency is also corroborated if we look at the individual EDLs. According to the absolute numbers and percentages in Table 5 (adapted from Stolz (2007: 107–108)), with 181 and 173 monosyllabic words, respectively, English and North Frisian yield the highest number of monosyllables equaling shares of over 80 % of the Swadesh List. At the opposite extreme of the scale (ranks 45–50), we find Finnish, Abkhaz, Italian, Kalmyk, Greek, and the “outsider” Greenlandic all of which have less than 10 % monosyllables in their core vocabulary; Greenlandic stands out additionally with its particularly low turnout of only four monosyllables (= 1.9 %) – a result which can be interpreted as evidence of the extra-European status of this sample language. In Table 5, the two extremes are highlighted with grey. The information given in the phylum column is identical to the original; the abbreviations used in Table 5 are: AA = Afro-Asiatic, AL = Altaic, CA = Caucasian, EA = Eskimo-Aleut, IE = IndoEuropean, UY = Uralo-Yukaghir.

|| 43 There are altogether ten maps in Stolz (2007). For the sake of brevity, we exclude nine of them from the discussion in this section because they are based on technically demanding calculations of the ratios connected to the frequency of certain properties of the different constituents of syllables, etc.

56 | Previous research

Table 5: Rank order of monosyllabicity of EDLs according to Stolz (2007: 107–108).

Rank

Language

Phylum

Absolute

Quadrants

% N

S

W

1

English

IE Germanic

181

87.4

N

W

2

Frisian (N)

IE Germanic

173

83.5

N

W

3

Dutch

IE Germanic

134

64.7

N

W

4

French

IE Romance

133

64.2

N

W

5

Letzebuergësh

IE Germanic

128

61.8

N

W

6

Frisian (W)

IE Germanic

122

58.9

N

W

7

Swedish

IE Germanic

121

58.4

N

W

8

Danish

IE Germanic

118

57.0

N

W

9

Norwegian (Bokmål)

IE Germanic

117

56.5

N

W

10

Hungarian

UY Ugric

116

56.0

11

German

IE Germanic

111

53.6

12

Rumantsch

IE Romance

108

52.1

13

Latvian

IE Baltic

107

51.7

N

14

Welsh

IE Celtic

102

49.2

N

15

Albanian (Tosk)

IE isolate

101

48.7

16

Irish

IE Celtic

99

47.8

17

Armenian (E)

IE isolate

97

46.8

18

Breton

IE Celtic

91

43.9

S N

E E W

S N

E W

S N

Kurdish

IE Indo-Aryan

85

41.0

20

Icelandic

IE Germanic

83

40.0

N

21

Komi

UY Uralic

82

39.6

N

22–23

E W

S

19

E

E W

S

E W E

Maltese

AA Semitic

81

39.1

S

W

Catalan

IE Romance

81

39.1

S

W W

24

Friulian

IE Romance

79

38.1

S

25

Czech

IE Slavic

78

37.6

S

26

Occitan

IE Romance

74

35.7

S

27

Slovak

IE Slavic

72

34.7

S

E W E

Polish

IE Slavic

71

34.2

N

E

Estonian

UY Finnic

71

34.2

N

E

30

Romani

IE Indic

67

32.3

S

31

Rumanian

IE Romance

66

31.8

S

32

Faroese

IE Germanic

65

31.4

28–29

N

E E W

Within Phon@Europe | 57

Rank

Language

Phylum

Absolute

%

33

Russian

IE Slavic

62

29.9

Quadrants N

S

W

N

E E

34

Turkish

AL Turkic

60

28.9

S

E

35

Slovene

IE Slavic

59

28.5

S

E

36

Bulgarian

IE Slavic

50

24.1

S

E

37

Serbian

IE Slavic

49

23.6

S

E

38

Macedonian

IE Slavic

45

21.7

S

E

39

Georgian

CA South

39

18.8

S

E

40

Portuguese

IE Romance

37

17.8

S

41

Ukrainian

IE Slavic

36

17.4

S

42 43–44 45 46–47

48–49 50

W E

Basque

Isolate

33

15.9

S

W

Spanish

IE Romance

25

12.0

S

W

Lithuanian

IE Baltic

25

12.0

N

Finnish

UY Finnic

20

9.6

N

Abkhaz

CA North-West

16

7.7

S

Italian

IE Romance

16

7.7

S

Kalmyk

AL Mongolian

12

5.7

S

Greek

IE Isolate

12

5.7

Greenlandic

EA Eskimo

4

1.9

Total

3,814

Average

76.28

E E E W E

S N 23

E W

27

24

26

36.8

The further one moves away from the northwestern center of high frequent monosyllabicity the smaller the turnout of monosyllables tends to be in the EDLs. The center is surrounded by several layers of languages with an ever decreasing turnout of monosyllables. On the periphery, we find EDLs which are characterized by a particularly low number of monosyllables. These results clearly speak in favor of HA. Since the distinction of high frequent vs. infrequent monosyllabicity cuts across genetic relations but respects neighborhood relations, it is legitimate to register this case under the rubric of areality.

58 | Previous research

4.2.3 S(h)ibilants and affricates (Stolz 2010) Starting from Ternes’s (1998: 145) sideways remark about the limited distribution of /ʃ/ in Europe, the paper investigates the distribution of all s(h)ibilant fricatives /s/, /z/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/ and the corresponding affricates /ʦ/, /ʣ/, /ʧ/, /ʤ/ across 75 EDLs. In partial corroboration of Décsy’s pan-European phoneme inventory, the EDLs can be shown to have the voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ in common. For all other phonemes investigated in Stolz (2010), the distribution across the EDLs is subject to restrictions though to different degrees as shown in Figure 1. 80

75

70

62 58

60

50 50

43

40

35

33

30 21 20 10 0 /s/

/ʃ/

/z/

/ʧ/

/ʦ/

/ʤ/

/ʒ/

/ʣ/

Figure 1: Number of EDLs attesting to s(h)ibilants and affricates according to Stolz (2010).

The 100 %-mark is defined by the frequency of /s/ which occurs in all 75 EDLs of the sample. /ʃ/ is second best with 83 % of the sample languages displaying this phoneme. /z/ is next in line as it is attested in 77 % of the EDLs. /ʧ/ occupies rank position #4 with 67 % of the EDLs giving evidence of it as a phoneme. /ʦ/ is reported in 57 % of the EDLs whereas /ʤ/ is a phoneme in 47 % of the same sample. /ʒ/ yields a similar share with 44 %. With a sizable drop in frequency, /ʣ/ is attested only in 28 % of the EDLs. It strikes the eye that all those phonemes which are attested in less than half of the EDLs (n < 38 EDLs) bear the feature [voiced]. Their voiceless counterparts occur in more than 50 % of the sample. The voiced alveolar fricative /z/ is

Within Phon@Europe | 59

exceptional. It emerges that the distribution of the above phonemes is not random but follows two important principles. First of all, universal markedness relations determine which of the phonemes must be present for another phoneme to be admitted to the system as well. The presence of affricates implies that of fricatives. If phonemes bear the feature [postalveolar] (“palatal” in the original) then there must also be phonemes with the feature [alveolar]. Voiced phonemes imply the presence of their voiceless counterparts: /z/ ⸧ /s/, /ʒ/ ⸧ /ʃ/, /ʣ/ ⸧ /ʦ/, /ʤ/ ⸧ /ʧ/. With /ʒ/ ⸧ /z/, an additional implication beyond the voiceless-voiced distinction can be established. There are also further preferences. Of the 21 EDLs with the voiced alveolar affricate /ʣ/, only one (Sardinian) lacks the phoneme /z/ and four do not have /ʒ/. The relation is even more pronounced with the voiceless alveolar affricate. Of the 43 EDLs which attest to /ʦ/ only one (again Sardinian) has no voiced alveolar fricative /z/. Moreover, 35 EDLs have the phoneme /ʤ/. Faroese, being a member of this group, is exceptional insofar as it lacks /z/. Occitan is the sole case of an EDL with /ʤ/ which does not also give evidence of the voiceless postalveolar fricative /ʃ/. Accordingly, the isoglosses of many of the phonemes overlap considerably. Mostly, a smaller isogloss is included in a bigger one. On the basis of the maps provided in Stolz (2010: 611–622), it is possible to produce Map X which hosts the seven isoglosses of those phonemes which are not common to all EDLs. The presence of /s/ is tacitly assumed. Map X is indicative of marked differences between the European east and the European west. There is an areal cline with particularly rich inventories of s(h)ibilant fricatives and affricates in the east and relatively impoverished inventories being attested mostly in the western part of the continent. This eastwest difference is captured by Map XI. There are twenty-four EDLs (marked by green dots) which display the full range of s(h)ibilants and affricates. None of these EDLs is situated in the west. In contrast, EDLs with only two phonemes or /s/ alone (marked by red dots) are located almost exclusively in the west. The east-west cline is another piece of evidence in favor of HA. It also nicely fits in with a plethora of other cases of differential behavior of westerly and easterly EDLs as those mentioned in Haspelmath (2001: 1504–1506). An early map capturing the density of (phonetic) affricates in EDLs is provided in Belgeri (1929) who distinguishes nine classes according to the number (and quality) of distinct affricates (from six in Polish down to nil in French). Brosnahan (1961: 90–94) modifies Belgeri’s findings slightly (with questionable results) to connect the linguistic facts to the distribution of the blood-groups B and 0 in Europe. Taking up an argument of Trubetzkoy’s (1939), Brosnahan (1961: 101–104) traces the diffusion of /ʦ/ as phoneme across Europe for which he identifies a “movement [] from the east in a western, particularly southwestern direction” (Brosnahan 1961: 104).

60 | Previous research

4.2.4 Liquids (Stolz et al. 2010) For a sample of 157 EDLs, Stolz et al. (2010) determine how many and which rhotic and lateral phonemes (traditionally subsumed under the category of liquids) are attested. The authors identify eleven different liquids none of which is attested in all of their sample languages. Figure 2 is indicative of the differences in frequency of the phonemes under inspection. 160

155 142

140 120 100 80 60 34

40

23 20

18

11

10

7

2

1

1

/ɮ/

/ɹ/

/ɭ/

0 /l/

/r/

/λ/

/ʁ/

/ɾ/

/ʀ/

/ɬ/

/ʟ/

Figure 2: Number of EDLs attesting to liquid phonemes according to Stolz et al. (2010: 106).

Expectedly, the two cross-linguistically unmarked liquids stand out as they reach shares of 98.7 % for the lateral approximant /l/ and 90.4 % for the alveolar trill /r/. None of the other nine liquids is represented in more than 22 % of the sample. For certain liquids, genetic and areal preferences are discernible as e.g. for the voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ which has a very strong position in the Caucasian region. EDLs of this area account for 80 % of all instances of this phoneme. As mentioned in Section 4.1.5, Ternes (1998: 146, 2010) dedicates two paragraphs to the same issue stating that the degree of qualitative differentiation in this domain has not yet received sufficient attention. Maddieson (2005h: 40), on the other hand, depicts Europe as a very homogeneous region as to the presence of laterals. However, his sample is biased in the sense that it excludes several languages which have lateral fricatives and/or affricates (= lateral obstruents in

Within Phon@Europe | 61

Maddieson’s terminology). In contrast, Stolz et al. (2010) show that there are marked differences in Europe as to the choice of marked or unmarked liquids. Map XII highlights the two regions (colored green in the west and red in the Caucasian region) in Europe where infrequent types of liquids are abundantly attested. The map glosses over the additional areal aspects: Lateral obstruents are attested on the northwestern and southeastern margins of Europe. Non-apical rhotics cluster in the western half of the continent. Genetic factors do not seem to play the most important role for the distribution of these properties. Geographic neighborhood is at least equally important. This means that the probability that HA is correct increases further.

4.2.5 Velar and postvelar fricatives (Stolz et al. 2011a) In Section 4.1.4, we have shown that Décsy (2000b) wrongly assumed that no EDL tolerates both /h/ and /x/ in its phonemic system. Ternes (1998, 2010: 587– 588) cautiously assumes that EDLs may be especially rich in fricatives but uvular and pharyngeal places of articulation are counted out generally for EDLs (see Section 4.1.5). Maddieson (2005f) reports uvular fricatives in EDLs outside the Caucasus only for German and French. However, for a sample of 157 EDLs, Stolz et al. (2011a) argue that it is possible to identify convincing isoglosses in the domain of velar and postvelar fricatives. In their study, it comes to the fore that EDLs with a particularly high density of fricatives (n > 3) in the velar and postvelar places of articulation cluster in the Caucasus. EDLs with three phonemes are mostly situated outside the European core region where EDLs with one or two fricatives dominate (Stolz et al. 2011a: 104). The frequency of the different phonemes in the sample is disclosed in Figure 3. The voiceless velar fricative /x/ and the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ yield the highest shares, namely 67 % and 55 %, respectively. None of the remaining fricatives exceeds 31 %. The high values of /x/ and /h/ are such that the distribution of the two phonemes over the EDLs cannot be complementary. There must be a notable overlap, i.e. a number of EDLs which allow for the coexistence of both phonemes. Figure 4 determines how many velar and postvelar fricatives are attested in how many EDLs.

62 | Previous research

120 105 100 87 80 60

48

40 23

19

15

20

11

6

0 /x/

/h/

/ɣ/

/ʁ/

/χ/

/ħ/

/ʢ/

/ɦ/

Figure 3: Occurrences of velar and postvelar fricatives in Europe according to Stolz et al. (2011a: 103).

Number of sample languages

70

63

60 50 41 40 30

22

20

12 6

10

6

4

3

0

0 1

2

3

0

5

6

4

7

8

Number of phonemic velar and postvelar fricatives

Figure 4: Number of phonemic velar and postvelar fricatives in sample languages according to Stolz et al. (2011a: 104).

Within Phon@Europe | 63

Of 157 EDLs, 82 or 52 % give evidence of several velar and postvelar phonemes in their systems. Chances are therefore that the combination of /x/ and /h/ is not as infrequent as assumed in the literature reviewed above. There are, however, serious interpretative difficulties which are discussed in Sections 17.2.4.3 and 17.2.4.12. Note that only eight EDLs (= 5 %) do not boast any velar or postvelar fricative. EDLs with only one fricative of these classes claim a share of 40 %. The map that was originally supposed to accompany the paper is missing from the printed version. Maps V–VII above cannot fully compensate for its absence. We reconstruct the missing map on the basis of the relevant paragraph in the original text (Stolz et al. 2011a: 103–105). The topic of Map XIII is the number of phonemic distinctions the EDLs make in the domain of velar and postvelar fricatives. This distribution is fully in line with HA. Map XIII shows that Europe is dominated by EDLs which display zero to two (post)velar fricatives. These EDLs form a huge solid block (marked in green on the map) which covers most of the continent’s landmass. Except for two cases, those EDLs which attest to larger sets of (post)velar fricatives are situated on the outskirts with an accumulation of particularly large sets of (post)velar fricatives in the Caucasus. There is thus a very clear opposition between the center and the periphery. The velar fricatives – probably only meant as phonetic realization – are addressed by Brosnahan (1961: 94–98) who recognizes a zone in the west reaching from Norway down to Sicily from which [x] and [ɣ] are absent. This zone is sandwiched between an extended easterly area and a much smaller in the west in which velar fricatives are attested (including a transition zone on the territory of former Yugoslavia).

4.2.6 Rara and rarissima (Stolz et al. 2012a) In this study, twenty phonemes are identified which qualify as either rara because they are attested in only 1 %–4 % of the sample languages (n = 157) or rarissima which means that they fall beneath the 1 %-mark (Stolz et al. 2012a: 6–7). The hierarchy of these particularly infrequent phonemes is as follows: – 4 % = /ʟ/, /ɦ/ – 3 % = /ɖ/, /ʡ/, /β/ – 2 % = /ɢ/, /ʂ/ – 1 % = /ʈ/, /ɳ/, /tɬ/, /tç/, /ʐ/, /ɮ/, /ɥ/ – 0.6 % = /pf/, /dʝ/, /kx/, /ɸ/, /ɹ/, /ɭ/

64 | Previous research

Interestingly, none of the above twenty phonemes which are infrequently attested in Europe is featured in Maddieson (2005m) who checks the presence of universally uncommon consonants in his worldwide sample. The EDLs with the highest number of rara and rarissima are Corsican with five phonemes of this kind, Norwegian (Bokmål) with four types, and Welsh with three. The three EDLs are not only all members of the Indo-European phylum but are also situated in the western half of the continent where they occupy positions on the periphery, i.e. they are not located on the European mainland. The study under review reveals that within Europe, rara and rarissima cluster especially in two sub-areas on the eastern outskirts of the continent whereas they are not as densely represented elsewhere on the European map. This asymmetry between east and west is again indicative of the potential validity of HA. Map XIV features those EDLs which give evidence of at least one infrequent phoneme. The above regional clusters are especially marked out by grey shading.

4.2.7 The final rehearsal (Stolz and Levkovych 2017) In this article, a sample of 185 EDLs is scrutinized in order to see whether we are well prepared for the decisive next phase of Phon@Europe. According to the order proposed by Ternes (1998, 2010), the inventories of consonantal phonemes are scrutinized stepwise from airstream mechanisms via manner of articulation, place of articulation, phonation, secondary articulations down to primary articulations. There are thirteen maps which feature different phenomena not all of which yield a distribution that gives rise to areal patterns. Nevertheless, the study reveals that many phonological properties are not randomly distributed either. For the purpose of this sketch review of the publication under scrutiny, we choose the authors’ discussion of Haarmann’s (1976a: 116) assumption according to which neither majoritarian nor minoritarian phonological phenomena yield areal patterns (see Section 4.1.3). Stolz and Levkovych (2017: 147–151) first identify majoritarian and minoritarian properties on the level of primary articulations. The phonemes on ranks 1–10 of the frequency hierarchy are classified as majoritarian because they are attested in 94 %–100 % of the sample languages. In contrast, those phonemes which occur in maximally 10 % of the EDLs (= ranks 42–76) are labeled minoritarian. Map XV identifies those EDLs which display a combination of (a) the absence of majoritarian configurations and (b) the presence of minoritarian configurations. The size of the dots represents the number of attested minority configurations (black) or the number of absent majority configurations (white).

Within Phon@Europe | 65

Map XV is indicative of an areal pattern. EDLs which attest to the above combination are located in their majority on the periphery of the continent. On the European mainland, the combination is almost unheard of. Except for two cases, it occurs in EDLs of the far northwestern region, in the vicinity of the Ural mountain range, in the Caucasus, and on Cyprus. The combination as featured on Map XV has almost the same distribution as that of the EDLs which attest to the absence of (certain) majoritarian configurations (Stolz and Levkovych 2017: 150). This fact disproves Haarmann’s above hypothesis. The data thus lend further support to HA.

4.2.8 Combining the incompatible (Levkovych et al. 2019) The Slavic languages mark the point of departure of this study. The general idea behind the joint paper is to determine whether isoglosses from different domains of language – in this case phonology (more precisely: secondary articulation) and (prototypical and non-prototypical) predicative possession – yield similar patterns. This problem is approached by way of checking to what extent the Slavic languages behave homogeneously and/or with what other EDLs they take sides. The sample comprises 130 EDLs for the part of the study dedicated to phonology whereas the part of the study focusing on predicative possession takes account of the data from 43 EDLs. As to predicative possession, the question is raised whether a given EDL uses the same (ownership) construction also for the possession of (modified) body-parts and diseases. With 36 out of 43 EDLs, the answer is yes for a robust majority of 84 % of the sample. In the domain of phonology, secondary articulation (palatalization, aspiration, glottalization, velarization, pharyngealization) is attested in 49 out of 130 EDLs. This absolute number is equivalent to a share of 38 %, i.e. the vast majority of the EDLs does not give evidence of secondary articulation. One of the isoglosses thus illustrates a majoritarian property whereas the other refers to a minoritarian property. Map XVI shows that the isoglosses define two areas in Europe which overlap moderately.44 It is interesting that both isoglosses divide Europe in two. The predicativepossessive phenomenon (red area) has a clear westerly focus but reaches into the eastern half of the continent. Secondary articulation (green area), on the other hand, is predominantly a property of EDLs in the east. However, on the || 44 In the original, the isoglosses are featured separately on two different maps. Map XVI integrates both isoglosses.

66 | Previous research

western fringe, this isogloss also involves EDLs which behave like EDLs of the west in the domain of predicative possession e.g. Upper and Lower Sorbian, Estonian, and many EDLs of the Balkans. We have two very clear cases of areality and thus further evidence of the validity of HA. On the basis of these results, it can be concluded that it makes sense to compare isoglosses from different levels of language to determine to what extent the EDLs display preferred areal leanings. Do EDLs always look to the west or the east no matter what phenomenon is at issue? The two isoglosses identified by Levkovych et al. (2019) suggest that EDLs may change allegiances, in a manner of speaking. However, those EDLs which alternate between eastward and westward orientation are usually located on the borderline between the two potential areas and never in the center or at the opposite end of a given area.

4.2.9 The insights we have gained – a synopsis The above studies of ours concur as to the status of HA since all of them provide proof of the existence of isoglosses which contribute to the areal profile of Europe. Whether certain isoglosses cluster to give rise to so-called isopleths (van der Auwera 1998) which ultimately may be understood as potential delimitations of sub-areas is a question that can only be answered on the basis of the comprehensive study of EDL phonologies as envisaged for Phon@Europe. An example is Brosnahan’s (1961: 118) cluster map which combines information about the distribution of dental fricatives, velar fricatives, (absence of) affricates, and (absence of) rounded front vowels. The isopleths cluster in such a way that Haspelmath’s (2001) core area of SAE seems to be anticipated. Furthermore, our previous research has highlighted selected topics mostly in isolation from each other. The time is ripe now to overcome this individualizing approach by way of creating the Phonological Atlas of Europe. From what we have seen above it results that it is advantageous to combine qualitative and quantitative methods to determine areality. At least in the beginning, it is more important to compare the EDLs among each other and postpone looking beyond Europe until we know exactly how phonemics vary from EDL to EDL. Detecting the common phonological core of the EDLs is of no concern to us anyway. We have learned that the use of maps is more appropriate in the context of the areal phonology of Europe than our predecessors’ practice of providing (often incomplete) lists of EDLs which attest to a given phenomenon. The atlas is supposed to host as many maps as are required to comprehensively account

Within Phon@Europe | 67

for the unity and diversity of the phoneme systems of the EDLs. Except Stolz (2006, 2007), all our publications have focused on phonemics as it has proved too demanding by far to integrate phonemics, phonotactics, syllable structure, suprasegmentals, prosody, and sundry phonological issues in one and the same project.45 Furthermore, we now know that the size of the sample matters. The more densely the maps are populated by EDLs the clearer it comes to the fore whether the phenomenon under inspection is subject to areality. Our sample has gained in size over the years. This is not the only reason why we cannot let the results of our previous studies stand as they are. Besides the occasional factual error, different sample size and composition as well as terminological and other changes, the individual articles have the huge disadvantage that they cannot simply be combined with each other to yield an adequate picture of the areal phonology of Europe. An account of this kind requires a unitary and consistent approach to cover all relevant phenomena and make them comparable to each other. In other words, this is where Phon@Europe and the atlas are urgently called for.

|| 45 Brosnahan (1961: 108–116) also looks at the distribution of word-initial sequences of voiceless s(h)ibilants + /t/ and aspirated word-initial voiceless plosives (Brosnahan 1961: 98–101).

5 Theory To safeguard Phon@Europe’s primary function as a resource which other linguists can make use of for their research, we avoid burdening our project with an overdose of theory. The atlas and the accompanying chapters are not meant to solve the problems of any given linguistic model. The data are intended to be accessible to scholars independent of their linguistic creed and background. Therefore, we deliberately reduce the impact of linguistic theory on Phon@Europe to the minimum. This practical decision does not mean that we are exempt from taking any theory-related stance. We have to make our point of view explicit as to two domains which are essential for the purpose at hand. In Section 5.1 we come back to the issue of phonology whereas Section 5.2 is dedicated to areal linguistics.

5.1 Phonology It is no coincidence that none of the authors (including ourselves) reviewed in Sections 4.1–4.2 discloses which phonological theory they adhere to. Haarmann, Décsy, Ternes as well as Stolz and associates tacitly presuppose an understanding of phonology that is indebted to our common structuralistic heritage. This idea receives support from the book-length introduction to phonology authored by Ternes (1999: 18–28) in which the nature of phonology is described with almost exclusive reference to the very early founding fathers of phonology such as Trubetzkoy. To our mind, there is nothing wrong with this traditionalism in the domain of phonology. From what we have learned when we collected descriptive linguistic sources for our sample languages, we know that many of the linguists whose work we have consulted approach the data from a mostly only implicit structuralistic perspective. This is sufficient reason for us to work along the very same lines to guarantee the comparability of our results with those of prior research conducted either by us or by our predecessors. In Section 3 above, we have already mentioned that we opt for a mainstream kind of concept of the phoneme as the basic unit whose areal-linguistic aspects are studied in the project. The phoneme as we understand it is discussed in Hall (2000: 37–47) who uses the familiar apparatus of traditional structuralism to describe phonemes. We do not deny that this decision has its pitfalls. However, as Anderson (2019) argues, there is practically no approach to phonological typology which is absolutely flawless so that it makes sense to us to rely on a concept which is widely known among linguists in lieu of working with more sophisticated but entirely new categories whose viability has not

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-005

Phonology | 69

been proved yet.46 Hall (2000: 38) emphasizes that “[u]m Phoneme zu sein, müssen zwei Laute nicht immer ein Minimalpaar bilden; entscheidend ist, daß sie kontrastieren, d.h. im selben Kontext vorkommen.“47 It is by no means evident from the bulk of the descriptive material we have access to exactly which criteria the linguist employs to determine phoneme status. In some cases, the decision might be based on a very strict minimal-pair analysis whereas, in other cases, a relatively liberal approach might be followed according to which the occurrence of two candidates in more or less similar phonological contexts suffices. Moreover, it is not the rule that the sources are explicit as to whether the phoneme charts reflect the system of lexical phonology or take postlexical processes into account too. Trying to clarify these questions for more than 250 linguistic texts and EDLs has proved to be far beyond our capacities (if we want to see the atlas in published form while we are still alive). In Sections 12–13, we explain how we try to minimize the probability of errors. The existence of different definitions of the phoneme unmasks the central concept of our approach as a construction in the sense of man-made variable notion (Altmann and Lehfeldt 1973: 61). There is a heavy load of subjectivity involved. We know perfectly well that we are comparing individual interpretations and not natural categories. However, this dilemma is not restricted to phonological categories but pervades the entire discipline of linguistics. Radical Construction Grammar teaches us that syntax, semantics, and phonology are equally affected by the general constructive nature of the categories we approach these levels of grammar with (Croft 2001: 61–62). We follow through with our project nevertheless because we firmly believe that its results will justify our modus operandi no matter how many shortcomings there are. To be on the safe side, we conceive of the phoneme as a comparative concept in the sense of Haspelmath (2010b). As the same author clarifies (Haspelmath 2018), comparative concepts and linguistic categories are not identical with each other. With reference to phonological issues, these ideas are taken up and critically evaluated by Maddieson (2018: 108 and 123). The phoneme is thus a handy tool to make languages comparable without necessarily making definitive statements as to the ontological status of the phoneme in general and in individual languages. This is perhaps not the smartest way of

|| 46 Possibly Canonical Phonology as outlined by Round (2019) will provide the foundations for phonological typology in the future. 47 Our translation: “to be phonemes two sounds do not always form a minimal pair; it is decisive that they contrast with each other, i.e. they are attested in the same context.”

70 | Theory

doing phonology, but it is the most convenient way of allowing us to conduct an areal-linguistic project with the focus on phonological matters. Under this proviso, the phoneme and its features (Hall 2000: 100–138) can be identified and extracted from their context. It is possible to a) treat them as countable entities (Altmann and Lehfeldt 1980), b) compare them across languages, i.e. /i/ in language X is the equivalent of /i/ in language Y,48 and c) situate them in space by way of tracing their distribution with the help of maps. We know that from the point of view of advanced phonological theory (such as non-linear accounts as summarized in Hall (2000: 183–209)) these are gross simplifications of the intricate facts. However, with a view to guarantee compatibility, we cannot help adopting this seemingly somewhat dated concept. As to further aspects of phonology (such as subdivisions of phonological classes, etc.), unless otherwise stated, we follow the lead of Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996). We especially subscribe to their decision not to take sides when it comes to classifying phonemes ontologically: The tradition of segmental description has proven its utility in many ways. Nonetheless, linguists’ views on what segments are have varied greatly. At one extreme are those who regard them as descriptive fictions, invented solely by the linguistic analyst. At an opposite extreme are those who hypothesize that the organization of speech production, and the structure of words in memory are based directly on segments. We do not feel it necessary in this book to take a stand on either side of this issue, but choose to employ segmental descriptions of languages as the most suitable way of communicating the results of phonetic analyses to a wide range of readers. (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 1)

We once more do not deny that even this largely theory-free approach frequently runs into problems since the analysis of phonological facts is error-prone and our sources as well as we ourselves as linguists provide examples of fallacy. Wherever we have reason to doubt a given interpretation we will try to find a better solution. Hyman (2018: 14–17) discusses the different and competing viewpoints in the domain of phonology. In doing so, he defines the field of phonological typology on whose agenda we find the following three tasks:

|| 48 This equivalence is of the substantial or “phonetic” kind. The potentially different functional load of the phonemes is of no consequence for our project whereas it poses a serious problem for Quantitative Linguistics (Altmann and Lehfeldt 1973: 69).

Areal linguistics vs. linguistic areas | 71

Phonologists should be involved in (i) looking at phenomena both in breadth (quantitatively) and in depth (qualitatively) [added italics], (ii) identifying the geographical and genetic distributions of the phenomena [added boldface], and (iii) considering a wide range of potential explanatory sources in addressing the “why?” (Hyman 2018: 17)

We consider task (ii) in the above quote to be largely identical with our own goals. To reach this goal, we also take account of task (i) though only with reference to Europe. In this sense, Phon@Europe belongs to the research program of phonological typology. Epiphenomenally, the project is also connected to distributional typology as circumscribed by Bickel (2007). However, both the association with phonological typology and distributional typology are relatively recent ex-post discoveries of ours, in a manner of speaking. Originally, Phon@Europe has come into being without any thought of either of the above approaches. It was and still is meant as a contribution to the areal linguistics of Europe.

5.2 Areal linguistics vs. linguistic areas Not only with reference to phonological theory do the linguists mentioned in Section 4.1–4.2 (again including ourselves) desist from situating themselves in the framework of a specific school of thought. The same also holds for areal linguistics in general. This negligence is particularly evident in the case of Décsy (2000a–b) who refrains from discussing the extant literature on areallinguistic matters. In contrast, Haarmann (1976a–b) clearly attempts to develop a theoretical framework of his own, viz. areal typology. To this end, the author refers to quantitative-linguistic insights gained by Altmann and Lehfeldt (1973). In two short papers, Altmann (1978, 1984) criticizes Haarmann’s model. More recently, Ternes (1998: 139) depicts his study as a reaction to hypotheses generated in the ambient of EUROTYP. All of the papers of ours reviewed in Section 4.2 are also related to EUROTYP. In Auwera’s (2011: 299) terms, Phon@Europe forms part of the post-EUROTYP spin-offs especially for what regards the categories of micro-orientation and extraterritorial orientation set up by the same author. If we strip the EUROTYP project of its bias towards the SAE languages (Ramat 1999), it can provide the frame of reference for us without, however, constituting a theory of areal linguistics in itself. A full-blown theory of areal linguistics seems to be wanting. An indirect sign of its absence is the fact that the recent Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics (Hickey 2017b) does not contain a chapter dedicated to this topic. In the extant literature, we find allusions to areal typology whose aims are specified by Comrie

72 | Theory

et al. (2005: 1) as “seek[ing] to establish whether particular geographical distributions are the result of language contact among neighboring languages.” Feuillet (2006: 25–26) concurs generally with this sketch of areal typology but adds the critical remark that “[i]l n’empêche que ces constatations n’ont pas conduit à une véritable typologie aréale qui dépasserait le simple stade empirique.”49 (Feuillet 2006: 30). Lazard (2006: 33) demands that “[l]e fait scientifique doit être construit sur la base d’une théorie.”50 As long as this is not the case, any research program remains on the stage of proto-science (Lazard 2006: 17–19). As it seems, this judgment applies to areal typology. We seize the opportunity to propagate the atlas-to-be as a suitable means to help promoting areal typology to the level of fully-fledged science. In other introductions to typology, areal matters are either ignored (Whaley 1997; Moravcsik 2013) or discussed under the rubric of contact-induced language change without mention of the term areal typology (Velupillai 2012). Haarmann (1976b: 19–24) distinguishes areal linguistics from areal typology. According to this distinction, areal linguistics in the narrow sense of the term only seeks to identify spatially limited parallels on both sides of a given language border whereas areal typology requires the existence of a minimum of two properties which are identically realized in two or more languages which are neighbors of each other. For the purpose of Phon@Europe, there is no need to adhere to this categorical bipartition. As it seems, the current use of the label areal typology does no longer reflect Haarmann’s original definition. In the present usage of the term, areal typology is no less and no more than areal linguistics on a grand scale. Areal linguistics differs from dialectology insofar as the scope of the latter is restricted to the geographical distribution of linguistic phenomena within a given diasystem (Weinreich 1954). Areal linguistics ignores genetically defined language boundaries to determine the exact extension of an isogloss. Our focus is first and foremost on the micro-level to represent the phenomena on the maps whereas the discussion of macro-level aspects of our findings is the task of the evaluation of the observed facts in the explanatory chapters of the atlas. Comrie et al. (2005) allocate the areal-typological approach fully in the domain of language contact studies. We do not read the term areal typology in absolutely the same manner because the distribution of properties in space is in

|| 49 Our translation: “still, these statements have not led to a veritable areal typology which goes beyond the simple empirical stage.” 50 Our translation: “the scientific fact must be built on the basis of a theory.”

Areal linguistics vs. linguistic areas | 73

itself interesting linguistically independent of the factor language contact. That language contact is nevertheless of prime importance for our project is explained in Section 15 below. For very good reasons, the (a priori) explanation of areal patterns by referring to language contact is the common opinion among the experts. The notions and hypotheses which are put forward in support of areal typology are all of a dynamic kind such as those of Nocentini’s (2004: 86–93) which ultimately go back to the Italian school of linguistica areale which had its heyday in the late 19th and early 20th century. The center-periphery distinction typical of linguistic areas, the existence of centers of diffusion of innovations, the existence of pockets in which erstwhile more widespread but now recessive properties may survive, etc. are familiar concepts of areal linguistics which have been coined and shaped already a century ago. Many if not all of the maps presented in the previous sections can be interpreted with the aid of these and sundry analytical tools. These means are, however, not a proper replacement for a genuine theory. In this study, we are not in a position to develop a theory of our own. However, what must be stated is that areal linguistics in general assumes a number of axioms without which it would be impossible to carry out the kind of investigation presented in this study. The things we say in the subsequent paragraph might seem trivial to the reader. However, we deem it necessary to recapitulate some of those prerequisites of our approach which are otherwise taken for granted. Note that several of the points we are going to make in the subsequent paragraph are also relevant for methodology as discussed in Section 6. To start with, we stipulate that phonological phenomena can be a) identified and isolated, b) fixated in space and time, and c) their spatio-temporal coordinates can be shown on maps. If the location of a given phenomenon is indicated by dots on the map, a dot symbolizes the presence of some native speaker(s) in whose speech practice the phenomenon under scrutiny, be it qualitative or quantitative, concrete or abstract, has been attested. This requires neither that the population of native speakers meeting this criterion is in any way sizable nor that the phenomenon itself is the only or majority option. In dialectology, the native speakers whose speech production is the basis for the choice of dots have to qualify for the task of linguistic informant according to a set of sociolinguistic parameters (age, sex, education, etc.) (Francis 1983: 70–72). It almost goes without saying that it cannot be determined whether the informants who have collaborated in the phonology section of the descriptive linguistic sources we draw our information

74 | Theory

from form a sociolinguistically homogeneous group. It is also a must that phenomena reported for different locations (and maybe also different points in time) are interpreted as being essentially of a kind so that the dots representing them can be theoretically linked to each other on an isogloss. Given that linguists differ not only as to their definition of phonemes but also in the phonetic specifications they assume for a phoneme, a crucial problem emerges, namely that of determining under which conditions two or more phonemes are similar enough to pass as “the same”. There is no generally accepted theory which has solved the problem of comparability, meaning it is up to us to find a practical solution for Phon@Europe. In sum, what is said in the extant literature as to the theory of areal linguistics/areal typology boils down to the (well informed) scholarly expectation to find variation which is not arbitrary or random but correlates with genetic, areal, or typological factors. Put differently, HA fits nicely into the areal-typological paradigm. It is necessary to distinguish two further concepts which more often than not invoke one another. We have explained in the introductory Section 1 that Phon@Europe fills a gap in the areal linguistics of Europe. From this it does by no means follow that we conceive of Europe as a linguistic area in the sense of a Sprachbund, i.e. a geographically well-defined set of neighboring languages sharing properties with each other that are not shared by languages spoken outside the area – be they genetically affiliated to members of the Sprachbund or not. As a matter of fact, we presuppose neither the existence of a continentwide linguistic area nor that of any linguistic area on a minor scale within Europe because we seriously doubt that it is possible to define the notion of Sprachbund adequately and identify uncontroversial instances of Sprachbünde. Campbell (2006: 21) concludes that a) the search for a definitive definition of the concept is vain; b) areal linguistics cannot be distinguished from “borrowing/diffusion in general”; c) moreover, the concept is said not to be significant in itself. Except (b) (see Section 15), we readily subscribe to Campbell’s conclusions. Many approaches to linguistic areas suffer from the often tacit assumption that languages situated in a region of intense and prolonged cultural (or economic, etc.) exchange must of necessity display similarities which set them apart from languages whose speech communities have not been involved in the exchange. To counter this approach, Bechert (1981: 48) states a strict methodological principle: Es sollte selbstverständlich sein, daß ein Areal (ein Sprachbund) nur dadurch nachgewiesen werden kann, daß jedes vermutete Charakteristikum des Areals (des Sprach-

Areal linguistics vs. linguistic areas | 75

bundes) in seiner gesamten geographischen Ausdehnung verfolgt wird, und nicht nur bis zu irgendwelchen im Voraus durch Vermutung oder aufgrund außerlinguistischer Kriterien festgesetzten Arealgrenzen. Die Existenz und Ausdehnung des Areals werden durch das Vorhandensein und die Verbreitung seiner Charakteristika bestimmt.51

Since Phon@Europe does not take as its point of departure the putative existence of a Sprachbund Europe beforehand, it will ultimately establish an areallinguistic network whose potential continuation beyond the confines of Europe need not be investigated exactly because the project does not aim at identifying or proving any linguistic area, in the first place. How the network is interpreted is another matter. It might best be captured in terms of a large contact superposition zone (Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli 2001: 724) or understood as trait sprawling area (Campbell 2017: 34). Wherever the network cannot be explained in terms of the genetic affiliation of the languages which participate in them language contact springs to mind as a potential explanation. Phon@Europe assumes that, like most other linguistic phenomena, phonological properties too can be diffused via language contact (Hickey 2017a: 4). Matras (2007: 36–40) discusses recurrent patterns of borrowings in the domain of phonology across a wide variety of language contact situations. We come back to these issues in Section 15. For the time being it suffices to say that we are not prejudiced about the results of Phon@Europe. No matter what patterns arise from them the project remains a necessary and innovative complement to the heritage of EUROTYP.

|| 51 Our translation: “It should be understood that an area (a Sprachbund) can only be proved by way of tracing each assumed characteristic trait of the area (Sprachbund) in its complete geographic diffusion, and not only on the basis of some areal boundaries which have been stipulated a priori by assumption or on account of extra-linguistic criteria. The existence and extension of the area are determined by the attestation and diffusion of its characteristic traits.”

6 Methodology Phon@Europe falls within the scope of areal typology as described by Koptjevskaja-Tamm (2011: 577–589). What strikes the eye is the absence not only of a proper theory (see Section 5.2) but also of any particular, i.e. distinct methodology that is associated with areal typology. EUROTYP for instance gives evidence of a multitude of methods which were used to describe the structural facts of EDLs (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011: 582). It seems that the best characterization of areal-typological methodology is additive: familiar micro-level methods of dialectology, linguistic geography, historical linguistics, and traditional areal linguistics are combined with those on the macro-level which achieve their goals “by plotting the same phenomena against global and European crosslinguistic backgrounds” (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 2011: 583). For our purposes, it is therefore legitimate to work on the basis of areal linguistic methodology (inspired by the dialectological tradition). The axioms which underpin this methodology have been exposed already in Section 5.2 above. Phon@Europe requires both qualitative as well as quantitative methods to be applied. The data are analyzed qualitatively in the sense that the attestation of a given phoneme in a given EDL is not only indicated on the appropriate map but the occurrence of identical symbols on the same map which represent identical phenomena is interpreted as being constitutive for an area of diffusion (see Section 5.2). The burden of determining what counts as identical rests on our shoulders. Let us assume a fictitious EDL X which counts the voiced postalveolar affricate /ʤ/ among its phonemes. On account of the existence of the phoneme /ʤ/, there is a plethora of possible areas of diffusion X can participate in. In (a)–(c), we illustrate the multitude of possible connections of this phoneme with only three scenarios. a) If the theme of the map is the presence/absence of /ʤ/, X joins the same area of diffusion as all others EDLs which attest to /ʤ/. b) If the map features the phonological class of affricates in general, X belongs to an area of diffusion together with all those EDLs which have phonemic affricates no matter which place of articulation these affricates are associated with, i.e. X is a member of the same area of diffusion as Y although Y lacks /ʤ/ but gives evidence of /ʦ/. c) In case the map informs about the distribution of the voice-correlation, X forms an area of diffusion with all those EDLs for which the distinction of voiceless vs. voiced is phonemically relevant. X (with /ʧ/ ≠ /ʤ/) and Z (without /ʤ/) are located in the same area of diffusion because Z has distinctive voice with sibilants like /s/ and /z/.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-006

Methodology | 77

The participation of languages in areas of diffusion or their failure to do so is judged areal-linguistically by way of correlating the distribution with criteria such as genetic affiliation, language type, and/or geographic location. The relation between different areas of diffusion is assessed too. The relevant phonological parameters which are involved in the areal-linguistic patterns are also given attention. Wherever possible (but not necessarily) each phenomenon is also checked against what we know about its distribution outside of Europe. Moreover, we aim at integrating our findings into the general framework of language contact studies. However, the latter two aims are of secondary importance at this stage of Phon@Europe since they require that more basic questions have been answered already. In terms of the quantitative aspects, Phon@Europe makes use of relatively simple frequency counts. We calculate averages, mean values, shares, ratios, and quotients on the basis of type and token frequencies without applying any more sophisticated methods of advanced statistics as those employed for dialectometry (Goebl 2007). We are interested primarily in giving answers to questions like the following (Altmann and Lehfeldt 1973: 78–80, 1980: 87–101): – How many consonants and vowels does the average phoneme inventory of an EDL comprise? – How many languages exceed or fail to reach the average? – Where are these languages situated on the European map? Similarly, simple maths is employed, for instance, to determine what language participates in the most areas of diffusion and which other member of the sample yields the smallest turnout as to participating in areas of diffusion. It is possible to do this kind of quantitative evaluation for practically each phenomenon addressed by Phon@Europe so that there will be numerous chapters in the atlas which elaborate on the frequency of the properties under inspection. Wherever possible the quantitative results will not only be presented in the format of diagrams but will also feature on maps of their own. The orientation of Phon@Europe is primarily synchronic. What we try to achieve is to provide a cartographically supported snapshot of the distribution of phonological phenomena across the EDLs as of the early 20th to the early 21st century. Except for some paragraphs in Part B no attempt is made to systematically account for diachronic developments because the dynamics of the phenomena deserves an atlas of its own. Admittedly, the maps will often invite diachronic interpretation. Cristofaro (2000: 70) claims that “the study of linguistic areas is inherently diachronic in nature”. However, for Europe as a continent, the existence of a linguistic area in the sense of Sprachbund has yet to be

78 | Methodology

demonstrated. As long as there is no tangible proof of Europe as a linguistic area diachrony is not the most pressing issue for Phon@Europe. As our own case-study in Part B shows, there is no absolute ban on the occasional diachronic excursus but the possibilities for discussing the history behind the areas of diffusion will be limited since we argue that one first has to have all the synchronic facts before it makes sense to go back in time to explain their genesis. It is therefore only logical to relegate the dedicated diachronic study of the areal phonology of EDLs to a follow-up volume to the atlas advertised in this study.52

|| 52 Kümmel’s (2007) exemplary study on the phonological changes that have affected consonants in the history of Indo-European, Semitic, and Uralic languages, for instance, could provide the basis for an atlas dedicated to the diachronics of segmental phonology.

7 Frame of reference To keep the language data comparable, we need a common frame of reference. For phonological phenomena like those which are featured in the atlas, the International Phonetic Alphabet (= IPA) is the best candidate for this function. The IPA has been criticized variously for being inadequate to capture the phonological properties of individual languages such as German for which Raffelsiefen (2018: 584) claims dass nicht genügend passende Symbole für die Vokale des Deutschen von den IPAKommissionen bereitgestellt wurden. Dieses Problem sollte nicht durch die Verwendung gleicher Symbole für kontrastierende Vokale gelöst werden. Eher sollte man sich an der Kühnheit des Ersten Grammatikers ein Beispiel nehmen und zusätzliche Zeichen einführen.53

We have absolutely no intention to follow Raffelsiefen’s appeal – not because we believe that her analysis of the German vowel system is incorrect, but because it is simply not feasible to check whether the IPA does justice to each and every EDL of our sample. The most recent version of the IPA (https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/IPAcharts/IPA_chart_orig/IPA_charts_E.html) was revised in 2020. For the purpose of Phon@Europe, it was necessary to modify the basic charts of consonants by way of adding two extra manners of articulation and a place of articulation because these categories are frequently attested in the languages of our sample.54 The additions are a) manner of articulation: – affricates (like /ʧ/), – lateral affricates (like /tɬ/); b) place of articulation: alveolo-palatals (like /ʑ/). Affricates and alveolo-palatals are mentioned in the “other symbols” section of the IPA. Beyond this set of primary symbols, we also take account of the following phonological classes: 1) consonants a) ejectives – as e.g. /C’/, b) aspiration – as e.g. /Ch/, || 53 Our translation: “that not enough adequate symbols have been provided for the vowels of German by the IPA committees. This problem should not be solved by way of employing identical symbols for distinct vowels. Rather, one should adopt the boldness of the First Grammarian and introduce additional symbols.” 54 The APiCS database interface as presented in Haspelmath (2013a) reflects a similar solution.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-007

80 | Frame of reference

c) palatalization – as e.g. /Cj/, d) labialization – as e.g. /Cw/, e) velarization – as e.g. /Cˠ/, f) pharyngealization – as e.g. /Cˤ/, 2) vowels a) nasalization – as e.g. /Ṽ/ The phenomena listed under 1.a–f are instances of secondary articulation. Further complex units such as geminates /Cː/ ~ /CiCi/, long vowel quantity /Vː/, and diphthongs (or polyphthongs more generally) /Vi͜Vj/ are included in the atlas although, strictly speaking, quantity and probably also nasalization fall under the rubric of suprasegmental phonology (Hall 2000: 29–31). Owing to their special status and in accordance to Ternes (1998, 2010), these categories will be touched upon only summarily under quantity and nasalization in the atlas. In Part B we will see that the phenomena in 1 and 2 above as well as gemination and quantity in general are only of limited importance in the domain of LPs. The descriptions of the sample languages are checked for their phoneme inventories which, in turn, are compared to the IPA chart. This comparison serves to determine which phonological classes and individual phonemes are attested in a given EDL. This task is absolutely essential for the goals we have defined for our endeavor. At the same time, it is probably the most demanding of all steps in the entire project because the data do not necessarily come in a shape that is directly compatible with the IPA. Already Haarmann (1976a: 115) complained (indirectly) that there are too many descriptive-linguistic approaches which have been applied to the phonologies of EDLs. The philological traditions of (groups of) languages differ as widely as the competing phonological models of contemporary linguistics. Two examples: For the description of Istro Romanian phonology, for instance, Dahmen (1989b: 456) makes use of symbols some of which are reminiscent of those of official Romanian orthography such as = /ʦ/ and = /x/ whereas others seem to be ad hoc solutions such as = /ʎ/. On top of that, the phonemics of one and the same EDL can be described differently from the perspective of different models yielding results which hardly resemble each other. This is the case of the Polish affricates /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ which share the same place of articulation with the fricatives /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ (Laskowski 1972: 11–13). Hamann (2003: 40–41) argues that we are dealing with retroflex affricates /ʈʃ/ and /ɖʒ/, i.e. she assumes a completely novel place of articulation for the phoneme chart of Polish. Redefining the Polish affricates as retroflex poses problems for distributional typological approaches to affricate richness in the languages of Eurasia because the retroflex

Frame of reference | 81

place of articulation is otherwise restricted to South Asia so that the Polish case seems to be out of place, in a manner of speaking (Nikolaev and Grossman 2018: 567). Moreover, outside the domain of affricates, the category retroflex is only marginally attested among EDLs (Ternes 1998: 145). According to Hamann’s new definition Polish would become almost a loner since most of its neighbors do not share the supposed retroflex place of articulation. We have to find a way to handle this mostly theory-borne variation by way of translating – where necessary – the descriptions into the IPA. This is feasible only if we take further contextual information within the descriptive source into account to support our interpretation. In the case of Istro Romanian, the decision is easy enough since the above symbols occupy well-defined cells in a grid that reflects the principles of the IPA. As to the Polish affricates and similar controversies, we usually opt for the conservative analysis, if there is any. Thus, in our interpretation Polish does not display retroflex affricates. This interpretative practice leaves a wide margin for errors for which we take the full responsibility.

8 Terminology The terminology used to describe phonological phenomena displays considerable variation across our sources. Different things are called the same and, on the other hand, different labels are attached to identical categories. To start with, we take the liberty to use the term “phoneme” also in those cases where our sources opt for different labels such as “phonological segments” (Maddieson 1984: 1). We have decided against “segments” because at this stage of Phon@Europe we exclude the study of phonological chains – and to our mind, segments can be identified only as constitutive elements of chains. Our task is to look at phonemes in isolation. There are also differences between English, French, German, Russian, etc. sources. For the Albanian variety of Salamis, for instance, Haebler (1965: 36) employs the terms Okklusive in lieu of plosives and Vibranten for rhotics or trill, flap/tap. In his description of Finnish phonology, Fromm (1982: 32) does not differentiate between lateral /l/ and rhotic /r/ but subsumes them under the rubric of Liquiden whereas plosives are called Klusile and fricatives go by the name of Spiranten. Very often but not necessarily always the incriminated terms are simply dated. This is different with Meisenburg and Selig’s (2006: 77) decision to classify the French rhotic /ʀ/ as a velar fricative in lieu of as uvular trill (see Sections 4.1.4.2 and Map VII). Since there is no phonemic opposition which is based on the distinction of velar and uvular places of articulation or on that of fricative vs. trill, Meisenburg and Selig (2006) lump all these categories together under the category Velar. This practice is theory-based which means that it is not shared by those phonologists who approach the phenomena from a different angle. It is therefore necessary to homogenize the terminology. To this end, we give preference to the terms used for the IPA with the occasional modification thereof on the basis of Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996). In this study, we frequently refer to markedness relations. We are perfectly aware of the well-founded criticism the notion of markedness has experienced recently (Haspelmath 2006). Nevertheless, we continue to use terms like marked/unmarked, etc. in the admittedly vague traditional manner without specifying for each case what exactly makes a phenomenon marked or unmarked. The rule of thumb by which we judge the facts is comparable to that circumscribed by Moravcsik (2013: 173–174) and thus inspired by Greenbergian ideas. For this study, we stipulate that vowels count as marked if they are equipped with additional features such as long quantity, nasalization, etc. Similarly, consonants are counted as marked if they are non-pulmonic, voiced, geminate, involve secondary articulations, etc. Whether this is a good decision can be judged only after completion of this investigation.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-008

9 Conventions To avoid burdening the maps and chapters of the atlas with too much superfluous information, the phonological description of the phonemes will maximally make reference to the following categories: 1) consonants a) air-stream mechanism b) place of articulation primary articulation c) manner of articulation d) phonation

2)

e) secondary articulation f) quantity vowels a) vertical tongue position (high – mid – low) b) horizontal tongue position (front – central – back) c) open – closed d) lip rounding e) f)

primary articulation

quantity nasalization

The focus is on what is labeled primary articulation in 1a–d and 2a–d. For the topics of 1e–f and 2e–f the presentation and discussion of the facts will be less elaborate. According to 1–2 above, /k’/ can be described as non-pulmonic (ejective), velar, plosive, voiceless consonantal phoneme whereas /ɔ̃ː/ is the symbol for a vowel phoneme which is mid, back, open, unrounded, long, nasalized. Further subphonemic properties are not taken account of systematically. In contrast to Grawunder (2017: 366) who argues for an integrative approach to areal phonology which combines phonological and phonetic perspectives, Phon@Europe skips the context-dependent phonetic realization of the phonemes mostly for practical reasons. It is impossible in practice to determine their phonetics for a sample of the size of ours. For the vast majority of the EDLs, we lack sound recordings. The descriptive-linguistic studies are not always specific about the phonetics of the phonemes.55 Furthermore, how the pho|| 55 A case in point are the apparently non-distinctive i.e. purely phonetic long vowel in Lovari copied from Hungarian. Boretzky and Igla (1999: 712–713) argue that their exact status is yet to be determined.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-009

84 | Conventions

nemes are pronounced and perceived is determined by their place within segmental chains which, however, are not included in this study. Since we do not investigate the behavior of phonemes as segments we cannot say too much about allophony either. The allophonic domain remains to be scrutinized in a follow-up project. A variety of problems recurs for which we have to provide solutions. A typical brain teaser shows up frequently in vowel systems which involve only one (front or back) vowel with the vertical property [mid]. Phonetically, the realization may oscillate between mid-open (= front [ɛ] or back [ɔ]) and mid-closed (= front [e] or back [o]). This scenario typically occurs in languages with 5-vowel systems such as (Modern) Greek (Ruge 2001: 16–17). What is the appropriate symbol to represent the phoneme? Since we exclude both phonetic realization and allophony from the investigation the answer must be phonological. In accordance with common practice in phonology, we choose the symbols for the mid-closed vowels to represent the phonemes, i.e. /e/ and /o/ are used, respectively. However, there are also cases where the sources give preference to /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ also in the absence of distinct mid-closed phonemes. Confronted with the same problem, Maddieson (1984: 123) employs inverted commas to show that a language displays only one mid vowel phoneme whose phonetic realization might range from mid-closed to mid-open, viz. /“e”/ and /“o”/.56 There are several disadvantages connected to this solution. First of all, the inverted commas render the representation too bulky. Therefore, one might want to have recourse to the conventions formerly used for archiphonemes. Those mid vowels which are flexible as to the properties [open] and [closed] could be represented by capital letters, viz. /E/, /O/, etc. This convention could also be applied to rounded front mid vowels ([œ] ~ [ø]) = /Ø/ and to cases of phonetically variable single low vowels, i.e. /A/ represents the variation from unrounded open front low vowel [a] to rounded open back low vowel [ɒ]. Maddieson (1984) uses the inverted commas also for consonants. The main problem with consonantal archiphoneme symbols is that they must be sensitive to distinctions or the lack thereof on several dimensions. Not all EDLs display phonemic contrasts of phonation, for instance, so that with a fictitious bilabial plosive the lack of the voiced-voiceless opposition would have to be accounted for. At the same time, many EDLs also give evidence of phonemically relevant

|| 56 Maddieson (1984: 123) identifies the general problem that makes working with mid vowels particularly difficult when he states that “[v]owels described as being mid may in fact lie between higher and lower mid positions, or they may have simply been transcribed or labeled as mid vowels without any further specification in the source consulted for the language in question.”

Conventions | 85

secondary articulations at the same place of articulation and with the same manner of articulation. Therefore, the archiphoneme should also reflect the presence/absence of distinctions of this kind which are different from that related to phonation. It is possible to introduce a special archiphoneme symbol /P/ with single underlining which is indicative of a wide range of realizations ranging from say, [b] to [ph]. If, however, there is a phoneme /b/ the archiphoneme covers only voiceless realizations and has to be replaced with /P/. If any secondary articulation at the same place of articulation and with the same manner of articulation like /ph/ has phoneme status, the need for the archiphoneme symbol is reduced further so that the cardinal symbol /p/ may be used unless phonation is not phonemic. In the latter case, yet a third representation of the archiphoneme is called for – possibly /p/. Under better working conditions, the above techniques might not only make sense but also prove to be practicable. However, for lack of phonetic information, we cannot apply them to the data we have collected so far. To guarantee comparability, the same degree of precision as to the range of phonetic realizations of a given phoneme is required for all member languages of the sample. This requirement is, however, illusionary in the case of our sources. Only some of these indicate variation such as Karlsson (1984: 22) who describes the realizations of the Finnish voiceless alveolar fricative /s/ as ranging from “ziemlich palatal” [rather palatal] (= [sj] ~ [ʂ]) to postpalatal [ʃ] especially when in direct contact with the high back vowel /u/. Others skip the issue of variation completely. Their silence about the possibility of different realizations of a given phoneme does not necessarily mean that there is no variation at all. To avoid skewing our results by way of comparing the incomparable, in a manner of speaking, we have decided against adopting the system outlined in the foregoing paragraph. We firmly believe that the absence of such a system is amply compensated for by our strategy to check the phonemes separately and as members of phonological classes according to each of the parameters mentioned at the beginning of this section in 1 and 2. Further technical information as to how we proceed in the case-study are given in Section 17.

10 Europe Since Phon@Europe serves to complement EUROTYP it is only logical that our areal-phonological project adopts the definition of Europe as used within the framework of EUROTYP (König and Haspelmath 1999: 112). Under this proviso, the Europe of Phon@Europe looks very different from that addressed in Lewy (1942), Haarmann (1976a–b), Décsy (2000a–b), and Ternes (1998, 2010) because these scholars advocate a more restricted interpretation of what counts as Europe and what does not. They agree largely as to the easterly border which supposedly separates Europe from Asia. To their mind, Turkey and the Caucasian region are situated outside Europe and thus, the languages spoken in these parts of the world do not belong to the EDLs – in Décsy’s case Turkish and Armenian re-enter the scene because in the former case there is the European stretch of Turkish national territory north of the Bosporus and in the latter case the huge diaspora community of (West) Armenians especially in France suffices to make the two EDLs members of the sample. Cultural and historical reasons are put forward to support the decision of cutting off the Caucasus from Europe (Lewy 1942: 13; Décsy 2000a: 12–13). Haarmann (1976b: 52), who claims to follow purely geographic principles in his own delimitation of Europe, argues convincingly against making cultural-anthropological prejudices the basis of one’s idea of Europe. Interestingly, the shape of Haarmann’s Europe closely resembles that of his above predecessors, exceptions being Maltese, the Turkic languages in the European part of the former Soviet Union, and Kalmyk which are absent from Lewy’s sample. Maltese is admitted to the EDLs only in Décsy (2000a–b). Ternes (1998: 140–141) argues for the exclusion of the Caucasian region because [d]ie große Zahl dieser Sprachen, ihre relative Andersartigkeit und ihre Homogenität würden das statistische Bild der sprachlichen Struktur sehr stark verzerren, ja verfälschen (Ternes 1998: 141).57

The same argument is taken up again in Ternes (2010: 578) where the author especially refers to the high turnout of ejectives in languages of the Caucasian region which has no parallel elsewhere in Europe or Asia. He concludes that linguistically the Caucasus belongs neither to Europe nor to Asia but forms a

|| 57 Our translation: “the high number of these languages, their relative difference in kind, and their homogeneity would considerably skew, even distort the statistic picture of the linguistic structure.”

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-010

Europe | 87

small continent of its own. For an areal-linguistic account of the Caucasian region in its entirety we refer the reader to Chirikba (2008). We take issue with Ternes’s line of reasoning because the author uses his prior knowledge about the properties of the languages of the Caucasian region to exclude them from the investigation. This means that the results of the investigation are known beforehand and thus anticipated: EDLs can only have certain properties, languages which display different properties cannot belong to the same area; thus, a separation line must run between them. The notion of Europe that comes to the fore in all these approaches to the areal linguistics of Europe is that of the SAE languages. We insist on the fact that the SAE languages do not exhaust the category of EDLs. Neither Phon@Europe nor the atlas in the making is exclusively about the SAE languages. The scope of our project is much wider. Mayerthaler et al. (1993: 10) have shown that it makes sense linguistically to work with a definition of Europe that is neither politically nor culturally, geographically, historically, economically, etc. motivated. Their more or less arbitrary concept Projekteuropa is largely identical to Europe according to EUROTYP to which we adhere. Accordingly, when we say Europe, we mean the macro-region for which the following geographical specifications hold: – The landmass whose – easternmost boundary runs from the shore of the Kara Sea along the heights of the Ural Mountain range southwards and further along the river Ural to its mouth on the Caspian Sea, and  which is further separated from Asia by the state boundary of Iran (between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the north and Turkey in the west) and the boundary that separates Turkey from Iraq and Syria. – The islands of the Mediterranean, viz. Cyprus, Malta, and all islands which form part of countries situated on the northern shore of the Mediterranean. – The islands in the North Atlantic, viz. Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Ireland, Britain, and all islands (as far as 38° west) which belong to countries situated on the eastern shore of the North Atlantic. Map XVII identifies the geographical region as defined by the above (stipulated) criteria. In addition, the borderlines of the versions of Europe defended by our predecessors are also indicated. We emphasize that it is the need to be compatible with EUROTYP which mainly motivates the shape of the Projekteuropa. Apart from this practical reason, there are no “natural” criteria which would impel us or anybody to fix the boundaries in exactly this way. Linguistically, nothing speaks against or in favor of drawing the line somewhere else – be it at 2,000 miles further east or south.

88 | Europe

The above Projekteuropa of ours makes languages like Kazakh, Georgian, Turkish, Kurmanji, Cypriot Arabic, Maltese, etc. members of the EDL group because their speech territory is situated within the confines of this constructed continent. If the atlas proves these and other EDLs like them to behave markedly differently from the bulk of the sample, this might be reason enough to separate these EDLs from groups of other EDLs. However, as long as we do not know how Europe looks like phonologically, it is counter-intuitive and also counterproductive to exclude these “suspects” from Europe and thus from the project. Phon@Europe works with a much more numerous and internally much more diversified sample than any other of the previous approaches to the areal phonology of Europe. It is therefore only to be expected that the results will also differ from those reached in previous research on the subject matter.

11

Sample

The sample has been put together to serve all purposes of Phon@Europe. This means that the special needs of the case study in Part B have determined neither the size nor the composition of the sample. This should be borne in mind when the issues raised by LPs are discussed from Section 15 onwards.

11.1 Size Lewy (1942) made statements about the areal linguistic profile of Europe on the basis of a sample of eighteen EDLs. The empirical basis increased to 64 EDLs in Haarmann (1976b: 54–56) and 62 languages in Décsy (2000a: 53 – originally dating back to 1973), respectively. Stolz (2006, 2007) takes account of samples of 50 EDLs. Ternes (2010: 578)58 estimates that there are about 100 EDLs without specifying how many of those form part of his sample. In the context of the Phon@Europe and its preparatory phase, the size of the sample has also constantly grown. Stolz (2010: 600) still worked with a relatively small sample of 75 EDLs whereas Stolz et al. (2010: 97, 2011a, 2012a) already work with 157 EDLs. In Stolz and Levkovych (2017: 156–157) the number of EDLs is as high as 185 only to drop to 130 in Levkovych et al. (2019). For the purpose of the current study, the sample has been enlarged further so that, as of now, it counts 210 EDLs, i.e. the present sample is almost twelve times as big as that of the first attempt by Lewy (1942). Figure 5 recapitulates the growing size of the samples in the course of time. It was originally planned to reach the “magic number” of 300. At the time of writing this book, we already know that this plan must be abandoned for reasons that will become clear from the discussion in the subsequent Section 11.2. This considerable increase is only partly caused by the inclusion of the Caucasian region into the Projekteuropa. With altogether 47 languages from the Caucasian region, this component of the sample equals a share of 22 %. The remaining 163 EDLs of our sample constitute not only the vast majority which amounts to 78 % but they are also situated in exactly that region which has been in the focus of the previous approaches to the areal phonology of Europe. Put differently, these 163 EDLs would still outnumber all prior samples if we had adopted the more restricted idea of Europe which prevailed in the older literature on the subject.

|| 58 In the earlier version (Ternes 1998), no estimates for the size of the sample are given.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-011

90 | Sample

250 200 150 100 50 0

Figure 5: Growing size of EDL samples.

What especially contributes to the growth of the sample is our rejection of the erstwhile focus on standard languages which is particularly evident in Décsy (2000a–b) albeit with some inconsistency. Ternes (1998: 140) argues that [e]in Problem bei jeder typologischen Untersuchung ist die Maschengröße des Netzes. Die Vielfalt der Erscheinungen in den Dialekten ist in der Regel größer als in den Standardsprachen, gerade im lautlichen Bereich. Wir werden bei einigen Punkten dialektale Erscheinungen berücksichtigen, wobei natürlich [] in keiner Weise Vollständigkeit erstrebt werden kann.59

In the same vein, Bisang (2004: 13) strongly supports integrative functionalism which takes into account that languages are diasystems with internal lectal differentiation. It makes sense therefore to allow nonstandard varieties (i.e. regional or dialectal varieties) aboard the sample. In point of fact, the admission of hitherto underrepresented nonstandard varieties to the sample is responsible for much of the increase of its size (although already Ternes (1998, 2010) mentions properties of certain nonstandard varieties). Bisang (2004: 13) states that “the distinction between language and dialect is to a large extent grammar-external”, i.e. motivat|| 59 Our translation: “for each typological investigation the width of the mesh is a problem. The diversity of phenomena is usually greater in the dialects than it is in the standard languages, especially in the phonological domain. At several points we will take account of dialectal phenomena although naturally comprehensiveness cannot by any means be aimed at.”

Composition | 91

ed by social factors. Thus, we feel entitled to refrain from differentiating terminologically between language and dialect, etc. In this study, the cover term for all these members of diasystems is language, meaning: for the purposes of the project, the urban variety of Kölsch spoken at Cologne is counted as an EDL just as the standard variety of German is a member of the class of EDLs. The term variety, however, is not completely banned from the remainder of this text because it will come in handy every once in a while without compromising the above decision to treat all members of the sample as languages.

11.2 Composition All members of the sample are doculects (Bowern 2008: 8). We draw the necessary information from the extant published literature on these doculects, i.e. our wisdom is always second-hand because it depends on what other linguists have noted down. In Section 12, the nature of the sources will be discussed in some detail. The sample comprises exclusively those EDLs which were reported to be still alive or revitalized in the mid-20th century or later. This is why Karaim, Ladino, Livonian, Manx, and Yiddish form part of the sample. Moreover, for a language to be classified as EDL it needs to be attested as an autochthonous language of Europe already before the turn of the 19th century. This criterion was introduced to better handle the situation resulting from relatively recent processes of mass migration which has diversified the European linguistic landscape considerably. Ideally, only EDLs which are spoken natively as L1 are permitted to enter the sample. However, we also count revitalized Cornish among the sample languages although it remains doubtful whether there is indeed a new generation of native speakers (Ellis 1974: 177–210). Our original intention was to build up the sample according to the principle that each diasystem should be represented by minimally two varieties. The search for appropriately described multiple representatives of a given diasystem was soon frustrated because it turned out that dialectology is not the same everywhere in Europe and variation linguistics has not made it into every linguistic department yet. There are some privileged diasystems whose internal differentiation has been studied in much detail so that they boast a plethora of dialect grammars as is the case with e.g. Italo-Romance (cf. publications such as Pitrè 2001, Iandolo 1994 and many others). In contrast, in some philological traditions, dialects are not normally described individually but in an all-embracing synoptic way which more often than not precludes the possibility to reconstruct the entire phonological system of a given dialect as is the case with e.g. Lithuanian (Zinkevičius 1966). Thirdly, some diasystems simply lack a fully developed dialectological tradition in

92 | Sample

the first place sometimes because of the scarcity of diatopic variation as is the case with e.g. Icelandic (Pétursson 1978: 179–181).60 These differences in the documentation made it impossible to realize our original plan which proved to be too ambitious. It was modified accordingly to allow us a) to enlarge the sample size substantially and b) to avoid the usual standard-language bias. The sample as it is now reflects the idea that as many as possible nonstandard varieties should form part of our empirical basis. We have thus opted for high numbers and against the balanced representation of diasystems. Incidentally, this decision has the additional effect that the density of the EDLs is higher in certain regions of the west in comparison to others in the east of the continent (see Maps XVIII–XX). Some nonstandard varieties whose existence is signaled in the pertinent literature have not made it onto the sample because their phonological systems are not described in sufficient detail in the sources we had access to. A case in point is the Yerevan variety of Eastern Armenian which displays a series of ejectives in lieu of the voiceless plosives of the standard language (Dum-Tragut 2009: 17–18). This phenomenon is attested also elsewhere in the Eastern Armenian diasystem. Nevertheless, neither of our two sources on Armenian phonology provides a fullblown description of the nonstandard systems (Vaux 1998: 12–16) so that we are compelled to ignore the existence of ejectives in an Indo-European language of the Caucasian region although we know that this category is indeed there (Chirikba 2008: 43; Grawunder 2017: 374). In the case of the Maltese regional varieties of Xlukkajr and Naduri, Azzopardi-Alexander (2011) exclusively deals with the vowels so that nothing can be said about the consonantal part of the phoneme system. This is particularly unfortunate since Naduri gives evidence of the rounded high front vowel /y/ which is absent from standard Maltese and cannot be explained as a contact-induced phenomenon (Azzopardi-Alexander 2011: 246) (see Section 17.2.2.1b). Wherever we have access to additional (“extra-sample”) information, we will reveal it in a dedicated section. In terms of the genetic affiliation of its members, the sample displays the following composition. The absolute numbers are given in Figure 6. The relative

|| 60 This is not to deny that there are phonological differences across the Icelandic speech community. Pétursson (1978: 66–75) provides examples of Northern Icelandic harðmæli with aspirated voiceless plosives in word-medial position where Southern Icelandic linmæli has voiced plosives. These differences, however, belong to the domain of allophony and are thus excluded from our present study.

Composition | 93

share of each phylum is visible from Figure 7. The individual members of the sample are listed in alphabetical order in the Appendix 1. Except otherwise stated the glossonyms are those which are given in the Glottolog (https://glottolog.org/). Note that the sample includes three varieties of Basque which together constitute our sole case of an isolate. In the remainder of this study the set of the three Basque varieties is usually referred to as “Isolate”. If only properties of given varieties of Basque are discussed these varieties are identified by the glossonym Basque accompanied by a dialect specification (Zuberoa or Lekeitio). The term “Basque” alone refers to the standard language Batúa. The phylum “Mongolic” has only one representative in Europe, namely Kalmyk. 140

124

120 100 80 60 40 20

29

23

15 5

5

5

3

1

0

Figure 6: Genetic affiliation of the EDLs (absolute numbers).

The Indo-European EDLs account for 59 % of the sample. No other of the altogether eight genetic categories comes even close to the share of Indo-European. This dominance of Indo-European is not an artifact brought about by our sampling technique but a direct reflection of the actual linguistic situation in Europe. Note that the position of Indo-European would have been even much stronger had we followed the example of the previous literature to exclude the Caucasian region from the Projekteuropa.

94 | Sample

Nakh-Daghestanian; 14% Uralic; 11% Turkic; 7%

Abkhaz-Adyghe; 2% Kartvelian; 2% Indo-European; Afro-Asiatic; 2%

59%

Isolate; 2% Mongolic; 1%

Figure 7: Genetic affiliation of the EDLs (shares).

Since the Indo-European phylum is numerically the strongest component of the sample, it is in order to indicate how many languages of which branch of the phylum are taken account of in this study. Figure 8 exposes the absolute numbers with which a given branch is represented in the sample. The shares of these branches are calculated for the total of 124 Indo-European EDLs in Figure 9. 35 31 29

30

28

25 20 13

15

11 10 5 3

5

2

2

Greek

Armenian

0 Romance

Slavic

Germanic

Celtic

Indo-Iranian

Baltic

Albanian

Figure 8: Representatives of the branches of Indo-European (absolute numbers).

Distribution | 95

Germanic; 23%

Celtic; 10%

Slavic; 23%

Indo-Iranian; 9% Baltic; 4% Albanian; 2% Greek; 2% Romance; 25%

Armenian; 2%

Figure 9: Shares of the branches within the Indo-European component.

The three major branches of Indo-European – Romance, Slavic, Germanic – yield almost identical shares of about a quarter of the Indo-European EDLs. The minor branches of Indo-European add up to the remaining fourth quarter. This discrepancy between the branches is fully in line with the attested internal differentiation of the Indo-European languages in Europe. As to the numerical strength of the individual minor branches of Indo-European, the differences are mostly explicable with reference to the different availability of descriptive linguistic studies. The Romance branch comprises two varieties of Megleno Romanian. The differentiation of Megleno Romanian and Romanian (Megleno) is somewhat forced since it only reflects the occasional differences between two sources, viz. Dahmen (1989a) and Atanasov (1990).

11.3 Distribution Map XVIII informs about the geographical location of the 210 EDLs. On Map LXXX the EDLs are identified by name. It is obvious that their distribution is not even because there are regions where the dots which represent EDLs cluster particularly whereas other regions are less densely populated by dots. As mentioned above, the different density can be explained partly by the scarcity or absence of dialect grammars for certain diasystems. On the other hand, not all regions of Europe are linguistically diversified to the same extent. The relative

96 | Sample

overrepresentation of some regions and language families is not necessarily a disadvantage. Following Comrie (1993), we consider overrepresentation as an opportunity to study micro-variation within a given region (or, for that matter, within a given genetic group). Several smaller branches of Indo-European are examples of overrepresentation in our sample. Of the thirteen EDLs of the Celtic branch, for instance, there are three representatives of the Irish and four of the Breton diasystems. Romani languages account for seven of the Indo-European EDLs, varieties of Romansch yield six EDLs. However, to counterbalance the Indo-European weight in the sample, there are, among other cases, also three representatives each of Karaim, Karelian, Saami, etc. in the sample.

12 Sources Bakker (2011: 106–107) sketches the problems one has to face when trying to conduct cross-linguistic research in dependence on second-hand information. As mentioned in Section 11.2 and in accordance with Nikolaev and Grossman (2018), we rely mainly on texts which have been published conventionally in print.61 Unsystematically we also access internet resources such as The Database of Eurasian Phonological Inventories (Nikolaev 2018), the UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive (http://archive.phonetics.ucla.edu/), the UCLA Phonological Segment Database (UPSID) (https://phoible.org/contributors/UPSID), and the Stanford Phonology Archive (https://phoible.org/contributors/SPA) to settle controversies (Moran and McCloy 2019). The SegBo database (Grossman et al. 2020a) which is of special interest for the case study in Part B will be presented in Section 16.2. However, this and similar databases never serve as primary source for our project. The sources from which we draw our data cover the following range of genres: – book-length descriptive as well as prescriptive grammars e.g. for Votic (Ariste 1968), – grammatical sketches within edited volumes e.g. for Cypriot Arabic (Borg 1997a), – monographic descriptions of a given phonological system e.g. for Hungarian (Siptár and Törkenczy 2000), – specialized papers on phonological issues in journals e.g. for Faroese (Werner 1963), – detailed surveys of the grammars or phonologies of languages belonging to the same genetically-defined group e.g. for the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages (Colarusso 1988) or – geographical region e.g. for the EDLs included in Kaye and Daniels’s (1997) collection of phonological sketches of languages in Asia and Africa, – global surveys such as Maddieson (1984), – (for the case-study in Part B especially) historical grammars, etc. such as Dimitrescu et al. (1978).

|| 61 For the sake of consistency, it would have been preferable of course to collect first-hand data for the entire sample according to a homogeneous questionnaire and methodology. However, extensive work with native-speaker informants had to be counted out as unpractical for Phon@Europe for lack of time and resources. We have also excluded consultation of experts and introspection.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-012

98 | Sources

Only linguistic work published in 1945 or after has been used. Publications predating this terminus ante quem non were excluded from the project in order to limit the load of accommodating outdated approaches to those of the present day. The remaining sources stem from a period of almost 75 years which is long enough to experience several more or less dramatic changes in phonological theory. The sole exception to this rule is the qualitative component of Part B where we account also for data from EDLs not included in the standard sample as well as diachronic evidence. Several of the extra EDLs and their history are described in texts which appeared in print already before 1945. In the sources, phoneme systems are presented in different formats. There is a minority of sources which make do with simply listing the phonemes either with or without comments. The principle which determines the order in which the phonemes appear in these lists is not always the same. Sometimes it is the inventory of an ancestor language which serves as frame of reference – this role is played by Latin in Pitrè’s (2001) grammar of Sicilian. This is reason for excluding this EDL and the source from our study. In other sources, the phonological issues are hidden away in the orthography section as in Khan and Lescot’s (1986) description of Kurdish (Kurmanji). This is the reason why we exclude this source from our study. Yet other linguists deem it sufficient to employ IPA symbols which speak for themselves as in Zaicz’s (2004: 209–210) sketch of the two Mordvin languages Erzya and Moksha. We have tried to minimize our dependence on sources of this kind. Moreover, sources which exclusively work on the basis of the orthography of a given EDL without any attempt at ordering the phonemes according to established phonological classes like Ernštreit and Pomozi (2004: 199) have done for Livonian are counted out as primary source but may be used as additional source if needs be. Our preference is for sources which present the phoneme inventory in the shape of a chart or ordered list. To preclude the possibility of getting involved in theory-borne matters of disagreement among specialists of individual languages, we have formulated a rule according to which we normally rely on the information as provided in one source per language.62 Only in cases of doubt do we consult a second or third source on the same language to settle the question. For obvious reasons, this

|| 62 This selfmade rule is valid only for determining the size and composition of the phoneme charts of the EDLs. For the discussion of issues which arise from these charts and their members, we take also account of what is said in the extant literature other than our primary reference. For the case study in Part B we could not avoid to sometimes refer to different sources for vowels and consonants. It was also necessary to make use of numerous sources other than those termed primary.

Sources | 99

rule is suspended in the case-study in Part B. The number of cases which required the consultation of further sources is relatively small – even surprisingly small. A particularly intriguing example involves the Nakh-Daghestanian language Archi. The problem which is of interest in the context of this section, however, results from the way the consonantal phonemes are presented in Kibrik (1994a: 300–302). There is a phoneme chart which is accompanied by a list of examples for each phoneme subdivided into sections according to manner of articulation. The problems arise from the discrepancy between the phoneme chart and the list of examples. In the chart, no distinction is made between plosives and affricates as the latter are apparently inexistent or, at least, not identified as such terminologically. However, affricates show up as a major class of phonemes in the list of examples. In this list, affricates are clearly distinguished from “occlusives” – Kibrik’s choice of term for plosives. That the symbols , , and represent the affricates /ʦ/, /ʧ/, and /tɬ/, respectively, is hardly surprising. This is different with , , , , and which pass as symbols of affricates in Kibrik’s list of examples. On the basis of the phoneme chart, however, it seems more likely that we are dealing with a set of voiceless uvular plosives, namely plain /q/, ejective /q’/, labialized /qo/, labialized ejective /q’o/, and geminate (“tense”) ejective /qq’/. To clarify the status of these phonemes, we have consulted Chumakina et al. (2016: 19–20) who paint a picture of the consonantal phonemes of Archi which differs significantly from that of Kibrik’s and supports our own analysis strongly, namely to treat the above phonemes not as affricates but as plosives. The Archi case illustrates how we proceed when it comes to solving riddles posed by our sources. Whenever we find it difficult to accept the description of phonological facts as it is presented in a given source we have recourse to further sources. Should none of the sources we have consulted provide a convincing analysis, we either remove the EDL from the sample or take it on ourselves to decide by way of stipulating a solution. In the case of Sketvemålet (Norwegian), for instance, there were too many difficulties for us to understand properly the system behind the phonetic properties described in our only source of this EDL (Hoff 1946). Accordingly, we have excluded Sketvemålet from the sample. For similar reasons, neither Aragonese nor Sicilian form part of the sample as of today. We will try hard to also include these EDLs in the final version of the sample. For the case-study in Part B, EDLs which are not members of the sample of 210 languages are frequently referred to but only in the sections dedicated to qualitative issues.

13 Data 13.1 Good vs. bad candidates What counts as a datum? First of all, every phoneme that is identified explicitly as such by the authors of the sources is a prime candidate for the same status in our account of the situation in a given language. Yet, the candidate has to meet the criterion of being segmentally identifiable. There are cases which fail to fulfill this condition. We pick out two to illustrate the problem. For Maltese, Borg (1997b: 249) speaks of an abstract phoneme whose existence can be pinpointed via the effect it has on vowel duration (Borg 1997b: 261– 262). The so-called Maltese għajn – orthographically represented by the digraph – results from the merger and subsequent disappearance from the inventory of segments of the Old Arabic fricatives pharyngeal /ʕ/ and velar /ɣ/ (Borg 1997b: 249). In contemporary Maltese, the għajn has ceased to be a segmental phoneme but has entered the domain of suprasegmental phenomena (see Section 4.1.3). It is therefore not taken account of at this stage of Phon@Europe. The same applies to the so-called h aspiré (aka h consonne) in French – a phenomenon which affects the initial position of words of Germanic origin63 written with . As Klein (1968: 121–126) explains, this concept is purely phonological in the sense that there is no phonetically realized segment which corresponds to the h aspiré so that it cannot be told apart from the so-called h muet whose phonetic value is equally zero. However, in contrast to the latter, the h aspiré blocks external sandhi (liaison) and thus has an effect on the application of certain phonological rules. However, since the h aspiré is phonetically silent, we discount it as a phoneme, which is also the interpretation of Meisenburg and Selig (2006). As mentioned in the foregoing section, we give preference to data which are systematized already as units which are assigned their place in the grid of a phoneme chart. We assume that all elements which occupy cells in a given phoneme chart are phonemes unless the source marks them out as allophonic variants either by added phonetic or other brackets or by explanatory notes accompanying the phoneme chart. For Slavomolisano, Breu and Piccoli (2000: 385–386) use bracketing in the phoneme chart to identify those symbols which do not represent phonemes strictly speaking but positional allophones the dis-

|| 63 Since the h aspiré occurs in (old and very old) loanwords, it is of interest for a potential follow-up study which broadens the scope of Part B of this study to aspects of loan phonology beyond phonemics.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-013

Interpretative challenges | 101

tribution of which is explained separately like for the voiced velar fricative [ɣ] which shows up only in intervocalic position to cancel the hiatus. Where neither strategy of presenting phonemes is used, chances are that the non-phonemic character of a given unit has escaped our notice. Similarly, it is equally possible that we have failed to identify certain phonemes as such when neither the source nor our linguistic intuition has given us reason to do so. In a number of cases, the sources qualify phonemes as marginal. This applies to the status of the voiced postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ in Italian. Krämer (2009: 46) appropriately puts it in brackets in his phoneme chart of Italian and argues that “it occurs in a few loanwords only (mostly of French origin, such as garage)”. LPs will be in the focus of Part B. For the purpose of this study, we take a maximalist stance, i.e. all potential candidates for the status of phoneme are admitted on board the phoneme inventory of a given EDL no matter how infrequent the element in question might be. This means that all marginal phonemes and LPs form part of the phoneme inventory though not necessarily of its core. As will be explained in Section 15, the maximalist interpretation is only the first step in an extended process of analyzing the data which might ultimately lead to an alternative minimalist proposal (but not in the sense of Chomskyan Minimalism).

13.2 Interpretative challenges In this section, we take the consonants of Mari (Hill) to illustrate what steps are necessary to integrate the data from a given EDL into our database. Note that Mari (Hill) is by no means a particularly difficult case. What we know about this language is largely based on Alhoniemi’s (1993) descriptive grammar of the two written languages Mari (Meadow) and Mari (Hill). The original of the text was published first in two different parts in Finnish (Alhoniemi 1985, 1986). Hans-Hermann Bartens translated the Finnish version into German. The German version is also an update of the earlier text as it contains a number of corrections. It is this German translation which serves as our reference. The consonantal phonemes of Mari (Hill) as presented in Alhoniemi (1993: 20) are reproduced faithfully in Table 6. In what follows we will demonstrate briefly to what interpretative modifications this phoneme chart was subjected to serve as input for our research.

102 | Data

Table 6: Consonant phonemes of Mari (Hill) according to Alhoniemi (1993: 20).

labial

dental und alveolar

palatal und velar

p

t



k

c

č

stlos

s

š

sth.

z

ž

Klusil Affrikate Sibilant

stlos

f

sth.

β

δ

m

n

ń

Lateral

l

ľ

Tremulant

r

Spirant Nasal

Halbvokal

χ ɣ ŋ

j

First of all, it is obvious that there is something wrong with the columns for the places of articulation. The label labial is unproblematic since all of the symbols which are classified under this place of articulation share the feature [labial]. Further to the right, four places of articulation are mentioned which seem to come in pairs because the labels are joined by the conjunction und ‘and’, namely dental und alveolar vs. palatal und velar. These four labels correspond to only three rows of symbols the leftmost of which nicely meets the classification of its members as dental and/or alveolar (such as /t/). Not all of them can be subsumed under denti-alveolar though. This is perhaps the motivation for the coordinated labels dental und alveolar in the first place. What does not fit the picture is the third row of symbols which appears under the same heading as the above dentals and alveolars. The symbols used here are indicative of postalveolars (such as for the voiceless postalveolar affricate /ʧ/) and palatals (such as for the palatal nasal /ɲ/). Three of the six symbols in this column are palatals. The label palatal itself, however, is used – in combination with velar – for the rightmost row of symbols. Four of five of the corresponding symbols in this row are velars whereas only /j/ represents the class of palatals. It suggests itself that the rows have been mixed up to some extent so that it is necessary to reorganize them. Reorganization is called for not only as to the places of articulation but also for the manners of articulation. The class of fricatives is split in two, namely sibilants and spirants. As a matter of fact, these two categories can be reunited to yield the class of fricatives. The next step requires of us the translation of the labels into the terminology of the IPA. This means that we have to divide Alhoniemi’s place of articulation labial into bilabial and labiodental. His category of dental und alveolar

Interpretative challenges | 103

must be turned into the ternary distinction of dental, alveolar, and postalveolar. Lastly, the combination of palatal und velar is also a combination of two classes of the IPA, namely palatal vs. velar. As to the manners of articulation, the following adjustments are necessary: – Klusil is replaced with ‘plosive’, – Sibilant and Spirant are replaced with the overarching label ‘fricative’, – Tremulant is replaced with ‘trill’, – Halbvokal is replaced with ‘approximant’. In addition to the terminological update, we also need to exchange some of Alhoniemi’s symbols. The changes involve the following symbols: – Alhoniemi’s : According to our source is a voiced labial spirant which contrasts with the voiceless labial spirant . For the latter, we assume that we are dealing with a voiceless labiodental fricative /f/ whose voiced counterpart should be /v/. In terms of the IPA grid, Alhoniemi’s is suggestive of a voiced bilabial fricative /β/. If this were the case, the voiceless would represent /ɸ/, i.e. a voiceless bilabial fricative. We are not sure that the latter analysis meets the facts. – Alhoniemi’s : This symbol represents the voiced (inter)dental fricative /ð/ of the IPA and has to be replaced with it. – Alhoniemi’s : Alhoniemi’s choice of symbol is suggestive of the voiceless uvular fricative /χ/ of the IPA. Since in our source is classified as (palatal and) velar and belongs together with , we assume that the more appropriate IPA-symbol is /x/, i.e. we have a voiceless velar fricative here. – Alhoniemi’s : This symbol represents the voiceless alveolar affricate /ʦ/ of the IPA and has to be replaced with it. – Alhoniemi’s : This symbol represents the voiceless postalveolar affricate /ʧ/ of the IPA and has to be replaced with it. – Alhoniemi’s : This symbol represents the voiceless postalveolar fricative /ʃ/ of the IPA and has to be replaced with it. – Alhoniemi’s : This symbol represents the voiced postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ of the IPA and has to be replaced with it. – Alhoniemi’s , , : The question arises whether these symbols represent palatalized consonants or palatal consonants (Stadnik 2002: 26–34). Since Alhoniemi (1993: 20–21) argues that in (unidentified) dialects of Mari (both varieties) there are further instances of palatalization, one might conclude that the above three symbols are represented more adequately by /tj/, /nj/, /lj/ the alternative being treating them as palatal consonants /c/, /ɲ/ and /ʎ/, respectively. Stadnik (2002: 65–66) argues for the latter solution which is also the one we adopt for our project.

104 | Data

Furthermore, Alhoniemi (1993: 20) assumes that the phonemes /f/, /x/, and /c/ are recent innovations in the system whose occurrence is limited to loanwords from Chuvash and descriptive-onomatopoeic lexemes. This special status – marginal and predominantly LPs (see Sections 17.2.4.1, 17.2.4.3, and 17.2.4.26) – is not visible from the phoneme chart in Table 6. We mark these phonemes by brackets in Table 7 which hosts the inventory of consonantal phonemes of Mari (Hill) after the above modifications have been applied. Table 7 is organized as follows: all empty columns and rows have been removed, empty cells are shaded grey additionally, marginal/LPs are bracketed. Alhoniemi (1993: 19–42) provides a plethora of further information on phonological and morphonological issues none of which is relevant to our study, however. Table 7: Consonant phonemes of Mari (Hill) – Phon@Europe version.

bilabial plosive nasal

labiodental

dental

p

alveolar t

m

affricate

velar

(c)

k ɲ

ŋ

r (f)

v

ð

s

z

ʃ

ʦ

ʒ

(x)

ɣ

ʧ

approximant lateral approximant

palatal

n

trill fricative

postalveolar

j l

ʎ

It should be clear by now that Phon@Europe does not simply copy what the sources have on offer but takes their input as its point of departure for a sometimes more sometimes less tedious procedure of accommodating the data to the frame of reference. To verify or falsify our analyses, an entire major part of the atlas will be dedicated to the documentation of the phoneme inventories of the sample languages. The vowel and consonant charts of each of the 210 EDLs are presented one by one. These charts reflect our interpretation of the sources we have consulted. The charts will be annotated wherever we come to conclusions which differ from those of the sources. The catalogue of phoneme charts is ordered alphabetically according to the glossonyms employed for the EDLs. For this study, we provide the documentation of all reported loan phonemes in Appendix 1 together with the identification of the members of the sample. The documentation of our analyses is an important component of the atlas. However, the center piece of the atlas consists of the maps and chapters dedicated to the phenomena studied within the framework of Phon@Europe.

14 Maps and chapters The documentation of the raw data as such is insufficient to yield a picture of the areal phonology of Europe. It is the task of the maps and chapters to turn the data collection into a linguistically meaningful interpretation of the facts. We want to provide a tool with the help of which it is possible to determine the areality of phonological phenomena in Europe. This cannot be achieved by describing the phonology of each sample language separately as has been done in the two volumes edited by Kaye and Daniels (1997) which contain fifty sketches (some of them of EDLs) written by different authors who adhere to different schools of thought. As far as we can see, there is neither regular crossreferencing between chapters nor are there general conclusions. There are only five maps none of which features any phonological phenomenon. On this basis, it is almost impossible to determine whether (some of) the phonologies of Asia and Africa converge so that areality is invoked. Herrera Zendejas (2014, 2018) provides a detailed survey of the phonological properties of selected indigenous languages of Mexico. The sample languages are described one-by-one in separate chapters which cover a wide range of topics. The aim of the Mexican project is primarily the synchronic description of the phonological systems of individual languages. No attempt is made at establishing areal patterns. Accordingly, the maps accompanying the chapters serve the sole purpose of exposing the whereabouts of the language addressed in the chapter. Pandey’s (2014) two volumes on the phonologies of the languages of India have the advantage of being written by a sole author and thus are homogeneous in terms of theory and methodology. The second volume of this set of books hosts the phonological sketches of the sample languages and thus can be compared to the above catalogue of phoneme inventories which is supposed to come with the atlas-to-be. Pandey’s first volume surveys qualitatively as well as quantitatively the distribution of phonemes (with a section dedicated to suprasegmentals) across the sample. There are again five maps which feature the situation in space of the language families represented in Pandey’s sample. However, there is not a single map which traces the distribution of a given phoneme in India. We do not deny that Kaye and Daniels (1997), Herrera Zendejas (2014, 2018), and even more so Pandey (2014) are instructive for our own project. We follow Pandey insofar as we separate the documentation of the phoneme inventories from the discussion of the areal distribution of phenomena. In contrast to the publications above, we put particular emphasis on the cartographic side of the areal linguistic endeavor.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-014

106 | Maps and chapters

14.1 Maps In previous publications, we have experimented with different kinds of maps some of which are included – in modified form – in Section 4.2 (e.g. Stolz 2010; Stolz et al. 2012a; Stolz and Levkovych 2017). None of these test-runs provides the optimal solution for the atlas project. Therefore, we adopt the already successful principles of map-making as applied by Maddieson (2005a–m) and Haspelmath (2013b–k) at least for some of the more basic technical aspects of areal-linguistic cartography. To start with, Europe and parts of the neighboring regions are clearly recognizable on the maps because the major geographical landmarks such as coastlines are represented. In contrast to the above comparable approaches, our maps also feature the borderline which separates Europe from Asia in the east of the continent. We have decided against showing the state boundaries of countries on most of the maps to avoid the presence of too many distractors. Each EDL is represented by a dot. These dots come in three versions: – empty circles (indicating that a given phenomenon is unattested in the EDL), – black dot for an attested phenomenon on maps which feature only one option, – colored dot if two and more options are represented on the map. For individual maps, different conventions are sometimes applied which will be introduced separately in the respective sections. For combinations of features, distinct colors are introduced. In conformity with both Maddieson and Haspelmath, we mark the diffusion in space of the phenomena with dots. EDLs whose dots are colored identically also participate in the same (virtual) isogloss. For each map, the color code is explained in a separate box. For a long time, we have pounded the idea of employing the traditional category of isoglosses on the maps. There are, however, mainly technical reasons for opting against drawing lines on the maps to connect EDLs with identical properties with each other because there would be far too many intersecting lines and interrupted lines. We therefore refrain from delimiting the areas in which a given phenomenon is attested by way of using proper isoglosses. To our mind the colored dots suffice to identify an area of diffusion. Except in quotes from or references to work of other linguists and Section 17.3 (to be explained there), we replace the term “isogloss” with the term “area of diffusion” to avoid misunderstanding. Maps will only be provided for phonological phenomena which are subject to variation across the EDLs. If all EDLs behave the same as to a given question, there is no need to showcase the geography of this homogeneity since all dots

Maps | 107

would be colored identically and the area of diffusion would involve all EDLs on the map. Thus, a map dedicated to the distribution of low vowels in Europe is nonsensical since the presence of at least one vowel phoneme of this class is universally presupposed. However, cases in which all EDLs agree are not going to be discarded like that. To the contrary, they will be dutifully registered and discussed summarily in a chapter on pan-European commonalities. The representation of the diffusion of phonological phenomena poses several problems two of which are worthwhile being mentioned in this paragraph. First of all, especially on maps which feature more than one phenomenon, the density of EDLs in certain regions of Europe – notably northern Italy and adjacent areas (Map XIX) and the Caucasus (Map XX) – might render it difficult to the naked eye to trace the diffusion. If needs be, this problem will be solved by additional maps with a smaller scale which focus on these particular regions. The second problem is connected to the potential interruption of the territory over which the phenomenon is diffused. Blevins’s (2017: 106) map of the distribution of rounded front vowels in central and western Europe is a case in point (see Map II). On the one hand, the exclusion of eastern Europe has the effect of disrupting an isogloss that has several outlier members further east (mostly Turkic and Uralic languages). On the other hand, the isogloss connects Albanian, Blevins’s southernmost EDL equipped with /y/, directly to the huge area in the European northwest where many languages display rounded front vowels. The EDL which is geographically closest to Albanian and also a language with /y/ (besides /ø/) is Hungarian. On the map, the isogloss runs directly southwards from Hungary to Albania and back. To connect Hungary to Albania, the isogloss has to cut across Serbia – and Serbian is not known for having rounded front vowels. Since the EDLs which participate in the isogloss are not represented by dots but by glossonyms which are not graphically interconnected, the map gives the false impression that Serbian forms part of the isogloss. Furthermore, the countries in which the EDLs are spoken are identified by state boundaries. Germany is fully included in the isogloss although there are diatopic varieties of German which lack rounded front vowels altogether (Ternes 1998: 143). Similarly, by way of including the whole of Norway, Finland, and Sweden, Blevins’s map seems to suggest that Saami languages generally also have rounded front vowels which is, however, not the case (Nagy 2004: 204). Thus, the correct version of the isogloss should have cut across the German state territory and excluded part of the Saami regions in the far north. This is reason enough not to represent language facts on political maps.

108 | Maps and chapters

To overcome the practical problems of the above kind, we have introduced the following rule of thumb. To start with, we distinguish three kinds of maps, namely a) maps which host the entire sample of EDLs and feature more than two phenomena (this is the default type of map in Part B featuring (i) EDLs which borrow a given phoneme, (ii) EDLs which have an autochthonous phoneme of this kind, and (iii) EDLs which lack the phoneme completely), b) maps which host the entire sample of EDLs and feature two phenomena, c) maps which only host a selection of EDLs all of which give evidence of the same phenomenon. The type of map makes a difference. In the case of (a), if the speech communities of two EDLs X and Y which share the same property do not live in directly adjacent geographical regions but are separated by that of EDLs which do not belong to the same isogloss, X and Y cannot be connected to each other by the isogloss. If this rule makes one of the two EDLs a loner, in a manner of speaking, the connection to the area in which the isogloss can safely be drawn on the map is still visible via the color code. For an isogloss to be marked out on the map, we need a minimum of two neighboring EDLs which attest to identical feature values. On her above maps (see Map I), Blevins (2017: 106) seems to be reluctant to trace the isoglosses across water so that there are huge gaps between the “loose ends” of the isogloss featured on the map. In contrast to this overly cautious practice, we do not consider major topographic objects such as the Channel, the Alps, or the Rokytno Bogs to be obstacles which block the diffusion of a phenomenon. On the maps in our planned atlas, the diffusion does not stop on the beaches. For (b)–(c), however, we deviate from the above practice purposefully because the emphasis of this study is on making the most of potential areality. This means that with maps of types (b)–(c) we usually opt for picturing the distribution profile of a given phenomenon in the shape of uninterrupted areas of diffusion. This principle requires of us to sometimes turn a blind eye on the fact that two or more identically colored dots on the map do not correspond to EDLs whose speech territories are directly adjacent in real life. For the purpose of map type (b), it suffices that the dots are close to each other on the map. As to map type (c), the situation is different insofar as the map exclusively features those EDLs which realize the same property. All other EDLs are not allowed to appear on the map. The information on these maps glosses over the potential existence of EDLs in the highlighted region which do not participate in the phenomenon in question. Map type (c) identifies areal hotbeds of certain features.

Maps | 109

To limit our reliance on cartography somewhat, we have introduced an additional device. The map of Projekteuropa is divided into nine sectors (termed: nonants) of identical size geographically but with a different number of EDLs covered by the sectors. The sectors result from the combination of vertical (west, center, east) and horizontal (north, mid, south) directions. The sectors are labeled accordingly: Northwest (NW), North Center (NC), Northeast (NE); Mid West (MW), Mid Center (MC), Mid East (ME); Southwest (SW), South Center (SC), Southeast (SE) (see Map XXI). This absolutely schematic subdivision of the continent allows us to determine quantitatively whether a given phenomenon is particularly common or uncommon in a sector or several sectors without necessarily yielding full-blown areas of diffusion in the sense of an uninterrupted chain of EDLs with identical properties. In this way, it is possible to identify areal preferences of a different kind. Table 8 reveals how many EDLs are located in a given nonant. It is immediately visible that the northern nonants are underpopulated. The fourteen EDLs in the north are outnumbered by far by the 57 EDLs in SE, the 50 EDLs in MC, and the 39 EDLs in SC. With eighteen EDLs even ME hosts more members of the sample than all northern nonants together. The total number of EDLs in the west is also smaller than that of the EDLs in SE, MC, and SC, respectively. Table 8: Distribution of EDLs over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

2

M

21

6

6

14

50

18

S

89

11

39

57

107

Total

34

95

81

210

In Section 10, we have mentioned speech territories. Since we represent the EDLs by dots, the real size of a given EDL’s speech territory is abstracted away from. This does not mean, however, that the knowledge about the size and shape has disappeared for good. It is always retrievable in case of need. It is needed, for instance, for determining the exact location of a given dot on the map. Most of the time, we have accepted the solutions offered by Glottolog. Where this is not possible, the site of the dot is chosen individually. Another problem arises with dispersed speech communities which cannot claim a territory of their own but are distributed over several countries. In these cases, we have simply imposed the location of the dot without trying to do justice to all

110 | Maps and chapters

possible historical, demographic, and cultural factors. Yiddish, for instance, is represented by a dot in eastern Poland. If the dispersion of the community has led to the separation into different varieties, however, these are counted as distinct EDLs as is the case e.g. with Karaim (Trakai), Karaim (Galits), and Karaim (Eastern). Irrespective of the relative density of the EDLs on the maps, the diffusion – perhaps more often than not – cuts across unknown territory in the sense that it runs through or embraces regions where EDLs are spoken which, for whatever reasons, are not included in the sample. We acknowledge that this is a general shortcoming of working without full coverage of all languages of a given area. It is tacitly assumed that EDLs which have not been admitted to the sample behave like the neighboring EDLs which are members of the sample. Unless this solution can be disproved by empirical facts, we assume that the atlas is generally up to the standards of our discipline.

14.2 Chapters Each chapter of the atlas-to-be is accompanied by at least one map. Chapters may also come with several maps if needs be. The chapters have a variety of functions. First and foremost, they present the background information for what is featured on the maps. The phenomenon under scrutiny is explained qualitatively and examples are given. Its distribution is spelled out in detail, i.e. if an area of diffusion emerges from the colors of the dots on the map the chapter evaluates the area of diffusion by way of checking whether the EDLs participating in the area of diffusion belong together either genealogically or typologically or not. Previous studies which have looked at the same phenomenon are mentioned. Possible connections to phonological phenomena which are analyzed in other chapters of the atlas are identified. Furthermore, the data are looked at from a quantitative perspective too. How many of the EDLs give evidence of the phenomenon under inspection? The chapters will also inform about the behavior of the phenomenon in the above nine sectors. Some chapters focus entirely on quantitative aspects such as the number of phonemes in a given system or in a given phonological class. For each phenomenon, conclusions are drawn which situate the observed facts within the areal linguistics of Europe and beyond. The internal organization of the chapters into sections is flexible. The chapters may differ in size depending on the content. If it is necessary to discuss a given phenomenon at length the corresponding chapter will be longer than others. The idea behind not imposing an upper limit to the chapter size is that some phenomena require more explanations than those which are

Chapters | 111

widely familiar in the community of linguists. Other phenomena might prove to be especially interesting for areal linguistics and/or language contact studies in general and thus deserve to be looked at more closely. Similarly, we expect to find evidence of properties which do not fit in easy with extant typological hypotheses about phonological phenomena and thus call for being weighed very carefully. These connections to research beyond the isolated empirical facts are summarized and evaluated in the general conclusions for which a separate chapter is reserved. Those issues which we have raised so far in Sections 1–14 are elaborated upon in the introductory chapter of the atlas. Besides maps, chapters, and catalogue, the atlas also includes a list of references, a list of abbreviations, a list of the sample languages, and three indexes (authors, subjects, and languages). The subsequent Part B gives an impression of what maps and chapters could look like. However, the case study itself involves paragraphs which, once the atlas is completed, will form part, with the necessary modifications, of other separate chapters. For the purpose of this test-run, it makes sense to integrate these building blocks in one and the same case study because otherwise the line of argumentation would be hard to follow since too many things would have to be presupposed in lieu of explaining them in situ. The atlas-to-be will not specifically treat of LPs but will refer back to this study wherever phoneme borrowing needs to be mentioned.

| Part B: Loan Phonemes in Europe – Qualities, Quantities, and Geography

15

Loan phonemes

As mentioned in Part A already, the case study does not strictly follow the conventions and rules laid down above because Part B is meant to address issues which will not be taken up again in the future atlas including diachronic aspects connected to the LPs. The “disobedience” of Part B involves among other things the extensive use of additional sources and a slightly different organization of the maps. These deviations from our rules are required by the phenomena to be discussed. We open the discussion with a look at what recent contributions to our topic offer in terms of theory and hypothesis. Grossman et al. (2019, 2020a) and Eisen (2019), for instance, have created SegBo – a database of borrowed sounds in the world’s languages – which serves the purpose of studying the borrowability of phonological segments on a global scale and thus provides an excellent precedent for our own investigations. We agree with the above authors that [d]espite the fact that phonological segment borrowing is documented in many of the world’s language [], to date there has been no large-scale quantitative study of this phenomenon (Grossman et al 2020a: 5316).

We emphasize, however, that it is not only the quantitative side of the phenomenon which needs to be taken care of but there is as yet also no catalogue of the qualities which are involved in phoneme borrowings and those which seem to be immune against borrowing. Within the framework of SegBo, Eisen (2019) demonstrates that taking stock of LPs worldwide is linguistically meaningful. His work will be commented upon in Section 16.2 below. We consider the distribution of LPs over the EDLs a particularly suitable opener for the empirical part of Phon@Europe. Where LPs are reported to exist we have tangible evidence of language contact. At the same time, the qualities which are involved in phoneme borrowing are indicative of the convergence of EDLs in the domain of phonology. The term convergence is used here and throughout Part B in a relatively wide interpretation which does not presuppose that a given LP obeys identical rules and carries the same functional load in donor and replica language. In combination with the quantities, i.e. the number of cases of borrowed phonemes across the sample, the qualities in terms of concrete phonemes may explain why Europe has failed to impress previous scholars as to its areal phonology since, superficially, the bulk of the EDLs look very much the same. It can be argued that this impression is to some extent caused by loan phonology and its integration into the replica language’s phonological system. What this also means is that if we strip the replica phonologies off their LPs we reconstruct au-

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-015

116 | Loan phonemes

tomatically the pre-contact state of affairs which might yield a more diversified picture of the areal phonology of Europe. We especially argue that where in Europe we find exactly what LP is not random but confirms hypothesis HA, meaning: there are certain factors which determine the distribution of LPs over the sample and over the map. Before we address the evidence of LPs in the EDLs, we let scholars of language contact share their views on loan phonology in Section 15.1. In Section 15.2, we distinguish different types of LPs. Section 16.1 is dedicated to Maddieson’s (1984, 1986) data on LPs in Europe whereas Section 16.2 sketches the relation between SegBo and Phon@Europe. Our own findings are presented and discussed in Section 17 and its further subdivisions. The conclusions as to what our findings add to the general picture of the areal-linguistic properties of Europe are drawn in Section 18. In Section 19, we round off this study by way of connecting the results of the case-study with ideas which are around in language-contact studies and related research programs.

15.1 Areality, language contact, and loanwords Besides genetic relationship, universal preferences, and coincidence, language contact is probably the most important factor which contributes to the genesis of isoglosses. In this section we briefly review a selection of relatively recent statements as to the function of loanwords as Trojan Horses which help to introduce donor-language phonemes into the system of replica languages. Weinreich (1970: 27) states that [a]s a consequence of the introduction of numerous loanwords in a fully or even partly unassimilated phonic form, changes may take place in the sounds of the recipient language. Not only are new sequence patterns established through borrowing [] but new relevant distinctions and new phonemes may be created.

The author briefly enumerates illustrative examples from English, French, Yiddish, Czech, Latvian, Russian, Mazatec, and German. This list is clearly marked as being still open so that one expects that there are many more cases out there which still need to be identified. Loanwords seem to be crucial for all of them. The contributions to the collection edited by Calabrese and Wetzels (2009) discuss several approaches to processes of loanword nativization without paying much attention to the borrowing of phonemes. Note that Kang (2011) stresses the fact that the study of loanwords has contributed substantially to the current debate in the domain of phonological theory. As a matter of fact, there is a plethora of linguistic papers and monographs dedicated to phonological loanword-

Areality, language contact, and loanwords | 117

adaptation processes in a wide variety of languages worldwide. In what follows, the theory-oriented aspect of loanword phonology is not further pursued. The mechanisms of transfer of phonological properties in language contact processes are surveyed in Matras (2009: 221–233). The important role attributed to loanwords and their integration into the system of the recipient language is emphasized repeatedly to explain how erstwhile foreign phonemes can establish themselves in a language from which they were absent originally. Bilingual speakers are at the center of the process because they have to master two different phonologies in their repertoire and thus are potentially prone to assimilate first and second languages to each other via transfer. Moreover, what is borrowed from the donor language’s phonology is not always a phoneme as such but may belong to the sub-phonemic domain. Already existing sound patterns of the recipient language are adjusted ever so slightly to match those of the donor language. From the bilingual speakers the phonological innovations spread over the (predominantly monolingual) speech community of the recipient language. In the course of time, the new phonological properties may be dissociated from loanwords, i.e. the innovations also affect inherited lexical material. Van der Hulst et al. (2017: 164) attribute major importance to the study of loanwords as vehicles of convergence in the phonological systems of donor and replica languages because the incidental patterns that we find in borrowing form a foundation for looking at more extensive patterning that might arise through contact and the formation of what we call linguistic areas. When words are borrowed the pattern of the source language may be respected (preservative borrowing) or not (neglectful borrowing).

Thomason (2001: 70–71) claims that on Stage 2 of her borrowing scale, new phonemes are realized exclusively in loanwords whereas the phonological innovations may diffuse into the inherited vocabulary on the subsequent Stage 3. Only on Stage 4 with intense contact involving extensive bilingualism is it possible that entire phonological categories are lost from or added to the system of the replica language. Blevins (2017: 99) argues that lexical borrowing is not required “for sound pattern spread”. To her mind “[a]real sound patterns are not the result of phonetic borrowing” (Blevins 2017: 98). This does not mean that there is no initial language contact at all. However, the donor language only “serves as a catalyst, but salient features of the new sound pattern come from the indigenous language, naturally and unknowingly” (Blevins 2017: 98). The author propagates the so-called perceptual magnet effect, i.e. foreign phonological properties of the donor language are perceived by speakers of the recipient language as being close to already estab-

118 | Loan phonemes

lished phonological properties of their first language and then transferred into the latter (Blevins 2017: 99). The idea behind this scenario is that areal sound patterns have similar language-internal phonetic trajectories as non-areal sound patterns. The external stimulus of a contact sound pattern shifts the odds of the same pattern evolving in a neighboring language, but it could have evolved in that language independently of contact, only with much lower probability (Blevins 2017: 98).

The factors of phonetic saliency, significant exposure, and phonetic proximity are necessary for the perceptual magnet effect to be triggered. It is claimed that in case that the phonetic prototype invoked by the external stimulus is too far removed from the established phonological categories of the recipient language the perceptual magnet effect will be blocked. Blevins (2017: 115) also claims that “[a]real sound patterns are easy to define but not always easy to identify. This is because they appear to mimic internal developments.” What Blevins is trying to say boils down to the simple assumption that nothing will be borrowed if it does not somehow fit into the system of the replica language. To conclude this section, we feel obliged to mention that it is by no means the case that every areal cluster or isogloss of phonemes can be directly connected to the presence of loanwords which have facilitated the process of convergence. It is sometimes impossible to pinpoint lexical loans and/or identify the direction of the transfer. With reference to the Turkic languages in the Caucasus, Johanson (2006: 169–170), for instance, repeatedly invokes substrate influence on the phonologies. In this study, these scenarios are touched upon only in passing, if at all. In the subsequent sections, we look out for evidence in favor of or against Blevins’s hypothesis by way of taking stock of the cases of phoneme transfer between EDLs via loanword integration. To this end, we need to check how the sources on which we rely handle the issue of loan phonology. What we cannot do is determining the (sociolinguistic) particulars of the original contact scenario and the subsequent chronology of events in the diachronic phonology of the EDLs involved.

15.2 Different types of loan phonemes It is by no means an easy feat to track down LPs in the EDLs. The most serious problem is to properly understand what it means when a given source does not explicitly mention LPs. What comes to mind first is the idea that there simply are no LPs at all. Alternatively, the descriptive linguist may have tacitly passed over the fact that s/he has deliberately excluded LPs from the inventory. Or, the other way round, the linguist does not deem it necessary to identify the LPs as

Different types of loan phonemes | 119

such in the phoneme chart. All three possibilities are represented in our sample. On the other hand, the existence of LPs is often mentioned – but with different strategies of dealing with them in the description of the phonological system. Some linguists treat the LPs on a par with the autochthonous phonemes and inform about the special status of the LPs either by graphical means (for instance, brackets which single out LPs) or in a footnote or in the ensuing explanatory text. In other cases, the LPs are relegated to the footnotes or the explanatory text, i.e. they do not appear in the phoneme chart. Thirdly, LPs may also be alluded to in a sideways remark at a distance from the phoneme chart implying that they have only marginal status (Grossman et al 2020a: 5317). This is perhaps what Comrie (1997b: 900) intends to tell the readers of his grammatical sketch of Tatar when he explains that [g]iven the centuries during which Tatar has been under increasing Russian influence, the language contains a large number of Russian loans. While early Russian loans were assimilated to indigenous Tatar phonology, more recent loans have not been; the orthoepic norm recommends pronunciations indistinguishable from those in Russian, although in practice one would assume that assimilation takes place to differing degrees on such factors as an individual’s proficiency in Russian. The phonology of Russian loans in Tatar will be noted herein only in passing. By contrast, the earlier layer of loans from ArabicPersian will be treated.

According to this quote the description of Tatar phonology is incomplete and biased in the sense that Russian LPs are excluded from the discussion whereas Persian and Arabic LPs in Tatar are treated as equals of the inherited Turkic part of the system. It is particularly difficult to judge statements like that according to which “[i]n loans from Russian, vowels have values close to those found in Russian” (Comrie 1997b: 901). Does this mean that in the autochthonous lexicon of Tatar “low back rounded a, low-mid back rounded o, low-mid fronted unrounded e, high central unrounded ɨ” (Comrie 1997b: 901) do not show up? As in the case of silence about LPs, all three of the above possibilities are attested in our sample. There is thus the imminent danger of not taking notice of LPs in a given language. For the purpose of this study, we have done our best to collect as many instances of borrowed phonemes but for obvious reasons, we cannot claim to have found each and every piece of evidence. Therefore, our results must be taken with a grain of salt but not as God’s truth. Before we look at some illustrative cases, it is necessary to explain that it is not only difficult to give a universally accepted definition of the phoneme as such but it is even more problematic to define the concept of LP. As mentioned in Section 3 and 5.1 above, we are content with the traditional structuralist notion of phoneme with a relatively tolerant reading of the term. The threshold of

120 | Loan phonemes

tolerance has to be raised considerably in connection to LPs because for most of the instances we have collected from the descriptive-linguistic literature it can be ruled out that the borrowed phonological units would stand the test of a conventional minimal-pair analysis. Accordingly, the component phoneme in loan phoneme is a misnomer of sorts. Under the proviso that the borrowed elements do not necessarily have the status of fully-fledged phonemes, we keep the term for convenience. The statements we find in those sources which make mention of LPs yield a hierarchy of four stages according to the degree of integration of the LPs into the replica language’s phonological system. Simplifying, it can be said that from Stage 1 to Stage 4 the LPs gain ever more properties of proper phonemes. Stage 1 = largely unintegrated/only in (mostly very recent) loanwords for a bilingual minority of speakers: In English loanwords in Maltese, the interdental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ merge normally with their plosive equivalents /t/ and /d/. Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 303) state that a tiny minority of Maltese speakers keep the original English interdentals. The authors conclude, however, that /θ/ and /ð/ are unlikely to constitute eligible candidates for the status of a phoneme of Maltese. Borg (1997b: 248) mentions “[s]ome consonants [which] are restricted to a few but well integrated loanwords” without referring to the interdentals though. Therefore, they can be discounted as Maltese phonemes in the strictest sense of the term. Nevertheless, we regard them as LPs on account of the maximalist approach which is explained below. Comparable cases are found in Luxembourgish and Swedish. In his practical grammar of the former, Schanen (2004: 47) lists the voiceless interdental fricative [θ] and the labial-velar approximant [w] as phonetic units of Luxembourgish which are illustrated with loanwords from English, viz. thriller and workshop, respectively. In Schanen and Zimmer (2012: 336) who provide a detailed account of the official norm of Luxembourgish, the interdental fricative is absent from an otherwise identical list of examples while the labial-velar approximant is still there. As a matter of fact, the authors count /w/ among the phonemes of Luxembourgish (Schanen and Zimmer 2012: 261) although the symbol is again missing from an alternative chart of the pulmonic consonants (Schanen and Zimmer 2012: 333). Owing to these and other uncertainties, we have given preference to Keller (1961) in whose description of Luxembourgish phonology neither /θ/ nor /w/ pop up. For Swedish, our major reference work (Lindqvist 2007) does not mention any LPs. In the Swedish Academy Grammar, however, Teleman et al. (1999: 13) present a “bilabialt frikativt v-ljud t.ex. i engelska lånord som wow (interjection) [wau]” [bilabial fricative v-sound e.g. in English loanwords like wow (interjection) [wau]]. Since the authors only speak

Different types of loan phonemes | 121

of a phonetic unit (“ljud”) and not of a proper phoneme, we feel entitled to exclude [w] from the collection of LPs in EDLs. Stage 2 = weakly integrated/only in (mostly recent) loanwords for many (mostly bilingual) speakers: According to Rießler (2007: 232), Kildin Saami “has borrowed some phonemes along with Russian loanwords. In most cases, however, the phonological distinctiveness of these phonemes is weak since they only occur in loanwords and there are almost no real minimal pairs.” Examples of this kind can be considered to be too unstable to pass as full-blown phonemes of the replica language. To our mind, however, their presence in the system is undeniable and thus we register them under the rubric of LPs. In Danish – a sister language of Swedish – Basbøll (2005: 63) identifies “[t]wo further segments [which] occur in not fully adapted English loans”, namely [w] (as in weekend) and [ɹ] (as in roadmovie). Neither of these two units has phoneme status because they can be replaced with the genuine Danish realizations [v] and [ʁ]. In this study, we disregard these instable Danish cases, i.e. they are not counted as LPs. The above examples from Maltese, Luxembourgish, Swedish, and Danish are indicative of a general problem for which a practical solution is proposed here. Owing among other things to the growing globalization of English as language of international communication as well as secondary and tertiary education, Anglicisms abound in the lexicons (not only) of the EDLs. The relatively recent avalanche of lexical borrowings from English has the side effect that (especially educated) speakers of the replica languages are accustomed to or familiar with English pronunciation. For this reason, cases like the above spurious [θ] in Luxembourgish, the [ɹ] in Danish, the labial-velar approximant [w] in Danish and Swedish are widely common in the contemporary EDLs in loans from English without being registered as LPs by normative grammarians. To escape the danger of speculating too much as to whether any of the above English phonemes has been borrowed everywhere in Europe, we accept English influence only for those EDLs which, for historical reasons, have been in direct long-term contact with English, as e.g. the Celtic EDLs of the British Isles (all varieties of Scottish-Gaelic, Irish, and Welsh) and Maltese as well as for those members of the sample for which the sources explicitly state that a given LP is of English origin. Beyond that the phonological impact of English on the phonologies of the EDLs in the 20th and 21st centuries deserves to be studied in-depth separately. Stage 3 = integrated (within limits)/obligatory, but only in loanwords: Wiese (1996: 22) includes /ʒ/ in the phoneme chart of German although the voiced postalveolar fricative is a loan from French and occurs only in a limited number of loanwords from this language. However, the German phonologist claims that

122 | Loan phonemes

speakers of German “readily accept” /ʒ/ so that it can be classified as “being a phoneme on the periphery” (Wiese 1996: 12–13) (see Section 17.2.4.2). In Lithuanian, according to Vaitkevičiūtė (1965: 66), the domain of the fricatives /f/, /x/, and /ɣ/ is limited to loanwords (see Sections 17.2.4.1, 17.2.4.3, and 17.2.4.13). In the past they were frequently replaced with plosives, namely /f/ > /p/, /x/ > /k/, and /ɣ/ > /g/. The glottal fricative /ɣ/ may also be dropped without segmental replacement. In the current literary norm of Lithuanian, the use of the above fricatives is mandatory in recent loans and internationalisms. Similarly, Meisenburg and Selig (2006) register the velar nasal /ŋ/ as a phoneme in French (see Section 17.2.4.28). This phoneme occurs only in loans from English like meeting, parking, camping and is restricted to the word-final position (Fougeron and Smith 1999: 80). Stage 4 = fully integrated/obligatory also with inherited words: Haase (1993: 29–30) reports on the integration of Gascon/French /y/ into the Souletin variety of Basque spoken north of the French-Spanish border. The high rounded front vowel of the Romance donor languages was attested in Souletin Basque as early as the 17th century. It has spread from Romance loanwords into the inherited part of the lexicon including person affixes on verbs. Thus, /y/ has become a fully integrated member of the core of the phonological system of this variety of Basque (see Section 17.2.2.1). Especially Stage 4 requires robust diachronic knowledge since fully integrated LPs often look back on an age-long history whose beginnings remain somewhat obscure. A case in point stems from the diachronic phonology of Breton. In the chapter dedicated to the genesis of the palatal nasal /ɲ/ (= ) and the palatal lateral approximant /ʎ/ (= ) Jackson (1967: 824) argues that “they could have begun with the earliest borrowings from Fr[ench] into B[reton], if not before in native words”, meaning contact with French has perhaps only strengthened a process that had already started in the replica language independently of the French influence (see Sections 17.2.4.14 and 17.2.4.18). This would be a case along the lines of Blevins’s above hypothesis (cf. Section 15.1). The possibility according to which loanwords have contributed to the phonologization of erstwhile only allophonic relations is a recurrent theme in our sources. As a phoneme, the Albanian voiced postalveolar affricate /ʤ/ has a Turkish origin (see Section 17.2.4.4). However, before Turkish influence set in, [ʤ] was attested already in loans from Slavic and Italian but only as a positional allophone of the voiceless postalveolar affricate /ʧ/ (Boretzky 1975: 42 and 88). For Welsh /ʧ/ and /ʤ/, Hannahs (2013: 15) assumes that they originally had the status of positional allophones of /t/ and /d/ before the high vowel /i/ and „these inno-

Different types of loan phonemes | 123

vations are further reinforced by English loanwords“ (see Sections 17.2.4.4 and 17.2.4.8). Also for Welsh, Lewis (1989: 100) argues that /ʃ/ has been phonologized via the integration of English loanwords; originally [ʃ] was an allophone of /s/ before /i/ (see Section 17.2.4.11). In Árnason’s (2011: 107) account of Icelandic phonology, the interdentals are both phonemic if (and only if) loanwords are accepted as evidence. In inherited Germanic words, [θ] and [ð] are in complementary distribution with the voiced allophone occurring word-medially in intervocalic position and the voiceless counterpart elsewhere. Loanwords (which are notoriously rare in Icelandic), however, tolerate [θ] also in the position V_V otherwise reserved for [ð]. There is thus only a relatively weak argument in favor of two distinctive phonemes /θ/ ≠ /ð/. Since Árnason himself is undecided as to the best solution for this problem, we have decided against assuming two interdental phonemes (see Section 17.2.4.16 and 17.2.4.17). Processes of this kind (i.e. phonologization of allophones via language contact) are so frequent that they deserve to be discussed separately in Section 17.2.4.30. A definitive decision as to the origins of the above palatal phonemes in Breton cannot be taken since they seem to predate the beginning of the literary documentation of the language. Jackson (1967: 845) considers the palatals to be fully integrated phonemes by the beginning of the 16th century but assumes that their phonematization belongs already to the 13th century. We do not intend to solve these and other problems of historical linguistics because there is the inherent danger of getting lost in reconstruction of undocumented stages. Haspelmath (2001: 1507) talks about “the time of the great migrations at the transition between antiquity and the Middle Ages” as probable period in which important features of the SAE languages developed. We neither have the means nor the intention to make any definitive statements about an era as early as this. However, for the purpose of this study, we will take note of cases also of very old LPs wherever they are identified as such in the literature on the subject provided the donor language is identifiable and has survived into the 20th century. We do not define a precise terminus ante quem non but assume that, for lack of texts predating the beginning of the second millennium, the year 1000 AD forms a “natural” borderline which is also the timeframe discussed by Grossman et al. (2020a: 5319) for SegBo. We exclusively accept evidence of LPs which are attested and documented in texts. No account is taken of merely reconstructed cases. It is clear that the phonological systems of both donor and replica language were different in the past (Grawunder 2017: 367) so that what we find in these languages as phonemes nowadays does not exactly match the phonological descriptions of the phonemes which were borrowed a long time ago. What we cannot do in this study is taking account of ephemeral LPs which have already

124 | Loan phonemes

disappeared from the replica systems again or have been fully nativized by way of merging with autochthonous phonemes. The LPs we take into consideration in this paper are still around in the 20th/21st century. In connection to the above potential LPs of old, one may add comments like that made by Paul (1998: 11) with reference to Zazaki: “Die emphatischen Konsonanten [] und die pharyngalen Konsonanten [] sind im Zazaki selten und kommen v.a. [boldface added] in Wörtern arabischer Herkunft vor.“64 On the one hand, the author characterizes emphatic and pharyngeal consonants as generally infrequent in Zazaki only to add that they occur for the most in loanwords from Arabic. This description invokes a combination of properties, viz. those of marginal but nevertheless autochthonous phonemes with those of Arabic LPs. In the absence of frequency counts and etymological dictionaries, it is next to impossible to determine the exact status of the phonemes under inspection. For the purpose of this study, we stipulate that phonemes whose domain is for the vast majority limited to loanwords are classified as LPs, too. Grossman et al (2020a: 5318) also accept cases which are characterized as occurring predominantly (but not exclusively) in loanwords. Moreover, Grossman et al (2020a: 5317) provide a handy definition of the process of phoneme borrowing according to which [p]honological segment borrowing is a process in which a certain sound becomes a contrastive segment in a language, or in which a marginal segment in a language becomes contrastive in more domains or environments, due to lexical borrowing.

For the purpose of this study, we downgrade the criterion of contrastiveness since it is not possible to determine the degree of contrastiveness for each and every LP. If phoneme status is generally a gradient property ranging from marginally to fully contrastive (Hall 2013), it suffices that a given LP is identifiable as a unit of its own no matter whether minimal-pairs exist or not. Grossman et al (2020a: 5317) adopt a similar point of view on the basis of which they justify their choice of the term segment in lieu of phoneme. With reference to Kurmanji, Zazaki’s neighbor in Anatolia, Haig (2017: 403) claims that the pharyngeal phonemes which were formerly restricted to loans from Arabic “spread to items of the inherited lexicon”, so that Stage 4 of integration is almost reached. On the other hand, there are cases like the palatalized dentals in Polish about which Gussmann (2007: 5–6) says that “word-internally,

|| 64 Our translation: “The emphatic consonants and the pharyngeal consonants are infrequent in Zazaki and occur mostly in words of Arabic origin.”

Different types of loan phonemes | 125

these consonants appear in foreign vocabulary only [] or involve prefix boundaries.” We interpret this statement as proof of the existence of the phonemes already prior to borrowing. The contact-induced effects only affect the distributional properties of the units in question and thus do not constitute proper cases of phoneme borrowing. Polish offers further borderline cases. Gussmann (2007: 6–7) also mentions palatalized (denti-)alveolar fricatives and affricates which are said to be “normally found in loanwords.” Again, [ʃʲ], [ʒʲ], [ʦʲ], [ʣʲ], [ʧʲ], and [ʤʲ] fail to pass the LP test because the feature [palatalized] is not present in the donor language from which the loanword has been adapted. The plain sibilants and affricates are well established in the Polish system. The palatalization is an automatic process triggered by the high front vowel /i/ on the immediate right of the phonemes under scrutiny. Therefore, we are dealing with allophones. In the case of [ʣʲ], Gussmann (2007: 7) speaks of a “potential segment”, i.e. a unit which might already have some properties of a phoneme. In Phon@Europe, we adopt a twofold strategy to account for the above continuum of integration. On the one hand, we deliberately take a maximalist stance first in the sense that we do not distinguish LPs of the Stages 1–4 from autochthonous phonemes as to their status in the phonological system. What is more, we accept blindly even the slightest allusion to the possibility of borrowing as sufficient for including a given case among the LPs. This maximalist interpretation serves as the basis of the quantitative evaluation. It is checked how similar (or not) the EDLs become if all LPs are counted in. Next we remove the LPs from the phoneme inventories and once more check to what extent the removal affects the (dis)similarity of the sample languages. With this minimalist version, we pretend that there are no LPs at all to see whether the phoneme systems – stripped of all borrowed elements – diverge more noticeably from each other. When we compare the before (borrowing) and after (borrowing) versions of the areas of diffusion (on one and the same map), we deliberately ignore the factor time because, for lack of sufficiently detailed information for all EDLs, it is impossible to synchronize the findings so that the state of affairs at a given point in time can be reconstructed for all EDLs in a parallel fashion. The question arises whether certain phonemes are more prone to being borrowed than others. Some of the above examples including those from Mari (Hill) in Section 13.2 and Italian in Section 13.1 are already suggestive of the relatively frequent borrowing of fricatives. To put this first impression to the test in the next section, we look at how LPs in EDLs fare in our major reference works in Section 16.

16 Two globally-oriented projects on loan phonemes 16.1 Loan phonemes in Maddieson (1984, 1986) Maddieson (1984) surveys the phoneme inventories of 317 languages. For each of the 617 phoneme types (558 consonant types and 59 vowel types) he establishes the number of languages in which the type is attested. In addition, it is also specified whether a given phoneme is a loan. There are 62 types which are marked as loan consonant at least once, i.e. some 11 % of all consonant types are involved. In the case of vowels, the number of types which occur as loan vowels is eight. This turnout equals 13.5 % of all vowel types. For the sake of the argument, we do not dwell on those classifications of Maddieson’s with which we disagree. Given that the above counts are correct, we can focus on the EDLs of Maddieson’s sample for which LPs are reported. Table 9 shows which phoneme is borrowed into which language (our source does not identify the donor languages). The symbol X in cells which are additionally shaded yellow indicates that the phoneme is attested as a loan in a given language. In the rightmost column the number of EDLs is given into which the phoneme has been borrowed. The bottom line tells us how many LPs occur in a given EDL. Table 9 is further subdivided in four by a vertical and a horizontal red line. The vertical division separates languages with two or more LPs on the left from those with a single LP on the right. The horizontal red line distinguishes phonemes which have been borrowed into two or more languages (upper part) from those which occur only once (lower part). Grey shading in the leftmost column and the topmost row indicates the intersection of frequently borrowing EDLs and frequently borrowed phonemes. What strikes the eye first is the underrepresentation of loan vowels. With /ɛ̃ː/ and /o/, there are only two types both of which have been borrowed only once. In terms of types, consonants outnumber the vowels by a ratio of ten-toone. As to the token frequency, consonants are borrowed eighteen times as often as vowels. This discrepancy is in line with Matras’s (2007: 37) implicational hierarchy according to which universally there is a preference for the adoption of new consonants over the adoption of new vowels in language contact situations.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-016

Loan phonemes in Maddieson (1984, 1986) | 127

X

d

X

g

X

z

X

tj t

Breton

French

X

X

X

X

X

6

X

3 3

X

2 X

2

X

2

X

2

X

1

h

X

1 X

k

1

X

ʔ

1 X

ʤ

1

X

v sj

1

X

1 X

ʃ

1 X

χ

1 X

ʕ

1 X

h

1 X

ŋ

Σ

1 X

ɛ̃ː o

X 8

∑

4

X X

b

Georgian

X

x

Kabardian

ʒ

Basque

X

German

X

Armenian (Eastern)

Komi (Zyrian)

X

X

Hungarian

Finnish

X

X

Azerbaijani

Bashkir

X

ʦ

Irish

Mari

f

Lithuanian

Chuvash

Table 9: LPs in the EDLs of Maddieson’s sample (1984).

1 1

5

5

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

38

In Matras (2009: 228) this hierarchy is explained with reference to the larger size of consonant inventories in comparison to that of vowels so that “the potential for lack of correspondence between consonant systems is higher, resulting in greater pressure to adjust the consonant system.”

128 | Two globally-oriented projects on loan phonemes

Exactly half of the LP consonants are fricatives, namely (in the order of decreasing frequency) /f/, /ʒ/, /x/, /z/, /v/, /sj/, /ʃ/, /χ/, /ʕ/, and /h/. This high turnout confirms the above impression that fricatives are among the most frequently borrowed phonemes. In Section 17.1.2.2.2, we check inter alia whether this prominent position of fricatives among the class of LPs can be confirmed on the basis of our own investigations within the framework of Phon@Europe. For better comparison of our findings with those of Maddieson (1984), we represent the data from Table 9 on Map XXII and additionally in Table 10. Grey shading in Table 10 marks cells which host no cases of LP. Table 10: Distribution of Maddieson’s LPs over nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

1

2

M

3

3

3

9

S

1

0

4

5

Total

4

4

8

16

As can be seen from Map XXII, the majority of the EDLs which borrow more than once are located in Eastern Europe with Chuvash on the topmost rank. We will also check whether the role of Chuvash as a frequent borrower of phonemes is challenged by other EDLs and whether EDLs in the east are more prone to borrowing than those situated in the west. Only two years after the publication of Maddieson (1984), the same author wrote a paper dedicated to what he terms borrowed sounds. This second study of Maddieson’s makes use of the same database as the earlier monograph discussed above. In contrast to the latter, Maddieson (1986) focuses exclusively on consonants. The more recent article corrects a number of errors found in the book-length study of 1984. Some of these corrections also affect EDLs and LPs. The only loss in comparison to Table 9 is the disappearance of /d/ as LP in Irish. All other corrections add new cases to Table 9. First of all, the number of EDLs which give evidence of LPs increases by three, namely – English which attests to borrowed /v/, – Romanian with /z/, /ʒ/, and /h/ as LPs, and – Russian for which /f/ is mentioned as LP.

Loan phonemes in Maddieson (1984, 1986) | 129

In addition to these newcomers among the EDLs, we also find changes for the types of LPs in the following EDLs: – Lithuanian receives two more entries, namely /f/ and /ɣ/ (both with their palatalized counterparts), – Mari is said to have borrowed /pj/, too, and – Bashkir boasts three additional LPs, viz. /ʦ/, /ʧ/, and /ʔ/. Maddieson (1986) does not identify the donor languages for any of the LPs. Seven of the eleven added LPs belong to the class of fricatives whose dominant position among the LPs is thus further strengthened. It is also telling that two of the new EDLs – Romanian and Russian – are located in the eastern half of Europe and that ten of eleven additional LPs are attested in easterly EDLs. What is also of interest for our case-study is Maddieson’s (1986) classification of the LPs. On the highest level, a distinction is made between “close segments” (Maddieson 1986: 5) and “remote sounds” (Maddieson 1986: 8). The former class covers all cases of LPs which fit into the replica language’s system because of some resemblance to already existing phonemes. The label “remote sounds” is attached to those cases where the LPs lack any similarity to the autochthonous elements. Each of the two major categories is divided in three subcategories according to the following pattern: a) close segments (= the majority with 123 cases) a. Class 1: gap-filling = an empty cell in an existing series at a given place of articulation is filled (Maddieson 1986: 5); b. Class 2: the LP is “minimally different from (at least) two existing segments along two dimensions of contrast, but where the segment creates a new manner series” (Maddieson 1986: 6); c. Class 3: phonematization of already established allophones (Maddieson 1986: 6); b) remote sounds (= the minority with 61 cases) a. Class 4: a new manner series is introduced without similarity to two existing segments (Maddieson 1986: 8); b. Class 5: a new place of articulation is created for an existing series in the absence of autochthonous phonemes at the same place of articulation (Maddieson 1986: 9); c. Class 6: the LP introduces both a new place of articulation and a new manner of articulation (Maddieson 1986: 10). We will refer back to these classes when we discuss the distribution of individual LPs in Europe in Section 17.2.2 and 17.2.4 where we try to apply Maddieson’s

130 | Two globally-oriented projects on loan phonemes

(1986) categories to LP consonants. As to LP vowels, we refrain from simply transferring the above taxonomy to a domain for which it was not created in the first place. Thus, LP vowels will be classified according to Maddieson (1986) only unsystematically.

16.2 Loan phonemes in Eisen (2019) Eisen’s (2019) master thesis on the typology of phonological segment borrowing is the first book-length output of the SegBo-project conducted by Eitan Grossman and associates. The scope of the project is as wide as can be, namely global. A worldwide sample of 532 languages is checked for the occurrence of LPs which means that EDLs as such form only a relatively small segment of the sample. SegBo inter alia asks the question whether segment borrowing patterns areally (Eisen 2019: 19). To facilitate generalizing over macro-areas, the sample languages are distributed over several areas from which Europe as a separate geographic entity is missing because the representatives of this continent together with those of Asia are subsumed under Eurasia (Eisen 2019: 29). Note that the term Eurasia is not restricted to the European part of the erstwhile USSR. This practice is perhaps justified for the goals of SegBo. At the same time, it makes it difficult to extract the information that is required for a project that focuses on the areal phonology of Europe as is the case with Phon@Europe. In the master thesis, the author quantitatively accounts for several phenomena. The reader receives information as to the biggest borrowers worldwide (Eisen 2019: 28) and in Eurasia (Eisen 2019: 30). From these frequency counts we learn that the following hierarchy can be established for EDLs (see Table 11). Table 11: Frequently borrowing EDLs according to Eisen (2019: 28 and 30).

Rank

EDL

LPs

1

Tatar

9

2–4

Bashkir, Chuvash, Dutch

8

5–6

Lithuanian, Slavomolisano

7

7–8

Eastern Mari, German

6

It is striking that Eisen’s #1 borrower Tatar is absent from Maddieson’s ranking order in Table 9. The number of LPs given for Bashkir, Chuvash, Lithuanian, and German also differs between Maddieson and Eisen. Moreover, Eisen men-

Loan phonemes in Eisen (2019) | 131

tions more EDLs as frequent borrowers than one can identify in Maddieson (1984). Differences also come to the fore when we look at the LPs themselves. Eisen (2019: 40–41) identifies the most frequently borrowed items both in global perspective and in Eurasia. The first 15 ranks of the global count and the first 27 ranks of the Eurasian segment thereof are occupied by consonants. LP vowels are thus relatively infrequent – a result that fits glove in hand with what Table 9 suggests. In Table 12 we compare the eight top positions of Maddieson’s and Eisen’s. Table 12: The eight most frequent LPs in Maddieson (1984) and Eisen (2019).

Rank

Maddieson

Eisen

Comment

1

/f/

/f/

identical

2

/ʦ/

/ʒ/

#2 = #7

3

/ʒ/

/z/

#3 = #2

4

/x/

/ʤ/

#4 = #5 different

5

/b/

/x/

6

/d/

/v/

different

7

/g/

/ʦ/

different

8

/z/

/ʧ/

#8 = #3

The two studies agree as to the high frequency of five LPs, namely /f/, /ʦ/, /ʒ/, /x/, and /z/. The voiced plosives /b/, /d/, /g/ of Maddieson’s have no corresponding LPs in Eisen’s list. Similarly, the postalveolar affricates /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ as well as the voiced labiodental fricative /v/ are registered only by Eisen as frequently borrowed LPs. Note that /ʤ/ and /v/ are recorded each as isolated LPs in Table 9. Since Eisen’s hierarchy is based on the analysis of languages from Europe and Asia, the results are not fully compatible with each other because the differences between them might be caused by the inclusion of Asian languages in Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. What the comparison shows nevertheless is that the results are neither identical nor absolutely incompatible. As our own study in Section 17 will prove there are discrepancies in the domain of individual LPs whereas there is also a high degree of consistency as to the behavior of classes of phonological units. This means that our findings largely confirm Maddieson (1984) and Eisen (2019) on the higher levels albeit with reservations as to a variety of low-level phenomena. A typical case is gap-filling as motivation for the borrowing of phonemes. This is Maddieson’s (1986) Class 1. Eisen (2019: 16–17) too pays particular atten-

132 | Two globally-oriented projects on loan phonemes

tion to gap-filling not the least in connection with his discussion of factors which either facilitate or inhibit borrowing (Eisen 2019: 84–97). We concur with the cited authors that gap-filling is a frequently recurring pattern. At the same time, it seems that the generalizations Eisen puts forward on the basis of his worldwide sample do not always capture the European facts adequately. For each of the individual LPs (especially LP consonants) to be discussed in Section 17.2 we will assess to what extent gap-filling plays a role and whether the assumed facilitating or inhibiting factors can be made responsible for the behavior of a given LP.

17 Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe This section has a heavy load of tasks to fulfill. This is why it is further subdivided in a multitude of sections. It is the center piece of this study in terms of both the presentation and the evaluation of the empirical data. The internal organization of Section 17 is as follows. There are three major sections, namely Section 17.1 dedicated to LPs in relation to phonological classes with special focus on quantitative aspects, Section 17.2 which focuses on the diffusion of individual LPs, and Section 17.3 in which we elaborate on patterns and correlations connected to issues of general importance which have come up in Sections 17.1–17.2. Each of the three major sections contains several subsections whose topics will be introduced in due course below. The geographical aspects of the phenomena which are scrutinized will be presented on maps. The density of dots of different colors on the maps can be detrimental to the ease of interpretation of the situation pictured by the maps themselves. We therefore additionally extract all cases of borrowing from the maps to represent them in transparently organized tables. These tables reflect the division of Projekteuropa in nonants (cf. Table 8). The cells of the nonants host the absolute number of EDLs which attest to a given phenomenon (which normally is a LP). Those nonants from which the phenomenon is absent are highlighted in grey.

17.1 Loan phonemes and phonological classes (with special focus on quantitative aspects) Our subject matter can be approached from two different angles – and this is what we do in this section. As our point of departure we take the EDLs themselves by way of determining how strongly they are involved in processes of phonological borrowing. This is the theme of Section 17.1.1. In Section 17.1.2, we look at the same phenomena from the perspective of the LPs as representatives of phonological classes. It is worth noting that Maddieson (1984) provides valuable information on (certain) phonological classes and their distribution over the sample languages. However, no connection between class membership and borrowing is postulated. Eisen (2019: 77–106) on the other hand checks the behavior of a sizable selection of phonological classes under borrowing. We will take account of his findings and hypotheses at the appropriate places in the subsequent sections. The guiding question of ours is from which phonological classes LPs are borrowed how often and which ones are excluded from borrow-

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-017

134 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

ing in the European context. Those phonemes and phonological classes which are exempt from borrowing are touched upon in Section 18.3.

17.1.1 EDLs: (Frequent) borrowers vs. non-borrowers There are only two options: either an EDL gives evidence of LPs (= borrower) or it does not (= non-borrower). With this binary set of yes-no decisions, the chance factor is 50 % for each of the options. For our sample of 210 EDLs, this means that according to H0 we expect 105 EDLs to attest to LPs, whereas another 105 EDLs lack all evidence of borrowed phonemes. In point of fact, this estimate is not too close to the mark since the absolute number of borrowers is 131. This is equivalent to a share of 62 % of the sample (see Figure 10). Borrowers outnumber nonborrowers.65 Thus, it is by no means exceptional for an EDL to be equipped with LPs – whereas it is not equally normal for an EDL to have no LPs at all.

non-borrowers; 79; 38%

borrowers; 131; 62%

Figure 10: Shares of borrowers and non-borrowers.

One might argue that the results, to a certain extent, still reflect a division of shares close to chance frequency, the first impression is that this is (weak) proof || 65 It is too difficult to try and estimate how many members of Maddieson’s sample (1984) participate in borrowing and how many do not. In the case of SegBo, it seems that the sample exclusively involves languages which give evidence of LPs because no mention is made of nonborrowers (Eisen 2019: 25).

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 135

of the validity of H0. However, neither the absolute numbers nor the percentages tell the whole story. To determine whether the distribution is indeed random, we still have to check whether a) the incidence of LPs across language families is explicable with reference to the chance factor and whether b) the location in space of borrowers relative to non-borrowers yields an areal pattern. As to (a), the prediction is that, in analogy to the overall results, each language family will also reflect a division into borrowers and non-borrowers with shares oscillating between 40 %–60 %. As we will see shortly, the different language families behave individually. Figure 11 shows how many EDLs in a given language family or group attest to LPs and how many EDLs of the same genetic affiliation lack evidence of LPs. 80

75

70 60

borrowers

non-borrowers

49

50 40 30 20 10

19

18

13 5

10 2

5

0

3 2

3

0

2 3

1

0

0

Figure 11: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers per phylum (absolute numbers).

With seventy-five borrowers, the Indo-European language family alone is responsible for 57 % of the EDLs which have LPs. At the same time, the same language family covers 62 % of all EDLs without LPs. In the sample, the share of the Indo-European EDLs equals 59 %, i.e. Indo-European borrowers and nonborrowers do not behave exactly as expected although the shares do not diverge too dramatically from our initial estimate. Figure 12 discloses these relations for all language families involved.

136 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

70% 60% 50%

share of sample

40%

share of borrowers

30%

share of non-borrowers

20% 10% 0%

Figure 12: Three shares compared per phylum.

In Uralic, Turkic, and Afro-Asiatic the borrowers claim a share that is higher than the language families have in the sample. The Isolate and Mongolic give evidence of identical shares. As to the non-borrowers, Nakh-Daghestanian, Abkhaz-Adyghe, and Kartvelian yield shares which surpass those of the language families in the sample. It strikes the eye that these three cases are all situated in the Caucasian region. The language families do not behave the same as Figure 13 shows. Seven of them give preference to borrowers whereas two prefer non-borrowers. Within the Indo-European language family, borrowers constitute a majority of 60 %. In Kartvelian, however, three non-borrowers compete with two borrowers. As to Nakh-Daghestanian there are 66 % non-borrowers as opposed to only 34 % borrowers. Borrowers are numerically stronger than non-borrowers in most of the language families and groups. Figure 13 captures these differences which speak in favor of a genetic correlation be it pro or contra LPs. Mongolic, Turkic, Uralic, and Abkhaz-Adyghe are language families whose member EDLs are all located in the eastern part of the continent. Since NakhDaghestanian and Kartvelian EDLs are also situated in the east, it cannot be concluded sweepingly that easterly geographic coordinates require a language family to prefer borrowers over non-borrowers. Nevertheless, it is probable that there is a quantitative east-west divide in Europe as to the prominence borrowers are given in a language family (see below).

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 137

100%

2

80%

5

49

2

60% 40%

5

3

1

13

18

20%

75

3

19

2

10

3

0%

borrowers

non-borrowers

Figure 13: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers per phylum (shares).

In Table 13, we divide the members of our sample in borrowers and nonborrowers and identify them with their glossonyms. Those EDLs which are also mentioned as borrowers in Maddieson (1984) are marked in bold (see Table 9). Additions on the basis of Maddieson (1986) are printed in italics. Where the choice of variety remains unclear the glossonyms are underlined. Table 13: Borrowers and non-borrowers in the sample.

Non-borrowers (n = 79)

Borrowers (n = 131)

Abkhaz, Aghul, Akhvakh, Andi, Archi, Asturian, Avar, Bagvalal, Bezhta (Tlyadal), Botlikh, Budukh, Chamalal, Corsican, Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dargwa (Icari), Dutch (Drente), Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), Estonian (Rõngu), Faroese, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), Frisian Northern (Weesdring), Frisian Western, Friulian (Udine), Galician, German (Brig), German (Ladelund Danish), German (urban Kölsch), Godoberi, Greek (Italo-Greek Sternatia), Icelandic, Ingush, Irish, Irish (Northern), Irish (Southern), Istriot, Italian (Genovese), Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karata, Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Kryts, Kryts (Alyk), Kurmanji, Ladin, Lak, Low German

Abaza, Adyghe, Albanian, Albanian (Mandrica), Albanian (Salamis), Arabic (Çukurova), Arabic (Cypriot/Kormakiti), Aramaic (Cudi), Aramaic (Hertevin), Armenian (Eastern), Armenian (Western), Aromanian, Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Basque, Basque (Lekeitio), Basque (Zuberoa), Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Bosnian, Breton, Breton (Léonais), Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Bulgarian, Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Catalan, Chechen, Chuvash, Cornish, Crimean Tatar, Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), Czech, Czech (Moravian-Slovak), Dutch, English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney), Estonian, Finnish, French, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk),

138 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Non-borrowers (n = 79)

Borrowers (n = 131)

(North Saxon), Manx, Mingrelian, Nenets (Tundra), Norman (Jersey), Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Ossetic, Portuguese, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Russian (Meščera), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic (Applecross), Spanish, Svan, Swedish, Swedish (Österbotten), Tindi, Tsova-Tush, Ubykh, Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili)

Gagauz, Georgian, German, Greek, Hinukh, Hungarian, Hunzib, Istro Romanian, Italian, Kabardian, Kalmyk, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim (Trakai), Karelian (Archangelsk), Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Kashubian, Kazakh, Khinalug, Khwarshi, Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Kumyk, Ladino, Latgalian, Latvian, Latvian (Skrunda), Laz, Laz (Mutafi Turkey), Lezgian, Lithuanian, Lithuanian (Dieveniškės), Livonian, Low German (East Frisian), Low German (Westphalian), Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Maltese, Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow), Megleno Romanian (Greece), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Noghay, Polish, Polish (Lazduny), Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Burgenland), Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), Romani (North Russian), Romani (Sepečides), Romanian, Romanian (Megleno), Russian, Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Rutul, Saami (Kildin), Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese), Serbian, Slavomolisano, Slovak, Slovene, Slovene (Resia), Sorbian Lower, Sorbian Lower (Vetschau), Sorbian Upper, Tabasaran, Tatar, Tsakhur, Turkish, Turkish (Trabzon), Udi (Nidž), Udmurt, Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper), Ukrainian (North Hutsul), Veps, Votic, Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern), Yiddish

The affiliation and geography of the non-borrowers will be addressed in Section 18.4. There are seven times as many borrowers in our European sample than Maddieson (1984, 1986) was able to identify for Europe in his global sample. To check whether the hypothesis of an east-west cline is corroborated by the linguistic facts, we plot the above quantitative result and the EDLs of Table 13 onto Map XXIII. In Table 14, the absolute numbers of borrowers and nonborrowers per nonant are disclosed. The letter b is short for borrower(s) whereas n-b is used as abbreviation for non-borrower(s). The nonants host different numbers of members of the two classes of EDLs. Table 14 reveals that EDLs with

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 139

LPs outnumber EDLs without LPs in all mid nonants (= MW, MC, and ME) as well as in NE, SC, and SE. Accordingly, borrowers are stronger than nonborrowers also in the total of the M-nonants and those of the south and east. In six of nine nonants, borrowers are stronger than non-borrowers. NC and SW give evidence of the reverse relation. The NW nonant is exceptional since there is no borrower at all (marked by shading of the appropriate cell in Table 14). Table 14: Distribution of borrowers and non-borrowers over nonants.

W b N

M

S Sum

b

b

12

7

63 26 63 28

50

31

44 131

Total

n-b

9

1 29

30

b 5

17

9 65

n-b

2

16 30

18

b

Sum

4

34

4

16

n-b

5

9

n-b

E

1 2

n-b b

n-b

0

n-b b

C

14

89

107

79 210

Total

34

95

81

210

Figure 14 translates the absolute numbers of Table 14 into shares of borrowers and non-borrowers for the six categories north, east, south, west, middle, and center. The values calculated for the west can be described as a close run between borrowers and non-borrowers. In all other categories, the differences between the two categories under review are much more pronounced. It strikes the eye that the share of borrowers is lower than 50 % only in the north and west whereas it is higher everywhere else. With shares of 36 % and 47 %, borrowers are particularly underrepresented in the north and the west, respectively. In contrast, borrowers cover 68 % of the EDLs in the nonants of the center and 71 % of those of the middle. In what follows, we keep the underrepresentation and overrepresentation in mind when we scrutinize the class of borrowers further.

140 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

100% 9

90%

18

44

31

30

26

65

63

center

middle

80% 70% 60% 63

50% 40%

50

16

30%

5

20% 10% 0% north

west

south east borrowers non-borrowers

Figure 14: Shares of borrowers and non-borrowers according to basic categories of the nonants.

Areality comes to the fore much more clearly if we introduce the distinction of frequent borrower vs infrequent borrower. To determine what is what, we first calculate the average number of LPs for the 131 EDLs which attest to phoneme borrowing. Those EDLs which exceed the average are termed frequent borrowers whereas those EDLs which fail to reach the average count as infrequent borrowers. There are altogether 434 cases of LPs (= tokens) distributed over 131 EDLs. This yields an average of 3, i.e. EDLs with n ≥ 4 LPs are frequent borrowers as opposed to EDLs with n ≤ 3 ≥ 1 LPs for the class of infrequent borrowers. Table 15 presents the 46 frequent borrowers in the order of decreasing numbers of LPs. EDLs which are situated in the westerly nonants of Europe are marked out in boldface, those located in the northern nonants are underlined. Table 15: Ranking order of frequent borrowers.

Rank

EDLs

1

Tatar

12

2–4

Basque (Zuberoa), Crimean Tatar, Romani (Ajia Varvara)

10

5

Maltese

9

6–7

Chuvash, Livonian

8

8–15

Arabic (Çukurova), Aromanian, Kazakh, Megleno Romanian (Greece),

7

Loans

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 141

Rank

EDLs

Loans

Noghay, Romani (Sepečides), Romanian (Megleno), Saami (Kildin) 16–19

Estonian, Kumyk, Ladino, Votic

20–27

Albanian (Salamis), Aramaic (Cudi), Aramaic (Hertevin), Azerbaijani, Dutch, 5 Gagauz, Greek, Slavomolisano

6

28–46

Abaza, Adyghe, Bashkir, Basque (Lekeitio), Breton, Breton (Léonais), Chechen, English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), Finnish, KarachayBalkar, Mari (Hill), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), Romani (North Russian), Turkish (Trabzon), Welsh (Southern)

4

The results are striking in the sense that EDLs of the west and north form a minority of ten of 46 frequent borrowers. Their share is only 22 % of this class. Basque (Zuberoa) stands out because it is located in the SW nonant but at the same time it shows up on rank #2 of Table 15. In contrast, the remaining borrowers in the west and north are frequent borrowers only by a hair’s breadth because they attest to four LPs each. Tatar boasts three times as many LPs as each of these northerly/westerly EDLs. If we discount the special case of Basque (Zuberoa), we have a clear distribution according to which EDLs in the west and north are less prone to borrow multiply. This seems to be different the further you move away from the respective nonants – at least this is what the absolute numbers in Table 16 seem to suggest. Table 16: Distribution of frequent borrowers over nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

1

2

M

6

5

6

17

S

2

13

12

27

Total

8

19

19

46

The cell which attest to the absence of frequent borrowers is marked by grey shading. Boldface is used to highlight those nonants which equal or surpass the average of 5 frequent borrowers (= 46 cases divided by 9 nonants). Figure 15 shows clearly that the contributions of the north and west to the class of frequent borrowers is considerably smaller than that of each of the other basic categories.

142 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

30

27

25 20

19

19

east

center

17

15 8

10 5

2

0 north

west

middle

south

Figure 15: Shares of frequent borrowers according to basic categories of the nonants.

The share of the south for instance is almost fourteen times as big as that of the north and more than three times bigger than that of the west. Frequent borrowing is thus preferred outside the north and the west. Map XXIV confirms this hypothesis. In Section 16 we have reported on Maddieson’s (1984) and Eisen’s (2019) frequent borrowers. Going by the hierarchy presented by Eisen (2019: 30) for the languages of Eurasia, we state that there is considerable overlap. Tatar, Chuvash, Bashkir, Dutch, and Slavomolisano are considered frequent borrowers not only in our study but also in Eisen’s as can be gathered from Table 11 above. There are differences as to the absolute number of LPs. Moreover, Eisen considers Mari (Meadow) (= his Eastern Mari), Lithuanian, and German to belong to the category of frequent borrowers. On the basis of our own investigations, however, Mari (Meadow) is an infrequent borrower whose place has to be ceded to Mari (Hill) (aka Western Mari). Similarly, Lithuanian and German are classified by us as infrequent borrowers (see Table 17). A look back at Table 9 reveals that Maddieson (1984) has several frequent borrowers which show up neither in Eisen (2019) nor in Table 15, namely Irish and Komi (Zyrian) the former being a non-borrower (see Table 13) and the latter an infrequent borrower. Lithuanian is a frequent borrower for both Maddieson and Eisen. Our study and that of Maddieson are in agreement, however, as to the status of frequent borrower of Mari (Hill) and Finnish. These and further differences between the different approaches clearly show that the last word on this matter has not been spoken yet. The genetic side of the problem is also of interest to us. Among the frequent borrowers in Table 15, we find only twenty members of the Indo-European lan-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 143

guage family whereas there are twenty-six EDLs of different genetic background. With 43 % the share the Indo-European EDLs claim within the class of frequent borrowers is surprisingly small in comparison to the 59 % majority the Indo-European EDLs have in the sample as such. Figure 16 shows that the relation of Indo-European and non-Indo-European EDLs is inverted in the case of the frequent borrowers.

Indo-European; 20; 43% other; 26; 57%

Figure 16: Shares of Indo-European and non-Indo-European EDLs among frequent borrowers.

We crosscheck the above results by way of reviewing the distribution of the infrequent borrowers in Europe. To this end, Table 17 presents the turnouts of LPs for each infrequent borrower in analogy to the principles applied for Table 15. The ranks are continued from Table 15. Table 17: Ranking order of infrequent borrowers.

Rank

EDLs

47–79

Basque, Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Bulgarian, English (Cockney), Hungarian, Hunzib, Istro Romanian, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Khwarshi, Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Latvian, Latvian (Skrunda), Lithuanian, Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Romani (Burgenland), Romanian, Sardinian (Nuorese), Slovene (Resia), Sorbian Upper, Turkish, Udi (Nidž), Udmurt, Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper), Ukrainian (North Hutsul), Veps , Welsh (Northern), Yiddish

Loans 3

144 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Rank

EDLs

Loans

80–99

Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Catalan, Cornish, Czech, Czech (Moravian-Slovak), German, Hinukh, Kalmyk, Khinalug, Latgalian, Low German (Westphalian), Luxembourgish, Mari (Meadow), Mordvin (Erzya), Slovak, Slovene, Sorbian Lower, Tabasaran

2

100–131

Albanian, Albanian (Mandrica), Arabic (Cypriot/Kormakiti), Armenian (Eastern), Armenian (Western), Bosnian, Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), French, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Georgian, Italian, Kabardian, Karaim (Trakai), Karelian (Archangelsk), Kashubian, Laz, Laz (Mutafi Turkey), Lezgian, Lithuanian (Dieveniškės), Low German (East Frisian), Mordvin (Moksha), Polish, Polish (Lazduny), Russian, Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Rutul, Sardinian (Campidanese), Serbian, Sorbian Lower (Vetschau), Tsakhur

1

On each of the three frequency levels of Table 17, EDLs from northerly and westerly nonants constitute the minority. Of 33 EDLs with three LPs, only three (= 9 %) are found in the west and two in the north (both from the NE nonant). The four EDLs of the west which attest to two LPs account for 20 % of all EDLs with two LPs. 32 EDLs attest to a single LP. Of these, only French is spoken in the western part of Europe. The north has only Karelian (Archangelsk) on this level. This means that neither the European west nor the European north becomes important numerically on any of the above frequency levels. Bigger turnouts are overwhelmingly the privilege of EDLs spoken outside the three nonants in the west and those of the north. In terms of the genetic affiliation of the infrequent borrowers we see that in contrast to the division in the case of frequent borrowers the Indo-European EDLs are more numerous and thus have a bigger share than the non-IndoEuropean EDLs. With 55 EDLs (= 65 %) the share of the Indo-European EDLs is bigger than that the same language family has in the sample. Figure 17 should be compared with Figure 16. As shown in this section, the EDLs do not behave randomly. Especially the distribution of frequent borrowers is indicative of a heavy dose of areality. Since northerly and westerly nonants differ considerably from the other nonants as to the importance borrowers are given, we consider our above findings as proof of the validity of HA. The differences that emerge from a comparison of IndoEuropean and non-Indo-European EDLs also speak in favor of HA. In the subsequent section, we look at our subject matter from the perspective of the LPs themselves.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 145

other; 30; 35% Indo-European; 55; 65%

Figure 17: Shares of Indo-European and non-Indo-European EDLs among infrequent borrowers.

17.1.2 Loan phonemes: how many and how often This section forms the bridge to the sections dedicated to qualitative aspects insofar as it is unavoidable to refer to phonological classes and individual phonemes also in this section which otherwise has its focus upon quantities. We have identified 406 different phonemes (= types) in the EDLs. In this absolute number, all complex phonemes are counted in as unitary phonemes of their own, i.e. secondary articulations (such as palatalization), quantity (such as vowel length and geminates) as well as nasalization belong to a given phoneme provided our sources identify the unit as phonemic. This practice corresponds to that employed by Maddieson (1984) and Eisen (2019). How many of the above 406 phonemes are involved in processes of borrowing? There are 57 phonemes which are LPs at least once in the sample. In contrast, a majority of 349 phonemes is never involved in borrowing and thus call for being discussed separately in Section 18.3. Figure 18 shows that only one-seventh of all phonemes also functions as LP. The inventory of phonemes that results from the analysis of the sample languages comprises 406 units of which 311 (= 77 %) are consonants and 95 (23 %) are vowels. The consonants outnumber the vowels by a ration of 3-to-1. According to the widely accepted hypothesis based on Matras (2009: 232), we expect that there are significantly more consonants which can be classified as LP than there are LP vowels (e.g. Velupillai 2012: 408; Eisen 2019: 14–16). As a matter of fact, we have evidence of 47 consonantal LPs as opposed to only 10 vocalic LPs, i.e. there are almost five times as many LP consonants as there are LP vowels.

146 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

LP; 57; 14%

non-LP; 349; 86%

Figure 18: Shares of loan phonemes vs. phonemes unaffected by borrowing.

This interesting result might suggest that in the European context, the hypothesis about the different borrowability of consonants and vowels is largerly corroborated. Figure 19 contrasts the LP shares of consonants and vowels. As shown in Section 16, the relation of LP consonants and LP vowels in Maddieson’s (1984) work is more uneven. The 20 types of consonants he marks as LPs account for 91 % of all LP types so that there remains only the meagre share of 9 % for the two LP vowel types registered for EDLs by Maddieson. Our own data tell a slightly different story.

vowels; 10; 18%

consonants; 47; 82%

Figure 19: Shares of vowels and consonants with LPs.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 147

Since, in our sample, vowels account only for 23 % of all attested phonemes, the 18 %-share of vowels in Figure 19 is not particularly remarkable. Similarly, 11 % of all vowels are also registered as LPs whereas with consonants, the share of LPs is 15 % as shown in Figure 20. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

264

50%

85

40%

non-LP LP

30% 20% 10%

47

10

consonants

vowels

0%

Figure 20: Shares of LP consonants and LP vowels.

It is also worth noting that in Maddieson’s (1984) study only two out of sixteen of his EDLs attest to LP vowels. In contrast, fifteen of sixteen EDLs give evidence of LP consonants. This means that 13 % of Maddieson’s borrowers borrow vowels whereas 94 % borrow consonants (with a single EDL borrowing from both major phonological classes). In our own sample, we have reached the following results. Of 131 borrowers, 112 (= 85 %) EDLs give evidence exclusively of LP consonants. LP vowels have the monopoly only with two EDLs (= 2 %). The group of EDLs which borrow both consonants and vowels counts seventeen EDLs (= 13 %). There is thus a clear preference for LP consonants over LP vowels as predicted almost to the same degree as in Maddieson’s case: 98 % of our borrowers opt for consonants as opposed to 15 % which opt for vowels. The differences between Maddieson’s and our findings are featured in Figure 21. There can be no doubt about consonants being number one when it comes to borrowing phonemes. However, LP vowels might turn out to be not as marginal as the data in Maddieson (1984) seem to suggest. Whether the higher incidence of LP vowels is a trait which sets Europe apart from other macro-areas is a question which cannot be answered in this study.

148 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

100%

2 1

95% 17

1

90%

V only C+V

85%

C only 14

80%

112

75% Maddieson

this study

Figure 21: Shares of EDLs with LP vowels, LP consonants, or both (Maddieson 1984 vs. this study).

The next step of our analysis makes it necessary to check whether the quantitative differences between consonants and vowels as observed hitherto yield an areal-linguistically interesting geographic distribution. Map XXV only features EDLs which give evidence of LPs. Table 18 captures the distribution of the three classes over the nonants in the tabular overview. Table 18: Distribution of LP consonants and vowels over the nonants.

W C C N

V

0

1

25

1

9 54

1

10

63

1 3

43

63

1 3

4 54

5 0

0

0

C+V

53

6 26

V

0

1

1 15

C

0

14

0

0

C+V

Total

5

0

0

3

V

0

27

C+V Sum

C

Sum

4

0

V

C+V

0

12

V

C

V

E

1

C+V

S

C

0

C+V

M

C+V

0

V

C

C

1

6

8 113

2

16 131

Total

16

65

50

131

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 149

The grey cells which mark the absence of borrowers are particularly numerous in the N-nonants and W-nonants. Except the unique case of the NW nonant, LP consonants are attested all over the place. What is missing instead are LP vowels in NW, NC, NE, and MW. LP vowels are attested in SW, SC, and ME exclusively in EDLs which also borrow LP consonants. These cases enlarge the territory of LP consonants which forms a solid block with only two interspersed EDLs which exclusively give evidence of LP vowels. EDLs which borrow only vowels are isolated cases located in two pockets in the nonants MC and SE. In Section 17.1.2.1, we take a closer look at the LP vowels and their properties. The LP consonants are the topic of Section 17.1.2.2.

17.1.2.1 Phonological parameters of vowels In this section, we pose the question whether any of the dimensions of the vowel system stands out as to being involved in cases of LP vowels. The focus is on quantitative aspects. All numerical values referring to phonemes reflect type frequencies. Maps are provided independent of the degree of areality of the phenomena under review. The tables which accompany the maps in this section exclusively feature those EDLs which attest to LP vowels. We proceed from backness via height and closure to rounding.66 We apply a relatively unsophisticated strategy of triangulation by way of looking at the facts from three different angles – the first of which focuses on the numerical relation and geography of borrowers and non-borrowers in the domain of a given vowel phoneme class, – the second determines the share the vowel phoneme class has in the vowel inventory, and – thirdly, the share of LP vowels per vowel category is presented. These three steps lead us to general conclusions about the phenomena under scrutiny. 17.1.2.1.1 Backness: On the horizontal plane we distinguish the three categories front (including near front), central, and back (including near back). The

|| 66 Nasalization and (long) quantity are excluded from the discussion in this chapter because these are two properties which belong to the domain of suprasegmental phonology which is not in the center of interest of this study. In Section 17.2.2.8 some aspects of these two secondary properties are discussed. Pharyngealization is a further property of vowels reported for four EDLs of our sample, however, not in LPs. We therefore skip also the issue of pharyngealization in this section.

150 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

EDLs display a clear preference for front vowels because this class of vowels is attested in all 210 members of our sample (= 100 %). Back vowels, however, are attested in 205 of 210 EDLs, i.e. the feature [back] is relevant phonemically for 98 % of the sample with Ubykh being one of the five EDLs which lack back vowels (Charachidze 1989: 361). Central vowels are reported for 94 EDLs which account for just 45 % of the sample languages. EDLs have borrowed LP vowels from each of the three categories of backness. Front vowels have been borrowed by eleven EDLs. In contrast, back vowels are instances of borrowing in four EDLs and central vowels are LP vowels in seven EDLs. In Figure 22, the shares of LP vowels are calculated for each of the three categories of backness. 100% 90% 80% 70% non-borrowers

60% 50%

87

199

201 borrowers

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

7

11

4

central

front

back

Figure 22: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of backness.

In the case of central vowels, the share of borrowers is 7 % of all EDLs which have phonemic central vowels independent of borrowing. Front vowels have been borrowed by 5 % of the EDLs whereas back vowels are LP vowels only in 2 % of those EDLs which have vowel phonemes with the feature [back]. Map XXVI shows the location of borrowers. There are large areas which host no dots. This shows that LP vowels are generally scarce in Europe. Table 19 focuses on these borrowers. We use the shorthands f for front, b for back, and c for central. Map XXVI hosts only nineteen dots whereas there are 22 cases mentioned in Table 19. The difference is caused by multiple borrowing of individual EDLs.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 151

Table 19: Distribution of borrowers of front, back, or central vowels over the nonants.

W f f N

b

0

b c

c

f

0

0

0 1

2 0

2 1

2 0

0 3

0 0

c

0

4

1

b

0

0

c

S

b

0

0

b

f

f

E

0

c

M

c

0

b

f

C

0 4

2

The N-nonants and MW give no evidence of LP vowels. Borrowers of front vowels can be found in all five of the nonants which host cases of LP vowels, i.e. SW, MC, SC, ME, and SE. Central vowels on the other hand are attested as LPs only in three nonants, namely MC, SC, and SE. Back vowels are never borrowed in the S-nonants so that they occur as LPs only in MC and ME. It strikes the eye that all three EDLs which attest to borrowing from two backness categories are situated in southerly nonants. In our sample, the vowel phonemes distribute differently over the three categories of backness. There are 44 types of front vowels as opposed to 33 back vowels and 18 central vowels. Thus, front vowels are responsible for 47 % of all vowel phonemes. The feature [back] is relevant for 35 % of all vowel phonemes. The feature [central], however, occurs with only 19 % of the European vowel inventory. As shown in Figure 23, the dominance of front vowels disappears under borrowing where the feature [front] is present in 40 % of the cases (= 4 LPs) as opposed to 20 % for [back] (= 2 LPs) and 40 % for [central] (= 4 LPs). That front vowels are not as prominent as expected in the domain of borrowing can also be gathered from Figure 24.

152 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

100% 90%

18

80%

4

70% 33

60% 50%

central

2

40%

back

30%

front

44

20%

4

10% 0% all vowels

LP vowels

Figure 23: Shares of backness categories in the European vowel inventory.

Figure 24 tells us that the percentage of front vowels which are affected by borrowing is slightly higher than that of back vowels and lower than that of central vowels. Of 44 front vowels, 4 (= 9 %) are also involved in borrowing. For back vowels, 2 (= 6 %) out of 33 phonemes are also reported as LP vowels. There are 18 types of central vowels of which only four (= 22 %) figure among the LP vowels. This means that while front vowels constitute the largest and most widely distributed class of vowels on the parameter of backness they are not dominant in the domain of LP vowels. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

14 31

40

unaffected

40%

borrowed

30% 20% 10% 0%

4 2

4

back

front

Figure 24: Shares of LP vowels per backness category.

central

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 153

17.1.2.1.2 Height: On the vertical axis we distinguish again three categories, namely high (= IPA close + near close), mid (= IPA close-mid + mid + open-mid), and low (= IPA open + near open). The parameter of closure will be addressed in the subsequent section. The height levels are unevenly represented in the sample. The feature [high] is attested in 205 EDLs which equals a share of 98 %. The features [low] and [mid] are both represented in 209 EDLs so that the share reaches 99 % and surpasses that of [high] by a narrow margin. Among the EDLs without high vowels we find Abaza (Lomtatidze and Klychev 1989). Lak is described as the sole EDL without a mid vowel (Anderson 1997) whereas Romani (North Russian) is the sole EDL that lacks the feature [low] generally (Wentzel and Klemm 1980). As in the case of backness discussed in the foregoing section, EDLs have borrowed LP vowels from each of the three categories of height. High vowels have been borrowed by twelve EDLs. Mid vowels are cases of borrowing in fourteen EDLs. In contrast, low vowels are LP vowels in only three EDLs. In Figure 25, the shares of LP vowels are calculated for each of the three categories of height. With a share of 7 %, LP vowels are strongest in the domain of [mid] closely followed by [high]. The feature [low], however, is relevant for borrowing only in 1 % of the sample. 100% 80% 60% 195

193

206

40%

non-borrowers borrowers

20% 0%

14

12

3

mid

high

low

Figure 25: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of height.

Map XXVII exclusively situates the borrowers in Europe. For obvious reasons Map XXVII is as sparsely populated as Map XXVI. EDLs which borrow from several height classes are marked accordingly. Multiple borrowing by individual EDLs is responsible for the differences between the number of dots on the map

154 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

and the number of cases in the table. Table 20 surveys the geographical whereabouts of the borrowers. The feature [high] corresponds to the letter h, [mid] to m, and [low] to l. Table 20: Distribution of borrowers of high, mid, or low vowels over the nonants.

W h h N

m

m l

l

h

0

0

0 1

6 0

1 0

3 1

1 3

4 0

l

0

4

1

m

0 0

0

l

S

m

E

0

0

m

h

h

0

l

M

l

0

m

h

C

2 0

2

As to the picture painted by Table 20, it can be stated that borrowers, as usual, are absent in the north and MW. Borrowed high and mid vowels are featured in five other nonants, namely SW, MC, ME, SC, and SE. In contrast, low vowels are registered as instances of LPs only in ME and SE. EDLs which attest to borrowing from multiple height classes can be found in SE (high-mid-low once, highmid once), MC (high-mid three times), SC (high-mid three times), and SW (highmid once). Six of the nine EDLs in the southern nonants fall under this rubric. Three further cases of borrowing from two height classes have been identified in the MC nonant. In the C-nonants and S-nonants, LP mid vowels are the most numerous. In the sample, mid vowels constitute the largest category in the domain of height. There are 45 different types which account for 47 % of all vowel phoneme types. Second best is the feature [high] which yields 30 types or 32 % of all vowel phoneme types. In the case of [low], the absolute number of types is 20. This is equivalent to 21 % of all vowel phoneme types. Under borrowing, the ranks of the height categories remain the same, whereas the shares of the three height levels change: the shares of the feature [mid] and [high] increase to 50 % and 40 % accordingly. The share of [low] decreases to 10 %. Figure 26 visualizes this difference.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 155

100% 90%

1

20

80% 70%

4 30

60%

low

50%

high

40%

mid

30% 20%

45

5

all vowels

LP vowels

10% 0%

Figure 26: Shares of height categories in the European vowel inventory.

If we look at the facts from the perspective of the shares the LP vowels claim of the different height levels, the picture looks slightly different as results from Figure 27. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

19

40

26 unaffected

40% borrowed

30% 20% 10% 0%

1 low

5

4

mid

high

Figure 27: Shares of LP vowels per height category.

According to Figure 27, high vowels are affected by borrowing more frequently than low and mid vowels. The dominance of the feature [mid] as reported for the entire vowel inventory does not hold for LP vowels. Of 45 mid vowels, 5 (= 11 %) are also involved in borrowing. For low vowels, 1 (= 5 %) out of 20 phonemes are

156 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

registered also as LP vowels. In contrast, high vowels which come in 30 types in the general inventory give evidence of four LP types, i.e. 13 % of the vowels with the feature [high] are affected by borrowing. 17.1.2.1.3 Closure: The prominence of the class of mid vowels among the LP vowels can be further relativized when we admit the parameter closure on board. We assume three features as categories of closure, namely [open], [closed], and [neutral]: a) The feature [closed] is represented by 56 types and thus forms the largest subclass which accounts for 59 % of all vowels. There are 206 EDLs which attest this class of vowels, i.e. it exists in 98 % of the sample. b) The feature [open] is represented by 35 types which yield a share of 37 % of all vowels. With 209 EDLs which have open vowel phonemes, the share of this subclass amounts to 99 %. c) Neutral (= schwa vowels) constitute a minority of four types (= 4 % of all vowels). We have evidence of mid neutral vowels from 63 EDLs (= 30 % of the sample). Figure 28 determines the number of LP vowels per closure category. The highest turnout goes to the credit of [closed] whereas the biggest share of LPs is delivered by the feature [neutral]. It is clear that the latter is caused by the small number of neutral vowels. 100% 90%

33

49

3

80% 70% 60% 50%

unaffected

40% borrowed

30% 20%

1

10% 0%

2

7

open

closed

neutral

Figure 28: Shares of LP vowels per closure category.

Figure 29 accounts for the borrowers according to three closure categories.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 157

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 190

50%

60

non-borrowers

205

borrowers

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

16

3

4

closed

neutral

open

Figure 29: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of closure categories.

What we see in Figure 29 is that 8 % of all EDLs with closed vowels have borrowed closed vowels. 5 % of all EDLs with neutral vowels borrow neutral vowels and only 2 % of all EDLs with open vowels give evidence of LP open vowels. Map XXVIII is organized in analogy to the two foregoing maps. The same holds for the different numbers of dots and cases on Map XXVIII and in Table 21, respectively. For better recognition we indicate the number of borrowers per category and nonant in Table 21. The abbreviations employed in this table are: c = closed, n = neutral, and o = open. Table 21: Distribution of borrowers of closed, open, and neutral vowels over the nonants.

W c c N

n

c

n o

n

E o

0

c

0

7

0 2

1 0

0 1

3 0

1 3

2 0

o

0 0

0 1

n

0 0

0

o

S

c

0

n c

o

0

n o

M

C

0 1

2

158 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The nonants in the north and MW are again devoid of borrowers. Borrowers of vowels with the feature [neutral] are restricted to MC and SC. The distribution of LP open vowels is wider since borrowing from this class is also reported for ME and SE. More common is the borrowing of LP closed vowels. Borrowers of this class are reported for all five nonants attesting vowels as LPs. 17.1.2.1.4 Rounding: On this parameter we once more make three distinctions, namely rounded vowels vs unrounded vowels vs neutral vowels (= schwa vowels, i.e. not to be confused with vowels which are neutral on the parameter of closure). In our sample, unrounded vowels are ubiquitous since they are attested in all 210 EDLs of the sample. Rounded vowels are slightly less frequent. There are 205 EDLs which give evidence of the existence of rounded vowel phonemes which are thus present in 98% of the sample. Adyghe is an example of an EDL without rounded vowels (Paris 1989). Neutral vowels are a minority option which pops up in 68 EDLs (= 32% of the sample). There is evidence of borrowing in each of the subclasses of rounding. As to their susceptibility to borrowing, rounded vowels stand out because with thirteen EDLs which host LP rounded vowels in their phoneme systems this subclass does not only yield the highest turnout in terms of absolute numbers but also has the highest share of LP cases with 6 % of all EDLs with rounded vowels. At the same time, in the domain of rounding, 68 % of all EDLs which borrow vowel phonemes choose rounded vowels. In the case of unrounded vowels, there are eight EDLs which borrow from this subclass. This absolute number equals 4 % of all EDLs with unrounded vowels. Neutral vowels are only marginally involved in borrowing. Of the 68 EDLs with neutral vowels, three (= 4 %) also have LP neutral vowels. Some 16 % of the borrowers of vowels opt for neutral vowels. The relation of borrowers to non-borrowers in connection to the parameter of rounding is featured in Figure 30. The geographical interpretation of Figure 30 is given on Map XXIX which is organized like the previous maps. Multiple borrowing causes differences between dots (= map) and cases (= table). Table 22 indicates how many borrowers of which category are found in which nonant. The abbreviations are u = unrounded, r = rounded, and n = neutral.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 159

100% 80% 60% 192

65

202

40%

non-borrowers borrowers

20% 0%

13

3

8

rounded

neutral

unrounded

Figure 30: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers in the domain of rounding.

Table 22: Distribution of borrowers of rounded, unrounded, or neutral vowels over the nonants.

W u u N

r

r

u

r n

r

E n

0

u

0

0

1

0 2

6 0

1 1

2 1

0 3

2 0

n

0 0

0

0

r

0

0

n

S

u

0

r

u

n

0

n

M

C

3 2

0

Do we recognize any areal pattern? The answer is yes because of the seven EDLs in the MC nonant which display LP vowels six give evidence of the borrowing of vowels with the feature [rounded]. Neutral vowels are LPs only in MC and SC. The borrowing of unrounded vowels is more widely spread because borrowers of unrounded vowels are present in MC, ME, SC, and SE. Unsurprisingly, the number of unrounded vowel types is higher than that of every other category in the domain of rounding. We count 47 different types of

160 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

unrounded vowels which account for 50 % of all vowel phoneme types in this category. The feature [rounded] occupies the second rank with 42 types or 44 % of all relevant vowel phoneme types. The share claimed by the neutral vowels is very small. With six types it reaches 6 %. As argued above, rounded vowels account for 50 % of all borrowed vowel types on this parameter. As Figure 31 suggests the features [unrounded] and [rounded] are competitors of each other as to the topranking position. The competition is especially heated for LP vowels. 100%

6

1

47

4

90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

neutral

40%

unrounded

30% 20%

42

5

all vowels

LP vowels

10% 0%

Figure 31: Shares of rounding categories in the European vowel inventory.

Figure 32 lends further support to the hypothesis that rounded vowels are more prone to borrowing than unrounded ones. The higher incidence of borrowing of neutral vowels is again an effect of the low numbers of vowel types of this class in the sample. The feature [rounded] is only a relative indicator of a phoneme’s possible involvement in processes of borrowing. 17.1.2.1.5 Preliminary conclusions: If we compare the observations we made above in Sections 17.1.2.1.1–17.1.2.1.4, we notice that European vowels are generally relatively well-behaved insofar as their type frequencies correspond nicely with those of Maddieson’s (1984: 124) global sample which yields a turnout of 2,549 vowels. We briefly tick off Maddieson’s findings in this domain and compare them to ours. Note that Maddieson does not address the dimension of closure. The paragraphs (a)–(c) below make statements about vowels in general. The properties of LP vowels are discussed subsequently.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 161

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

43

37

5

4

5

1

unrounded

rounded

neutral

unaffected borrowed

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Figure 32: Shares of LP vowels per rounding category.

a) Backness: In Maddieson’s study, front vowels outnumber back vowels and the latter are considerably more numerous than central vowels. Front vowels account for 40 % of all vowels, the share of back vowels reaches 38 %, and that of central vowels is smallest with 22 %. As results from Section 17.1.2.1.1, our data support a hierarchical order FRONT/CENTRAL > BACK. b) Height: For Maddieson too, vowels from the mid range are numerically stronger than both high and low vowels. Mid vowels claim a share of 40 % of all vowels, high vowels are second best with 39 %, and low vowels come last with 21%. We have shown in Section 17.1.2.1.2 that the hierarchy MID > HIGH > LOW is identical with that presented in Maddieson (1984). c) Rounding: On this parameter, Maddieson’s data yield a solid 62 %-majority for unrounded vowels as opposed to the 38 %-minority of rounded vowels. Our own findings (see Section 17.1.2.1.3) are not in line with this pattern because the hierarchy ROUNDED > UNROUNDED > NEUTRAL reverses the order of ROUNDED and UNROUNDED. Since the global sample and the European sample yield parallel results, one might be tempted to assume that the behavior of LP vowels in Europe also reflects the above hierarchies. Given that contact-induced language change is not an absolute automatism (because of social and other interfering factors), the probability calculus is perhaps too schematic to do justice to everything that happens when languages borrow phonemes. In point of fact, the LP vowels do not reflect the general patterns on each of the parameters so that it is not always possible to predict their behavior on the

162 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

basis of the knowledge we have gained from the cross-linguistic observations in (a)–(c) above. Table 23 hosts the hierarchies for LP vowels according to the issues raised in the previous subsections. Grey shading identifies those hierarchies which form the majority in a given row. On the parameter closure, there is no majority on the first place. Table 23: Hierarchies of vowel categories with LP vowels.

Parameter

Shares of borrowers vs. non-borrowers

Share of all vowels vs. share of LP vowels

Shares of unaffected vs. borrowed vowels

Backness

central > front > back

front/central > back

central > front > back

Height

mid > high > low

mid > high > low

high > mid > low

Closure

closed > neutral > open closed > open > neutral

neutral > closed > open

Rounding

rounded > neutral > unrounded

neutral > rounded > unrounded

rounded > unrounded > neutral

Several cells contain hierarchies which display an order of categories which cannot be predicted on the basis of what we know about the vowel systems cross-linguistically. What this might mean is that language contact possibly imposes conditions under which processes are licit which otherwise pass as (highly) marked. To sum up the results as presented in Table 23, we propose a kind of prototypical European LP vowel. This prototypical vowel combines the features as shown in (1). In anticipation of Section 17.2.2.8 short quantity and oral articulation are registered as prototypical features because nasalization and long quantity are generally considered marked properties of vowels in phonological typology (Hyman 2008: 94 and 99). (1)

Prototypical LP vowel [central] + [mid] + [closed] + [rounded] + [short] + [oral] = /ɵ/

This combination of properties is realized in the phoneme /ɵ/. Surprisingly, there is no evidence of /ɵ/-borrowing in our database. Not only is /ɵ/ never borrowed, it is also a rarum as autochthonous phoneme since it is attested exactly once: English (Bolton Area) is unique among the 210 members of the sample because of the presence of /ɵ/ in its phoneme chart (Shorrocks 1998). It is interesting to see that the simple adding-up of the dominant features fails to realistically describe the most likely candidate for the status of LP but identifies a phonological outsider, so to speak. In Section 17.2.1, we will disclose the fre-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 163

quencies of the individual LP vowels and their properties. For the time being, it suffices to state that the above prototype is merely an abstract construction of our minds since empirically the phenomenon cannot be proved. In the subsequent section, we check whether similar problems arise in connection with the phonological parameters of the prototypical LP consonant. To reach this goal it is necessary to scrutinize the major phonological classes of consonants and their behavior under borrowing.

17.1.2.2 Phonological parameters of consonants The technical principles mentioned in Section 17.1.2.1 also hold for the presentation of the classes of LP consonants in what follows. For a start, we assess the role of the different places of articulation. Subsequently, the different manners of articulation are checked as to their involvement in borrowing. The third section is dedicated to phonation which is followed by the section on secondary articulations. Airstream mechanisms and gemination are not relevant for borrowing as will be argued in Section 17.2.4.29. The presentation of the phonological parameters of consonants is complemented with a brief and still preliminary evaluation of the findings. 17.1.2.2.1 Place of articulation: For the European phonemic consonants, we have identified fourteen different places of articulation. In Table 24, the places of articulation come in the order of the decreasing number of EDLs which attest to phonemes produced at a particular place of articulation. Table 24: EDLs per place of articulation.

Place

Phonemes in general EDLs

Share of sample

denti-alveolar

210

100 %

velar

210

100 %

bilabial

210

100 %

palatal

204

97 %

labiodental

193

92 %

postalveolar

188

90 %

glottal

136

65 %

labial-velar

83

40 %

uvular

65

31 %

164 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Place

Phonemes in general EDLs

Share of sample

pharyngeal

25

12 %

alveolo-palatal

21

10 %

epiglottal

8

4%

retroflex

8

4%

labial-palatal

3

1%

Three places of articulation – alveolo-palatal, retroflex, and labial-palatal (marked by grey shading in Table 24) – fail to produce any cases of LP consonants (see Figure 33) so that we remove these categories from the ensuing discussion. It strikes the eye that LP consonants are absent from places of articulation which are generally underrepresented in Europe. At the opposite end of the ranking order, we find three places of articulation which are exploited by all of the EDLs. Velar, denti-alveolar, and bilabial consonants occur each in 210 EDLs and thus are represented in 100 % of the sample. This parallel high frequency does not mean that these places of articulation yield similar results on the side of LP consonants. In Figure 33 we show how many of the EDLs borrow phonemes from a given place of articulation as opposed to those languages which are non-borrowers in these cases. The places of articulation are ordered from left to right according to the increasing share of borrowers. The shares of LP consonants are almost identical for denti-alveolar (27 %) and velar (26 %) places of articulation. The bilabial place of articulation, however, displays a share of only 5 % for LP consonants. At the same time, labiodental and postalveolar are two places of articulation which are made use of by smaller numbers of EDLs but nevertheless surpass some of the ubiquitous places of articulation when it comes to borrowing. This is the case with the absolute numbers as well as for the percentages of EDLs which give evidence of borrowing.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 165

100% 80% 60% 81

64

200

193

125

7

21

155

153

55

57

123

107

40% 20% 0%

2

1

borrowers

10

11

11

1

4

65

86

non-borrowers

Figure 33: Shares of borrowers per place of articulation.

The labiodental place of articulation stands out with 86 borrowers which constitute 45 % of all EDLs with labiodentals. This means that labiodentals outnumber every other place of articulation in the domain of LP consonants although labiodentals occupy only rank #5 of the general frequency scale. The relatively high shares of LP pharyngeals and epiglottals can be explained with reference to the small general turnouts of these two places of articulation. The four EDLs which are reported to borrow pharyngeal and the one EDL with an epiglottal LP consonant are instances of over-representation caused by small numbers. If we discount these cases for the time being, we recognize that borrowing is relevant only for four places of articulation which yield shares of 20 % or more, viz. labiodental, postalveolar, denti-alveolar, and velar. To come to grips with the areal aspects of the above observations, we plot the distribution of the LP cases for labiodental (= Map XXX), postalveolar (= Map XXXI), velar (= Map XXXII), and denti-alveolar (= Map XXXIII) places of articulation on four separate maps whereas Map XXXIV is dedicated to pharyngeals and epiglottals, Map XXXV features glottals and palatals. Bilabials, labial-velars, and uvulars are the topic of Map XXXVI. Since pharyngeal and epiglottals as LPs are attested only in the Caucasus, we exclusively represent this region on Map XXXIV according to the model of Map XX. The distribution of the borrowers is presented in tabular format for each of the maps separately. We start with borrowed labiodentals in Table 25.

166 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 25: Distribution of borrowers of labiodentals over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

3

4

M

4

23

15

42

S

3

16

21

40

Total

7

40

39

86

The absence of borrowers from NW is expected. Similarly, the generally low numbers in the N-nonants and the W-nonants meet our expectations. The bulk of the borrowers is situated in the nonants MC, ME, SC, and SE with MC and SE yielding particularly big turnouts. With shares of 27 % and 24 %, respectively MC and SE together cover slightly more than half of all recorded cases of borrowed labiodentals. In the case of the postalveolars the distribution of borrowers is not exactly the same as transpires from Table 26. Table 26: Distribution of borrowers of postalveolars over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

1

2

M

11

10

5

26

S

1

24

12

37

Total

12

35

18

65

The north is again underpopulated in terms of borrowers. In contrast to the previous case, however, there are surprisingly many borrowers in MW. The SCnonant hosts twice as many borrowers as SE, namely 24. In contrast to Table 25, MW and ME have changed their roles in Table 26. Table 27 looks at the distribution of borrowers of velars. In stark contrast to the postalveolars, the velars do not produce any cluster of borrowers in MW but are numerically relatively strong in ME. Table 27 is in line with most of the previously discussed cases. The Nnonants and those of the west are the home of only a minority of borrowers. However, borrowers abound in MC, SC, and ME. The SE-nonant hosts more borrowers than all northerly and westerly nonants added up.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 167

Table 27: Distribution of borrowers of velars over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

3

4

M

1

17

11

29

S

2

12

8

22

Total

3

30

22

55

The borrowers of denti-alveolars are presented in Table 28. This time there are two nonants – NW and NC – for which no borrower has been identified. Table 28: Distribution of borrowers of denti-alveolars over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

4

4

M

5

8

10

23

S

2

19

9

30

Total

7

27

23

57

There are concentrations of borrowers in SC and ME with secondary hotbeds in MC and SE – a pattern which is abundantly attested in the domain of phoneme borrowing in Europe. The five borrowers in MW stand out from the usually unspectacular turnouts of this nonant. The borrowing of denti-alveolars in MW is not as popular as that of postalveolars as shown in Table 26. For Table 29 we introduce p as abbreviation for pharyngeal and e for epiglottal. The vast majority of the cells is empty in the sense that no borrower exists. The distribution of the borrowers on the other hand is geographically limited to SE where both places of articulation are involved in borrowing. No other nonant gives evidence of cases of borrowing of pharyngeals or epiglottals. The areality of borrowing is not as pronounced in the case of glottals and palatals as shown in Table 30. The letter g is short for glottal whereas p stands for palatal.

168 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 29: Distribution of borrowers of pharyngeals and epiglottals over the nonants.

W p N

M

p

e

0

e

0

0 0

e

0 0

0 0

p 0

0

e p

p

E

0

e p

C

0 0

0 4

S e

0

0

1

Table 30: Distribution of borrowers of glottals and palatals over the nonants.

W g N

M

g

g

E p

0 0

0

p g

p

0

p g

C

p

0 0

0 2

0

g

0 2

0 4

1 5

S p

3

4

1

The absence of borrowers from the northern nonants is unremarkable. Unexpectedly MC joins the N-nonants insofar as there is evidence neither of borrowers of glottals nor of borrowers of palatals. Both places of articulation are involved in borrowing in ME, SC, and SE. Palatals alone are LPs in MW and SW. Table 31 features borrowers of bilabials (= b), labial-velars (= l-v), and uvulars (= u). The mixed composition of this trio of places of articulation notwithstanding, the distribution does not differ much from the usual picture. Note that Tatar attests to borrowings from two different places of articulation so that dots and cases differ numerically between Map XXXVI and Table 31. There are numerous zeroes. The entire west is not affected by borrowing. There are two cases in the north – both involving bilabials. The highest number of borrowers is concentrated in ME with a secondary cumulation in SE.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 169

Table 31: Distribution of borrowers of bilabials, labial-velars, and uvulars over the nonants.

W b b N

l-v

0

u

0

4

0

0 0

2

u

0

1

0

u

1

0

0

l-v

0

0

l-v

b

0

0

u

S

l-v

0

l-v

b

b

E

1

l-v

b

u

0

u

M

C

1 2

0 0

1 0

0

Together the four privileged places of articulation (labiodental, denti-alveolar, postalveolar, and velar) account for 263 of the 303 mentions of borrowers. This means that 87 % of the mentions are covered by only four places of articulation. The labiodental place of articulation alone is still responsible for 28 % of all mentions of borrowers. We now have to see whether this outstanding position of the labiodental place of articulation is also manifest in the domain of the types of LP consonants. Table 32 does not corroborate the assumed prominence of the feature [labiodental]. Table 32: Shares and absolute numbers for places of articulation in the European consonant inventory.

Place

denti-alveolar

Consonants in general

LP consonant types

Absolute

Share of inventory Absolute

Share of LP consonants

109

35 %

18

38 %

uvular

42

14 %

3

6%

velar

38

12 %

5

11 %

postalveolar

28

9%

5

11 %

bilabial

21

7%

3

6%

palatal

15

5%

5

11 %

170 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Place

Consonants in general

pharyngeal

LP consonant types

Absolute

Share of inventory Absolute

Share of LP consonants

11

4%

2

4% 4%

labiodental

10

3%

2

retroflex

10

3%

0

0%

glottal

8

3%

2

4%

labial-velar

5

2%

1

2%

epiglottal

5

2%

1

2%

alveolo-palatal

8

3%

0

0%

labial-palatal

1

BILABIAL > VELAR > ALVEOLOPALATAL > UVULAR. In the LP domain as surveyed in Table 9, labiodental ranks highest which does not fully conform to our own findings (see Section 17.1.2.2.1, in particular Figure 35) according to which the features palatal and glottal rank higher than any other place of articulation in the case of borrowings. Thus, the hierarchy PALATAL > GLOTTAL > LABIODENTAL(/LABIAL-VELAR/ EPIGLOTTAL) > OTHER holds in the LP domain. Since labial-velar and epiglottal consonants are borrowed only once each we use brackets to indicate their minor importance. b) manner of articulation: Maddieson’s (1984) classic book is organized chapter-wise according to the different manners of articulation. Plosives and nasals are encountered in all member languages of his sample whereas fricatives occur in 93 % (rhotics and laterals are subsumed under liquids which are attested in 96 %, approximants are said to show up in 86 % of the sample). According to Table 9, fricatives form the largest class among Maddieson’s LP consonants. Ten of twenty cases go to their credit so that they outnumber plosives (eight cases) and affricates (two cases). This dominance of fricatives in the LP domain fits our own findings (see Section 17.1.2.2.2) so that we postulate the hierarchy FRICATIVE > OTHER. c) phonation: Maddieson (1984: 35 and 45) discusses phonation with reference to plosives and fricatives. There is a clear majority in favor of voiceless consonants in these classes. This corresponds again with our findings in the general consonant inventory of the EDLs. In the LP domain, Table 9 gives evidence of nine voiced consonant types as opposed to eleven voiceless cases. The dominance of the feature [voiceless] is therefore not as strong as before. Our own results favor a hierarchy VOICED > VOICELESS in the LP domain (see Section 17.1.2.2.3). d) secondary articulation: Maddieson (1984: 37–38) dedicates a subsection to the discussion of secondary articulations in the realm of plosives. Secondary articulations are depicted as minority options, i.e. primary articulation out-

182 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

ranks secondary articulation. As to the latter, Maddieson’s data are supportive of a hierarchy LABIALIZED > PALATALIZED > VELARIZED > PHARYNGEALIZED. According to our own research (see Sections 17.1.2.2.4 and 17.2.4.29), the hierarchy PRIMARY > SECONDARY is robust with palatalization being favored among the secondary articulations in LP contexts. As in the case of vowels, the behavior of European consonants is largely in line with what Maddieson observes for his global sample. It strikes the eye though that in the LP domain, the classes of consonants do not always follow the expected paths. In Table 37, we recapitulate the hierarchies for each parameter and “triangulation” category. Brackets are used in those cases where the hierarchies can be identified only indirectly because the discussion in the subsection focuses exclusively on LP consonants. In analogy to Table 23, grey shading identifies those hierarchies which deviate from the majority option. On the parameter of place of articulation there is no majority option. The hierarchies are reduced to binary relations. Table 37: Hierarchies of consonant categories with LP consonants.

Parameter

Borrowers vs. non-borrowers

Share of all consonants Shares of unaffected vs. vs. share of LP consoborrowed consonants nants

Place of articulation

labiodental > others

denti-alveolar > others palatal > others

Manner of articulation

fricative > others

fricative > others

lateral approximant > other

Phonation

voiceless > voiced

voiced > voiceless

voiced > voiceless

Secondary articulation

primary > secondary

(primary > secondary)

(primary > secondary)

For three parameters we have evidence of variation. In the case of the place of articulation, labiodental, denti-alveolar, and palatal compete for the top rank. As to manner of articulation, the solution is simple since variation happens only once whereas fricatives oust all other manners twice. The situation is similar with phonation. In two of three columns, the feature [voiced] comes first whereas [voiceless] surpasses [voiced] only once. We therefore assume that the hierarchy is VOICED > VOICELESS.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 183

On this basis, it is possible to construct the prototypical LP consonant. In (2), we present the combination of those features which are typical of LP consonants on the different parameters discussed in this section. The property [pulmonic] is tacitly presupposed. (2)

Prototypical LP consonant [denti-alveolar] [labiodental] [palatal]

/z/ + [fricative] + [voiced] + [primary] =

/v/ /ʝ/

There are three options because of the competition between three places of articulation. The voiced fricatives /z/, /v/, and /ʝ/ thus are possible candidates for the status of prototypical LP consonant. However, the voiced palatal fricative /ʝ/ is never registered as LP in our database although it is attested as autochthonous phoneme in 23 EDLs among which we find Franco-Provençal (Faetar) (Kattenbusch 1982). The voiced (denti-)alveolar sibilant fricative /z/ is abundantly attested in our sample: 174 EDLs attest to this phoneme 18 of which have borrowed it (see Section 17.2.4.9). The voiced labiodental fricative /v/ displays a surplus of one borrower in comparison to /z/. Therefore, it fits the description of the prototype perfectly. Nineteen of the EDLs host a borrowed /v/ in their phonological systems, in 149 EDLs /v/ is attested as an autochthonous phoneme (see Section 17.2.4.7). The full ranking order of the individual LP consonants is given in Section 17.2.3. At this point, it is sufficient to refer back to Table 9 in which the prototype /v/ forms part of Maddieson’s set of LP consonants.

17.2 The diffusion of individual loan phonemes in Europe (qualitative and quantitative aspects) This section is organized as follows. The Sections 17.2.1 and 17.2.2 put the focus on vowels. The individual LP consonants are the topic of Sections 17.2.3 and 17.2.4. The short initial Sections 17.2.1 and 17.2.3 are of a quantitative nature since they disclose the hierarchy of the individual LP vowels and consonants respectively, in terms of the number of EDLs in which they have been borrowed. Subsequently the individual LPs are addressed beginning with the most frequently borrowed items. All LPs which are borrowed by several EDLs are entitled to separate sections of their own whereas those LPs which are isolated cases of borrowing are discussed summarily in a dedicated section.

184 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Most of the sections dedicated to the individual LPs contain four parts: a) explicitly identified cases of LPs in the EDLs of our sample (short title: (a) From within the sample), b) additional evidence from outside the sample and/or from hitherto unidentified cases within the sample (short title: (b) Additions), c) the geographical distribution of the LPs (short title: (c) Geography), and d) further issues (short title: (d) Further issues). In the (a)-part of each section, the LP under discussion is studied in the EDLs of our sample from the point of view of genetic affiliation. In the (b)-part, we take (unsystematically) account of EDLs which do not belong to our sample of 210 languages in order to show that a given phenomenon might be more widely spread than it appears to be the case superficially. This additional evidence stems from EDLs which had to be excluded from the quantitative evaluation in Section 17.1 because their phoneme systems are described only fragmentarily. Since we are now interested in the qualitative side of the phenomena it is legitimate to make use of as many data as are accessible to us. In (c), the geolinguistic distribution of the LPs in Europe (only 210 EDLs of our sample are considered on these maps) is traced and interpreted in comparison to the distribution of the corresponding phonemes which are not subject to borrowing. To this end, maps are provided in Appendix 2 which show how the distribution of a given phoneme looks with and without taking account of borrowing. The default version of these maps features three categories of EDLs, namely a) borrowers which are represented by red dots, b) EDLs for which the phenomenon is autochthonous (these EDLs are represented by black dots), and c) empty dots are reserved for those EDLs which lack a given phenomenon. Deviations from this pattern are explained for each case separately. In the main body of the text, tables present the absolute numbers of borrowers per nonant. The (d)-part is dedicated to the effects of the integration of LP vowels into the systems of the replica languages in our sample and, in anticipation of Sections 17.2.4.30 and 17.3.3, the pairwise co-occurrence of individual LP consonants. In the latter case, we determine to what extent two LPs display parallel borrowing behavior to understand whether these LPs are correlated to each other or not. We document the phenomena with examples (mostly) from the domain of loanwords. However, our sources often do not provide empirical evidence for LP borrowing even if they postulate the existence of LPs. Therefore, many cases cannot be supported by concrete data. The examples are presented in the shape they have in the sources provided a Latin-based graphic system is employed.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 185

Examples taken from languages which are written in differently based alphabets (Greek, Cyrillic, Georgian, etc.) are usually transliterated unless the source uses a philological/linguistic transcription. The units under scrutiny are identified by boldface in the examples. The problems which arise from the patterns we identify are discussed in Section 17.3 below.

17.2.1 LP vowels – hierarchy For the purpose of this section, we treat the secondary properties of vowels (i.e. quantity, nasalization, pharyngealization, and combinations of these) separately in 17.2.2.8, i.e., quantity and nasalization will be filtered out when we hierarchize the LP vowels according to the number of EDLs in which they are attested. Therefore, account is taken exclusively of the parameters backness, height, closure, and rounding when it comes to determining the ranks on the basis of frequency of borrowing. How does the situation look like prior to and after extracting LP vowels with secondary properties from the database? Figure 44 indicates how often a given vowel quality is subject to borrowing with primary or secondary properties. It shows that there are eight different frequency classes from the maximum of ten EDLs borrowing /y/ down to the minimum of just one EDL borrowing either /ʉ/ or /ɘ/. It shows additionally that the LP vowels behave very differently in connection to the distinction of primary and secondary properties. 12 10 2 8

2

6 4 4

8

7

2

1 4

3

3

3

0 /y/

/ø/

/ɨ/

/æ/ primary

/ə/

/o/

secondary

Figure 44: LP vowels ranked according to frequency of borrowing.

1 1

1

/ɯ/, /œ/ /ʉ/, /ɘ/

186 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The position at the top of the above hierarchy is occupied by /y/ but the ten cases of borrowing comprise also one instance each of borrowed /yː/ and /y͂/. Similarly, the second rank of /ø/ is partly owed to /øː/ (= two EDLs) and /ø͂/ (= one EDL). Note that the hierarchy would experience a change at the top if we decided to lump together the frequencies of the closed and the open rounded mid front vowels /ø/ and /œ/. Vowel length is an issue in the cases of /o/, /æ/, /œ/, and /ɯ/. In Section 17.2.2.1–17.2.2.7, account is taken exclusively of LP vowels without marked suprasegmental properties. The latter are addressed in Section 17.2.2.8. Eisen (2019: 41) accounts for the most frequently borrowed phonemes in Eurasia. It is not possible to directly confront his findings with ours in Figure 44 because the Asian and European cases would have to be separated from each other first. However, it is striking that neither LP /y/ nor LP /ø/ show up on the higher ranks. Eisen’s ranking order of highly frequent LP vowels is LP /ɔ/ > LP /ɛ/ > LP /æ/ > LP /o/ > LP /e/ > LP /oː/ > LP /ɨ/ > LP /ɔː/. The number of borrowers for these LPs ranges from maximally five to minimally two. Several of Eisen’s top candidates are not in our European database just as several of our LP vowels are absent from his list. We assume that these differences are caused by the strong Asian component in Eisen’s sample which plays no role in our study. Eisen’s (2019) treatment of individual LP vowels is summarily reported upon in Section 18.2 below.

17.2.2 Distribution of individual LP vowels As will become clear early on in this section, LP vowels pose a wide range of problems. These problems arise mostly from the difficulty of determining the exact properties of the vowels. It is also often the case that tangible proof of their existence in a given borrower is scarce or doubtful. The less frequent a given LP vowel is the more problems seem to be connected with the case.

17.2.2.1 /y/ The rounded high front vowel /y/ is attested in 87 EDLs. Only in eight of these EDLs is /y/ identified as a LP vowel. Figure 45 shows that the majority of the sample languages lacks /y/ and only a tiny minority of 4 % gives evidence of borrowed /y/.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 187

autochthonous; 79; 38% no /y/; 123; 58%

LP; 8; 4%

Figure 45: Share of LP /y/ in the sample.

To our minds, this is a surprisingly small share and the unexpected relative scarcity of evidence for the borrowing of this unit calls for being commented upon. In the subsequent paragraphs, we look at each of the reported instances of /y/-borrowing in EDLs of our sample. Note that /y/ is often borrowed together with /ø/. This is why the mid-closed rounded front vowel will be mentioned repeatedly in this section. When we address /ø/ in its own right in 17.2.2.2 we take the liberty to refer back to the relevant paragraphs in this section in lieu of quoting from the same sources twice. Eisen (2019: 89) puts forward Universal 6 according to which [i]f a language borrows a front rounded vowel, it probably has at least one native front rounded vowel.

As we will see from the presentation of the cases in parts (a)–(b), this universal is frequently (but not always) violated against in the European context. (a) From within the sample: A typical case of LP /y/67 is mentioned for the neo-Arabic EDL spoken at Çukurova in southern Turkey. Procházka (2002) reserves a short section of his descriptive grammar to the LP vowels of this EDL. The author states that

|| 67 For a detailed account of LP /y/ in Europe with special focus on the role of German as donor language we refer the reader to Stolz and Levkovych (2021).

188 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

[d]urch die massenhafte Übernahme türkischen Wortguts haben auch dem Arabischen zunächst fremde Laute Eingang in das Vokalinventar der Dialekte gefunden. Insbesondere e, ı und o, in geringerem Maße aber auch ö, u und ü, finden sich demnach des öfteren in türkischen Lehnwörtern.68 (Procházka 2002: 30)

Examples of words of Turkish origin which keep their /y/ in Çukurova are mühimm ‘important’ (< Turkish mühim ‘important’) and görümgay ‘sister-in-law’ (< Turkish görümce ‘sister-in-law’ = ‘sister of husband’) (Procházka 2002: 30). Note that in the speech of urban speakers of Çukurova Arabic inherited /uː/ is subject to fronting to [yː] in certain phonological contexts so that e.g. tkūn ‘you are’ is realized as tkǖn (Procházka 2002: 39). What we learn from these examples is that the LP vowel /y/ does not come alone but in a package with other LP vowels most notably with another rounded front vowel, viz. /ø/. The situation is comparable with that reported for the Nakh-Daghestanian EDL Udi. Schulze-Fürhoff (1994: 454–455) postulates the existence of /y/ alongside /ø/ both of which are “met especially in Turkish” loans. The phoneme status of the two rounded front vowels is not entirely clear since they are associated with processes of palatalization of /u/ and /o/, respectively. Since the author of the grammatical sketch uses phonological brackets for the elements under scrutiny we assume that they are phonemic. We illustrate the existence of /y/ in Udi with bütün ‘all’ (< Turkish bütün ‘all, entirely’) (Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 72) and dürüs ‘living’ which is etymologically opaque to us (Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 479). Like in the case of Çukurova above, the replica language Udi had neither phonemic /y/ nor phonemic /ø/ prior to contact with Turkic languages. We will come back to this issue below in connection with the discussion of data from EDLs other than those of the sample. Turkish is invoked as a donor language for LP /y/ in several Romani languages. For the Romani of Ajia Varvara (Greece) for instance, Igla (1996: 6) describes /y/ and /ø/ as limited to Turkish loanwords. To the author’s mind, the rounded front vowels lack phoneme status because [d]ie entlehnten Vokale [] haben ihre Distribution nicht über Turzismen ausgedehnt und konnten sich nach dem Wechsel der Kontaktsprache nicht halten, wohl auch weil sie im

|| 68 Our translation: “sounds which were originally alien to Arabic have entered the vowel inventories of the dialects because of the massive borrowing of Turkish lexical items. Especially e, ı, and o, to a lesser degree also ö, u, and ü, are therefore frequently found in Turkish loanwords.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 189

Griechischen fehlen. In türkischen Lehnwörtern werden beide Laute gelegentlich noch von älteren Sprechern artikuliert.69 (Igla 1996: 8)

Accordingly, /y/ and /ø/ are recessive LPs which have entered the replica language on an earlier stage of its history. Their shrinking niche of survival is the speech of elderly people. The author does not provide examples for the retention of rounded front vowels. For younger speakers, the rounded front vowels merge with the corresponding back vowels /u/ and /o/. Sepečides Romani (Greece) is reported to have borrowed /y/ and /ø/ from Turkish, too. As in the previous case, the use of the rounded front vowels is limited to Turkish loanwords – and they occur predominantly in names (Cech and Heinschink 1996: 3). Similarly, rounded front vowels are also registered for Burgenland Romani (Austria). In this case, however, the origin of /y/ and /ø/ (represented as /œ/ in our source) is not Turkish. Halwachs (2002: 6) assumes that these LPs are permitted exclusively in loans from German or the local German dialect of the Austrian federal state of Burgenland. Furthermore, in the practical language course of Lovari (a variety different from Burgenland Romani), Heinschink and Krasa (2015: 17) explain that they do not use the graphemes and in their text because the native speakers of Lovari living in Vienna regularly delabialize /y/ and /ø/ to /i/ and /e/, respectively, in analogy to the local Viennese variety of German. The examples of Lovari words containing rounded front vowels are all from Hungarian such as Lovari külen ‘separate’ with = /y/ < Hungarian külön (and Lovari törtinéto ‘history’ < Hungarian történet). This means that not all loanwords with /y/ in Burgenland Romani might have a German etymology. It seems that quite a few of them have a Hungarian background. What we learn from the case of Burgenland Romani is that languages other than those of the Turkic language family may serve as donors for the borrowing of rounded front vowels. This statement holds for Zuberoa Basque as well (Lafon 1962). This variety of Basque is spoken in France (Pays de Soule, Département des PyrénéesAtlantique) where it has been in age-long contact with Occitan (Gascon) and French. Zuberoa stands out from most other varieties of Basque because, among many other things, its phoneme chart hosts /y/ and /y͂/ (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 17–18). The LP has a French/Gascon origin but has spread over the

|| 69 Our translation: “the loan vowels have not widened their distribution beyond Turkish elements and have not been able to preserve it after the change of the contact language probably because they are absent from Greek. In Turkish loanwords both sounds are still articulated occasionally by elderly speakers.”

190 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

inherited (non-Romance) vocabulary of Zuberoa (Haase 1993: 30–31). Haase (1993: 42) argues that Zuberoan /y/ neutralizes the distinct French rounded front vowels /y/ and /ø/ as in French meuble ‘furniture’ > Zuberoa müble (Haase 1993: 42), Gascon sus tot ‘above all’ > Zuberoa süstut (Haase 1993: 29). According to Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 32) [t]he three high vowels [] have been described as lower than the corresponding French vowels, so that Zuberoan /y/ approaches French /ø/.

One might conclude that we are dealing with a kind of compromise LP which results from a merger of the donor language’s /y/ and /ø/. On the other hand, Gascon, the direct partner in contact of Zuberoa, lacks /ø/ so that it is possible that the borrowing of /y/ predates the confrontation with the distinction of /y/ and /ø/ of standard French by a century or two. With /y/ being established in the phoneme system already, this LP could serve as integrator for loans from French which contain the previously unfamiliar /ø/. Note that Haase (1993: 30) assumes that LP /y/ has diffused further into the Basque dialect continuum so that it can be found also in other northern varieties of Basque albeit with a much more limited domain. Table 38 reproduces Haase’s model according to which LP /y/ has been gaining ground also beyond Zuberoa. All varieties mentioned in Table 38 are spoken north of the Spanish-French border. Table 38: Diffusion of LP /y/ in northern varieties of Basque (adapted from Haase 1993: 30).

Domain

Zuberoa

North Navarra 1

North Navarra 2

new loanwords

/y/

/y/

/y/

old loanwords

/y/

/y/

/y/

/u/

/y/

/u/

Northern Basque /y/ /u/

participle suffix

/y/

/y/

inherited lexicon

/y/

/y/

/u/

/u/

/u/

/u/

person affixes (except __ Cvelar)

/y/

/y/

/u/

/u/

/u/

person affixes __ Cvelar /y/

/u/

/u/

/u/

__ nk ~ __ r

/u/

/u/

/u/

/u/

On account of Haase’s presentation of the facts, the idea can be defended that LP /y/ is no longer an isolated trait of Zuberoa but a characteristic of northern Basque in general.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 191

Luxembourgish belongs to the Moselle-Franconian branch of the German dialect continuum. A characteristic trait of the members of this branch is the merger of the rounded front vowels of their ancestor Middle High German with the corresponding unrounded front vowels /i/ and /e/ (Keller 1961: 252). Thus, German /y/ often corresponds to /i/ in the common inherited lexicon as in German Mühle ‘mill’ = Luxembourgish Millen, German kühl ‘cool’ = Luxembourgish kill, German fühlen ‘feel’ = Luxembourgish fillen. Accordingly, Keller (1961: 254– 255) postulates a system of vowel phonemes for Luxembourgish from which /y/ is absent. However, the author adds the information that “[f]oreign phonemes occurring only in loan-words, e.g. /y/, are not included” (Keller 1961: 255). Schanen and Zimmer (2012: 333) list a high rounded vowel among the “unités phonétiques” [phonetic units] of Luxembourgish thereby avoiding the discussion of its phonological status. The examples provided are such that words which contain /yː/ seem to be traceable to standard German like Süden ‘south’ = [zyːdən] in both standard German and Luxembourgish. As to short /y/, there are also examples of words with a French origin such as zut ‘damn!’ = [zyt] in both French and Luxembourgish. Thus, the LP /y/ has entered the phonological domain of Luxembourgish from two different sides, namely from the west via French and from the east via German. The two co-official languages of Luxembourgish both boast phonemic /y/ which has established itself in the replica language on account of lexical borrowing from and widespread bi- and trilingualism in German, French, and Luxembourgish. For the Uralic EDL Livonian, Moseley (2002: 14–15) assumes that /y/ like /ø/ (represented as /ü/ and /ö/, respectively) is infrequent and unstable but “sometimes found in borrowings and alternating with /i/ and /e/ respectively in native stems.” Autochthonous rounded front vowels have undergone unrounding (Laanest 1982: 139). Since Livonian has co-existed with Latvian for its entire lifecycle and Latvian has no rounded front vowels, the problem of identifying a suitable donor language for /y/ arises. Moseley (2002) does not provide examples of Livonian words equipped with a segment /y/. Swedish, Middle Low German, Baltic German, and Estonian are potential sources for loanwords with /y/. However, no other source we have consulted for Livonian mentions borrowed /y/. Therefore, this case has to be registered as very doubtful. In retrospect, the harvest looks rather poor since for several of the cases presented in the foregoing paragraphs /y/ seems to be very peripheral or even on the verge of dropping out of the system completely. The final case – Livonian – can hardly stand the test in the first place. One might take this as evidence which speaks against ranking /y/ at the top of the hierarchy of LP vowels in Figure 44. In part (b) of this section we will prove, however, that the problems

192 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(not only) with LP /y/ are causally connected to methodological decisions of ours which we have taken to ensure that the quantitative analysis in Section 17.1 could be conducted on relatively firm grounds. (b) Additions: A glance at Maddieson (2005k) reveals that rounded front vowels count among the infrequent phonemes cross-linguistically. Of 561 languages in Maddieson’s sample, only 37 (~ 7 %) attest to phonemic rounded front vowels. Both /y/ and /ø/ are reported in 23 languages, /y/ alone is typical of eight languages whereas six are said to feature only the mid rounded front vowel. A further remarkable aspect is the geographical distribution of the vowels under scrutiny. There is a striking concentration of languages with /y/ and/or /ø/ in Europe, Siberia, and the northern regions of East Asia. Outside this huge macro-area, only eight languages are reported to display rounded front vowels – a single case each in West Africa and Australia, two cases in Melanesia, and four cases in the Americas. In Maddieson (1984: 248–251), the author mentions as many as 62 languages with the relevant phoneme(s) none of which is marked as borrowed though. Does this mean that LP /y/ is only a phantom? In point of fact, the scarcity of instances of LP /y/ is largely owed to our handling of the problems posed by the descriptive-linguistic sources as explained in Section 12. First of all, we have discarded all those sources which describe the phonological system of a given EDL only fragmentarily no matter what is said in connection to LPs. Secondly, we have taken account only of LPs which are explicitly identified as such in our sources. Thirdly, we have restricted our search for evidence of LPs to one major source per EDL. Fourthly, only strictly synchronic data which fall into the period defined in Section 12 have been allowed into our database. These four principles conspire in such a way that many interesting pieces of evidence are ignored solely to the benefit of the quantitative part of this study. Since we have exited already from said quantitative part to focus on the qualitative side of our topic, we repeat that we feel entitled to relax the above conditions which we have imposed on ourselves. This relaxation is applied to all the (b) and (d) parts in Section 17.2. As in (a) above, we start in Turkey. If Çukurova Arabic has borrowed /y/ from Turkish why should other co-territorial EDLs of Turkish refrain from doing the same? Accordingly, Haig (2017: 167) claims that [i]t is difficult to pinpoint phonological influence of Turkish on Kurdish. The best candidate for contact influence in the vowels is the partially systematic use of fronted rounded vowels /y/ and /ø/ in some varieties of Kurdish.

For Kurmanji, Haig (2017: 401) himself considers /y/ and /œ/ to be not only positional allophones of the Kurmanji long vowels /uː/ and /oː/ but also as fully-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 193

blown segments in loanwords from Turkish. The author abstains from determining their exact phonological status. Bulut (2005: 226) describes the convergence of Iranian varieties and Turkish varieties in East Anatolia and Iraq without, however, claiming that /y/ has been borrowed wholesale into the systems of the Iranian partners in contact. According to her line of argumentation, a kind of leveling applies which involves the emergence of “leicht zentralisierte Varianten von [ö] und [ü]” [moderately centralized variants of [ö] and [ü]]. A case that is controversial among the authors of this study is found in Aramaic (Cudi), spoken in the province of Mardin in Turkey. This Afroasiatic minority language has experienced strong contact-borne influence from the majority language Turkish. Sinha (2000: 36–37) postulates a vowel /y/ (in the source given as [ü]) which is said to be exclusively attested in loanwords from Turkish. From the example given, it suggests itself that we are dealing with a high rounded front vowel – the sole example being Türkiya ‘Turkey’ (Sinha 2000: 36). However, the LP is described as “kurz, eher mittel, hoch, gerundet” [short, rather central, high, rounded] by Sinha (2000: 35), i.e. the feature [front] is replaced with [central]. This interpretation receives support from the author’s own triangular presentation of the short vowels of Aramaic (Cudi). The symbol is aligned with the low vowel /a/ in a more central position than the schwa /ə/. Two interpretations are possible. Either this is another instance of /y/borrowing with slight phonetic adjustments in the replica language (perhaps along the lines of the processes identified in the case of Zuberoa above) or we are facing LP /ʉ/. We come back to this issue in 17.2.2.7. Armenian varieties in Turkey and Azerbaijan (Agulis, Karchevan) are known to display rounded front vowels which are absent from both East Armenian (Standard) and West Armenian (Standard). Vaux (1998: 160–169) describes the phenomena without reference to potential external influence. Scala (2018: 223) invokes borrowing from Azerbaijani but limits this statement to the rules of (epenthetic) vowel harmony. Since /y/ and /ø/ in the Armenian of Agulis and Karchevan are attested also in inherited Armenian words like bythy ‘the thumb’ (= Classical Armenian boi̯thən = Standard East Armenian bui̯thə) (Scala 2018: 224), a completely independent internal Armenian development cannot be ruled out. On the basis of relatively ample written documentation, Joseph (2019) reconstructs the (now extinct) Greek variety spoken at Adrianoupolis in the European part of the then Ottoman Empire of the early 20th century. With reference to LP /y/, the author argues that in this Greek variety there does not seem to be any language-internal basis for front rounded vowels; yet in borrowings of Turkish words with ü [] there is adoption, i.e. acceptance without alteration, of the Turkish phonology without adaptation to the native system of Greek. (Joseph 2019: 321)

194 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

A Turkish loanword supporting this point of view is Turkish cüce ‘dwarf’ which appears as ʤüʤés in the Greek of Adrianoupolis (Joseph 2019: 321, fn. 7). Similarly, Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 218) postulate the borrowing of Turkish /y/ and /ø/ in Asia Minor Greek. The authors refer back to an earlier study of theirs in which the issue was (supposedly) paid more attention. In Thomason and Kaufman (1976: 170), the relevant paragraph reads as follows: Some of the phonological interference features are found only in Turkish loanwords. A Turkish verb düšün- ‘consider,’ for instance, appears in many of these Greek dialects as düšün-, with a vowel ü and a sibilant š not generally found in modern Greek. Of course, one could argue that this is simply an unassimilated loanword; but this would be hard to prove, since such words were apparently used regularly by monolingual speakers – for instance, by women whose bilingual husbands commuted to work in a Turkish town. And such sounds also penetrated, probably, into native Greek vocabulary.

It is certainly not sufficient to base one’s argument on a single loanword. It is a considerable drawback for any hypothesis that the empirical side of the problem is not elaborated upon in order to show that the phenomenon is indeed widespread. A comparable purely historical case is Polabian – a West Slavic language spoken in North East Germany until the mid-18th century. Polabian is renowned for being one of the few Slavic languages with phonemic rounded front vowels (Polański 1993: 799). In the light of Schleicher’s (1871: 19) statement according to which [f]erner sind offenbar auch die lautverhältnisse des polabischen vom deutschen an gesteckt, ein vorgang, der bei benachbarten sprachen regelmäßig eintritt70

can the existence of /y/ and /ø/ in Polabian be attributed to long-term language contact with German and Low German? Our reference does not say so explicitly. However, Polański (1993: 797) emphasizes that Polabian was exposed to influence of the German language, in the first place to the Low German variety, from the Middle Ages to the final period of its existence. Most German loan-words can be traced to Middle Low German. German loan-words constitute about 20 % of the recorded lexicon.

|| 70 Our translation: “furthermore the Polabian sound system has been infected by German, a process which regularly happens between neighboring languages.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 195

The author claims that the (Low) German loanwords were phonologically assimilated. Polabian /y/ and /ø/ in native Slavic lexemes is the result of fronting of */o/ (Polański 1993: 803). To what extent (Low) German influence has contributed to this diachronic development is an open question. Gerd Hentschel (p.c.) informs us that direct Germanic influence is not commonly invoked by Slavicists to explain the phenomenon. Note that in varieties of Kashubian, fronting of /u/ and /o/ is also common (Stone 1993b: 764). What can be said in any case is that Polabian /y/ was permitted in positions from which /y/ is banned in (Low) German as e.g. word-finally as in lönü ‘bosom’ (Polański 1993: 802). Three of the few examples of a Low German loanword with an original /y/ that is retained in Polabian are i. Middle Low German brüken ‘use’ > Polabian brükot (Polański 1993: 818), ii. Middle Low German brüt ‘bride’ > Polabian brüt (Polański 1993: 819), iii. and Middle Low German (g)lück ‘luck’ > Polabian (g)lük (Polański 1993: 822). How the Polabian case has to be interpreted exactly can only be determined in a dedicated follow-up study. It is interesting that further evidence of rounded front vowels in Slavic languages comes from regional varieties of Slovenian which are spoken on both sides of the border to Austria and Hungary. In Greenberg’s (2000: 167–182) account of the vowel systems of Slovenian varieties, /y/ is reported for Littoral Slovenian – varieties of Komen and Hrusiča – and Pannonian (= Prekmurje/ Hungarian) Slovenian – varieties of Cankova and Martinje. In these cases, modern /y/ results mostly from fronting of an older long *ū. Ilešić (1900: 488) mentions “eine grosse Zahl von Fremdwörtern mit ü” [a high number of loanwords with ü] which seem to originate from local dialects of Austrian German but German influence is not claimed to be responsible for the processes in Slovenian.71 Greenberg (2000: 58) claims that “the fronting of *u > ü [covers] a wide areal that includes southeastern Slovene and Kajkavian.” As to the origin of the phenomenon, the author admits that in spite of

|| 71 To the contrary, Ilešić (1900: 490) even assumes that /y/ in the isolated Germanic variety of Sora in Slovenia was borrowed from local Slovenian dialects since the German settlers originated from Freising, i.e. from a Bavarian dialect zone in which the inherited rounded front vowels had undergone unrounding.

196 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

a degree of ambiguity in these developments, which may be seen in part as particular outcomes of general Slavic developments, the resulting parallels to Hungarian are striking. (Greenberg 2000: 58)

The above reference to Kajkavian suggests that /y/ is also present in those varieties of Croatian which are spoken in the neighborhood of Slovenian varieties which boast this phoneme. Vermeer (1979: 172) considers Kajkavian /y/ to be an archaism. In some varieties, /y/ seems to be the result of a merger of *ǫ and *ḷ (Vermeer 1979: 174). For Pannonian Slovenian, Greenberg (2000: 116) assumes that fronting took place as early as the 11th–12th century. Since /y/ is wellestablished in the inherited lexicon of the above varieties, it is difficult to determine whether the diachronic fronting is in any way connected to language contact. This is different with some of the cases described by Ivić (1958: 12). In so-called border dialects of Serbian (especially in Kosovo), /y/ has been integrated in the phonological systems as LP which is limited to loanwords either from Turkish or from Albanian. An example of a Macedonian variety attesting to LP /y/ is the dialect of Gora situated in the border region between Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia. According to Steinke and Ylli (2010: 57), LP /y/ in Macedonian (Gora) is limited to loanwords from Turkish or Albanian. A recent development is mentioned in passing for Romungro, the Romani variety spoken in southern Slovakia and northern Hungary. Elšík (2007: 263) claims that Hungarian rounded front vowels are “usually replaced with their unrounded counterparts in loanwords [] although some speakers now tend to retain them in certain loanwords.” No examples are given. In Romani (Finland), Granqvist (1999: 48) identifies LP /y/ especially in loanwords from Germanic (and Hungarian, as the author assumes) such as stükkøs ‘piece’ < Swedish stycke. Interestingly, the co-territorial /y/-language Finnish is not mentioned among the potential donors. Catalan is a /y/-less EDL. However, there are Catalan varieties spoken in the Roussillon region north of the Spanish-French border, i.e. on the territory of /y/languages such as Gascon and French. It is therefore hardly surprising that Hualde (1992: 378) notes that in Catalan (Roussillon) LP /y/ shows up as in the participle [pynit] ‘punished’ where /u/ is supposed to occur in other varieties of Catalan. A word of caution is in order at this point. Among the EDLs, there are (misleading) temptations, in a manner of speaking. We allude to cases which look like instances of contact-induced transfer of phonemes only to turn out to be false friends on closer inspection. We admit that several of the above cases might also be interpreted along the lines of independent parallel developments which incidentally produced similar results. However, even if it is impossible to

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 197

connect the emergence of rounded front vowels directly to language contact, the similarities between genetically diverse neighbors calls to mind the perceptual magnet effect as defined by Blevins (2017) which we have presented in Section 15.1 above. Harrington and Schiel (2017) discuss cases of language-internal emergence of /y/ (via /u/-fronting) for which borrowings and language-contact in general are irrelevant or at least do not suggest themselves as explanation. Turkic influence on Udi has been discussed in (a) already. Several of Udi’s Nakh-Daghestanian sister languages also have rounded front vowels among their phonemes. Map XL is intended as an aide-memoire for the ensuing discussion. It features the EDLs of the Caucasian region. Both /y/ and /ø/ are reported for Kryts (Saadiev 1994: 410), Budukh (Alekseev 1994b: 262), Bezhta (Kibrik and Testelets 2004: 219) and Tsakhur (Talibov 2004: 357) whereas Chechen (Nichols 1994a: 16–17), Khinalug (Kibrik 1994b: 372), Rutul (Alekseev 1994a: 217), and Hinukh (Forker 2013) are said to have only /y/. Many others like Chamalal, Ghodoberi, Dargwa, Ingush, Archi, and Tsova-Tush do not feature any rounded front vowel in their phoneme systems. This is why Schulze-Fürhoff (1994: 508, endnote 12) argues that “palatalized vowels” can be reconstructed neither for Proto-Lezgian nor for Proto-Daghestanian. Thus, /y/ is probably an innovation in the above EDLs. However, only in the case of Udi does our source mention a connection to loanwords. In all other grammatical sketches, /y/ is treated like any other vowel phoneme. In his grammar of Kryts, Authier (2009: 19–22) studies the role of /y/. There are numerous loanwords from Azerbaijani which host an original high rounded front vowel. As to these loans, Authier (2009: 20) states that “[l]es mots azéri ayant un /ü/ ont généralement [u] en kryz.” [the Azerbaijani words with /ü/ generally have [u] in Kryts]. According to this source, [y] is a sometimes only optional allophonic realization of /u/ in certain phonological contexts independent of the etymological background of the word. Scala (2018: 222) emphasizes that all of the Nakh-Daghestanian languages which have /y/ have experienced intensive language contact with Azerbaijani. Again, the author refers to vowel-harmonic processes and not to the existence of /y/ as such. Johanson (2006: 169) reviews the Turkic influence on the phonologies of Caucasian languages without mentioning cases of /y/-borrowing. To the contrary, loanwords from Azerbaijani containing rounded front vowels are often adapted as pharyngealized vowels as e.g. Tsakhur /oˁʧ/ ‘three’ < Azerbaijani /yʧ/ (Johanson 2006: 169). A situation which resembles that described for the Caucasian region can be found in northern Italy and adjacent areas. The presence of /y/ is confirmed for Germanic, Romance, Slavic, and Uralic EDLs which populate or border on this region. What is remarkable about the distribution is the fact that not all EDLs

198 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

located in this part of Europe attest to /y/. Wüest (2008: 379) takes note of /y/ in Ligurian, Piemontese, Lombardian (Loporcaro 2013: 96–99), Ladin (Gherdëina), and Rumansch (Grischun) but assumes that the phoneme must have been more widely diffused in the past. It is of course also firmly established in Swiss German varieties, Pannonian Slovenian, and Hungarian as mentioned above. It is impossible to determine a common origin for all of these cases unless one is inclined to assume an extinct /y/-language as common substrate. It is again striking that we find identical phenomena across neighboring languages which are affiliated differently in terms of their genealogy. In the Celtic branch it is only Breton (all varieties) which boasts phonemic rounded front vowels. On account of a millennium of intensive contacts with French and the integration of literally hundreds of loanwords from French, it seems only logical to attribute the existence of /y/ and /ø/ to French influence. However, Jackson (1967) assumes that the origin of these vowels predates the beginning of French-Breton language contacts. According to this hypothesis, /y/ and /ø/ are inherited from Common Brythonic but Welsh and Cornish lost these phonemes. One might argue that what contributed to their survival in Breton is exactly the supporting influence from French. Lexical borrowings from French strengthened the position of the rounded front vowels in the phonological system of Breton. This pattern can be applied to the facts reported for the North East Caucasian languages mentioned above. Turkic languages are most probably not responsible for the emergence of rounded front vowels but it is likely that contacts and bilingualism especially with Azerbaijani reinforced the position of /y/ and /ø/ in those languages which already featured them as allophones or marginal phonemes. In the foregoing paragraphs, the possibility of the genesis of /y/ independently of external triggers has already been mentioned. In point of fact, /y/ has emerged at several spots on the European map without being (directly) attributable to language contact. In northern varieties of Greek for instance, the rise of /y/ and /ø/ from binary vowel sequences [iu] and [eu] is said to be relatively common. With reference to prior work by Newton (1972) and Sawicka (1997)72, Joseph (2019: 321) argues that in these Greek varieties of Thessaly, Macedonia, and Thrace Turkish loanwords “with front rounded vowels are adopted without alteration”. This line of argumentation presupposes that /y/ and /ø/ existed in the Greek varieties already prior to the borrowing of Turkish words involving these phonemes. Newton (1972), one of Joseph’s two references for the

|| 72 Sawicka (1997: 16) repeats only Newton’s argument without giving examples.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 199

above hypothesis, reviews the philological literature on the issue of the genesis of /y/ and /ø/. It is worth noting that Newton (1972) does not present the units as genuine phonemes. The process of their emergence is described in terms of regressive assimilation of the back vowels following a segment which bears the feature [front]/[palatal] (Newton 1972: 47–50). The rules are, for Samothraki, [u] → [y] / V[front] __ and, for Velvendo, [u] → [y] / C[palatal] __. Newton (1972: 50) states that [y] is “also found in certain loans from Turkish” whereas [ø] is not mentioned in this context. Since the rounded front vowels have emerged exactly in those parts of Greece where Turkish influence used to be particularly strong, a margin for doubt as to the absolute exclusion of language contact as a factor in the genesis of Greek /y/ and /ø/ remains. In contrast, the Maltese dialect of Nadur provides an example of /y/ whose existence is in no way explicable with reference to contact phenomena. Nadur is situated on the island of Gozo. Standard Maltese lacks /y/. Azzopardi-Alexander (2011: 245) claims that Naduri /y/ corresponds to the unrounded high back vowel /ɯ/ as attested in the sister-dialect of Xlukkajr. In Naduri, there are minimal pairs such as /byt/ ‘pocket’ ≠ /bʊtː/ ‘tin’ (standard Maltese /bʊt/ ‘pocket’ ≠ /bɔtː/ ‘tin’) (Azzopardi-Alexander 2011: 246). None of the partners in contact of Maltese can be held responsible for the rise of /y/ in Naduri. We register the Naduri case as an instance of spontaneous internal development. (c) Geography: Maps II and VIII show that there is a sizable minority of EDLs whose phoneme chart hosts autochthonous /y/. On the basis of the data and discussion in the previous paragraphs, we modify the picture painted in Maps II and VIII to produce Map XLI. As comes to the fore immediately /y/languages form small clusters which, except in NW and NC, are surrounded by EDLs which have no /y/. Table 39 singles out the /y/-borrowers to test whether any nonant is particularly often involved in borrowing. Table 39: Distribution of /y/-borrowers over the nonants.

N

W

C

E

Sum

0

0

0

0

M

0

3

0

3

S

1

2

2

5

Total

1

5

2

8

200 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The /y/-borrowers are all located in the direct neighborhood of EDLs which display autochthonous /y/. At the centers of diffusion, we find the following EDLs (in alphabetical order): Azerbaijani, French, German, Hungarian, and Turkish. The neighborhood relation is characteristic not only of those cases in which the contact-induced origin of /y/ is uncontroversial (such as Zuberoa) but also in many other cases (some of which are not included on Map XLI) – notably in those for which tangible proof of language contact as prime mover in the emergence of /y/ is poor or wanting. Under these circumstances, the best one can do is to accept the data as circumstantial evidence of potential contactinduced processes. Even in the absence of hard facts from the diachrony of the languages involved in these scenarios, it can be safely stated that the data speak in favor of areality. LP /y/ occurs only in four nonants which together form an extended /y/-neighborhood, namely SW, SC, SE, and MC. The south and the center are preferred zones of /y/-borrowing. (d) Further issues: To wrap up this section, we emphasize that the best example of LP /y/ is provided by Zuberoa Basque. The runner-up in this competition is Luxembourgish where /y/ is well-established too. None of the other cases reviewed above attests to an equally fully integrated LP /y/. Since Maddieson’s (1986) categories are tailored for LP consonants, we dare not classify all of the above cases. It is clear, however, that many of the examples discussed so far could perhaps be put in Class 3 of Maddieson’s categorization (see Section 16.1) since they involve the phonematization of pre-existing allophonic alternations. Where no such erstwhile allophonic distributions are exploited for the introduction of /y/, one might be inclined to think of Class 4. We illustrate this schematically for the Zuberoan case in Table 40. Table 40: Zuberoan vowel system according to Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 18).

front high mid low

central

/i/

back

/y/

/u/

/e/

/o/ /a/

The LP /y/ occupies a cell in the system which was previously empty. In this way, a new dimension (highlighted in grey) is introduced which manifests itself in the erstwhile illicit combination of the features [front] + [rounded]. One has to add the feature [high] to this combination, i.e. the innovation is isolated in the system since it is the only representative of the new dimension. However, in

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 201

what sense is a rounded front vowel sufficiently dissimilar from front vowels and back vowels (which bear the feature [round]) to support this claim? Alternatively, LP /y/ can be understood as an instance of Class-2 phenomena. Note, however, that there is also (relatively weak) evidence of /ø/-borrowing in Basque (Zuberoa) to be discussed in Section 17.2.2.2a.

17.2.2.2 /ø/ Our sample comprises 59 EDLs which attest to /ø/. Almost three quarters of the sample languages lack evidence of this phoneme. The mid rounded front vowel /ø/ has been borrowed into seven EDLs of our sample. Figure 46 reveals that as in the case of /y/ the share of LP /ø/ is small: 3 %. In Maddieson’s (1984: 249) sample there are 18 languages (= 7 %) which have /ø/ none of which is identified as /ø/-borrower.

autochthonous; 52; 25%

no /ø/; 151; 72%

LP; 7; 3%

Figure 46: Share of LP /ø/ in the sample.

Except Eastern Frisian (Seeltersk) – to be discussed in Section 17.2.2.8 below, the /ø/-borrowers form a subset of those EDLs which have also borrowed /y/ as discussed in 17.2.2.1a, namely Arabic (Çukurova), Basque (Zuberoa), Livonian, Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Sepečides), and Udi (Nidž). The two areas of diffusion for the two rounded front vowels are not absolutely identical (Luxembourgish and Romani (Burgenland) are missing from the area of diffusion of /ø/), but they overlap considerably. Since LP /ø/ has already been mentioned

202 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

time and again in the previous section, we can restrict the presentation of the facts, their discussion, and evaluation to the minimum. (a) From within the sample: As to the situation in Udi (Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 454–455), Livonian (Moseley 2002: 14–15), and Romani (Ajia Varvara) (Igla 1996: 6), nothing of importance has to be added to what was said already in connection to LP /y/. All the reservations that have been put forward as to LP /y/ above also hold for LP /ø/ in these EDLs. For Çukurova Arabic, Zuberoa Basque, and Sepečides Romani, however, it is necessary to comment briefly on the role of LP /ø/. According to Procházka (2002: 39), some speakers of Çukurova Arabic give evidence of a shift from inherited long /oː/ to /øː/ as in nōm ‘sheep’ > nȫm.73 More importantly, the same author assumes that this dialectal development can be connected to language contact when he states that [b]egünstigt – wenn nicht sogar ausgelöst – wurde eine derartige lautliche Realisierung von ō durch die Übernahme türkischer Lehnwörter, wo auch ursprünglich kurzes ö sehr oft gelängt wird.74

The integration of Turkish loanwords constitutes a factor which is favorable to the fronting of /oː/ to /øː/ in the Arabic part of the lexicon. In the Basque case, the existence of LP /ø/ is not mentioned by Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003). In contrast, Haase (1993: 32) speaks of the occasional attestation of /ø/ in French loanwords such as Basque (Zuberoa) /batøza/ ‘threshing machine’ < French batteuse (cf. Section 17.2.2.1a). For Romani (Sepečides), Cech and Heinschink (1996: 3) postulate the borrowing of /ø/ in Turkish loanwords. In contrast, Matras (2002: 62) excludes /ø/ from the chart of vowel phonemes of this variety of Romani whereas /y/ is admitted in brackets. Since in Matras’s (2002: 62) vocalic system, there is also the schwa vowel /ə/ – equally surrounded by round brackets – the possibility arises that the LP /ø/ of Cech and Heinschink’s is identical to Matras’s /ə/. On the basis of our present knowledge, we cannot solve this riddle satisfactorily. Luxembourgish does not form part of the area of diffusion of the LP /ø/. It is true that this EDL has borrowed words from French and German whose segmental chain contains /ø/. However, Keller (1961: 255) does not mention any LP /ø/

|| 73 Procházka (2002: 39) uses the symbol [ɔ:] but describes the sound as “vorderes gerundetes ȫ” [front rounded ȫ] so that we feel entitled to postulate a pronunciation [ø:]. 74 Our translation: “this phonetic realization of ō was facilitated – if not triggered even – by the adoption of Turkish loanwords where original short ö too is very frequently lengthened.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 203

explicitly. It seems that Luxembourgish has acquired the so-called “ë bref” [short ë] via rounding of an erstwhile schwa vowel. Schanen and Zimmer (2012: 249–253) describe the pronunciation of the “ë bref” as oscillating between [ə] and [œ] if it carries the main stress of the word as in monosyllables like Luxembourgish Bësch ‘forest’ (= German Busch), Luxembourgish Mënsch ‘human being’ (= German Mensch), Luxembourgish Dësch ‘table’ (= German Tisch), etc. The rounded front vowel /œ/ probably came into existence timely enough to serve as an attractor for loans from French and German equipped with /ø/. (b) Additions: Most of the cases of LP /ø/ from outside the sample have already been mentioned in the (b)-section of 17.2.2.1. This means that Kurdish (Haig 2017), varieties of Armenian (Vaux 1998), Asia Minor Greek (Thomason and Kaufman 1988), Polabian (Polański 1993) and Romungro (Elšík 2007) have possibly borrowed /ø/ but the position of this LP /ø/ is by no means stable. Boretzky (p.c.) reports that in Hungarian varieties of Romani, rounded front vowels are abundantly attested in loanwords such as öreganja < Hungarian öreg ‘old man’ and ördegne < Hungarian ördög ‘devil’. In these cases, LP /ø/ always co-occurs with LP /y/. Chances are that the evidence is more numerous than it appears to be the case superficially. In Pannonian Slovenian (Greenberg 2000: 179–180) /ø/ is attested in the variety of Martinje, whereas in the Cankova variety it is registered as allophone [ø] of /e/. The rise of /ø/ is explained as an internal process (Greenberg 2000: 58). Ivić (1958: 14) reports on Istrian varieties of Croatian in which both /y/ and /ø/ form part of the phonological system. Yet, the rise of /ø/ is again attributed to purely internal processes. The presence of /ø/ in several Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs poses the same problems as the presence of /y/ in the same group of EDLs. More generally, the borrowing of /ø/ seems to be tightly connected to that of /y/. Some EDLs which attest to LP /y/ do not give evidence of LP /ø/. A borrowed /ø/ almost always implies that the replica language’s vowel system already hosts phonemic /y/, be it borrowed or autochthonous. This tendency corroborates Eisen’s (2019: 89) Universal 6 partially insofar as /y/ does not have to be autochthonous to make it easier for /ø/ to be integrated in the system of the replica language. It suffices that the two rounded front vowels are borrowed as a package. (c) Geography: The rounded front vowels /y/ and /ø/ constitute a pair of phonemes whose distribution reflects a kind of markedness relation between them according to which /y/ is relatively unmarked as opposed to relatively marked /ø/. The area of diffusion of /y/ on Map XLI involves more EDLs than the area of diffusion of /ø/ on Map XLII. This difference holds not only for autochthonous phonemes but also for LPs. Nevertheless, the distribution of the two rounded front vowels looks very much the same on the maps so that it is unnec-

204 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

essary to repeat the information provided for LP /y/ above. Table 41 accounts for the presence of /ø/-borrowers in the nonants. Table 41: Distribution of /ø/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

2

0

2

S

1

2

2

5

Total

1

4

2

7

We assume that the centers of diffusion are identical to those identified in connection to the spread of LP /y/ above. For both of the rounded front vowels, the same nonants host a zero and the same nonants give evidence of the presence of borrowers. (d) Further issues: For Basque (Zuberoa), the borrowing chronology supposes that LP /y/ entered the replica language’s system a long time before /ø/ began to knock on the door, in a manner of speaking. LP /y/ remained the only member of a new phonological category. The latecomer /ø/ might fill the gap and thus complete the process of enlarging the vowel system of Zuberoa Basque. Interestingly, Luxembourgish speaks in favor of a different kind of gapfilling. According to what we have said above /œ/ developed independently within the Luxembourgish system and, contrary to our expectations, preceded the establishment of /y/ via language contact. Thus, LP /y/ fills the gap which resulted from the (still incomplete) change /ə/ > /œ/.

17.2.2.3 /ɨ/ The unrounded high central vowel /ɨ/ is attested in 32 EDLs. Four of these 32 EDLs attest to LP /ɨ/. The vast majority of the sample languages do not feature /ɨ/ in their phoneme system. Figure 47 reflects these differences schematically. Maddieson (1984: 252) records 42 languages with /ɨ/ (including nasalized and long) which equals 13 % of his sample. The author does not mention any case of borrowing of /ɨ/. The phoneme /ɨ/ is relatively infrequent no matter whether we are talking about autochthonous or borrowed phonemes.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 205

autochthonous; 28; 13% no /ɨ/; 178; 85% LP; 4; 2%

Figure 47: Share of LP /ɨ/ in the sample.

(a) From within the sample: The four EDLs which attest to LP /ɨ/ can be divided in two groups. Group I has but a single representative, namely the already repeatedly mentioned Çukurova variety of Arabic. The three members of Group II are representatives of Romani, viz. Kalderash, Lithuanian Romani, and Sepečides Romani. With reference to the integration of Turkish /ɨ/ into the phonology of Çukurova Arabic, Çukurova = Turkish yılbaşı ‘New Year’ is a representative case. Procházka (2002: 30) concedes that there is phonetic similarity of LP /ɨ/ to [ə] which is an allophone of autochthonous /i/. However, distributional criteria provide the basis for his decision to consider LP /ɨ/ to be a phoneme distinct from /i/. As to /ɨ/ in Kalderash, Boretzky (1994: 11–12) observes that its domain is restricted to Romanian loanwords (which are numerous) such as Kalderash gîndo ‘thought’ < Romanian gînd. To the author’s mind, it is difficult to find minimal pairs which prove that /ɨ/ is distinct from /i/. For the Lithuanian variety of Romani, Tenser (2005: 3) claims that /ɨ/ has been borrowed from some unidentified Slavic language. Since most of the lexical loans the author identifies are of Russian origin like Lithuanian Romani žylutko ‘stomach’ < Russian žyludok (genitive žylutka) (Tenser 2005: 7)75, it seems logical to assume that also LP /ɨ/ stems from the same donor language. Cech and Heinschink (1996: 3) emphasize that /ɨ/ in Sepečides Romani is not of Romanian origin but borrowed from Turkish.

|| 75 The correct phonetic representation of Russian желудок/желудка is [ʐɨˈɫudək]/[ʐɨˈɫutkə].

206 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Moreover, this LP /ɨ/ is attested also in Iranian loanwords such as Sepečides sır ‘garlic’ < Iranian sir. Matras (2002: 62) does not register /ɨ/ for Sepečides. (b) Additions: LP /ɨ/ is attested in Polska Roma and North Russian Romani (Matras 2002: 62). Note that beyond this case, we have no reliable information as yet on /ɨ/-borrowing in Europe. Sawicka (1997: 16) speaks of Serbian and Macedonian varieties which borrow an “unclear vowel” from Turkish. Her description of the “unclear vowel” does not allow us to decide whether she refers to /ɨ/ or /ʉ/ (see Section 17.2.2.7). It is possible that Bulut’s (2006: 226) concept of TurkishIranian convergence also involves the borrowing of Turkish /ɨ/ into the Anatolian varieties of Iranian. A possible case of /ɨ/-borrowing is Tatar (see Section 17.2.2.7). We cannot be certain that we have exhausted the possibilities already. Future research will reveal whether there are further cases to be added to the list. (c) Geography: Map XLIII does not host many /ɨ/-borrowers. The phoneme is absent from the vast majority of the EDLs featured on this map so that empty dots dominate everywhere. EDLs with autochthonous /ɨ/ are scattered over the nonants without forming proper clusters. It is therefore hardly surprising that the /ɨ/-borrowers do not cluster geographically. Table 42 reveals that only three nonants are affected by /ɨ/-borrowing. Table 42: Distribution of /ɨ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

1

0

1

S

0

2

1

3

Total

0

3

1

4

The EDLs with LP /ɨ/ are located in the MC, SC, and SE nonants always and predictably in the vicinity of EDLs which boast autochthonous /ɨ/. (d) Further issues: In Table 43 it is shown that the phonological Slavicism /ɨ/ in Polska Roma (Matras 2002: 59) complements the categories high and central but creates a gap for the latter (and the horizontal category of mid).76

|| 76 In Matras’s (2002: 62) own vowel chart, the low vowel /a/ sides with the back vowels so that the LP /ɨ/ would introduce a new dimension, namely that of central vowels. We have reorganized the schema of our source so that /a/ is moved from back to central.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 207

Table 43: The vowel system of Polska Roma according to Matras (2002: 62).

front high

central

/i/

mid

back

/ɨ/

/u/

/e/

low

/o/ /a/

We are undecided as to the interpretation of this case in terms of Maddieson’s (1986) categories. Gap-filling seems to fit but this classification can be applied almost blindly to any LP vowel in any replica language so that the term is on the verge of losing its distinctive character. Alternatively, one might claim that we witness a case of gap-creating because the introduction of /ɨ/ results in the creation of an empty slot where a schwa vowel seems to be missing.

17.2.2.4 /æ/ The low open front vowel /æ/ is reported for 44 EDLs three of which attest to LP /æ/. With 166 EDLs, languages without /æ/ dominate in our sample. The shares of the three options can be gathered from Figure 48. Maddieson (1984: 251) mentions 45 languages with /æ/ (including nasalized, long, and pharyngealized) without marking any of these as borrowers. The share of /æ/ in his sample is 14 %.

autochthonous; 41; 20%

LP; 3; 1%

no /æ/; 166; 79%

Figure 48: Share of LP /æ/ in the sample.

208 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(a) From within the sample: Two of three EDLs which attest to /æ/borrowing belong to the Turkic phylum. For Noghay, Csató and Karakoç (1998: 333) report that /æ/ “occurs often in initial position in lexical items copied from Persian and Arabic” which means that LP /æ/ has a limited distribution as it seems to be restricted to the word-initial slot (or syllable). In the case of Kazakh, Muhamedowa (2016: 274) claims that “/æ/ is most common in loan words from Arabic and Persian” – a choice of words which invites the interpretation that /æ/ is not completely unknown in the inherited part of Kazakh. The third EDL to be mentioned is the Nakh-Daghestanian Udi. Schulze-Fürhoff (1994: 455) claims that /æ/ occurs only in loanwords from Persian and Turkic languages like Udi šähär ‘city’ < Azerbaijani şəhər (Schulze-Fürhoff 1994: 491). (b) Additions: It cannot be ruled out that we have not recognized further cases of LP /æ/. This possibility notwithstanding, we doubt that the turnout of LP /æ/ will increase considerably for EDLs. (c) Geography: The above /æ/-borrowers are confined to the ME and SE nonants as shown in Table 44. Map XLIV features them as usual in the shape of red dots. The remainder of the map is crowded with EDLs which lack any evidence of /æ/. Autochthonous /æ/ forms a cluster in the Baltic on the border of four nonants, viz. MC, NC, NE, and ME. Interestingly, this cluster has not produced any /æ/-borrower. Table 44: Distribution of /æ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

1

1

S

0

0

2

2

Total

0

0

3

3

(d) Further issues: Table 45 gives us an impression of what the LP vowels’ place is in the phoneme system of Udi. Autochthonous vowels come in two distinctive sets, namely plain vowels vs. pharyngealized vowels. This phonemically relevant distinction is alien to the LP vowels (in the grey shaded cells) among which we find LP /æ/. On the one hand, LP /y/, LP /ø/, and LP /æ/ jointly form a set on a new phonological dimension. This can hardly be labeled gap-filling. The same LP vowels, on the other hand, render the system of the replica language heterogeneous because the erstwhile relevant pharyngealization correlation does not affect the newcomers to the system. There is thus the exact opposite of a homogenizing effect.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 209

Table 45: The vowel system of Udi (Nidž) according to Schulze-Fürhoff (1994: 454).77

front high mid

/i/ /e/

low

central /iˤ/

back

/y/

/eˤ/ /æ/

/u/ /ø/

/ɘ/

/ɘˤ/

/a/

/aˤ/

/o/

/uˤ/ /oˤ/

17.2.2.5 /ə/ The mid central vowel /ə/ has phoneme status in 64 EDLs. Three of these EDLs have borrowed the schwa. In the bulk of our sample languages, however, this vowel is not registered among the phonemes. Figure 49 discloses the shares of the three options.

autochthonous; 61; 29%

LP; 3; 1% no /ə/; 146; 70%

Figure 49: Share of LP /ə/ in the sample.

The relevance of language contact for the distribution of /ə/ over the sample is minimal. Only 1 % of all attested cases of /ə/ represent LP phonemes. Maddieson

|| 77 Something must have gone wrong when Schulze-Fürhoff’s (1994: 454) vowel chart was prepared for printing. The symbol is placed in the column of the back vowels whereas the mid back vowels occupy positions beyond the same column. We have rearranged the systems according to our own interpretation.

210 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(1984: 252–253) mentions 78 languages (= 25 % of the sample) which are equipped with /ə/ (including higher mid central, retroflexed, long, overshort, and nasalized). Sinhalese (a language from South Asia) is classified as borrower of /əː/ but as the language already had autochthonous short /ə/ we assume that we are dealing with a case of quantity-borrowing and not of quality-borrowing. (a) From within the sample: Not only is the frequency of LP /ə/ notably small but there is also a genetic bias, in a manner of speaking. The three EDLs for which the borrowing of /ə/ is explicitly mentioned in the pertinent literature are close relatives of each other. All three replica languages belong to the Romani branch of Indo-Aryan. LP /ə/ is reported for Ajia Varvara, Bugurdži, and Lithuanian Romani. For Lithuanian Romani, Tenser (2005: 3) assumes that /ə/ has been borrowed from Slavic. At the same time, he argues that in the inherited lexicon, [ə] is a positional allophone of /e/. This situation has been described for Kalderash varieties of Romani by Boretzky (1994: 11–12) who also states that the schwa is present both in the borrowed and in the inherited part of the lexicon. The same author argues that in Bugurdži LP /ə/ is restricted to Turkish loanwords mostly as an adaptation of Turkish /ɨ/. In his grammar of Bugurdži, Boretzky (1993: 3) further remarks that LP /ə/ seems to be losing ground in the speech of the younger generation. It is remarkable that LP /ə/ is not strong enough to function as an attractor for loans from Albanian which have a schwa in the donor language. LP /ə/ is thus marginal and unstable. Kalderash /ə/ and /ɨ/ are depicted as LPs from Romanian in Boretzky and Igla (1999: 712). In the Romani variety of Ajia Varvara, the situation is similar for LP /ə/. Igla (1996: 7– 8) claims that there is a marked difference in the use of /ə/ between the older generation and the younger speakers. Older speakers still use the schwa in many loanwords – but also in a small number of inherited lexemes. LP /ə/ is found in loanwords from Turkish, Bulgarian, and Romanian and corresponds to /ɨ/ and /ə/ of the donor languages. Two examples of Romanian loanwords may suffice: Ajia Varvara gəndáko ‘beetle’ < Romanian gîndac and Ajia Varvara rəknisarél ‘yell’ < Romanian răcni (Igla 1996: 11). In the above three cases, the position of LP /ə/ is precarious. Moreover, there is also evidence of the existence of an autochthonous schwa at least in a small segment of the inherited lexicon. It is unclear whether this autochthonous schwa was phonemic already prior to the borrowing of words hosting /ɨ/ and/or /ə/ (Matras 2002: 59). (b) Additions: Matras (2002: 59) mentions the centralization of unstressed vowels in Welsh Romani – a process which involves the rise of the neutralizing allophone [ə] of several phonemes (e.g. /i/, /e/, /a/). To what extent this innovation can be attributed to contact with English cannot be answered in this study. What we see nevertheless is that there is no full-blown LP /ə/ as yet in this vari-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 211

ety of Romani. Much to our surprise we have not unearthed any further instances of LP /ə/ in Europe. The meagre turnout of this phenomenon is probably caused by our methodology and the choice of sources. (c) Geography: We trace LP /ə/ on Map XLV. The three red dots show us where LP /ə/ is attested, namely in MC and SC as revealed in Table 46. EDLs without /ə/ abound in SW, MC, ME and all northern nonants from which the phoneme is almost completely absent. Clusters of autochthonous /ə/ can be found in MW (where the /ə/-languages are in the majority), in SC, and SE. It is worth noting that the presence of many /ə/-languages in MW and SE has not triggered /ə/-borrowing. Table 46: Distribution of /ə/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

1

0

1

S

0

2

0

2

Total

0

3

0

3

The single /ə/-borrower in MC is located at a distance from the next /ə/languages. This is Romani (Lithuanian) whose LP /ə/ is difficult to trace diachronically. Since its geographical neighbors are /ə/-less EDLs a possible explanation could be that the vowel had been borrowed elsewhere (probably in the Balkans) before the speech community migrated northwards to Lithuania. On account of the largely unclear status of LP /ə/, we refrain from classifying it according to Maddieson’s (1986) categories.

17.2.2.6 /o/ The mid back vowel /o/ (including /ɔ/) is registered in 178 EDLs. It occurs as LP vowel in three EDLs. This corresponds to a share of 1 % of the sample as shown in Figure 50. Note that there are 32 EDLs without /o/. Among the 300 /o/languages (including higher mid back, nasalized, long, overshort, voiceless, and pharyngealized) of his sample Maddieson (1984: 257–258) registers only Chuvash as /o/-borrower.

212 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

no /o/; 32; 15%

LP; 3; 2%

autochthonous; 175; 83%

Figure 50: Share of LP /o/ in the sample.

In stark contrast to the rounded front vowels discussed in the previous sections, autochthonous /o/ is the majority option. Superficially, only the closed /o/ seems to be subject to borrowing whereas there seems to be no instance of the open /ɔ/ as LP vowel. However, this asymmetry is solely caused by our sources’ conventions of transcribing the vowel phonemes. In what follows the two degrees of closure are conflated so that we subsume /o/ and /ɔ/ under LP /o/. (a) From within the sample: Benzing (1959c: 702) postulates a system of eight vowel phonemes for Chuvash from which the mid back vowel is excluded although the allophone [o] is reported for /u/ and /ʌ/. The LP /o/ occurs only in Russian loanwords (Benzing 1959c: 701). This interpretation finds corroboration in Krueger’s (1961: 70) manual of Chuvash where the author assumes that /o/ is “employed only in Russian loanwords and dialect words” an example being Chuvash vokzal ‘train station’ < Russian vokzal (Landmann 2014a: 126). We know of course that in Russian the unstressed vowel is realized as [ɐ]. How the Chuvash vowel quality has to be explained cannot be determined of the basis of our sources. Note that Chuvash boasts an autochthonous mid front vowel /e/. Two other EDL to be mentioned in connection to the borrowing of mid back vowels are standard and non-standard varieties of Latvian. Latvian attests to /o/ and /oː/ only in loanwords (Endzelīns 1951: 24) like Latvian oktobris ‘october’ [ɔktɔːbris] and interjections (Eckert et al. 1994: 253). Auziņa (2013: 132–133) argues that the short and long LP vowels can also be replaced with the autochthonous Latvian diphthong /u͜o/ as in Latvian persona ‘person’ [pærsɔnă] ~ [pærsnă]. This possibility of replacement is indicative of a still unstable posi-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 213

tion of the LPs in the system of the replica language. The loanwords in Latvian are of very diverse origins. Many of them can be classified as internationalisms without precisely determining the exact donor language. According to Pīrāga (2006: 18) the Skrunda variety of Latvian also attests to LP /o(ː)/. (b) Additions: Our harvest of further cases of LP /o/ is anything but rich. First of all, Greenberg (2000: 172) marks the closed /o/ to be restricted to borrowings in the Brda variety of Littoral Slovenian without providing examples. Note that phonemic /ɔ/ is established in the Slavic part of the lexicon of this variety. For Aramaic (Cudi), Sinha (2000: 35) postulates a short phoneme /o/ which is distinct from long /oː/. However, in contrast to /oː/ no example is provided for /o/ (Sinha 2000: 36). On the basis of Sinha’s (2000: 94–96) discussion of loanword integration we assume that the short /o/ is limited to loanwords (mostly from or via Turkish) such as Aramaic pantrón ‘trousers’ < Turkish pantolon < French pantalon or Aramaic čimanto ‘cement’ < Turkish çimento (Sinha 2000: 95). The similarities between Aramaic (Cudi) and Arabic (Çukurova) are striking. (c) Geography: Owing to the scarcity of reliable evidence of borrowed /o/ in the EDLs and sundry languages from the same continent, Map XLVI is only sparsely populated with borrowers. The overwhelming majority of the EDLs featured on this map display autochthonous /o/. The minority of /o/-less EDLs is scattered over different nonants without giving rise to local clusters. According to Table 47, only MC and ME host borrowers. Table 47: Distribution of /o/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

2

1

3

S

0

0

0

0

Total

0

2

1

3

The three EDLs which are mentioned in connection with the possible borrowing of /o/ do not cluster to justify postulating a proper isogloss. Even without an isogloss, the areal component of the phenomenon emerges nevertheless ex negativo because none of the cases is situated in the western nonants. (d) Further issues: Table 48 captures an interesting case which superficially seems to be of the gap-filling type, namely that of Latvian.

214 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 48: Latvian vowel system according to Auziņa (2013: 47).

high mid-closed

front

back

/i(ː)/

/u(ː)/ /e(ː)/

mid-open low

/ɔ(ː)/ /æ(ː)/

/ɑ(ː)/

The grey shading in Table 48 suggests that the situation is more complicated since the system is not absolutely symmetric no matter whether the LP /o/ is counted in or not. It is true that the borrowed vowel adds a mid back vowel but this innovation does not match the closure of the mid front vowel. Thus, the introduction of the LP /o/ can be understood as the creation of a new dimension in the system, namely that of mid open vowels unless valid arguments can be found for replacing /e(:)/ with /ɛ(:)/. Without this replacement LP /o/ would then be the sole representative of this new category since Auziņa (2013: 47) describes /æ(ː)/ as being horizontally on the same level as the low vowel /ɑ(ː)/. Since mid-closed /e(ː)/ and mid-open /ɔ(ː)/ are not on identical levels horizontally, one might claim that the introduction of LP /o/ notwithstanding, there still are gaps in the Latvian vowel system.

17.2.2.7 Singularities Four vowels have been borrowed only once, namely /œ/, /ɯ/, /ʉ/ and /ɘ/. Figure 51 shows that these vowels are generally infrequent also as autochthonous phonemes. In our sample, there are 24 EDLs which give evidence of the mid-open rounded front vowel /œ/. In contrast, 186 EDLs do not host this vowel on their phoneme charts. Autochthonous /œ/ is already a minor phenomenon in the phonological systems scrutinized for this study. In Maddieson’s (1984: 251) study there are only seven /œ/-languages (= 2 %) and no /œ/-borrower. In our database, however, unmarked (= short) LP /œ/ is postulated for Burgenland Romani by Halwachs (2002: 6) who claims that it occurs only in loans from German or the local German dialect of the Austrian province of Burgenland. No examples are provided.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 215

ɘ ʉ ɯ œ

0%

20%

40% autochthonous

60% LP

80%

100%

unattested

Figure 51: Isolated cases of LP vowels within the sample.

A doubtful example stems from Kurmanji (Kochgiri, Sinemili) where LP /œ/ from Turkish seems to be a possible additional case (Özsoy and Türkyılmaz 2006: 307–308). However, the exact phonological status of the vowel in the replica language’s system remains unclear. If it can be shown that /œ/ is phonemic in this variety of Kurmanji, we have an almost unique situation because there is no evidence of the parallel borrowing of /y/. The vast majority of the sample languages (= 195) do not have the unrounded high back vowel /ɯ/; /ɯ/ is phonemic in fifteen EDLs (= 7 %). It is a phoneme in 21 of Maddieson’s (1984: 255) sample languages which yields exactly the same share, namely 7 %. In contrast to Maddieson, we have identified also a /ɯ/-borrower: Tatar alone gives evidence of LP /ɯ/. As mentioned in Section 15.2, Comrie (1997a: 900) describes the vowel system of Tatar “excluding phonemic segments that occur only in loans from Russian.” The corresponding vowel chart involves an unrounded high back vowel (transcribed as ) whose phonemic status is unclear (Comrie 1997a: 901). In Russian loans, unrounded high central /ɨ/ is attested. In all likelihood the putative LP /ɯ/ has to be replaced with LP /ɨ/ in Tatar (see Section 17.2.2.3). The absolute number of EDLs with /ʉ/ is very small: there are nine EDLs in our sample which attest to this phoneme, 201 EDLs lack /ʉ/. Maddieson (1984: 252) counts only seven /ʉ/-languages and no borrower. Aramaic (Cudi) is the only member of our sample which has LP /ʉ/. We have mentioned the Aramaic (Cudi) case already in Section 17.2.2.1b. The description of the LP given by Sinha (2000: 35–36) is ambiguous. On the one hand, the symbol is used and the

216 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

sole example of a Turkish loanword contains /y/. The phonetic description of the unit under review, however, locates the vowel (vaguely) in the central column. It is possible therefore that it corresponds to /ʉ/. The unrounded mid closed vowel /ɘ/ is attested in ten EDLs with Kalderash Romani being the sole example of a member of the sample with LP /ɘ/. The phoneme is autochthonous in nine EDLs. It is absent from the phonological systems of 200 EDLs. LP /ɘ/ is reported for Kalderash by Čerenkov and Demeter (1990: 285–286). However, the phonetic account given of this unit is by no means clear. It is said to be an unrounded mid half-open vowel somewhere between /a/ and /ɨ/ (with more resemblance to /ɨ/ in unstressed syllables). In other descriptions of Kalderash, the symbol /ə/ is used (Boretzky 1994: 20; Boretzky and Igla 1999: 712; Matras 2002: 62). It is possible therefore that the case has to be joined to those of LP /ə/ discussed in Section 17.2.2.5. The geographical location of the four singularities is captured by Table 49. Table 49: Distribution of borrowers of single vowels over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

1

1

2

S

0

1

1

2

Total

0

2

2

4

According to Map XLVII autochthonous as well as borrowed singularities are absent from SW. There is evidence of autochthonous singularities in each of the eight remaining nonants with a particularily dense cluster in the western half of MC. The borrowers are located exactly in those nonants which tend to host more borrowers than other nonants, namely MC, ME, SC, and SE. The areality of the phenomenon can be described in negative terms since LP /ʉ/, LP /ɯ/, LP /œ/, and LP /ɘ/ are absent from the north and the west of Europe.

17.2.2.8 Secondary properties In (a)–(b), we review the cases of borrowing which involve secondary properties: quantity and nasalization. (a) Quantity: A generally problematic case is the Turkic language Gagauz whose descriptions disagree on various LP-related issues. According to Doerfer

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 217

(1959a: 264), Gagauz has secondary length distinctions which can be found inter alia in loanwords so that there is a chance for long LP vowels to show up as well. However, Pokrovskaja (1964) argues that Gagauz long vowels result mostly from contractions of erstwhile tautosyllabic vowels (with prior loss of an intervocalic consonant) as in düün ‘wedding’ < düyün. To her mind, the vowels under review are by no means limited to loanwords but are abundantly attested also in autochthonous words. This holds for /yː/, /oː/, /iː/, /eː/, /ɑː/, /uː/, and /ɯː/. Loanwords are not completely excluded from the domain of long vowels in Gagauz. Their role is, however, marginal at best since in the overwhelming majority of the cases the origin of the long vowel can be traced back to processes of contraction and monophthongization. To determine to what extent loanwords have lent support to the establishment of long vowel phonemes in Gagauz a dedicated diachronic study is called for. For the time being, we conclude that the evidence from Gagauz in favor of LP long vowels is dubious. Two other Turkic EDLs – Turkish and Crimean Tatar – are putative candidates for attesting long vowels as LPs. We begin with Turkish: According to Göksel and Kerslake (2005: 10), all Turkish long vowels occur exclusively in loanwords from Persian or Arabic. This is also Comrie’s (1997a: 884) point of view. Ersen-Rasch (2012: 5) agrees that in loanwords /aː/, /iː/, and /uː/ are possible but concedes that [b]ei einigen Lehnwörtern mit ursprünglich langem Vokal wird dieser kurz gesprochen, wenn er in geschlossener Silbe steht, aber lang, wenn er durch Anfügen eines vokalisch anlautenden Suffixes in eine offene Silbe zu stehen kommt.78

The domain of long LP vowels is thus severely restricted by phonological and morphonological constraints. For Crimean Tatar, Kavitskaya (2010: 8–9) argues as follows: Crimean Tatar has a marginal phonemic vowel length distinction between short and long vowels /ɑ/ and /ɑː/, /i/ and /iː/, and /u/ and /uː/. The long vowels occur only in words of foreign origin [...] Such words are either pronounced with a single long vowel or two short vowels separated by a glottal stop in more careful and/or educated speech.

The status of long LP vowels in Crimean Tatar is described as unstable. Sociolinguistic parameters seem to determine whether quantity is distinctive in the

|| 78 Our translation: “in some loanwords with an originally long vowel this vowel is realized short if it is attested in a closed syllable but long if it winds up in an open syllable after a vowelinitial suffix has been attached.”

218 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

first place. For all three Turkic EDLs with long LP vowels, we can state that they had autochthonous short vowels of the same quality before the long LP vowels made inroads into their phoneme systems. Put differently, what has been borrowed is not the vowel quality but the vowel quantity. For Turkish itself, Göksel and Kerslake (2005: 12) assume the existence of long /eː/ in loanwords from Persian or Arabic as in Turkish temin ‘acquisition’ whereas Ersen-Rasch (2012: 5) makes no mention of LP /eː/. According to Göksel and Kerslake (2005: 12), long vowels in loanwords do not necessarily replicate a long vowel in the original segmental chain since combinations of V + glottal stop of the donor language result in long vowels in the replica language as e.g in Turkish teesüf ‘sorrow’ (with = /eː/ for original [eʔ]). We follow Göksel and Kerslake (2005: 12) insofar as we assume the existence of LP /eː/ in Turkish. In Table 50 we present the Turkish vowel system as postulated by Göksel and Kerslake (2005: 10–13) and mark the borrowed units by grey shading of the cells in which they appear. Table 50: Turkish vowel system according to Göksel and Kerslake (2005: 10–13).

front high mid low

/i/

central /iː/

/e/

/y/ /eː/

back

/ɨ/

/u/

/ø/

/uː/

/o/ /a/

/aː/

Since there was autochthonous /e/ prior to the introduction of LP /eː/ in Turkish, the contact-borne innovation in the system consists in the phonemic distinction of quantities. LP /eː/ comes in a package with other long LP vowels, namely /iː/, /uː/, and /aː/. The admittance of /eː/ among the phonemes is responsible for the creation of asymmetry. Apart from the fact that the rounded front vowels and /ɨ/ are not sensitive to phonemic length, there is the problem of the mid back vowel /o/ which has no long counterpart. Thus, the Turkish case cannot be subsumed under gap-filling. A new but not pervasive dimension of short-long contrasts has been established via language contact. Non-Turkic EDLs which attest to the borrowing of long vowels are Czech and Eastern Frisian (Seeltersk). As to the former, Short (1993a: 456) states that, in contrast to short /o/, long /oː/ “occurs only in loan-words” in Czech like lóže ‘theatre box’ (< German Loge [loːʒə] < French loge [lɔʒ]). According to Fischer (1970: 17), both short and long mid back vowels are always open, i.e. [ɔ] and [ɔː], respectively. Since the quantity correlation involves most of Czech’s vowels it is

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 219

logical to assume that the integration of LP /oː/ served to fill a gap in the system of the replica language. Superficially, this is similar for Eastern Frisian (Seeltersk) (see Section 17.2.2.2 for comparable cases). According to Fort (2001: 411), the mid rounded front vowel has been integrated into the replica language’s system via lexical borrowing from Low German. What is important to note is that the LP vowel has been borrowed only with long quantity, i.e. as /øː/ as in röögje ‘stir’ < Low German rögen. In Eastern Frisian (Seeltersk), the corresponding short quantity is the open /œ/. Fort (2001: 411) claims that both long mid rounded front vowels of Seeltersk are permitted only in loanwords from Low German. This means that not only /øː/ but also /œː/ has a Low German origin. Fort’s example is Seeltersk Göäte ‘channel’ < Low German (East Frisian) Gööt. Lindow et al. (1998: 40) list short /œ/, long /øː/, and long /œː/ for Low German but illustrate these phonemes with examples from German (Standard) and French. It remains an open question which variety of Low German is the donor language of the two LP vowels /øː/ and /œː/. The next-door neighbors of Seeltersk are Low German (Eastfrisian) and North Lower Saxonian whose phonological systems are not described in the Niederdeutsche Grammatik. The borrowing of /øː/ in Eastern Frisian (Seeltersk) can be described in terms of gap-filling (Maddieson 1986) since, prior to borrowing, there were already autochthonous rounded front vowels – notably /y/, /yː/, and /œ/. The newly introduced /øː/ fills the gap between the high and the mid-open rounded front vowels. This is shown in Table 51. The cell of the “intrusive” LP /øː/ is shaded grey. Table 51: Seeltersk vowel system according to Fort (2001: 411).79

front high-closed high-open mid-closed mid-open low

central

/i(ː)/

back

/y(ː)/ /ɪ/

/u(ː)/ /ʏ/

/eː/ /ɛ(ː)/

/ʊ/ /øː/

/œ/

/œː/

/oː/ /ə/

/ɔ(ː)/

/a(ː)/

|| 79 Fort (2001: 411) uses a widely different terminology with palatal, medial, velar for the horizontal categories.

220 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

As can be seen from Table 51, LP /øː/ does not create a new dimension but fills a gap since there was already an autochthonous series of rounded front vowels except for the mid-closed position. On the horizontal plane there existed two long mid-closed vowels but none which combined the features [front] and [rounded]. In a way, the introduction of /øː/ complemented two dimensions of the above system. Since there was and still is no short equivalent of /øː/ with the feature [closed] it is possible to interpret this case as an instance of qualityoriented borrowing. This is the interpretation we adhere to. In contrast, when Eastern Frisian (Seeltersk) borrowed /œː/ from Low German, the replica language already had autochthonous short /œ/. In this case, the borrowing cannot have been motivated by segmental qualities but must be attributable to suprasegmental properties. This is why we discount the latter case in our discussion of LP vowels. It is not always the feature [long] which disqualifies a given vowel for being accepted as LP. The neo-Arabic variety of Çukurova in Turkey has borrowed several short vowels from Turkish, namely /e/, /o/, /u/, /ɨ/, /ø/, and /y/ (Procházka 2002: 30). The latter three are discussed in Sections 17.2.2.1–17.2.2.3. The mid vowels /e/ and /o/ as well as the high back vowel /u/ pose problems to be addressed in this section. Prior to contact with Turkish, the replica language lacked phonemic short mid vowels. Procházka (2002: 27) argues that of the inherited short vowels only /a/ and /i/ are still phonemes (with several allophones each). Most importantly, there is also an allophone [o] of /a/ in closed final syllables if an emphatic (= pharyngealized) consonant is present as in aḥmaṛ ‘red’ > aḥmoṛ – a regular process which is particularly characteristic of the varieties spoken in Tarsus and in southerly villages (Procházka 2002: 29). This allophony has perhaps prepared the ground for the integration of LP /o/ from Turkish as in Çukurova qolonya ‘(eau de) cologne’ < Turkish kolonya (suyu) (Procházka 2002: 30). There is, however, a problem connected to /o/-borrowing in Çukurova, namely the contact-independent existence of /oː/ as in tōm ‘twin’ (Procházka 2002: 39). This means that the quality – mid rounded back – was already there before /o/ was borrowed. What was missing in the replica language’s system was a short partner for /oː/. The scenario is similar for LP /e/ in Çukurova. This short vowel is limited to loanwords from Turkish such as belki ‘perhaps’ (Procházka 2002: 30). There is the autochthonous long /eː/ which is itself secondary in the sense that it has arisen from (i) Imala of /aː/, (ii) monophthongization of /aj/, and (iii) lowering of /iː/ (Procházka 2002: 50). Çukurova (Arabic) is unique insofar as it is the sole example of an EDL which has borrowed unmarked /u/. According to Procházka (2002: 30) /u/ is attested in Turkish loanwords but only “in geringerem Maße” [to a lesser ex-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 221

tent], meaning: we are dealing with a marginal LP. The example given by Procházka (2002: 30) is Çukurova buzdolabı ‘refrigerator’ < Turkish buzdolabı. It is worth noting that in Çukurova Arabic there is the inherited long /uː/ which has been preserved in all positions (Procházka 2002: 51) although it has a tendency to undergo fronting to /yː/ in certain phonological contexts (Procházka 2002: 39). Moreover, inherited long /uː/ tends to undergo shortening to [u] in certain morphonological contexts (Procházka 2002: 28). The Semitic short /u/, on the other hand, has merged with /i/ (Procházka 2002: 27). If we exclusively focus on the short vowels, the Çukurova case can be considered an instance of gap-filling as shown in Table 52. Grey shading is used for LP /u/. Table 52: Short vowels of Çukurova Arabic according to Procházka (2002: 27–28).

front high

central

back

/i/

/u/

low

/a/

However, if all LPs are admitted to the system and the long vowels are also taken account of, the picture changes dramatically. Table 53 (grey shading marks LPs) gives us a better idea of how important borrowing is in the vowel system of Çukurova. Table 53: Complete vowel system of Çukurova Arabic.

front high mid low

/i/

central /iː/

/e/

/eː/

/y/

back

/ɨ/

/u/

/ø/

/o/ /a/

/uː/ /oː/

/aː/

There are seven autochthonous vowel phonemes as opposed to six LP vowels. The category [back] was established long before LP /u/ entered the system. The loans from Turkish have filled the gaps for the short quantity of the mid vowels and the high back vowel. In addition, a gap has been filled in the domain of central vowels. The rounded front vowels have added a new dimension to the system. At the same time, the LP vowels /y/, /ø/, and /ɨ/ are responsible for the

222 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

creation of new gaps because they are not sensitive to the short-long distinction which is characteristic of the Semitic heritage of Çukurova. We interpret the Çukurova case along the lines of the Turkic cases discussed in this section although this time the short quantity is borrowed: /eː/, /oː/, and /uː/ were already there when /e/, /o/, and /u/ were borrowed, i.e. the qualities mid-front, mid-back, high-back were not alien to the replica language. What is new is the short quantity. (b) Nasalization: The secondary property of nasalization in LPs is found only in Basque (Zuberoa). Nasalized /y͂/ is phonemic under stress in absolute word-final position in Zuberoa as in salũ ‘living room’ < French salon with final /õ/ (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 31). From Haase’s (1993) presentation it can be gathered that the LP /ø/ is also subject to nasalization according to the French pattern to yield /ø͂/ (no example being given). Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 31) postulate a process of nasalization for Zuberoan vowels when they are directly adjacent to a nasal stop as in arrano ‘eagle’ = [arãnõ]. Haase (1993: 41) argues that “[v]or allem nasales o wird oft als /u/ + Nasalkonsonant entlehnt“ [especially nasalized o is often borrowed as /u/ + nasal consonant] as in kunten(t) ‘content’ < French content [kõtã]. The evidence is thus controversial. For Zuberoa, Haase (1993: 41) emphasizes that nasalization is a French trait and not established in Occitan, i.e. the direct partner in contact of Zuberoa has no phonemic nasal vowels. In the case of Zuberoa /ũ/, it is doubtful that we are dealing with a case of segmental borrowing at all. Superficially, it looks as if the high back vowel had been borrowed only in combination with nasalization. The replica language’s phoneme system already had an oral /u/ before contact with French. However, there is no phoneme /ũ/ in contemporary French (Klein 1968: 82). It is true that the inventory of nasal vowels was bigger in Old French but Rheinfelder (1976: 74) states that a nasalized high back vowel never developed in the earlier periods of French. Similarly, there is the case of nasalized LP /e͂/ in Zuberoa. The evidence for a direct loan is not compelling since French /ɛ͂/ yields /ĩ/ in Zuberoa as in bedezĩ ‘physician’ < French medecin (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 31). However, it is possible that we are dealing with a relatively old loanword from French perhaps predating the shift from erstwhile /ĩ/ to /ɛ͂/ in French which happened in the 17th century (Rheinfelder 1976: 75). Similarly, the putative LP /ĩ/ in Zuberoa does not fit the system of nasal vowels of modern French where no /ĩ/ exists. As mentioned already, Old French did have /ĩ/. It cannot be ruled out that Zuberoan /ĩ/ belongs to a particularly old layer of French loans in this variety of Basque. It is therefore possible that Zuberoa attests to the borrowing of the principle of nasalization – a principle that has been generalized in the replica language so that its domain is larger than that of nasalization in the

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 223

donor language. If nasalization in this variety of Basque is indeed an example of borrowing of suprasegmental properties, then it is now deeply rooted in Zuberoa since it has diffused over the entire lexicon. It is hard to track down those Romance loanwords which have triggered the diffusion process in Zuberoa. In Trask’s (1997: 139–142) History of Basque, nasalization is described as a recessive feature which had a much wider distribution over the regional varieties of Basque in the distant past. According to this account, the French origin of Basque nasalization looses its explanatory power. The role of language contact is reduced to preservation in the sense that the French loanwords which entered the Zuberoan lexicon reinforced the position of nasalization in the replica language which already existed prior to contact. On the basis of the insights gained in (a)–(b), it is possible to put forward an implication of the kind: SECONDARY PROPERTIES  PRIMARY PROPERTIES. The formula can be spelled out as follows. If a LP vowel equipped with secondary properties such as length and/or nasalization is borrowed into a given EDL, this EDL either also borrows the corresponding vowel with primary properties or a vowel phoneme of this type is already established in the autochthonous system of the replica language. This is the extent of what we can say as to the behavior of suprasegmental categories under the conditions of language contact. The intricate nature of the topic requires a separate study.

17.2.2.9 LP vowels in retrospect Table 54 discloses the genetic background of the borrowers in the domain of vowels. As can be seen immediately Indo-European is responsible for more than half of all cases. This phylum also holds the monopoly for /ə/-borrowing. The borrowing of rounded front vowels is attested in all phyla whose members borrow vowels – with the exception of Turkic because Turkic EDLs usually boast autochthonous /y/ and /ø/. The only LP which is not also borrowed by IndoEuropean EDLs is /æ/. Table 54: Vowel borrowers per phylum.

/y/

/ø/

/ɨ/

Indo-European

4

3

3

Afro-Asiatic

1

1

1

Turkic

/æ/

2

/ə/

/o/

Singu- Sum larities

3

2

2 1

4

1

1

4

17

224 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

/y/

Nakh-Daghestanian 1

/ø/

/ɨ/

1

/æ/

/ə/

/o/

Singu- Sum larities

1

3

Isolate

1

1

2

Uralic

1

1

2

Total

8

7

4

3

3

3

4

32

On the basis of Table 54 it is possible to postulate two implicational patterns. The first is presented in Figure 52. Afro-Asiatic  Indo-European Uralic  Isolate  Nakh-Daghestanian

Figure 52: Chain of vowel-borrowers.

According to this chain the borrowing of a given LP by any member of Uralic implies that the same LP is borrowed by at least one Basque variety which in turn means that either a Nakh-Daghestanian EDL or an Afro-Asiatic EDL also attest to borrowing. The latter tells us that the LP occurs also in Indo-European. Note that this chain does not predict that all members of the mentioned phyla participate in the borrowing. The chain is intended to mean that phyla are (partly) involved in borrowing. The second implicational chain involves the vowel qualities. Figure 53 shows that four LPs are interconnected. LP /ə/  LP /ɨ/  LP /ø/  LP /y/

Figure 53: Chain of LP vowels.

The figure calls for an explanation. It refers exclusively to what happens within a given phylum and not in an individual EDL. The vowels in the above chain can be borrowed by different members of the same phylum. We admit that the number of cases is too small to allow for far-reaching conclusions. Nevertheless,

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 225

the possibility to identify implicational chains alone suffices to prove that what happens in phoneme borrowing is not entirely random or arbitrary. Each of the ten foregoing sections is dedicated to a different individual candidate for the status of LP vowel. Only very few of the cases are waterproof. On the other hand, many of the putative LP vowels fail to pass the test satisfactorily whereas some others could easily be canceled for good from the list of LP vowels or could be reclassified. The latter applies typically to the cases of LP /ɯ/, LP /ʉ/, and LP /ɘ/ presented in Section 17.2.2.7. What do these would-be LPs have in common? First of all, their autochthonous versions are already infrequently attested in our sample. Their shares oscillate between 4 % and 7 %. No other autochthonous vowel mentioned above claims a share smaller than 10 %. The second common trait of LP /ɯ/, LP /ʉ/, and LP /ɘ/ seems to be hard to pinpoint in the vowel triangle, in a manner of speaking. The phonetic descriptions of these units given by the grammarians are vague and there sometimes are alternative accounts which suggest that the supposed LP /ʉ/ is better understood as LP /y/ and the putative LP /ɘ/ is perhaps another instance of LP /ə/. This means that the phenomenology of LP vowels in Europe is probably not as rich as we originally assumed since three of the LP vowel types can be shown to be potential phantoms. The issue of vowel quantity has haunted us in the previous section even though we have excluded length as suprasegmental feature from the catalogue of cases. The situation is, however, not that simple. Excluding LP vowels with the feature [long] from the discussion is probably not enough because there are cases – especially Eastern Frisian (Seeltersk) and Arabic (Çukurova) – which could alternatively be understood as instances of vowel-quality oriented borrowing (= LP /øː/) and vowel-quantity oriented borrowing (= short /o/), respectively. The final word on this matter has not been uttered yet. We are looking forward to follow-up studies dedicated to these issues. The frequent difficulty of finding the (borrowed) prime mover as to LP /y/ connects the Zuberoan case to those of Polabian and Pannonian Slovenian (and Kajkavian), i.e. to Slavic EDLs which boast phonemic rounded front vowels (see Section 17.2.2.1b and 17.2.2.2b). We know from the above discussion that there are varieties of Serbian and Macedonian which keep /y/ in loans from Albanian and Turkish. These Serbian and Macedonian varieties are typical borderland varieties. Outside the borderland regions, there is no compelling evidence of the existence of phonemic rounded front vowels in Slavic. Polabian and Pannonian Slovenian are (historically) located on the border between Slavic on the one side and Germanic and/or Hungarian on the other. Well behaved Slavic languages are not expected to display /y/ and /ø/ whereas it can almost (but not sweepingly) be taken for granted that Germanic and Hungarian varieties are equipped

226 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

with rounded front vowels. Polabian had been in age-long contact with (Middle) Low German (and later also High German) whose phoneme chart hosted /y/ and /ø/. Pannonian Slovenian has co-existed with Hungarian for at least a millennium. Low German was the prestige language in the case of Polabian with hundreds of Low German loanwords giving evidence of this prestige. Similarly, Hungarian was prestigious in the fromer Kingdom of Hungary to which the Slovenian-speaking region used to belong. Polabian and Pannonian Slovenian have both /y/ and /ø/. It almost suggests itself that the rise of these “un-Slavic” phonemes is connected to language contact with Low German and Hungarian. However, this supposedly logical conclusion cannot be proved empirically. It seems that Polabian and Pannonian Slovenian have undergone regular internal sound-change processes which led to the establishment of new phoneme classes. Polabian and Pannonian Slovenian belong to two different branches of Slavic, namely West Slavic and South Slavic, respectively. They are thus not absolutely close relatives of each other but give evidence of similar phonological developments of a kind which is not shared by other members of the Slavic branch of Indo-European. The question arises whether the genesis of /y/ and /ø/ in the two borderland varieties of Slavic is independent of language contact. It is impossible to identify certain Low German or Hungarian loanwords as initiators of the sound changes in Polabian and Pannonian Slovenian. As it seems, the sound changes can be explained perfectly well in terms of interal developments without any reference to external factors. Low German and Hungarian loanwords whose segmental chains involve rounded front vowels have been integrated by the score into the replica languages’ lexicon. However, chronologically, the bulk of these loans seem to be prosterior to the rise of Slavic /y/ and /ø/. The impossibility of identifying Low German or Hungarian loanwords as triggers of the sound changes notwithstanding, what we witness is an undeniable areal connection: neighbors of different stock share structural innovations which are not shared by all of their family relations. Polabian and Pannonian Slovenian invoke Blevins’s (2017) perceptual magnet effect as presented in Section 15.1. The same holds for the parallel existence of rounded front vowels in the Turkic EDLs of the Caucasus and their genetically unrelated neighbors of Northeast Caucasian stock. Not only is diachronic documentation of the contact-induced rise of certain phonemes frequently unavailable but more often than not the description of the synchronic situation also suffers from a general scarcity of data. In many of the cases discussed in Sections 17.2.2.1–17.2.2.8 the proof of the existence of a given LP in a given replica language consists of exactly one single word. On so small an empirical basis, nothing much can be concluded as to the status of the LP vowel. To verify or falsify our hypothesis a considerably larger database is ur-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 227

gently needed which subsequently will have to be evaluated thoroughly. This is a task which reaches beyond the primary aims of Phon@Europe since it requires a dedicated study of its own – for instance within a series of companion volumes of the atlas. A recurrent issue in the foregoing sections is the phonematization of erstwhile allophonic relations. LP vowels seem to be especially successful if prior to their appearance on the scene the new vowel quality was already present as an allophone in the replica language’s system. The LP can exploit the established allophony by way of introducing the former allophone to new contexts in which its presence was previously illicit. This is a scenario we will meet again in the domain of LP consonants. Similarly, there is also a sociolinguistic pattern which also resurfaces when we discuss LP consonants, namely the residual or innovative use of a given LP by a segment of the speech-community of the replica language. It seems that the contrast between elderly speakers and younger speakers is often crucial. The previous paragraphs in this section are suggestive of the necessity of readdressing the issue of LP vowels in the near future. It is clear that there are problems which can be easily solved whereas there are others which need to be given some thought before one can be sure of having found the solution. However, by no means everything is problematic with the review of LP vowels. First of all, Sections 17.2.2.1–17.2.2.2 contain a plethora of cases of EDLs which borrow rounded front vowels including EDLs which do not form part of our sample. LP /y/ and LP /ø/ (with the addition of /œ/) are showcases of the areal diffusion of vowel phonemes across language boundaries. Rounded front vowels seem to be particularly prone to undergo transfer from donor languages to replica languages. The frequency of the transfer is remarkably high in Europe. If we add to the clearer cases of contact-induced rise of LP /y/ as in Zuberoa those Slavic and Daghestanian cases where rounded front vowels developed in the vicinity of EDLs which were already equipped with this class of phonemes, then it has to be acknowledged that rounded front vowels are special insofar as they are especially succesfull in the domain of enlarging their areas of diffusion. No other class of vowels can compete with the rounded front vowels in this domain. That we are dealing with areality not only in the case of the rounded front vowels results from most of the maps provided in Section 17.2.2. We have tried to classify the phenomena according to the categories put forward by Maddieson (1986). Since these categories were tested originally only in the realm of consonants, their application to LP vowels has proved to be overly demanding. In many cases, the data were too scarce to justify being classified at all. In other cases, several alternative interpretations of the facts compete with each other. Gap-filling occurred repeatedly but does not have the monopo-

228 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

ly. What can be concluded nevertheless is that it is not possible to generalize sweepingly over all cases of LP vowels. On the other hand, our above catalogue of LP vowels in Europe is certainly not sufficient to make any definite statements about the behavior of vowels under the conditions of language contact. The catalogue – with all its shortcomings – strongly suggests that the subject matter should be studied in-depth and separately in the future. We will come back to some of the issues raised above and sundry questions which associate with LP vowels in Section 17.3. But first we look at the LP consonants and their diffusion across Europe in Section 17.2.3. We do not want to spill the beans already at this point but in the light of the relatively unspectacular results in the domain of LP vowels we want to wet the reader’s tongue by way of promising an empirically richer harvest in the realm of LP consonants.

17.2.3 LP consonants – hierarchy In the sections dedicated to the LP consonants we follow the same plan of attack as in the previous presentation of LP vowels, i.e. we start with establishing the ranking order of LP consonants according to the number of EDLs in which they are attested. Figure 54 is indicative of a continuum with 27 LP consonant types which are borrowed into two or more languages and 13 LP consonant types whose existence is reported only in one EDL. Those instances of borrowing which involve secondary articulations are discussed separately in Section 17.2.4.29. 77 40 30 29 23 19 18 15 13 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

10

20

30

40

Figure 54: LP consonants ranked according to frequency of borrowing.

50

60

70

80

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 229

The outstanding position of /f/ among the LP consonant types comes nicely to the fore in Figure 54. With 77 EDLs, the number of /f/-borrowers exceeds that of the total of borrowers of the LPs on the ranks #2 (/ʒ/ = 40) and #3 (/x/ = 30) which amounts to only 61 different EDLs. On the two ranks at the bottom of the scale, the 24 different LPs together yield a turnout of only 21 EDLs. We would have to add up the frequencies of the 38 LPs on the final eight ranks to reach the number of 72 different borrowers. What this little numbers game tells us is that no other LP consonant type compares to /f/. It is the most popular LP in our sample. There is (very scarce) evidence of geminate /fː/ and aspirated /fʰ/ in our database but none of these consonants is registered as LP. This is indirect support for the hierarchy SECONDARY PROPERTIES > PRIMARY PROPERTIES put forward in Section 17.2.1.2.2.5. In Eisen’s (2019: 41) frequency count for the languages of Eurasia the hierarchical order of the LPs resembles Figure 54 without being identical. Tables 11 and 12 in Section 16.2 show that there are also similarities and differences between Maddieson’s (1984) results and those of Eisen (2019). In spite of the different composition of the samples, we compare our hierarchy with Eisen’s in Figure 55. Since Eisen’s table does not include LPs which are borrowed only once, we remove the same category from our calculation too. After their removal there remain 384 instances of consonant borrowing as opposed to 399 instances in the case of Eisen’s study. Figure 55 indicates the shares of the individual LP consonant types within the total number of instances for each of the two projects separately. We take account only of those LP consonants which are attested in our database. LP consonants which are only attested in Eisen’s database are not included in Figure 55. No LP consonant surpasses the 20 % threshold. Shares resemble each other only for LPs which are borrowed by relatively small numbers of languages. There is no evidence of LP /θ/, LP /ð/, and LP /ʃʲ/ in Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. The percentage calculated for a given LP consonant tend to be higher in Phon@Europe than they are in Eisen (2019) in the case of high frequency LPs. Exceptions are /ʃ/ and /ɣ/. In the lower half of the hierarchy Eisen’s results often exceed ours. We assume that these differences between the two projects reflect different borrowing preferences of EDLs and languages of Asia. Since those of the EDLs cannot directly be deduced from Eisen’s account, we dedicate the subsequent sections to the detailed presentation of our European findings.

230 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

/ʃʲ/ /rʲ/ /w/ /c/ /p/ /ħ/ /ç/ /k/ /Ɂ/ /d/ /ʕ/ /ʎ/ /ð/

Eisen (2019)

/θ/ /b/

Phon@Europe

/ɲ/ /ɣ/ /h/ /ʃ/ /ʣ/ /ʧ/; /z/ /v/ /g/ /ʦ/ /ʤ/ /x/ /ʒ/ /f/

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Figure 55: Shares of individual LP consonants of all cases of borrowing in Phon@Europe and Eisen (2019).

17.2.4 Distribution of individual LP consonants In analogy to the explanations given in Section 17.2.2 but with necessary modifications, each of the subsequent twenty-nine sections is either dedicated to an individual LP or it summarily deals with isolated cases or secondary articulations. Those sections which feature LPs which are borrowed by no less than two EDLs comprise the familiar subdivisions (a)–(d). Other sections come without further internal divisions. Since the borrowing of consonants is much more frequent than that of vowels the (a)-part of the sketches of individual LP consonants starts with a short survey of the participation of the different phyla in the borrowing of a given phoneme.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 231

The sections differ widely in length since the LP consonant types are attested with strikingly different frequencies. The restricted frequency of many LP consonant types might render the presentation of the facts monotonous. However, for the sake of comprehensiveness, we consider it necessary to treat all LP consonant types according to the same pattern even at the risk of sounding repetitive. What also contributes to the repetitive style is the recurrence of a very limited set of identical loanwords (especially from Russian) which the sources provide for numerous replica EDLs spoken on the territory of the former Soviet Union. On account of the recurrent necessity to determine whether a given phoneme is a case of borrowing or has arisen in the course of independent language-internal developments we have occasion time and again to consult Kümmel’s (2007) detailed investigation of consonant change in Indo-European, Uralic, and Semitic. The 294 phoneme charts of Kümmel’s (2007: 422–476) sample languages (many of which are situated beyond the Projekteuropa both in time and space) mark out LPs and marginal phonemes as such but only unsystematically. Our analyses and those of Kümmel do not always match although identical interpretations outnumber the disputed cases. It is our opinion that the two studies complement each other since, for perfectly valid reasons, Kümmel does not discuss the issue of borrowing in any detail. Therefore, we refrain from indicating which of our analyses conforms to or deviates from those of Kümmel’s.

17.2.4.1 /f/ The voiceless denti-alveolar fricative /f/ occurs in 183 EDLs whereas there are 27 EDLs without /f/. The number of /f/-borrowers amounts to 77 EDLs as has been mentioned already above. Figure 56 shows that half of the EDLs boast autochthonous /f/. In contrast over a third of the EDLs give evidence of /f/ as LP. With 13 % of the EDLs the group of /f/-less members of the sample is comparatively small. The numbers of /f/-borrowers are suggestive of previous periods in the history of the areal phonology of Europe in which there must have been many more /f/-less languages whose share would have been as big as 50 % of a sample of a composition and size similar to ours. The European situation as captured in Figure 56 largely corresponds to the Eurasian as well as to the global picture as depicted in the SegBo-Project. For the former, Eisen (2019: 39) reports that [t]he labiodental /f/ is borrowed more than three times as much as any other segment in Eurasia, having been borrowed in 60 Eurasian languages, which constitute 41.1 % of Eurasian languages in our sample.

232 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

no /f/; 27; 13%

autochthonous; 106; 50% LP; 77; 37%

Figure 56: Share of LP /f/ in the sample.

According to Figure 56, LP /f/ yields a higher absolute number of instances but a smaller share within the framework of our European case-study. In the case of Maddieson (1984: 227) the role of LP /f/ is comparatively less important. Of his 317 sample languages, only 135 are equipped with /f/. Among the 135 /f/languages, 18 are registered as /f/-borrowers. This means that only 43 % of Maddieson’s sample languages attest to /f/. In turn, /f/-borrowers represent 13 % of all /f/-languages but only 6 % of the sample. In the worldwide sample, the /f/-less languages constitute a relatively robust majority of 57 %. In Europe, /f/-languages are more numerous but much of their predominance is attributable to borrowing. We will come back to this issue and its more general background in the (b)-part of this section. First, however, the (a)-part identifies those EDLs of our sample for which the borrowing of /f/ is explicitly stated in the sources or can be assumed on the basis of circumstantial evidence. (a) From within the sample: Figure 57 shows how strongly the different phyla are involved in /f/-borrowing. The only phylum which is absent from the Figure is Abkhaz-Adyghe, i.e. genetic affiliation is not per se responsible for the participation of a given EDL in /f/-borrowing. From the comparison of the shares of the phyla in Figures 12 and 57 it results that Uralic and Turkic and to a lesser extent also Kartvelian and the Isolate borrow /f/ more frequently than expected whereas Indo-European, NakhDaghestanian, and Afro-Asiatic fail to reach their general share in the domain of LPs. The sole representative of Mongolian, Kalmyk, behaves exactly as it should. Owing to the numerous instances of /f/-borrowing we will discuss some

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 233

of the cases summarily if the EDLs which attest to LP /f/ can be subsumed under the common umbrella of identical genetic affiliation. Uralic; 14; 18%

Turkic; 11; 14%

Nakh-Daghestanian; 5; 6%

Indo-European; 39; 51%

Isolate; 3; 4% Afro-Asiatic; 2; 3% Kartvelian; 2; 3% Mongolic; 1; 1%

Figure 57: Genealogic distribution of /f/-borrowers.

The Slavic branch of Indo-European is a case in point and thus serves as the perfect opener for the presentation. The majority but by no means all of the Slavic members of the sample belong to the class of /f/-languages. Table 5580 reflects this division in two major groups. In the case of the /f/-languages we distinguish those for which our sources explicitly state that /f/ is a LP from those Slavic EDLs for which we only assume that they give evidence of LP /f/. According to our interpretation, every Slavic /f/-language is a /f/-borrower. We feel entitled to do so because the Proto-Slavic consonant system as presented in Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 137) does not host the voiceless labiodental fricative. It seems to be an innovation in the historically documented Slavic languages which give evidence of /f/. This judgment applies to 93 % of the Slavic EDLs of our sample.

|| 80 Tables of this format are employed for the representation of phyla or language families only if there is internal variation as to the borrowing of a given phoneme. In the upper part of the tables, those EDLs are identified which attest to the phoneme with the further differentiation in borrowers and languages which give evidence of an autochthonous phoneme of this kind. The third category is formed by those EDLs which lack the phoneme. For expository reasons, Table 55 deviates slightly from this pattern. There is also a second type of table whose format will be explained in due course.

234 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 55: Slavic /f/-languages vs. Slavic /f/-less languages.

/f/-less [2]

explicit [19]

EDLs Belarusian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Czech (MoravianSlovak), Kashubian, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Slavomolisano, Slovak, Slovenian, Sorbian (Lower), Sorbian (Lower, Vetschau), Sorbian (Upper), Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper)

assumed [8]

/f/-EDLs [27]

Borrowers

Belarusian (Gervjaty), Croatian (Burgenland), Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Polish (Lazduny), Russian (Ostrovscy), Russian (Permas), Slovenian (Resia), Ukrainian (North-Hutsul) Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Russian (Meščera)

In the Old Church Slavonic period, the Glagolitic alphabet comprised a distinct character for /f/ ( ⱇ “frьtъ/fert”, also used as numeral with the value 500) (Gardiner 1984: 17). However, this character exclusively occurs in borrowings from Greek (where it represents not only Greek /f/ but also /θ/). There are several Slavic nonstandard varieties which still lack evidence of /f/. This fact is mentioned for Russian by Eckert et al. (1983: 128) who speak of the absence of /f/ in Proto-Slavic and in Old Russian. The Greek /f/ in old loanwords was often replaced with Old Russian /p/ (as in the proper name Stepanъ < Greek Stéfanos ), in modern nonstandard varieties replacement of /f/ with /p/, /x/, or /xv/ is still common. Phonetic [f] arose in the Old Russian period via desonorization of /v/ in preconsonantal or word-final position. The positional allophone [f] of /v/ and the imported LP /f/ from Greek form the diachronic basis for the genesis of the contemporary Russian phoneme /f/. According to our above source, these processes took place in the 12th century. Note, however, that Kiparsky (1963: 133) argues vehemently against the hypothesis of a foreign origin of Russian /f/. To this author’s mind Russian /f/ arose from the desonorization of /v/ and only subsequently the integration of loanwords with /f/ was made possible. The exact chronology of events is still obscure. We assume, however, that what Kiparsky describes happened on the level of allophony. The phonematization of [f] to /f/ is certainly the effect of the integration of Greek loanwords. It is therefore an example of a Class-3 phenomenon according to Maddieson (1986) (see Section 16.1). Many of the LPs to be presented in the subsequent sections belong to the same category – a fact which we acknowledge only unsystematically. The phonologies of some Russian regional varieties such as that of Meščera are described without /f/ (Sidorov 1949) whereas others count /f/ among their phonemes as e.g. Ostrovscy (Honselaar

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 235

2001) and Permas (Orlova 1949). In the latter two cases we assume that we are dealing with LP /f/ as in the standard language. The above diachronic scenario from Russian is paralleled in some of its sister-languages. For Slovenian for instance, Greenberg (2000: 119–120) hypothesizes that /f/ became phonemic by the 12th century. Its genesis was triggered “in the interaction with German dialects” (Greenberg 2000: 119). In the earliest period of contacts, German /f/ was replaced with /p/ or /b/ as in Slovenian píla ‘file’ < Old High German *fîla. The earliest attestations of /f/ in loanwords from German feature this unit as word-final segment as in Slovenian škȍf ‘bishop’ < Middle High German bischof. According to Greenberg (2000: 120) these cases coincide with the loss of final weak jers in Slovenian so that /v/ in word-final position was subject to devoicing to yield [f]. As in Russian, the positional allophone [f] and the phoneme /f/ in loanwords are at the origins of the phoneme /f/ of modern Slovenian. Accordingly, we assume that /f/ in the Resian variety of Slovenian can likewise be classified as LP. In Steenwijk’s (1992: 255–257) glossary of Slovenian (Resia), all entries with word-initial /f/ are of Italian, Friulian, or Venetian origin like fidé̤l ‘true’ < Italian fedele, fra ‘among’ < Italian fra, fáls ‘faithless’ < Italian falso, etc. Loanwords like ofɛ́rto ‘donation’ < Italian offerta (Steenwijk 1992: 289) suggest that the LP consonant is not restricted to the leftmost slot of the segmental chain. The case of Macedonian is similar to that of Slovenian and other Slavic EDLs. Foulon-Hristova (1998: 27) claims that [l]a présence du F est dû à deux facteurs. L’un extérieur : l’adaptation phonologique des mots d’emprunts, l’autre intérieur : la perte de la sonorité de B /v/ à la fin des mots []. Le manqué de correspondant face à B dans le système sourde/sonores a conduit au large emploi de Φ comme allophone de B.81

The oldest loanwords which have helped to establish /f/ as phoneme in Macedonian are of Greek origin, the more recent layers consist of borrowings from Turkish and so-called “langues occidentales” [western languages] like Macedonian fušeraj ‘bungling, botching’ < German Pfuscherei (with the initial affricate /pf/ commonly being reduced to /f/ colloquially also in the donor language). The LP /f/ received support from the domain of allophony where /v/ was subject to final devoicing to [f]. Koneski (1983: 57) argues that /f/ “entered the language || 81 Our translation: “the presence of F is caused by two factors. One external: the phonological adaptation of loanwords, the other internal: the loss of sonority of B /v/ word-finally []. The absence of a contrastive partner for B in the system of voiceless/voiced has led to the extended use of Φ as allophone of B.”

236 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

through loan words, especially from Greek.” In the beginning of the contact situation, foreign /f/ was replaced first by Macedonian /p/ and then by /v/ which is still a very common replacement strategy in contemporary Macedonian regional varieties as e.g. in Galičnik vabrika ‘factory’ (Koneski 1983: 79). Koneski (1983: 58) concludes that [t]hus f can appear as a distinctive characteristic for social dialects as well as territorial ones. In the former case, [] f became typical of the pronunciation of a socially and culturally elevated milieu.

The importance of Turkish loanwords which reinforced the position of LP /f/ in Macedonian is stressed (Koneski 1983: 79). The author also discusses developments of /xv/ > /f/ and /x/ > /f/ in Macedonian and its regional varieties which added to widening the domain of LP /f/. The former process is reported also for eastern varieties of Polish (Stieber 1973: 50). The latter process, however, seems to be widely common in the member languages of the Balkan Sprachbund as it is attested in varieties of Albanian, Greek, and Macedonian where it very frequently affects LP /f/ (Sawicka 1997: 34–36). We assume that /f/ in the regional Macedonian variety of Kostur-Korča can be explained analogously although the dialect grammar by Šklifov (1973) does not mention borrowing as a source of the phoneme under scrutiny. For several Slavic EDLs, the sources we have consulted state explicitly that /f/ has been borrowed. This is the claim Mayo (1993: 893) makes for Belarusian which is in line with Wexler’s (1977: 166) account of Belarusian phonology between the 12th and 15th century: “The sole source of f is foreign borrowings.” Analogously we classify /f/ of the Gervjaty variety of Belarusian as LP although Sudnik’s (1975) description of this variety’s phonology does not give a hint as to the contact-induced origin of /f/. Wexler (1977: 168) states that up to the present day /f/ has not been integrated in some of the Belarusian dialects. The foreign origin of /f/ in Polish is assumed by Stieber (1973: 49–50). In early loanwords the voiceless labiodental fricative /f/ appears as /p/ or /b/ in Polish as e.g. the Latin proper name Fabianus which became Pabian in Polish. We apply the same interpretation to /f/ in the Polish variety of Lazduny as described by Sudnik (1975) but without reference to borrowing. Stone (1993b) does not make statements about the origins of Kashubian /f/. His silence notwithstanding, we are convinced that what holds for Polish can be applied to the Kashubian case as well. Support for this idea stems from Topolińska’s (1974: 66) sideways remark that there is evidence of foreign /f/ in 16th–18th century Kashubian in Germanisms like huffa ‘cohort’ < German Haufen. Stieber (1973: 49–50) describes the rise of /f/ in Polish as the conspiracy of two developments. First of

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 237

all, German-Polish contacts led to the integration of numerous loans with /f/ from German (often via the intermediary Czech) into the Polish lexicon. Initially the usual strategy consisted in the replacement of /f/ with /p/ or /b/. By the 14th century, however, /f/ had become a full-blown Polish phoneme. Subsequently, /f/ is preserved in later loanwords such as Polish fechtmistrz ‘fencing master’ < German Fechtmeister. A second source of Polish /f/ is the devoicing of /v/ to [f] in certain postconsonantal positions (Stieber 1973: 59–60). The author additionally mentions the emergence of /f/ independent of contact in eastern varieties of Polish already in the 13th century (Stieber 1973: 50). To what extent these intraPolish processes have influenced the course of events in the general history of Polish phonology remains largely unclear. For Czech, Short (1993a: 458) argues that “/f/ is also largely confined to loans […] its first limited standing was in onomatopoeia” – an example of the former being Czech flinta ‘pop-gun’ < German Flinte. The same is said in connection to the phoneme system of the Moravian-Slovak variety of Czech (Skulina 1964: 38) with examples like fabryka ‘factory’ < German Fabrik. However, Skulina (1964: 38) also notes a variety of additional sources from which /f/ has resulted, namely via desonorization of /v/ and the occasional changes /h/ > /f/ and /p/ > /f/ in preconsonantal position. For Slovak Short (1993b: 536) observes that there is variation /f/ ~ /v/ which he interprets as a sign of the marginal status of /f/. LP /f/ is attested in words like Slovak furman ‘carter; coachman’ < German Fuhrmann. Krajčovič (1975: 75–76) clearly states that Slovak /f/ is the product of language contact (with German and Hungarian). He assumes that /f/ entered the system of the replica language before the 13th century. Mention is also made of a handful of onomatopoeic words and cases in which *v underwent (unsystematic) desonorization. In his historical phonology of Sorbian, Schaarschmidt (1998: 65) postulates systems of consonant phonemes for the 12th century from which /f/ is absent. As to Sorbian (Lower), Stone (1993a: 607) states that /f/ is limited to loanwords and onomatopoeic formations. An example is Sorbian (Lower) felowaś ‘be absent/wanting’ < German fehlen. The Vetschau variety of Lower Sorbian on the other hand attests to /f/ exclusively in loanwords (especially recent loans from German such as Sorbian (Lower, Vetschau) fai̯fa ‘pipe’ < German Pfeife with reduction of /pf/ to /f/) (Faßke 1964: 31). We assume that this interpretation holds for Sorbian (Upper) too as suggested by Schaarschmidt (1998: 153). It is interesting that in all of these West Slavic EDLs onomatopoeia is mentioned as a domain in which the voiceless labiodental fricative existed perhaps already prior to contact with German. Martynova (2009) considers the domain of /f/ in the Middle Dnieper variety of Ukrainian to be limited to loanwords borrowed from the standard language. We

238 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

take this to mean that originally there was no /f/ in the regional varieties of Ukrainian. Therefore, we classify the North-Hutsul variety of Ukrainian as /f/borrower although our source keeps silent as to the issue of borrowing (Kalnyn’ 1992). For the Ukrainian standard, Bilodid (1969) likewise skips this issue. However, if it can be taken for granted that /f/ is secondary in Russian and Polish and that in both cases borrowing is a crucial factor, we feel justified when we apply the same interpretation also to the Ukrainian case. Kümmel (2007: 466) follows Matthews (1967: 94–98) by way of equating Old Russian and Old Ukrainian. In this case, /f/ is marked as LP for both varieties. The same marking is applied to /f/ in contemporary Ukrainian (Kümmel 2007: 467). Shevelov (1979: 631) is more explicit as to the origin of Ukrainian /f/ when he states that “f was brought to U[krainian] solely in loan words” with the donor language being Greek. The author argues that LP /f/ is still a social marker which spread from top to bottom in Ukrainian society but “has remained a foreign sound which did not find its way into the popular speech at all”. On the basis of our personal native-speaker experience of Ukrainian we consider this remark to be anachronistic in the sense that it reflects the state of affairs of the 1940ies when the grammarian emigrated from Ukraine (then USSR). In contemporary colloquial Ukrainian – and probably also in the late 1970ies – LP /f/ is no longer a foreign sound. Standard Bulgarian boasts phonemic /f/ (Feuillet 1996) whereas there is no evidence of this phoneme in the Bulgarian variety of Dimitrovgrad whose phoneme chart only hosts the voiced labiodental fricative /v/ (Bozkov 1984). The absence of /f/ in this Bulgarian variety can be understood as indirect evidence of the possibility that /f/ was also absent from earlier stages of Bulgarian. This idea receives support from Mirčev (1978: 73) who describes Bulgarian /f/ as a LP which has entered the language with loanwords from Greek. Since Jahić et al. (2000: 110–111) describe the distribution of /f/ in Bosnian to be tightly connected to loanwords of diverse origin (Greek, Turkish, German, etc. like Bosnian frizura ‘hairstyle’ < German Frisur), a similar line of argumentation can be adopted for Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), and Serbian. The historical background of /f/ is briefly discussed in Krečmer and Neveklovskij (2017: 160) who state that Serbo-Croatian /f/ is of Greek origin. According to Popović (1960: 557) there are also German (Serbo-Croatian flaša ‘bottle’ < German Flasche), Italian (Serbo-Croatian friško ‘fresh’ < Italian fresco), and Turkish (Serbo-Croatian feńer ‘lantern’ < Turkish fener < Greek fanarion) as donor languages of LP /f/. The author emphasizes that in many regional varieties of the center LP /f/ is not established and is usually replaced with /v/ so that the above loanwords appear as vlaša, vriško, veńer. As of the 1950ies/1960ies, LP /f/ was firmly rooted on the Dalmatian coast and in northern Yugoslavia because of language contact and

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 239

bilingualism with the /f/-languages Italian, German, and Hungarian. Moreover, Popović (1960: 557) argues that the occasional [f] < /hv/ in Slavic words in the dialects and colloquial style became obligatory on account of the parallel integration of loanwords with /f/. If all this is true of Serbo-Croatian it can be safely assumed to hold also for Serbian and Croatian. Moreover, Golubović (2007: 144– 149) argues that older loans from German in Croatian and Serbian give evidence of the replacement of German /f/ with Croatian/Serbian /p/ and /b/. Besides the /f/-borrower Slovenian mentioned above there is a close relative of this group in Italy. According to Breu and Piccoli (2000: 385), /f/ is one of those phonemes of Slavomolisano which are attested almost exclusively in loanwords such as Slavomolisano fos ‘ditch’ < Italian fosso. Since the first settlers from Dalmatia arrived in Italy in the 15th–16th century, we assume that Slavomolisano reflects an older stage of the South Slavic phonology. Even in the absence of definite statements about the origin of /f/ in some of the Slavic EDLs, the pieces of evidence of /f/-borrowing are numerous enough to allow us to generalize. On the basis of the above data, we assume that the voiceless labiodental fricative experienced phonematization caused by two factors. First of all, the number of loanwords whose segmental chain contained /f/ in the donor languages increased considerably in the medieval period and subsequent centuries. Bilingual and educated speakers of the Slavic replica languages probably mastered the foreign sound already at the earliest stages before it began to diffuse across the respective speech communities. Secondly, desonorization of /v/ in word-final, pre- or postconsonantal position created new instances of [f] outside the domain of lexical borrowings. The two factors interacted so that the new LP /f/ arose. This scenario seems to hold for most of the Slavic EDLs. There is also the repeated reference to variation of /f/ with the sequence /hv/ ~ /xv/ which is mentioned for Bosnian, Macedonian, Polish, and Russian. We proceed further along the lines of the decreasing number of borrowers within a given genetically defined group of EDLs. This means that compared to the 27 cases of Slavic /f/-borrowers Uralic is second best with 14 cases. As Table 56 shows there are 18 Uralic EDLs which boast phonemic /f/ as opposed to five relatives of theirs which lack this phoneme. This means that 78 % of the Uralic members of our sample give evidence of /f/ and at the same time for 78 % of these Uralic /f/-languages the voiceless labiodental fricative can be classified as LP. The abbreviations in Table 56 and subsequent tables of this format can be spelled out as follows: borr = borrowed, auto = autochthonous.

240 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 56: Uralic /f/-languages vs. Uralic /f/-less languages.

/f/-less [5]

borr [14]

Estonian, Finnish, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Livonian, Mari (Hill), Mordvin (Erzya), Saami (Kildin), Udmurt, Veps, Votic

auto [4]

/f/-EDLs [18]

EDLs

Hungarian, Mordvin (Moksha), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Northern Enontekiö) Estonian (Rõngu), Karelian (Archangelsk), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Mari (Meadow), Nenets (Tundra)

The similarities between the Slavic and the Uralic case are remarkable. As in Proto-Slavic, there is no trace of /f/ in the reconstructed consonant system of Proto-Uralic (Bereczki 2004: 166). The sole representative of Samoyedic in Europe, Nenets (Tundra) reflects this oldest stage (Janhunen 1984: 19–20). However, the originally absent phoneme is attested in 18 out of 23 Uralic EDLs in our sample. This means that in these 18 EDLs, /f/ must be an innovation albeit perhaps a very old one. This holds for Hungarian for instance. Bárczi (2001: 68) argues that Proto-Uralic *p regularly changed to Hungarian /f/ in word-initial position as in Hungarian fő ‘head’ = Finnish pää ‘head’ (Sauvageot 1971: 54) already long before the written documentation set in. The presence of /f/ in Hungarian is thus independent of external influence. The same is probably also true for the three Saami EDLs mentioned in Table 56 for none of our main sources (Hasselbrink 1965, Kert 1971, Sammallahti 1998) speaks of any kind of external influence, although Saami (Kildin) could also be interpreted as /f/borrower. We refer to Rießler (2007: 232) who assumes that the word-initial voicing contrast of Saami (Kildin) is a contact-induced innovation under Russian influence (see Section 15.2). According to this hypothesis, Saami (Kildin) originally tolerated only /v/ in word-initial position before Russian loanwords with initial /f/ entered the replica language’s lexicon (e.g. Saami (Kildin) floht ‘fleet’ < Russian flot). Rießler’s very short sketch seems to suppose that prior to the influx of Russian loanwords, voiceless and voiced allophones of fricatives and plosives were in complementary distribution with heavy restrictions on the word-initial position from which /b/, /d/, /g/, /ʒ/, /z/, and /f/ were banned. In contemporary Saami (Kildin), the restriction is no longer valid because of loanword integration. Our maximalist approach to the subject of LPs induces us to accept Rießler’s observation as evidence of LP /f/ in Saami (Kildin). We regular-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 241

ly register evidence of LP consonants in Saami (Kildin) as instances of Class-3 phenomena (Maddieson 1986). In the Volgaic (or alternatively Mordvin) branch of the Uralic language family, the EDLs attest to variation. In all likelihood, the voiceless labiodental fricative of Mordvin (Moksha) has also developed language-internally since there are autochthonous minimal pairs such as ufaˑms ‘blow up’ ≠ uvaˑms ‘bark’ and kefńä ‘these stones’ ≠ kevńä ‘little stone’ (Feoktistov 1984: 205). Feoktistov (1984: 203) additionally emphasizes that word-initially /f/ is not restricted to loanwords like funt ‘pound’ but occurs also in a small number of autochthonous words in this position as e.g. fkä ‘one’. For Mordvin (Erzya) Zaicz (2004: 209– 210) claims that its phoneme inventory “differs from that of Old Mordvin in having the extra consonants f and χ which took root in Mordvin (as a result of contact with Russian) in the 19th century.” Accordingly, Rédei (1984: 209) classifies /f/ and /x/ as LPs in Mordvin (Erzya) because they are limited mostly (“in erster Linie”) to Russian loanwords such as ferma ~ xerma ‘farm’ (< Russian ferma ‘farm’). Note that the dialect of Bol’še-Ignatovo lacks both /f/ and /x/. In this variety of Mordvin (Erzya) Russian /f/ is adapted as /k(v)/ as in Russian fabrika ‘factory’ > Mordvin (Bol’še-Ignatovo) kvabrika. The different status of /f/ in the two Mordvin EDLs comes to the fore again in Keresztes’s (1990: 25) comparison of their synchronic phonemics. For Mordvin (Erzya) the author explicitly states that /f/ is attested for the most part in Russian loanwords whereas no such restriction is formulated in the case of Mordvin (Moksha). The situation is similar in Mari. Mari (Hill) is registered as a /f/-language whereas Mari (Meadow) is described as /f/-less. The two Mari languages are described by Alhoniemi (1993) under their aliases West Cheremis (= Mari (Hill)) and East Cheremis (= Mari (Meadow)). The voiceless labiodental fricative in Mari (Hill) is said to belong to a set of three relatively “young” phonemes which are infrequent and occur only in loanwords from Chuvash and in onomatopoeia (Alhoniemi 1993: 20). Since the only word with /f/ appearing in the glossary to the text collection which accompanies the grammar is aftobus ‘bus’ (Alhoniemi 1993: 195) we assume that the position of LP /f/ is further strengthened by loans from Russian. It is worth noting that this Russian loanword is identified in Mari (Meadow) from which /f/ should be absent. The members of the Permian branch behave differently from each other. As to the consonants of Udmurt, Winkler (2011: 19) states that “[i]n den neueren russischen Lehnwörtern treten außerdem auf: c, f, χ” [in the recent Russian loanwords, in addition, there are c, f, χ]. Practically the same is assumed for Komi by Salánki (2004: 224) who claims that c (= /ʦ/), f, χ are found in recent loans from Russian whereas in older Russian loanwords /f/ was replaced by /p/

242 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

as in Russian sarafan ‘sleeveless dress’ > Komi sarapan. However, not all of the varieties of Komi behave the same. For Komi-Permyak (Jaźva) (Lytkin 1961), Komi-Zyrian (Rédei 1978), and Komi-Zyrian (Pečora) (Saxarova et al. 1976), our sources concur as to the restriction of /f/ to the domain of recent Russian loanwords. In the case of Komi-Zyrian (Udora), however, Sorvačeva and Beznosikova (1990) do not mention the existence of /f/ although they discuss at length the phonological integration of Russian loanwords. For the Finnic branch of the Uralic language family, Laanest (1982: 86) assumes that /f/ does not belong to their common heritage and that /f/ is still absent from the phonological systems of some of the members of this branch or is restricted to loanwords and/or onomatopoeic words. Accordingly, Fromm (1982: 32) lists /f/ among those LPs whose domain is restricted to relatively recent loanwords in Finnish such as Finnish följetongi ‘journalistic culture section’ < Swedish följetong (< French feuilleton). Hasselblatt (2001: 119) counts /f/ as LP in Estonian as in the loanword film ‘film, movie’. Note that Hint and Paunonen (1984) describe the Estonian variety of Rõngu (= Southern Tartu) as /f/-less. For Colloquial Estonian, Keevallik (2003: 356) observes variation between /f/ and /(h)v/ as in Standard Estonian telefon ‘telephone’ = Colloquial Estonian tele(h)von as well as Standard Estonian rahvas ‘people’ = Colloquial Estonian raffas. Lavotha (1973: 15) emphasizes that in older loanwords /f/ is replaced with /v/ or /hv/ also in the standard language as in kohv ‘coffee’ and vabrik ‘factory’. Keevallik (2003: 356) states further that [c]orrect pronunciation of all foreign words, including non-native diphthongs and consonant clusters exactly as in writing, has been considered a high status marker in Estonian society. Consequently, a lower status of the speaker may be traced by his/her replacement of foreign sounds f, š, and ž.

LP /f/ serves thus as a social marker in Estonian. This function is indicative of the relatively weak integration of the LP into the phonology of the Estonian diasystem. As to the smaller Finnic EDLs, the restriction of /f/ to loanwords is reported for Livonian by Moseley (2002: 16) who emphasizes that none of the immediately neighboring languages have /f/ either. In the Livonian glossary in Sivers (2001: 228), there is evidence of LP /f/ as e.g. Livonian zaft ‘juice’ < German Saft, Livonian šeftõ ‘do business’ < German Geschäft ‘business’ whereas the same Germanisms in the local Latvian dialect of Dundaga feature /p/ instead: zapt ‘juice’ and šeptes ‘business’. We will come back to this issue below in our discussion of Latvian. As to /f/ in Veps, Zajceva (1981: 27) claims that it occurs mainly in loanwords as in Veps furskta ‘snort’ (with unetymological /s/) < Russian fyrkat’. For Votic, Ariste (1968: 9) observes that /f/ occurs only in

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 243

loanwords like Votic ufatka ‘stove poker’ (< Russian uxvatka ‘handle’). Winkler (1997: 187–224) describes the extinct Krevinian variety of Votic as /f/-less. Krevinian represents an older diachronic stage of Votic. The Karelian EDLs attest again to variation. Leskinen (1984: 248) describes Karelian (Archangelsk) as devoid of labiodentals. In contrast, Palmeos (1962: 16) and Rjagoev (1977: 29) identify /f/ as LP in Karelian (Valdai) and Karelian (Tichvin), respectively. Examples are Karelian (Valdai) fóabrikka ‘factory’ < Russian fabrika and Karelian (Tichvin) fereźi ‘oriental kind of dress’ < Russian ferjaz’. The Uralic and the Slavic cases resemble each other to a certain degree. Formerly /f/-less EDLs have acquired phonemic /f/ at least partly via contact with /f/-languages. In addition to the direct borrowing there are also internal processes of sound change. In contrast to Slavic, at least some of the Uralic EDLs boast entirely autochthonous /f/. In both genetic groups, there are still cases of /f/-less EDLs. Interestingly, for some of the Uralic /f/-languages it can be assumed that their LP /f/ has been borrowed from Slavic (mostly Russian), i.e. from erstwhile /f/-less EDLs. An additionally interesting aspect is the recurrence of the sequence /xv/ ~ /hv/ in the history of LP /f/-integration not only in Slavic but also in Uralic. The Turkic segment of the sample comprises 15 EDLs all of which are reported to be /f/-languages. As shown in Table 5782, the two groups of borrowers and non-borrowers differ significantly in their numerical strength since there are almost three times as many /f/-borrowers as non-borrowers. Table 57: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /f/ in Turkic.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Azerbaijani, Chuvash, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Karachay-Balkar, Kazakh, Kumyk, Noghay, Tatar, Turkish, Turkish (Trabzon)

Bashkir, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai)

11 EDLs

4 EDLs

In the distant past, the situation within the Turkic language family must have looked very much the same as that reconstructed for Proto-Slavic and Proto|| 82 If only two categories of EDLs have to be distinguished – borrowers and either EDLs with an autochthonous phoneme or EDLs which lack the phoneme completely – the format of the table is different from that of the previous tables. There are only two columns borrowed vs autochthonous or X-less.

244 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Uralic. Gabain (1959a: 26) states that except occasionally in the Manichean manuscripts there is no tangible evidence of /f/ in Old Turkic (7th–13th century). The Codex Cumanicus (14th century) as representative of the earliest form of the Kipchak branch of Turkic gives evidence of /f/ predominantly in loanwords and “nur sekundär und ganz selten” [only secondarily and very infrequently] as alternative realization of other consonants in Turkic words (Gabain 1959b: 53). On the side of the eastern (i.e. Asian) Chagatay Turkic (15th/16th century), the languageinternal process /p/ > /f/ is attested (early Chagatay opraq ‘dress’ > late Chagatay ofraq) (Eckmann 1959: 146), meaning: the developments within the Turkic language family as to /f/ are divers. It almost goes without saying that we focus on those branches of Turkic which are situated in our Projekteuropa. Johanson (2002: 75–79) reviews the phonological processes which result from contacts of Turkic languages with genetically unrelated languages. The author mentions /f/ twice (always given in phonetic brackets as [f]), namely a) as consonant that underwent replacement during loanword integration in Turkic (Johanson 2002: 75) and b) the change /f/ > /p/ in Tajik which is attributed to “simplifying Turkic influence” (Johanson 2002: 77). Since no individual Turkic language is identified by glossonym it is difficult to determine whether (a) and (b) speak in favor of the absence of /f/ across the entire language family or from particular members thereof. In our sources for modern Turkish of Turkey (Göksel and Kerslake 2005; Comrie 1997a: 885–886) LPs are explicitly identified, but /f/ does not appear among them. However, if we go back further in the history of Turkish we learn that /f/ occurred only in loanwords in pre-20th century Ottoman Turkish (Mansuroğlu 1959b: 165). Since modern Turkish has been created expressly in opposition to the heavily Persianized and Arabicized Ottoman Turkish one might want to defend the idea that we are dealing with a case of disruption or discontinuation so that modern Turkish can be considered a different language from Ottoman Turkish. We opt, however, for the alternative according to which Turkish and Ottoman Turkish are two interconnected diachronic stages of one and the same language. This allows us to classify Turkish as /f/-borrower. The same treatment is applicable also to Turkish (Trabzon) for which Brendemoen (2002) identifies a set of LPs but again without mentioning /f/. For Azerbaijani – the next-of-kin of Turkish – our main reference (Širaliev and Sevortjan 1971) painstakingly registers several LPs but does not mention /f/. On the other hand, Schönig (1998a: 249) claims that “[t]he labial fricatives /v/ and /f/ occur in loanwords and in some dialects instead of /b/ and /p/.” The

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 245

situation is almost identical in the case of Crimean Tatar. According to Kavitskaya (2010: 10–14), there are a number of LPs which are typical of nonintegrated recent loanwords as employed by younger speakers of this EDL. We have looked in vain for a mention of /f/. However, Doerfer (1959c: 377) argues that /f/ occurs “fast nur in Fremdwörtern” [almost exclusively in foreign words] in Crimean Tatar. For Tatar (Kazan/Volga) (or Tatar tout court), Comrie (1997b: 902) states that labiodental /f/ is attested only in Russian loanwords whereas there is a distinct voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/ which occurs “primarily in words of Arabic-Persian or onomatopoetic origin” (Comrie 1997b: 901). It remains unclear whether we are facing two distinct and fully phonemic LPs /f/ ≠ /ɸ/ or two allophones [f] ≠ [ɸ] of an archiphoneme /F/ or of the approximant /w/. Berta (1998a: 283) confirms that /f/ is mainly attested in loanwords in Tatar but adds that “it is also found in native words.” If Tatar can be shown to undergo foreign influence in the domain of bilabial/labiodental fricatives it does not seem to be too far-fetched to assume a similar situation for Crimean Tatar. Chances are therefore that Crimean Tatar can be counted as /f/-borrower. Our main source of information on Bashkir (Juldašev 1981) and all others we have consulted on this EDL treat /f/ as an autochthonous consonant. We take this to mean that we are dealing with a genuine non-borrower. The same conclusion must be drawn for the three Karaim varieties Eastern, Galits, and Trakai all of which are described by Musaev (1997) without reference to borrowing in connection with /f/. Beside Tatar, there are half a dozen other Turkic /f/-borrowers in our sample. The restriction of /f/ to Russian loanwords in Chuvash is stated in several sources – a typical case being Chuvash = Russian fabrika ‘factory’ (Krueger 1961: 84; Clark 1998: 434) (see Sections 16.1–16.2). As to Gagauz, Pokrovskaja (1964: 55–56) claims that /f/ is attested for the most in loanwords including well integrated ones. Many of these are loanwords of long standing with an Arabic and/or Persian etymology. The author also notes cases of alternation between /x/ and /f/ in loanwords (Pokrovskaja 1964: 57). For Karachay-Balkar, Seegmiller (1996: 6, fn. 2) mentions LP /f/ in passing. In the case of Kazakh, Muhamedowa (2016: 277) also registers LP /f/ whose domain is that of loanwords of Russian or Arabic-Persian origin. Sometimes /f/ can be replaced by /p/ in loanwords such as pabrika ‘factory’ < Russian fabrika. Among the numerous LP consonants of Kumyk, Abdullaeva et al. (2014: 39–40) identify /f/ and its voiced counterpart /v/ – the former being attested in loanwords such as Kumyk = Russian futbol ‘football’ and fabrika ‘factory’. However, older cases of /p/ replacing /f/ are also attested as in Kumyk perma ‘farm’ < Russian ferma. The LP-status of /f/ in Noghay is claimed by Csató and Karakoç (1998: 333).

246 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The foregoing paragraphs indicate some contradictory statements in the literature on individual Turkic languages. A dedicated study of loan phonology in Turkic might clarify the controversial issues which we can only touch lightly upon. No Turkic EDL is described as /f/-less. However, for several of them it is stated that the integration of LP /f/ is still subject to oscillation in the sense that it can be replaced with /p/. The number of /f/-borrowers diminishes further when we move to NakhDaghestanian. This language family is represented by 29 EDLs in our sample. Table 58 shows that 55 % of the Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs have no /f/ in their phoneme inventory. The /f/-languages claim a share of 45 %. The /f/-borrowers form the smallest group with only five EDLs (= 17 % of all Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs and 38 % of all Nakh-Daghestanian /f/-languages). Table 58: Daghestanian /f/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /f/-less languages.

/f/-less [16]

borr [5]

Chechen, Hinukh, Khinalug, Rutul, Tsakhur

auto [8]

/f/-EDLs [13]

EDLs

Aghul, Budukh, Ingush, Kryts, Kryts (Alyk), Lezgian, Tabasaran, Udi (Nidž) Akhvakh, Andi, Archi, Avar, Bagvalal, Bezhta (Tlyadal), Botlikh, Chamalal, Dargwa (Icari), Godoberi, Hunzib, Karata, Khwarshi, Lak, Tindi, Tsova-Tush

In the descriptions of the non-borrowers the phoneme /f/ is not specifically commented upon. For the /f/-language Budukh Alekseev (1994b: 262) states that “[v]irtually all the phonemes of Budukh [] occur in both indigenous and borrowed lexemes, so that there are no phonemes specific to loanwords.” Dešeriev (1960: 13–14) discusses the class of LPs in Chechen to which he assumes /f/ to belong. However, he argues that LP /f/ is often replaced with /p/ as in Chechen pabrika ‘factory’ < Russian fabrika. In her sketch of Chechen, Nichols (1994a: 4–5) does not mention /f/ at all whereas she postulates the phoneme /f/ for the closely related Ingush with the caveat that it has the feature [rounded] (Nichols 1994b: 82) which might be interpreted as evidence of a voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/. Talibov (2004: 350) emphasizes that “[u]nlike Lezgian, the Tsakhur spirant /f/ is restricted to loan words and some onomatopoetic native words.” The Tsakhur noun fɨkʰɨr ‘thought’ is a loan from Azerbaijani fikir. Schulze (1997: 15,

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 247

fn. 22) makes a similar statement whereas Kibrik (1999: 15) additionally mentions that the use of LP /f/ is optional in Tsakhur. We assume that it can be replaced with /p/. What Forker (2013: 31) has to say on the issue of LP /f/ in Hinukh sounds already familiar: Though /f/ is not a phoneme of native Hinuq words, it is preserved with recent Russian loans and pronounced as /f/ by speakers of all ages, e.g. front ‘front’. In older loan words it has usually been replaced by /p/.

No concrete example accompanies Alekseev’s (1994a: 216) statement that in Rutul “[t]he phoneme f occurs, as a rule, only in loan words.” Dešeriev (1959: 14) assumes for Khinalug that the voiceless labiodental is most common with loanwords such as fabrik ‘factory’ < Russian fabrika. We ignore how the non-borrowers have acquired their /f/-phonemes. The diachronic phonology of the Nakh-Daghestanian language family needs to be scrutinized separately. Since Schulze (1997: 15, fn. 22) claims that /f/ is secondary everywhere in the entire language family, the original /f/-less state seems to be preserved by the majority of the Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs. Like in the previous cases of Slavic, Uralic, and Turkic, /f/ may arise not only via language contact. Internal sound change is likewise an important factor be it exclusively or in combination with borrowing. Next in line are the Baltic EDLs. In the sample, there are altogether five members of this branch of Indo-European. Table 59 reveals that four of these five Baltic EDLs give evidence of LP /f/ whereas there is a single /f/-less representative of Baltic. Table 59: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /f/ in Baltic.

Borrowed

/f/-less

Latgalian, Latvian, Latvian (Skrunda), Lithuanian

Lithuanian (Dieveniškės)

4 EDLs

1 EDL

The bulk of the loanwords in Latgalian stem from Standard Latvian or Russian. There are numerous loans whose segmental chain contains /f/ in the donor language. What happens to LP /f/ is described by Nau (2011: 12) as follows: The fricative[] [f] [] occur[s] occasionally in recent borrowings, especially learned vocabulary (ortografeja, aforizms, informaceja []); it is a matter for further research in how far this

248 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

spelling reflects actual pronunciation of these words. In most loanwords [f] is replaced by [p] [], for example kopejs ‘coffee’, putbols ‘football’.

In the Latvian standard language, the two final examples given in the above quote would yield kafija ‘coffee’ and futbols ‘football’ with /f/ in lieu of Latgalian /p/. Interestingly, Latvian /f/ itself is an instance of borrowing as Endzelīns (1951: 24) notes in brackets in his grammar of Latvian. According to his description, Latvian /f/ is restricted to the domain of loanwords. Holst (2001: 49) mentions German, Latin, French, English, and Greek as possible donor languages. An example of a Germanism is (presumably only colloquial) Latvian foršs ‘bold’ < German forsch. According to Pīrāga (2006: 24), the phonology of the Latvian variety of Skrunda corresponds largely to that of the standard language in the domain of consonants. The author explicitly marks /f/ as LP which in the speech of the older generations is often replaced with /p/. It remains unclear whether LP /f/ results from borrowing from standard Latvian and/or from donor languages outside the Latvian diasystem. In her overview of the three major regional varieties of Latvian Rudzīte (1964: 84) claims that in the speech of elderly speakers of the central dialect (Vidzeme) LP /f/ is still not fully integrated. These speakers often replace /f/ with /p/ as in pabrika ‘factory’ in lieu of fabrika. For the Livonian variety of Latvian, a similar statement is made (Rudzīte 1964: 178) albeit without reference to a certain age-group. As to the third Latvian variety (Augšzeme = Latgalian), she mentions the occasional replacement of LP /f/ with /p/ as in pèrma ‘farm’ in lieu of ferma (Rudzīte 1964: 295). This means that by the mid-1960ies, LP /f/ was still not fully rooted in the Latvian speech community nor in that of Latgalian. For the Lithuanian standard, Vaitkevičiūtė (1965: 82) provides numerous examples of internationalisms which involve the voiceless labiodental fricative as e.g. fùnkcija ‘function’, fòsforas ‘phosphor’, and delfìnas ‘dolphin’. The same author hints at problems with the integration of LP /f/ when she emphasizes that in spoken Lithuanian /p/ frequently replaces /f/ (Vaitkevičiūtė 1965: 66). An earlier /f/-less stage of Lithuanian is reflected by the phoneme inventory of the regional variety of Dieveniškės as described by Sudnik (1975). There is no trace of /f/. This absence of /f/ in dialectal Lithuanian is fully in line with Zinkevičius (1966: 150–152) who provides an extended list of loanwords and their realizations in Lithuanian regional varieties. The most frequently attested pattern is the replacement of LP /f/ with /p/ as in dialectal Lithuanian šòperis ‘chauffeur’ in lieu of Standard Lithuanian šoferis. Standard Lithuanian forma ‘shape, form’ is rendered dialectally as pórma or kvorma. The replacement of word-initial LP /f/ with the sequence /kv/ is widely common. However, Zinke-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 249

vičius (1966: 151) assumes that /kv/ reflects the Belarusian origin of the loans because many /f/-initial words of supposed Russian origin have a /xv/-initial equivalent in Belarusian like xvalda ‘skirt’ = Russian falda = Standard Lithuanian falda = dialectal Lithuanian kvaldà. As in the Latvian case discussed above, LP /f/ had not yet penetrated the social barrier between urban and rural varieties of Lithuanian in the mid-1960ies. In the Baltic EDLs discussed in the previous paragraph /f/ is secondary and always the result of language contact. Moreover, the integration of LP /f/ is also a social marker which is tightly associated with the written register and educated formal speech. Since many of the words which feature LP /f/ in Latvian and Lithuanian are internationalisms it can be assumed that the integration of LP /f/ is a relatively recent phenomenon which has not achieved its final destination yet. The sample hosts eleven Indo-Iranian EDLs all of which are /f/-languages. The six /f/-borrowers are Romani languages. Furthermore, there is another EDL of the Romani group which boasts /f/ without borrowing as shown in Table 60. Table 60: Indo-Iranian /f/-borrowers vs. Indo-Iranian non-borrowers.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), Romani (North Russian), Romani (Sepečides)

Kurmanji, Ossetic, Romani (Burgenland), Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili)

6 EDLs

5 EDLs

Matras (2002: 56) reconstructs the system of Proto-Romanic consonant phonemes from which /f/ is absent. This absentee is present, however, in the phoneme inventory of Early Romani which, according to Matras (2002: 51) coincides with the Byzantine period starting with the 10th–11th century. In contrast to Matras (2002: 51), Boretzky (1999: 27) does not assume that /f/ belongs to the conservative traits of Romani languages. Accordingly, there is no mention of /f/ in Boretzky’s (1993) descriptive grammar of the Bugurdži variety. This is no reason to classify this EDL as /f/-less though. If we take account of the glossary that accompanies the text collection which goes with said grammar, we notice that there are some entries of words with initial /f/ (Boretzky 1993: 140) practically all of which turn out to be borrowings (except a small number of onomatopoeic words): Romani (Bugurdži) físi ‘relatives; generation’ < Albanian fis, Romani (Bugurdži) filíja ‘thin pie’ < Macedonian felija ‘disc’, Romani (Bugurdži)

250 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

fasúj ‘bean’ < Serbian fasulj, Romani (Bugurdži) eftá ‘seven’ < Greek eftá, etc. Since /f/ is not attested in the Indo-Aryan part of the lexicon we take this as evidence of the LP-status of /f/ in Romani (Bugurdži). Čerenkov and Demeter (1990) give an account of the phonology of Romani (Kalderash) in which no statement is made as to the origin of /f/. Boretzky (1994: 19–20) discusses especially word-initial /f/ which otherwise is given full phoneme status (Boretzky 1994: 21) although it is sometimes subject to aphaeresis in prevocalic position. Phonetically the realization is described as bilabial so that an interpretation as voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/ is tempting. What is more there is again a sizable number of words in the glossary whose first segment is /f/. Almost all of these lexical entries have a foreign origin as e.g. Romani (Kalderash) falíl ‘thank’ < (dialectal) Serbian faliti ~ hvaliti, Romani (Kalderash) fálka ‘chin’ < Romanian falcă, Romani (Kalderash) fóro ‘city, market (day)’ < Greek fóron ‘market’, etc. In addition, there is a small number of cases of variation /f/ ~ /h/ ~ Ø if the following segment is /u/ (Boretzky and Igla 1994: 369). To our mind these data speak in favor of classifying Kalderash as a /f/-borrower. The sources for Romani (Burgenland) and Romani (Lithuanian) do not comment upon /f/. For the latter, the Greek loanword foroste ‘in (the) town’ < Greek fóros ‘tax’ is given (Tenser 2005: 4). Since Halwachs (2002) mentions other LPs in the Burgenland variety, we assume that there is no LP /f/. However, this issue calls for closer inspection in a follow-up study since a cursory look at Romani (Burgenland) teaching materials reveals that there are Germanisms like favuntscheni ‘bewitched’ < German verwunschen. In the Indo-Aryan component of Romani (Burgenland), /f/ seems to occur in preconsonantal position probably as allophone of /v/. This is different with Romani (Sepečides). Cech and Heinschink (1996: 4) clearly state that /f/ is restricted to loanwords from Greek and Turkish such as Romani (Sepečides) filaki ‘jail’ < Greek fulakē and Romani (Sepečides) tüfeki ‘gun’ < Turkish tüfek. In the case of Romani (Ajia Varvara), Igla (1996: 12) explains that the domain of /f/ is limited to European loanwords and some words of unclear etymology. Wentzel and Klemm (1980: 39) estimate that /f/ in Romani (North Russian) is infrequent. Among the examples they provide there are several clear cases of borrowing such as Romani (North Russian) félda ‘field’ < German Feld, Romani (North Russian) fenčtra ~ fenštra ‘window’ < German Fenster. A word that is widely common across Romani languages is fedér ‘better’ which has an Indo-Aryan etymology going back to Old Indic bhadra- ‘happy, good’ + comparative -der (Boretzky and Igla 1994: 90) and is suggestive of a change /bh/ > /f/ which, however, is not featured on Matras’s (2002: 39–41) list of principal sound correspondences between Old Indic and Romani.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 251

On account of the above review of the Romani languages of the sample, we assume that probably all of them could be proved to be /f/-borrowers but we leave the controversial case of Romani (Burgenland) undecided. The different sources reflect different approaches to borrowing and loan phonology. There is no denying that the lexicon of each of the Romani languages contains loanwords featuring /f/. It remains to be determined whether there are language-internal processes which have contributed to establishing /f/ as a phoneme as well. In Aramaic (Cudi), autochthonous /f/ does not exist; it is confined to loanwords (Sinha 2000: 49). Jastrow (1988: 5) argues for Aramaic (Hertevin) that /f/ is used exclusively in loanwords where it can still be replaced with /p/.83 Table 61 shows that the remaining Afro-Asiatic EDLs boast autochthonous /f/. Table 61: Afro-Asiatic /f/-borrowers vs. Afro-Asiatic non-borrowers.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Aramaic (Cudi), Aramaic (Hertevin)

Arabic (Çukurova), Arabic (Cypriot), Maltese

2 EDLs

3 EDLs

For the Kartvelian EDL Laz, Holisky (1991: 399) states that /f/ is possible only in loanwords such as effendi ‘lord, master’. Kartosia (2008: 268–269) characterizes this phoneme as aspirated and attributes its existence in Laz to Greek and Turkish influence. The same can be assumed for Laz (Mutafi Turkey). All other Kartvelian EDLs are /f/-less as can be gathered from Table 62. Table 62: Kartvelian /f/-borrowers vs. Kartvelian /f/-less EDLs.

Borrowed

/f/-less

Laz, Laz (Mutafi Turkey)

Georgian, Mingrelian, Svan

2 EDLs

3 EDLs

Three varieties of Basque form part of the sample: Basque (aka Batúa), Basque (Lekeitio), and Basque (Zuberoa). In all of the three cases, we are dealing with LP /f/. In connection to this phenomenon, Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 25) state that || 83 For other varieties of Eastern Aramaic outside of Projekteuropa, Coghill (2019: 508) confirms that /f/ “can be attributed mainly to borrowing” from Arabic.

252 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

[t]he labiodental voiceless fricative is nowadays a phoneme in all Basque dialects. Nevertheless in Gipuzkoan and Bizkaian areas [f] often alternates with [p] both in borrowings (e.g. fanfarroi ~ panparroi ‘braggart’, festa ~ pesta ‘holiday’) and in the few native words where it occurs (e.g. afari ~ apari ‘dinner’, alfer ~ alper ‘lazy’). In these areas the pronunciation of /f/ as [p] is a dying phenomenon in the speech of older speakers.

A paragraph which closely resembles this quote can also be found in the grammar of Basque (Lekeitio) (Hualde et al. 1994: 15). The Basque lexicon contains a considerable amount of entries which host lexemes whose initial segment is /f/ most of which can easily be identified as being of Romance origin such as Basque flauta ‘flute’ < Spanish flauta, Basque funts ‘foundation’ < Spanish fundo(s) ‘plot of land’, Basque fresku ‘fresh’ < Spanish fresco, etc. Haase (1993: 29) claims that /f/ is entirely restricted to the domain of loanwords and adds that this also includes very old loanwords so that he has decided to consider these words to belong to the native Basque layer. It is possible that the beginnings of LP /f/ in Basque predate our self-imposed terminus ante quem non, i.e. their borrowing happened long before the year 1000 AD. Trask’s (1997: 126) reconstructed inventory of consonant phonemes of Pre-Basque does not feature /f/. This author explains Basque /f/ with reference to language-internal processes, namely predominantly *b > /f/ and exceptionally *p > /f/. Loanwords are not mentioned in this context. Classical Armenian (as of the 5th century AD) and successive periods of the Armenian language history until the 12th century do not give evidence of the existence of the voiceless labiodental fricative (Schmitt 2007: 35–37). The first signs of it appear in the so-called Middle Armenian period (12th–17th century) when a new character was added to the Armenian alphabet to represent /f/ (Schmitt 2007: 22). This new character was used exclusively “dans la transcription des emprunts” [in the transcription of loans] whereas /f/ in the oldest loanwords from Greek and Iranian was usually replaced with /h/ or /ph/ (Minassian 1976: 32). In her reference grammar of Standard East Armenian, Dum-Tragut (2009: 18) characterizes /f/ as being “not a prototypical Armenian sound in initial position.” Its entrance into the Middle Armenian phonological system is acknowledged as well as the fact that word-initially /f/ is restricted mainly to loanwords. The author adds that /f/ appears frequently word-finally – presumably reference is made to autochthonous Armenian words. Since continuants may be subject to final devoicing (Vaux 1998: 17) we are probably dealing with [f] as positional allophone of /v/. Vaux (1998: 205) argues that in many Armenian dialects /f/ developed from original /h/ when followed by /o/. In Sakayan’s (2000: 332) practical grammar of modern Armenian (Western) all /f/initial words are loans or derivations on the basis of loans such as fransatsi

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 253

‘Frenchman’ and fizikabes ‘physically’. We therefore classify the voiceless labiodental fricative as LP both in Armenian (Eastern) and Armenian (Western). For the only representative of Mongolic in Europe, Kalmyk, Benzing (1985: 71–72) puts /f/ in brackets in the inventory of consonants because he notices that the pronunciation [f] is realized in loanwords only in educated speech whereas colloquially [p] is preferred (Benzing 1985: 41). Bläsing (2003: 231) classifies /f/ among those marginal phonemes which are only used in Russian loanwords. In the above we have reviewed those cases for which some sources at least ponder the idea that there is LP /f/ in a given EDL. The discussion has shown that many uncertainties remain because the borrowing process is often paralleled, preceded, or closely followed by language-internal processes of sound change. It is not always easy to determine the exact chronology. Has borrowing facilitated the internal sound change or the other way round? As it seems, the one has paved the ground for the other no matter which was the prime mover. We must also bear in mind that for several of the /f/-borrowers the new phoneme is a social marker associated with a prestigious high education. We expect to find similar scenarios when we look for additional evidence in the (b)-part of this section. (b) Additions: The scene as it is pictured in the foregoing (a)-part fits neatly into a more general discussion about the distribution of /f/ – a discussion which Hockett (1985) initiated with a distinguished lecture dedicated to this subject matter. Hockett (1985: 263–264) was struck by the scarcity of /f/-languages in his own worldwide sample of 200 languages. Only 19 % gave evidence of /f/. What intrigued Hockett (1985: 264) most was that “[t]he challenging fact about f-sounds turns out to be not their frequency but their distribution in space and time.” This peculiar distribution encouraged Hockett (1985: 274) to propose that “f-sounds are a relatively recent innovation in human history.” He invokes agriculture and its impact on the shape of the human dental apparatus. These ideas have been taken up again by Blasi et al. (2019) in their interdisciplinary study on the shaping of human sound systems by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. The gist of the paper is that for articulatory reasons /f/ could develop only after the original edge-to-edge bite of Pre-Neolithic humans had developed into the Post-Neolithic overjet/overbite which in turn was the effect of the replacement of former hunter-gatherer cultures with food-producing cultures (= agriculture). Eisen (2019: 91) and Grossman et al. (2020a: 5319; 2020b) refer to this publication to emphasize the interdisciplinary importance of investigating phoneme distribution and borrowing from a global perspective. For obvious reasons, we do not want to engage ourselves in this certainly intriguing strand

254 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

of anthropological and prehistoric research. Our focus is exclusively on the statements about the distribution of /f/ made in the above two papers by Hockett and Blasi et al. First of all, Hockett’s term f-sound covers both voiceless /f/ and voiced /v/. Hockett (1985: 264–274) traces the labiodental fricatives on all continents and through the ages. He observes that there are areas where /f/ and /v/ are particularly scarce (Siberia, South Asia, Kalahari, the Americas). When they occur, they can frequently be shown to have arisen via language contact especially with Indo-European languages in the context of colonialism. Accordingly, Blasi et al. (2019: 4) argue for /f/ and /v/ outside of Europe that [i]n the few cases where labiodentals do exist, they tend to be the result of recent borrowings through contact with European languages which have them.

The authors add Australia to the list of macro-areas from which labiodentals are almost completely absent. Moreover, it is argued that in a number of putative cases of extra-European /f/ and /v/, on closer inspection, these units turn out to either be or alternate with bilabial fricatives /ɸ/ and /β/ as assumed for Bzyb (Abkhaz-Adyghe) by Hockett (1985: 264)84 and Kunjen (Pama-Nyungan) by Blasi et al. (2019: 5). For Europe, Hockett (1985: 264) assumes that “all the familiar languages of Europe have f-sounds. All the less familiar ones do too.” He adds, however, that “[t]he non-Indo-European languages of Europe have f-sounds mainly by virtue of borrowing” (Hockett 1985: 271). The author also states that throughout the Slavic branch of Indo-European /f/ is a LP. The same is said with reference to /f/ in Armenian (Hockett 1985: 264). Hockett (1985: 271–274) as well as Blasi et al. (2019: 5–6) emphasize that within the Indo-European language family too, the labiodentals took their time to diffuse. A relatively recent but successful propagator of labiodentals is Romance from where /f/ and /v/ have been “carried in loans into most of the other languages of Europe” (Hockett 1985: 272). Russian, on the other hand, is held responsible for the diffusion of /f/ across Eurasia and

|| 84 If one goes by the grammatical sketches of Abkhaz-Adyghe languages in Hewitt (1989a) and Colarusso’s (1988) phonological survey of this language family the supposedly outstanding case of Bzyb loses much of its appeal because /f/ and /v/ are featured on practically all of the phoneme inventories provided in these sources. Nowhere in these texts is /f/ identified as LP. What complicates the story is the fact that Colarusso (1988) dedicates separate sections to each place and manner of articulation for each of the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages – with the striking exception of the labiodental fricatives. It cannot be ruled out therefore that we have missed further cases of /f/-borrowing.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 255

Siberia (Hockett 1985: 264). Labiodentals may also arise from internal phonological processes with bilabial plosives being the most common source for /f/ and /v/ (Hockett 1985: 272). Between the lines, Blasi et al. (2019: 6) share this view. Even without getting entangled in the agriculture-and-teeth line of argumentation we can learn something for our European project from the papers reviewed in the previous paragraph. First of all, the absence of /f/ in a given EDL is nothing to be surprised about. Secondly, the borrowing of /f/ is no particularly spectacular event either. Thirdly, what superficially looks like a labiodental might better be classified as bilabial. Fourthly, Hockett’s hypothesis according to which labiodentals are attested in each and every EDL requires further comments. According to the overview given in Table 24, 92 % of our sample attest to phonemes at this place of articulation. Moreover, 13 % of the EDLs of the sample lack /f/ as indicated in Figure 56. This means that the relation between voiceless /f/ and voiced /v/ has to be determined to better understand what it means that supposedly all EDLs boast labiodentals (see the (d)part below and Section 17.2.4.7). In this section, we exclusively look at evidence for LP /f/. Are there more EDLs with LP /f/ than those already mentioned in the (a)-part? The answer is affirmative. First of all, the extinct Slavic EDL Polabian is reported to display /f/ only in German loanwords (Polański 1993: 799–800). There are several kinship terms (Polański 1993: 822–823) which give evidence of LP /f/ such as Polabian fader ‘father’ < Middle Low German vader and Polabian grotefor ‘grandfather’ < Low German grōtevåd’r. In the very same list there are examples of /f/ resulting from desonorization of /v/ when followed by the diminutive suffix -ka as in Polabian defkă ‘girl, daughter’ < *dĕvъka. We therefore conclude that Polabian reflects the same parallel development as many of the Slavic EDLs mentioned in the (a)-part in the sense that the borrowing of loanwords which host /f/ coincided with the morphonological devoicing of /v/ whose positional allophone [f] proved helpful for the integration of LP /f/ in the Polabian phoneme system. Interestingly, a close relative of Polabian, the likewise extinct /f/-less Slovincian, regularly adopted /f/ in German loanwords as /v/ (Lorentz 1903). In the Baltic branch, we encounter two further /f/-borrowers. There is the extinct Old Prussian for which Endzelin (1944: 58) states that in early loans from German /f/ was regularly replaced with /p/ as in Old Prussian tapali ‘blackboard’ < German Tafel whereas later borrowings preserved the voiceless labiodental fricative as in Old Prussian = /falks/ ‘hawk’ < German Falke. In Curonian (aka Kursenieki), a moribund close relative of Latvian formerly spoken in East Prussia, there is an abundance of German loanwords. El Mogharbel (1993: 37–38) concedes that on account of the numerous loanwords from Ger-

256 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

man /f/ occurs quite frequently in Curonian discourse but to her mind this consonant and others like it do not form part of the Curonian phonological system. The voiceless labiodental fricative in older loanwords from German was regularly replaced with /v/ as in švēːvil ‘match’ < German Schwefel ‘sulphur’. More recent loans keep the original /f/ as in Curonian friš ‘fresh’ < German frisch (El Mogharbel 1993: 241). In the Olonets variety of Karelian, /f/ is admitted on board the phoneme chart only if Russian loanwords are counted in (Leskinen 1984: 251). The importance of Russian for the shaping of the inventory of consonant phonemes of Olonets can be gathered from the fact that there are eight LP consonants in a set of 29 phonemes. Barancev (1975: 36) makes a similar statement as to the LPs in Ludian. In this Karelian variety, /f/ belongs again to a set of eight LPs which are employed only with the most recent loans almost all of which go to the credit of Russian. For the Ingrian variety of Soikkola Saar (2017: 49) notes that /f/ is attested exclusively in loanwords from Russian and some expressive words. The Russian loans are the already familiar ones among which we find Ingrian (Soikkola) fābbrikka ‘factory’ < Russian fabrika. On the basis of Schönig’s (1998b: 262) claim that Turkmen speakers tend to replace /f/ with /p/ especially in the initial position of loanwords we assume that the same tendency applies also in the case of the Turkmen varieties spoken in southern Russia. Whether LP /f/ in Crimean Turkish (Doerfer 1959b: 275) has been introduced to the replica language via loans from Russian specifically cannot be determined on the basis of the grammatical sketch we had access to. (c) Geography: Hockett (1985: 271) mentions the sound changes which have affected the phonological systems of Celtic EDLs. According to him ProtoIndo-European bilabial plosives first became fricatives only to disappear again later in many cases. Irish and Breton are said to display /f/ and /v/ that go back to “an earlier w; otherwise the bulk of the f-sounds in the current languages are in loanwords.” This scenario does not fully meet the criteria for the genesis of LP /f/ because there already was an autochthonous phoneme /f/ when loanwords with /f/ began to infiltrate the replica languages’ lexicon and thus reinforced the position of the voiceless labiodental fricative. Thus, in our interpretation, except the three varieties of Basque, there is no EDL in the western nonants of the European continent that attests to /f/-borrowing. The bulk of the /f/-borrowers is situated in the central and eastern nonants (see Table 63). The highest number of borrowers is hosted by the MC nonant followed by SE, SC, and ME in decreasing order. Outside these four nonants /f/-borrowing is relatively infrequent. Map XLVIII traces the geographic distribution of /f/. Autochthonous /f/ clearly dominates the scene in the west where NW and MW exclusively host EDLs with autochthonous /f/. In SW, the Basque varieties stand out

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 257

as the only instances of /f/-borrowing. The further east we go the less important autochthonous /f/ gets. It is only marginally present in ME whereas it is nonexistent in NE. EDLs which lack the voiceless labiodental fricative completely occasionally show up in MC, SC, ME, and NE but become more numerous in SE. Table 63: Distribution of /f/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

3

4

M

0

23

14

37

S

3

15

18

36

Total

3

39

35

77

Map XLVIII and Table 63 clearly indicate that an erstwhile predominantly western property has diffused into eastern regions in the course of time. Not only is the vast majority of all /f/-borrowers located outside the European west but those EDLs which lack /f/ are situated in the vicinity of the /f/-borrowers. The geographic picture is so clear that it makes LP /f/ a paradigm case of our project. (d) Further issues: As to Maddieson’s categories (see Section 16.1), the data speak in favor of a tendency to gap-filling by way of borrowing /f/. In Table 64 we support this hypothesis with the absolute numbers of EDLs which attest to LP /f/ or autochthonous /f/ or lack /f/ in comparison to those which attest to the same categories for the voiced labiodental fricative /v/. The absolute numbers are those which result from the discussion in the (a)-part of this section. Table 64: Co-occurrence of (LP) /f/ and (LP) /v/.

/f/ LP

/v/

Total

autochthonous

Sum unattested

LP

10

9

0

19

autochthonous

57

82

10

149

unattested

10

15

17

42

77

106

27

210

258 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

About 87 % of all EDLs with LP /f/ have phonemic /v/. Only 13 % of all /f/borrowers do not also have /v/ be it autochthonous or borrowed. EDLs may lack labiodentals completely (= 17 EDLs) or attest to only one of two (only (LP) /f/ = 25 EDLs vs only /v/ = 10 EDLs). With 158 EDLs a majority of 75 % of the sample languages count both of the labiodentals among their phonemes (with 10 EDLs borrowing both). On account of these quantities we assume that LP /f/ more often than not completes the series of voice contrasts in the system of the replica languages where prior to borrowing /v/ lacked a partner at the same place of articulation. As Table 64 suggests, however, this is not a strict rule but only a tendency albeit a strong one. In connection to this issue it is helpful to quote Eisen (2019: 92) who assumes that “a language with native labiodentals [is] less likely to borrow other segments with that feature.” This assumption is based on the data in SegBo which show that languages with original labiodentals borrow labiodentals to a strikingly lesser degree than languages without native labiodentals do. Eisen (2019: 92) argues that a language without /f/ has good chances to encounter a foreign /f/ [] but a language with /f/ will have to encounter /v/ [] or an even less frequent labiodental.

The voiced labiodental fricative /v/ is attested only in 27 % of the SegBo sample whereas in the European context it is reported for 80 % of our sample languages. This means that the chances of an EDL to come into contact with a /v/-language are higher in Europe than they are outside of this continent. As results from Table 64, there is no inhibiting effect in the domain of labiodentals for EDLs. In 67 out of 77 cases of LP /f/ the voiced labiodental fricative is either already present in the replica language or is borrowed in a package with /f/. As we know already, this means that 87 % of all cases of /f/-borrowing involve /v/ too so that it seems that the presence of /v/ is a facilitating factor for the borrowing of the voiceless labiodental fricative. Thus, the European situation cannot always be captured adequately on the basis of the tendencies detected in the global study. Beside simple gap-filling, there is also the creation of a new place of articulation (= a Class-5 phenomenon according to Maddieson 1986) albeit on a minor scale. The ten EDLs which borrow both /f/ and /v/ have established labiodental as a place of articulation which was not used prior to borrowing. The same holds for the ten EDLs with LP /f/ but no voiced partner. The voiceless labiodental fricative alone represents the new place of articulation. Interestingly the EDLs do not give evidence of cases of /v/-borrowing in the absence of autochthonous or borrowed /f/ although there are ten EDLs which display autochtho-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 259

nous /v/ without corresponding voiceless partner. We raise this issue again in Section 17.2.4.7.

17.2.4.2 /ʒ/ The voiced postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ is attested in 150 EDLs of the sample. This absolute number corresponds to a share of 71 %. 60 EDLs give no evidence of /ʒ/ so that it is absent from 29 % of the sample. There are 40 cases of LP /ʒ/ which means that 19 % of the EDLs borrow the phoneme (see Figure 58). /ʒ/-borrowers cover 27 % of the group of /ʒ/-EDLs.

no /ʒ/; 60; 29%

autochthonous; 110; 52%

LP; 40; 19%

Figure 58: Share of LP /ʒ/ in the sample.

There are thus considerably less /ʒ/-borrowers than there are /f/-borrowers. The total number of EDLs with /f/ (borrowed or not) surpasses that of EDLs with /ʒ/. However, 42 % of /f/-EDLs have borrowed /f/, whereas only 27 % of /ʒ/-EDLs are borrowers of /ʒ/. Is there anything that renders /f/ more borrowable? Or is there anything that makes it difficult to borrow /ʒ/? Maddieson (1984: 231) registers 51 languages with /ʒ/ seven of which are classified as borrowers. The voiced postalveolar fricative is attested in 16 % of his sample. The share of borrowers is as small as 2 %. In comparison to these percentages, Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) count for LP /ʒ/ deviates not only from Maddieson’s account but also from ours. Eisen reports 33 languages worldwide which have borrowed /ʒ/. This corresponds to a share of slightly more than 6 % of his global sample. As to Eurasia, the voiced postalveolar fricative ascends to

260 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

the second rank after LP /f/ with 19 borrowers. These 19 borrowers claim 13 % of the Eurasian component of Eisen’s sample. Interestingly, Phon@Europe produces much higher values. The number of EDLs with autochthonous /ʒ/ (= 110) is twice as big as in Maddieson’s turnout and three times bigger than in Eisen’s. Similarly, we have identified almost six times as many /ʒ/-borrowers as Maddieson and twice as many as Eisen. These striking differences might be explicable in two different ways. Either the higher density of EDLs in our sample allows us to take account of many parallel cases or Europe is different from the rest of the world when it comes to phoneme borrowing. (a) From within the sample: In this (a)-part we meet again with a number of those EDLs which have already been discussed in connection with LP /f/. The sets of /f/-borrowers and /ʒ/-borrowers are by no means identical but they overlap. Figure 59 shows how the different phyla fare in connection to /ʒ/borrowing.

Turkic; 10; 25%

Uralic; 4; 10%

Afro-Asiatic; 1; 2% Indo-European; 23; 57%

Isolate; 1; 3% Mongolic; 1; 3%

Figure 59: Genealogic distribution of /ʒ/-borrowers.

The Indo-European phylum occupies the top rank with 57 % of all /ʒ/borrowers. We will look at the different branches of Indo-European separately whereas the other phyla are discussed without further differentiation. With ten /ʒ/-borrowers, Turkic stands out because its share of /ʒ/-borrowers equals a quarter of all cases. This share exceeds the 10 % which have been calculated for the Turkic share of LPs in general (see Figure 12). Table 65 shows that the 15 Turkic EDLs are divided as to the status of the voiced postalveolar fricative.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 261

Table 65: Turkic /ʒ/-languages vs. Turkic /ʒ/-less languages.

/ʒ/-less [2]

borr [10]

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Chuvash, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, KarachayBalkar, Karaim (Trakai), Kumyk, Tatar, Turkish

auto [3]

/ʒ/-EDLs [13]

EDLs

Karaim (Eastern), Kazakh, Noghay

Karaim (Galits), Turkish (Trabzon)

The Turkic /ʒ/-languages outnumber their /ʒ/-less sister languages by a ratio of 6-to-1. The biggest group is that of /ʒ/-borrowers. The existence of /ʒ/-less EDLs in this language family is indicative of the possible general absence of /ʒ/ on earlier stages of Turkic. In point of fact, the existence of the voiced postalveolar fricative is mentioned neither for Old Turkic nor for the Codex Cumanicus (Gabain 1959a–b). Mansuroğlu (1959a: 92) puzzles about the occasional attestation of the otherwise marginal /ʒ/ in certain words in the Kara-Khanidian language of the 10th–13th century spoken in Turkestan, i.e. outside our area of interest. As to /ʒ/ in Ottoman Turkish, Mansuroğlu (1959b: 165) characterizes this phonological unit together with /f/ as LPs. Johanson (2002: 76) mentions the borrowing of /ʒ/ in Iranian loanwords in Turkic as an example of successful adoption and conventionalization in language contact. McCarthy (1970: 65) is quoted who attributes the integration of LP /ʒ/ in the Turkish phoneme inventory to the massive influx of French loanwords (Comrie 1997a: 885) such as Turkish jambon ‘bacon’ < French jambon, Turkish jest ‘gesture’ < French geste, etc. Note that LP /ʒ/ has not yet made its entrance into the phoneme inventory of Turkish (Trabzon) (Brendemoen 2002). As to Azerbaijani, Caferoğlu and Doerfer (1959: 282–283) consider /ʒ/ to be restricted to Russian loanwords. For Širaliev and Sevortjan (1971: 24), /ʒ/ is not only attested in Russian loanwords such as Azerbaijani žaket ‘jacket’ < Russian žaket but also in onomatopoeic words and proper names. The voiced postalveolar fricative is said to be infrequent in Crimean Tatar where it alternates with the affricate /ʤ/ (Doerfer 1959c: 377). Kavitskaya (2010: 12–13) also classifies /ʒ/ as marginal phoneme in Crimean Tatar but she adds that it is restricted to recent (unassimilated) loanwords from 20th century Russian (as e.g. Crimean Tatar ʒurnal ‘journal’ < Russian žurnal) and it is typical only of the speech habits of the younger generations. As to Tatar, Comrie (1997b: 901) assumes that /ʒ/ belongs to a set of LPs of Arabic-Persian origin (specifically Per-

262 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

sian) but he concedes that it is also attested in onomatopoeic words. Thomsen (1959: 412) also mentions Persian loanwords to which more recent Russian loanwords such as Tatar žurnal ‘journal’ < Russian žurnal are added as source of Tatar LP /ʒ/. In the case of Karachay-Balkar, Seegmiller (1996: 6, fn. 2) counts /ʒ/ among the LPs of this EDL. For Chuvash, Krueger (1961: 66) and Clark (1998: 434) assume that /ʒ/ occurs exclusively in (mostly) Russian loanwords as in Chuvash žurnal ‘journal’ < Russian žurnal (Krueger 1961: 84). The case of Kumyk is less clear. Benzing (1959b: 395) finds nothing remarkable to report about the presence of /ʒ/. Abdullaeva et al. (2014: 43) argue that /ʒ/ is attested particularly frequently in loans from Arabic and Russian. However, there are also a few autochthonous words whose segmental chain comprises /ʒ/ which is realized as [ʤ] word-initially. It is possible that at least some of these instances of indigenous /ʒ/ result from the tendency of /ʤ/ to be realized as fricative [ʒ] (Doerfer 1959c: 396). It is thus possible that internal sound change and borrowing have conspired to establish /ʒ/ as phoneme in Kumyk. Gagauz is a /ʒ/-borrower although on closer inspection, we realize that this classification is shaky because the status of the palatalized LP /ʒʲ/ (Pokrovskaja 1964) in Gagauz is doubtful (to be addressed in Section 17.2.4.29 below). Karaim (Galits) stands out as it is the only Karaim variety to lack /ʒ/ in contrast to Karaim (Eastern) and Karaim (Trakai) which are /ʒ/-languages. If we understand Pritsak (1959: 329) correctly then the absence of /ʒ/ in Karaim (Galits) can be explained in terms of the “Zetazismus” which is characteristic of this variety which is manifest in the tendency to fronting of affricates and postalveolar fricatives so that original /ʒ/ becomes /z/. This means that Karaim (Galits) has lost an erstwhile voiced postalveolar fricative whereas the other varieties of Karaim have preserved it. What strikes the eye, however, is that all entries with initial /ʒ/ and several others with word-internal/word-final /ʒ/ in Kowalski’s (1929: 150–280) glossary of Karaim (Trakai) are of Slavic – notably Polish – origin such as Karaim (Trakai) žebra ‘rib’ < Polish żebro, Karaim (Trakai) v́eža ‘tower’ < Polish wieża, Karaim (Trakai) až ‘even’ < Polish aż, including the focus clitic -že < Polish że ‘that’ as in Karaim (Trakai) buž ‘then, indeed’ (< bu ‘that’ + -že). Genuine Turkic examples of /ʒ/ are missing from the glossary. On account of these data we suggest that at least provisionally Karaim (Trakai) can be assigned to the class of /ʒ/-borrowers. Whether the same measure can also be taken in the case of Karaim (Eastern) is an open question we cannot answer in this study (although the probability is high). Bashkir constitutes another disputed case. According to our main reference (Juldašev 1981: 42), there are several LPs in Bashkir but /ʒ/ does not show up in the list. Berta (1998a: 283), however, states explicitly that there is LP /ʒ/ in Bashkir (as in the ubiquitous Russian loanword žurnal ‘journal’). This is a strong argu-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 263

ment for counting Bashkir too among the /ʒ/-borrowers. For Kazakh and Noghay, there is no evidence of any relation to borrowing. Summing up the Turkic cases we see that the presence of /ʒ/ does not automatically mean that we are dealing with a LP. Some of the Turkic EDLs seem to have developed (or lost) /ʒ/ in the course of language-internal sound change. However, there is ample evidence of LP /ʒ/ in this language family. Sometimes borrowing from a /ʒ/-language and internal phonological processes go hand in hand as we have had occasion to learn already in the previous section. The 13 Celtic EDLs are almost equally distributed over the two categories of /ʒ/-languages and /ʒ/-less languages. Table 66 additionally shows that LP /ʒ/ seems to be the monopoly of Breton and all of its regional varieties represented in the sample. As we will see the situation in Celtic is generally difficult to assess. Table 66: Celtic /ʒ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʒ/-less languages.

/ʒ/-less [7]

borr [4]

Breton, Breton (Léonais), Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais)

auto [2]

/ʒ/-EDLs [6]

EDLs

Cornish, Irish (Southern)

Irish, Irish (Northern), Manx, Scots Gaelic, Scots Gaelic (Applecross), Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

The evidence for LP /ʒ/ in the Breton diasystem is not entirely robust. All varieties of Breton boast hundreds of French loanwords. In the standard language, examples like Breton jaoj ‘display’ < French jauge, Breton lijer ‘light’ < French léger, Breton pej ‘trap’ < French piège, etc. abound. Jackson (1967: 78) postulates a phoneme inventory for the earliest stages of Breton from which /ʒ/ is absent. It is mentioned, however, as member of a set of five secondary consonant phonemes – all of which associated with the feature [palatal] – which supposedly arose in the earliest phase of the Breton language history. For Breton (Léonais), Jackson (1967: 46) argues that it originates from the integration of French loanwords. In other dialects like Breton (Vannetais), the language-internal process of palatalization is invoked to explain the genesis of /ʒ/ (Jackson 1967: 78). From what the author argues in the remainder of his in-depth study of the historical phonology of Breton it results that French influence has at least been

264 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

supportive for the establishment of phonemic /ʒ/ throughout the diasystem of Breton (Jackson 1967: 779–780). It seems that the process started languageinternally with the rise of allophonic [ʒ] in phonological contexts which favored palatalization. The integration of French loanwords introduced the voiced postalveolar fricative to contexts which do not trigger palatalization. This dissociation from palatalization turned an erstwhile allophone into a phoneme. We thus register the Breton cases as instances of LP /ʒ/ and as phenomena which belong to Maddieson’s Class 3. For (revitalized) Cornish, Brown (2001: 3) registers /ʒ/ among the phonemes without further comments whereas in other cases it is explicitly stated that a given phoneme has LP-status. Thomas (1992: 364) excludes /ʒ/ from the consonant inventory of 18th century Late Cornish. In contrast, Wmffre (1998: 8) postulates the existence of a phoneme /ʒ/ for exactly the same period. The latter two sources focus on the final stages in the life-cycle of Cornish whereas Brown (2001) deals with the revitalized variety of Cornish. According to Ó Cuív (1975: 120), /ʒ/ in Irish (Southern) developed language-internally from /sʲ/. Hannahs (2013: 18) mentions unidentified Welsh dialects which are said to borrow /ʒ/ from English. The loanwords which are supposed to substantiate this claim are dialectal Welsh [ʒam] ‘jam’ and dialectal Welsh [ɪnʒan] ‘engine’. In these cases, the donor language has /ʤ/ in lieu of /ʒ/ so that it remains unclear whether the voiced postalveolar fricative has undergone deaffrication in the replica language after borrowing. If this is the case, we are not facing /ʒ/-borrowing but /ʤ/-borrowing (see Section 17.2.4.4) with subsequent language-internal sound change. Since this question cannot be answered satisfactorily on the basis of our data, we refrain from considering any variety of Welsh to be a /ʒ/-borrower. In none of the other Celtic EDLs do we encounter /ʒ/ although in Manx there is evidence of allophonic [ʒ] in intervocalic position of /j/ and /ʃ/ as Draskau (2008: 226) explains. The evidence for LP /ʒ/ is very poor. Chances are that except Breton (Léonais) none of the supposed /ʒ/-borrowers might survive a more thorough test of the contact-induced origin of its voiced postalveolar fricative. Language-internal developments seem to offer the more convincing scenario. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this study, we consider the Breton varieties to constitute cases of /ʒ/-borrowing. The Indo-Iranian EDLs are mostly /ʒ/-languages. The phoneme is absent from two members of this group, nine attest to it with four of the latter being classified as /ʒ/-borrowers as shown in Table 67.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 265

Table 67: Indo-Iranian /ʒ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ʒ/-less languages.

/ʒ/-less [2]

borr [4]

Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (North Russian), Romani (Sepečides)

auto [5]

/ʒ/-EDLs [9]

EDLs

Kurmanji, Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili) Ossetic, Romani (Burgenland)

For the Indo-Iranian EDLs other than those of the Romani group the data are relatively straightforward. The absence of /ʒ/ from Ossetic as assumed by Abaev (1964) is additionally corroborated by Thordarson’s (1989: 461–462) description of the system of the consonant phonemes of the two major varieties of Ossetic, viz. Iron and Digon. In the description of Kurmanji phonology, Aygen (2007) skips the identification of potential LPs. Blau (1989: 329) assumes that /ʒ/ forms part of the basic consonant inventory of all Kurdish languages. Similarly, in both varieties of Zaza /ʒ/ is counted as an autochthonous phoneme (Selcan 1998: 140; Todd 1985: 6). The situation is more variegated in the Romani group. Matras (2002: 51) qualifies /ʒ/ as marginal in the early period of the Romani language history. It cannot have been brought along from India. It must have emerged after the exodus from India. Individual varieties in the North Central group attest to a shift /z/ > /ʒ/ (Matras 2002: 52), i.e. the voiced postalveolar fricative may arise independently from language contact. The absence of /ʒ/ from Romani (Burgenland) needs to be explained. Halwachs (2002: 6) employs the German trigraph to represent both /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ orthographically. However, in the synoptic overview of the phonological system of Romani (Burgenland) only phonetic brackets are used so that it remains doubtful whether [ʒ] represents /ʒ/ or functions as an allophone of /ʃ/. In an earlier study, Halwachs (1998: 11) shows that the realization [ʒ] is opted for if /ʃ/ occurs in a phonological context with high sonority. Thus, we are facing allophony. In the case of Romani (Bugurdži), Boretzky (1993: 5) puts /ʒ/ in brackets without giving comments. One might guess that the brackets are employed to single out LPs or marginal phonemes but this is nowhere made explicit. However, a cursory glance at Boretzky’s (1993: 133–158) glossary reveals that there are entries which contain lexemes whose segmental chain hosts /ʒ/ almost all of which are either loanwords or onomatopoeic expressions. Typical cases are Romani (Bugurdži) žíca ‘wire’ < Serbian žica, Romani

266 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(Bugurdži) služízava ‘serve’ < Serbian služiti, etc. It is therefore recommendable to classify Romani (Bugurdži) as /ʒ/-borrower. Two thirds of the Romance EDLs in the sample attest to /ʒ/ but only seven of them are /ʒ/-borrowers. This means that 42 % of this branch of Indo-European display autochthonous /ʒ/ whereas a third of the Romance EDLs lacks this phoneme as shown in Table 68. Table 68: Romance /ʒ/-languages vs. Romance /ʒ/-less languages.

borr [7]

Aromanian, Istro Romanian, Italian, Ladino, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian, Romanian (Megleno)

auto [13]

/ʒ/-EDLs [20]

EDLs

Catalan, Corsican, French, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Portuguese, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda)

/ʒ/-less [11]

Asturian, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Occitan (Languedocien), Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese), Spanish

Since Latin, the common ancestor of the Romance EDLs, had no phonemic voiced postalveolar fricative (Touratier 2013: 30), /ʒ/ – wherever it is attested in Romance – is an innovation. For the non-borrowers Catalan, Corsican, French, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Portuguese, all varieties of Romansch, and Sardinian (Limba Sarda) the emergence of the voiced postalveolar fricative can be explained with reference to language-internal phonological processes. By way of example we mention the deaffrication of erstwhile /ʤ/ to /ʒ/ in Old French (Rheinfelder 1976: 164), the fortition of the word-initial approximant /j/ to /ʒ/ in early Portuguese (Mateus and d’Andrade 2000: 14), and the intervocalic lenition of /ʧ/ > /ʤ/ > /ʒ/ in Rhaeto-Romance (Haiman and Benincà 1992: 72–73). Similar processes are attested throughout the Romania time and again. As mentioned already in Section 13.1 in Part A, Krämer (2009: 46) characterizes /ʒ/ in Italian as LP whose domain is restricted to a small number of loanwords from French. In a footnote the same author adds that /ʒ/ is a “popular dialectal substitute[]” for the affricate /ʤ/ (Krämer 2009: 46, fn. 1). This aside is indicative of the possibility that there may be multiple sources for /ʒ/ in Romance.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 267

Spanish serves as example of a Romance EDL which has lost an erstwhile allophone [ʒ]. The voiced postalveolar fricative was widely common in Old Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1974: 355) though only as an intervocalic allophone of the affricate /ʤ/ which later became the voiceless velar fricative /x/ in Spanish (Dietrich and Geckeler 2004: 77). The Old Spanish stage seems to have survived in Ladino where we find e.g. Ladino fižu ‘son, child’ ~ Spanish hijo. The problem has been addressed repeatedly among others by Hetzer (2001: 5) who defends the idea that [ʒ] is a conservative trait of Ladino and probably only a positional allophone of /ʤ/. In stark contrast to this opinion, Bunis (2017: 380) argues that, in the course of the 18th century, /ʤ/ and /ʒ/ split in two distinct phonemes under the influence of Hungarian when Hungarian loanwords allowed for both allophones to occur also in intervocalic position; the minimal pair given is Ladino madjar ‘Hungarian’ < (Turkish macar Romanian ajunge. More generally, the Latin sequence /i/ + /o/ yields /ʒ/ in Romanian as e.g. in Latin iocus ‘joke’ > Romanian joc. Furthermore, there is also the (diachronically late) morphonological alternation /d/ ~ /ʒ/ caused by the derivational suffix -ior as in repede ‘fast, quick’ → repejor ‘accelerator’. Since the exact chronology of the sound changes and of the integration of the Slavic loanwords has not been established satisfactorily, it is still possible that borrowing and internal processes have conspired to give rise to /ʒ/. We therefore continue to classify Romanian /ʒ/ as LP. Kramer (1989: 430) who otherwise registers LPs for Aromanian does not characterize /ʒ/ as LP. Capidan (1932: 319–320) claims that not all Aromanian varieties have /ʒ/ in the first place – and those for which he provides examples behave exactly as Romanian. It seems that these instances of Aromanian /ʒ/ go back to an earlier affricate /ʤ/. For Megleno Romanian (Greece) (Dahmen 1989a), Istro Romanian (Dahmen 1989b), and Romanian (Megleno) (Atanasov 1990) the situation is similar. Our sources identify several

268 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

LP consonants without mentioning /ʒ/ though. We are thus facing a serious problem. There is no reason to treat the various Romanian varieties differently from each other. This means /ʒ/ is either a LP for all of them or for none. The presence of /ʒ/ in Aromanian, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian (Megleno), and Romanian suggests that we are dealing with an old shared feature. This in turn could be understood as support for Dimitrescu et al.’s (1978: 169) hypothesis that /ʤ/ and /ʒ/ were already distinct in Common Romanian, i.e. in the period before the individual varieties took shape. This hypothesis is based on a short note of Vasiliu’s (1965). However, Vasiliu’s (1965: 977–978) claim is as follows: the phonetic differentiation of [ʤ] and [ʒ] was a languageinternal process which predated the separation of Common Romanian into several varieties but the subsequent phonematization of the contrast was caused by the massive influx of Slavic loanwords. This point of view which assumes Slavic impact on the development is also put forward by Petrovici (1956: 36) and Sala (1970: 158–159). The scenario is familiar from previously discussed cases. In a period prior to contact there was allophony already – in this case positional allophony of affricate [ʤ] and fricative [ʒ] – which resulted in the emergence of two distinct phonemes /ʤ/ ≠ /ʒ/ when loanwords began to appear whose segmental chains hosted [ʤ] and [ʒ] in positions from which they were formerly excluded. The relatively archaic Romanian dialect of Maramureş has not participated in the process since it preserves [ʤ] in all positions, i.e. there is no evidence of an allophone [ʒ] (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 171). Thus, if there is evidence of the voiced postalveolar fricative in Maramureş too it should only be found in Slavicisms (imported perhaps via Standard Romanian). Table 68 thus features Aromanian, Istro Romanian, Megleno Romanian, and Romanian (Megleno) as well as Romanian as /ʒ/-borrowers. For the 28 Germanic EDLs phonemic /ʒ/ is exceptional. Only eight have this phoneme. The majority of the Germanic EDLs (= 71 %) lack /ʒ/. All Germanic /ʒ/-languages are /ʒ/-borrowers as shown in Table 69. The cases of Dutch and German are not absolutely identical. As mentioned already in Section 15.2, Wiese (1996: 22) classifies LP /ʒ/ as a marginal member of the phoneme inventory of German. The French origin is uncontroversial. By no means all native speakers of German manage to pronounce words like German Garage ‘garage’ < French garage /gaʀaʒ/ à la française – [gaˈʁaːʃə] being one of the most common phonetic realizations in German. The situation in Dutch is markedly different. In this sister-language of German, /ʒ/ is attested in loanwords from French such as Dutch jury [ʒyːri] ‘jury’ < French jury [ʒyʀi] but at the same time [ʒ] is widely common as product of the palatalization of /z/ before /j/. Booij (2012: 7) argues that all occurrences of the voiced postalveolar fricative

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 269

might be analyzed as combinations of /z/ + /j/. He therefore does not include /ʒ/ in the Dutch phoneme chart. Similarly, Goossens (1974: 93) assumes a palatalized voiced postalveolar allophone [ʒj] of /z/ which is restricted to loanwords. The position of LP /ʒ/ in the Dutch system is thus very doubtful. On the other hand, the Dutch case only repeats what we have seen already many times before, namely the co-occurrence of language-internal processes which bring about positional allophony and facilitate borrowing. For the purpose of this study, we accept the Dutch case as an instance of LP /ʒ/. Table 69: Germanic /ʒ/-borrowers vs. Germanic /ʒ/-less EDLs.

Borrowed

/ʒ/-less EDLs

Dutch, English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney), German, Luxembourgish, Yiddish

Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch (Drente), Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), Faroese, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Frisian Northern (Weesdring), Frisian Western, German (Brig), German (Ladelund Danish), German (urban Kölsch), Icelandic, Low German (East Frisian), Low German (North Saxon), Low German (Westphalian), Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Swedish, Swedish (Österbotten)

8 EDLs

20 EDLs

Four varieties of English are registered as /ʒ/-borrowers in Table 69. None of our main sources makes mention of any LPs in the first place so that our classification seems to be unfounded. According to Minkova (2014: 141), however, “the palatal fricative [ʒ] was a late addition to the consonantal inventory of English. [] Its distribution is limited to loanwords, except across word-boundaries.” One of the sources for the voiced postalveolar fricative is contact with French. As Minkova (2014: 141) argues the modern French phoneme /ʒ/ was still an affricate /ʤ/ in Old French when Middle English borrowed many words from French. Only after deaffrication had altered original /ʤ/ to /ʒ/ in Old French in the course of the 13th century was Middle English exposed to loanwords which contained the voiced postalveolar fricative. Minkova (2014: 141) emphasizes that “[e]xposure to French loans with /ʒ/ was only one of the sources of [ʒ] in English.” Beside French loanwords with original /ʒ/, there is also the (sometimes only optional) palatalization of the voiced alveolar fricative /z/ before /j/ – a process which is also typical of loanwords as in words like occasion, vision, confusion. Minkova (2014: 142) is hesitant to accept that “the balance of the system with respect to obstruent voic-

270 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

ing contrasts is the driving force behind the rise of /ʒ/,” whereas she concedes that the position of /ʒ/ in the English system has been strengthened further by the constant influx of loanwords whose segmental chain involves /ʒ/ not all of which are originally French. According to the maximalist point of view, these statements clearly point in one direction, namely that English /ʒ/ is a LP. We assume that this classification also holds for the regional/nonstandard varieties of English mentioned in Table 69. The remaining two EDLs which are registered as /ʒ/-borrowers in Table 69 are Luxembourgish and Yiddish. In the case of Luxembourgish, we remind the reader of Keller’s (1961: 255) decision not to include “[f]oreign phonemes occurring only in loanwords” in his account of the synchronic phonology of Luxembourgish (see Section 17.2.2.1 (a)). Thus, the presence of /ʒ/ on the chart of consonantal phonemes (Keller 1961: 263) is a clear sign of the autochthonous status of this phoneme. Does this suffice to discount Luxembourgish as a /ʒ/-borrower? No because in Keller’s (1961: 266) short section dedicated to /ʒ/ the author mentions two sources of this Luxembourgish phoneme, namely a) the West Germanic binary sequence -rs- in intervocalic position as in Luxembourgish gehoojhem (with = /ʒ/) ‘obedient’ = German gehorsam, and b) French loanwords like Luxembourgish angajhéieren ‘engage’ < French engager (probably via German engagieren). The integration of French loanwords has altered the formerly restricted distribution of the voiced postalveolar fricative so that it is licit now also in word-initial position as in Luxembourgish gilet ‘waist-coat’ < French gilet (Schanen and Zimmer 2012: 268). We take this as evidence for the LP-character of Luxembourgish /ʒ/. The properly language-internal development according to (a) above most probably was only allophonic. The French loans, however, elevated [ʒ] to the status of a phoneme. The story of /ʒ/ in Yiddish is particularly interesting because our main reference (Jacobs 2005: 108) identifies LP consonants as such but does not count the voiced postalveolar fricative among them. Since the historical basis of Yiddish is Middle High German which lacked this phoneme (Weinhold et al. 1972: 33), /ʒ/ must have a different origin. Owing to the strong Hebrew component in the Yiddish language, one might think of a connection to this Semitic language but neither Biblical Hebrew nor Modern Hebrew support this idea. According to Gzella (2009: 67–68) there was no voiced postalveolar fricative in Biblical Hebrew. For Modern Hebrew, Coffin and Bolozky (2005: 19) claim that /ʒ/ occurs only in “foreign (borrowed) words”. If Yiddish owes the phoneme /ʒ/ neither to Germanic nor to Semitic, two alternatives come to mind. Either /ʒ/ is the result

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 271

of language-internal sound change or it has been borrowed from Slavic. We assume that the latter is indeed the case. Superficially, this hypothesis does not seem to be well argued because none of the additional linguistic studies we have consulted in connection with this problem mentions /ʒ/ although the Slavic impact on Yiddish phonology is discussed (Birnbaum 1974: 35–37; Wexler 1991: 73–79; Eggers 1998: 302–305). Birnbaum (1974: 15 and 36) argues that Yiddish has /r/ in loanwords from Polish where modern Polish has /ʒ/ so that the borrowing must have taken place at a very early stage when the relevant phoneme was still a rhotic in Polish. Belarusian is mentioned as the source of the Yiddish noun źaver ‘grate’ (with = /ʒ/) < Belarusian ržaviec ‘roast’ (Birnbaum 1974: 36). This isolated example of Birnbaum’s leads us directly to the examples which Jacobs (2005: 108–111) provides. He illustrates the phoneme status of /ʒ/ with four different words for all of which it is easy to establish a Slavic origin. We list the four Yiddish words and add Czech and Polish equivalents without claiming that Yiddish has borrowed them from Czech or Polish (any other Slavic language is possible): – Yiddish žabəs ‘frog’/Czech žába ‘frog’ – Yiddish žlob ‘yockel, hick, boor’/Polish żłób ‘manger, trough; boor, hick’ – Yiddish kalúžə ‘puddle’/Czech kaluž(ina) ‘pool, puddle’ – Yiddish až ‘as much as’/Czech až ‘as far as, as much as’ In the absence of any claim as to a possible language-internal process from which /ʒ/ emerged as a phoneme, we take the above data to be sufficient evidence of the Slavic origin of /ʒ/ in Yiddish. Its distribution across the varieties of Yiddish has probably been limited to Eastern Yiddish. Nevertheless, this is another instance of LP /ʒ/. The majority of the Uralic EDLs in our sample are /ʒ/-languages. They outnumber those Uralic EDLs which lack the phoneme by 3-to-1. Among the seventeen Uralic /ʒ/-languages there are four /ʒ/-borrowers as shown in Table 70. According to Bereczki’s (2004: 166) reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic consonant system, there was no voiced postalveolar fricative in the beginning. This means that /ʒ/ is an innovation in all of the Uralic /ʒ/-languages. For Hungarian, Bárczi (2001: 297) states that /ʒ/ is an infrequent phoneme which was used to represent /ʤ/ in early loanwords from Turkish. However, the same author also claims that /ʒ/ in early loanwords from Slavic was usually replaced with Hungarian /ʃ/ and that still today /ʒ/ is mostly attested in loanwords and onomatopoeia (Bárczi 2001: 170).

272 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 70: Uralic /ʒ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʒ/-less languages.

/ʒ/-less [6]

borr [4]

Estonian, Hungarian, Saami (Kildin), Votic

auto [13]

/ʒ/-EDLs [17]

EDLs

Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), KomiZyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Livonian, Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Udmurt, Veps Estonian (Rõngu), Finnish, Karelian (Archangelsk), Nenets (Tundra), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Northern Enontekiö)

For the former, the initial component of Hungarian zsarátnok ‘embers’ could be etymologically connected to Slovak žiar ‘embers’. Sauvageot (1971: 136–137) proves the LP-status of /ʒ/ by way of referring to the Hungarian Slavicism zsír ‘fat’ which corresponds to Russian žir ‘fat’. It is difficult to exactly determine the period in which LP /ʒ/ entered the Hungarian system. Since our sources claim that in the earliest phase of Slavic-Hungarian contacts /ʒ/ still underwent replacement with /ʃ/ whereas it served as replacement for the voiced postalveolar affricate in early Turkish loanwords, we assume that the borrowing of /ʒ/ took place between 1000 and 1400. The case of Votic is relatively clear. Ariste (1968: 9) states that [t]he voiceless palatal sibilant š and its voiced counterpart ž occur only in loanwords taken from either the Russian or the Ingrian language, and in onomatopoetic-descriptive words.85

The borrowing can be illustrated with Votic ženixa ‘bridegroom’ < Russian ženix. Veps – a close relative of Votic – belongs to those Uralic EDLs whose /ʒ/phoneme has emerged from language-internal processes of palatalization of /z/ after /i/ (Laanest 1982: 135). In the case of Livonian, the palatalization effect is triggered by /i/ or /j/ on an immediately preceding /s/ (Laanest 1982: 139). Since the high front vowel and the palatal approximant which caused the palatalization have often disappeared from the segmental chain of the Livonian words which host /ʒ/ we are no longer dealing with allophony. Both Veps and Livonian have borrowed many words which contain a voiced postalveolar fricative either from Russian or from Latvian. We are not in a position to determine the

|| 85 The Ingrian case is addressed in the (b)-part of this section.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 273

exact chronology of the events which resulted in the phonematization of /ʒ/. It seems, however, that /ʒ/ was already phonemic before the borrowings entered the replica languages (Laanest 1982: 120–121) (cf. the discussion in the subsequent (b)-part). This also seems to hold for those Karelian varieties which are registered as /ʒ/-languages. Karelian (Archangelsk) is described as /ʒ/-less (Leskinen 1984: 248). In the case of the members of the Permian branch of Uralic, /ʒ/ is an autochthonous phoneme. This results from Rédei’s (1978: 58–61) description of the phonologies of the different Komi varieties and Winkler’s (2011: 19–20) reference grammar of Udmurt. The Volgaic branch displays autochthonous /ʒ/ too. Both Mordvin (Erzya) and Mordvin (Moksha) are described in this way (Keresztes 1990: 25–26). Alhoniemi (1984: 20) lists /ʒ/ among the autochthonous phonemes of both Mari (Hill) and Mari (Meadow). Among the Saami EDLs featured in our sample, Saami (Kildin) is unique because it boasts phonemic /ʒ/. In Sammallahti’s (1998: 147–150) documentation of this variety it strikes the eye, however, that all words (= particles) which contain /ʒ/ are of Russian origin, namely Saami (Kildin) daažə ‘even’ < Russian daže, Saami (Kildin) žə ‘also’ < Russian že ‘but’, Saami (Kildin) toožə ‘also’ < Russian tože. The textual basis is too small to draw any conclusions especially because our main source (Kert 1971) does not identify the voiced postalveolar fricative as LP. However, Rießler (2007: 232) assumes that loanwords like Saami (Kildin) žoarr ‘heat’ < Russian žara have paved the way for the voiced postalveolar fricative to appear also in word-initial position. We therefore assume that Saami (Kildin) attests to LP /ʒ/ and thus has to be classified as /ʒ/-borrower. The same fate affects Estonian which, superficially, looks like a /ʒ/-less language. This impression is caused by the narrow transcription employed by Hasselblatt (2001: 119) who describes the phoneme under review as [u]rsprünglich stimmhaft wie im deutschen Fremdwort Garage, wird aber halbstimmhaft ausgesprochen: garaaž [karaːŽ]86

with corresponding to /ʒ̊/, i.e. to the desonorized voiced postalveolar fricative. For the time being, we tentatively classify Estonian as /ʒ/-borrower. This is in line with Lavotha (1973: 16) who does not distinguish different degrees of sonority for voiced consonants. He claims that /ʒ/ is restricted to loanwords such as Estonian žanr ‘genre’ < French genre. The phoneme is not stable since it

|| 86 Our translation: “originally voiced like in the German loanword Garage, it is, however, pronounced semi-voiced: garaaž [karaːŽ].”

274 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

may be replaced with LP /ʃ/. Keevallik (2003: 356) shows that there is a tendency in colloquial Estonian to replace all postalveolar fricatives with /s/ as in Estonian loož ‘loge’ = colloquial Estonian loos. Three EDLs remain, namely Basque (Zuberoa), Kalmyk, and Maltese. According to Haase (1993: 33), LP /ʒ/ is only marginally integrated into the Basque phonological system. Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 18) classify /ʒ/ as a phoneme of Basque (Zuberoa). They describe its diachrony at least partly as a language-internal process in the course of which word-initial *j underwent assibilation (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 26–27). Trask (1997: 139) strictly limits the rise of Basque (Zuberoa) /ʒ/ to this language-internal sound change. If we understand the argumentation correctly the Basque sound change affected an approximant *j whose distribution was severely restricted since it could only occur word-initially. French and Gascon loanwords, however, host /ʒ/ also in word-medial and word-final positions as e.g. Basque (Zuberoa) menaʒ(i)a ~ menaia ‘household’ < French ménage (Haase 1993: 32). It is therefore possible that the ultimate phonematization of the voiced postalveolar fricative was brought about by the massive intrusion of Gallo-Romance loanwords. Our main source for Kalmyk (Street 1959: 5–7) presents a phoneme chart without any trace of /ʒ/. Benzing (1985: 72) puts the symbol in brackets without telling the reader what this graphic strategy is intended to signify. It is likely that the brackets are used to identify the item as a dialectal feature since Benzing (1985: 190) claims that [ʒ] alternates with [ʤ] in dialects of Kalmyk. Stadnik (2002: 58) claims that /ʒ/ is attested only in loanwords. This hypothesis is confirmed by Bläsing (2003: 231) who assumes that /ʒ/ is restricted to Russian loanwords. Accordingly, we postulate a LP /ʒ/ for Kalmyk. In the case of Maltese, LP /ʒ/ occurs “in well-integrated loanwords” (Borg 1997b: 248). Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 305) argue that “it is restricted to a few loanwords from English” such as Maltese televixin ‘television’ (with = /ʒ/ – otherwise /ʃ/) < English television, Maltese divixin ‘division’ < English division, Maltese fjuxin ‘fusion’ < English fusion. In addition, [ʒ] optionally functions as allophone of /ʤ/ in autochthonous words (Borg 1997b: 258). It is not surprising that /ʒ/ is on the margins of the phonological system of Maltese. Yet, it is there as a relatively well-established LP. (b) Additions: We cannot expect to find additional evidence in the Slavic EDLs because /ʒ/ is part of the heritage from Common Slavic which has survived in all contemporary members of this branch of Indo-European. It was absent, however, from Polabian where the inherited /ʒ/ underwent Polabian “mazurzenie”, i.e. it experienced depalatalization to /z/ (Polański 1993: 799). As argued by Shevelov (1964: 209–210) Common Slavic *ʒj arose from the palatalization of *z in combination with *j. In the individual Slavic languages,

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 275

depalatalization affected *ʒj to yield /ʒ/. Thus, /ʒ/ is autochthonous everywhere in the Slavia. The presence of this phoneme in Slavic has exerted influence on the phonological systems of certain non-Slavic EDLs which have been in longterm contact with a dominant Slavic EDL. This is the case with several of the Uralic EDLs, most notably Karelian. According to Leskinen (1984: 251), Olonets has borrowed /ʒ/ from Russian. In contrast, the Karelian /ʒ/-languages in Table 70 seem to have developed their voiced postalveolar fricative internally. Virtaranta (1984: 260–261) assumes that Proto-Karelian had only a single sibilant *s. The different Karelian EDLs went separate ways afterwards. For Olonets, Ludian, and Veps, the same author assumes that they experienced parallel phonological processes in conformity to the developments in northern Russian. This must have happened at the turn of the 14th century with the bilingual segment of the Uralic speech community functioning as promoters of the change /z/ > /ʒ/. As to Veps, we refer back to the previous (a)-part where the possibility of a purely language-internal process has been discussed. Virtaranta (1984) skips the issue of loanwords so that it remains doubtful how his hypothesis can be substantiated empirically. On the other hand, Virtaranta’s assumption receives support from Leskinen’s (1984) account of Olonets phonology. Several Saami languages outside our sample are reported to have /ʒ/. This is the case for Saami (Inari) for which Sammallahti (1984: 305) states that younger speakers tend to neutralize the distinction /ʃ/ ≠ /ʒ/ to the detriment of the latter. Korhonen (1984: 320) includes /ʒ/ in the system of autochthonous phonemes of Saami (Ter). How the contact-independent presence of this phoneme in Saami (Inari) and Saami (Ter) and our above interpretation of Saami (Kildin) as a potential case of /ʒ/-borrowing fit together is a problem which cannot be solved in this study. Ingrian has been mentioned in the (a)-part as potential source of loanwords with /ʒ/ in Votic. This hypothesis of Ariste’s presupposes that Ingrian displays a voiced postalveolar fricative, in the first place. According to Saar (2017: 48), there is only the phoneme /s/ in Ingrian whose realization is, however, variable phonetically. She refers to Laanest (1986) who assumes that Russian influence is responsible for the [ʃ]-articulation in certain contexts. Saar (2017: 49) herself mentions the fact that /s/ undergoes morphonologically conditioned voicing to [z]. There is, however, no mention of [ʒ] or /ʒ/. Winkler (1997: 206–209) describes [ʒ] as positional allophone of /s/ in Krevinian. (c) Geography: Rohlfs (1977: 46) touches upon the (purely allophonic) lenition of /ʃ/ in intervocalic position to [ʒ] in the extinct Italo-Greek variety of Cardeto. We mention this case only in order to show that voiced postalveolar

276 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

fricatives may come and go in the course of a language’s history without any external cause for their behavior. It is possible that we have missed a number of cases of /ʒ/ be it LP or autochthonous. This possibility notwithstanding, we are in a good position to present Map XLIX which addresses the distribution of borrowed and autochthonous /ʒ/ in Europe. There are many EDLs which lack the phoneme. They are attested everywhere except in ME. EDLs without /ʒ/ have the monopoly in NW and NC. Autochthonous /ʒ/ is particularly frequent in NE, ME, SE, MC, and SC. Table 71 zooms in on the distribution of /ʒ/-borrowers. Table 71: Distribution of /ʒ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

1

1

M

8

8

4

20

S

1

13

5

19

Total

9

21

10

40

There are two centers of diffusion. In the west, French has played the role of propagator of /ʒ/ so that LP /ʒ/ is relatively common in MW, MC and has an outlier parallel in SW (as well as in SC). In the east, Slavic – and most notably Russian – has contributed the most to the diffusion of LP /ʒ/ into the phonologies of formerly /ʒ/-less EDLs. The Russian success in exporting /ʒ/ across SC, ME and SE closes the gap between the hotbed of /ʒ/ in the Caucasus and the Slavic /ʒ/-languages. The biggest concentration of /ʒ/-borrowers can be found in SC. (d) Further issues: In conformity with the principles used in connection with Table 64, we check whether the borrowing of /ʒ/ serves the purpose of gapfilling in the sense of Maddieson (1986), i.e. Class 1 of Maddieson’s categories. Table 72 provides the absolute numbers for the distribution of the two postalveolar fricatives. The absolute numbers are those which result from our previous count (see (a)-part). What results from Table 72 is that LP /ʒ/ depends largely on the co-presence of its voiceless counterpart. The latter can either be autochthonous or also borrowed. Eisen (2019: 93) speaks again of an inhibiting effect which tends to block the borrowing of postalveolars in the presence of already established postalveolars in the replica language. We do not doubt that there is such a tendency outside the European sphere. However, Phon@Europe’s database strongly suggests that the effect is not operative in the EDLs.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 277

Table 72: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʃ/ and (LP) /ʒ/.

/ʃ/

/ʒ/

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

7

33

0

40

autochthonous

2

106

2

110

4

24

32

60

13

163

34

210

unattested Total

Sum

Table 72 proves that in 83 % of all cases of LP /ʒ/ the phoneme is integrated into a system which already contained /ʃ/ prior to contact. Moreover, if /ʒ/ is borrowed by an EDL without original /ʃ/ the latter is always also borrowed. There is no example of /ʒ/-borrowing in the absence of /ʃ/. This is a strong argument in support of the gap-filling hypothesis. If both postalveolar phonemes have been borrowed or only /ʃ/ in the absence of autochthonous /ʒ/ a new place of articulation for the fricative manner of articulation emerges. This happens much less often than gap-filling. There are a few cases of LP /ʃ/ without co-presence of /ʒ/ as well as equally infrequent cases of autochthonous /ʒ/ without co-presence of the voiceless postalveolar fricative. The majority solution is that of both postalveolar fricatives being phonemic in a given EDL. This scenario comprises 148 EDLs or 70 % of the sample languages. Postalveolar fricatives are absent from 32 EDLs (= 15 %). The voiceless postalveolar fricative is attested as sole representative of this phonological class in 28 EDLs, i.e. 14 times as often as /ʒ/ in the same role. Further light is shed on LP /ʃ/ in Section 17.2.4.11.

17.2.4.3 /x/ The voiceless velar fricative /x/ is one of those phonemes to give the areal linguist a headache. In point of fact, it is by no means always easy to decide which of several phonemes is captured by the descriptions we have consulted. The problems arise especially in connection to /x/, /χ/ (see Section 17.2.4.28), /ħ/ (see Section 17.2.4.24), and /h/ (see Section 17.2.4.12). Their solution has repercussions on earlier approaches to the (post-)velar phonemes as presented in Sections 4.1.4 and 4.2.5. It is necessary therefore to sketch the problem on the basis of a concrete example. A case in point is Hungarian. Tompa (1972: 21) employs the terms laryngeal and fricative (“Spirant”) to characterize the phoneme as /h/ whereas Forgács

278 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(2007: 35) provides a grid in which /h/ occupies the cell of the voiceless velar fricative /x/ only to modify this classification on the subsequent page where it is stated that “[d]as h steht in unserer etwas vereinfachten Tabelle als velarer Konsonant, wird aber eigentlich weiter hinten gebildet als k und g”87 (Forgács 2007: 36). The author concedes that there is a glottal fricative (“Stimmritzen-h”) but adds that in word-final position [x] is the usual realization form. This reeks of positional allophony. Kenesei et al. (1998: 383) register /h/ as glottal fricative but feel impelled to dedicate a full paragraph to the controversy about the proper phonological interpretation of this phoneme that seems to haunt Hungarian phonologists. Siptár and Törkenczy (2000: 277) give preference to an analysis which assumes /x/ as the underlying phoneme. Sauvageot (1971: 135–136) postulates a change from *k > /x/ > /h/ which was completed in the course of the 14th century. It is a draw between the different opinions pro /h/ and contra /x/ and vice versa. To get out of this impasse we resort to stipulating a phoneme /h/ on the basis of our main reference Kenesei et al. (1998). The descriptions of Hungarian /h/ are similarly variable as those for Romanian /x/. To assume /x/ also in the case of Hungarian would perhaps fit better into the context of language-contact with Romanian to be discussed in the (a)-part of this section. In what follows, we have ample opportunity to comment upon the uncertainty as to the correct phonological analysis. Since we are dealing with a recurrent problem that affects many EDLs the problem will be addressed only selectively. Figure 60 is based on the following distribution of the EDLs. There are 72 EDLs which lack /x/. This is equivalent to a share of 34 % of the sample languages. The majority of the sample languages attest to /x/. There are 108 EDLs for which /x/ can be registered as autochthonous phoneme. The remaining 30 EDLs are examples of /x/-borrowers. Their share within the group of /x/-languages is 22 % whereas it is down to 14 % if we take the entire sample into account. In Maddieson’s (1984: 232) database /x/ is attested in 76 languages six of which are classified as borrowers. It is worth noting that our European sample yields five times as many /x/-borrowers than Maddieson’s global sample. Eisen (2019: 40–41) also counts 30 /x/-borrowers – but for the entire world. As to Eurasia, the author mentions sixteen cases which are equivalent to 11 % of the areally defined subsample. The quantities reported within the framework of Phon@Europe clearly indicate that /x/-borrowing is more frequent than the other studies seem to suggest. As argued before, the differences might have to do with properties which set Europe apart from the rest of the world. With the proviso that the above quantities might change when checked against new sources we proceed to the discussion of the instances of LP /x/ in the members of the sample.

|| 87 Our translation: “the h is a velar consonant in our slightly simplified table, however, it is produced further back than k and g.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 279

no /x/; 72; 34%

autochthonous; 108; 52%

LP; 30; 14%

Figure 60: Share of LP /x/ in the sample.

(a) From within the sample: Figure 61 reflects the usual dominance of the Indo-European phylum among the borrowers albeit with a notably smaller share than expected. In contrast, Uralic is vastly overrepresented since this phylum is responsible for 37 % of all /x/-borrowers whereas its general share of borrowers is only 14 % (see Figure 12). Uralic; 11; 37%

Turkic; 2; 7%

Nakh-Daghestanian; 2; 7% Isolate; 1; 3% Indo-European; 13; 43%

Figure 61: Genealogic distribution of /x/-borrowers.

Afro-Asiatic; 1; 3%

280 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

In Table 73 we classify the 23 Uralic EDLs according to the presence or absence of phonemic /x/. There are eleven Uralic EDLs (= 48 %) for which we have not been able to find evidence of /x/. More than half of the Uralic EDLs (= 52 %) attest to /x/. With one exception these /x/-languages are /x/-borrowers. Table 73: Uralic /x/-languages vs. Uralic /x/-less languages.

/x/-less [11]

borr [11]

Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Mari (Hill), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Saami (Kildin), Udmurt, Veps, Votic

auto [1]

/x/-EDLs [12]

EDLs

Nenets (Tundra)

Estonian, Estonian (Rõngu), Finnish, Hungarian, Karelian (Archangelsk), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Livonian, Mari (Meadow), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Northern Enontekiö)

For a start, we go back once more to the reconstructed Proto-Uralic consonant system as presented in Bereczki (2004: 166). There is no voiceless velar fricative /x/ in this system. The existence of the voiced [ɣ] is postulated but it is characterized as word-medial allophone of /k/ (Bereczki 2004: 167). The Uralic EDLs with /x/ must be considered phonological innovators. In point of fact, the borrowing of /x/ from Russian is mentioned for several of the Uralic EDLs. For Votic, Ariste (1968: 8) remarks that “/x/ occurs primarily in Russian loanwords” such as Votic staruxa ‘old woman’ < Russian staruxa. According to the same author, /x/ is attested also word-initially in loanwords from Finnish dialects and Ingrian whereas there is no evidence of /x/ in the native vocabulary of Votic which displays the glottal fricative /h/ instead. Votic’s sister-language Veps attests to /x/ exclusively in loanwords such as Veps Proxor [proper name] < Russian Proxor (Zajceva 1981: 29). Rjagoev (1977: 30) describes Karelian (Tichvin) /x/ as LP which comes along with loanwords such as Karelian (Tichvin) oxotńikat ‘hunters’ < Russian oxotniki. For Karelian (Valdai), Palmeos (1962: 15) reports that /x/ is attested only in Russian loanwords (where /x/ often replaces original /k/) as in Karelian (Valdai) xli̮paija ‘sob’ < Russian xlipaja. For Komi-Zyrian, Rédei (1978: 58) states that /x/ is connected to (recent) Russian loanwords whereas in the past it tended to be replaced with /k/ as in Komi-Zyrian xalat ~ kalat ‘cloak’ < Russian xalat ‘dressing gown’. Saxarova et al. (1976: 10) argue that, in Komi-Zyrian (Pečora) the use of /x/ is

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 281

restricted to loanwords from Russian and even in these cases /x/ tends to be replaced with /k/ as in Komi-Zyrian (Pečora) sakar ‘sugar’ < Russian saxar. For Mari (Hill), the existence of LP /x/ is assumed by Alhoniemi (1993: 20). An example is Mari (Hill) xot’ ‘although’ < Russian xot’ (Alhoniemi 1993: 206). Rédei (1984: 209) classifies /x/ as a LP in Mordvin (Erzya) where it can be found in Russian loanwords such as Mordvin (Erzya) xutor ‘hamlet’ < Russian xutor. Much the same can be said as to /x/ in Mordvin (Moksha) as loanwords like Mordvin (Moksha) pux ‘down (feather)’ < Russian pux suggest. Feoktistov (1984: 203) adds that /x/ is also attested in a small number of inherited onomatopoeic words. Udmurt attests to LP /x/ only in recent loans from Russian (Winkler 2011: 19). For Saami (Kildin), Rießler (2007: 232) remarks that “the occurrence of the voiceless velar fricative in word-initial position is restricted to loanwords” as in Saami (Kildin) xozʲenʲ ‘host’ < Russian xozjain. As in the previous cases from Saami (Kildin) we take this to mean that a former word-medial allophone [x] has been raised to the status of phoneme via language contact. For the Baltic EDLs, the scenarios resemble those described in connection to LP /f/. The division of the five Baltic EDLs in two groups – /x/-borrowers vs /x/less languages – yields exactly the same constellation as in the case of /f/. Table 74 is practically a perfect copy of Table 59. Table 74: Borrowers of /x/ vs. /x/-less language in Baltic.

Borrowed

/x/-less language

Latgalian, Latvian, Latvian (Skrunda), Lithuanian

Lithuanian (Dieveniškės)

4 EDLs

1 EDL

With reference to Latvian, Endzelīns (1951: 24) claims that /x/ is attested in loanwords only. Muižniece (2002: 61) describes the chronological steps in the phonematization process which /x/ was subject to. She states that before contact with speakers of Germanic languages (Middle Low German, Swedish, German) there was no /x/ in Latvian. Early loanwords show that /x/ and /h/ were treated alike with a tendency of /x/ to be replaced with /k/. Even today, [h], [ç], and [x] are allophones with [ç] occurring in the immediate vicinity of a front vowel. As to [h] and [x], there seems to be a preference for them to occur in combination with an adjacent back or low vowel although this preference is less pronounced for [h]. Latvian LP /x/ thus conflates foreign /x/ and /h/. On account of Pīrāga’s (2006: 24) claim that the phonologies of Latvian (Skrunda) and Standard Latvian are identical, it can be assumed that the phoneme /x/ that

282 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

shows up in the dialect’s system has the same background as its counterpart in the standard. The author observes that elderly speakers still replace LP /x/ with /k/. The attestation of /x/ in Latgalian is restricted to recent loans from Russian and the Latvian standard language. Nau (2011: 12) emphasizes that LP /x/ is still unstable since it is frequently replaced with /k/ as in Latgalian kokejs ‘hockey’ < Latvian hokejs (with = [x]). Eckert et al. (1994: 91) count /x/ among the peripheral consonants of Lithuanian because it is usually attested only in loanwords. Vaitkevičiūtė (1965: 66) argues that colloquially LP /x/ tends to be replaced with /k/. LP /x/ has two allophones, namely [x] in contact with back vowels and [xʲ] in contact with front vowels. A typical example is Lithuanian psichika ‘psyche’. Vaitkevičiūtė (1965: 82–83) discusses the phonetic differences between the realizations of /x/ and /ɣ/ (see Section 17.2.4.13) in Lithuanian – both of them being LPs. In contrast, Sudnik (1975) provides a phonological account of Lithuanian (Dieveniškės) in which LP /x/ is not mentioned but LP /ɣ/ is mentioned. This regional variety clearly reflects the older stage of Lithuanian phonology. Thus, LP /x/ is largely a phenomenon of the standards of the two major representatives of Baltic. Within their diasystems there is regional and social variation as to the status of LP /x/. It seems that its exact phonological properties are still not entirely established. The oscillation of the realization of LP /x/ between [h] ~ [x] ~ [ç] is paralleled by some of the easterly members of the Romance branch of IndoEuropean. As Table 75 shows the bulk of the Romance EDLs does not have /x/. Table 75: Romance /x/-languages vs. Romance /x/-less languages.

/x/-less [23]

borr [7]

Aromanian, Catalan, Istro Romanian, Ladino, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian, Romanian (Megleno)

auto [1]

/x/-EDLs [8]

EDLs

Spanish

Asturian, Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), French, Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Italian, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Portuguese, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese)

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 283

The /x/-less languages cover 74 % of the Romance component of the sample. The remaining eight EDLs are subdivided in two categories. Spanish is the only Romance EDL which displays autochthonous /x/ as opposed to seven Romance EDLs which give evidence of /x/-borrowing. The latter pose a serious problem. The bona fide /x/-language does not require much discussion. Spanish /x/ results from a merger of the formerly distinct postalveolar fricatives /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ of Old Spanish (Dietrich and Geckeler 2004: 169). The regular sound change is an entirely internal process which took place between the 14th and 16th century (most probably only very late). It is tempting to adopt this interpretation also for Ladino. However, Sala (1971: 196) rebuts this idea because [l]e phonème /χ/ n’a pas la même origine en judéo-espagnol et en espagnol littéraire. Dans le premier, /χ/ est emprunté (il se trouve presque exclusivement dans des mots empruntés []); dans le second, il est le résultat d’un phénomène interne.88

First of all, Sala’s symbol /χ/ does not represent the voiceless uvular fricative but the phoneme is described as “fricative vélaire sourde” [voiceless velar fricative], i.e. the IPA symbol /x/ is the appropriate choice. Secondly, Sala (1971: 146) argues that the expulsion of the Jewish population from Spain happened prior to the emergence of Spanish /x/. The author claims that Ladino /x/ never corresponds to Spanish /x/ in cognate words. In words of Spanish origin, Ladino /x/ is attested only word-initially before the diphthong /ue/ where modern Spanish has either /f/ or Ø. The possibility that in these cases Ladino reflects the intermediate stage of the process /f/ > /h/ > Ø is acknowledged. In this position Ladino /x/ freely alternates with /f/ as in Ladino fṷérti ~ xṷerti ‘strong’ < Spanish fuerte (Sala 1971: 133). In other positions, the voiceless velar fricative of Ladino is admitted only in loanwords from Arabic, Hebrew, Turkish, and Romanian such as Ladino xamál ‘porter’ < Romanian hamal < Turkish hamal (Sala 1971: 146). This example is indicative of a more general problem to be discussed in the subsequent paragraph in connection with Romanian and its varieties. In Table 75, five of the seven /x/-borrowers belong to the Daco-Romance group, meaning: they are all closely related to Romanian. The description of the phoneme under scrutiny that is given for Romanian in Beyrer et al. (1987: 30 and 32) is confusing. In the phoneme grid it is registered as voiceless glottal fricative and represented by /h/. At the same time, the same analysis is applied

|| 88 Our translation: “the phoneme /χ/ does not have the same origin in Ladino and literary Spanish. In the former /χ/ is borrowed (it is found almost exclusively in loanwords []); in the latter, it is the result of an internal phenomenon.”

284 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

– for comparative reasons – to the voiceless velar fricative /x/ of German. The two phonemes are depicted as being the same phonologically although two different symbols are made use of. The articulatory phonetics of the Romanian phoneme is characteristic of /x/ and not of /h/ because the positional allophones are [x] (in contact with back vowels) and [ç] (in contact with front vowels). In contrast, Iordan and Robu (1978: 83) describe the same phoneme as voiceless uvular fricative – again represented as /h/ (in lieu of IPA /χ/). The third terminological solution is given in Dimitrescu et al. (1978: 166) where the authors speak of a voiceless laryngeal fricative for which the symbol /h/ is used. Since the postvelar space is underpopulated in the Romanian phonological system a wide range of articulatory variation can be expected for the phoneme we are interested in. The chances are evens that we are dealing with /h/, /x/, or /χ/. The choice of symbol depends on one’s phonological creed, in a manner of speaking. We opt for /x/ on account of the phonetic description provided by Beyrer et al. (1987: 32) and apply the same treatment also to the other four close relatives of Romanian mentioned as /x/-borrowers in Table 75. Petrovici (1957: 41) and Sala (1970: 159) concur as to the Slavic origin of /x/ – in their transcription rendered as /h/ – in Romanian. A typical example is Romanian hrana ‘food’ = Croatian hrana (with = /x/). Dimitrescu et al. (1978: 167–168) additionally mention the possibility of a common substratum of Albanian and Romanian which might have bequeathed its putative *h to both of its successor languages. The position of LP /x/ in Romanian has been strengthened by loanwords from Hungarian (Romanian hator ‘border’ (with = /x/) < Hungarian határ (with = /h/)) and Turkish – both of which attest to /h/ in lieu of /x/ though and therefore are /x/-less EDLs. On the other hand, one might want to consider the equation Hungarian/Turkish /h/ = Romanian /x/ as a piece of evidence for reinterpreting the phoneme of the donor languages as voiceless velar fricative, too. More importantly, the borrowing of /x/ chronologically belongs to the period of Common Romanian (Sala 1970: 159; Dimitrescu et al. 1978: 168). All attestations of /x/ in Daco-Romance varieties other than Romanian are therefore explicable analogously. Dahmen (1989a: 422–423) gives an account of the controversy about the existence of /x/ in Megleno Romanian (and by proxy also Romanian (Megleno)). Megleno Romanian is unique among the Daco-Romanian varieties because it has lost the /x/ inherited from Common Romanian. In Romanian dialectology, the continued absence of /x/ is assumed (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 272) but

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 285

recent loanwords from Greek and Macedonian89 have re-established /x/ as a phoneme in Megleno Romanian. Note that Dahmen (1989a: 423) represents /x/ with the symbol which occupies the slot of the velar fricative in the phoneme chart. Atanasov (1990: 161) claims that [d]ans tous les parlers mégléno-roumain, le phonème /h/ se réalise du point de vue phonétique comme une consonne fricative vélaire sourde.90

This quote strongly supports our decision to consider the phoneme under review to be /x/. In the case of Istro Romanian, Dahmen (1989b: 456) assumes the general equivalence of the consonant system with that of Romanian although he quotes Petrovici (1967: 272) on the massive impact of the surrounding Slavic varieties on Istro Romanian phonology. The Aromanian case is similar. Kramer (1989: 439) mentions several LP consonants of Greek origin which have been integrated fully into the Aromanian system but /x/ is not mentioned among them. This absence can be explained insofar as /x/ belongs to the Aromanian heritage from Common Romanian whereas the LPs adopted from Greek are more recent loans typical of Aromanian. Outside the domain of Balkan Romance, there is only one EDL which gives evidence of /x/-borrowing. Hualde (1992: 378) argues that loanwords from Spanish whose segmental chain hosts /x/ are usually integrated into Catalan without phonological adaptations affecting the velar fricative (as in Catalan ojalá ‘I wish’ < Spanish ojalá). An older layer of Hispanisms in Catalan shows the replacement of /x/ with /k/ as in Catalan maco ‘nice’ < Spanish majo. In the Romance EDLs of our sample we notice a geographic division as to the presence/absence of /x/. The phoneme is attested only in some Ibero-Romance EDLs and all Romance EDLs situated in the Balkans (including Ladino). Their Romance relatives occupying the territory between the Iberian Peninsula and the Balkans do not have a phonemic voiceless velar fricative (which is also lacking from Ibero-Romance EDLs such as Portuguese and Asturian). The Turkic EDLs pose similar problems as to /x/ and its potential reinterpretation as a different phoneme. In Johanson and Csató’s (1998: xviii–xix) presentation of the conventions used to represent the phonemes of Turkic EDLs there

|| 89 In Macedonian /x/ has been recessive since the 16th century so that it has disappeared completely from some of the dialects (Koneski 1983: 80–85). According to Sawicka (1997: 34– 36), /x/-loss is typical for many languages in the Balkans. 90 Our translation: “in all Megleno-Romanian varieties, the phoneme /h/ is realized phonetically as a voiceless velar fricative consonant.”

286 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

is a common column for the velar, uvular, and glottal places of articulation so that each of the symbols ɣ, χ, and h may have three different interpretations. In the sketches of different Turkic EDLs in this edited volume, the practice varies accordingly. Some authors employ χ to represent the voiceless velar fricative /x/ (e.g. Kazakh, Kirchner 1998: 320 and Chuvash, Clark 1998: 435) whereas others use the same symbol for the voiceless uvular fricative /χ/ (e.g. Noghay, Csató and Karakoç 1998: 334) which is sometimes represented with h (e.g. Azerbaijani, Schönig 1998a: 249) – a symbol which represents /h/ in other Turkic EDLs (e.g. Turkish). In yet other Turkic EDLs the phonological coordinates of χ are not disclosed at all (e.g. Bashkir and Tatar, Berta 1998a: 283). Not only in these cases is it required to consult further descriptive-linguistic sources. For three of the Turkic EDLs of our sample, the absence of autochthonous /x/ could be confirmed, namely – Azerbaijani: Širaliev and Sevortjan (1971) register the voiceless uvular fricative /χ/; – Tatar: Comrie (1997b) in agreement with Thomsen (1959: 412) characterizes /χ/ as LP; – Turkish: Göksel and Kerslake (2005) only mention the glottal fricative /h/. In the case of Noghay, Menges (1959: 446–447) is undecided whether the fricative he represents with χ but characterizes as velar is a simple (“einfacher”) velar /x/ or pronounced further back (“tiefvelar”), i.e. a uvular /χ/. Since this source does not provide the solution for the problem, we have decided to accept Csató and Karakoç’s (1998) interpretation of the phoneme as voiceless uvular fricative /χ/ so that Noghay is a /x/-less EDL. As Table 76 shows, there are only four /x/-less Turkic EDLs. They cover 27 % of the Turkic component of the sample. The remaining 73 % go to /x/-languages of which only two attest to LP /x/ whereas nine give evidence of autochthonous /x/. With 13 % of the Turkic EDLs, /x/-borrowers constitute a relatively small minority group. Before we discuss the individual Turkic /x/-EDLs featured in Table 76 we go back in time once more to determine the common grounds from which the diachronic developments started. For Old Turkish, Gabain (1959a: 26) states that /x/ belongs to the class of phonemes which show up only in loanwords (although she mentions three words of Turkic origin which also involve /x/). Similarly, the Codex Cumanicus gives only sporadically evidence of /x/. As it seems, it is attested mostly in word-initial position of loanwords but occasionally also in Turkic words (Gabain 1959b: 55). According to Erdal (1998: 139–140), there was no phonemic /x/ in Old Turkish. The occasionally attested voiceless uvular

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 287

fricative [χ] is analyzed as an allophone of the voiceless uvular plosive /q/. Wherever there is /x/ in a contemporary Turkic EDLs it must be an innovation. Table 76: Turkic /x/-languages vs. Turkic /x/-less languages.

/x/-less [4]

borr [2]

Gagauz, Kazakh

auto [9]

/x/-EDLs [11]

EDLs

Bashkir, Chuvash, Crimean Tatar, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai), Kumyk, Turkish (Trabzon) Azerbaijani, Noghay, Tatar, Turkish

Confirmation of the status of autochthonous /x/-language is available for: Bashkir (Juldašev 1981), Chuvash (Krueger 1961)91, Crimean Tatar (Kavitskaya 2010), Karachay-Balkar (Seegmiller 1996), Eastern Karaim (Musaev 1997), Galits Karaim (Musaev 1997), Trakai Karaim (Musaev 1997), Kumyk (Abdullaeva et al. 2014), and Trabzon Turkish (Brendemoen 2002). In these Turkic EDLs, the voiceless velar fricative is the result of regular sound changes as e.g. *q > /x/. There are, however, two /x/-borrowers for which language-internal phonological processes cannot be invoked to explain the presence of /x/. As to Gagauz /x/, Doerfer (1959a: 266–267) makes no clear statement whereas Pokrovskaja (1964: 57) claims that /x/ is mainly attested in loanwords such as Gagauz mexanik ‘mechanic’ < Russian mexanik. On the other hand, the voiceless velar fricative is also attested in words of different origin some of them with a Turkish etymology such as Gagauz xoroz ‘cock’ < Turkish horoz. Moreover, there is a tendency of /x/ to alternate with /f/. In the case of Kazakh, Muhamedowa (2016: 278) states that /x/ occurs mainly in Russian and Arabic loanwords. However, it is possible to realize /x/ as voiceless uvular plosive [q]. Moreover, [x] also functions as positional allophone of /k/ (before /a/ or voiceless s(h)ibilants). The number of /x/-borrowers among the Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs is as small as that of Turkic /x/-borrowers. With only two EDLs with LP /x/, this group represents only one eighth of all /x/-languages in Table 77. The /x/-less languages account for 10 % of all Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs in our sample. Note

|| 91 Benzing (1959b: 708) employs the symbol which occupies the cell of the velar/palatal “Hauchlaut” in his phoneme chart. The phonetic description given is that of a voiceless velar fricative /x/ with a positional allophone [ç] before front vowels.

288 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

that ten Nakh-Daghestanian languages attest to a phonemic geminate voiceless velar fricative. Table 77: Nakh-Daghestanian /x/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /x/-less languages.

/x/-less [3]

borr [2]

Hunzib, Khwarshi

auto [24]

/x/-EDLs [26]

EDLs

Aghul, Akhvakh, Andi, Avar, Bagvalal, Botlikh, Budukh, Chamalal, Chechen, Dargwa (Icari), Godoberi, Ingush, Karata, Khinalug, Kryts, Kryts (Alyk), Lak, Lezgian, Rutul, Tabasaran, Tindi, Tsakhur, TsovaTush, Udi (Nidž) Archi, Bezhta (Tlyadal), Hinukh

In contrast to the EDLs discussed previously in this (a)-part, the phonological uncertainties are minimized because the (post-)velar space is generally densely populated in Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs so that besides the 26 /x/-languages there are 23 which (also) display the voiceless uvular fricative /χ/ whereas 28 EDLs (also) boast the glottal fricative /h/. Therefore, it is safe to assume that if the descriptive grammars classify a phoneme as /x/ this classification is reliable. Given this reliability, it suffices to look at the two /x/-borrowers. For Hunzib, van den Berg (1995: 20) argues that /x/ is only found in loanwords where it is admitted in all positions be it word-initially, word-medially, or wordfinally. The loanwords which host /x/ are taken from the Nakh-Daghestanian donor language Avar such as e.g. Hunzib wex̂a ‘shepherd’ < Avar wex̂ (van den Berg 1995: 339). Avar is also the donor language for Khwarshi LP /x/. Khalilova (2009: 15) states that /x/ exclusively occurs in loanwords from Avar such as Khwarshi x̌ul ‘intention’. The author mentions that many recent loanwords are taken from Russian but the integration of Russian words which contain /x/ in the donor language is not discussed. Note that both of the Nakh-Daghestanian replica languages boast a rich inventory of phonemic post-velar fricatives. Four EDLs represent individual cases within their genetic group: Albanian (Salamis), Romani (Burgenland), Basque (Lekeitio), and Aramaic (Hertevin). Since the /x/-borrowers are isolated instances we refrain from discussing their relatives which do not attest to /x/-borrowing. Standard Albanian lacks /x/ (Buchholz and Fiedler 1987: 37). This phoneme is found, however, in Albanian (Salamis) where it is exclusively attested in loanwords from Greek such as Alba-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 289

nian (Salamis) xorə ‘land’ < Greek xora (Haebler 1965: 40). According to the same author, there is the allophone [x] of /h/ in word-final position of Albanian words such as Albanian (Salamis) ʃoh ~ ʃox ‘I see’. As to /x/ in Romani, Matras (2002: 51) claims that it emerged already in Proto-Romani in the course of the fricativization of inherited /kh/ so that /x/ belongs to the common heritage of modern Romani varieties. Foreign influence can only be detected in the different places of articulation of the fricative. In socalled conservative varieties the supposed original uvular place of articulation has been preserved so that the correct representation is /χ/ whereas “the shift to a velar /x/ is contact-induced” (Matras 2002: 51). Romani (Burgenland) is probably an exception or represents a third type of Romani EDLs as it seems to have lost an erstwhile /x/ (or /χ/) only to re-introduce it via language contact. Halwachs (2002: 6) identifies /x/ as one of the LPs which are restricted to loanwords from German and its regional varieties such as Romani (Burgenland) b̥lejxo ‘tin’ < German Blech (Halwachs 1998: 11). In Aramaic (Hertevin) inherited /x/ has merged with /ħ/. However, there is a new /x/ which is present in the borrowed vocabulary of Arabic and Kurdish (as well as Turkish) origin (Jastrow 1988: 6). The final EDL to be discussed is Basque (Lekeitio). Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 27–28) give a detailed account of the development of Proto-Basque *j in the varieties of Basque. The authors comment upon the main processes as follows: [I]n Gipuzkoa and neighboring High Navarrese and Bizkaian areas, an original wordinitial glide *j- has had the same development as in Spanish: [j] > [ʒ] > [ʃ] > [x]. The process was completed in all of Gipuzkoa, where, for instance, original [jan] ‘eat’ [] is now universally pronounced [xan]. [] North of the French-Spanish border, [x] does not occur at all and we find neither [x] nor [ʃ] as a development of *j-. In Lapurdi we find [jan] and in Zuberoan [ʒan].

Some dialects keep /ʃ/, /ʒ/, or renovate /j/. What is important for our topic is the fact that /x/ has also been borrowed with Spanish loanwords although in some /x/-less varieties the Spanish voiceless velar fricative was replaced with /k/. The authors conclude that they “can affirm that nowadays /x/ occurs as a phoneme in all peninsular dialects, at least in the borrowed vocabulary” (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 27). Trask (1997: 156) mentions that the phoneme under scrutiny oscillates between velar [x] and uvular [χ] in pronunciation. He also seems skeptical as to the contact-induced parallel development of the palatal approximant in Spanish and Basque. At least for the westerly Basque variety of Lekeitio Spanish influence can be judged to be decisive. Hualde et al. (1994: 16) argue that there are only a handful of words which involve /x/ without being loans from Spanish. In contrast it is found in a considerable number of recent

290 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Spanish loanwords. In the older layer of loanwords, Spanish /x/ is replaced with /k/. If two options exist younger native speakers tend to select the one that hosts the voiceless velar fricative. (b) Additions: The genesis of /x/ is not necessarily the result of language contact. Languages can undergo phonological changes internally from which a phonemic voiceless velar fricative arises. A frequently encountered scenario is allophony. A voiceless velar plosive /k/ is subject to lenition in intervocalic position for instance, so that a positional allophone [x] comes into existence. This is the case with the famous gorgia toscana which is manifest in the fricativization of the voiceless plosives /p/, /t/, /k/ to [ɸ], [θ], [h] (Loporcaro 2013: 118), respectively. The process /k/ > [h] / V __ V most probably involved an intermediate stage *[x]. The traditional attempts to connect this phenomenon to an Etruscan substratum can be discounted since the first attestations of the gorgia toscana date back only to the 15th century (Loporcaro 2013: 37–38). Similarly, in external sandhi, fricativization is common across the varieties of Sardinian. This automatic subphonemic process also affects /k/. Loporcaro (2013: 169) registers the allophonic fricative as [χ], i.e. he assumes a uvular place of articulation. Further bona fide cases of LP /x/ on the other hand are delivered by the usual suspects, in a manner of speaking. Leskinen (1984: 251) shows for Karelian (Olonets) that /x/ exclusively occurs in Russian loanwords. Curonian has two layers of German loanwords. In the older one, German /x/ is regularly replaced with /k/. The most recent German loanwords, however, preserve their original /x/ in the replica languages (El Mogharbel 1993: 37–38). The evidence for Old Prussian borrowing /x/ from German and/or Slavic is spurious. Endzelin (1944: 58) mentions that there are loanwords in which original /x/ has been replaced with Old Prussian /k/ alongside other loanwords for which it can be assumed that the voiceless velar fricative has been preserved. Since the exact composition of the Old Prussian consonant system has not yet been established satisfactorily this potential case of a LP /x/ has to be taken with a grain of salt. Beyond these unsurprising cases, we also find evidence of /x/-borrowing in the British Isles. In English regional varieties which are co-territorial with Celtic EDLs, LP /x/ is occasionally attested. According to Stuart-Smith (2008: 63), /x/ is well-established and stable in standard Scottish English whereas there seems to be a tendency among urban speakers to substitute /k/ for /x/. Aitken (1984: 101– 102) assumes that /x/ will survive as an identity marker. Harris (1984: 131) claims that /x/ is frequent in rural varieties of Ulster Scots – both in English words and those with an Irish etymology. The voiceless velar fricative is a phonological archaism going back to Old English /x/ which was lost in most of the English varieties during the Middle English period as described in Minkova (2014: 114). It is remarkable that (except Cornish English) inherited /x/ has been preserved especially in those varieties of English which have been in contact with Celtic EDLs all

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 291

of which are /x/-languages. We hypothesize that the co-presence of /x/ in the Celtic contact partners has been a supporting factor for the preservation of inherited /x/. In this sense, we are not dealing with proper LP /x/. For Welsh English, Penhallurick (2008: 118) states that /x/ is exclusively employed in loanwords from Welsh like Welsh English crochon ‘bread-basket’ < Welsh crochon. Thomas (1984: 186) claims that LP /x/ in Welsh English is not admitted in word-initial position. This restriction comes as no surprise because in Welsh /x/ is possible word-initially (except chi ‘you (PL)’) only if followed by /w/ as in chwech ‘six’ or under aspirate mutation as in ei char ‘her car’ (car ‘car’). Thus, it is possible to classify the Welsh English case as LP /x/. The situation is similar in the case of Manx English. Barry (1984: 174) found /x/ only in a single English word (= trough) but in several loanwords from Manx such as Manx English mucklagh ‘pigsty’ < Manx mucklagh (with = /x/). (c) Geography: The examples from the British Isles contribute to the differentiation of the geographical picture of /x/-borrowing. As we have seen in the (a)-part and (b)-part of this section, LP /x/ is particularly widespread in the European east. However, Celtic influence on English makes itself felt in this domain, too. Map L situates the /x/-borrowers we have mentioned in the (a)part relative to the EDLs with autochthonous /x/ and the /x/-less EDLs. The latter outnumber the other two categories in NC, SW and MW and are numerically strong also in SC. Autochthonous /x/ shows hotbeds in MW (= Celtic), MC, and SE. It is interesting to see that in defiance of what we showed in the (b)-part MW does not host any /x/-borrower whereas there are several /x/-borrowers in NE where autochthonous /x/ is underrepresented. Map L should be compared to Maps VI and XIII in Part A. The differences that come to the fore are attributable to the general problem of adequately telling the (post-)velar fricatives apart on the basis of the extant sources. The topic of Table 78 is the distribution of /x/borrowers over nonants. Table 78: Distribution of /x/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

3

3

M

0

6

8

14

S

2

8

3

13

Total

2

14

14

30

292 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The borrowing of /x/ is scarce in the west and in the north. In contrast, SC and ME together account for more than half of all cases of LP /x/. MC still hosts twice as many /x/-borrowers than SE and NE. (d) Further issues: In analogy to the previous sections on individual LP consonants, we look at the parallel behavior of the voiceless and the voiced velar fricative (see Section 17.2.4.13) in the sample. The quantities are revealed in Table 79. Table 79: Co-occurrence of (LP) /x/ and (LP) /ɣ/.

Sum

/x/

/ɣ/

Total

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

5

2

1

8

autochthonous

2

47

2

51

unattested

23

59

69

151

30

108

72

210

Parallel borrowing of both /x/ and /ɣ/ is relatively infrequent but involves more than half of all instances of LP /ɣ/. LP /ɣ/ in general is not as important as LP /x/ quantitatively the latter being borrowed almost four times as often as the former. Moreover, the bulk of the instances of LP /x/ are attested in the absence of the corresponding voiced velar fricative. The co-occurrence of the two velar fricatives is reported for 56 EDLs whereas /x/ without /ɣ/ is attested in 82 EDLs. Only three EDLs give evidence of the presence of /ɣ/ in the absence of /x/. Thus, gap-filling is not a convincing argument for motivating the borrowing of /x/ in the first place. The absolute values in Table 79 speak in favor of the creation of a new place of articulation for fricatives by way of borrowing /x/. It is possible that the presence or absence of /ɣ/ is largely irrelevant when it comes to borrowing /x/. Other factors might be more important. We come back to this issue when we discuss LP /h/ in Section 17.2.4.12. In this particular case, Maddieson’s Class 5 is the best choice.

17.2.4.4 /ʤ/ The first LP which does not belong to the class of fricatives is the voiced postalveolar affricate /ʤ/. This affricate is attested in 120 EDLs, i.e. in 57 % of the sample languages. It is absent from 90 EDLs. As can be seen from Figure 62, the /ʤ/-borrowers hold a share of 14 % within the sample which increases to

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 293

24 % if we take account only of the /ʤ/-languages. There are 29 EDLs which attest to LP /ʤ/ as opposed to 91 EDLs with autochthonous /ʤ/.

LP; 29; 14% autochthonous; 91; 43%

no /ʤ/; 90; 43%

Figure 62: Share of LP /ʤ/ in the sample.

The voiced postalveolar affricate is reported for 80 members of Maddieson’s (1984: 224) sample. Only three of these languages count as /ʤ/-borrowers. This means that only 4 % of Maddieson’s /ʤ/-languages attest to LP /ʤ/. According to Eisen (2019: 40) /ʤ/ is the third most frequently borrowed phoneme worldwide. He has found 75 /ʤ/-borrowers which represent 14 % of his global sample. In Eurasia, LP /ʤ/ comes in fourth position with 17 /ʤ/-borrowers which cover about 11 % of the Eurasian subsample. The absolute numbers and the shares differ considerably between Maddieson, Eisen, and Phon@Europe. However, Eisen’s results and ours corroborate each other insofar as they characterize the borrowing of the voiced postalveolar affricate as a relatively frequent process. As the discussion in the (a)-part will reveal several language families and several of their branches are involved in /ʤ/-borrowing. (a) From within the sample: Figure 63 gives evidence of the dominant position of the Indo-European phylum in the domain of /ʤ/-borrowing. With 79 % of all /ʤ/-borrowers the Indo-European phylum is vastly overrepresented whereas the other three phyla in Figure 63 display percentages which are lower than those for phoneme borrowing in general. On account of the prominence of Indo-European in Figure 63 we start with a review of those branches of the phylum which are involved in /ʤ/-borrowing.

294 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Uralic; 3; 10%

Indo-European; 23; 79%

Afro-Asiatic; 2; 7% Nakh-Daghestanian; 1; 4%

Figure 63: Genealogic distribution of /ʤ/-borrowers.

The Germanic branch of Indo-European is represented by 28 EDLs in the sample. These 28 EDLs reflect a bipartition in half a dozen /ʤ/-borrowers (= 21 %) and 22 Germanic EDLs without /ʤ/ (= 79 %). Table 80 indicates which EDL belongs to which of the two groups. Underlining marks a potential /ʤ/-language among the non-borrowers. Table 80: Germanic /ʤ/-borrowers vs. Germanic /ʤ/-less languages.

Borrowed

/ʤ/-less

Dutch, English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), German, Yiddish

Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch (Drente), Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), English (Cockney), Faroese, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Frisian Northern (Weesdring), Frisian Western, German (Brig), German (Ladelund Danish), German (urban Kölsch), Icelandic, Low German (East Frisian), Low German (North Saxon), Low German (Westphalian), Luxembourgish, Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Swedish, Swedish (Österbotten)

6 EDLs

22 EDLs

Moulton (1972) argues that except Old High German none of the Germanic EDLs displayed any affricates in their earliest documented period. Thus, there is no reason to postulate *ʤ for the reconstructed Proto-Germanic phoneme invento-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 295

ry. Accordingly, Germanic EDLs whose phoneme inventory contains /ʤ/ nowadays must be considered innovators. Faroese is described as a language with “quite extensive palatalization” (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 46) which inter alia affects plosives before front vowels. In this position the plosives undergo affrication as e.g. /g/ → [ʤ] / __ Vfront. The authors of the Faroese reference grammar are not sure whether the palatalization rule is still productive as recent loanwords seem to be exempt from it. It remains unclear therefore whether we are dealing with phonemic postalveolar affricates or positional allophones of the corresponding plosives. On the one hand, Thráinsson et al. (2004: 56–57) include /ʤ/ in the table of phonemes they assume for Faroese only to relativize this decision by claiming that the inventory might shrink considerably under revision – a remark made in connection with the postalveolar affricates and the postalveolar fricative. They are considered phonemes by Thráinsson et al. (2004: 57) because “it is not entirely straightforward to derive these by a synchronic rule.” There is no need for us to decide this issue once and for all since Faroese is the only member of the Germanic group which is equipped with a potential autochthonous /ʤ/. In point of fact, it is even doubtful that classifying it as properly autochthonous is correct in the first place because the phonematization of the postalveolar affricates hinges on the analysis of loanword phonology. If loanwords block the application of the palatalization rule so that affrication is no longer an allophonic automatism, then it could be argued that the rise of /ʤ/ is indirectly contact-induced. On the other hand, /ʤ/ is no LP as it has not been borrowed from any partner in contact of Faroese. Note that the voiced postalveolar affricate is always marked diacritically as desonorized, i.e. as [ʤ̊] or /ʤ̊/ (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 44). This is also how the phoneme is registered in our database. Since there is no other EDL with an autochthonous voiced postalveolar affricate in Table 80, the remaining six Germanic /ʤ/languages must be /ʤ/-borrowers. For Dutch and German, the situation is relatively clear. In the phoneme systems of these Germanic EDLs, LP /ʤ/ is a very marginal member. Booij (2012: 7, fn. 7) quotes Collins and Mees (1981) on the possibility to consider the postalveolar affricates as “non-native consonants of Dutch.” For LP /ʤ/ the Anglicism Dutch jeep [ʤip] < English jeep is mentioned. Booij (2012: 7, fn. 7) favors the competing analysis of the affricates as sequences of consonants. However, it remains unclear how many consonants form part of this sequence – three (= /d/ + /z/ + /j/) or two (= /ʣ/ + /j/ ~ /d/ + /zʲ/)? Booij’s own proposal for a phoneme chart of contemporary Dutch includes no affricates at all so that there is no place for /ʣ/ either. In the case of German, Wiese (1996: 10–15) weighs the pros and cons of including /ʤ/ in the phoneme inventory. There are examples like German job < English job whose initial segment contrasts with

296 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

other consonants and thus forms minimal pairs (in this case with another Anglicism, viz. German Mob < English mob). Especially for affricates in word-initial position it is difficult to apply a biphonemic analysis as sequence /d/ + /ʒ/ because this would have serious repercussions on the description of German phonotactics and syllable structure. The English case is different. First of all, the integration of LP /ʤ/ is a recent and still on-going development in German and Dutch for which English is the donor language. Secondly, several centuries ago, English borrowed the voiced postalveolar affricate from a language which lost /ʤ/ shortly afterwards on account of deaffrication to /ʒ/ (see Section 17.2.4.2a). We are alluding to Old and Middle French. Minkova (2014: 86) shows that phonetically [ʤ] developed word-medially already during the Old English period via gemination, palatalization and subsequent affrication. However, [ʤ] remained an allophone of /g/ until Romance loanwords with initial /ʤ/ established themselves in the Old English lexicon (Minkova 2014: 84). These loanwords came from Old French and Anglo-Norman. Their integration into the replica language must have happened early on in the history of French-English contacts because it predates the deaffrication of /ʤ/ in Old French which took place in the 13th century (Rheinfelder 1976: 164). We assume that the contact-induced origin of /ʤ/ also holds for English (Bolton Area) and English (Cannock) whereas English (Cockney) gives no evidence of affricates at all. The interpretation of Yiddish /ʤ/ poses problems because none of our sources identifies the voiced postalveolar affricate as LP whereas other phonemes of Yiddish are labeled as borrowed elements in the same sources. Since Middle High German of which Yiddish is an offspring had no postalveolar affricates in the first place (Weinhold et al. 1972: 33), Yiddish /ʤ/ cannot be attributed to the Germanic heritage of this EDL. It cannot be attributed to Hebrew either since Biblical Hebrew knew no postalveolar affricates (Gzella 2009: 67–68). Coffin and Bolozky (2005: 18) register phonemic /ʤ/ for Modern Hebrew without commenting on its origins. Schwarzwald (2001: 7) explicitly states that /ʤ/ occurs only in loanwords. We therefore assume that the existence of /ʤ/ in Yiddish cannot be explained by way of referring to Hebrew. Jacobs (2005: 111– 113) dedicates a section to the class of affricates in Yiddish. He reports that there is disagreement among the scholars as to the proper way of handling the affricates. From his argumentation it becomes clear that /ʤ/ is relatively infrequent. Its origin is not addressed. It also remains unclear whether it has arisen in language-internal sound change. The little empirical evidence there is of the existence of Yiddish /ʤ/ suggests that Slavic influence was decisive. Jacobs (2005: 112) presents only three words whose segmental chain contains /ʤ/, namely

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 297

Yiddish džobən ‘peck’, Yiddish lodžər ‘of/from the city of Lodzh’, and Yiddish lodž ‘Lodzh’. The three examples can be associated with Polish. There is the Polish noun dziób [ʥup] ‘beak, bill’ from which the verb dziobać ‘peck’ is derived. Łódź [wuʨ] is the name of a Polish city. On this admittedly very small empirical basis we assume that Yiddish /ʤ/ is a LP. Table 81 features the members of the Slavic branch of Indo-European (as represented in the sample). The group counts 29 EDLs 34 % of which are /ʤ/less. The vast majority of the Slavic EDLs consists of /ʤ/-languages. Among these the /ʤ/-borrowers claim a share of 37%. Table 81: Slavic /ʤ/-languages vs. Slavic /ʤ/-less languages.

borr [7]

Bulgarian, Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Slavomolisano, Slovene, Slovene (Resia)

auto [12]

/ʤ/-EDLs [19]

EDLs

Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Bosnian, Croatian, Kashubian, Polish, Polish (Lazduny), Serbian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper), Ukrainian (North Hutsul)

/ʤ/-less [10]

Croatian (Burgenland), Czech, Czech (Moravian-Slovak), Russian, Russian (Meščera), Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Sorbian (Lower), Sorbian (Lower, Vetschau), Sorbian (Upper)

The prehistory of the affricates in Slavic is intricate. For early Proto-Slavic, Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 26) postulate a system without any affricates whereas in late Proto-Slavic alveolar and postalveolar affricates form part of the system but without a fully developed distinction in the domain of phonation (Sussex and Cubberley 2006: 137). Shevelov (1964: 590) argues that in Slavic languages which did not introduce a voicing contrast for the postalveolar affricates there were tendencies to abolish this phonological class completely. Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 139) mention that deaffrication affected /ʤ/ in a number of Slavic EDLs so that this branch of Indo-European is characterized by a relatively high degree of heterogeneity in connection with the voiced postalveolar affricate. Twelve Slavic EDLs give evidence of autochthonous /ʤ/. Ten Slavic EDLs do not attest /ʤ/ in their phoneme inventories. The /ʤ/-borrowers constitute the third and smallest group. For Bulgarian, Hazai and Kappler (1999: 661) assume that /ʤ/ was phonematized from an erstwhile allophone – a process for which the influx of Turkish

298 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

loanwords is made responsible. The authors refer to cases like Bulgarian džam ‘glas’ < Turkish cam. This interpretation also embraces Macedonian for which Karanfilovski (1999: 243) states that /ʤ/ is attested predominantly in loanwords (most of which from Turkish) such as Macedonian džam ‘glas’ < Turkish cam. We assume that the LP-status can also be given to /ʤ/ in Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad) and Macedonian (Kostur-Korča) although our sources do not touch upon the issue of phoneme borrowing. As to Slavomolisano, Breu and Piccoli (2000: 385) notice that /ʤ/ exclusively occurs in loanwords such as Slavomolisano ʤes ‘chalk’ < Italian gesso (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 36). In the case of Slovene, Priestly (1993: 394) remarks that “/dž/ occurs in words of nonSlovene origin; it is not given phonemic status by some analysts.” Slovene (Resia) is spoken on the Italian side of the border. There is no autochthonous /ʤ/ but it is said to occur “in loans of Romance origin only” (Steenwijk 1992: 21) such as Slovene (Resia) ǯṳ́k ‘game’ < Italian gioco (Steenwijk 1992: 337). As shown in Table 82, the majority of the Celtic EDLs are /ʤ/-less. Only 23 % of the Celtic EDLs are /ʤ/languages. Table 82: Celtic /ʤ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʤ/-less languages.

borr [2]

Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

auto [1]

/ʤ/-EDLs [3]

EDLs

Cornish

/ʤ/-less [10]

Breton, Breton (Léonais), Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Irish, Irish (Northern), Irish (Southern), Manx, Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic (Applecross)

The classification of Cornish is problematic because the sources are in disagreement with each other. Wmffre (1998) describes Late Cornish as /ʤ/-less whereas revitalized Cornish boasts a phonemic voiced postalveolar affricate (Brown 2001: 3). The phoneme occurs in loans from English such as Cornish juj ‘judge’ < English judge (Nance 1978: 257) but has already been attested in Middle Cornish in Celtic words (Lewis 1990: 7). It is probable therefore that /ʤ/ has developed independently in Cornish. This is not the case in the two regional varieties of Welsh. Hannahs (2013: 15) reports on the traditional point of view as to the affricates in Welsh which are usually not “considered to be part of the consonant inventory of

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 299

Welsh.” Phonetically, there can be no doubt that [ʤ] exists as allophone of /d/ before /i/ as in Welsh diawl [ʤaʊl] ‘devil’ with palatalization of the initial voiced plosive and subsequent absorption of /i/. English loanwords have contributed to the phonematization of [ʤ] since it is admissible in contexts from which the trigger of palatalization is absent. In native Welsh words, [ʤ] is restricted to the initial and medial position whereas it may also occur word-finally in loanwords such as Welsh gaj < English gauge (Hannahs 2013: 16). The affricate is attested both in Welsh (Northern) and Welsh (Southern) (Hannahs 2013: 21–22) so that we register it as LP for each of the two varieties. The Romance branch of Indo-European participates with 31 EDLs in the sample. Table 83 shows that there is a majority of 18 /ʤ/-languages as opposed to 13 /ʤ/-less EDLs. In the past, several Romance EDLs (such as French, Portuguese, Spanish, etc.) have lost the entire class of postalveolar affricates via regular sound change. Five EDLs can be shown to acquire /ʤ/ in languagecontact situations. Table 83: Romance /ʤ/-languages vs. Romance /ʤ/-less languages.

borr [5]

Aromanian, Ladino, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian (Megleno), Sardinian (Nuorese)

auto [13]

/ʤ/-EDLs [18]

EDLs

Asturian, Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), Friulian (Udine), Istriot, Italian, Ladin, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Languedocien), Romanian, Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese)

/ʤ/-less [13]

Catalan, French, Galician, Istro Romanian, Italian (Genovese), Occitan (Gascon), Portuguese, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Spanish

Our sources on Istro Romanian provide different accounts of this variety’s phoneme system. Our primary source Dahmen (1989b) makes no mention of /ʤ/ whereas Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975: 194) lists the voiced postalveolar affricate as phoneme of Istro Romanian without commenting further upon it. This controversial issue has no further bearing on the topic of our case study; we classify Istro Romanian as a /ʤ/-less EDL. What is important instead is what Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975) has to say about Aromanian and Megleno Romanian (Greece). Kramer (1989) treats /ʤ/ as autochthonous phoneme of Aromanian. In a separate chapter dedicated to the emergence of affricates in Romanian, Sala (1970: 83–84)

300 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

addresses the situation in Aromanian and Megleno Romanian assuming that both varieties reflect an advanced stage of development in the domain of affricates whereas Romanian proper is characterized as preserving an archaic stage. According to Sala’s description the voiced postalveolar affricate in Aromanian and Megleno Romanian has arisen via regular sound change Latin /j/ + Vback > Aromanian [ʤ] as in Latin jocus ‘joke’ > Aromanian ĝocu (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 231). Loanwords from other Balkanic languages – but especially from Turkish such as Aromanian ĝebi ‘bag’ < Turkish cep – have allowed [ʤ] to occupy positions from which it was banned in words of Latin origin. We assume that the integration of these loanwords was decisive for the phonematization of Aromanian /ʤ/ and thus register this as LP. In the case of Megleno Romanian, Dahmen (1989a) does not associate the voiced postalveolar affricate with borrowing. On the other hand, Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975: 274) argues that in an earlier period Megleno Romanian displayed [ʤ] like Aromanian, i.e. as positionally restricted fortition of word-initial Latin /j/ before back vowels. However, the affricate was subject to deaffrication to yield a voiced postalveolar fricative (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 272). The contemporary /ʤ/ in Megleno Romanian owes its existence entirely to recent borrowings from other languages such as Megleno Romanian pinĝerca ‘window’ < Turkish pencere (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 274). By analogy, we extend this interpretation also to /ʤ/ in Romanian (Megleno). Jones (1988: 318–319) claims that the postalveolar affricates are autochthonous in Sardinian (Campidanese) whereas they are restricted to loanwords in Sardinian (Nuorese) and Sardinian (Logudorese). For the latter (which is not included in our sample) Blasco Ferrer (1986: 38–39) assumes that /ʤ/ in loanwords from Italian is replaced with /ʣ/ in Sardinian (Logudorese). Ladino is again an intriguing case. Old Spanish boasted /ʤ/ as regular result of sound changes from Vulgar Latin, this voiced postalveolar affricate changed to the voiceless velar fricative /x/ subsequently (Dietrich and Geckeler 2004: 77–78). Ladino has not participated in this later development because of the forced separation from Castilian Spanish. Sala (1971: 126) takes stock of Ladino words which contain /ʤ/ and concludes that only word-initially and after the alveolar nasal /n/ the affricate reflects the Old Spanish state of affairs. In addition, there are numerous loanwords in Ladino which host /ʤ/ word-initially and wordmedially also without preceding nasal as e.g. in Ladino arpaǧik ‘stye’ < Turkish arpacık. Sala (1971: 126) concludes that “[l]es mots espagnols avec ǧ représentent un état linguistique archaïque []. Les emprunts ont consolidé la position de ǧ.”92 We take this quote to mean that Ladino /ʤ/ became fully phonemic only

|| 92 Our translation: “the Spanish words with ğ represent an archaic linguistic stage []. The loans have consolidated the position of ğ.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 301

on account of the borrowings – and this is reason enough for us to classify the Ladino case as an instance of LP /ʤ/. The 23 Uralic EDLs of the sample distribute over the three classes as follows. Eight Uralic EDLs (= 35 %) do not have /ʤ/. Among the fifteen Uralic /ʤ/languages only three give evidence of LP /ʤ/. This is shown in Table 84. Table 84: Uralic /ʤ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʤ/-less languages.

/ʤ/-less [8]

auto [12] borr [3]

/ʤ/-EDLs [15]

EDLs Estonian, Hungarian, Livonian

Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Kildin), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Udmurt, Veps, Votic Estonian (Rõngu), Finnish, Karelian (Archangelsk), Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Nenets (Tundra)

All Uralic /ʤ/-languages are innovators because Proto-Uralic is reconstructed without a voiced counterpart to the voiceless postalveolar affricate /ʧ/ (Bereczki 2004: 166). For the Finnic branch of the Uralic language family, Laanest (1982: 86) assumes that /ʤ/ belongs to those phonemes which are either totally absent from a given EDL or restricted to loanwords and onomatopoeic words. However, the same author claims that this phoneme is attested in some of the Finnic EDLs (Laanest 1982: 89). In the case of Livonian, he restricts the domain of /ʤ/ to the word-initial position of recent loans from Latvian (not mentioned in Moseley 2002). For Veps and Votic, Laanest (1982: 89) assumes that /ʤ/ is extremely infrequent or a dialectal trait. According to Zajceva (1981: 29), Veps tolerates [ʤ] exclusively in combination with a preceding alveolar nasal. This restriction notwithstanding, Zajceva (1981: 35) considers the voiced postalveolar affricate to have phonemic status. For Estonian, Lavotha (1973: 16) interprets the affricates as binary sequences but adds that the combination /d/ + /ʒ/ is realized only in loanwords such as Estonian džungel ‘jungle’ < German Dschungel. We do not subscribe to Lavotha’s phonological re-interpretation of the affricates as biphonemic clusters (because of the bearing this analysis would have on the system of Estonian phonotactics). However, we accept his illustration of the phenomenon as proof of the LP-status of /ʤ/ in Estonian. As to Hungarian /ʤ/, Bárczi (2001: 297) states that it has entered the Hungarian system together with loanwords from Turkish such as Hungarian findzsa ‘bowl’ < Turkish fincan

302 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

‘cup’. In the earlier phase of Turkish-Hungarian language contacts, Turkish /ʤ/ used to be replaced with /ʒ/ as in Hungarian zseb ‘bag’ < Turkish cep. Bárczi (2001: 297) emphasizes that /ʤ/ is infrequent in Hungarian and strictly limited to loanwords. He adds (Bárczi 2001: 297, fn. 83) that even in the case of the most recent loans from English Hungarian native speakers often resort to /ʒ/ as replacement for /ʤ/ as in Hungarian dzsem ~ zsem ‘jam’ < English jam. Four of the five Afro-Asiatic EDLs in the sample are /ʤ/-languages. Two of them give evidence of /ʤ/-borrowing as shown in Table 85. Table 85: Afro-Asiatic /ʤ/-languages vs. Afro-Asiatic /ʤ/-less languages.

/ʤ/-less [1]

borr [2]

Aramaic (Cudi), Aramaic (Hertevin)

auto [2]

/ʤ/-EDLs [4]

EDLs

Arabic (Çukurova), Maltese

Arabic (Cypriot)

As to the situation in Aramaic (Cudi), Sinha (2000: 51) remarks that [d]ie beiden Affrikaten [= /ʤ/ and /ʧ/] sind unter dem Einfluß von Lehnwörtern aus den Kontaktsprachen Türkisch und Kurdisch sowie dem Arabischen zu einem festen Bestandteil des Lautsystems [] geworden.93

Jastrow (1988: 8) argues analogously for the voiced postalveolar affricate in Aramaic (Hertevin) whose existence in this variety of Aramaic is attributed to contact with Kurdish, Turkish, and Arabic with the proviso that there is also evidence of the originally geminated palatalized voiced denti-alveolar plosive undergoing affrication to /ʤ/. In the Nakh-Daghestanian phylum, we find 16 /ʤ/-languages among which Lezgian is the sole borrower (Table 86). Those members of this phylum which lack /ʤ/ form a group of thirteen.

|| 93 Our translation: “under the influence of loanwords from the contact languages Turkish and Kurdish as well as Arabic the two affricates have become an integrated part of the phonological system.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 303

Table 86: Nakh-Daghestanian /ʤ/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /ʤ/-less languages.

auto [15] borr [1]

/ʤ/-EDLs [16]

EDLs

/ʤ/-less [13]

Lezgian

Aghul, Akhvakh, Andi, Budukh, Chamalal, Chechen, Ingush, Khinalug, Kryts, Kryts (Alyk), Rutul, Tabasaran, Tsakhur, Tsova-Tush, Udi (Nidž) Archi, Avar, Bagvalal, Bezhta (Tlyadal), Botlikh, Dargwa (Icari), Godoberi, Hinukh, Hunzib, Karata, Khwarshi, Lak, Tindi

Haspelmath (1993: 33) discusses the consonant inventory of Lezgian. In contrast to the standard, dialects are said to display among a wide variety of other additional phonemes also /ʤ/ (which is a possible realization of /ʒ/ in the standard). The author remarks that “/ʤ/ is quite frequent as it occurs in numerous Arabic and Turkic loanwords.” The remaining cases of EDLs with LP /ʤ/ are three varieties of Albanian. All varieties of Albanian are /ʤ/-languages. Haebler (1965: 38) characterizes /ʤ/ in Albanian (Salamis) as a segment that occurs only in loanwords from regional varieties of Greek94 (the loanwords ultimately being of Turkish origin) such as Albanian (Salamis) ʤaba ‘for free’ < Turkish caba. According to Hazai and Kappler (1999: 661), the voiced postalveolar affricate has experienced phonematization via the integration of Turkish loanwords into Albanian generally. Boretzky (1975: 88) argues that [v]or dem Eindringen der Turzismen gab es im Alb[anischen] /ʤ/ nicht oder es kam in ganz begrenztem Umfang in Lehnwörtern aus dem Ital[ienischen] und dem Slav[ischen] vor. Trotzdem wurde es im Alb[anischen] nicht durch einen anderen Laut substituiert, sondern in einer großen Anzahl von Lehnwörtern übernommen. Der Grund dafür ist darin zu suchen, daß es im alb[anischen] phonologischen System eine Lücke füllte und alle dis-

|| 94 Based on Newton’s (1972) pioneering work, Sawicka (1997: 44–45) enumerates several regional varieties of Greek which attest to affrication of velar plosives in front of /j/. The affrication seems to be a strictly language-internal process. At least, the author does not mention contact influence for this phenomenon.

304 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

tinktiven Merkmale dieses bislang fehlenden Phonems in anderer Verteilung bereits vorhanden waren.95

This line of argumentation fits perfectly Maddieson’s (1986) concept of gapfilling. An example of a Turkish loanword in standard Albanian is Albanian axhamí ‘new recruit’ < Turksih acemi. On the basis of the above findings in Albanian and Albanian (Salamis) we assume that /ʤ/ also has LP-status in Albanian (Mandrica). (b) Additions: There is evidence of LP /ʤ/ from outside the sample. Joseph (2019: 320–321) addresses the phonological impact of Turkish on the (extinct) Greek variety of Adrianoupolis. He claims that Turkish /ʤ/ remains unaltered in loanwords in this dialect whereas in the Greek standard the same loanwords would give evidence of depalatalization. The moribund Germanic EDL Cymbrian in northern Italy attests to borrowed /ʤ/. According to Tyroller (2003: 66), there is superficially a kind of allophonic relationship between [ʤ] and [ʧ] insofar as the former occurs only in word-initial position and intervocalically provided the preceding vowel has the feature [long]. In contrast, the distribution of the voiceless postalveolar affricate is not subject to restrictions. However, the author opts for postulating two distinct phonemes /ʤ/ and /ʧ/ on account of the fact that “beide überwiegend mit Lehnwörtern aus dem Italienischen ins Zimbrische gelangt sind” [both have entered Cymbrian predominantly via loanwords from Italian]. There are minimal pairs like Cymbrian cesso (= /ʧ/) ‘toilet’ < Italian cesso ≠ Cymbrian gesso (= /ʤ/) ‘chalk’ < Italian gesso. Other Germanic varieties in northern Italy like Mòcheno (Rowley 2003) do not seem to borrow the voiced postalveolar affricate from Italian or other Romance partners in contact. (c) Geography: Map LI tells us that the voiced postalveolar affricate is absent from the majority of the EDLs in NW, MW, SW, NC, MC, and ME. EDLs with autochthonous /ʤ/ are especially strong in SE but there are also clusters in SC and MC. The distribution of LP /ʤ/ is remarkable insofar as it is not entirely restricted to the C and E nonants. Map LI shows that there is also a hotbed of /ʤ/-borrowing in the MW nonant. This is corroborated by Table 87 which registers /ʤ/-borrowers for MW, MC, SC, and ME with SC hosting more than half of all cases. The phenomenon is absent from all N-nonants, ME, and SW.

|| 95 Our translation: “before the entrance of Turkicisms there was no /ʤ/ in Albanian or it occurred to a very limited extent in loanwords from Italian and Slavic. Nevertheless, it was not replaced with another sound in Albanian, but it was transferred in a great number of loanwords. The reason for this has to be sought in the fact that it filled a gap in the Albanian phonological system and all of the distinctive features of this hitherto absent phoneme were already present albeit in different distribution.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 305

Table 87: Distribution of /ʤ/-borrowers over the nonants.

N

W

C

E

Sum

0

0

0

0

M

5

6

0

11

S

0

15

3

18

Total

5

21

3

29

(d) Further issues: In Table 88, we look at the co-occurrence of the two postalveolar affricates in the sample. Both affricates together are attested in 56 % of the sample, i.e. 118 EDLs display the opposition /ʧ/ ≠ /ʤ/. The absence of the class of postalveolar affricates is reported for 45 EDLs which is a share of 21 %. Table 88: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʧ/ and (LP) /ʤ/.

/ʧ/

/ʤ/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

9

19

1

29

autochthonous

5

85

1

91

unattested

4

41

45

90

18

145

47

210

The parallel borrowing of /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ is moderately frequent. The voiced postalveolar affricate is borrowed overwhelmingly into systems in which the voiceless counterpart is already established. This scenario covers 66 % of all cases of /ʤ/-borrowing. Further 31 % of cases of /ʤ/-borrowing go to the credit of parallel borrowing. The borrowing of /ʤ/ in the absence of /ʧ/ (be it borrowed or autochthonous) is attested only once (= 3 % of all cases of LP /ʤ/). The voiceless postalveolar affricate is less often subject to borrowing. In 14 out of 18 cases of /ʧ/-borrowing /ʤ/ is also involved – either as autochthonous phoneme or as LP. Moreover, /ʧ/ represents the class of postalveolar affricates alone in 45 EDLs, meaning it is twenty-two times as often the sole representative of this class as /ʤ/ assumes this status. These facts speak clearly in favor of gap-filling (Maddieson’s Class 1) in the case of /ʤ/-borrowing. In connection to the borrowing of affricates, Eisen (2019: 92–93) observes an inhibiting effect although it is too weak to justify the formulation of a universal.

306 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

According to this inhibiting effect, the existence of affricates in the system of a given language renders it difficult for this language to borrow further affricates. The data presented in Table 88 do not support the assumed inhibiting effect because of 47 cases of borrowed postalveolar affricates 24 happen in the presence of an already established autochthonous affricate of this class with further nine cases in which both postalveolar affricates are borrowed (and thus create a new place or manner of articulation). This means that in 33 cases or 70 % of the 47 instances of LP postalveolar affricates the other postalveolar affricate is also involved be it as LP or as autochthonous phoneme. This is the inverse of what results from the analysis of Eisens’s global sample. We take this difference to mean that the areal phonology of Europe cannot adequately be accounted for by way of subsuming it under the patterns found outside of Europe.

17.2.4.5 /ʦ/ The next phoneme outside the domain of fricatives which is of interest for our study is the voiceless alveolar affricate. The phoneme /ʦ/ is attested in 148 EDLs and thus covers more than two thirds of the sample. It is absent from 30 % of the sample languages. The number of EDLs with autochthonous /ʦ/ is 125 as opposed to 23 EDLs which attest to LP /ʦ/. This means that 16 % of all /ʦ/languages have borrowed this affricate. Figure 64 reveals that /ʦ/-borrowing is a relatively minor option.

no /ʦ/; 62; 30%

autochthonous; 125; 59% LP; 23; 11%

Figure 64: Share of LP /ʦ/ in the sample.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 307

Maddieson (1984: 221–222) distinguishes the “voiceless dental/alveolar sibilant fricative” from the “voiceless alveolar sibilant fricative” which together yield a turnout of 85 languages (= 27 % of his sample) four of which attest to LP /ʦ/ (= 5 % of Maddieson’s /ʦ/-languages). Eisen (2019: 40–41) identifies 21 /ʦ/borrowers which account for 4 % of his global sample. Sixteen of these borrowers belong to the Eurasian subsample where they are responsible for 11 % of the Eurasian languages. We conclude that the voiceless alveolar affricate is areally more important for borrowing than it is globally. Our own results characterize Europe as phonologically special in the sense that its properties are in danger of being glossed over if European and Asian languages are lumped together in one category. The previous section has shown that various factors may put obstacles in the way of the analyst when it comes to deciding whether a given phoneme is there or not and, if its existence can be established, whether it is an autochthonous element or the result of borrowing. These difficulties characterize also the story we are going to tell about LP /ʦ/. (a) From within the sample: Figure 65 features only four phyla. IndoEuropean and Afro-Asiatic are outstripped by Turkic and Uralic. The latter two are involved in /ʦ/-borrowing by far more often than we would predict on the basis of their general participation in phoneme borrowing. Uralic; 8; 35%

Indo-European; 4; 17% Turkic; 10; 44% Afro-Asiatic; 1; 4%

Figure 65: Genealogic distribution of /ʦ/-borrowers.

The Turkic EDLs of the sample are divided into a majority of eleven /ʦ/languages as opposed to only four /ʦ/-less cases. Among the Turkic EDLs which

308 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

attest to /ʦ/ the /ʦ/-borrowers predominate with a share of 91 %. Table 89 reveals which Turkic EDLs belong to which category. Table 89: Turkic /ʦ/-languages vs. Turkic /ʦ/-less languages.

/ʦ/-less [4]

borr [10]

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Chuvash, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, KarachayBalkar, Kazakh, Kumyk, Noghay, Tatar

auto [1]

/ʦ/-EDLs [11]

EDLs

Karaim (Galits)

Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Trakai), Turkish, Turkish (Trabzon)

The numerous /ʦ/-borrowers and the absence of /ʦ/ from 27 % of the Turkic EDLs in Table 89 render it most probable that the phonemic voiceless alveolar affricate is an innovation in Turkic. This assumption is corroborated ex posteriori by the absence of /ʦ/ from Old Turkic and the Codex Cumanicus (Gabain 1959a–b; Erdal 1998: 139–140). Except Karaim (Galits), the Turkic /ʦ/-languages have acquired the phoneme under review via language contact. On the surface, the ternary distinction of /ʦ/-less EDLs vs borrowers and non-borrowers seems to be a straightforward matter. The two /ʦ/-less Turkic EDLs Turkish and Turkish (Trabzon) support this idea because our main sources Göksel and Kerslake (2005) and Brendemoen (2002) who mention several other LPs keep silent as to the existence of a phonemic voiceless alveolar affricate so that we assume that there is no /ʦ/ be it autochthonous or borrowed. However, in practice, the allocation of a given EDL in one of the three classes might turn out to pose serious problems. This is what happens when we try to find the proper place for Azerbaijani, for instance. In the post-Soviet standard, there is no mention of the voiceless alveolar affricate (Schönig 1998a: 248–249). Širaliev and Sevortjan (1971: 20) claim that /ʦ/ forms part of the phonological system of certain regional varieties of Azerbaijani. The third opinion comes to the fore in Caferoğlu and Doerfer (1959: 283–283) who mark /ʦ/ as one of those elements which occur only in Russian loanwords. Since no example is provided the claim is hard to substantiate. What we are facing here is change over time in the sense that in the late 1950ies Russian loanwords were more prominently featured in the lexicon of Azerbaijani to be lost or even banned from the standard after independence of Azerbaijan (when the Cyrillic script was replaced by the Latin-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 309

based alphabet). To solve this problem, there are several options. We could discount the older sources and only go by the information offered in the most recent description. Alternatively, we could distinguish two different varieties of Azerbaijani, namely Azerbaijani (Soviet) and Azerbaijani (post-Soviet). We have opted for the third possibility which respects our maximalist principle according to which the tiniest piece of evidence suffices to speak of a LP. This is why Azerbaijani is a /ʦ/-borrower in Table 89. At the same time, the recent history of this Turkic EDL clearly demonstrates that LPs can be very ephemeral. The situation is clearer in the case of Bashkir. All sources we have consulted concur with Juldašev (1981: 42) on the LP-status of /ʦ/. It is attested in words like Bashkir cirk ‘circus’ < Russian cirk (Landmann 2015: 2). The LP /ʦ/ in Chuvash is similarly unproblematic since its status is recognized by all relevant sources as e.g. Clark (1998: 434). Landmann (2014a: 1) illustrates the LP-status of /ʦ/ in Chuvash with exactly the same loanword as in the case of Bashkir, namely Chuvash cirk ‘circus’ < Russian cirk. According to Kavitskaya (2010: 12– 13), Crimean Tatar also displays LP /ʦ/ which is said to be characteristic of the speech of the younger generation. She gives examples like Crimean Tatar kantsert ‘concert’ < Russian koncert. For Gagauz, Pokrovskaja (1964: 58) describes the domain of the voiceless alveolar affricate as comprising loanwords, interjections, and onomatopoeic words. For Karachay-Balkar, Seegmiller (1996: 6, fn. 2) states that there is LP /ʦ/. In the case of Kumyk, Abdullaeva et al. (2014: 48) claim that /ʦ/ is restricted to loanwords from Russian and Daghestanian donor languages. Doniyorova and Qahramonil (2004: 168) provide examples like Kumyk cement ‘cement’ < Russian cement. Csató and Karakoç (1998: 333) paint a similar picture for Noghay when they claim that /ʦ/ exclusively occurs in loanwords. For Tatar, Comrie (1997b: 901–902) assumes that there is LP /ʦ/ in Russian loanwords. Landmann (2014b: 133) provides the ubiquitous loanword Tatar cirk ‘circus’ < Russian cirk. Muhamedowa (2016: 277–278) takes account of several LPs in Kazakh among which we are looking in vain for /ʦ/. Kirchner (1998: 320) accepts only /f/ as LP in Kazakh. However, Somfai Kara (2002: 11) includes /ʦ/ among the LPs which are attested only in Russian loanwords in Kazakh. Landmann (2012: 2) provides the example Kazakh koncert ‘concert’ < Russian koncert. To our mind, this is sufficient evidence of the LP status of Kazakh /ʦ/. The three varieties of Karaim seem to diverge from each other. Musaev (1997) mentions the voiceless and voiced alveolar affricates (without providing any information as to the LP status of these phonemes) exclusively in the inventory of Karaim (Galits); both Karaim (Eastern) and Karaim (Trakai) are consid-

310 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

ered as /ʦ/-less languages. Csató (2001: 20) characterizes the alveolar affricates in Karaim (Galits) as “atypical consonants”. Pritsak (1959: 328–329) explains this case as internal sound change on a Ukrainian pattern. This view is shared by Berta (1998b: 302). In Kowalski’s (1929: 175) glossary of Karaim (Trakai) all entries with initial /ʦ/ are either of Hebrew or of Polish origin (like Karaim (Trakai) = Polish cegła ‘brick’). In his summary account of the West Kipchak languages to which Karaim belongs, Berta (1998b: 301) does not mention /ʦ/ as part of the shared consonant inventory. LP /ʦ/ is mentioned explicitly only for Karachay-Balkar and Kumyk. On this basis, we judge the empirical evidence for the existence of LP /ʦ/ in Karaim (Galits) insufficient. The Uralic EDLs also show a partition in three subclasses. With five out of 23 EDLs, the /ʦ/-less EDLs constitute a 22 % minority. Three quarters of the Uralic EDLs are /ʦ/-languages. The group of the /ʦ/-borrowers is bigger than that of the /ʦ/-less EDLs. 43 % of the Uralic component of the sample display autochthonous /ʦ/. The members of the three groups are identified by glossonym in Table 90. Table 90: Uralic /ʦ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʦ/-less languages.

/ʦ/-less [5]

borr [8]

Hungarian, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Livonian, Udmurt

auto [10]

/ʦ/-EDLs [18]

EDLs

Estonian (Rõngu), Mari (Hill), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Nenets (Tundra), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Kildin), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Veps, Votic Estonian, Finnish, Karelian (Archangelsk), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Mari (Meadow)

For Proto-Uralic Bereczki (2004: 166) reconstructs a voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate *ʨ but no properly alveolar /ʦ/. Sauvageot (1973: 10) assumes an additional *ʦ. In the development of the individual Uralic EDLs, the alveolo-palatal affricate underwent various changes. In Finnic, *ʨ yields mostly /s/ but also /ʃ/ or /ʧ/ (with and without palatalization) (Laanest 1982: 97). Sauvageot (1973: 56– 57) argues that there still was *ʦ in Proto-Finnic. There is also the distinction of so-called short and long affricates the latter of which yield heterosyllabic biphonemic sequences as e.g. in Estonian and Finnish (Laanest 1982: 99–100).

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 311

There is thus a historical basis for phonemic /ʦ/ in Uralic – a basis which would explain why there are that many /ʦ/-languages with autochthonous /ʦ/. For Hungarian, it is assumed that /ʦ/ has entered the phonological system via loanwords (Bárczi 2001: 297). According to Sauvageot (1971: 136), in the late Middle Ages new consonants made their appearance in Hungarian. A latecomer among these is LP /ʦ/ which is characterized as relatively common in words borrowed from Slavic and German. In the period prior to the integration of the new consonant, the voiceless alveolar affricate in loanwords from the same donor languages was regularly replaced with Hungarian /ʧ/. The Hungarian noun cél ‘goal, aim’ < German Ziel (probably via a Slavic intermediary – compare Czech cíl ‘goal, aim’) is representative of a relatively old layer of Germanisms in the replica language. Note that Sauvageot’s above argument as to the late arrival of /ʦ/ in the Hungarian system contradicts his own proposal for the phoneme inventory of the earliest documented period because this inventory already hosts /ʦ/ (Sauvageot 1971: 54). Karelian (Tichvin) /ʦ/ and Karelian (Valdai) /ʦ/ are classified as LPs by Rjagoev (1977: 26–27) and Palmeos (1962: 15), respectively. Typical examples of Russian loanwords with /ʦ/ are Karelian (Tichvin) carstvo ‘tsardom’ < Russian carstvo, Karelian (Valdai) caŕica ‘tsarina’ < Russian carica. The next-of-kin of these Karelian varieties is Karelian (Archangelsk) which Leskinen (1984) describes as /ʦ/-less. For Komi-Permyak, Lytkin (1961: 35) states that /ʦ/ appears only in Russian loanwords. Rédei (1978: 58) claims the same for (standard) Komi and adds that in the past Russian /ʦ/ was replaced with /s/ so that there are doublets such as Komi car ~ sar ‘tsar’ < Russian car. In the case of Komi-Zyrian, Saxarova et al. (1976) come to the same conclusion whereas Sorvačeva and Beznosikova (1990) give an account of the phonology of Komi-Zyrian (Udora) which is devoid of /ʦ/. In his grammar of Udmurt, Winkler (2011: 19) mentions LP /ʦ/ only in passing by way of stating its attestation in recent Russian loanwords. The case of Livonian is more intriguing. What we expect is a largely parallel behavior with Finnish and Estonian, meaning: there should be no /ʦ/ but only biphonemic (intervocalic) sequences of /t/ and /s/. This in turn means that we are talking exclusively about word-medial contexts. However, de Sivers (2001: 231– 232) includes in her Livonian glossary several words of Latvian origin which feature /ʦ/ in word-initial position, namely Livonian tsepiţ ‘roast(beef)’ < Latvian cepetis, Livonian tsērõ ‘stroll’ < Latvian cierēt, Livonian tsīenõ ‘to honor’ < Latvian cienāt, Livonian tsīr-lind ‘lark’ < Latvian cīrulis, Livonian tsukkõr ‘sugar’ < Latvian cukurs. In these cases (and probably others like them) it is impossible to speak of a heterosyllabic sequence of segments. There are also minimal pairs such as tsērõ ‘stroll’ ≠ tērõ ‘use’ (de Sivers 2001: 229) so that it is possible to give Livonian /ʦ/

312 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

phoneme status. Since this status is reached only with the support of Latvian loans we consider this a further instance of LP /ʦ/. Latvian influence has contributed crucially to the phonematization of an erstwhile biphonemic sequence. Superficially, the Livonian pattern seems to repeat itself in Mordvin (Moksha). Feoktistov (1984: 203) remarks that word-initial /ʦ/ is limited to a small number of loanwords. However, the voiceless alveolar affricate occupies also word-medial and word-final positions where it is contrastive in inherited words (Feoktistov 1984: 206) so that it cannot be counted among the LPs. Russian influence has contributed to enlarge the domain of /ʦ/ which had been phonemic already prior to contact. In Mordvin (Erzya), the situation is almost identical. Rédei (1984: 210) reports that word-initial /ʦ/ is infrequent and mostly restricted to loanwords. It is equally infrequent in the word-final slot. In contrast, this phoneme is abundantly attested in word-medial position including in complex consonant clusters (Rédei 1984: 214–218). The presence of autochthonous /ʦ/ in Estonian (Rõngu) is characterized as a “feature typical of the Southern Estonian dialects” (Hint and Paunonen 1984: 282) and its frequent occurrence in word-initial position is clearly independent from any contact influence. On the basis of Ariste (1968: 10) and Suhonen (1984: 290–291), it is difficult to get the full picture of the distribution of Votic /ʦ/. It is established word-medially in Uralic words and seems to be monophonemic. Whether it is admitted also in other positions and whether Russian (or other) influence is discernible in the behavior of this phoneme cannot be determined. In Krevinian with its presumed older stage of the Votic phoneme inventory the voiceless alveolar affricate is admitted only in intervocalic i.e. word-medial position (Winkler 1997: 199–200). In the case of Veps, the distribution of /ʦ/ is described transparently by Zajceva (1981: 29) so that we can be certain that this phoneme is autochthonous (see also Saar (2017: 58–59) on Ingrian). For Nenets (Tundra), Nikolaeva (2014: 19) classifies /ʦ/ as secondary phoneme on account of its severely restricted distribution since it is banned from the word-initial position and the postconsonantal position. For none of the three Saami EDLs in Table 90 is it possible to pinpoint any foreign influence on the existence or distribution of the voiceless alveolar affricate. The two Mari EDLs wind up in different categories. Mari (Hill) is a /ʦ/language whereas Mari (Meadow) is a /ʦ/-less language. Since Mari (Hill) /ʦ/ is not subject to any distributional restrictions (Alhoniemi 1984: 187) we can again be sure that we are dealing with an autochthonous phoneme. The Uralic EDLs are thus characterized by a high degree of heterogeneity as to the role of /ʦ/. Apart from the fact that some Uralic EDLs lack /ʦ/ completely, it is not always easy to determine whether a given /ʦ/-language is a /ʦ/-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 313

borrower or not. It is possible that on closer scrutiny the distribution of the EDLs in Table 90 will have to be modified. Of 31 Romance EDLs 68 % are /ʦ/-languages but only one /ʦ/-borrower can be identified (see Table 91). Table 91: Romance /ʦ/-languages vs. Romance /ʦ/-less languages.

auto [20]

/ʦ/-EDLs [21]

borr [1]

EDLs

/ʦ/-less [10]

Ladino

Aromanian, Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), Istro Romanian, Italian, Ladin, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Romanian, Romanian (Megleno), Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese) Asturian, Catalan, French, Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Italian (Genovese), Norman (Jersey), Portuguese, Spanish

For Latin, Touratier (2013: 29) assumes that the letter which was used to represent Greek was never pronounced as affricate outside the educated circles but was colloquially pronounced as [s]. It is therefore unlikely that the common heritage of the Romance EDLs contained /ʦ/. In the Romance branch of Indo-European, /ʦ/ is phonemic mostly in Italo-Romance and Balkan Romance varieties whereas it underwent change in the west. Old Spanish /ʦ/ developed into the voiceless interdental fricative /θ/ of modern Spanish (Dietrich and Geckeler 2004: 77–78). The presence of /ʦ/ in Ladino – the offshoot of Spanish that took root in the Balkans after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in the late 15th century – is therefore no surprise. However, Bunis (2017: 380) claims that it is a LP: Probably from as early as the 16th or 17th centuries, the Northwestern varieties of Judezmo acquired phonemic /ʦ/ and /ʣ/. (These affricates had existed in early Old Spanish but it is unlikely that Judezmo preserved them from this period.) The sound /ʦ/ is phonemic in languages with which speakers of Northwest Judezmo were in contact, such as South Slavic, Italian, German, Yiddish, and Romanian; it is likely that this reinforced the phonemic status of /ʦ/ in Northwest Judezmo as well. In contrast, in texts from the Southeast Judezmo dialect region, the etymological /ts/ in borrowings from Greek and Italian was of-

314 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe ten written with simple s (‫)ס‬, instead of Hebrew ‫ צ‬ṣ or ‫ טס‬ts, reflecting the simple fricative s realization in speech.

Sala (1971: 27) states that in the variety of Ladino spoken in Bucharest /ʦ/ is abundantly attested in words of Hebrew (= ṣ) or Romanian origin (such as Ladino ţélina ‘celery’ < Romanian ţelină) whereas there is only a single word with a Spanish etymology which involves /ʦ/. For the Hebraisms with /ʦ/ Sala (1971: 27–28) assumes Yiddish influence, i.e. the Hebrew words where borrowed from Yiddish into Ladino so that Ladino /ʦ/ can be classified as LP. The Germanic phylum is also divided in three (see Table 92). The bulk of the Germanic EDLs lacks /ʦ/. 79 % of the members of this branch of Indo-European are /ʦ/-less. The five EDLs which attest to autochthonous /ʦ/ are all associated with the German diasystem. Only one Germanic EDL provides an example of /ʦ/-borrowing. Table 92: Germanic /ʦ/-languages vs. Germanic /ʦ/-less languages.

borr [1]

Low German (East Frisian)

auto [5]

/ʦ/-EDLs [6]

EDLs

German, German (Brig), German (urban Kölsch), Luxembourgish, Yiddish

/ʦ/-less [22]

Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch, Dutch (Drente), Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney), Faroese, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Frisian Northern (Weesdring), Frisian Western, German (Ladelund Danish), Icelandic , Low German (North Saxon), Low German (Westphalian), Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Swedish, Swedish (Österbotten)

There are three Low German varieties in our sample. Low German (East Frisian) is the only /ʦ/-language in this group. Reershemius (2004: 38) was able to identify only a single Low German word whose segmental chain features /ʦ/, namely the numeral tsöumtech ‘seventy’. All other occurrences of the voiceless alveolar affricate are in loanwords from German. The Indo-Iranian EDLs are also subject to a tripartition. As in the Germanic case, there is only an isolated case of a /ʦ/-borrower. There are six times as many Indo-Iranian EDLs with autochthonous /ʦ/. Those Indo-Iranian EDLs

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 315

which lack the voiceless alveolar affricate are still four times more frequent that the sole borrower (see Table 93). Table 93: Indo-Iranian /ʦ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ʦ/-less languages.

/ʦ/-less [4]

borr [1]

Romani (North Russian)

auto [6]

/ʦ/-EDLs [7]

EDLs

Ossetic, Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Burgenland), Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian)

Kurmanji, Romani (Sepečides), Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili)

For the Romani languages, Matras (2002: 52–63) describes the emergence of /ʦ/ from regular sound change processes. The phoneme is widely common across the Romani languages. In the case of Romani (North Russian), however, Wentzel and Klemm (1980: 39) argue that /ʦ/ is not only infrequent but also restricted to relatively recent loans from Russian. The examples provided by Wentzel and Klemm point at different etymological sources though, viz. Romani (North Russian) coxa ‘outer clothing’ < Serbian coha/Greek tsoxa ‘rag’, Romani (North Russian) cipa ‘skin’ < Greek tsipa (Boretzky and Igla 1994: 42–43), Romani (North Russian) cerga ‘blanket (for horses) < Serbian sarga. The different source languages notwithstanding, the status of /ʦ/ is clearly that of a LP. Even in Greek which serves as donor for /ʦ/ in Romani (North Russian) is the voiceless alveolar affricate not an autochthonous phoneme. Henrich (1999: 304) states that /ʦ/ is mostly restricted to loanwords such as Greek tsek ‘cheque’ < English cheque. Interestingly, in the Italo-Greek variety of Sternatia, the voiceless denti-alveolar affricate is autochthonous (Italia and Lambroyorgu 2001). It seems to have developed independently of external influence on the basis of language-internal processes (Rohlfs 1977: 47). For the Afro-Asiatic phylum, it is unnecessary to provide a table because four of five of the Afro-Asiatic EDLs are /ʦ/-less. Maltese, however, gives evidence of LP /ʦ/. According to Borg (1997b: 254), Maltese /ʦ/ “tend[s] to occur primarily in words of Italian provenance.” Among these we find Maltese zopp ‘lame’ < Sicilian zoppu, Maltese pastizz ‘cheesecake’ < Sicilian pastizzu, Maltese pezza ‘roll of cloth’ < Sicilian pezza. (b) Additions: The collection of further cases of LP /ʦ/ yields only a small turnout. For Macedonian Turkish, Matras and Tufan (2007: 216) claim that

316 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

[a]mong the consonants, we find the dental-alveolar affricate /ʦ/, which has its source in Macedonian and Albanian. It is found not only in loanwords (Albanian-derived tsapo ‘goat’, Macedonian-derived tsveka ‘pipe’) and in borrowed affixes (Macedonian feminineagentive -itsa), but it is also transferred occasionally into native Turkish words: tsɪs ‘shut up’ (cf. [Turkish] sus).

Olonets has borrowed seven consonant phonemes from Russian among which we find /ʦ/ (Leskinen 1984: 251). No examples are provided. The same holds for LP /ʦ/ in Ludian whose Russian background can be taken for granted (Barancev 1975: 36), although the source illustrates the hypothesis with only one concrete example, namely Ludian tsaŕouna ‘daughter of a tsar’ < Russian carevna (Barancev 1975: 40). Old Prussian had no autochthonous phonemic /ʦ/. Loanwords from German or Polish whose segmental chain hosted the voiceless alveolar affricate usually keep it also in the Old Prussian adaptation as in Old Prussian gāntsan ‘complete(ly)’ < German ganz. Endzelin (1944: 59) adds that there are also Baltic words which end in an affricate of this kind. It is possible, however, that word-forms like Old Prussian kettwirts ‘fourth’ give evidence only of phonetic [ʦ] because the final -s is the suffix of the nominative singular masculine (Mažiulis 1993: 177). It cannot be ruled out that future research will identify more cases of /ʦ/-borrowing. (c) Geography: The borrowing of /ʦ/ is unattested in the westerly nonants. There is a clear preference of this phenomenon to affect EDLs which are situated in the C and E nonants. This is shown on Map LII and in Table 94. According to the map, autochthonous /ʦ/ is missing from or is scarcely attested in the same nonants which give no evidence of LP /ʦ/. The bulk of the cases of autochthonous /ʦ/ can be found in MC, SC, ME, and SE where also LP /ʦ/ is reported repeatedly. The absence of /ʦ/ is typical of EDLs in NW, MW, and SW as well as in clusters in SE and MC. Table 94: Distribution of /ʦ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

2

2

M

0

3

9

12

S

0

4

5

9

Total

0

7

16

23

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 317

The highest number of /ʦ/-borrowers occurs in ME with SE as runner-up. The Mnonants are responsible for more than half of all cases of /ʦ/-borrowing. The Enonants even account for 70 % of all cases of /ʦ/-borrowing. (d) Further issues: Table 95 correlates the turnouts for (LP) /ʦ/ with those of its voiced counterpart /ʣ/ according to the principles established in the foregoing sections. Table 95: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʦ/ and (LP) /ʣ/.

/ʦ/ LP

/ʣ/

Total

Sum

autochthonous

unattested

LP

4

11

0

15

autochthonous

1

48

0

49

unattested

18

66

62

146

23

125

62

210

Parallel borrowing of the two alveolar affricates is a minor option. The voiceless alveolar affricate is borrowed by far more often than /ʣ/. The borrowing of /ʣ/ in the absence of /ʦ/ is unattested whereas the inverse – the borrowing of /ʦ/ in the absence of /ʣ/ – is responsible for 78 % of the cases of borrowings from this class of affricates. In 84 EDLs /ʦ/ – be it borrowed or autochthonous – is the only representative of the alveolar affricates. In 64 EDLs the two alveolar affricates are attested jointly. The borrowing of /ʦ/ is no case of gap-filling whereas that of /ʣ/ seems to fit the description of gap-filling nicely because the voiced alveolar affricate is borrowed exclusively in the presence of /ʦ/. We are probably dealing with a Class-4 phenomenon whereby a new manner of articulation is introduced in the replica language (Maddieson 1986). This close connection between /ʣ/-borrowing and parallel borrowing or already established presence of /ʦ/ lends support to our hypothesis put forward in the (d)-part of the foregoing Section 17.2.4.4. The inhibiting effect postulated by Eisen (2019) does not seem to work for affricates in Europe. The voiceless alveolar affricate functions as a kind of attractor for /ʣ/ under borrowing. Thus it makes sense for future global accounts of phonologically oriented phenomena to separate Europe from Asia in order to avoid overgeneralizations which ignore the specific properties of one or the other of the regions.

318 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

17.2.4.6 /g/ The first example of a plosive as LP is the voiced velar plosive /g/. Only 15 EDLs do not have this phoneme. Accordingly, there is a majority of 93 % formed by those sample languages which exhibit /g/. With 172 EDLs, the presence of an autochthonous phoneme of this kind is the uncontested majority option. There are 23 EDLs which attest to /g/-borrowing, i.e. 11 % of the sample languages are /g/-borrowers as shown in Figure 66. no /g/; 15; 7% LP; 23; 11%

autochthonous; 172; 82%

Figure 66: Share of LP /g/ in the sample.

Interestingly, Maddieson (1984: 214) counts 175 /g/-languages (= 55 % of his sample) to which only twelve borrowers belong. The /g/-borrowers cover 7 % of Maddieson’s /g/-languages. Note that we have found almost as many /g/-EDLs in Europe as Maddieson found /g/-languages in the whole world. The difference in the domain of LP /g/ is as follows: Phon@Europe has identified twice as many /g/borrowers than Maddieson. In Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) hierarchies LP /g/ is second best worldwide with 83 /g/-borrowers or 16 % of the entire sample. In the Eurasian segment of the sample, LP /g/ comes in twelfth position with only nine borrowers (= 6 % of the Eurasian subsample). The three studies disagree visibly as to the frequency of LP /g/. The striking discrepancies tell us that samples of different size, scope, and composition cannot be directly compared with each other no matter how sophisticated the quantitative methodology happens to be. The subsequent presentation of the LP cases illustrates how difficult it can be to decide whether we are dealing with borrowing at all. There are many doubtful instances. In line with our maximalist approach we normally opt for

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 319

classifying a given phoneme as LP if there is the slimmest chance that language contact has contributed to render it phonemic in the first place. However, even if one turns a blind eye on as many counterarguments as possible, it may still be a challenge to prove that a given unit is a LP. (a) From within the sample: Figure 67 meets the expectations insofar as the Indo-European phylum is again the one which contributes the majority of borrowers. However, what is less expected is the fact that Uralic is responsible for 22 % of all /g/-borrowers. Turkic too is overrepresented. These statements have to be relativized on account of the small absolute numbers of /g/borrowers per phylum.

Uralic; 5; 22%

Turkic; 3; 13%

Indo-European; 12; 52%

Afro-Asiatic; 2; 9% Abkhaz-Adyghe; 1; 4%

Figure 67: Genealogic distribution of /g/-borrowers.

In the sample, the biggest group of /g/-borrowers forms part of the Slavic branch of Indo-European. Table 96 shows that all Slavic EDLs are /g/languages but nine (= 31 %) of them give evidence of LP /g/. Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 143–144) describe the situation in the ProtoSlavic period in such a way that the existence of a voiced velar phoneme with two allophones [g] and [ɣ] is assumed. The majority of the Slavic EDLs preserved this phoneme in its plosive variety. Other sister-languages of theirs give evidence of a fricativization process /g/ > /ɣ/ > /h/ (> Ø). These Slavic EDLs temporarily remained /g/-less. However, they have acquired secondary /g/ via language contact.

320 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 96: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /g/ in Slavic.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Czech, Czech (Moravian-Slovak), Slovak, Sorbian Upper, Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper), Ukrainian (North Hutsul)

Bosnian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), Kashubian, Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Polish, Polish (Lazduny), Russian, Russian (Meščera), Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Serbian, Slavomolisano, Slovene, Slovene (Resia), Sorbian Lower, Sorbian Lower (Vetschau)

9 EDLs

20 EDL

It is a recurrent theme for many Slavic EDLs from Czech in the west to southern Russian dialects in the east, from Belarusian in the north to Kajkavian varieties in the south that the vacant slot of the voiced velar plosive was filled by LP /g/. As to Czech, Short (1993a: 457–458) claims that [o]riginal /g/ changed into voiced /h/; /g/ is now therefore restricted to borrowings and in non-standard versions of the language it often replaces /k/ in other borrowings.

In addition, [g] is an allophone of /k/ in contexts which trigger voicing. The situation is the same in Czech (Moravian-Slovak) as described by Skulina (1964: 43–44) where, besides onomatopoeic words, loanwords like Czech (MoravianSlovak) gzycht ‘face’ < German Gesicht illustrate the domain of the voiced velar plosive. Krajčovič (1975: 85) addresses the effects the change of Slovak /g/ > /ɣ/ had on the stability of the system of phonemic oppositions in this Slavic EDL. According to the cited author [t]his imbalance was eliminated by the penetration of a new g into the phonemic system, particularly by means of borrowed words [] spread through Walachian colonization.

This process took place between the 12th and 14th century. An example dating back to this period is Slovak gäťe ‘trousers’ < Hungarian gatya. The Sorbian varieties differ from each other as to the diachrony of their /g/-phonemes. Lower Sorbian and Lower Sorbian (Vetschau) display autochthonous /g/ whereas Upper Sorbian attests to LP /g/. Like in Czech and Slovak, original /g/ changed to /h/ in Upper Sorbian. Schaarschmidt (1998: 95) emphasizes that Upper Sorbian has /g/ today only in loanwords of a more recent origin, i.e., those borrowed after the spirantization of /g/ had ceased to be productive, as well as onomato-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 321

poeic words. Among the loanwords which re-established /g/ in the replica language we find Upper Sorbian gwalt ‘force’ < Middle High German gwalt. In his historical phonology of Belarusian, Wexler (1977: 162) includes a section on the rise of /g/ through loanwords. He assumes that inherited /g/ exited the Belarusian system “sometime after the 11th century” only to be renovated via numerous loanwords mainly from Polish (beginning with the 14th century). The situation in Ukrainian is described by Shevelov (1979: 623–626). The author informs the readers that [t]he frontal exposure of [Middle Ukrainian] to contacts with western languages brought about [] a flood of western words with g [] for which the language had no precise equivalent. On the other hand, the subsystem of velars had a vacancy for g because k lacked a voiced counterpart []. This created prerequisites for the reintroduction of g which had been absent in [Old Ukrainian] from the late 12th or [early] 13th [century] on.

Furthermore, Shevelov (1979: 624) argues that far into the 15th century, /g/ in loanwords tended to be replaced with /h/, /k/, or occasionally /d/. In contemporary Ukrainian, LP /g/ is still marginal and its presence in Ukrainian dialects is mostly owed to borrowing from the standard language (Shevelov 1979: 625). On account of Shevelov’s (1979: 626) survey of dialectal evidence of LP /g/ we feel entitled to classify Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper) and Ukrainian (North Hutsul) as /g/-borrowers, too. The Uralic EDLs pose problems of a general nature which have repercussions on the issue of LP /g/. Table 97 must therefore be understood as provisional. Table 97: Uralic /g/-languages vs. Uralic /g/-less languages.

/g/-less [4]

borr [5] auto [14]

/g/-EDLs [19]

EDLs Finnish, Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow), Saami (Kildin), Votic

Hungarian, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Livonian, Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Udmurt, Veps Estonian, Estonian (Rõngu), Karelian (Archangelsk), Nenets (Tundra)

We have referred repeatedly to Bereczki’s (2004: 166–167) reconstruction of the Proto-Uralic system of consonants. This reconstructed system features no /g/.

322 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The voiceless velar plosive *k is said to have an allophone *[ɣ]. The vast majority of the modern Uralic EDLs, however, are /g/-languages. The voiced velar plosive must be an innovation for all of them. The absence of /g/ from the phoneme inventories of Estonian and Estonian (Rõngu) has to do with the fact that the domain of the obstruents is organized along the lines of an opposition fortislenis/strong-weak in lieu of voiceless-voiced (Viitso 2003: 9–10), meaning: there is a desonorized /g̊/ but no plain /g/. Even the /g̊/ is a newcomer. That this innovation came into the language from an external source is clear in the case of Finnish. Fromm (1982: 32) states that /g/ is not attested in “genuinen [finnischen] Wörter” [genuine Finnish words]. Accordingly, all 120 entries with initial /g/ in the Finnish-German dictionary (Katara and Schellbach-Kopra 1975: 95–96) are loanwords such as Finnish gemssi ‘chamois’ < German Gemse and Finnish grobiaani ‘boor’ < German Grobian. The two Mari languages are described by Alhoniemi (1993: 20–21) as /g/-less. He enumerates LP consonants for both Mari (Hill) and Mari (Meadow) yielding a list from which LP /g/ is missing. However, the glossary which accompanies the descriptive grammar contains a small number of Russian loanwords with initial /g/, namely Mari (Hill) gimnast’orka ‘uniform blouse’ < Russian gimnastёrka and Mari (Meadow) gorizont ‘horizon’ < Russian gorizont. Moreover, Alhoniemi (1993: 31, fn. 3) claims that Russian influence impels readers of literary Mari to pronounce regularly as voiced velar plosive although it represents the voiced velar fricative /ɣ/ (and [g] after the velar nasal [ŋ]). We take this as circumstantial evidence of the existence of LP /g/ in Mari (Hill) and Mari (Meadow). For Saami (Kildin), the decision to postulate LP /g/ rests on less solid grounds since Rießler (2007: 232) not only provides no examples but he also remains vague as to the change of status occasioned by the contact-influence exerted by Russian. The few lines dedicated to this issue can be understood in two different ways. Either an erstwhile complementary distribution of the allophones [k] and [g] was phonematized via the importation of Russian loanwords or the domain of the phoneme /g/ which already existed prior to contact with Russian was enlarged by way of admitting /g/ to the word-initial position from which it was previously banned. This scenario is not unique to Saami (Kildin). Laanest (1982: 124) concludes his section on the emergence of the voiced plosives as distinct phonemes in the Finnic EDLs as follows: Für alle hier behandelten Sprachen ist das Auftreten von wortanlautendem b, d, g in neueren Lehnwörtern charakteristisch. Man kann den Einfluß der fremden Sprachen beim Eindringen der stimmhaften Klusile in das phonologische System mehrerer ostseefinni-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 323

scher Sprachen nicht leugnen, aber bei jeder Sprache ist er, abhängig von der Struktur der jeweiligen Sprache, unterschiedlich wirksam geworden.96

This quote presupposes that for instance the voiced velar plosive originally could not occur in word-initial position. Its domain was restricted to wordmedial positions – especially between vowels or between sonorants and vowels. In some Finnic EDLs such as Veps, word-medial /g/ may form minimal pairs with word-medial /k/ so that the voice contrast is clearly relevant phonemically. In Votic, on the other hand, [g] and [k] are word-medial allophones whose choice depends on syllable type (an open syllable triggers [g]). The borrowing of Russian words with initial /g/ has most probably turned the erstwhile allophone [g] into LP /g/. Ariste (1968: 8) provides examples such as Votic gāda ‘serpent, snake’ < Russian gad ‘reptile’ and Votic gul’u ‘dove’ < Russian golub’. In de Sivers (2001: 186), all words with initial /g/ are borrowings such as Livonian gift ‘poison’ < German Gift. It seems, however, that Livonian like Veps had experienced the language-internal emergence of the phoneme /g/ prior to the borrowing of /g/-initial words especially from Latvian (Laanest 1982: 124). The Karelian varieties give evidence of variation from /g/-language with autochthonous /g/ to /g/-less language (Laanest 1982: 123). We have not been able to ascertain whether there is hard evidence of LP /g/ in this sub-group of Finnic. Turkic /g/ is a brain-teaser too in the sense that its status in a given Turkic EDL is often controversial. The classification in Table 98 is therefore only tentative. There is a dozen /g/-languages which outnumber their supposedly /g/-less relatives by four-to-one. Turkic EDLs with autochthonous /g/ are three times as many as those Turkic EDLs which borrow /g/. According to Gabain (1959a: 25), the velar and uvular plosives were in complementary distribution in Old Turkic: [k] and [q] were allophones of one phoneme and [g] and [ɣ] of the other (Erdal 1998: 140). For [g] this means that it was confined to words with front vowels. At the same time, /g/ is said to occur only in loanwords in the Codex Cumanicus (Gabain 1959b: 54). The above complementary distribution has survived into some of the modern Turkic EDLs. A case in point is Kumyk. Abdullaeva et al. (2014: 49–50) argue that [g] is realized only before front vowels in inherited Turkic words.

|| 96 Our translation: “For all the languages treated here the existence of word-initial b, d, g in recent loanwords is characteristic. It is impossible to deny the influence of foreign languages on the entrance of the voiced plosives into the phonological system of several Finnic languages, however, depending on the structure of each replica language, the influence has taken effect differently.”

324 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 98: Turkic /g/-languages vs. Turkic /g/-less languages.

/g/-less [3]

auto [9] borr [3]

/g/-EDLs [12]

EDLs Chuvash, Kumyk, Turkish (Trabzon)

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Karachay-Balkar, Kazakh, Noghay, Tatar, Turkish Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai)

It seems that loanwords from Russian have made it possible for the voiced velar plosive to occur in formerly inaccessible contexts such as before the low vowel /a/ in Kumyk gaz ‘gas’ < Russian gaz. Since Russian loans have also introduced [k] to new phonological contexts in which it contrasts with [g] it seems that we are witnessing another case of contact-induced phonematization of an erstwhile purely allophonic distribution. We therefore assume a LP /g/ for Kumyk. We assume the same for /g/ in Chuvash which is a much clearer case since several authors speak of LP /g/ in this case – among them Clark (1998: 434). Note that Benzing (1959c: 708) assumes only one “velar-palatal” phoneme /k/ which comes with an array of allophones ranging from fortis [k] and [kj] via [ɢ] and [ɢj] to lenis [g] and “eventuell” [possibly] [ɣ]. The lenes are employed word-medially. Russian loanwords have introduced [g] to the word-initial position – the former claim of [k] – and thus elevated the voiced velar plosive to the phoneme status. Brendemoen (2002: 82) characterizes /g/ as LP in Turkish (Trabzon). No examples are given. For the three Karaim languages, Musaev (1997) assumes generally that /g/ is absent from the phoneme systems. Karaim (Eastern) is unique in this group because it has /k/ which is absent from both of its sister-languages. Pritsak (1959: 328) on the other hand registers /g/ as phoneme in Karaim (Galits) and Karaim (Trakai). In Kowalski’s (1929: 187–188) glossary of Karaim (Trakai) there are /g/-initial entries the majority of which seem to have a Hebrew background or are borrowings from Aramaic, Greek, Persian, or Polish. However, the evidence is far from conclusive so that we side with our main source on these EDLs and assume that all varieties of Karaim are /g/-less. Moulton (1972: 142) postulates phonemic /g/ for Proto-Germanic. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Germanic EDLs are overwhelmingly /g/languages. There is a majority of 86 % for this group. Most of its members give evidence of autochthonous /g/ since there are only two bona fide /g/-borrowers as shown in Table 99.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 325

Table 99: Germanic /g/-languages vs. Germanic /g/-less languages.

auto [22]

/g/-EDLs [24]

borr [2]

EDLs

/g/-less [4]

Dutch, Low German (Westphalian)

Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch (Drente), English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney), Faroese, Frisian Northern (Weesdring), German, German (Brig), German (Ladelund Danish), German (urban Kölsch), Low German (East Frisian), Low German (North Saxon), Luxembourgish, Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Swedish, Swedish (Österbotten), Yiddish Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Frisian Western, Icelandic

The consonant phonemes of Western Frisian are said to be largely identical to that of Dutch but no mention is made of LP /g/. Hoekstra (2001: 84) puts brackets around the symbol of the voiced velar plosive without explaining this practice. It can be assumed that the use of “(g)” is justified because Hoekstra (2001: 86) mentions optional (allophonic) strengthening of /ɣ/ to [g] in word-initial position. Language contact does not seem to be involved. For Dutch, Booij (2012: 12) explains that in the phoneme chart [t]he [g] is put in parentheses because it only occurs in non-native words such as goal ‘id.’ (football term), and as the contextual allophone of /k/ before a voiced plosive, as in zakdoek [zagduk] ‘handkerchief.’

Note that Goossens (1974) mentions [g] in Dutch only as allophone of /k/. In the case of Low German (Westphalian), Keller (1961: 311) also uses brackets for the voiced velar plosive because it is a “marginal phoneme” that owes its existence solely to loanwords from German – especially to the participle prefix ge-. Keller (1961: 311) argues that the plosive still competes with the voiceless velar fricative /x/ and can thus be a free variant of /x/. Moreover, the pronunciation [ɣ] in lieu of [g] is also relatively common. Thus, we are facing a relatively weakly integrated LP /g/. The five Afro-Asiatic EDLs reflect a clear four-to-one preference for the presence of /g/. The four /g/-languages are divided in two pairs. The two Aramaic EDLs give evidence of autochthonous /g/ whereas the remaining two EDLs are /g/-borrowers (see Table 100).

326 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 100: Afro-Asiatic /g/-languages vs. Afro-Asiatic /g/-less languages.

/g/-less [1]

borr [2]

Arabic (Çukurova), Maltese

auto [2]

/g/-EDLs [4]

EDLs

Aramaic (Cudi), Aramaic (Hertevin)

Arabic (Cypriot)

The small Afro-Asiatic component in the sample yields three different solutions as to the status of the voiced velar plosive. With reference to Arabic (Cypriot) Borg (1997a: 239) classifies [g] as allophone of /k/ in contexts such as after nasals, after the voiced alveolar fricative, or in intervocalic position. For Aramaic (Cudi), Sinha (2000: 48) states that /g/ is one of the so-called “Begadkefat” consonants which belong to the oldest historical layer of the language. This is also the case in Aramaic (Hertevin) as can be gathered from Jastrow (1988: 4). In the remaining two Afro-Asiatic EDLs, language contact enters the scene.97 As to Arabic (Çukurova), Procházka (2002: 21) concedes that [g] is also attested in genuine Arabic words but it seems that it is the predictable product of automatic voice assimilation. On the other hand, LP /g/ is very frequent in loans from Turkish such as Arabic (Çukurova) zangīl ‘rich’ < Turkish zengin. The borrowing of /g/ in Maltese reflects a similar situation. Krier (1976: 18) notices that [l]a vélaire sonore /g/ se manifeste quelquefois à l’initiale de lexèmes indigènes [] et dans les formes verbales onomatopéiques []. Mais elle est surtout attestée dans les emprunts.98

The existence of Semitic (or Berber) words which host /g/ puts a question mark behind the assumed LP-status of /g/ in Maltese. We follow Krier (1976: 19) who subsumes the case of /g/ under “l’adjonction des consonnes étrangères” [the addition of foreign consonants] and concludes that the voiced velar plosive has been completely integrated into the system of the replica language. Adyghe is the sole case of a /g/-borrower in the Abkhaz-Adyghe language family. Its relatives Kabardian and Ubykh have labialized /gw/ whereas Abaza || 97 For Aramaic (Western) (situated outside Projekteuropa), Arnold (2007: 187) mentions that /g/ is attested “only in very few loans of Arabic and European origin.” The inherited Semitic /g/ underwent lenition to /ɣ/ prior to the influx of loanwords with /g/. 98 Our translation: “the voiced velar /g/ shows up occasionally at the beginning of indigenous lexemes [] and in onomatopoeic verb forms []. However, it is mostly attested in the loans.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 327

and Abkhaz possess autochthonous plain /g/. We subsume /gw/ under /g/ (see Table 101). Table 101: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /g/ in Abkhaz-Adyghe.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Adyghe

Abaza, Abkhaz, Kabardian, Ubykh

1 EDL

4 EDLs

Paris (1989: 160) claims that the voiced velar plosive belongs to a set of marginal consonants of Adyghe whose domain is restricted to loanwords and unspecified other words. The author does not include /g/ in her phoneme chart of Adyghe. Our final example of LP /g/ in an EDL of our sample is Greek. The voiced plosives of Old Greek underwent fricativization so that Old Greek /g/ resulted in Modern Greek /ɣ/. This sound change did not affect Old Greek [g] in postnasal position. Accordingly, [g] survived in the intervocalic/word-medial sequence [ŋg] where it functioned as an allophone of /ɣ/. In contemporary Greek there are numerous loanwords which host /g/ in the donor language. Ruge (2001: 17–18) reports that on account of loanwords like Greek garaz ‘garage’ < French garage a new phoneme /g/ has arisen although its phonemic status is controversial in the literature. Because of the close association of [g] and [n] in the inherited lexicon many speakers of Greek tend to pronounce LP /g/ as prenasalized [ŋg]. According to Rohlfs (1977: 26–28), Italo-Greek varieties in Puglia – like that of Sternatia (Salento, Terra d’Otranto) – have preserved Old Greek /g/ in word-initial position unless followed by a front vowel. The latter triggers the allophone [j]. In intervocalic position the choice of the allophones [ɣ] and [j] is determined by the backness properties of the following vowel. Thus, /g/ is not an innovation. (b) Additions: Our search for cases of LP /g/ in EDLs excluded from the sample has not been successful. It is possible that some of the EDLs which we have classified as either being equipped with autochthonous /g/ or as /g/-less languages can be shown to be /g/-borrowers on closer inspection. We suspect that Kazakh is a potential candidate for changing sides. Similarly, we cannot rule out the possibility that some of our /g/-borrowers turn out to belong in a different class. These classificatory problems are tightly connected to the fact that for several of the /g/-borrowers there is proof of the existence of an allophone [g] of either /k/, /x/, or /ɣ/ which was around already long before the loanwords entered the replica language. In cases of this kind the crucial ques-

328 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

tion can be raised whether the voiced velar plosive was phonemic prior to contact albeit with a relatively limited distribution. In other cases such as some of the Greek varieties spoken in Italy, it remains unclear whether Old Greek /g/ has been preserved (mostly in word-initial position) or a sound change /ɣ/ > /g/ has taken place (Rohlfs 1977: 26–28). If the latter is true one still has to prove that the fortition of the fricative was triggered by Italo-Romance influence. (c) Geography: Map LIII places the /g/-borrowers among /g/-less EDLs and those with autochthonous /g/. Since autochthonous /g/ is a majority phenomenon black dots dominate across all nonants except NW. In contrast, /g/-less EDLs are scattered about different nonants where they mostly occur in isolation in W- and S-nonants. Small clusters are located in MC and NE. As Table 102 shows, the distribution of LP /g/ resembles that of various other LPs. The NW, MW, and SW nonants are devoid of /g/-borrowers whereas these abound outside the western strip of the European map. Table 102: Distribution of /g/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

1

2

M

0

11

4

15

S

0

2

4

6

Total

0

14

9

23

Almost half of all cases of /g/-borrowing are located in MC. There are smaller concentrations of /g/-borrowers in ME and MC. Elsewhere /g/-borrowers are only exceptionally attested. (d) Further issues: In Table 103 we glance at the co-occurrence of (LP) /k/ and (LP) /g/ in the 210 EDLs of the sample. The values reflect a very clear tendency. Parallel borrowing of the two velar plosives is absolutely exceptional as is /k/-borrowing in general. LP /g/ on the other hand is relatively frequent and only attested if the replica language already has /k/ or borrows it along with its voiced counterpart. There is no evidence of LP /k/ in the absence of /g/ (be it borrowed or autochthonous). EDLs without /k/ form a very small minority whereas EDLs without /g/ are five times as frequent as the /k/-less languages. The co-occurrence of /k/ and /g/ in a given phoneme inventory is characteristic of 194 EDLs which is equivalent to 92 % of the sample. In conclusion and not surprisingly, the data speak in favor of the voiced velar plosive being the

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 329

marked member of the opposition /k/ ≠ /g/. Moreover, the 22 instances of LP /g/ fill a gap in the sense that the already existing /k/ lacked a voiced partner prior to language contact. Thus we are facing another case of Maddieson’s Class 1. Table 103: Co-occurrence of (LP) /k/ and (LP) /g/.

/k/

/g/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

1

22

0

23

autochthonous

2

169

1

172

unattested

0

13

2

15

3

204

3

210

17.2.4.7 /v/ Like in the previous sections, the identification of /v/ poses a number of analytical problems since it is not always clear whether a given phoneme meets the criteria of a voiced labiodental fricative. It is possible that the IPA symbol /v/ is used in some sources to represent either the labial-velar approximant /w/ or the voiced bilabial fricative /β/. We have tried to filter out all of the “fake” /v/-cases but the discussion in parts (a) and (b) will show that there remains a certain margin for error. With this proviso, we can provide the following calculations. In the sample, there are 168 /v/-languages as opposed to 42 EDLs which lack /v/. The phoneme is attested in 80 % of the sample languages. The phoneme is autochthonous in 149 EDLs whereas 19 EDLs give evidence of /v/-borrowing. The share of /v/borrowers in the sample is as small as 9 % as shown in Figure 68. The voiced velar fricative is attested in 67 languages (= 21 %) of Maddieson’s (1984: 227) sample. Three cases of /v/-borrowing are included in this number. They cover 4 % of all /v/-languages of Maddieson’s. With 54 borrowers LP /v/ ranks relatively high on Eisen’s (2019: 40) global hierarchy. 10 % of his sample languages have borrowed /v/. LP /v/ occupies also a high position on the Eurasian hierarchy. There are 16 borrowers which account for 11 % of the Eurasian subsample. According to our own findings autochthonous /v/ is present in the vast majority of the EDLs. The /v/-borrowers too, yield a bigger turnout than LP /v/ has in the two earlier studies. The share claimed by the /v/-borrowers might

330 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

either shrink further or become bigger if the many unclear cases to which we have alluded above can be solved for good.

no /v/; 42; 20%

LP; 19; 9%

autochthonous; 149; 71%

Figure 68: Share of LP /v/ in the sample.

(a) From within the sample: Turkic is especially strong when it comes to /v/-borrowing. This is what we learn from Figure 69. Afro-Asiatic and AdygheAbkhaz are involved in /v/-borrowing more often than expected. The relatively small share of Indo-European is also worth noting. Indo-European; 6; 32%

Afro-Asiatic; 3; 16%

Abkhaz-Adyghe; 2; 10%

Isolate; 1; 5% Turkic; 7; 37%

Figure 69: Genealogic distribution of /v/-borrowers.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 331

All Turkic EDLs of our sample are /v/-languages. With seven EDLs, the /v/borrowers have a share of 47 % as opposed to the 53 %-majority which comprises those Turkic EDLs which are equipped with autochthonous /v/ as shown in Table 104. Table 104: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /v/ in Turkic.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Karachay-Balkar, Kazakh, Kumyk, Noghay, Tatar

Chuvash, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai), Turkish, Turkish (Trabzon)

7 EDLs

8 EDLs

Old Turkic is described as a /v/-language by Erdal (1998: 139). Already Gabain (1959a: 52) assumes /v/ as a phoneme of old but she adds that in the earliest documents word-initial /v/ was the monopoly of loanwords (whereas in other positions, /v/ was also common in genuine Turkic words). It is therefore no surprise that a slight majority of the Turkic EDLs gives evidence of autochthonous /v/. On the other hand, there are almost as many /v/-borrowers in this language family. In the subsequent paragraph, we have a closer look at these borrowers. In their descriptions of Azerbaijani neither Širaliev and Sevortjan (1971) nor Caferoğlu and Doerfer (1959) mention /v/ as LP. In both sources /v/ is treated as an autochthonous phoneme. However, Schönig (1998a: 249) assumes that /v/ occurs only in loanwords “and some dialects.” According to Benzing (1959b: 425), Bashkir originally had only a labial-velar approximant /w/ which served as replacement of /v/ in old loanwords. More recent loanwords from Russian, however, have contributed to the introduction of a new phoneme distinct from /w/, namely LP /v/ as in Bashkir zavod (older: zawït ~ zabut) ‘factory’ < Russian zavod. Since the two phonemes are not distinguished orthographically as both are represented by one might be misled to believe that there is only one phoneme. Ersen-Rasch (2009: xiii) clearly states that the labial-velar approximant occurs in Turkic words whereas the labiodental fricative is limited to Russian loanwords. Berta (1998a: 283) too lists /v/ among the LPs of Bashkir and Tatar. For the latter, Comrie (1997b: 902) makes an identical statement. Berta (1998b: 301) summarily states that /v/ exclusively occurs in loanwords in Kumyk and Karachay-Balkar. Kirchner (1998: 320) describes Kazakh as /v/-less EDL. In contrast, Somfai Kara (2002: 11) and Muhamedowa (2016: 277) claim that /v/ is attested in Russian loanwords such as Kazakh tramvaj ‘tram’ < Russian tramvaj. According to the latter author, [v] can also be an intervocalic allophone of /b/. In the case of Noghay,

332 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Csató and Karakoç (1998: 333–334) argue that “[t]he original Noghay labial fricative has a bilabial articulation []. The labiodental variant occurs in copied items, e.g. vagon ‘railway carriage’.” We interpret the Noghay case along the lines of the above Bashkir case: Noghay originally displayed a labial-velar approximant /w/ or a voiced bilabial fricative /β/ but later on adopted /v/ from Russian via lexical borrowing. To our minds, /v/ is not a variant of /w/ in Noghay but a distinct LP. This hypothesis is in line with Baskakov (1966: 282) who claims that Noghay /v/ is admissible only in Russian loanwords. Of the 28 Germanic EDLs in our sample, the overwhelming majority is formed by /v/-languages. There are 21 Germanic EDLs with autochthonous /v/ which means that 75 % of the Germanic EDLs are non-borrowers. Only four /v/borrowers have been identified – and all of them are members of the English diasystem. The remaining three Germanic EDLs are /v/-less as shown in Table 105. Table 105: Germanic /v/-languages vs. Germanic /v/-less languages.

/v/-less [3]

auto [21]

/v/-EDLs [25]

borr [4]

EDLs English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney)

Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch , Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), Faroese, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Frisian Northern (Weesdring), Frisian Western, German, German (Ladelund Danish), German (urban Kölsch), Icelandic, Low German (East Frisian), Low German (North Saxon), Low German (Westphalian), Luxembourgish, Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Swedish, Swedish (Österbotten), Yiddish Dutch (Drente), German (Brig), Norwegian (Østnorsk)

According to Moulton (1972), Proto-Germanic had no phonemic voiced labiodental fricative although there probably was a voiced bilabial fricative [β] as allophone of /b/ (and a phonemic /ɸ/). Gothic, Runic Old Northwest Nordic, Old Saxon and Old Frisian as well as Old and early Middle English still lacked a fully established /v/. On later stages, the bulk of the Germanic EDLs acquired /v/ although the phoneme has not established itself everywhere in the Germania. It is not part of the system in the Drente variety of Dutch. In the case of Norwegian (Østnorsk) the item under inspection receives an interpretation as labiodental approximant /ʋ/ and is explicitly excluded from the class of fricatives (Kristoffersen 2000: 25). It is not clear from Werlen’s (1976) description of Ger-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 333

man (Brig) whether he assumes a labial-velar approximant /w/ in lieu of /v/. Wherever /v/ is attested in a Germanic EDL it is an innovation. The English language history is the only scenario in which borrowing seems to have played a major role in the development of /v/ as a phoneme. In the Old English period, voiceless and voiced fricatives used to be allophones in complementary distribution. This rule also embraces the pair [f] and [v] which are conventionally interpreted as positional allophones of /f/ (Minkova 2014: 88– 90). Minkova (2014: 91) speaks of a “phonemic split” in Middle English which resulted in the creation of two distinct phonemes /f/ ≠ /v/. The same author acknowledges that Latin, Old French, and Anglo-Norman loans appear to have been the main driving force behind the phonemicisation of the [f]-[v] contrast to /f/ and /v/. The influence of such loans is most clearly observed in word-initial position. Old English had already borrowed some [v-] words, but these isolated items were assimilated early to the native template of initial voicelessness []. In [Middle English], the influx of [v-] words was much more vigorous and pervasive. It was the adoption of over 800 items with word-initial [v-] after the eleventh century that disabled the earlier constraint on voiced labial fricatives in that position.

This explanation is also adopted for the phonematization of the contrast between the labiodental fricatives in word-medial position (Minkova 2014: 92). In contrast to other fricatives whose voice contrast underwent phonematization in the same period, there are no major language-internal factors which have contributed to establishing /v/ as a phoneme. English thus attests to LP /v/. By analogy we extend this interpretation also over the three nonstandard varieties of English in Table 105. They all attest to Class-3 phenomena according to Maddieson’s taxonomy. The sample hosts five EDLs which belong to the Afro-Asiatic language family. Their distribution over the three categories of interest is revealed in Table 106. Table 106: Afro-Asiatic /v/-languages vs. Afro-Asiatic /v/-less languages.

/v/-less [1]

borr [3]

Arabic (Çukurova), Aramaic (Cudi), Maltese

auto [1]

/v/-EDLs [4]

EDLs

Arabic (Cypriot/Kormakiti)

Aramaic (Hertevin)

334 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Three of these EDLs are Neo-Arabic varieties, namely Arabic (Çukurova), Arabic (Cypriot), and Maltese. The group is complemented by the two Aramaic EDLs Aramaic (Cudi) and Aramaic (Hertevin). Four of the five Afro-Asiatic EDLs are /v/-languages. /v/ is not an instance of borrowing in Arabic (Cypriot). Aramaic (Hertevin) is a /v/-less language. In contrast, Sinha (2000: 49) claims that LP /v/ is a very marginal element in Aramaic (Cudi) which is confined entirely to loanwords which have probably been borrowed from Kurdish (Coghill 2019: 508). According to Kaye (1997: 193), there is no /v/ in Modern Standard Arabic but “a [v] often occurs through regressive assimilation.” This allophonic process seems to be important for the emergence of /v/ in Arabic (Cypriot) too (Borg 1985: 14– 15). Procházka (2002: 22) states that /v/ in Arabic (Çukurova) is a new phoneme which occurs not only in Turkish loanwords such as Arabic (Çukurova) mayvi ‘fruit’ < Turkish meyve but also as allophone [v] of /f/ via voice assimilation in Semitic words. At least in the dialect cluster of Adana, the assimilation still seems to be a regular phonological process whereas in other dialects the presence of the voiced labiodental fricative is dissociated from phonological conditions. We assume that the Turkish impact has contributed crucially to the phonematization of the contrast between the two labiodental fricatives so that it is legitimate to speak of LP /v/ in Arabic (Çukurova). To what extent Greek and Turkish influence can also be made responsible for the genesis of /v/ in Arabic (Cypriot) is a problem we cannot solve in this study. In the case of Maltese, Borg (1997b: 248–249) does not mention /v/ among the LPs of this EDL – nor do Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 302). Krier (1976: 17), however, remarks that [l]a fricative labio-dentale sonore /v/ n’a pas été relevée dans le vocabulaire d’origine arabe si ce n’est pas dans le seul mot /iːva/ “oui”, où /v/ correspond au phonème arabe /w/. D’autre part, on la rencontre facilement dans les emprunts : à l’initiale /ˈveːlU/ < sicil[ien] /ˈvelu/ “voile”, à l’intervocalique [sic!] /ˈpoːvrU/ < sicil[ien] /ˈpovru/ “pauvre”, sauf en finale absolue où l’opposition v/f se neutralize, l’archiphonème se réalisant [f].99

Since regressive voice assimilation is strictly obeyed in Maltese, [v] is the realization of /f/ if a voiced consonant follows. In a verb like fada ‘trust’ the initial consonant /f/ is realized as voiceless labiodental fricative [f]. The use of the voiced allophone is triggered when the first and the second consonant come in

|| 99 Our translation: “the voiced labiodental fricative /v/ has not been found in the vocabulary of Arabic origin except in the word /iːva/ ‘yes’ where /v/ corresponds to the Arabic phoneme /w/. On the other hand, one finds it easily in the loans: initially /ˈveːlU/ < Sicilian /ˈvelu/ ‘veil’, intervocalically /ˈpoːvrU/ < Sicilian /ˈpovru/ ‘poor’, except word-finally where the opposition v/f is neutralized with the archiphoneme being realized as [f].” It is clear from the examples that the word-medial domain of /v/ also includes combinations with a following consonant.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 335

contact in the imperfective for instance: jafda ‘he trusts’ where /f/ is followed by /d/. In this context, [v] is obligatory: [ˈjɐvdɐ]. We assume that the voicing rule has been inherited from pre-contact Siculo-Arabic which probably had no phonemic /v/. In Maltese, the allophone [v] experienced phonematization on account of the influx of Italo-Romance loanwords whose segmental chain contained the voiced labiodental fricative in positions from which it was banned in the Semitic part of the Maltese lexicon. The Slavic EDLs yield a picture similar to that painted for the Germanic EDLs. Of the 29 Slavic members of the sample featured in Table 107, 27 (= 93 %) are /v/-languages. /v/-borrowers and /v/-less languages come in equal numbers since both categories have two members. Table 107: Slavic /v/-languages vs. Slavic /v/-less languages.

/v/-less [2]

borr [2] auto [25]

/v/-EDLs [27]

EDLs Sorbian Lower, Sorbian Upper

Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Bulgarian, Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), Czech, Czech (Moravian-Slovak), Kashubian, Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Polish, Polish (Lazduny), Russian, Russian (Meščera), Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Serbian, Slavomolisano, Slovak, Slovene, Slovene (Resia), Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper), Ukrainian (North Hutsul) Bosnian, Sorbian Lower (Vetschau)

The two /v/-less Slavic EDLs are described as displaying a labial-velar approximant instead. For Bosnian, Jahić et al. (2000: 92) classify the phoneme as “sonorant” which is phonetically identical with an allophone of /f/ (Jahić et al. 2000: 96). Faßke (1964: 31) assumes a labial-velar approximant /w/ which may also be pronounced as voiced labiodental fricative [v]. A similar oscillation between /w/ and /v/ is reported for Belarusian, Ukrainian, Slovak, and Slovenian by Shevelov (1964: 635–637) but this changeful phoneme is always put in the cell of the voiced partner of the opposition of labiodental fricatives. This phonological “indecision” reflects the situation reconstructed for Proto-Slavic where /w/ and /v/ were not distinguished (Sussex and Cubberley 2006: 26). For the development afterwards, Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 144–145) assume an early split into /w/ ≠ /v/ and the subsequent ousting of the labial-velar approximant (or voiced bilabial fricative [β]) by [v] in individual Slavic EDLs (Sussex and Cubberley 2006: 166). The many intricacies of these processes notwithstanding,

336 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

language-contact does not feature among the most prominent factors which determined their course. The only two Slavic EDLs for which /v/-borrowing is acknowledged in the literature are the two Sorbian languages, viz. Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian. For the latter, Stone (1993: 603) characterizes /v/ as an extremely infrequent phoneme whose phonological status is controversial since its domain is restricted (to oblique cases of) foreign words such as Upper Sorbian kolektiwa (= genitive singular of kolektiw with final [f]) ‘collective’. Outside the domain of loanwords, /v/ is attested only with a single Slavic lexeme and its derivatives (as used in the Bautzen variety of Upper Sorbian). In the case of Lower Sorbian, Stone (1993a: 607) explicitly restricts the domain of /v/ to loanwords. Note that Stone (1993) assumes the existence of a voiced bilabial fricative distinct from /v/ in both Sorbian EDLs. Schaarschmidt (1998) does not treat LPs in his monograph on the historical phonology of Sorbian. The five representatives of the Abkhaz-Adyghe language family distribute as follows over the usual categories. Superficially Ubykh seems to be the only /v/-less language. However, the cell of the voiced labiodental fricative is not completely empty. Charachidze (1989: 363) describes the phoneme as pharyngealized /vˁ/ whereas its voiceless counterpart /f/ is a plain labiodental fricative. Since there is no plain phonemic voiced equivalent we classify pharyngealized /vˁ/ as /v/. Two EDLs are /v/-borrowers, three display autochthonous /v/ as shown in Table 108. Table 108: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /v/ in Abkhaz-Adyghe.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Abaza, Adyghe

Abkhaz, Kabardian, Ubykh

2 EDLs

3 EDLs

We are not absolutely sure as to the autochthonous nature of /v/ in Abkhaz and Kabardian because the descriptions of the phonology are rather sketchy. The information conveyed in the articles dedicated to the /v/-borrowers is as follows. For Abaza, Lomtatidze and Klychev (1989: 93) state that “one meets also” /v/ in loans without providing examples so that we do not know what language assumes the role of donor. In the case of Adyghe, Paris (1989: 160) claims that /v/ occurs “sporadiquement dans certains mots de la langue et dans des mots d’emprunt” [sporadically in certain words of the language and in loanwords]. There are again no examples. It remains unclear whether the autochthonous

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 337

Adyghe words which feature /v/ belong to a certain class (as e.g. onomatopoeic words). There are thus several problems to be addressed in follow-up studies. We close the (a)-part of this section with a short look at Basque (Zuberoa). According to Trask (1997: 126) there was no /v/ in Pre-Basque. Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 26) limit the occurrence of voiced fricatives to Basque dialects but do not mention any instance of /v/. Haase (1993: 32) on the other hand lists /v/ among those phonological units which are attested occasionally in loanwords from French such as Basque (Zuberoa) /divoʀsatja/ ~ /diboʀɕatja/ ‘divorced’ < French divorcé. The author locates this phenomenon on the periphery of his LP integration scale (Haase 1993: 33), i.e. we are facing a very weak case of LP /v/. (b) Additions: The review of the data in the (a)-part corroborates Hockett (1985: 271–272) who claims that practically all instances of /v/ in the modern Indo-European EDLs of Europe can be traced back diachronically to a prior labial-velar approximant (potentially with an intermediate stage /β/). Blasi et al. (2019: 3–5) provide examples from non-European languages which give evidence of similar processes of change. The data complement those expressed with reference to /f/ in the (b)-part of Section 17.2.4.1 above. We have no further cases of LP /v/ from EDLs not included in the sample. It may be argued that at least some of the assumed changes /w/ ~ /β/ > /v/ mentioned in the (a)-part can be attributed to some extent to foreign influence. Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 144) assume that Russian influence accelerated the generalization of /w/ > /v/ in Belarusian. It is conceivable that similar scenarios can be reconstructed for other Slavic EDLs – and also for members of the Uralic language family. In the latter case, the phoneme which is conventionally represented as or in the current orthographies of many Uralic EDLs is described as a labialvelar approximant as e.g. Finnish (Fromm 1982: 32), Ingrian (Saar 2017: 48), Karelian (Archangelsk) (Leskinen 1984: 248), Olonets (Leskinen 1984: 250), Saami (Ter) (Korhonen 1984: 320), etc. Some of their relatives are described differently insofar as Proto-Uralic *w has changed to /v/ in the Permian branch of the language family so that Komi-Zyrian (among others) boasts a proper voiced labiodental fricative in lieu of an original labial-velar approximant (Dobó 1984: 165). The “drift” from an erstwhile labial-velar approximant (via a bilabial fricative) to the labiodental fricative can also be observed in Turkic. Future research has to inquire into the possibility of language contact playing a role in these parallel developments in EDLs of markedly different genetic affiliation. (c) Geography: The distribution of LP /v/ in Europe is not as clearly an easterly phenomenon as some of the previously discussed cases. The English varieties together with Maltese, Basque (Zuberoa), and two Sorbian EDLs diversify the geographical picture. Nevertheless, Map LIV still reflects a strong orien-

338 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

tation towards the nonants in the East. Each nonant hosts EDLs with autochthonous /v/. The voiced labiodental fricative is lacking particularly often from EDLs in SW and SE. Everywhere else /v/-lessness is exceptional. Table 109 characterizes SE as the nonant with the highest number of /v/-borrowers. Other minor concentrations are found in MW and ME. The N-nonants as so often are completely devoid of /v/-borrowers. Table 109: Distribution of /v/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

M

4

0

0

0

2

3

9

S Total

1

1

8

10

5

3

11

19

(d) Further issues: Table 64 has already informed the reader about the cooccurrence of the two labiodental fricatives in the sample languages. The discussion in this section has revealed that there is a special relationship between the labial-velar approximant and the voiced labiodental fricative. Therefore, Table 110 takes stock of the co-occurrence of (LP) /v/ and (LP) /w/ in the sample. Table 110: Co-occurrence of (LP) /v/ and (LP) /w/.

/v/ LP

autochthonous

unattested

0

1

1

autochthonous

17

33

31

81

unattested

2

115

10

127

19

149

42

210

LP /w/

Total

Sum

2

There is no parallel borrowing of /v/ and /w/. As a matter of fact, the copresence of the two phonemes in one and the same phonological system applies to the minority of the cases. Only 51 EDLs tolerate both /v/ and /w/ in their phoneme inventory. In contrast, 149 EDLs allow only one of two on board. In the majority of the cases, this is /v/ which is attested in 117 EDLs in the absence of

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 339

/w/. On the other hand, /w/ without /v/ is the scenario for which only 32 EDLs opt. With ten EDLs the share of those languages from which both of the phonemes are absent is 5 %. It is our opinion that Table 110 supports the hypothesis that /v/ frequently develops from a former /w/ with the latter dropping out of the system, in a manner of speaking. With a certain margin of doubt, we assume that /v/-borrowing in the presence of /w/ is an example of Maddieson’s Class 2. At least for the European case, the limited compatibility of /v/ and /w/ could be interpreted as a potential inhibiting effect according to the concept developed by Eisen (2019). However, 90 % of all cases of /v/-borrowing happen in the presence of autochthonous /w/. The inhibition thus cannot be overly powerful. Since the relation between the voiced labiodental fricative and the labial-velar approximant is not addressed by Eisen it remains a task for the future to test whether /v/ and /w/ tend not to occur side by side in phonological systems also outside of Europe.

17.2.4.8 /ʧ/ There are 163 EDLs which attest to /ʧ/. Thus, 78 % of the sample languages are equipped with a phonemic voiceless postalveolar affricate. It is absent from 47 EDLs. The number of /ʧ/-borrowers is 18 which is equivalent to 9 % of the sample languages and 11 % of the /ʧ/-languages as shown in Figure 70.

no /ʧ/; 47; 22%

LP; 18; 9%

autochthonous; 145; 69%

Figure 70: Share of LP /ʧ/ in the sample.

340 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

There are 141 /ʧ/-languages in Maddieson’s (1984: 223) sample. Thus, the voiceless postalveolar affricate is attested in 44 % of the worldwide sample. Only four of these languages give evidence of LP /ʧ/, i.e. /ʧ/-borrowers account for 3 % of Maddieson’s /ʧ/-languages. LP /ʧ/ is the third most frequently borrowed phoneme in Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) global sample. He registers 70 /ʧ/-borrowers which constitute a share of 13 % of the entire sample. Within the Eurasian subsample, LP /ʧ/ is almost equally important with 16 recorded borrowers (= 11 % of the subsample). Our results and those of Eisen are very similar albeit not identical. In Maddieson’s study LP /ʧ/ is clearly underrepresented. (a) From within the sample: Owing to the relatively small absolute number of /ʧ/-borrowers the shares of the phyla featured in Figure 71 differ considerably from those we have calculated for them on the basis of the entire set of borrowed phonemes (see Figure 12).

Uralic; 3; 17% Turkic; 4; 22%

Indo-European; 6; 33% Afro-Asiatic; 5; 28%

Figure 71: Genealogic distribution of /ʧ/-borrowers.

The voiceless postalveolar affricate is a LP in each of the five Afro-Asiatic EDLs of the sample. Procházka (2002: 20–21) characterizes /ʧ/ as fully established phoneme in Arabic (Çukurova) where it is attested especially in old loans from Ottoman Turkic. As to the equivalent element in Arabic (Cypriot), Borg (1985: 11) is hesitant to accept it as monophonemic unit. The author prefers a biphonemic analysis according to which we are facing a sequence /t/ + /ʃ/. This “phonetic sequence” is said to occur mainly in loans from Greek and Turkish as e.g. Arabic (Cypriot) [tšapˑʰúˑt] ‘rag’ < Turkish çaput. In Borg (1997a: 223), this interpretation is confirmed when the author argues that the phoneme /ʧ/ of Cypriot Greek

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 341

surfaces as the above sequence in loanwords in Arabic (Cypriot). This hypothesis is mainly based on the use of the epenthetic vowel /i/ under cliticization of the definite article or the dative marker which is obligatory for words which are equipped with initial consonant clusters (Borg 1985: 50). For the purpose of this study, however, we take the data to prove that we are dealing with LP /ʧ/ without wanting to challenge Borg’s analysis. The Maltese case is addressed by Krier (1976: 18) who argues that [l]’occlusive chuintante sourde /č/ qui apparaît sporadiquement dans le vocabulaire d’origine arabe [] est essentiellement un phonème d’importation siculo-italienne et anglaise.100

No other source dealing with the phonology of Maltese mentions LP /ʧ/. Krier (1976: 18) lists examples such as Maltese ċans ‘chance’ < English chance. For Aramaic (Cudi), Sinha (2000: 51) claims that the voiceless postalveolar affricate has developed into a fully integrated member of the phoneme inventory because of the influx of loanwords from Turkish, Kurdish, and Arabic like Aramaic (Cudi) čappe ‘left’ < Kurdish çep (Sinha 2000: 54). The author emphasizes that all words with /ʧ/ in Aramaic (Cudi) can be traced back to language contact (Sinha 2000: 51). Similarly, Aramaic (Hertevin) also displays LP /ʧ/ whose origin has to be sought in the many loanwords from Turkish and/or Kurdish which involve the voiceless postalveolar affricate as segment (Jastrow 1988: 8). In contrast to the Aramaic variety of Cudi, Aramaic (Hertevin) testifies to instances of a geminate affricate in the inherited Semitic lexicon where it arose in intervocalic position from erstwhile *tʲ. The distribution of this geminate is limited to word-medial positions. Table 111 features the Turkic EDLs. Karaim (Galits) is exceptional insofar as it is the only member of this group which lacks /ʧ/. Amongst the /ʧ/-languages those with autochthonous /ʧ/ constitute the uncontested majority. Gabain (1959a: 25) counts the voiceless postalveolar affricate among the phonemes of Old Turkic. Except Karaim (Galits), all contemporary representatives of Turkic in our sample are /ʧ/-languages. Three Turkic EDLs are /ʧ/borrowers which had lost the inherited /ʧ/ because of deaffrication processes. This means that the phoneme has been renovated in these Turkic EDLs via language contact. The LP status of /ʧ/ seems to be uncontroversial in the case of Bashkir since Benzing (1959b: 425) and Berta (1998a: 283) share the same opinion according to which /ʧ/ is attested only in recent Russian loanwords.

|| 100 Our translation: “the voiceless shibilant obstruent /č/ which shows up occasionally in the vocabulary of Arabic origin is essentially a phenomenon imported from Siculo-Italian and English.”

342 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 111: Turkic /ʧ/-languages vs. Turkic /ʧ/-less languages.

borr [4]

Bashkir, Kazakh, Noghay, Tatar

auto [10]

/ʧ/-EDLs [14]

EDLs

Azerbaijani, Chuvash, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Trakai), Kumyk, Turkish, Turkish (Trabzon)

/ʧ/-less [1]

Karaim (Galits)

There is no agreement as to /ʧ/ in Tatar though. Berta (1998a: 283) excludes the voiceless postalveolar affricate from his list of LPs. Thomsen (1959: 411–412) marks LPs but /ʧ/ is not among them. In contrast, Comrie (1997b: 901–902) clearly states that /ʧ/ exclusively occurs in Russian loanwords. Landmann (2014b: 2) claims that in Tatar orthography the grapheme is pronounced [ʃ] in words of Turkic origin but [ʧ] in those of Russian origin. We accept this remark as indirect evidence of the existence of LP /ʧ/ in Tatar. According to Kirchner (1998: 320), Kazakh is a /ʧ/-less language whereas Somfai Kara (2002: 11) argues that there is LP /ʧ/ in this Turkic EDL because the phoneme is attested in Russian loanwords. As to Noghay, both Baskakov (1966: 282) and Csató and Karakoç (1998: 333) state that /ʧ/ occurs only in loanwords from Russian. As can be gathered from Table 112, Uralic EDLs with autochthonous /ʧ/ outnumber the other two categories and have a share of 70 % of the Uralic component in the sample. There are only four /ʧ/-less Uralic EDLs and three /ʧ/borrowers. Table 112: Uralic /ʧ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʧ/-less languages.

/ʧ/-less [4]

borr [3] auto [16]

/ʧ/-EDLs [19]

EDLs Estonian, Livonian, Votic

Hungarian, Karelian (Archangelsk), Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Udmurt, Veps Estonian (Rõngu), Finnish, Nenets (Tundra), Saami (Kildin)

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 343

Proto-Uralic is believed to having the phoneme /ʧ/. In the Finnic branch of Uralic, affricates experienced processes of deaffrication in some of the EDLs (Laanest 1982: 97–98). Laanest (1982: 88–89) reports that the autochthonous (palatalized) voiceless postalveolar affricate is particularly frequent in Karelian where it represents the voiceless alveolar affricate of other Finnic EDLs. In Votic and Veps, too /ʧ/ occurs frequently. Laanest (1982: 137) assumes a phonological rule /k/ → [ʧ] / __ Vfront for Votic. On this basis, we conclude that in the inherited component of the Votic lexicon [ʧ] serves only as an allophone of /k/. Nothing is said as to the possibility of the voiceless postalveolar affricate to occupy the slot to the immediate left of a front vowel. In Ariste (1968: 10), this issue is not addressed. Only a single example of [ʧ] combining with a non-front vowel (= Votic čako ‘cuckoo’) shows up amongst a sizable number of cases which conform to Laanest’s above rule. Since no etymology is offered for this word, we can only speculate that it is an onomatopoeic formation. There are, however, numerous Russian loanwords which host the voiceless postalveolar affricate followed by a back vowel so that Laanest’s rule is violated against. The phenomenon can be illustrated with the following words Votic tšugun ‘cast iron’ < Russian čugun, Votic tšudE ‘miracle’ < Russian čudo, Votic tšuлan ‘spare-room’ < Russian čulan, Votic tšūtšel ‘scarecrow’ < Russian čučelo, Votic tšōt ‘account’ < Russian sčёt, etc. (Tsvetkov 1995: 356–357). We hypothesize that loanwords of this kind interfered with the original complementary distribution of the allophones of /k/ so that [ʧ] was promoted to the status of phoneme. In our interpretation Votic thus gives evidence of LP /ʧ/. A comparable situation can be assumed for further Finnic EDLs because Laanest (1982: 89) adds that [i]n den anderen Sprachen beschränkt sich das Vorkommen von tš oder t́́š́ hauptsächlich auf Fremdwörter oder onomatopoetische Wörter.101

Estonian is one of the other languages alluded to in the quote. Lavotha (1973: 16) acknowledges that the voiceless postalveolar affricate exclusively occurs in loanwords but interprets it as a binary sequence of consonants. It is doubtful whether this analysis can be defended if we take account of loanwords with initial [ʧ] such as Estonian tšinovnik ‘bureaucrat’ < Russian činovnik ‘civil employee’. In Estonian phonotactics, there are restrictions on consonant clusters. Word-initial clusters are generally indicative of loanword status. Viitso (2003: 23–25) only mentions those clusters which occur word-medially (after the vowel

|| 101 Our translation: “in the other languages the presence of tš and tš’ is mainly limited to loanwords and onomatopoeic words.”

344 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

of the first syllable). The putative sequence /t/ + /ʃ/ is not included in the inventory of admissible clusters. We therefore feel justified in classifying Estonian as /ʧ/-borrower. Livonian is another candidate for admittance to the class of /ʧ/borrowers. It is described as /ʧ/-less in de Sivers (2001: 23) and Ernštreit and Pomozi (2004: 199). Phonetically the sequence of the voiceless dental plosive and the voiceless postalveolar fricative is well-established in the inherited Uralic lexicon of Livonian. Sjögren and Wiedemann’s (1861: 116–118) dictionary contains many entries with word-initial several of which are bona fide loans from Latvian. A sizable group of Latvian loans belongs to the class of onomatopoeic verbs such as Livonian tširkst ‘chirp’ < Latvian čirkstēt, Livonian tšerkst ‘crackle, rustle’ < Latvian čerkstēt, Livonian tšurkst ‘trickle’ < Latvian čurkstēt ‘gurgle’ (Urdze 2010: 311, 316), etc. Many aspects of the phenomenon are still largely unclear to us. The open questions notwithstanding, we dare putting forward the hypothesis that Livonian too gives evidence of LP /ʧ/. Twenty of the 28 Germanic EDLs are /ʧ/-less. This group covers 71 % of the Germanic component in the sample. Table 113 reveals that only two Germanic EDLs display LP /ʧ/. Six of their relatives give evidence of autochthonous /ʧ/. One of the /ʧ/-less Germanic EDLs – Faroese – is underlined because our main source (Thráinsson et al. 2004: 56–57) considers the affricate to be already phonemic whereas we interpret it as a positional allophone [ʧ] of /k/ before front vowels in analogy to the case of [ʤ] discussed in Section 17.2.4.4. Table 113: Germanic /ʧ/-languages vs. Germanic /ʧ/-less languages.

/ʧ/-less [20]

borr [2]

Dutch, Yiddish

auto [6]

/ʧ/-EDLs [8]

EDLs

English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), German, German (Brig), Swedish (Österbotten) Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch (Drente), Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), English (Cockney), Faroese, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Frisian Northern (Weesdring), Frisian Western, German (Ladelund Danish), German (urban Kölsch), Icelandic, Low German (East Frisian), Low German (North Saxon), Low German (Westphalian), Luxembourgish, Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Swedish

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 345

Moulton (1972) assumes no Proto-Germanic *ʧ. The earliest piece of evidence for a phonemic voiceless postalveolar affricate in the Germania seems to stem from late Old English/early Middle English and results from the palatalizationaffrication of an earlier voiceless velar plosive in the adjacency of front vowels (Minkova 2014: 82). The vast majority of the Germanic EDLs continue to be /ʧ/less. Only a small minority has acquired this phoneme either via internal phonological change or via language contact. These /ʧ/-borrowers are Dutch and Yiddish. As to LP /ʧ/ in Dutch, Booij (2012: 7, fn. 7) mentions the loanword chip from English but adds that the initial affricate could also be analyzed as bi- or triphonemic sequence. We briefly look at German whose case is different. Wiese (1996: 10) marks /ʧ/ as marginal phoneme. There are minimal-pairs with wordmedial and word-final contrasts such as latschen ‘trudge’ ≠ lahmen ‘be/go lame’ and Rutsch ‘landslide’ ≠ Ruck ‘jolt’. In word-initial position, however, the voiceless postalveolar affricate is frequently attested in loanwords but also in autochthonous words. In the pertinent literature the phonological status of the affricate is controversial (Wiese 1996: 14). We therefore assume that /ʧ/ is autochthonous in German. It does by no means follow from this interpretation that the voiceless postalveolar affricate is autochthonous also in Yiddish. Middle High German displays three affricates in its phoneme inventory, namely /pf/, /ʦ/, and – only in the southernmost varieties – /kx/ (Weinhold et al. 1972: 34–35) but there is no evidence of /ʧ/. Accordingly, the origin of Yiddish /ʧ/ cannot be sought in the Germanic heritage of the language. In his sketch of the phonology of Biblical Hebrew, Gzella (2009: 67–68) does not mention this affricate either. For Modern Hebrew, Schwarzwald (2001: 7) and Coffin and Bolozky (2005: 20) limit the domain of /ʧ/ to loanwords. Thus, the voiceless postalveolar affricate in Yiddish must originate from elsewhere. As we have argued in connection with /ʤ/ in Section 17.2.4.4a, Jacobs (2005: 111–112, 115–119) does not commit himself to any hypothesis about the historical background of Yiddish /ʧ/. Not every scholar of the language includes /ʧ/ in the phoneme inventory. The possibility of analyzing the affricate as a biphonemic sequence is mentioned as is the rise of [ʧ] via epenthesis of [t] between tautosyllabic sonorant and [ʃ]. The phoneme itself is illustrated with examples whose Slavic origin is relatively obvious, namely Yiddish mučən ‘to torment’ which reminds us of Slovak mučiť with identical meaning, Yiddish čvok ‘nail’ resembles its Czech translation equivalent cvok or Polish ćwiek, Yiddish čepən ‘bother’ can probably be associated with Polish czepiać (się) ‘moan/whinge about’, and Yiddish jungač ‘brat, rascal’ with German jung ‘young’ serving as (borrowed) stem. The derivational suffix -ač is common to many Slavic EDLs so that the Polish origin is only one among a variety of options (Wexler 1987: 172).

346 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

In the Celtic branch of Indo-European, the /ʧ/-less EDLs form the majority with 69 % of all Celtic members of the sample. Table 114 shows that only Irish (Southern) displays autochthonous /ʧ/ whereas three Brythonic EDLs are /ʧ/borrowers. Table 114: Celtic /ʧ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʧ/-less languages.

/ʧ/-less [9]

borr [3]

Cornish, Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

auto [1]

/ʧ/-EDLs [4]

EDLs

Irish (Southern)

Breton, Breton (Léonais), Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Irish, Irish (Northern), Manx, Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic (Applecross)

Wmffre (1998: 8–9) describes Late Cornish as a language without voiceless postalveolar affricate whereas Brown (2001: 3) argues that it is attested in loanwords – and in exactly one inherited word, namely chi ‘house’. The two regional varieties of Welsh are said to have /ʧ/ in borrowings such as Welsh tsips ‘chips’ < English chips, Welsh matsien ‘match’ < English match, and Welsh wats ‘watch’ < English watch (Hannahs 2013: 16). Note that the affricate occurs also in native words but never in word-initial position. It is therefore possible that the English loans have contributed to the phonematization of the voiceless postalveolar affricates which participate in the system of initial consonant mutations of Welsh (Hannahs 2013: 144). Interestingly, there is no evidence of the voiceless postalveolar affricate in the varieties of Breton – the next of kin of Welsh (Northern, Southern) and Cornish. Breton’s partner in contact has always been French. French lost its affricates as early as the 13th century at a time when those of English emerged as phonemes. For Romance EDLs it is the norm to display autochthonous /ʧ/. Table 115 shows that 84 % of the members of this branch of Indo-European boast autochthonous /ʧ/.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 347

Table 115: Romance /ʧ/-languages vs. Romance /ʧ/-less languages.

/ʧ/-less [4]

auto [26]

/ʧ/-EDLs [27]

borr [1]

EDLs Sardinian (Nuorese)

Aromanian, Asturian, Catalan, Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Istro Romanian, Italian, Ladin, Ladino, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Languedocien), Romanian, Romanian (Megleno), Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese), Spanish French, Italian (Genovese), Occitan (Gascon), Portuguese

The only case of LP /ʧ/ amongst the Romance EDLs is Sardinian (Nuorese). Jones (1988: 318) claims that in this variety of Sardinian /ʧ/ occurs only in loanwords. At the same time, the author argues that original /ʧ/ in Italian loanwords is regularly replaced with the voiceless alveolar affricate /ʦ/ in Sardinian (Nuorese) (Jones 1988: 322 and 328). Since Italian is certainly the most important donor language for loanwords in Sardinian (Nuorese) we are at a loss especially because concrete examples of loanwords hosting the voiceless postalveolar affricate are absent from the source text. This empirical problem notwithstanding, we opt for LP /ʧ/ on the basis of our maximalist principles. (b) Additions: In Cymbrian, the voiceless postalveolar affricate is attested predominantly in loanwords from Italian (Tyroller 2003: 66–67). There are, however, inherited Germanic words which host /ʧ/ and it is by no means evident that the distribution of Germanic and Italian affricates differs significantly. Many of the Italo-Romance loanwords in Cymbrian originate from Venetian. This is the case for instance with Cymbrian [bɔːʧə] ‘little child’ < Venetian bòcia. It is conceivable that the Italo-Romance loanwords have contributed to the phonematization of an erstwhile biphonemic Germanic sequence [t] + [ʃ]. In Mòcheno, /ʧ/ is widely common also in the inherited part of the lexicon so that there is no reason to assume LP-status for the voiceless postalveolar affricate in this variety (Rowley 2003: 92–93). In contrast, for the dialect of Laurein – a third Germanic variety spoken in South Tyrol, the diachrony of /ʧ/ can be directly connected to the influx of loanwords from various sources (Czech, Hungarian, Italian) (Kollmann 2012: 212–213).

348 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(c) Geography: Map LV surveys the distribution of /ʧ/-borrowers in Europe. The voiceless postalveolar affricate is autochthonous for the majority of the EDLs in SW, SC, SE, MC, ME, and NE. There are sizable clusters of /ʧ/-less EDLs in MW and on the western fringes of MC. As to LP /ʧ/, Table 116 has empty cells in all N-nonants and SW. There are small hotbeds of LP /ʧ/ in MC and SE with secondary concentrations in MW and ME. The M-nonants stand out because they are populated with /ʧ/-borrowers from the Atlantic to the Ural Mountains. Table 116: Distribution of /ʧ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

3

5

3

11

S

0

2

5

7

Total

3

7

8

18

(d) Further issues: Tables 88 and 95 have informed us about the cooccurrence of postalveolar affricates and the alveolar affricates, respectively. Table 117 is dedicated to the co-occurrence of /ʧ/ and /ʦ/. Table 117: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʧ/ and (LP) /ʦ/.

/ʦ/ LP

/ʧ/

unattested

LP

6

3

9

18

autochthonous

15

107

23

145

2

15

30

47

23

125

62

210

unattested Total

autochthonous

Sum

There are 180 EDLs which have at least one voiceless affricate. Only 14 % of the sample languages lack voiceless affricates in general. The number of EDLs which have both /ʦ/ and /ʧ/ is 131 = 62 % of the sample languages. Parallel borrowing is attested in six EDLs. The voiceless alveolar affricate is borrowed more often in EDLs which have autochthonous /ʧ/. The borrowing of /ʧ/ in the presence of autochthonous /ʦ/ is relatively infrequent. Both affricates are bor-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 349

rowable in the absence of the other. In the absence of /ʦ/, the voiceless postalveolar affricate is attested in 32 EDLs. The other way round, /ʦ/ without /ʧ/ is reported for 17 EDLs. This means that the two affricates do not appear to be very tightly interconnected. Gap-filling is therefore hardly an issue. We assume that the borrowing of one in the presence of the other establishes a new place of articulation whereas the borrowing of the one in the absence of the other introduces a new manner of articulation to the system of the replica language. We are most probably dealing with a Class-5 phenomenon according to Maddieson’s typology. Again with reference to Eisen’s (2019: 92–93) hypothesis of an inhibiting effect involving affricates, we state that there is no obvious proof of this effect for the pair of affricates scrutinized above. Two thirds of all cases of LP /ʦ/ happen in the presence of already established /ʧ/. Moreover, only 9 % of all instances of /ʦ/-borrowing do not also involve /ʧ/ be it as autochthonous phoneme or as LP. This case is a further piece of evidence for the areal-phonological specificities of the EDLs which are prone to escape our notice if Europe and Asia are treated as a geographical unit.

17.2.4.9 /z/ The voiced alveolar fricative is attested in 174 EDLs and thus occurs in 83 % of the sample languages. It is absent from 36 EDLs as can be concluded on the basis of Figure 72. The /z/-languages comprise a clear majority of 156 EDLs with autochthonous /z/ as opposed to the minority of 18 EDLs which testify to LP /z/, i.e. LP /z/ yields the same turnout as LP /ʧ/ in the foregoing section.

no /z/; 36; 17%

LP; 18; 9%

autochthonous; 156; 74%

Figure 72: Share of LP /z/ in the sample.

350 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

To compare our data and those of Maddieson (1984: 228–230) his categories (i) “voiced dental sibilant fricative”, (ii) “voiced dental/alveolar sibilant fricative”, and (iii) “voiced alveolar sibilant fricative” have to be united. In this way we get 97 /z/-languages including six /z/-borrowers. /z/-languages cover 31 % of Maddieson’s sample whereas /z/-borrowers have a share of 6 % within the class of /z/-languages. These values are considerably lower than those calculated within the framework of Phon@Europe. Eisen (2019: 40–41) counts 17 /z/-borrowers in Eurasia which have a share of 12 % in the Eurasian subsample. The absolute turnout is almost the same as in our project whereas the percentages differ visibly. In global perspective, Eisen identifies 60 /z/-borrowers (= 11 % of the entire sample). As the subsequent paragraphs will show the identification of LP /z/ can be a cumbersome task. The problems we have to face in the (a)-part are representative of the difficulties we have to deal with in this particular case-study. (a) From within the sample: Figure 73 shows that /z/-borrowing is overwhelmingly an Indo-European phenomenon. The two other phyla which attest to cases of LP /z/ are underrepresented. In contrast the Isolate is characterized by an increase of the share. We assume that this tremendous gain in importance is again only an effect of the small number of instances of LP /z/ in general.

Uralic; 2; 11%

Indo-European; 14; 78%

Turkic; 1; 5% Isolate; 1; 6%

Figure 73: Genealogic distribution of /z/-borrowers.

Almost two thirds of the Romance EDLs display autochthonous /z/. The voiced alveolar fricative is absent only from six Romance EDLs. The cell of /z/-borrowers in Table 118 equally hosts six EDLs all of which are situated in the Balkans.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 351

Table 118: Romance /z/-languages vs. Romance /z/-less languages.

/z/-less [6]

borr [6]

Aromanian, Istro Romanian, Ladino, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian, Romanian (Megleno)

auto [19]

/z/-EDLs [25]

EDLs

Catalan, Corsican, French, Friulian (Udine), Istriot, Italian, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Portuguese, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda) Asturian, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), Galician, Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese), Spanish

The majority of Romance EDLs with autochthonous /z/ notwithstanding, it is unlikely that a phonemic voicing opposition /s/ ≠ /z/ was fully established in Latin already (Touratier 2013: 39–41). Thus the 25 Romance /z/-languages can all be considered to be innovators. In the case of the Balkan Romance branch, the genesis of /z/ is the outcome of language-internal processes and language contact. For Romanian /z/, Dimitrescu et al. (1978: 168–169) review the different hypotheses as to the origin of the phoneme. Apart from mentioning parallels with Albanian and Greek as well as Turkish loanwords, the authors emphasize that in the inherited lexicon /d/ underwent affrication to /ʣ/ if followed by a front vowel only to be deaffricated to /z/ in a second step. In the chronology of events this change, however, happened posterior to the Common Romanian period. Since all varieties of Balkan Romance are /z/-languages, the shared consonant must be explained differently. Sala (1970: 158) argues that loans from Slavic (such as Romanian groază ‘terror; fear’ < unspecified Slavic groza) are responsible for the phonematization of /z/ in this easterly branch of Romance. Our sources on Aromanian, Istro Romanian, Megleno Romanian, and Romanian (Megleno) do not investigate the diachrony of /z/ which goes back in time to a phase prior to the emergence of the individual Balkan Romance EDLs. Kramer (1989: 428–429) stresses the conservative character of Aromanian phonology which gives no evidence of the deaffrication of /ʣ/ to /z/, for instance. Dahmen (1989a: 440) argues that exactly this process has taken place in Megleno Romanian. For Istro Romanian, Dahmen (1989b: 456) mentions varieties in which alveolar and postalveolar fricatives have merged. To solve the problem, we apply the principle of analogy again by way of generalizing the analysis of the Romanian facts over its next of kin. In this way, five instances of LP /z/ can be postulated.

352 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The Balkan Romance situation is symptomatic for the difficulties that arise in connection with determining whether we are dealing with LP /z/ at all. Ladino is a case in point. Sala (1971: 142) reports that in the Romance component of the lexicon, Ladino displays /z/ where Spanish has either /s/ or /θ/. The different phonemes go back to the Old Spanish voiced postalveolar affricate /ʣ/ (Dietrich and Geckeler 2004: 77–78). In Ladino, deaffrication must have turned the inherited affricate into the voiced alveolar fricative /z/. This is a language-internal phonological change. However, Sala (1971: 142–143) proves that in words of Romance origin, Ladino /z/ is limited to word-medial positions, namely either intervocalically or in the syllable coda in front of a sonorant or voiced obstruent. These are typical contexts of voice assimilation or lenition. In contrast to /s/, Ladino /z/ was originally banned from word-initial and word-final positions. These two positions became accessible for the voiced alveolar fricative only on account of the integration of loanwords. Sala (1971: 143) states that word-initially Ladino /z/ is permitted exclusively in loans from Hebrew or Turkish (such as Ladino zulufis ‘curl’ (< Romanian zuluf) < Turkish zülüf) whereas it alternates with its voiceless counterpart word-finally. The domain of Ladino /z/ has grown because of the integration of loanwords. Whether the process can also be interpreted as a case of contact-induced phonematization remains doubtful because /s/ is attested in intervocalic position too so that /z/ cannot simply be reduced to the status of positional allophone of the former. Sala (1971: 138) provides examples such as Ladino kavésa ‘head’ < Spanish cabeza from the inherited lexicon and Ladino musafír ‘guest’ (< Romanian musafir) < Turkish müsafir from the domain of borrowings. For the purpose of this study, we consider the foreign impact on the development of Ladino /z/ too strong to be passed over tacitly. Without the support via language contact, Ladino /z/ might have remained a marginal phoneme with a severely restricted distribution. It was promoted to full phoneme only because of the integration of loanwords. It is therefore a case of LP /z/ albeit one of those which show that the ground was prepared for phonematization already prior to language contact. Cases which resemble that of Ladino abound. We have already encountered similar scenarios in previous sections and we will face further examples in the subsequent paragraphs and beyond. The Germanic EDLs are not free of interpretative problems either. Table 119 shows that this group is divided in two major classes of almost identical size. The /z/-less EDLs form a minority compared to the /z/-languages but they still constitute the biggest of the three subclasses. North Germanic EDLs are generally /z/-less. The only /z/-borrowers are the four varieties of English.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 353

Table 119: Germanic /z/-languages vs. Germanic /z/-less languages.

auto [11]

/z/-EDLs [15]

borr [4]

EDLs

/z/-less [13]

English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney)

Dutch, Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), Frisian Northern (Weesdring), Frisian Western, German, German (urban Kölsch), Low German (East Frisian), Low German (North Saxon), Low German (Westphalian), Luxembourgish, Yiddish Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch (Drente), Faroese, Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), German (Brig), German (Ladelund Danish), Icelandic, Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Swedish, Swedish (Österbotten)

Moulton (1972: 143) assumes a voice-based opposition for the alveolar fricatives of Proto-Germanic, i.e. he reconstructs the pair /s/ ≠ /z/ for the undocumented period of the Germanic branch of Indo-European. Except Gothic, none of the early attested successors of Proto-Germanic preserved this opposition although the two sibilants remained in an allophonic relationship in Old English, Old Frisian, and Old Saxon. With reference to Old English, Minkova (2014: 89) considers “the absence of contrastive voiced fricatives” striking. There were no minimal pairs so that “the voiced allophones were not functional independently of the environment in which they appeared” (Minkova 2014: 90). This means that [s] and [z] were complementary allophones of a phoneme /s/ at this stage of the development. The allophonic distribution underwent phonematization only in the Middle English period – and this not the least because of loanwords. Minkova (2014: 92–93) relativizes the importance of language contact in the case of the sibilants because [c]ompared with the labial fricatives, the share of loanword phonology on the history of the sibilants [s] – [z] is less critical. There are only about thirty initial words in [Middle English], many of them infrequent items, for example zephyr, zeal, zone, zeugma. [M]ost of the borrowings in this set are from Greek.

In spite of the relativization of the role language contact has played in the genesis of /z/, borrowing remains a factor which contributed to the phonematization so that it is justified to speak of LP /z/ not only in the case of English but also – by analogy – in the cases of the other three English varieties in our sample.

354 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Ten of eleven Indo-Iranian languages attest to /z/ in their inventories. 30 % of /z/-languages are /z/-borrowers, all of them being Romani varieties. However, we can find Romani varieties also among /z/-less EDLs and non-borrowers in Table 120. Table 120: Indo-Iranian /z/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /z/-less languages.

/z/-less [1]

borr [3]

Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Kalderash)

auto [7]

/z/-EDLs [10]

EDLs

Kurmanji, Ossetic, Romani (Lithuanian), Romani (North Russian), Romani (Sepečides), Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili)

Romani (Burgenland)

We begin the presentation with Romani (Ajia Varvara). This EDL is the sole acknowledged /z/-borrower in the Indo-Iranian group. Its sister-language Romani (Burgenland) is reported to be the only /z/-less member of this group which additionally hosts seven EDLs with autochthonous /z/.102 Halwachs (2002: 6) provides an account of the phoneme system of Romani (Burgenland) in which [z] has the status of an allophone of /s/. In Halwachs (1998: 10–11) the author claims that (with occasional exceptions) [z] is restricted to word-medial positions in contexts of high sonority. For Romani (Ajia Varvara), Igla (1996: 10) notes that /z/ is attested exclusively in loanwords adding that some of them are of Persian origin. Matras (2002: 51) assumes that /z/ was absent from Proto-Romani but “first entered the language with the Iranian component” so that it forms part of the phoneme chart of Early Romani (Matras 2002: 56) which is tentatively identified with the Byzantine period between the 10th and 12th century (Matras 2002: 19). This period coincides with our self-imposed time-depth for this case-study. On the above pattern of the Balkan Romance EDLs, we therefore could simply stipulate

|| 102 Cech and Heinschink (1996: 5) claim that the “voiced alveolar fricative is not an inherited sound in Romani” which they believe to be attested only in a single loanword from Greek in Romani (Sepečides). On closer inspection, it turns out, however, that the authors have the postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ in mind when they discuss the marginal status of the phoneme.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 355

that all cases of /z/ in Romani EDLs instantiate LP /z/. However, we do not want to jump to conclusions without further discussion. By way of example, we take a look at Romani (Bugurdži). Boretzky (1993: 4– 11) describes the phonology of this Romani variety in such way that it appears to be a /z/-language with autochthonous /z/. In point of fact, language-internal sound changes contributed to establishing /z/ as phoneme. These diachronic processes involve the palatalization-cum-affrication of /d/ and /g/ before front vowels as in diz ‘town’ > ziz < Persian diz ~ diž ‘fortress’ (Boretzky and Igla 1994: 74) and giv ‘wheat’ > ziv. The resulting voiced alveolar affricate /ʣ/ was subject to deaffrication to [z] (Boretzky and Igla 1994: 368–369). At least initially, [z] was only an allophone of the voiced plosives. In the glossary (Boretzky 1993: 158), there are 38 entries with /z/-initial words only four of which have a putative Indic etymology. Three of them reflect the above automatic palatalization/affrication and deaffrication of the plosives /d/ and /g/. The vast majority of the lemmas, however, consist of loanwords from Albanian, Greek, SerboCroatian, or Turkish such as Romani (Bugurdži) zvúkos ‘sound’ < Serbo-Croatian zvuk, Romani (Bugurdži) zála ‘sand’ < Albanian zallë, Romani (Bugurdži) zumí ‘soup’ < Greek zumí, Romani (Bugurdži) zéfka ‘have fun’ (< Albanian zefk ‘fun’) < Turkish zevk ‘fun, taste, entertainment’, etc. Loanwords may also host wordmedial /z/ like Romani (Bugurdži) mazúni ‘sad’ (< Albanian mazun) < Turkish mahzun. We also find evidence of /z/ with numerous loanverbs like Romani (Bugurdži) radízava ‘work’ < Serbo-Croatian raditi, Romani (Bugurdži) rimózava ‘destroy’ < Greek rimazo, Romani (Bugurdži) pušójzava ‘rest’ < Albanian pushoj, etc. These examples illustrate the use of the Greek stem formative -iz(o) of the present tense as generalized derivational morpheme for loan-verbs in Romani (Bugurdži) (Boretzky and Igla 1994: 414). This means that this very productive loan morpheme is crucially involved in the phonematization of /z/. Since the case of Romani (Bugurdži) is not much different from those previously discussed in this section, we classify it as an instance of /z/-borrowing. What should be taken note of additionally is the importance of the contemporary neighbors of Romani (Bugurdži) as donor languages. The Iranian share of loanwords which feature /z/ does not seem to be particularly prominent. Romani (Kalderash) displays similar properties as to the status of /z/. What distinguishes Romani (Kalderash) from its sister-language Romani (Bugurdži) is the existence of a set of palatal sibilants in addition to the voiceless and voiced alveolar and postalveolar fricatives (Boretzky 1994: 21). Nothing specific is said about possible contact-induced processes in connection with /z/ (Boretzky 1994: 157–158). A glance at the glossary (Boretzky 1994: 294–295) reveals that there are 54 /z/-initial entries 44 of which stem from Serbo-Croatian, Romanian,

356 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Albanian, or Greek such as Romani (Kalderash) zaháro ‘sugar’ < Romanian zahar, Romani (Kalderash) zráko ‘air’ < Serbo-Croatian zrak, etc. Of the remaining ten entries, zor ‘power’, zuraló ‘powerful’, zuravol ‘become powerful’, zən ‘saddle’, and zəjá ‘back’ can be traced back to Persian, namely zōr in the case of the former three and zēn for the latter two (Boretzky and Igla 1994: 304–305). The entries without identified etymology are zar ‘pubic hair’, zaraló ‘hairy’, zlag ‘earring’, zumavél ‘try’, and zəveljá ‘crackling’. Romani (Kalderash) gives evidence of /z/ also in other positions such as word-medially Romani (Kalderash) razumíl ‘understand’ < Serbo-Croatian razumeti, word-finally Romani (Kalderash) rez ‘vine’ < Persian raz (Boretzky 1994: 286), etc. Going by the etymologies provided by Boretzky and Igla (1994) we claim that except a handful of difficult to etymologize cases all words whose segmental chain hosts /z/ in Romani (Kalderash) are loanwords. The Persian component in the borrowed lexicon seems to be bigger than in the case of Romani (Bugurdži). We treat Romani (Kalderash) on a par with Romani (Bugurdži) and Romani (Ajia Varvara), meaning: these EDLs are equipped with LP /z/. Chances are that at least some of the other Romani languages can also be shown to attest to LP /z/. However, to prove this empirically, a special in-depth study is called for whose size and character is beyond the aims of our present investigation. Nearly three quarters of Uralic EDLs are /z/-languages. There is a majority of fifteen Uralic EDLs with autochthonous /z/ as opposed to only two /z/borrowers, as Table 121 shows. Table 121: Uralic /z/-languages vs. Uralic /z/-less languages.

/z/-less [6]

borr [2] auto [15]

/z/-EDLs [17]

EDLs Estonian, Saami (Kildin)

Hungarian, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Livonian, Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Udmurt, Veps, Votic Estonian (Rõngu), Finnish, Karelian (Archangelsk), Nenets (Tundra), Saami (Central-South), Saami (Northern Enontekiö)

First of all, the partial desonorization of obstruents in Estonian obstructs our view, in a manner of speaking. Hasselblatt (2001: 119) classifies Estonian /z/ as LP and describes it as

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 357

[u]rsprünglich stimmhaftes s wie im deutschen Rose, das dann aber halbstimmhaft, dem /s/ ähnlich, ausgesprochen wird.103

His example is Estonian zlott ‘Zloty’ < Polish złoty. There is an orthographic issue hidden behind the above quote. The letter is indeed restricted to loanwords (Hetzer 2003: 3–4) whereas the (desonorized) voiced alveolar fricative [z̥] is attested a) in Finnic words in intervocalic position (Lavotha 1973: 16), in consonant clusters after sonorants, and word-finally after vowels (Viitso 2003: 10), and b) in loanwords also in word-initial position. Only in the case of (b) is the consonant represented orthographically as . In the case of (a), the ambiguous is employed. Tauli (1973: 26) doubts that the voiced pronunciation of the fricative as imposed by normative grammar is mastered by the majority of the Estonian native speakers because “such a pronunciation is foreign to the Estonian phonemic system and does not correspond to common usage.” We assume that (a) captures [z̥] as an allophone of /s/ whereas (b) defines /z/ as a phoneme distinct from /s/. On account of Hasselblatt’s description, the Estonian voiced alveolar fricative is registered as /z̥/ in our database. The same problem has arisen in connection with LP /ʒ/ (~ Estonian LP /ʒ̊/) discussed in Section 17.2.4.2. For the purpose of this case-study, we consider the gradual desonorization to be irrelevant and thus classify Estonian as /z/-borrower although this LP is very infrequent in the replica language. The second Uralic case is Saami (Kildin). Rießler (2007: 232) attributes the phonematization of the allophonic relationship of [s] and [z] to the integration of Russian loans with initial /z/. Celtic /z/-less EDLs outnumber Celtic /z/-languages by a narrow margin. There is only a single /z/-borrower (see Table 122). Watkins (1992: 32) assumes LP /z/ for Welsh (Southern). Hannahs (2013: 18) speaks of a dialectal phenomenon which not only involves loanwords from English such as Welsh (Southern) zoo ‘zoo’ but also the allomorph {(i)z} of the English plural marker which occurs with borrowings (= [ˈbabɪz] ‘babies’) and on native stems (= drudwens [ˈdrɪdʊnz] ‘starlings’). The two remaining /z/-borrowers are isolated cases. The Turkic component of the sample consists exclusively of /z/-languages fourteen of which boast autochthonous /z/. Chuvash is exceptional because it has borrowed /z/ from Russian (Clark 1998: 434).

|| 103 Our translation: “originally voiced s like in German Rose which, however, is realized semivoiced, similar to /s/.”

358 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 122: Celtic /z/-languages vs. Celtic /z/-less languages.

/z/-less [7]

borr [1]

Welsh (Southern)

auto [5]

/z/-EDLs [6]

EDLs

Breton (Léonais), Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Cornish, Irish (Southern) Breton, Irish, Irish (Northern), Manx, Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic (Applecross), Welsh (Northern)

Finally, Basque (Zuberoa) should be mentioned. This case is not without problems because our sources give divergent accounts of the facts. There can be no doubt that the voiced alveolar fricative is a case of borrowing in this Basque variety. However, there are different interpretations of the exact quality the LP has in the replica language. According to Haase (1993: 29–33), what we have in Basque Zuberoa is plain /z/ which is characterized as marginally integrated in the system. Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003) distinguish voiced laminal and apico-postalveolar fricatives as discussed in Section 17.2.4.28. We assume that we are facing a ternary system of voiced fricatives, namely /z/–/z̻/–/z̺/ all three of which are considered LPs. Whether this interpretation can be upheld, must be tested in the future. (b) Additions: For Karelian (Olonets), Leskinen (1984: 250–251) claims that /z/ does not belong to the inherited Uralic phoneme inventory but forms part of the extended system which also takes account of the properties of loanwords. The voiced alveolar fricative is attested in word-initial and word-medial position but only in words adopted from Russian. (c) Geography: The distribution of LP /z/ has two foci. We find concentrations of /z/-borrowers in the Balkans and in the British Isles. This comes clearly to the fore on Map LVI and similarly also in Table 123 where only SC and to a lesser extent also MW host significant numbers of /z/-borrowers. /z/-borrowing is a combined southerly-central phenomenon. Autochthonous /z/ is the majority option in MC, ME, SC and the sole category attested in SE. EDLs without /z/ are without competitors in NW and NC whereas they cluster in segments of MW, SW, and MC.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 359

Table 123: Distribution of /z/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

1

1

M

5

1

1

7

S

1

9

0

10

Total

6

10

2

18

(d) Further issues: In Table 124 we check the co-occurrences of the two alveolar fricatives. The distribution of the voiceless /s/ and the voiced /z/ has been addressed in Section 4.2.3 on the basis of a much smaller sample and without taking contact-borne phenomena into account. Table 124: Co-occurrence of (LP) /s/ and (LP) /z/.

/s/

/z/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

18

0

18

autochthonous

0

156

0

156

unattested

0

36

0

36

0

210

0

210

The results are crystal clear. Parallel borrowing of the two alveolar fricatives is ruled out on account of the simple fact that /s/ is never a LP in the sample. In the eighteen cases of LP /z/ the /z/-borrower already has /s/. In 83% of the sample languages, both of the alveolar fricatives are phonemic. The voiceless alveolar fricative is attested in 36 EDLs without being accompanied by its voiced counterpart. The reverse is not attested. In sum, there is no EDL in our sample that lacks a voiceless alveolar fricative whereas there are some which have no /z/. Gap-filling is the category which captures best the relation that holds between LP /z/ and autochthonous /s/ (Maddieson’s Class 1).

360 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

17.2.4.10 /ʣ/ The vast majority of the sample languages lack /ʣ/. Figure 74 reveals that the voiced alveolar affricate is absent from 70 % of the EDLs. Less than a quarter of the EDLs attest to the presence of autochthonous /ʣ/. In addition, there are 15 /ʣ/-borrowers, i.e. 7 % of the sample languages give evidence of LP /ʣ/. The /ʣ/-borrowers represent 23 % of the /ʣ/-languages.

autochthonous; 49; 23%

LP; 15; 7%

no /ʣ/; 146; 70%

Figure 74: Share of LP /ʣ/ in the sample.

Maddieson’s (1984: 222) categories “voiced dental/alveolar sibilant affricate” and “voiced alveolar sibilant affricate” together cover 28 languages, i.e. 9 % of his sample display /ʣ/. No case of LP /ʣ/ is identified. This is different in Eisen’s sample. The author registers ten /ʣ/-borrowers worldwide (= 2 % of the entire sample) eight of which belong to the Eurasian subsample where they cover 5 % (Eisen 2019: 40–41). The percentages of LP /ʣ/ in this study and that of Eisen come close to each other whereas the absolute numbers of /ʣ/borrowers differ considerably. The subsequent discussion of the data is once again indicative of numerous problems which arise in connection with the identification of genuine cases of borrowing. As is familiar already from the previous sections, these problems are by no means the monopoly of a given LP but constitute a recurrent phenomenon. (a) From within the sample: Figure 75 leaves no margin for doubt. /ʣ/borrowing is almost exclusively an Indo-European phenomenon.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 361

Afro-Asiatic; 1; 7%

Indo-European; 14; 93%

Figure 75: Genealogic distribution of /ʣ/-borrowers.

The Slavic EDLs provide the richest array of cases of LP /ʣ/. Table 125 shows that /ʣ/-languages and /ʣ/-less languages are almost equally numerous. The eleven /ʣ/-borrowers form the bigger class in comparison to the four Slavic EDLs with autochthonous /ʣ/. Table 125: Slavic /ʣ/-languages vs. Slavic /ʣ/-less languages.

borr [11]

Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Bulgarian, Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Slavomolisano, Slovene (Resia), Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper), Ukrainian (North Hutsul)

auto [4]

/ʣ/-EDLs [15]

EDLs

Kashubian, Polish, Polish (Lazduny), Slovak

/ʣ/-less [14]

Bosnian, Croatian, Croatian (Burgenland), Czech, Czech (MoravianSlovak), Russian, Russian (Meščera), Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Serbian, Slovene, Sorbian Lower, Sorbian Lower (Vetschau), Sorbian Upper

Sussex and Cubberley (2006: 26 and 137) assume that a subphonemic voiced alveolar affricate emerged during the development from early to late ProtoSlavic. As a phoneme, /ʣ/ arose in West Slavic (Shevelov 1964: 212) only to experience deaffrication to /z/ again in some of the EDLs of this subgroup of Slavic. In a number of modern Slavic EDLs [ʣ] functions as allophone of /ʦ/

362 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(Sussex and Cubberley 2006: 164). Outside the West Slavic sphere, the attested cases of phonemic /ʣ/ can be associated directly or indirectly with language contact. It is important to keep in mind that we are talking about the diachrony of the plain affricate and not about that of its palatalized equivalent /ʣʲ/ which was exposed to different processes throughout the Slavia. The voiced alveolar affricate has spread eastwards from West Slavic into the territory of the East Slavic branch. For Belarusian, Wexler (1977: 174–175) assumes two sources for /ʣ/, namely (a) onomatopoeic words and (b) loans which come mostly from Polish such as Belarusian ksëndz ‘Roman Catholic priest’ < Polish ksiądz. The author concedes that /ʣ/ might theoretically have been accepted into the system as the voiced counterpart of existing [/ʦ/], it, too, remains a marginal segment in [Belarusian] [. /ʣ/] never spread to the native parts of the [Belarusian] lexicon (Wexler 1977: 175).

With reference to Belarusian (Gervjaty) Sudnik (1975: 27) declares /ʣ/ to be a LP. As to the origin of Ukrainian /ʣ/ Shevelov (1979: 627–628) claims that the borrowing is not as clear as in the case of LP /g/ (see Section 17.2.4.6). However, “there is a group of words with [/ʣ/] which are clearly of foreign origin” (Shevelov 1979: 627). These words belong to the special vocabulary of sheep breeders who used to be in contact with speakers of Romanian dialects already before the 16th century. In these Romanian dialects /ʣ/ corresponds to Romanian /z/: Ukrainian dzer ‘whey’ ~ Romanian zăr. Later on LP /ʣ/ made inroads into the native lexicon first of the Ukrainian dialects bordering on the above Romanian varieties and then spread across the Ukrainian diasystem ultimately replacing /z/, /ʦ/, or /ʤ/ in new loanwords from Polish, German, Turkish, and Hungarian (Shevelov 1979: 628). On account of Shevelov’s sketch of the history of /ʣ/ in the Ukrainian diasystem we assume that the voiced alveolar affricate is also the result of borrowing in Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper) and Ukrainian (North Hutsul). The phoneme at issue also shows up in several South Slavic EDLs where its existence cannot be explained (exclusively) by way of referring to internal sound changes. Slovene for instance is a /ʣ/-less language. Jenko (2000: 9, fn. 3) acknowledges the existence of [ʣ] as allophone of /ʦ/ in the adjacency of voiced consonants. In contrast, Slovene (Resia) attests to /ʣ/ in loans from ItaloRomance varieties (Steenwijk 1992: 21) as e.g. Slovene (Resia) ʒóna ‘zone’ ( = /ʣ/) < Italian zona (Steenwijk 1992: 337). For Slavomolisano, Breu and Piccoli (2000: 385) count /ʣ/ among the LPs as it is attested almost exclusively in loanwords such as Slavomolisano dzèr ‘zero’ < Italian zero (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 35). Slavomolisano words with /ʣ/ but without Italo-Romance etymology seem to belong to the domain of onomatopoeia. The existence of Macedonian /ʣ/ is caus-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 363

ally connected to contacts with two /ʣ/-languages, viz. Aromanian and Albanian (Koneski 1983: 57). According to the same author, there is only a very small group of foreign words which involve /ʣ/. There is, however, evidence of [ʣ] as positional allophone of /ʦ/ in contexts of high sonority. In analogy to the Macedonian case, we assume LP /ʣ/ also for Macedonian (Kostur-Korča) although Friedman (2003: 182) assumes that /ʣ/ is more widespread in the dialects than in the literary language. Šklifov (1973: 23) notices variation in the diffusion of /ʣ/ in the individual varieties of Macedonian (Kostur-Korča). Macedonian’s closest relative Bulgarian is said to have inherited /ʣ/ directly from Old Bulgarian (Mirčev 1978: 156–157). Other sources such as Klagstad Jr. (1958: 47–48) claim, however, that we are dealing with an instance of borrowing similar to the Macedonian case. The author doubts that the voiced alveolar affricate can be given phoneme status because it is attested only in “twenty or so nursery forms, onomatopetic interjections, Turkisms and regional or free variants” (Klagstad Jr. 1958: 47). Among the borrowings we find Bulgarian dzift ~ zift ‘tar, pitch’ < Turkish zift, Bulgarian dzil ~ zil ‘castanet’ < Turkish zil, etc., i.e. words whose initial voiced alveolar fricative underwent optional fortition. Klagstad Jr. (1958: 48) mentions that [ʣ] is the allophonic realization of /ʦ/ in external sandhi. The above data are sufficient for us to classify Bulgarian /ʣ/ as LP consonant. The same procedure is applied analogously to Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad). The Slavic branch of Indo-European is the only genetically defined group of EDLs which involves several /ʣ/-borrowers. Further examples stem from individual EDLs whose closest relatives do not participate in /ʣ/-borrowing (for whatever reasons). This is the case for instance with Indo-Iranian. Table 126 reflects the tripartition of this branch of Indo-European. Table 126: Indo-Iranian /ʣ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ʣ/-less languages.

/ʣ/-less [9]

borr [1]

Romani (North Russian)

auto [1]

/ʣ/-EDLs [2]

EDLs

Ossetic

Kurmanji, Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Burgenland), Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), Romani (Sepečides), Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili)

364 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Romani (North Russian) is exceptional because of the presence of LP /ʣ/. Wentzel and Klemm (1980: 39) state that /ʣ/ “kommt nur in Wörtern vor, die aus dem Griechischen und anderen Sprachen entlehnt wurden“ [occurs only in words which have been borrowed from Greek or other languages]. In the IndoIranian branch of Indo-European, autochthonous /ʣ/ is attested only in Ossetic. None of the other Romani languages gives evidence of /ʣ/ although Matras (2002: 52–53) mentions several EDLs of this group which have developed (at least temporarily) [ʣ] mostly via palatalization of dental or velar plosives. It is doubtful, however, whether the resulting affricates are fully phonemic or positional allophones of the plosives. Two thirds of the Romance EDLs in our sample lack /ʣ/. There are eleven /ʣ/-languages which include a single /ʣ/-borrower as can be seen in Table 127. Table 127: Romance /ʣ/-languages vs. Romance /ʣ/-less languages.

borr [1]

Ladino

auto [10]

/ʣ/-EDLs [11]

EDLs

Aromanian, Corsican, Italian, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Romanian (Megleno), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese)

/ʣ/-less [20]

Asturian, Catalan, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), French, Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Istro Romanian, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Languedocien), Portuguese, Romanian, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Spanish

The case of Ladino is controversial. Sala (1971: 128–131) analyzes Ladino /ʣ/ as an archaism in the sense that the voiced alveolar affricate continues the Old Spanish state of affairs. In Peninsular Spanish /ʣ/ changed to /θ/ whereas Ladino did not participate in this development. Sala (1971: 128) emphasizes that Ladino /ʣ/ is attested exclusively in words of Spanish origin. At the same time, he acknowledges that in varieties of Ladino other than that of Bucharest /ʣ/ was subject to deaffrication. Hetzer (2001: 5) is cautious to generalize Sala’s findings over the entire dialect bundle of Ladino. In stark contrast to Sala Bunis (2017: 380) discards the idea that Ladino has preserved the Old Spanish affricate. What he assumes instead is that “as early as the 16th or 17th centuries, the Northwestern varieties of Judezmo acquired phonemic /ʦ/ and /ʣ/” via lan-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 365

guage contact (Bunis 2017: 380). No examples are put forward in support of this hypothesis. We cannot solve the problem of the exact status of Ladino /ʣ/ in this study. In accordance with the known maximalist principle, however, we rely on Bunis (2017) when we (blindly) assume LP /ʣ/ for Ladino. According to Henrich (1999: 304), Greek gives evidence of /ʣ/ mostly in loanwords such as Greek tsokeï [ʣɔcɛi] ‘jockey’ < English jockey where it replaces the voiced postalveolar affricate as well. For Italo-Greek such as Greek (Sternatia) Rohlfs (1977: 29–30) assumes that the (controversial) Old Greek affricate /ʣ/ has been preserved whereas the same phoneme underwent deaffrication in Greece. The final case in this (a)-part is Maltese. /ʣ/ is absent from four of five AfroAsiatic EDLs but is attested in Maltese. Krier (1976: 15) provides a phoneme chart for the Maltese consonants and adds that in earlier studies on note encore une sifflante occlusive sonore /ʣ/ qui se rencontrerait dans un nombre fort restreint d’emprunts siculo-italiens. Il n’en sera pas tenu compte ici parce que nous ne l’avons pas relevé parmi les unités du corpus.104

Borg (1997b: 248–249), however, accepts /ʣ/ as phoneme and claims that it is attested in a small number of well-established loanwords such as Maltese gazzetta ‘newspaper’ < Italian gazzetta. Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 301) argue that the two alveolar affricates are distinct phonemes even though there are no minimal pairs with a /ʦ/–/ʣ/ contrast. They can be considered to be distinct phonemes because their distribution is not predictable from the phonological context in which they occur (except regressive voice assimilation). (b) Additions: Popović (1960: 564) refers to earlier studies of the historical phonology of Serbo-Croatian in which it is assumed that the change /z/ > /ʣ/ in the urban variety of Dubrovnik can be attributed to Romance influence. Note, however, that this process affects the Slavic part of the lexicon and no mention is made of loanwords. Romanian influence is invoked to explain the existence of /ʣ/ in the Serbo-Croatian varieties spoken in the Banat (Popović 1960: 572). The affricates are a notoriously difficult chapter in the grammar of Yiddish. According to Jacobs (2005: 112) the voiced alveolar affricate arose secondarily by way of [t]-epenthesis after /l/ or /n/ with subsequent sonorization of the plosive. It has come into existence in the course of strictly language-internal phonological

|| 104 Our translation: “one still notices a voiced sibilant obstruent /ʣ/ which was found in a very restricted number of Siculo-Italian loans. It is not taken account of here because we have not found it among the units of the corpus.”

366 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

processes. Its distribution is probably too limited to classify it as a full phoneme. On the other hand, Eggers (1998: 303) mentions the merger of palatalized /dʲ/ and /ʣ/ in northeastern varieties of Yiddish and attributes the rise of the former to Slavic phonological influence. Whether the /ʣ/ he mentions is identical to that of Jacobs or a different entity (with a Slavic background) is impossible to tell on the basis of the available information. In the case of Cymbrian, Tyroller (2003: 66) argues that [ʦ] and [ʣ] are allophones of the phoneme /ʦ/ because there are no minimal pairs for which the voice contrast of the two alveolar affricates is relevant. On the other hand, the two affricates are attested in similar phonological contexts. Furthermore, the voiced alveolar affricate is restricted to Italo-Romance loanwords such as Cymbrian [dsurlo] ‘cockchafer’ < Italian zurlo. (c) Geography: Owing to the strong Slavic component in the class of /ʣ/borrowers, Map LVII features /ʣ/-borrowers in MC, SC, and ME. The map gives evidence of the dominant position of EDLs without voiced alveolar affricate. Autochthonous /ʣ/ is attested especially in SE, the eastern half of MC, and SC plus isolated cases in SW, NC, and NE. Table 128 shows that six out of nine nonants are devoid of /ʣ/-borrowers. As many times before the north and west are unaffected by borrowing. Table 128: Distribution of /ʣ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

4

2

6

S

0

9

0

9

Total

0

13

2

15

(d) Further issues: To complement the results we have gained from comparing the co-occurrence of /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ in Table 88 and of /ʦ/ and /ʣ/ in Table 95 we dedicate Table 129 to a survey of the co-occurrence of (LP) /ʣ/ and (LP) /ʤ/. The absolute numbers speak against a dependency between the two voiced affricates. Their parallel borrowing yields a turnout that is smaller than those of each of the affricates being borrowed alone. Both of the affricates together are absent from 40 % of the sample languages. As a pair of phonemes they occur in only 28 % of the sample languages. Thus, EDLs prefer to have only one of the affricates (see below). This applies to the 62 EDLs which only have /ʤ/ and likewise to the six EDLs which only have /ʣ/. There are ten times as many EDLs

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 367

with the voiced postalveolar affricate alone as there are EDLs which feature only /ʣ/. If we discount the voice opposition for the time being, gap-filling can be ruled out as an explanation of the borrowing of either of the two candidates. It is more likely that the creation of a new place of articulation is a factor which influences the borrowing (Maddieson’s Class 5). Table 129: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʣ/ and (LP) /ʤ/.

/ʤ/

/ʣ/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

7

7

1

autochthonous

8

36

5

49

unattested

14

48

84

146

29

91

90

210

15

Superficially, the data seem to speak in favor of the inhibiting effect which prevents affricates from being borrowed if the replica language already has affricates (Eisen 2019: 92–93). However, half of the cases of /ʤ/-borrowing involve /ʣ/ be it autochthonous or borrowed. The other way round, 14 out of 15 cases of LP /ʣ/ are connected to /ʤ/ being already there or being borrowed too. In 93 % of all cases of /ʣ/-borrowing the voiced postalveolar affricate also plays a role. This means that the inhibiting effect is practically suspended at least for the European scene.

17.2.4.11 /ʃ/ The voiceless postalveolar fricative /ʃ/ is attested in 176 EDLs of the sample. This absolute number is equivalent of a share of 84 % of the sample. More than three quarters of the EDLs boast autochthonous /ʃ/. With 13 EDLs, LP /ʃ/ is attested only in 6 % of the sample as shown in Figure 76.

368 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

no /ʃ/; 34; 16%

LP; 13; 6%

autochthonous; 163; 78%

Figure 76: Share of LP /ʃ/ in the sample.

With 146 /ʃ/-languages – including five borrowers – Maddieson’s (1984: 230) turnout is significantly smaller than ours. That Maddieson’s results are too low becomes clear if we take a look at Eisen (2019: 40–41). The author registers 46 /ʃ/-borrowers which cover 9 % of his global sample. A third of these borrowers is located in Eurasia where 15 /ʃ/-borrowers are responsible for 10 % of the subsample. The absolute number of /ʃ/-borrowers in Eisen’s study and in our study are relatively similar. One might want to ask whether this means that LP /ʃ/ is scarce in Asia because Europe provides the bulk of the cases for the Eurasian subsample. Since this question cannot be answered without separating the two sub-regions which compose Eisen’s Eurasian subsample we emphasize once again that the macro-area Eurasia is not a good category in the domain of crosslinguistic studies. As will become clear from the discussion in parts (a) and (b), /ʃ/-borrowing stands out from the previously discussed cases insofar as it involves relatively numerous EDLs from the W nonants. (a) From within the sample: The absolute number of borrowers keeps diminishing. This means that there is the constant danger of incidental overrepresentation or underrepresentation of phyla. In Figure 77 only two phyla are mentioned both of which boast shares which exceed those of the same phyla in the domain of LPs in general.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 369

Uralic; 4; 31% Indo-European; 9; 69%

Figure 77: Genealogic distribution of /ʃ/-borrowers.

With 13 EDLs the Celtic component of the sample is of moderate size. Table 130 shows that the majority of the Celtic EDLs are /ʃ/-languages among which the /ʃ/-borrowers are particularly numerous. Table 130: Celtic /ʃ/-languages vs. Celtic /ʃ/-less languages.

/ʃ/-less [3]

borr [7]

Breton, Breton (Léonais), Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Cornish, Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

auto [3]

/ʃ/-EDLs [10]

EDLs

Irish (Southern), Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic (Applecross)

Irish, Irish (Northern), Manx

The distribution of /ʃ/ across the Celtic EDLs reflects the genetic division in two groups. All /ʃ/-borrowers belong to the Brythonic branch whereas not only those Celtic EDLs which boast autochthonous /ʃ/ but also the /ʃ/-less EDLs are members of the Goidelic branch. Jackson (1967: 775–783) looks at the diachrony of the Breton shibilants in some detail. Proto-Breton had neither /ʃ/ nor /ʒ/. Jackson (1967: 775–776) enumerates a number of internally motivated phonological processes which have resulted in the emergence of phonetic [ʃ]. Loanwords from

370 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

French contributed to the phonematization of the voiceless postalveolar fricative. Jackson (1967: 776) assumes that [ʃ] was infrequent in Early Breton. Interestingly, French /ʃ/ results from the deaffrication of Old French /ʧ/ – a process that took place in the 13th century. French loans in Breton which predate this sound change give evidence of the replacement of Old French /ʧ/ with Breton /ʃ/. We consider the voiceless postalveolar fricative to be a LP in all varieties of Breton. In the case of Cornish, Brown (2001: 5) clearly states that /ʃ/ occurs only in loanwords. Nance’s (1978: 292) dictionary hosts the following /ʃ/-initial borrowings from English: Cornish shafta ‘mine shaft’, shagga ‘shag’, shakya ‘shake’, shām ‘shame’, shanel ‘channel’, shāp ‘shape’, shara ‘share’, sharca ‘shark’, sheft ‘shaft’, shērp ‘sharp’, and shoppa ‘shop’. In contemporary Welsh (Northern) and Welsh (Southern), /ʃ/ has full phoneme status. Watkins (1992: 31–32) argues that /ʃ/ has entered the phoneme systems of these varieties via English loans such as Welsh siop ‘shop’. On the other hand, Watkins (1992: 32) assumes allophonic [ʃ] (before front vowels or /j/) in Welsh dialects. Lewis (1989: 100) shows that the Welsh voiceless postalveolar fricative was used as replacement for English /ʧ/ in early loans such as Welsh siawns ‘chance’. Table 131 reveals that the vast majority of the Uralic EDLs are /ʃ/-languages. Only three Uralic EDLs lack evidence of the voiceless postalveolar fricative. This means that 87 % of the Uralic EDLs have phonemic /ʃ/. Only 17 % of the Uralic /ʃ/-languages are also /ʃ/-borrowers. Table 131: Uralic /ʃ/-languages vs. Uralic /ʃ/-less languages.

/ʃ/-less [3]

borr [4] auto [16]

/ʃ/-EDLs [20]

EDLs Estonian, Finnish, Livonian, Votic

Hungarian, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Saami (CentralSouth), Saami (Kildin), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Udmurt, Veps Estonian (Rõngu), Karelian (Archangelsk), Nenets (Tundra)

The impressive number of Uralic EDLs with autochthonous /ʃ/ in Table 131 comes as no surprise if we take into consideration that Proto-Uralic is supposed to count the voiceless postalveolar fricative among its phonemes (Bereczki 2004: 166). Some Uralic EDLs – especially those of the Finnic branch – have lost inherited *ʃ in the course of their history (Laanest 1982: 96–97). The *ʃ of Proto-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 371

Uralic (and Pre-Finnic) developed into /h/ in Finnish, for instance (Sauvageot 1973: 56–57). Some of these temporarily /ʃ/-less EDLs have acquired secondary /ʃ/ with borrowing being one of the possible sources. For Estonian, Lavotha (1973: 16) states that the domain of /ʃ/ is limited to loanwords such as Estonian šaht ‘mine shaft’ < German Schacht. This is what the normative grammar of the standard variety requires. In Estonian (Rõngu), however, LP /ʃ/ is regularly replaced with /s/ as in Estonian (Rõngu) tuss ‘ink’ = Estonian tušš < German Tusche (Keevallik 2003: 356). In Finnish, Fromm (1982: 32) registers LP /ʃ/ which is attested in internationalisms such as Finnish šovinismi ‘chauvinism’ (with unidentified donor language). In the case of Votic, Ariste (1968: 9) remarks that the postalveolar fricatives exclusively occur in Russian (such as Votic bābuška ‘grandmother’ < Russian babuška) or Ingrian loanwords as well as in onomatopoeic words. For Veps and Livonian, Laanest (1982: 135 and 139) postulates language-internal sound changes which have affected /s/ in combination with preceding/following /i/ or /j/. According to Zajceva (1981: 28), /ʃ/ is attested in all possible positions be they word-initially, word-medially, or word-finally. In the case of Livonian, Moseley (2002: 16–17) treats /ʃ/ as autochthonous phoneme (in contrast to LP /f/). We have noticed that the /ʃ/-initial entries in de Sivers’s (2001: 228) Livonian-French glossary are all of Latvian origin. This fact impelled us to check the respective entries in the Livonian-German dictionary by Sjögren and Wiedemann (1861: 95–110) whose date of publication does not conform to the more recent publication date required for sources to be admitted to Phone@Europe. The vast majority of the /ʃ/initial entries in this old dictionary have a (Low) German, Latvian, or Russian etymology. Those which look genuinely Uralic always display variation between initial /ʃ/ and initial /s/ – a variation that is not registered for the loanwords. These loanwords feature /ʃ/ in phonological contexts from which the usual triggers of palatalization are absent. There is evidence of /ʃ/ preceding a low vowel as in Livonian šalt (āigast) ‘leap year’ < German Schalt(jahr) (Sjögren and Wiedemann 1861: 96) as well as before consonants as in Livonian švamm ‘sponge’ < German Schwamm (Sjögren and Wiedemann 1861: 109). It is tempting to assume – in analogy to many other cases previously discussed – that the Livonian voiceless postalveolar fricative underwent phonematization from an erstwhile positional allophone of /s/ to a full-blown phoneme /ʃ/ when the introduction of loanwords allowed the fricative to occupy positions which are not associated with automatic palatalization. The evidence is not fully conclusive. Nevertheless, the maximalist principle to which we adhere requires of us to classify Livonian /ʃ/ as LP albeit with some hesitation. We encounter two further /ʃ/-borrowers among the Germanic EDLs. Table 132 shows that these /ʃ/-borrowers are outnumbered not only by the /ʃ/-less Germanic EDLs which account for 43 % of the Germanic component in the sam-

372 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

ple but also by the Germanic EDLs with autochthonous /ʃ/ whose share covers exactly half of the Germanic EDLs. Table 132: Germanic /ʃ/-languages vs. Germanic /ʃ/-less languages.

auto [14]

/ʃ/-EDLs [16]

borr [2]

EDLs

/ʃ/-less [12]

Dutch, Low German (Westphalian)

English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney), Faroese, Frisian Northern (Weesdring), German, German (Brig), German (urban Kölsch), Low German (East Frisian), Low German (North Saxon), Luxembourgish , Swedish (Österbotten), Yiddish Danish, Danish (Brøndum), Dutch (Drente), Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke), Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk), Frisian Western, German (Ladelund Danish), Icelandic, Norwegian (Central East Tromsø), Norwegian (Nynorsk), Norwegian (Østnorsk), Swedish

Neither Proto-Germanic nor the earliest documented Germanic EDLs give evidence of /ʃ/ (Moulton 1972). It is an innovation in the Germanic /ʃ/-languages for the vast majority of which it is the result of internal sound change. A typical example is the palatalization of the cluster [sk] to [ʃ] in the transition from Old English to Middle English as discussed by Minkova (2014: 86–88). The phoneme is not widely spread yet in North Germanic and Frisian varieties. Language contact has introduced /ʃ/ to a small number of erstwhile /ʃ/-less Germanic EDLs. The Westphalian variety of Low German is described in this way. Keller (1961: 303) states that /ʃ/ is progressively ousting the original cluster [sk] which is preserved mostly in the speech of elderly people. This change is attributed to (High) German influence, meaning loanwords and the almost full diglossia Low German-(High) German are responsible for the rise of LP /ʃ/. According to Keller (1961: 311–312), /ʃ/ is a new phoneme which is in the process of establishing itself as a separate phoneme in initial position. As a phonetic variant of the /s/-phoneme it now occurs before other consonants in initial position and before /k/ in medial and final position. But many speakers have /š-/ now for /šx-/.

In other Low German EDLs, /ʃ/ seems to result from internal sound change. In the case of Dutch, Francis (1983: 183) assumes that /ʃ/ “exists only in foreign loan words.” Booij (2012: 7) acknowledges that the voiceless postalveolar fricative occurs in loanwords but adds that it could be analyzed biphonemically as a

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 373

sequence of /s/ and /j/ because this sequence is realized as [ʃ] in autochthonous Dutch words. According to this analysis, [ʃ] would be a positional allophone of /s/. Goossens (1974: 93) assumes a realization as sequence [ʃj]. The questionable phoneme status notwithstanding, we assume a LP /ʃ/ for Dutch. (b) Additions: Matras (2009: 228) quotes Dawkins (1916: 67–68) on the preservation of /ʃ/ in loanwords that were borrowed from Turkish into Anatolian Greek. The example given is Anatolian Greek düšündüzo ‘I think, consider’ < Turkish düşünmek. For Polabian, Polański (1993: 799) assumes that /ʃ/ occurs mainly in (Low) German loanwords such as Polabian šopo ‘frying pan’ < Middle Low German schape. Prior to the integration of the loanwords, original Polabian /ʃ/ had undergone Polabian “mazurzenie” (see Section 17.2.4.2b), meaning it had merged with /s/. Polański (1993: 799–800) further remarks that /ʃ/ played only a marginal role in the Polabian phonological system and did not participate in the palatalization correlation which otherwise affected all inherited consonants of the language. Århammer (2001: 327) alludes to the change of Frisian (North) [sk] > /ʃ/ under the influence of Low German which dates back to the 18th century or earlier. However, the philological evidence of this contactinduced change is not straightforward. (c) Geography: The evidence from Celtic and Germanic makes it clear from the start that /ʃ/-borrowing is not an easterly phenomenon as some of the previously discussed LPs. Map LVIII features several borrowers in the MW nonant. This is also where we find several /ʃ/-less EDLs. The absence of /ʃ/ is occasionally reported for EDLs in each of the nonants except ME where all EDLs are equipped with autochthonous /ʃ/. Autochthonous /ʃ/ characterizes the majority of the EDLs in all nonants except NW and MW. Table 133 not only confirms this observation but makes it additionally clear that more than half of all cases of LP /ʃ/ occur in MW. MC is the second hotspot of /ʃ/-borrowing from which the east and south are excluded this time. Table 133: Distribution of /ʃ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

0

1

M

7

5

0

12

S

0

0

0

0

Total

7

6

0

13

374 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(d) Further issues: The co-occurrence of the two postalveolar fricatives is featured in Table 72 in Section 17.2.4.2d above. In this section, we provide a quantitative overview over the co-occurrence of /ʃ/ and /s/. Table 134 reveals that the two phonemes behave differently in striking ways. Table 134: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ʃ/ and /s/.

Sum

/ʃ/

/s/

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

0

0

0

autochthonous

13

163

34

210

0

0

0

0

13

163

34

210

unattested Total

First of all, not only is /s/ never involved in borrowing but it is also ubiquitous in the sample. In contrast, /ʃ/ is borrowed only if autochthonous /s/ exists in the replica language. Thus, the presence of /s/ seems to facilitate the borrowing of /ʃ/. There is no inhibiting effect in the first place. The voiceless postalveolar fricative is absent from 16 % of the sample whereas it is attested together with /s/ in 84 % of the sample. It might be said that /ʃ/ depends on the presence of /s/ whereas the latter is absolutely independent of the former. This statement is trivial because of the ubiquity of /s/ in our European sample. In connection to the 13 instances of LP /ʃ/ we are probably facing the creation of a new place of articulation (Maddieson’s Class 5).

17.2.4.12 /h/ Under the already familiar proviso that some of the cases might better be classified as instances of /x/ or other (post)velar fricatives, we can say the following about the distribution of /h/ in the sample. Figure 78 reveals that there are 126 EDLs which are /h/-languages. They account for 60 % of the sample. The absence of /h/ is thus a minority option. The /h/-languages are predominantly EDLs which attest to autochthonous /h/. These 116 EDLs are representative of more than half of the sample languages. In contrast, there are only ten /h/borrowers whose share of the sample is as small as 5 %.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 375

no /h/; 84; 40%

autochthonous; 116; 55%

LP; 10; 5%

Figure 78: Share of LP /h/ in the sample.

In Maddieson’s (1984: 233–234) sample there are 202 /h/-languages (= 64 % of his sample) with Georgian being the only acknowledged case of a /h/-borrower. Eisen (2019: 40–41) puts forward strikingly different results. According to his count, there are 64 /h/-borrowers globally (= 12 % of the entire sample) five of which belong to the Eurasian subsample where they cover 3 % of the subsample. The quantitative discrepancies between the three approaches are undeniable. What is evident nevertheless is the fact that there must be many more /h/borrowers than the single case registered by Maddieson. (a) From within the sample: What strikes the eye most in Figure 79 is the predominance of Turkic and the very small share of Indo-European. Indo-European; 2; 20%

Abkhaz-Adyghe; 1; 10% Turkic; 6; 60% Kartvelian; 1; 10%

Figure 79: Genealogic distribution of /h/-borrowers.

376 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The Turkic EDLs reflect an asymmetry between the minority of two /h/-less languages as opposed to 13 /h/-languages. Table 135 shows that half a dozen of the Turkic EDLs have borrowed /h/. Table 135: Turkic /h/-languages vs. Turkic /h/-less languages.

/h/-less [2]

borr [6]

Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Kazakh, Noghay, Tatar, Turkish

auto [7]

/h/-EDLs [13]

EDLs

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai), Kumyk, Turkish (Trabzon) Chuvash, Karachay-Balkar

The status of the voiceless glottal fricative in Old Turkic is ambiguous. On the one hand, Gabain (1959a: 26) argues that /h/ occurs only in loanwords but at the same time it also seems to function as a kind of allophone of /ɣ/ in certain manuscripts. The Codex Cumanicus on the other hand, gives evidence of /h/ not only in loanwords but also as the product of sound change affecting the velar and uvular fricatives; additionally /h/ is attested as prosthetic consonant in originally vowelinitial words (Gabain 1959b: 55). Erdal (1998: 139–140) excludes /h/ from the phoneme chart of Old Turkic. This means that contemporary instances of /h/ in Turkic languages must be the result of processes which took place in a period posterior to Old Turkic. For Azerbaijani, the sources are in disagreement. Širaliev and Sevortjan (1971: 19 and 24–25) assume a marginal /h/ with a limited domain whereas Schönig (1998a: 24) does not speak of /h/ at all. For Kumyk, Berta (1998b: 301–302) estimates that /h/ is very infrequent but Benzing (1959a: 396) emphasizes that /h/ is also attested in words of Turkish origin. Pritsak (1959: 328) describes Karaim (Galits) and Karaim (Trakai) as /h/-less whereas Musaev (1997) treats each of the three Karaim varieties as /h/-language with autochthonous /h/. Independent of these and other interpretative difficulties, it is clear that internal sound change and borrowing compete for the role of decisive factor in the emergence of /h/ in the Turkic /h/-languages. For Turkish, Comrie (1997a: 885) states that “/h/ occurs primarily in loanwords, corresponding to all three of Arabic ḥā’, xā, and hā’, and some onomatopoeic items.” The presence of /h/ is reported for Ottoman Turkish by Mansuroğlu (1959b: 165–166) where the glottal fricative served as prosthetic consonant in vowel-initial loanwords. The inventory of consonant phonemes of Crimean

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 377

Tatar is described by Kavitskaya (2010: 10) as /h/-less. This is remarkable insofar as the cited author usually identifies LPs in this Turkic EDL. Berta (1998b: 301–302) claims that /h/ is around in Crimean Tatar dialects. Doerfer (1959c: 377) differentiates between /ɣ/, /χ/, and /h/ in Crimean Tatar. He claims that /h/ is restricted almost completely to loanwords. We take this remark to mean that we are dealing with a case of LP /h/. In the case of Tatar, Comrie (1997b: 901) states that /h/ occurs “primarily in words of Arabic-Persian or onomatopoeic origin.” This opinion is shared by Berta (1998a: 283). The situation in Gagauz is described by Pokrovskaja (1964: 57) as follows. The voiceless glottal fricative is attested mainly in Persian and Arabic loanwords (most of which are also attested in the lexicon of other Turkic languages). In the loanwords, LP /h/ occurs predominantly in word-initial position where it often alternates with Ø as e.g. in Gagauz haba ~ aba ‘air’ (< Turkish hava) < Arabic hawāʔ. As to Kazakh, Kirchner (1998: 320) presents /h/ without further comments so that one might classify it as autochthonous consonant. In contrast, Muhamedowa (2016: 278) emphasizes that /h/ occurs only in loanwords. Somfai Kara (2002: 10) traces the origin of loanwords with /h/ to Arabic and Persian as in Kazakh kahar ‘anger’ < Arabic qahār. Similarly, we have found two descriptions of Noghay phonology which differ among other things also as to the presence or absence of /h/. Csató and Karakoç (1998: 334) do not mention any glottal fricative at all. Menges (1959: 446) explains, however, that the voiceless glottal fricative has a voiced intervocalic allophone [ɦ] (Menges employs the symbol ) and that the phoneme itself is hardly ever attested in inherited Turkic words. We interpret Menges’s argument as proof of the existence of LP /h/ in Noghay. The Indo-Iranian EDLs reflect a distribution according to which /h/-languages are almost twice as numerous as /h/-less languages. Table 136 is indicative of the relative scarcity of /h/-borrowing in this branch of Indo-European. Table 136: Indo-Iranian /h/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /h/-less languages.

/h/-less [4]

borr [2]

Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Sepečides)

auto [5]

/h/-EDLs [7]

EDLs

Kurmanji, Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Burgenland), Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili) Ossetic, Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), Romani (North Russian)

378 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Igla (1996: 12) notices that in Romani (Ajia Varvara) /h/ occurs in loanwords from Turkish in word-initial position even if the donor language has an initial vowel. Thus, /h/ serves as a kind of general prosthetic consonant. The fact that /h/ is not replaced with the much better integrated /x/ is explained with reference to the low frequency of the Turkish loanwords with which the younger speakers seem to be largely unfamiliar. In the case of Romani (Sepečides), Cech and Heinschink (1996: 5) argue that [t]he glottal fricative /h/ is unique to Turkish loanwords. There is a remarkable uncertainty among speakers about the application of this sound in initial position. In general, initial /h/ is dropped when a Turkish word is transferred into Romani [. W]hen the informants talk Turkish or Romani properly, they usually pronounce the /h/. With loanwords of further languages on the other hand, /h/ is applied in wrong initial positions.

This means that in both of the Romani /h/-borrowers the LP is not stable and subject to variation. Superficially, this may surprise because Matras (2002: 51) assumes that /h/ belonged to the phoneme inventory of early Romani so that it can be understood as part of the common heritage of all Romani languages. However, /h/ is marginal in the Pre-European lexicon. Furthermore, its secondary role as prosthetic consonant is attested also in other Romani languages such as Polska Roma, for instance. In Romani (North Russian), the process /h/ > /ɣ/ has turned this EDL into a /h/-less language. Matras (2002: 52) reports on a long list of Romani varieties which testify to mergers which involve /h/ and /x/ (and even /ʃ/). These mergers are best explained as contact-induced although they do not constitute genuine cases of LP /h/ or LP /x/. Two EDLs from the Caucasian region complement our account. Paris (1989: 160) pictures /h/ as marginally occurring phoneme which is typical of loanwords in Adyghe. For the Kartvelian EDL Georgian, Schanidze (1982: 20) characterizes /h/ as LP because it is not attested in Old Georgian stems whereas there is ample evidence of it in loanwords. A word of caution is necessary. First of all, h- is the major allomorph of the object prefix of the 3rd person singular in Old as well as Modern Georgian (Schanidze 1982: 73–74). Secondly, the loanwords have probably entered the Georgian lexicon long before the year 1000 A.D. Thirdly in these loanwords, /h/ can be dropped optionally. (b) Additions: Except two EDLs from different language families, there are no additional cases. In Curonian, we find recent loanwords from German with initial /h/ such as Curonian hampilmans ‘jumping jack’ < German Hampelmann, Curonian hæfts ‘exercise book’ < German Heft, Curonian hīːvăːt ‘lift’ < German hieven, and Curonian hūːts ‘hat’ < German Hut (El Mogharbel 1993: 242). As with other LPs of German origin, El Mogharbel (1993: 37) argues against considering

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 379

/h/ part of the Curonian phoneme system. She remarks that in older German loanwords the voiceless glottal fricative was usually dropped (El Mogharbel 1993: 38). Doerfer (1959b: 275) describes the phonological system of Crimean Turkish. In this Turkic EDL, /h/ is reported to occur exclusively in loanwords. No examples are provided. (c) Geography: The borrowing of /h/ occurs only in three nonants, namely SC, ME, and SE. It is tightly connected to Turkic EDLs either as donor languages or replica languages. The general distribution can be seen on Map LIX. Most of the EDLs in NE, ME, SW, and SC do not have /h/. The nonants MW and MC are divided between the presence and absence of autochthonous /h/. The glottal fricative constitutes the majority solution in SE. Table 137 shows that two thirds of the nonants are empty so that two subareas can be identified: (i) the north, west, and most of the center without evidence of /h/-borrowing as opposed to (ii) most of the south and east where LP /h/ is repeatedly attested. Table 137: Distribution of /h/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

2

2

S

0

4

4

8

Total

0

4

6

10

(d) Further issues: Table 138 takes account of the co-occurrence of (LP) /h/ and (LP) /x/. The values featured in this table should be compared to those given in Tables 4 and 79 above. Map VI can be consulted additionally. Table 138: Co-occurrence of (LP) /h/ and (LP) /x/.

/h/

/x/

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

2

10

18

30

autochthonous

5

62

41

108

3

44

25

72

10

116

84

210

unattested Total

Sum

380 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Parallel borrowing of both fricatives is attested but only marginally. The voiceless velar fricative is more often borrowed without /h/ being borrowed too or being present in the replica language already. Co-occurrence of /h/ and /x/ is reported for 79 EDLs whereas both are absent from 25 EDLs. In 59 EDLs only /x/ is present. The exclusive presence of /h/ in the absence of /x/ applies in 47 EDLs. /x/-borrowing occurs three times as often as /h/-borrowing. We interpret these facts as evidence of the independence of the one from the other phoneme. This independence speaks against gap-filling. Note, however, that in 70 % of all cases of LP /h/ the voiceless velar fricative is either already present in the replica language or borrowed along with /h/. When /x/ is borrowed with /h/ being present already a new place of articulation is established. The same holds for /h/-borrowing by an EDL which already has /x/. In those cases, in which one fricative is borrowed in the absence of its counterpart or both fricatives are borrowed chances are that a new manner of articulation has been introduced via language contact which is a Class-4 phenomenon (Maddieson 1986). The two fricatives do not seem to inhibit the borrowing of the one or the other.

17.2.4.13 /ɣ/ The voiced velar fricative is attested in 28 % of the EDLs. The majority of the sample (151 EDLs = 72 %) consists of /ɣ/-less languages. The phoneme is autochthonous in 51 EDLs which is a share of almost a quarter of the sample. Figure 80 shows that LP /ɣ/ is attested in only 4 % of the EDLs.

autochthonous; 51; 24%

LP; 8; 4%

no /ɣ/; 151; 72%

Figure 80: Share of LP /ɣ/ in the sample.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 381

The phoneme /ɣ/ is reported for 40 members of Maddieson’s (1984: 232) sample. They thus have a share of 13 %. With only two cases, /ɣ/-borrowing seems to be a marginal phenomenon. In the global sample, Eisen (2019: 40–41) registers 18 /ɣ/borrowers which claim a share of 3 % of the entire sample. It is worth noting that eleven of these /ɣ/-borrowers form part of the Eurasian subsample where their share is 7 %. The results of the three studies diverge from each other not for the first time. There is thus good reason to identify the logic of this disagreement in a follow-up study. With only eight /ɣ/-borrowers the voiced velar fricative is already a relatively infrequent phenomenon amongst the LPs. However, there are many more LPs which yield even smaller turnouts in terms of EDLs which borrow them. (a) From within the sample: No figure is needed to tell the reader that all /ɣ/-borrowers are Indo-European EDLs. The 31 Romance EDLs give evidence of a very pronounced preference for /ɣ/-lessness. /ɣ/-less EDLs constitute an 87 % majority. Table 139 features only three /ɣ/-borrowers. Table 139: Romance /ɣ/-languages vs. Romance /ɣ/-less languages.

/ɣ/-less [27]

borr [3]

Aromanian, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian (Megleno)

auto [1]

/ɣ/-EDLs [4]

EDLs

Asturian

Catalan, Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), French, Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Istro Romanian, Italian, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Ladino, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Portuguese, Romanian, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese), Spanish

The common ancestor of the Romance EDLs – Latin – had no phonemic voiced velar fricative. It is therefore no surprise that the vast majority of the members of this branch of Indo-European likewise give no evidence of /ɣ/. However, the fricative is attested as positional allophone of /g/ in a number of Romance EDLs. This is the case for instance in Catalan where [ɣ] represents /g/ in intervocalic position, after laterals and rhotics (Hualde 1992: 368–369). Asturian is the only Romance EDL for which it makes sense to assume the existence of autochtho-

382 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

nous /ɣ/. The Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (1999: 38–39) employs the symbol /g/ to represent the phoneme under scrutiny. However, the realization is said to be almost always that of a voiced velar fricative except in the syllable coda where neutralization and devoicing to [k] apply. The remaining three /ɣ/languages belong to the Balkan Romance group. They testify to LP /ɣ/. For Aromanian, Kramer (1989: 430) presents /ɣ/ as one of three LP consonants borrowed from Greek. Goɫąb (1984: 40–41) describes the situation for the Kruševo variety of Aromanian (spoken in Macedonia) as follows: the young generation of the Kruševians (→ 25/30 years of age), who usually do not know Greek, replace the Greek spirants θ, δ, ɣ by the corresponding stops t, d, g. In this way we obtain two subsystems in the Kruševo dialect: an older, cultivated and conservative, in which numerous Greek loanwords preserve the original Greek pronunciation of the above consonants and a younger, colloquial one, in which for the original Greek spirants the corresponding Romance stops are substituted.

Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975: 232) illustrates LP /ɣ/ in Aromanian with the following loanwords: Aromanian ɣumáru ‘donkey’ < Greek ɣomári, Aromanian áɣru ‘wild’ < Greek áɣrios, Aromanian ɣrambó ‘bridegroom’ < Greek ɣambrós. The same author does not register any LPs of Greek origin for Megleno Romanian (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 272). Dahmen (1989a: 443) concedes that (along with the interdental fricatives) /ɣ/ is attested in Greek loanwords although it is still felt to be foreign by native speakers of Megleno Romanian. On the basis of loanwords like Romanian (Megleno) aɣio ‘holy’ < Greek agios = άγιος (Atanasov and Atanasov 2019: 88), we assume a similar situation for Romanian (Megleno). Note, however, that in the donor language the allophone [j] would be used in the above example because of the following front vowel (Ruge 2001: 20). Interestingly, in the diatopic system of Istro Romanian which is described as /ɣ/-less by Dahmen (1989b) there is the Jeiăn variety for which Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975: 195) assumes the wholesale replacement of /g/ with /ɣ/ in the inherited part of the lexicon. There is no obvious external trigger for the change /g/ > /ɣ/ so that we refrain from counting this as an instance of LP /ɣ/. The Baltic EDLs are divided in two groups. Latgalian and Latvian varieties do not attest to /ɣ/ be it borrowed or autochthonous. In contrast, there is evidence of /ɣ/ in the two representatives of Lithuanian as shown in Table 140. In the Lithuanian standard orthography, the phoneme under inspection is written as . It is described as the voiced counterpart of the voiceless velar fricative /x/ (= ) (see Section 17.2.4.3) so that it is legitimate to assume that we are dealing with a voiced velar fricative and not a glottal fricative (see Section 17.2.4.12) (Vaitkevičiūtė 1965: 87–88).

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 383

Table 140: Baltic /ɣ/-borrowers vs. Baltic /ɣ/-less languages.

Borrowers

/ɣ/-less languages

Lithuanian, Lithuanian (Dieveniškės)

Latgalian, Latvian, Latvian (Skrunda)

2 EDLs

3 EDLs

In Lithuanian, this voiced velar fricative is described as instable, i.e. it alternates with Ø in loanwords (internationalisms) like Lithuanian harmonika ~ armonika ‘accordion’ (Vaitkevičiūtė 1965: 66). It is attested word-medially in loans like Lithuanian buhalteris ‘book-keeper’ < German Buchhalter where the donor language displays the sequence [x] + [h]. If it is correct phonologically to assume LP /ɣ/ for Lithuanian one has to face the problem that it is difficult to identify a suitable donor language with original /ɣ/. For traditional Lithuanian dialects, Zinkevičius (1966: 152–153) does not only specify that the loanwords with voiced velar fricatives are of Belarusian or German origin but also notes that there is variation in the phonological integration of identical loans. Besides the above buhalteris as recorded for the standard language there is also evidence of bugalteris and bualteris, i.e. /ɣ/ competes with /g/ and Ø. The versions with [g] are also common in Russian and Belarusian which are thus potential intermediate donors of this specific loanword. Lithuanian (Dieveniškės) offers a slightly different scenario. In this regional variety of Lithuanian /ɣ/ is amply attested but only in loanwords from Polish and Belarusian (where it is frequently replaced with /v/ or is dropped for good though) (Sudnik 1975: 115). In Polish, [ɣ] is a positional allophone of /x/ (Strutyński 1997: 75–76) whereas in Belarusian the voiced velar fricative is fully phonemic (Burlyka and Padlužny 1989: 61). Since language contacts with Polish and Belarusian have been going on for centuries (Wiemer 2003) Lithuanian has probably acquired LP /ɣ/ directly from its Slavic neighbors which are perhaps also the sources for at least some of the internationalisms and Germanisms in the Lithuanian standard language. Of the eleven Indo-Iranian EDLs in the sample, the majority consists of /ɣ/languages. Only two of these are identified as /ɣ/-borrowers as shown in Table 141. According to Matras (2002: 56) there was no /ɣ/ in Proto-Romani and early Romani. If we compare the entries in the cell of /h/-borrowers in Table 136 with those found in the cell of /ɣ/-borrowers in Table 141 we immediately notice that the same two Romani languages are involved in borrowing. The source for LP /ɣ/ in both replica languages is Greek, that of LP /h/, however, is Turkish. For the contemporary variety of Ajia Varvara, Igla (1996: 12) characterizes /ɣ/ as LP whose domain is restricted to Greek loanwords.

384 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 141: Indo-Iranian /ɣ/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /ɣ/-less languages.

/ɣ/-less [4]

borr [2]

Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Sepečides)

auto [5]

/ɣ/-EDLs [7]

EDLs

Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), Romani (North Russian), Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili) Kurmanji, Ossetic, Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Burgenland)

She emphasizes that the speakers of Romani (Ajia Varvara) show no tendency to replace LP /ɣ/ with any other consonant – a fact that is taken as proof of the speakers’ proficiency in the foreign language Greek. In the case of Romani (Sepečides), Cech and Heinschink (1996: 4–5) state that /ɣ/ only occurs in a few Greek loanwords and some proper names probably of also Greek origin. [] It occurs with a few speakers as a last phonological trace of former Greek influence, and is not considered an independent phoneme, but an allophone to /x/.

Since no rules are given as to the allophonic relationship between [ɣ] and /x/ we feel entitled to classify the voiced velar fricative as LP. Romani (Sepečides) ɣrúni ‘pig’ < Greek ɣuruni illustrates this case of /ɣ/-borrowing. Matras (2002: 58) mentions the LP /ɣ/ as occurring in Greek loanwords. It is not clear to us how the voiced velar plosives developed in Romani (Kalderash), Romani (Lithuanian), and Romani (North Russian) because the sources do not go into this issue. We cannot rule out that at least in the latter two varieties /ɣ/ is connected to borrowings from Lithuanian and/or Belarusian. In the absence of hard proof for this hypothesis we refrain from postulating LP-status for /ɣ/ in these Romani languages. Except Albanian (Salamis), no Albanian EDL displays /ɣ/. Haebler (1965: 40) describes /ɣ/ as LP which exclusively occurs in loanwords from Greek before low or back vowels as well as before /ð/, /n/, /l/, or /r/. He provides the following examples: Albanian (Salamis) ɣuði ‘mortar’ < Greek ɣuði, Albanian (Salamis) ɣramə ‘letter’ < Greek ɣramma, Albanian (Salamis) liɣne ‘slim’ < Greek liɣni. (b) Additions: Our database does not contain any further examples of /ɣ/borrowing. This negative statement holds not only for members of the sample but also for additional EDLs from outside the sample. (c) Geography: Map LX is suggestive of two centers of diffusion of LP /ɣ/, namely Greek in the Balkans and Belarusian in the Baltic region. It is worthwhile comparing this new map with Maps V and XIII on which the geographic

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 385

distribution of the voiced velar fricative is featured besides that of other fricatives. The voiced velar fricative is non-existent in NC and NE whereas it is exceptionally attested once as autochthonous phoneme in SW. Autochthonous /ɣ/ is strong in SE where it has to compete with an equally strong number of EDLs without /ɣ/. In addition, there are small clusters of autochthonous /ɣ/ in the western and the eastern parts of MC and among the Goidelic EDLs in MW. The voiced velar fricative is also a minority solution in ME. Table 142 narrows the distribution of the /ɣ/-borrowers down to MC and SC, i.e. there is no evidence of /ɣ/-borrowing on the margins whereas it occurs exclusively in the center. Table 142: Distribution of /ɣ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

2

0

2

S

0

6

0

6

Total

0

8

0

8

(d) Further issues: Table 79 was dedicated to the co-occurrence of the two velar fricatives. We seize the opportunity to look at the co-occurrence of the voiced velar fricative and its uvular equivalent /ʁ/ (see Section 17.2.4.28) in Table 143. This is a test for (post)velar density. Table 143: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɣ/ and (LP) /ʁ/.

Sum

/ɣ/

/ʁ/

Total

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

0

1

1

autochthonous

0

7

29

36

unattested

8

44

121

173

8

51

151

210

The absolute numbers are telling. First of all, there is no parallel borrowing of /ɣ/ and /ʁ/ and the latter is attested only once as LP. With attestations in 59 EDLs, the voiced velar fricative is more frequent in the sample than the voiced

386 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

uvular fricative which yields a turnout of only 37 EDLs. Moreover, only seven EDLs have both fricatives in their phoneme inventory. In the vast majority of the cases, the presence of the one prevents the other from being phonemic too. This applies to 88 % of all /ɣ/-languages (i.e. these EDLs lack /ʁ) and 81 % of all /ʁ/languages (i.e. these EDLs have no /ɣ/). There is thus a tendency to avoid the co-presence of both fricatives. Gap-filling is unlikely as motivating factor for the borrowing. The /ɣ/-/ʁ/ incompatibility can be interpreted along the lines of Eisen’s concept of inhibiting effect although its proponent does not directly address the issue of the (blocked) co-occurrence of velar and uvular fricatives. His Universal 10 assumes that if a language borrows uvular consonants it tends to have a uvular consonant already (Eisen 2019: 91). This universal, however, does not apply in the case under inspection.

17.2.4.14 /ɲ/ The phoneme which is focused upon in this section introduces us to another difficult domain, namely the distinction of palatal consonants and palatalized consonants. The latter are summarily discussed in Section 17.2.4.29 below. This means that the same section will also shed light on the palatalized alveolar nasal /nj/. In contrast, this section is dedicated to the palatal nasal /ɲ/. We cannot be sure whether all of our sources properly distinguish between /nj/ and /ɲ/. Therefore, the quantities we mention in the subsequent paragraph have to be taken with a grain of salt. Figure 81 shows that a sizable majority of 143 EDLs lacks the palatal nasal. It is present only in 32 % of the sample languages. There are seven /ɲ/borrowers. This number equals 3 % of the sample. The phoneme is autochthonous in 60 EDLs. The palatal nasal is more frequent in Maddieson’s (1984: 238) sample 107 members of which are /ɲ/-languages (= 34 % of the sample). However, /ɲ/borrowing is exceptional. Only two languages give evidence of LP /ɲ/. They represent 2 % of Maddieson’s /ɲ/-languages. Eisen (2019: 40–41) on the other hand counts 19 /ɲ/-borrowers which account for 4 % of the global sample. In Eurasia, Eisen identifies only two /ɲ/-borrowers (= 1 % of the subsample). The results are again very divers. It seems clear, however, that Maddieson’s original count leaves out too many cases of borrowing of the palatal nasal.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 387

autochthonous; 60; 29%

LP; 7; 3% no /ɲ/; 143; 68%

Figure 81: Share of LP /ɲ/ in the sample.

(a) From within the sample: Only Indo-European and the Isolate are featured in Figure 82. The shares of the two phyla are almost equal.

Isolate; 3; 43% Indo-European; 4; 57%

Figure 82: Genealogic distribution of /ɲ/-borrowers.

From Table 144 we learn that the overwhelming majority of the Romance EDLs has /ɲ/. With only three EDLs the group of the /ɲ/-less languages has a share of 10 % of the Romance component in the sample. The share of the /ɲ/-borrowers is even smaller as it does not exceed 6 %.

388 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 144: Romance /ɲ/-languages vs. Romance /ɲ/-less languages.

/ɲ/-less [3]

auto [26]

/ɲ/-EDLs [28]

borr [2]

EDLs Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese)

Aromanian, Asturian, Catalan, French, Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Istro Romanian, Italian, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Ladino, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Portuguese, Romanian (Megleno), Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Spanish Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), Romanian

In Touratier’s (2013: 38–41) account of the phonology of Latin there is no mention of either /ɲ/ or /nj/. Thus, the bulk of the Romance EDLs must have innovated their system of nasal phonemes by way of creating a new place of articulation (= /ɲ/) or a new manner of (secondary) articulation (= palatalization). More often than not, both new phonemes come into being in similar phonological contexts – most frequently an alveolar nasal before front vowels or palatal approximants is affected by its surroundings so that it acquires palatal properties. In Aromanian for instance /ɲ/ seems to be traceable to the Latin sequence /n/ + /j/ + V. Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975: 230–231) concedes that Aromanian /ɲ/ is also attested in loanwords from Slavic which provide the same favorable context for palatalization of the nasal. The same picture is painted for Megleno Romanian (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 271) and Istro Romanian (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 195) because the rise of /ɲ/ is considered a process which took place during the period of Common Romanian (Dimitrescu et al. 1978: 79). In Romanian north of the Danube /ɲ/ was lost except in the dialects spoken in the Banat region (Dimitrescu et al. 1978: 194). By and large, the rise and fall of /ɲ/ in Balkan Romance can be understood as a language-internal series of processes. Borrowing is another source for the emergence of /ɲ/. The existence of LP /ɲ/ is stated for the Sardinian varieties Campidanese and Nuorese by Jones (1988: 323) who claims that the palatal nasal occurs only in some loanwords like Sardinian baɲu ‘bath’ < Italian bagno. LP /ɲ/ is said to be marginally attested and often replaced with geminate alveolar nasals. The Celtic EDLs are divided into a majority of ten /ɲ/-less languages several of which attest to /nj/, however, and three /ɲ/-languages. Table 145 features Irish (Northern) as sole representative of Celtic with an autochthonous palatal nasal.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 389

Table 145: Celtic /ɲ/-languages vs. Celtic /ɲ/-less languages.

/ɲ/-less [10]

borr [2]

Breton, Breton (Léonais)

auto [1]

/ɲ/-EDLs [3]

EDLs

Irish (Northern)

Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Cornish, Irish, Irish (Southern), Manx, Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic (Applecross), Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

LP /ɲ/ exists in two varieties of Breton whereas it is absent from the other two. Jackson (1967: 823) argues that [t]he sources for /nˈ/ and /lˈ/ are palatalization of [Proto-Breton] n and l in contact with front vowels; simplification of the [Proto-Breton] groups nj and lj; and loanwords from French. [] It is not certain whether the Bretons first adopted French [nˈ] and [lˈ] as foreign sounds, with which their own later-developing [nˈ] and [lˈ] fell together, or whether it was the other way round.

The author does not find a definitive solution for the chronological problem although he seems in favor of a contact-independent interpretation which, however, cannot be substantiated empirically (Jackson 1967: 824). The final example of LP /ɲ/ is Basque – not only Zuberoa but also Lekeitio and standard Basque (Hualde et al. 1994: 17–18). Haase (1993: 31) counts the palatal nasal among the well-integrated LPs in the replica language as e.g. Basque bainu ‘bath’ < Spanish baño. Trask (1997: 194) reports for Basque in general that Romance (i.e. French or Spanish) /ɲ/ is mostly taken over as is whereas some speakers decompose the palatal nasal into a sequence of /i/ + /n/ (corresponding to the usual orthographic representation of /ɲ/ as digraph ). This sequence corresponds to the context in which western dialects of Basque tend to palatalize the nasal in native words too (Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 28–29). (b) Additions: Except Mòcheno, no additional cases have come to our notice. Further suspects are presented in Section 17.2.4.29 in connection with palatalization. Rowley (2003: 58–60) discusses the options there are for the orthographic representation of the LP /ɲ/ in Mòcheno. This LP occurs in loanwords

390 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

like Mòcheno bagno ‘bath’ < Italian bagno. The cited author prefers keeping the Italian orthography over replacing with . (c) Geography: According to Map LXI and Table 146 the phenomenon of /ɲ/-borrowing is attested in the nonants SW, MW, and SC. This is interesting insofar as we are facing the relatively infrequent situation that no easterly nonants are involved. In point of fact, autochthonous /ɲ/ can be found only in the extreme eastern regions of NE and ME. The palatal nasal is autochthonous for the majority of the EDLs in SW and SC. Additionally there is a big cluster of /ɲ/-languages in the center of MC. On the other hand, SE hosts no /ɲ/languages at all. Table 146: Distribution of /ɲ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

2

0

0

2

S

3

2

0

5

Total

5

2

0

7

(d) Further issues: In Table 147 we look at the co-occurrences of two nasals, namely the palatal nasal /ɲ/ and the velar nasal /ŋ/. Table 147: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɲ/ and (LP) /ŋ/.

/ŋ/

/ɲ/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

0

7

7

autochthonous

1

14

45

60

unattested

0

39

104

143

1

53

156

210

The co-occurrence of /ɲ/ and /ŋ/ is generally disfavored by the sample languages. Only fifteen EDLs attest to both of the nasals whereas 52 EDLs have only /ɲ/ and 39 make do with /ŋ/ alone. Half of the sample languages have neither /ɲ/ nor /ŋ/. There is no case of parallel borrowing. The palatal nasal is borrowed only in the absence of its velar counterpart. It would be an exaggeration to claim

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 391

that the two nasals are incompatible with each other. Nevertheless, they do not seem to attract each other. We have no evidence for gap-filling or the creation of a new place of articulation. To the benefit of Eisen’s (2019) concept of the inhibiting effect it would be worthwhile dedicating a separate study to the mutual attraction/aversion between the different nasal consonants under borrowing and beyond.

17.2.4.15 /b/ Figure 83 informs us that with 203 EDLs the vast majority of our sample languages give evidence of /b/. Only seven EDLs lack the phoneme whereas seven have borrowed it.

LP; 7; 3% autochthonous; 196; 93%

no /b/; 7; 3%

Figure 83: Share of LP /b/ in the sample.

Amongst the 198 /b/-languages (= 57 % of the sample) identified by Maddieson (1984: 206) nine have borrowed the voiced bilabial plosive. Thus, 5 % of the /b/languages are /b/-borrowers. With 64 /b/-borrowers this phenomenon ranks high on Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) global hierarchy. The borrowing of /b/ affects 12 % of the entire sample. In Eurasia, Eisen registers five /b/-borrowers which represent 3 % of the subsample. Eisen and Phon@Europe provide absolute numbers and percentages which are compatible with each other whereas it seems that /b/-borrowers are underrepresented in Maddieson’s study. The similarity of the results in Eisen’s and our own study notwithstanding it remains to be seen whether the five /b/-borrowers Eisen found in Eurasia would turn out to be EDLs according to our definition.

392 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(a) From within the sample: In the (a)-part it is shown that LP /b/ is the privilege of three phyla (see Figure 84). Indo-European; 1; 14%

Uralic; 4; 57% Turkic; 2; 29%

Figure 84: Genealogic distribution of /b/-borrowers.

Table 148 surveys the different solutions the Uralic EDLs reflect as to the presence/absence of /b/. The number of /b/-less EDLs can probably be reduced to two because the absence of /b/ in Estonian and Estonian (Rõngu) hinges on the interpretation of the fortis-lenis contrast which is characteristic of the phoneme system of these Finnic EDLs. With four /b/-borrowers the Uralic EDLs provide the highest number of instances of LP /b/. Table 148: Uralic /b/-languages vs. Uralic /b/-less languages.

/b/-less [4]

borr [4] auto [15]

/b/-EDLs [19]

EDLs Finnish, Mari (Meadow), Saami (Kildin), Veps

Hungarian, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Livonian, Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Nenets (Tundra), Saami (CentralSouth), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Udmurt, Votic Estonian, Estonian (Rõngu), Karelian (Archangelsk), Mari (Hill)

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 393

Proto-Uralic had no voicing opposition with plosives (Bereczki 2004: 166). The contrast /p/ ≠ /b/ must therefore be a relatively recent innovation. For Finnic, Laanest (1982: 124) concedes that foreign influence has potentially been a factor in the phonematization of the word-medial voiced allophones of the plosives (see also Section 17.2.4.6a). The introduction of /b/-initial loanwords is crucial in this context. Fromm (1982: 32) reports that /b/ does not occur in genuine Finnish words. It is, however, attested in several loanwords and internationalisms such as Finnish baari ‘pub’ < English bar. With reference to Veps, Zajceva (1981: 25) mentions that /b/ is attested mostly in loanwords. We interpret Rießler’s (2007: 232) short account of loan phonology in Saami (Kildin) as evidence of LP /b/. The author speaks about the possibility of voiced obstruents to occupy the word-initial position from which they were banned prior to contact. A (near) minimal-pair which reflects this new possibility is Saami (Kildin) purrk ‘lower part of the reindeer’s antlers’ ≠ būrka ‘felt boot’ < Russian burka. Alhoniemi (1993: 20) mentions no voiced plosives at all in the phonology section of his grammar of Mari. However, the glossary included in the same grammar contains several /b/-initial loanwords from Russian recorded in the Mari (Meadow) variety, viz. Mari (Meadow) botínke ‘shoe(s)’ < Russian botinok ‘laceup shoe’ (probably borrowed in the plural form botinki) and Mari (Meadow) bŕuko ‘trousers’ < Russian brjuki (Alhoniemi 1993: 197). Turkic is the second phylum to give evidence of LP /b/. In Table 149 it is shown that all members of this phylum are /b/-languages. Table 149: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /b/ in Turkic.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Chuvash, Turkish (Trabzon)

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, KarachayBalkar, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai), Kazakh, Kumyk, Noghay, Tatar, Turkish

2 EDLs

13 EDLs

As to the existence of /b/ in Old Turkic there is no absolute agreement among the scholars. A phonemic fortis-lenis contrast is assumed whose exact phonetic interpretation varies. Gabain (1959a: 25) assumes a pair of bilabial plosives /p/ and /b/ whereas Erdal (1998: 139) contrasts the voiceless plosive /p/ with the voiced labiodental fricative /v/. This controversy notwithstanding, Ottoman Turkish gives evidence of /b/ (Mansuroğlu 1959: 165). The voiced bilabial plosive is widely common across the Turkic phylum. However, Brendemoen (2002:

394 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

82) characterizes /b/ as LP which is attested only in loanwords in Turkish (Trabzon). He emphasizes that LP /b/ is comparatively stable in word-initial position whereas other LP consonants oscillate in the domain of phonation in this position. Brendemoen (2002: 85, fn. 127) provides the minimal pair Turkish (Trabzon) para ‘money’ ≠ bara ‘to the bar’ (< English/Italian bar) to prove that the voiced bilabial plosive has reached the status of full phoneme in this Turkish variety. Chuvash is described as /b/-less by Benzing (1959c: 708) although there is a lenis allophone of /p/ whose realization ranges from voiced bilabial fricative to voiced bilabial plosive. Clark (1998: 434) declares that /b/ can be found only in Russian loanwords in Chuvash. All voiced plosives of Modern Greek are LPs. This also holds for /b/ (which can be realized with prenasalization triggered by orthography) (Ruge 2001: 17) as in Greek bira ‘beer’ < Italian birra. Whether postnasal [b] can be considered a positional allophone of /v/ is an open question. For the time being, we assume that the relation between the two categories is indeed allophonic. The Italo-Greek varieties (including that of Sternatia) only attest to the general sound change Ancient Greek /b/ > Greek /v/ (Rohlfs 1977: 24–26). There is no evidence of LP /b/. (b) Additions: No further examples of LP /b/ have been brought to our notice. (c) Geography: The borrowing of /b/ is especially typical of two phyla, viz. Uralic and Turkic. Since these phyla are strong in the E nonants it is only to be expected to find the /b/-borrowers concentrated exactly in these nonants. Owing to the omnipresence of autochthonous /b/, black dots are found everywhere on Map LXII. In contrast, the empty dots of the /b/-less languages are scattered over several nonants with two cases in MC and one each in SE, SC, ME, NE, and NW. Table 150 shows that five out of seven cases of /b/-borrowing are indeed located in the east. The west and most of the C-nonants on the other hand remain unaffected by /b/-borrowing. Table 150: Distribution of /b/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

1

1

2

M

0

0

3

3

S

0

1

1

2

Total

0

2

5

7

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 395

(d) Further issues: The occurrences of the two bilabial plosives are surveyed in Table 151. Table 151: Co-occurrence of (LP) /p/ and (LP) /b/.

/p/ LP

/b/

Total

Sum

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

7

0

7

autochthonous

2

194

0

196

unattested

0

7

0

7

2

208

0

210

Each of the two bilabial plosives is present in the vast majority of the sample languages. The voiceless bilabial plosive is never absent from any of the EDLs whereas /b/ lacks in seven EDLs. Given the ubiquity of /p/ it can hardly surprise that there is no example of parallel borrowing. Both phonemes are borrowed only in case their counterpart forms already part of the phoneme inventory of the replica language. The co-presence of /p/ and /b/ is reported for 203 EDLs, i.e. 97 % of all phoneme inventories host two bilabial plosives. In seven EDLs /p/ alone represents this phonological class. The voiced bilabial plosive never functions as sole representative of the same class. We hypothesize that the borrowing of /p/ or /b/ is a case of gap-filling along the lines of the voicing contrast (Maddieson’s Class 1). Gap-filling in general can be understood best with reference to Eisen’s (2019) concept of facilitating effects, i.e. the presence of a given phoneme in the system of the replica language “attracts” the borrowing of certain other phonemes.

17.2.4.16 /θ/ The voiceless interdental fricative is infrequent in Europe. Only 24 EDLs attest to this phoneme. There are thus 88 % of the sample languages which lack it. Figure 85 shows that 3 % of the sample languages are /θ/-borrowers. There are three times as many EDLs with autochthonous /θ/.

396 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

autochthonous; 18; 9% LP; 6; 3% no /θ/; 186; 88%

Figure 85: Share of LP /θ/ in the sample.

Maddieson (1984: 227) lists 18 languages with autochthonous /θ/ which are entitled to 6 % of his sample. No /θ/-borrower is mentioned. In Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) global sample there are four /θ/ (= 1 % of the entire sample) none of which reappears on the list of “frequently borrowed segments in Eurasia” (= n > 1). This absence is most probably caused by the composition of the sample used for the SegBo-database. There is no denying that /θ/-borrowing happens in Europe as will be shown in the (a)-part below. The low frequency of the voiceless interdental fricative notwithstanding, the half dozen of /θ/-borrowers suggest that the phoneme is not entirely unborrowable. (a) From within the sample: Figure 86 reveals that /θ/-borrowing is largely (though not exclusively) an Indo-European phenomenon. Besides the isolated case of an Afro-Asiatic /θ/-borrower 83 % of all instance of LP /θ/ are found in Indo-European EDLs. The biggest group of /θ/-borrowers belongs to the Romance branch on IndoEuropean. Table 152 shows that 74 % of the Romance EDLs are /θ/-less. Autochthonous /θ/ and LP /θ/ claim shares of 13 % each.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 397

Indo-European; 5; 83%

Afro-Asiatic; 1; 17%

Figure 86: Genealogic distribution of /θ/-borrowers.

Table 152: Romance /θ/-languages vs. Romance /θ/-less languages.

/θ/-less [23]

borr [4]

Aromanian, Catalan, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian (Megleno)

auto [4]

/θ/-EDLs [8]

EDLs

Asturian, Galician, Sardinian (Nuorese), Spanish

Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), French, Friulian (Udine), Istriot, Istro Romanian, Italian, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Ladino, Norman (Jersey), Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Portuguese, Romanian, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese)

Interdental fricatives were unknown in Latin. They are generally innovations within the Romance branch of Indo-European. In Sardinian (Nuorese), /θ/ is the modern reflex of erstwhile palatalized voiceless dental or velar plosives (Jones 1988: 324). In Spanish, the voiceless interdental fricative developed from erstwhile alveolar affricates in the period of transition from Old Spanish to modern Spanish (Dietrich and Geckeler 2004: 77–78). Similar processes can be taken for granted in the Asturian and Galician cases. Catalan, however, has no autochthonous /θ/. Hualde (1992: 378) claims that there is (free) variation of [θ] ~ [s] in

398 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Spanish loanwords. Depending on the degree of bilingual competence of the Catalan speakers the Castilian pronunciation is applied to the loanwords. The position of LP /θ/ in Catalan is thus relatively shaky. This is completely different with LP /θ/ in Aromanian. The Greek origin of the interdental fricatives in Aromanian is generally uncontroversial. This means that /θ/ has entered the Aromanian systems via loanword integration of which Aromanian θimél’u ‘foundations’ < Greek themélion is an example (Caragiu Marioţeanu 1975: 232). It seems that the interdental fricatives have even diffused into the inherited lexicon as examples like Aromanian θĕáminu ‘female’ < Latin fēmina (Kramer 1989: 428) suggest. Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975: 272) explicitly counts out the possibility that the same Greek fricatives have been integrated into the phonological system of Megleno Romanian. Her description is in line with that of Atanasov (1990) who does not mention any LP fricatives in Romanian (Megleno). However, in the anthology of oral history texts in Romanian (Megleno) Atanasov and Atanasov (2019) include entries like Romanian (Megleno) epiθeşi ‘offensive’ < Greek epithesē , Romanian (Megleno) maθitis ‘disciple’ < Greek mathētḗs , Romanian (Megleno) proθevusa ‘capital’ < Greek prōteúsa in the glossary which strongly suggest that the voiceless interdental fricative is by no means alien to the Romanian (Megleno) speech community and that it may be used without etymological legitimization (as in the last of the examples). As with LP /ɣ/ (see Section 17.2.4.13), Dahmen (1989a: 443) states that /θ/ belongs to the most recent layer of loans from Greek and is still seen as foreign by the native speakers of Megleno Romanian. Nevertheless, we assume that both Romanian (Megleno) and Megleno Romanian (Greece) too have LP /θ/. Interdentals do not show up in Matras’ (2002: 51–52) section dedicated to the fricatives in Romani languages although most of them give evidence of a stock of Greek loanwords. Romani (Ajia Varvara) seems to be the sole member of the Indo-Iranian branch to borrow /θ/. Igla (1996: 12) emphasizes that the LP /θ/ from Greek is never replaced with any other phoneme of the replica language on account of the high degree of bilingualism with Greek in the Romani speech community. The final case of a /θ/-borrower is Maltese. The inherited Semitic interdental fricatives became obsolete in the 18th century (Avram 2014). In the case of the voiceless interdental fricative a merger with the voiceless dental plosive took place. Bilingualism with English is commonplace in contemporary Maltese society. Loanwords from English abound in everyday discourse many of which contain /θ/ in the English original. According to Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 303) most of the speakers tend to replace /θ/ with /t/ but others keep the

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 399

voiceless interdental fricative. In connection with the example Maltese berdej ‘birthday’ < English birthday two competing realizations are widely common, namely /θ/-less [bεrdεj] and with transferred /θ/ [bεrθdεj]. The authors argue that the interdentals are less “eligible phonemic candidate[s]” than LP /ʒ/ (Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander 1997: 303). We nevertheless assume a LP /θ/ for Maltese in analogy to the Catalan case discussed above. (b) Additions: Further examples of LP /θ/ are hard to come by. A bona fide instance is reported for Macedonian (Boboshtica), a South Slavic variety spoken on the national territory of Albania. Steinke and Ylli (2007: 311) remark that LP /θ/ is restricted to loanwords (presumably from Albanian) but add in a footnote that the voiceless interdental fricative has also spread to a small number of words of Slavic origin such as Macedonian (Boboshtica) liváθa ‘meadow’ (Steinke and Ylli 2007: 311, fn. 231). According to Sawicka (1997: 31) there is at least one other Romani variety which has borrowed /θ/ from Albanian, viz. Romani (Mećkar) where e.g. the loanword θika ‘knife’ < Albanian thika is attested. Without specifying the variety of Basque Trask (1997: 194) mentions that stem-final Spanish [θ] is preserved in loanwords by some Basque speakers although the voiceless interdental fricative of Spanish is usually replaced with /s̻/ (but see Section 17.2.4.29 on this issue). (c) Geography: As Map LXIII and Table 153 show /θ/-borrowing occurs almost exclusively in the SC nonant. The donor languages are Greek, Albanian, and to a lesser extent also English. In the SW nonant, Spanish functions as donor. The voiceless interdental fricative is completely unknown in MC and NE. There is only one case of autochthonous /θ/ in each of the nonants NW, NC, ME, and SE. Table 153: Distribution of /θ/-borrowers over the nonants.

N

W

C

E

Sum

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

1

5

0

6

Total

1

5

0

6

(d) Further issues: Table 154 determines the frequency of co-occurrences of (LP) /θ/ and (LP) /ð/ (to be investigated more closely in the subsequent Section 17.2.4.17).

400 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 154: Co-occurrence of (LP) /θ/ and (LP) /ð/.

/θ/

/ð/

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

5

0

0

5

autochthonous

0

14

4

18

1

4

182

187

6

18

186

210

unattested Total

Sum

The two interdental fricatives yield almost equally low turnouts since they are absent from 186 and 187 EDLs, respectively. The phonological class of interdentals is alien to 182 EDLs, i.e. 87 % of the sample languages have neither /θ/ nor /ð/. If the one is borrowed it is normally the case that the other is borrowed as well. There are altogether 19 EDLs which have both interdentals (= 9 % of the sample). The voiceless interdental fricative is attested without its voiced counterpart in five EDLs whereas /ð/ occurs in four EDLs without /θ/ being present too. The two phonemes seem to be tightly connected to each other. Interestingly, the evidence of gap-filling on the basis of the voice contrast is practically inexistent. If borrowing happens then both the voiceless and the voiced interdental fricative are usually affected. Parallel borrowing is thus the norm. This means that we are dealing with the creation of a new place of articulation (Class 5 of Maddieson’s categorization). In connection to the interdentals, Eisen (2019: 90) assumes a facilitating effect which gives rise to his Universal 9 according to which a language that borrows an interdental consonant probably already has a native interdental. Our above findings confirm that there is a very strong interdependence of LP /θ/ and LP /ð/. The two interdentals are usually borrowed as a pair. However, EDLs which already have an interdental fricative do not borrow further units from this class. Thus, Eisen’s Universal 9 is not corroborated by the empirical facts in Europe.

17.2.4.17 /ð/ Figure 87 shows that the voiced interdental fricative is a minority option in the sample. Only 11 % of the EDLs are /ð/-languages. This share is minimally smaller than that of the /θ/-languages discussed in the previous section. The number of /ð/-borrowers is down to five EDLs.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 401

autochthonous; 18; 9%

LP; 5; 2% no /ð/; 187; 89%

Figure 87: Share of LP /ð/ in the sample.

In Maddieson’s (1984: 228) sample the phoneme /ð/ is attested more often than its voiceless counterpart because there are 21 /ð/-languages (= 7 % of the sample) as opposed to 18 /θ/-languages. Furthermore, in contrast to /θ/, there are also three /ð/-borrowers. This means that 14 % of Maddieson’s /ð/-languages attest to LP /ð/. In Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) global sample the voiced interdental fricative is involved more often in borrowing than the voiceless interdental fricative. It is registered as LP nine times (= 2 % of the entire sample) to which six cases of borrowing of the pharyngealized /ðˁ/ could be added. In Eurasia Eisen does not mention any case of LP /ð/ in the list of frequently borrowed units. In contrast, there are six /ðˁ/-borrowers (= 4 % of the subsample) which means that all cases of /ðˁ/-borrowing occur in Eurasia. In our database there is no example of LP /ðˁ/ (see Section 17.2.4.29) whereas there are five cases of LP /ð/. Once more we are facing very different results. It is possible that the borrowing of the pharyngealized voiced interdental fricative belongs to the Asian component in Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. The internal composition of the European segment thereof seems to preclude the possibility to identify genuine cases of LP /ð/. As transpires from the subsequent (a)-part, the two interdental fricatives behave almost identically in terms of their contact-induced emergence as LPs. (a) From within the sample: Figure 88 invites the same comment as the one we have already given in connection with Figure 87 in Section 17.2.4.16a.

402 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Indo-European; 4; 80%

Afro-Asiatic; 1; 20%

Figure 88: Genealogic distribution of /ð/-borrowers.

Except Catalan, those EDLs which borrow /θ/ also attest to LP /ð/. Table 154 has shown us that /ð/-borrowing implies /θ/-borrowing. On this basis it is only to be expected that the contents of this (a)-part resemble closely those of the (a)-part of the previous section. It is therefore unnecessary to recapitulate verbatim everything that has been said already in Section 17.2.4.16. Our above expectation is largely met by the situation in Romance. Table 155 reveals the predominance of /ð/-less languages which account for 87 % of this branch of Indo-European. There is only Norman (Jersey) which attests to autochthonous /ð/. LP /ð/ occurs in three Balkan-Romance EDLs. Table 155: Romance /ð/-languages vs. Romance /ð/-less languages.

/ð/-less [27]

auto [1] borr[3]

/ð/-EDLs [4]

EDLs Aromanian, Megleno Romanian (Greece), Romanian (Megleno) Norman (Jersey)

Asturian, Catalan, Corsican, Franco-Provençal (Faetar), French, Friulian (Udine), Galician, Istriot, Istro Romanian, Italian, Italian (Genovese), Ladin, Ladino, Occitan (Aranese), Occitan (Gascon), Occitan (Languedocien), Portuguese, Romanian, Romansch (Puter), Romansch (Surmeiran), Romansch (Sursilvan), Romansch (Sutselvan), Romansch (Vallader), Sardinian (Limba Sarda), Sardinian (Campidanese), Sardinian (Nuorese), Spanish

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 403

The distribution of the Romance EDLs over the three relevant categories in Tables 152 and 155 is not absolutely the same. The differences are particularly obvious in the case of the non-borrowers with autochthonous interdental fricative. None of the Romance EDLs with autochthonous /θ/ has autochthonous /ð/. Norman (Jersey) on the other hand boasts the phonemic voiced interdental fricative but lacks the voiceless counterpart (Liddicoat 1994: 104–105). A word of caution is in order at this point. Several Romance EDLs give evidence of [ð] as positional allophone of /d/ (word-medially and in external sandhi). This applies among others to Catalan (Quintana 1981: 26–27), Portuguese (Mateus and d’Andrade 2000: 11, fn. 29), Sardinian (Nuorese) (Mensching 1994: 20), and Spanish (Dietrich and Geckeler 2004: 72). We repeat that being /ð/-less refers to the phoneme status of a unit and does not preclude its existence on the phonetic level. In Aromanian, Megleno Romanian, and Romanian (Megleno), however, the voiced interdental fricative is neither an intervocalic allophone of /d/ nor an authochthonous phoneme but a case of LP /ð/. As with LP /θ/, the presence of LP /ð/ is generally acknowledged for Aromanian (Kramer 1989: 428). Caragiu Marioţeanu (1975: 232) provides a list of loanwords among which we find Aromanian ðálî ‘buttermilk’ < Albanian dhallë. For Megleno Romanian and Romanian (Megleno), we rely on Dahmen (1989a: 443) and Sawicka (1997: 31) who state that LP /ð/ is attested in Greek loanwords. For Romani (Ajia Varvara), we refer once again to Igla (1996: 12) who claims that /ð/ is firmly established in Greek loanwords. Similarly, we repeat what Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997: 303) have said as to the position of the English interdental fricatives in Maltese: some speakers preserve /ð/ whereas others replace it with /d/. (b) Additions: Albanian is the source of two more instances of LP /ð/ in varieties of Macedonian spoken in Boboshtica and Gora. For the former, Steinke and Ylli (2007: 311) claim that /ð/ occurs almost exclusively in loanwords. In their phonological sketch of Macedonian (Gora), Steinke and Ylli (2010: 57, fn. 96) mention LP /ð/ only in passing when they say that the voiced interdental fricative is attested only in some words and can be considered to be “ein aus dem Albanischen entlehntes Fremdphonem” [a foreign phoneme borrowed from Albanian]. (c) Geography: Map LXIV and Table 156 are slightly modified versions of Map LXIII and Table 153, respectively. The modification regards Catalan which is featured on Map LXIII but is absent from Map LXIV. The absence of Catalan from SW is an important aspect because in contrast to /θ/ the distribution of LP /ð/ is confined to SC. Note also that SW does not host any EDL with autochthonous /ð/ whereas ME counts three cases of autochthonous /ð/. Moreover, in MC, Danish

404 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

attests to autochthonous /ð/ but lacks /θ/. The same holds for Norman (Jersey) in MW and both Mari varieties in ME. This means that the distribution of the two interdental fricatives differs not only in the domain of phoneme borrowing. Table 156: Distribution of /ð/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

0

5

0

5

Total

0

5

0

5

(d) Further issues: In Table 154 we have taken stock of the co-occurrences of the two interdental fricatives. We are therefore free in our choice of topic for Table 157. Since several EDLs have borrowed the three fricatives /θ/, /ð/, and /ɣ/ from Greek it makes sense to look at the co-occurrences of the voiced alveolar fricative and the voiced velar fricative. Table 157: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɣ/ and (LP) /ð/.

Sum

/ɣ/

LP /ð/

Total

LP

autochthonous

unattested

4

0

1

5

autochthonous

1

5

12

18

unattested

3

46

138

187

8

51

151

210

There is a certain asymmetry. Parallel borrowing involves four of five cases of LP /ð/ but only half of the total of LP /ɣ/. The co-occurrence of the two phonemes is infrequent. Only ten EDLs attest to the presence of both fricatives. In contrast, there are 49 EDLs in which only the voiced velar fricative shows up. The voiced interdental fricative on the other hand has the monopoly only in thirteen EDLs. The absence of both /ð/ and /ɣ/ is reported for 138 EDLs, i.e. two thirds of the sample has neither of the fricatives. In the presence of autochthonous /ɣ/, /ð/ is never borrowed. The voiced velar fricative is borrowed only once by an EDL which

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 405

already had autochthonous /ð/. The four cases of parallel borrowing notwithstanding, there seems to be no particularly close relationship between the two fricatives. On account of this independence, we rule out gap-filling as a motivating factor for the borrowing of either of the phonemes at issue. The evidence in favor of the creation of a new place of articulation is also rather poor. Since /θ/ comes into play too (as is suggested by Table 154) one might want to interpret the data as instances of the creation of a new manner of articulation (Maddieson’s Class 5). Whether it is correct to speak of an inhibiting effect which blocks the borrowing of either fricative in the presence of the other (unless both are LPs) cannot be determined in this study because of the small number of cases.

17.2.4.18 /ʎ/ The palatal lateral approximant poses problems which are familiar already from our discussion of /ɲ/ in Section 17.2.4.14. It is not always easy to distinguish properly between /ʎ/ and /lʲ/. As mentioned above, the latter cases are discussed in Section 17.2.4.29 in the context of palatalization. In this section, however, we take account only of /ʎ/. On account of the acknowledged analytical difficulties it is possible that the quantities we present result from erroneous interpretations. The share of the /ʎ/-less languages in the sample is 76 %. Nearly a quarter of the EDLs display this phoneme. According to Figure 89 it is autochthonous in 45 EDLs. The turnout for LP /ʎ/ is five EDLs which cover 2 % of the sample.

autochthonous; 45; 22%

LP; 5; 2%

no /ʎ/; 160; 76%

Figure 89: Share of LP /ʎ/ in the sample.

406 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The palatal lateral approximant is phonemic in 18 languages in Maddieson’s (1984: 244) sample. LP /ʎ/ is mentioned only for two languages. About 6 % of Maddieson’s sample languages are /ʎ/-languages with /ʎ/-borrowers accounting for 11 % of the latter. Eisen (2019: 40–41) counts eleven cases of LP /ʎ/ in the global sample where /ʎ/-borrowers represent 2 %. Two of these /ʎ/-borrowers are located in Eurasia. The share of these in the Eurasian subsample is as small as 1 %. It is clear that in spite of minor differences as to the absolute numbers and shares Maddieson’s study, Eisen’s study, and ours concur as to the marginal status of /ʎ/-borrowing. The picture that emerges for LP /ʎ/ has very much in common with that of LP /ɲ/. (a) From within the sample: The small absolute turnout involves only the Isolate and Indo-European as shown in Figure 90.

Indo-European; 2; 40%

Isolate; 3; 60%

Figure 90: Genealogic distribution of /ʎ/-borrowers.

The above palatalization problem applies to Celtic EDLs since the palatalization correlation is crucial for the organization of the consonant systems of the members of the Goidelic branch of this group. Table 158 shows that none of the Celtic EDLs gives evidence of autochthonous /ʎ/. The two /ʎ/-borrowers are identical with the two /ɲ/-borrowers mentioned in Table 145. In point of fact, the historical explanation for both cases of LPs is practically the same, namely that French loanwords supported the emergence of /ʎ/ in Breton and Breton (Léonais) where the palatal lateral approximant has prior functioned as positional allophone of /l/ in combination with front vowels (Jackson 1967: 821–824).

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 407

Table 158: Celtic /ʎ/-borrowers vs. Celtic /ʎ/-less languages.

Borrowed

/ʎ/-less

Breton, Breton (Léonais)

Breton (Trégorrois), Breton (Vannetais), Cornish, Irish, Irish (Northern), Irish (Southern), Manx, Scottish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic (Applecross), Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

2 EDLs

11 EDLs

Also in the case of the Basque varieties is there a connection to LP /ɲ/ because Haase (1993: 31) assumes that the marginal phonemes /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ have become full phonemes via the integration of Romance loanwords such as Basque (Zuberoa) kunzellia ‘council’ < French conseil (note that in contemporary French the word-final consonant is the palatal approximant /j/, see (c)-part below). Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 29) state that, in western dialects of Basque, the palatal lateral approximant occurs in loanwords and “as an allophone of /l/ after a high front vowel or glide.” One of these western dialects is Basque (Lekeitio) where word-initial /ʎ/ is confined to loanwords (Hualde et al. 1994: 18–19). It seems that an erstwhile automatic allophone of /l/ has been raised to the status of phoneme by way of integrating loanwords in which the palatal lateral approximant appears in different phonological contexts. We therefore assume LP /ʎ/ for all three varieties of Basque. (b) Additions: No further instances of /ʎ/-borrowings have been brought to our attention. (c) Geography: The geographical distribution of the /ʎ/-borrowers largely replicates that of the /ɲ/-borrowers. There is thus a clear westerly orientation as results from Map LXV. The palatal lateral is autochthonous for most of the EDLs in SW and NE. It is numerically strong in SC. A small cluster is found in the eastern part of ME. Isolated cases exist in NC and throughout MC. The phoneme does not show up in SE and NW. Table 159 hosts borrowers only in the MW and SW nonants. Table 159: Distribution of /ʎ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

2

0

0

2

S

3

0

0

3

Total

5

0

0

5

408 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The borrowers in MW (= varieties of Breton) are special insofar as none of their contemporary neighbors gives evidence of the palatal lateral which was originally borrowed from French where the erstwhile /ʎ/ changed to /j/ in the 17th century (Rheinfelder 1976: 112–114, 200–201, and 233). (d) Further issues: To test the hypothesis that LP /ɲ/ and LP /ʎ/ behave identically under borrowing we register all cases of co-occurrence of these phonemes in Table 160. Table 160: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ɲ/ and (LP) /ʎ/.

Sum

/ɲ/

LP /ʎ/

Total

LP

autochthonous

unattested

5

0

0

5

autochthonous

0

42

3

45

unattested

2

18

140

160

7

60

143

210

The results are interesting. There are five cases of parallel borrowing. This means that each case of LP /ʎ/ implies LP /ɲ/. In two EDLs, the palatal nasal has been borrowed in the absence of the palatal lateral approximant. There is a tendency for the two phonemes to occur together – a scenario that is realized in 47 EDLs (= 22 % of the sample). The palatal lateral approximant alone is attested in only three EDLs. The isolated appearance of /ɲ/ is reported in seven times as many EDLs than is the case with /ʎ/. The two phonemes (as a set) are absent from 67 % of the sample languages. The two phonemes seem to be relatively strongly associated with each other. The high incidence of parallel borrowings contrasts with the absence of borrowings of the one in the presence of the other. Only the latter would speak in favor of gap-filling. On account of the low incidence, there is no absolutely convincing argument for the creation of a new place or manner of articulation either. If at all, one has to decide whether the cases of parallel borrowing are instances of Maddieson’s Class 4 or Class 5. On account of the above considerations, one might be inclined to test the relation between /ʎ/ and /ɲ/ in a follow-up study to determine whether there is a facilitating effect along the lines of Eisen’s (2019) approach to phoneme borrowing.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 409

17.2.4.19 /ʕ/ In European perspective, the voiced pharyngeal fricative is a peripheral phenomenon. Figure 91 testifies to the infrequency of /ʕ/. It is absent from 91 % of the sample languages. There are only four /ʕ/-borrowers, i.e. LP /ʕ/ occurs only in 2 % of the EDLs.

autochthonous; 14; 7% no /ʕ/; 192; 91%

LP; 4; 2%

Figure 91: Share of LP /ʕ/ in the sample.

Maddieson’s (1984: 233) global sample contains only eight /ʕ/-languages (= 3 % of the sample) including one case of LP /ʕ/. Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) data tell a different story. There are 16 instances of /ʕ/-borrowing globally, i.e. 3 % of the entire sample attest to the phenomenon. Even in the Eurasian subsample LP /ʕ/ is attested more often than expected, namely eleven times (= 7 % of the subsample). To determine to what extent the different results reflect the differences between languages from Europe and Asia a dedicated separate study is required. The examples in the (a)-part and the (b)-part prove that the phoneme is not only numerically limited but also geographically restricted within Projekteuropa. (a) From within the sample: Figure 92 features only two phyla, namely Abkhaz-Adyghe and Nakh-Daghestanian. This means that we are facing a phenomenon which is closely associated with the Caucasus region.

410 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Abkhaz-Adyghe; 1; 25% NakhDaghestanian; 3; 75%

Figure 92: Genealogic distribution of /ʕ/-borrowers.

The Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs are divided in three groups as shown in Table 161. There is the majority with 18 /ʕ/-less languages as opposed to the minority of 11 /ʕ/-languages. The latter comprise three EDLs which attest to the borrowing of the voiced pharyngeal fricative. Table 161: Nakh-Daghestanian /ʕ/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /ʕ/-less languages.

borr [3]

Hunzib, Khwarshi, Tabasaran

auto [8]

/ʕ/-EDLs [11]

EDLs

Aghul, Akhvakh, Avar, Bezhta (Tlyadal), Budukh, Kryts, Kryts (Alyk), Tsova-Tush

/ʕ/-less [18]

Andi, Archi, Bagvalal, Botlikh, Chamalal, Chechen, Dargwa (Icari), Godoberi, Hinukh, Ingush, Karata, Khinalug, Lak, Lezgian, Rutul, Tindi, Tsakhur, Udi (Nidž)

In van den Berg’s (1995: 20) grammar of Hunzib, /ʕ/ is characterized as one of the LPs of the language. It is said to be attested in all positions. In word-initial position, it contrasts with /ʔ/ to yield minimal-pairs. The source does not identify the donor language but we assume that the voiced pharyngeal fricative has been

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 411

borrowed from Avar since this EDL is also the donor of other LP consonants in Hunzib. A possible alternative source of LP /ʕ/ is Arabic. Arabic is responsible for the presence of LP /ʕ/ in Khwarshi. Khalilova (2009: 15) explains that [t]he pharyngeal /ʕ/ mostly occurs in loan words of Arabic origin, but there is one instance where pharyngeal /ʕ/ occurs in native words, i.e. in the onomatopoetic verb bʕaʕaλa ‘to bleat’.

The possibility of the consonant to form part of the segmental chain of onomatopoeic words whereas it is otherwise admitted only in loanwords is worth taking note of because this is a scenario which is typical of many cases of LPs in our database (see Section 17.2.4.30). The situation in Tabasaran is described by Magometov (1965: 51) as follows: the voiced pharyngeal fricative is infrequent and its domain is limited to loanwords. Within the Abkhaz-Adyghe phylum, Kabardian is the sole /ʕ/-borrower (see Table 162). Abaza has autochthonous /ʕ/ whereas Adyghe, and Ubykh are said to lack the phoneme (Abkhaz has /ʕw/). For Kabardian Colarusso (1989: 266) states that “/ʕ/ occurs only in Arabic loans, where it can often be replaced by /ħ/.” Table 162: Abkhaz-Adyghe /ʕ/-languages vs. Abkhaz-Adyghe /ʕ/-less languages.

/ʕ/-EDLs [3]

auto [2] borr [1]

EDLs

/ʕ/-less [2]

Kabardian

Abaza, Abkhaz Adyghe, Ubykh

(b) Additions: Haig (2017: 167) refers to the Central Anatolian varieties of Kurdish at Muş and Erzurum when he addresses the issue of /ʕ/-borrowing from Arabic. The pharyngeal seems to have diffused into the inherited lexicon. The author concludes that the pharyngeals are extraneous to the basic phonology: they are restricted to individual lexical items, they play no part in morphology, their functional load is very limited, and there is considerable cross-speaker and cross-dialect variability in the extent of their presence.

Matras (2009: 229) complements the picture by claiming that the borrowing of the Arabic pharyngeal increases the density of phonemes in the postvelar domain of the replica language so that conflicts arise. The replacement of LP /ʕ/

412 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

with /ʔ/ and vice versa is the effect of the contact-induced overabundance of postvelar phonemes. Paul (1998: 5) has a section on postvelar consonants in Zaza (Çermik-Siverek). He mentions LP /ʕ/ in loanwords from Arabic but adds that at least word-internally LP /ʕ/ and LP /ħ/ (see Section 17.2.4.24b) are often mixed up by native speakers of the Zaza variety he describes. (c) Geography: Map LXVI reflects the presence of both autochthonous and borrowed /ʕ/ exclusively in the SE nonant (see Table 163). No evidence of autochthonous or borrowed /ʕ/ can be found outside this nonant. Table 163: Distribution of /ʕ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

0

0

4

4

Total

0

0

4

4

(d) Further issues: Table 164 accounts for the co-occurrences of the pharyngeal fricatives none of which is particularly frequent in our database. Table 164: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ħ/ and (LP) /ʕ/.

/ħ/ LP

/ʕ/

Total

autochthonous

Sum unattested

LP

2

2

0

4

autochthonous

0

12

2

14

unattested

0

7

185

192

2

21

187

210

The most one can say is that the data are perhaps suggestive of gap-filling (Maddieson’s Class 1). First of all, the voiceless pharyngeal fricative is borrowed only if its voiced partner is borrowed too. Secondly, LP /ʕ/ is attested only with /ħ/ being already present in the replica language or being borrowed too. In 16 EDLs, both pharyngeal fricatives occur as opposed to nine EDLs which feature only one of them. On the whole, this phonological class is disfavored in the sample. It is absent from 88 % of the sample languages. Eisen (2019: 87–88)

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 413

assumes a facilitating effect for pharyngeal which he presents as Universal 4 which assumes that a language which borrows a pharyngeal probably already has an established phoneme of this class. Discounting the problem of the small number of cases, Table 164 lends support to this (probabilistic) universal.

17.2.4.20 /d/ The voiced alveolar plosive is attested in 97 % of the sample languages. Figure 93 clearly shows that /d/-lessness is exceptional. Besides the 199 EDLs with autochthonous /d/ there are also four /d/-borrowers.

LP; 4; 2% no /d/; 7; 3% autochthonous; 199; 95%

Figure 93: Share of LP /d/ in the sample.

The wide distribution of /d/ results also from the combination of Maddieson’s (1984: 207–210) categories (i) “voiced dental plosive”, (ii) “voiced dental/alveolar plosive”, and (iii) “voiced alveolar plosive” which add up to 195 languages (= 62 % of the sample) which include 15 /d/-borrowers (= 8 % of all /d/-languages). In Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) global sample, /d/-borrowing occurs frequently. It is attested in 54 languages which claim 10 % of the sample. For Eurasia Eisen still registers seven /d/-borrowers (= 5 % of the subsample). It seems that LP /d/ is marginal in Europe and Asia whereas it is a relatively common phenomenon elsewhere on the globe. (a) From within the sample: The four cases of LP /d/ distribute over three phyla as shown in Figure 94. It is not possible to speak of genealogically defined preferences.

414 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Indo-European; 1; 25%

Turkic; 2; 50%

Uralic; 1; 25%

Figure 94: Genealogic distribution of /d/-borrowers.

Table 165 hosts two Turkic /d/-borrowers and 13 Turkic EDLs with autochthonous /d/. Table 165: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /d/ in Turkic.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Chuvash, Turkish (Trabzon)

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, KarachayBalkar, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai), Kazakh, Kumyk, Noghay, Tatar, Turkish

2 EDLs

13 EDLs

Erdal (1998: 138) postulates plosive /d/ for Old Turkic. Gabain (1959a: 25) hypothesizes that the phoneme under scrutiny might still have been fricative /ð/. In early Old Anatolian Turkic /d/ and /ð/ are distinct phonemes (Mansuroğlu 1959: 165). In Benzing’s (1959c: 708) account of the phonology of Chuvash, no phonemic voiced alveolar plosive is mentioned although /t/ is said to have lenis allophones ranging from [ð] to [d]. Clark (1998: 434) on the other hand lists /d/ among the LPs Chuvash employs in Russian loanwords. In the case of Turkish (Trabzon), Brendemoen (2002: 85) presents the voiced alveolar plosive as allophone [d] of /t/. In contrast to the voiced bilabial plosive [d] is not far advanced in the process of phonematization but it seems that loanwords are paving the way for it. We therefore accept this as a case of LP /d/.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 415

The third candidate for the status of LP /d/ stems from Saami (Kildin). We have to rely entirely on the short remark made by Rießler (2007: 232) as to the promotion of an erstwhile positional allophone [d] of /t/ to full phoneme status triggered by the integration of Russian loanwords with initial /d/. Since no examples are provided, the correctness of this interpretation must be verified in a dedicated follow-up study. The general situation in the Uralic component of our sample can be retrieved from Table 166. Table 166: Uralic /d/-languages vs. Uralic /d/-less languages.

/d/-less [5]

borr [1] auto [17]

/d/-EDLs [18]

EDLs Saami (Kildin)

Finnish, Hungarian, Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Livonian, Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Nenets (Tundra), Saami (CentralSouth), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Udmurt, Veps, Votic Estonian, Estonian (Rõngu), Karelian (Archangelsk), Mari (Hill), Mari (Meadow)

The bulk of the Uralic EDLs boasts autochthonous /d/. Estonian and Estonian (Rõngu) can probably be added to this group of seventeen because the supposed absence of /d/ in the two Estonian varieties hinges on the interpretation of the fortis-lenis opposition as mentioned already in connection to LP /b/ and LP /g/ (see also the subsequent (b)-part). Greek is /d/-borrower #4. Ruge (2001: 17) describes that in inherited Greek words [d] is a positional allophone of /ð/ after nasals. In contrast, the voiced alveolar plosive can occupy other positions in loanwords as e.g. Greek [drams] ‘drums’ < English drums. The is only an orthographic device to indicate that the segment has to be pronounced as plosive; some Greek native speakers (optionally) prenasalize LP /d/ to [nd]. (b) Additions: According to Laanest (1982: 122–124), the voiced plosives of the Finnic EDLs have been phonematized secondarily from erstwhile wordmedial allophones of their voiceless counterparts. For several of the Finnic EDLs the process is explicable exclusively in terms of internal changes whereas it is acknowledged that in some of the languages loanwords with word-initial voiced plosives have been supportive in the process of phonematization. We have referred to this possibility already in Sections 17.2.4.6a and 17.2.4.15a in connec-

416 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

tion to /g/ and /b/, respectively. The subject matter requires a dedicated diachronic in-depth study which is beyond the limits of our project. Similarly, the (word-initial) reversal of the sound change from Ancient Greek /d/ to Greek /ð/ in the Italo-Greek variety of Sternatia which Rohlfs (1977: 28) attributes to Italian influence constitutes a case for further investigations. For the time being, we discount this as a case of phoneme borrowing because it seems to affect only positional allophones – word-initial [d] vs word-medial [ð]. (c) Geography: Map LXVII and Table 167 feature three of the four /d/borrowers in the E nonants. This is also where four of the seven /d/-less EDLs are situated. Table 167: Distribution of /d/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

1

1

M

0

0

1

1

S

0

1

1

2

Total

0

1

3

4

(d) Further issues: In Table 168 we aim at determining the co-occurrences of /t/ and (LP) /d/ to see whether the pair of alveolar plosives gives evidence of parallel behavior. Table 168: Co-occurrence of /t/ and (LP) /d/.

/t/

/d/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

4

0

4

autochthonous

0

199

0

199

unattested

0

7

0

7

0

210

0

210

The voiceless alveolar plosive is exempt from borrowing. Only /d/ is reported as LP – and this always with /t/ being present already in the replica language. We understand the facts as evidence of gap-filling: the voiced phoneme is added to

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 417

the unvoiced partner to form a voice-based opposition (Maddieson’s Class 1). The pair of alveolar plosives is established in 97 % of the sample languages. The class of denti-alveolar plosives is attested in all 210 sample languages.

17.2.4.21 /ʔ/ The glottal plosive yields a smaller number of borrowers than the voiced pharyngeal fricative. Figure 95 gives evidence of the scarcity of LP /ʔ/. Phonemic glottal plosives are generally a minority option but autochthonous /ʔ/ is almost twelve times as frequent as LP /ʔ/.

autochthonous; 35; 17%

LP; 3; 1% no /ʔ/; 172; 82%

Figure 95: Share of LP /ʔ/ in the sample.

The data presented in Maddieson (1984: 215) show that the glottal plosive is relatively frequent outside Europe. Maddieson mentions 146 /ʔ/-languages (= 46 % of his sample). In this number two /ʔ/-borrowers are included which account for 1 % of all /ʔ/-languages. According to Eisen (2019: 40–41), /ʔ/borrowing is much more frequent because he identifies 25 cases in his global sample. These 25 /ʔ/-borrowers cover 5 % of the worldwide sample. In Eurasia eight cases (= 6 % of the subsample) are recorded. The results suggest that LP /ʔ/ is more frequent on the global scale than Maddieson’s data make us believe. On the other hand, Europe is probably a region with little /ʔ/-borrowing. The following (a)-part instructs us that LP /ʔ/ is associated only with one phylum. (a) From within the sample: Only Turkic EDLs are affected by /ʔ/borrowing. Table 169 reveals that no member of this phylum boasts autochtho-

418 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

nous /ʔ/. Azerbaijani is a controversial case since Caferoğlu and Doerfer (1959: 289) have a “Hauchlaut” [‘aspirate’] in their phoneme chart which is represented by the symbol but no further explanations are given. Table 169: Turkic /ʔ/-borrowers vs. Turkic /ʔ/-less languages.

Borrowed

/ʔ/-less languages

Crimean Tatar, Kumyk, Tatar

Azerbaijani, Bashkir, Chuvash, Gagauz, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim (Eastern), Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai), Kazakh, Noghay, Turkish, Turkish (Trabzon)

3 EDLs

12 EDLs

The glottal plosive is mentioned explicitly for Crimean Tatar (Doerfer 1959: 377) as occurring (almost) exclusively in loanwords. Accordingly, Kavitskaya (2010: 10) describes the glottal plosive as marginal in Crimean Tatar. For Tatar, Comrie (1997b: 901–902) makes a distinction between phonemic and phonetic glottal plosive. The latter occurs also in Turkic words whereas the former is restricted to loanwords from Arabic. In the case of Kumyk, Abdullaeva et al. (2014: 56) claim that /ʔ/ is attested only in Persian and Arabic loanwords. (b) Additions: We have not been able to identify further cases of LP /ʔ/. (c) Geography: Map LXVIII and Table 170 deliver unambiguous results. Since only Turkic EDLs are involved in /ʔ/-borrowing it is not surprising that the borrowers are scattered over the ME and SE nonants. An autochthonous phonemic glottal plosive is situated almost exclusively in the SE nonant; only in four cases it can be found outside of this nonant: Maltese in SC, German and Livonian in MC, and Tundra Nenets in NE. Table 170: Distribution of /ʔ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

1

1

S

0

0

2

2

Total

0

0

3

3

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 419

(d) Further issues: Table 171 provides a survey of the co-occurrences of (LP) /h/ and (LP) /ʔ/ both of which occupy the glottal place of articulation. Table 171: Co-occurrence of (LP) /h/ and (LP) /ʔ/.

/h/ LP

/ʔ/

Total

autochthonous

Sum unattested

LP

2

1

0

3

autochthonous

1

31

3

35

unattested

7

84

81

172

10

116

84

210

It results from Table 171 that /ʔ/ is borrowed only if /h/ is borrowed too or is already there in the system of the replica language. The voiceless glottal fricative is not dependent on the presence or borrowing of the glottal plosive. The borrowing of /h/ occurs in seven EDLs without involvement of /ʔ/. Moreover, /h/ is attested in 91 EDLs without the co-presence of /ʔ/. The reverse relation is reported only for three EDLs. The two glottal phonemes are present side by side in 35 EDLs whereas only one of them is sufficient for 94 EDLs. Both phonemes are lacking in 39 % of the sample languages. The data for parallel borrowing are suggestive of but not fully conclusive as to the creation of a new place of articulation (Maddieson’s Class 5). On a very limited scale, the presence or parallel borrowing of /h/ seems to facilitate the borrowing of /ʔ/. This impressionistic statement needs to be tested against a much larger data-set to determine whether we are dealing with a facilitating effect (Eisen 2019) in the first place. To achieve this a separate investigation must be carried out in the future.

17.2.4.22 /k/ The voiceless velar plosive is absent from three sample languages. Figure 96 shows that autochthonous /k/ is widely common across the EDLs. Accordingly, the number of /k/-borrowers is very small because there is evidence of LP /k/ only in three EDLs. In Maddieson’s (1984: 212–213) study /k/ is abundantly attested. Its existence is reported for 283 languages (= 89 % of the sample) including Azerbaijani as sole case of a /k/-borrower. In contrast, Eisen (2019: 40–41) has collected 19 cases of LP /k/ worldwide. This is equivalent to 4 % of the entire sample. The

420 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

share of /k/-borrowing diminishes to 3 % in the Eurasian subsample where five languages are said to borrow the voiceless velar plosive. Eisen’s findings also show that /k/-borrowing is not as infrequent as Maddieson’s data suggest.

LP; 3; 1.4% autochthonous; 204; 97.1%

no /k/; 3; 1.4%

Figure 96: Share of LP /k/ in the sample.

(a) From within the sample: The three /k/-borrowers distribute evenly over three phyla, viz. Turkic, Afro-Asiatic, and Abkhaz-Adyghe as can be gathered from Figure 97. Turkic; 1; 33.33%

Afro-Asiatic; 1; 33.33%

Figure 97: Genealogic distribution of /k/-borrowers.

Abkhaz-Adyghe; 1; 33.33%

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 421

Adyghe, Aramaic (Hertevin), and Azerbaijani are the three EDLs which are described as /k/-borrowers in the pertinent literature. The information on this issue in Adyghe is very limited. Paris (1989: 160) summarily characterizes the consonants /k/, /g/, /k’/, /h/, and /v/ as infrequent and typical of loanwords. Examples of their presence in Adyghe are not given. For Aramaic (Hertevin), the situation is intriguing since the introduction of word-initial plain /k/ in loanwords from Kurdish has provided the foundations for the phonemically relevant distinction of /kh/ ≠ /k/ in the replica language. Jastrow (1988: 4) offers the impure minimal pair kholle ‘all’ ≠ kolla ‘sorrow’ < Kurdish kûl. In the case of Azerbaijani, Širaliev and Sevortjan (1971: 21–22) claim that the domain of /k/ is that of the Russian loanwords in this Turkic EDL as e.g. in Azerbaijani bulka ‘bread-roll’ < Russian bulka. Prior to borrowing of /k/, Azerbaijani had only /c/ (Caferoğlu and Doerfer 1959: 289). Schönig (1998a: 248–249) makes no mention of LP /k/. Table 172 shows that the Turkic phylum also hosts two EDLs which are supposed to lack /k/. Table 172: Turkic /k/-languages vs. Turkic /k/-less languages.

/k/-less [2]

borr [1]

Azerbaijani

auto [12]

/k/-EDLs [13]

EDLs

Bashkir, Chuvash , Crimean Tatar, Gagauz, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim (Eastern), Kazakh, Kumyk, Noghay, Tatar, Turkish, Turkish (Trabzon) Karaim (Galits), Karaim (Trakai)

(b) Additions: Haig (2017: 167) touches upon the three-way distinction of voiced, voiceless aspirated, and voiceless plain plosives in Central Anatolian varieties of Kurdish. The history of this system has not been told to the satisfaction of all scholars yet. A contact-induced origin is likely but the donor is still controversial. It is possible that plain /k/ is involved in the assumed borrowing. However, it is not this individual phoneme that is at issue but the entire series of plosives so that we are dealing with a system of primary and secondary articulations. For the discussion of this topic we refer the reader to Section 17.2.4.29 below. (c) Geography: The three /k/-borrowers are at home in the SE nonant. This is where they can be found on Map LXIX and in Table 173. Almost everywhere else we see EDLs with autochthonous /k/. Isolated /k/-less EDLs are situated in MC and SC.

422 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 173: Distribution of /k/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

0

0

3

3

Total

0

0

3

3

(d) Further issues: Table 103 provides information about the co-occurrences of the two velar plosives. We can therefore use Table 174 to check whether the voiceless plosives at the velar and uvular places of articulation behave identically. Table 174: Co-occurrence of (LP) /k/ and (LP) /q/.

/q/ LP

autochthonous

unattested

0

2

1

autochthonous

1

35

168

204

unattested

0

0

3

3

1

37

172

210

LP /k/

Total

Sum

3

Parallel borrowing of /k/ and /q/ is unattested. In three out of four cases, these phonemes are borrowed in the presence of the respective other. The velar and the uvular plosive occur together in 38 EDLs. In contrast to the next-toubiquitous /k/, /q/ is infrequently attested – but always with /k/ being copresent. The voiceless velar plosive, on the other hand, occurs on its own in 169 EDLs. We assume that gap-filling is no option for explaining the borrowing behavior of the phonemes under discussion. The creation of a new place of articulation (Maddieson’s Class 5) is the better solution albeit a solution with only limited empirical support. Superficially the presence of /q/ seems to facilitate the borrowing of /k/ and vice versa. However, the empirical evidence is numerically weak. To better understand whether we are dealing with a facilitating effect (Eisen 2019) or not we need to enlarge the database considerably which is a task we cannot afford to address in this study.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 423

17.2.4.23 /ç/ The voiceless palatal fricative is attested in 26 EDLs. It does not show up in 88 % of the sample languages. The turnout for LP /ç/ is very small since there are only two /ç/-borrowers as is shown in Figure 98. An aggravating factor is the lack of convincing proof of the phonological status of LP /ç/ even in those EDLs for which the descriptive sources invoke the phonemic nature of the unit under inspection.

autochthonous; 24; 11%

LP; 2; 1%

no /ç/; 184; 88%

Figure 98: Share of LP /ç/ in the sample.

Note that Maddieson (1984: 231) mentions eleven /ç/-languages (= 3 % of his sample) none of which is marked as borrower. The same applies to the list of “most frequently borrowed segments worldwide” (Eisen 2019: 40) which takes account of all LPs which are borrowed by at least three languages. The list of “most frequently borrowed segments in Eurasia” (Eisen 2019: 41), however, also includes LPs which occur in only two languages. This is exactly what happens to /ç/ which has been borrowed by two languages (= 1 % of the subsample). In general, /ç/-borrowing is exceptional. Two studies – Eisen’s and ours – have identical results at least in terms of the absolute number of cases. (a) From within the sample: Two phyla divide the cases of LP /ç/ among each other. Indo-European and Abkhaz-Adyghe give evidence of /ç/-borrowing (see Figure 99).

424 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Indo-European; 1; 50%

Abkhaz-Adyghe; 1; 50%

Figure 99: Genealogic distribution of /ç/-borrowers.

In the case of Abaza, Lomtatidze and Klychev (1989: 93) enumerate several LPs among which we find the “dorso-palatal voiceless fricative x̂.” The phonological coordinates provided in the source are suggestive of LP /ç/. The authors employ the IPA-symbol for a different phonological class, namely for the “apico-palatal voiceless non-continuants” (Lomtatidze and Klychev 1989: 94). No examples are provided for LP /ç/. The potential donor language remains anonymous too. The presence/absence of /ç/ in the Abkhaz-Adyghe phylum is disclosed in Table 175. Table 175: Abkhaz-Adyghe /ç/-languages vs. Abkhaz-Adyghe /ç/-less languages.

/ç/-less [3]

borr [1]

Abaza

auto [1]

/ç/-EDLs [2]

EDLs

Kabardian

Abkhaz, Adyghe, Ubykh

In Albanian (Salamis), /ç/ is given full phoneme status (Haebler 1965: 36). Its distribution is limited (almost exclusively) to loanwords from Greek such as Albanian (Salamis) çiro ‘widowed’ < Greek chīra (Haebler 1965: 40).

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 425

Since LP /x/ is confined to the position in front of low and back vowels whereas most of the examples of LP /ç/ involve front vowels it remains to be seen whether we are dealing with positional allophones along the lines of the Greek phoneme /x/ and its back and front allophones [x] and [ç], respectively. No other Albanian variety has phonemic /ç/. (b) Additions: It is doubtful whether it is correct to speak of LP /ç/ in further cases of supposed borrowing of this consonant. We only mention an illustrative case. Slavomolisano is potentially the third candidate for the status of /ç/-borrower. Breu and Piccoli’s (2000: 385) chart of consonants features the voiceless palatal fricative. Whether the authors consider it to be phonemic does not transpire from the description. It is likely, however, that they assign subphonemic status to it because when its almost exclusive occurrence in loanwords is addressed phonetic brackets are used (= [ç]). If we understand the authors correctly, [ç] is the result of (automatic) desonorization of /j/ in contexts of low sonority as e.g. in Slavomolisano dupj [dupç] ‘double’ < Italian doppio (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 386). The local Italo-Romance dialect does not provide a basis for /ç/-borrowing either. (c) Geography: With only two /ç/-borrowers it is difficult to speak of any degree of areality in the distribution of LP /ç/ although both cases are situated in the south (see Map LXX and Table 176). Abaza is located in SE and Albanian (Salamis) in SC. Autochthonous /ç/ has representatives in all nonants except SW. Independent of the nonant, the /ç/-languages are outnumbered by far by /ç/-less EDLs. Table 176: Distribution of /ç/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

0

1

1

2

Total

0

1

1

2

(d) Further issues: Table 177 is intended to provide a survey of the cooccurrences of the voiceless velar fricative and the voiceless palatal fricative. This choice of phonemes is motivated by the frequent allophonic relation that involves the two fricatives. Several EDLs display complementary distribution

426 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

with [x] combining with non-front vowels as opposed to [ç] which is compatible with front vowels only. Table 177: Co-occurrence of (LP) /x/ and (LP) /ç/.

/x/ LP

/ç/

Total

autochthonous

Sum unattested

LP

1

1

0

2

autochthonous

6

9

9

24

unattested

23

98

63

184

30

108

72

210

With the proviso that the number of /ç/-borrowers is probably too small to form the basis for further generalizations, we interpret the absolute numbers in Table 177 as follows. LP /ç/ is possible only if /x/ is either borrowed too or already present in the system of the replica language. The borrowing of the voiceless velar fricative on the other hand takes place predominantly in the absence of /ç/. The co-occurrence of /x/ and /ç/ is attested in 17 EDLs (= 8 % of the sample). The voiceless palatal fricative alone is reported for nine EDLs. In contrast, /x/ is attested without /ç/ in 121 EDLs (= 58 % of the sample). In 63 EDLs (= 30 % of the sample) neither of the two fricatives is phonemic. It is clear that /x/ is largely independent of /ç/. It is not entirely clear to us whether the same independence also holds for /ç/ in relation to /x/. Gap-filling is certainly not a sufficiently strong factor to motivate the borrowing of either of the phonemes. Where the one is borrowed in the presence of the other a new place of articulation is established. Where the one is borrowed in the absence of the other a new manner of articulation emerges. There is thus a draw between Maddieson’s Class 4 and Class 5. Whether the presence and parallel borrowing of /x/ facilitates the borrowing of /ç/ has to be checked against a more sizeable database.

17.2.4.24 /ħ/ The voiceless pharyngeal fricative is reported to exist in 23 EDLs. Figure 100 reveals that only two of these are /ħ/-borrowers. The /ħ/-less languages cover 89 % of the sample. It almost goes without saying that it is not always clear whether a putative /ħ/ would not be better classified as uvular /χ/ or glottal /h/ as it is the other way round often enough.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 427

autochthonous; 21; 10%

no /ħ/; 187; 89%

LP; 2; 1%

Figure 100: Share of LP /ħ/ in the sample.

Maddieson’s (1984: 233) worldwide sample contains thirteen /ħ/-languages. No mention is made of LP /ħ/. This absence of LP /ħ/ also holds for Eisen’s (2019: 40–41) global and Eurasian samples. It is clear that the phenomenon is a rarum. (a) From within the sample: The two cases of /ħ/-borrowing belong to the Nakh-Daghestanian phylum. Table 178 hosts almost identically large groups of /ħ/-languages and /ħ/-less languages. Table 178: Nakh-Daghestanian /ħ/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /ħ/-less languages.

auto [13] borr [2]

/ħ/-EDLs [15]

EDLs

/ħ/-less [14]

Hunzib, Tabasaran

Aghul, Akhvakh, Archi, Avar, Bezhta (Tlyadal), Budukh, Chechen, Hinukh, Ingush, Khwarshi, Kryts, Lak, Tsova-Tush Andi, Bagvalal, Botlikh, Chamalal, Dargwa (Icari), Godoberi, Karata, Khinalug, Kryts (Alyk), Lezgian, Rutul, Tindi, Tsakhur, Udi (Nidž)

Tables 178 and 161 should be compared with each other. It comes to the fore that two of three /ʕ/-borrowers also give evidence of LP /ħ/ which means that Hunzib and Tabasaran have acquired the pair of pharyngeal fricatives in the

428 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

course of language contact. This is what van den Berg (1995: 20) and Magometov (1965: 51) assume for Hunzib and Tabasaran, respectively. (b) Additions: As mentioned in Section 17.2.4.19b, Zaza (Çermik-Siverek) testifies to the borrowing of the two Arabic pharyngeal fricatives. Paul (1998: 5) argues that LP /ħ/ and LP /ʕ/ can replace each other word-internally as in Zaza (Çermik-Siverek) seḥāt ~ seʽāt ‘hour’ < Arabic saʽāt. Since the variation seems to be limited to word-medial positions we assume that the two LPs are distinctive word-initially. Since the representation of /ʕ/ is suspended in the glossary of Paul’s (1998: 290) grammar we cannot test this hypothesis. (c) Geography: The geographical pattern of Map LXXI is uncontroversial. According to Table 179, borrowers occur only in the SE nonant and this is also where EDLs with autochthonous /ħ/ appear. The other nonants are populated exclusively by /ħ/-less EDLs. Table 179: Distribution of /ħ/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

0

0

2

2

Total

0

0

2

2

(d) Further issues: Table 164 accounts for the co-occurrences of the two pharyngeal fricatives. Table 180 complements the picture by way of taking stock of the co-occurrences of the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ and the voiceless pharyngeal fricative /ħ/. Table 180: Co-occurrence of (LP) /ħ/ and (LP) /h/.

/ħ/

/h/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

1

9

autochthonous

2

18

96

116

unattested

0

2

82

84

2

21

187

210

10

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 429

The absence of cases of parallel borrowing is symptomatic of the limited compatibility of the two phonemes. They occur in one and the same phonological system in 21 EDLs whereas 107 EDLs allow only for one of them among the phonemes. In exactly half of the EDLs the solely admitted fricative is /h/. The voiceless glottal fricative is borrowed nine times in the absence of /ħ/. On the other hand, LP /ħ/ implies the presence of autochthonous /h/. The two phonemes do not attract each other strongly. Gap-filling can be ruled out as motivating factor for the borrowing. The nine EDLs which borrow /h/ alone may be taken as evidence for the creation of a new place of articulation. To be able to make any statements about facilitating or inhibiting factors in connection to the above two fricatives we need a much larger database.

17.2.4.25 /p/ The voiceless bilabial plosive is universally present in the sample. Figure 101 gives us an idea of the ubiquitous distribution of /p/ which occurs in 100 % of the EDLs. Three EDLs, namely Akhvakh, Chechen, and Faroese, attest only to /ph/. The two /p/-borrowers account for 1 % of the sample.

autochthonous; 208; 99%

LP; 2; 1%

Figure 101: Share of LP /p/ in the sample.

The near ubiquity of /p/ also come to the fore in Maddieson’s (1984: 205) study which involves 263 /p/-languages (= 83 % of the sample) including seven /p/borrowers (= 3 % of Maddieson’s /p/-languages). /p/-borrowing is frequently attested in Eisen’s (2019: 40) global sample where we find 47 /p/-borrowers (=

430 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

9 % of the entire sample). In Eurasia the absolute number drops to five /p/borrowers which equal 3 % of the subsample. It is possible that the Asian members of this subsample are responsible for the bigger turnout of /p/-borrowers as compared to our smaller numbers. (a) From within the sample: The /p/-borrowers Arabic (Çukurova) and Maltese belong to the Afro-Asiatic phylum. Table 181 shows that borrowers and non-borrowers are almost equally strong numerically. Table 181: Borrowers vs. non-borrowers of /p/ in Afro-Asiatic.

Borrowed

Autochthonous

Arabic (Çukurova), Maltese

Arabic (Cypriot), Aramaic (Cudi), Aramaic (Hertevin)

2 EDLs

3 EDLs

With reference to Arabic (Çukurova), Procházka (2002: 21) claims that [d]as stimmlose Gegenstück zu b ist das am wenigsten integrierte Phonem und wird oft durch b ersetzt []. In älteren Lehnwörtern erscheint fremdes p oft auch als f.105

In more recent loanwords from Turkish, however, /p/ is kept so that it can be registered under the rubric of the LPs. Examples are Arabic (Çukurova) pīs ‘dirty’ < Turkish pis and Arabic (Çukurova) kapčāy ‘excavator’ < Turkish kepçe. In the case of Maltese, Krier (1976: 17) explains that [l]’occlusive bilabiale sourde /p/ n’a été attestée que dans un nombre restreint de lexèmes indigènes qui appartiennent souvent au langage enfantin et se présentent en principe sous formes d’onomatopées [] et les verbes signalés par Aquilina qui expriment des bruits []; d’autre part, elle abonde en toute position dans les emprunts siculo-italiens.106

No other source dealing with Maltese assumes LP /p/. Since Classical Arabic lacked the phoneme /p/ which is still absent from Modern Standard Arabic (Ryding 2005: 12–16) Maltese must have acquired /p/ separately. The Italo-Romance influence is

|| 105 Our translation: “the voiceless counterpart of b is the least integrated phoneme and is often replaced with b. In older loanwords foreign p frequently appears as f.” 106 Our translation: “the voiceless bilabial plosive /p/ is attested in only a restricted number of native lexemes which belong to child language and in principle come in the shape of onomatopoeia and those verbs mentioned by Aquilina which express sounds; on the other hand, it abounds in every position in the Siculo-Italian loans.”

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 431

visible in cases like Maltese prevedut ‘expected’ < Italian preveduto, Maltese mappa ‘map’ < Italian mappa, Maltese kap ‘leader’ < Italian capo. (b) Additions: We have no tangible proof of further instances of LP /p/. (c) Geography: The two isolated /p/-borrowers are situated in the SC and SE nonants as shown on Map LXXII and in Table 182. All other dots on the map are black, meaning there are no /p/-less EDLs in the sample. Table 182: Distribution of /p/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

0

1

1

2

Total

0

1

1

2

(d) Further issues: Table 151 provides information about the cooccurrences of the two bilabial plosives. We therefore check the co-occurrences of two widely common voiceless plosives in Table 183, namely /p/ and /t/. Table 183: Co-occurrence of (LP) /p/ and /t/.

/t/

/p/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

2

0

2

autochthonous

0

208

0

208

unattested

0

0

0

0

0

210

0

210

There is not a single case of parallel borrowing because /t/ is never borrowed in the first place. LP /p/ is attested only with autochthonous /t/ being present. It seems that the two phonemes are equally elementary for European phoneme inventories so that it would be too daring to postulate any asymmetrical relation between the two. Therefore, it does not make sense to assume gap-filling or the creation of a new place of articulation.

432 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

17.2.4.26 /c/ The voiceless palatal plosive belongs to the problematic cases insofar as it is not always sufficiently clear whether a supposed /c/ is not better analyzed as /kj/ and the other way round. We repeat that the general topic of palatalization is discussed in Section 17.2.4.29. In this section only /c/ is in the center of attention. Figure 102 shows that /c/ is a minority option in the sample. The phoneme is attested in 21 % of the EDLs. There are almost 22 times as many EDLs with autochthonous /c/ as there are /c/-borrowers.

autochthonous; 43; 20%

no /c/; 165; 79%

LP; 2; 1%

Figure 102: Share of LP /c/ in the sample.

The phoneme /c/ exists in 41 of Maddieson’s (1984: 212) sample languages which equals a share of 13 % of his sample. The author exclusively mentions autochthonous /c/. Eisen (2019: 40–41) counts nine /c/-borrowers globally which account for 2 % of the entire sample. Two of the /c/-borrowers are situated in Eurasia. Within the Eurasian subsample their share is 1 %. There is thus agreement between Eisen’s results and ours although Eisen’s subsample does not only involve languages from Europe. (a) From within the sample: There is one /c/-borrower each for IndoEuropean and Uralic (see Figure 103). The Uralic /c/-borrower is Mari (Hill). Alhoniemi (1993: 20) uses the symbol /t’/ to identify a unit that is attested only in recent loanwords from Chuvash and in onomatopoeic words. The symbol invokes the voiceless palatalized alveolar plosive /tj/.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 433

Indo-European; 1; 50%

Uralic; 1; 50%

Figure 103: Genealogic distribution of /c/-borrowers.

This interpretation receives support from examples like Mari (Hill) t’et’ä ‘child’ < Russian ditja where the palatalization of the plosives in the Russian original is faithfully replicated. Following Stadnik (2002: 65–66) we interpret Alhoniemi’s symbol /tj/ to represent IPA /c/ because Mari (Hill) is classified as Uralic language of Type II in Stadnik’s typology of palatalization, i.e. as a language without palatalization but with palatal consonants (See Table 7). More generally, the Uralic phylum reflects a tripartition in a single /c/-borrower, a group of EDLs with autochthonous /c/, and those Uralic EDLs which lack the phoneme as shown in Table 184. Table 184: Uralic /c/-languages vs. Uralic /c/-less languages.

auto [8] borr [1]

/c/-EDLs [9]

EDLs

/c/-less [14]

Mari (Hill)

Hungarian, Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Zyrian (Pečora), Komi-Zyrian (Udora), Saami (Kildin), Saami (Northern Enontekiö), Udmurt Estonian, Estonian (Rõngu), Finnish, Karelian (Archangelsk), Karelian (Tichvin), Karelian (Valdai), Livonian, Mari (Meadow), Mordvin (Erzya), Mordvin (Moksha), Nenets (Tundra), Saami (Central-South), Veps, Votic

434 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The Indo-European /c/-borrower Slavomolisano attests the voiceless palatal plosive besides the autochthonous verbs of the type pokj [poːc] ‘go’ (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 385) only in loanwords such as Slavomolisano kjum ‘lead’ < regional Italian chiumbo (Breu and Piccoli 2000: 86). Like the Uralic phylum the Slavic EDLs also give evidence of the realization of all three options as shown in Table 185. Table 185: Slavic /c/-languages vs. Slavic /c/-less languages.

borr [1]

Slavomolisano

auto [7]

/c/-EDLs [8]

EDLs

Croatian (Burgenland), Czech, Czech (Moravian-Slovak), Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Slovak, Slovene (Resia)

/c/-less [21]

Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Bosnian, Bulgarian, Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Croatian, Kashubian, Polish, Polish (Lazduny), Russian, Russian (Meščera), Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Serbian, Slovene, Sorbian Lower, Sorbian Lower (Vetschau), Sorbian Upper, Ukrainian, Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper), Ukrainian (North Hutsul)

(b) Additions: There are no further cases of /c/-borrowing in our database. (c) Geography: The two /c/-borrowers are located in geographically unconnected regions on Map LXXIII. Table 186 identifies ME and SC as the nonants where /c/-borrowers are attested. EDLs with autochthonous /c/ form clusters in NE, SC, and MC with smaller pockets in ME and SE as well as isolated cases in SW, MW, NW, and NC as can be seen on Map LXXIII. Note that four of six EDLs in NE give evidence of autochthonous /c/. Except in NE and NW, /c/-less EDLs are the majority everywhere on the map. Table 186: Distribution of /c/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

1

1

S

0

1

0

1

Total

0

1

1

2

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 435

(d) Further issues: Table 187 looks at the co-occurrences of the voiceless and voiced palatal plosives to determine whether the members of this voicebased opposition behave in parallel ways. Table 187: Co-occurrence of (LP) /c/ and (LP) /ɟ/.

/c/

LP /ɟ/ Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

1

0

0

1

autochthonous

0

40

0

40

unattested

1

3

165

169

2

43

165

210

The result is clear. The sole case of /ɟ/-borrowing is also a case of parallel borrowing. In four EDLs /c/ is attested without accompanying voiced partner. Palatal plosives as a class are absent from 79 % of the sample languages. Given the strict dependence of /ɟ/ on /c/ we assume that gap-filling is a potential explanation for /ɟ/-borrowing albeit a weak one because there is no proof of LP /ɟ/ in combination with autochthonous /c/. The isolated case of LP /c/ in the absence of /ɟ/ might invite an interpretation along the lines of the creation of a new place of articulation. However, in this case too, the evidence is too scarce to allow for generalizations. We are also cautious not to postulate a facilitating effect because solid proof can be found only on a much larger empirical basis.

17.2.4.27 /w/ The labial-velar approximant is absent from 60 % of the EDLs. Figure 104 gives the share for EDLs with autochthonous /w/ as 39 %. There is thus only 1 % left for /w/-borrowers. On a global scale, /w/ is attested more frequently. Maddieson (1984: 246) provides a list of 238 languages one of which is a /w/-borrower. Eisen’s (2019: 40) collection of /w/-borrowers exceeds that of Maddieson by far because Eisen registers 18 cases worldwide which yields a share of 3 % of the entire sample. A third of all /w/-borrowers is located in Eurasia where they are responsible for 4 % of the subsample. Eisen’s Eurasian results exceed ours by a ratio of 3-to-1. We cannot exclude the possibility that this difference is caused by the Asian component in Eisen’s Eurasian subsample.

436 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

autochthonous; 81; 39%

no /w/; 127; 60%

LP; 2; 1%

Figure 104: Share of LP /w/ in the sample.

(a) From within the sample: According to Figure 105, Indo-European and Nakh-Daghestanian are involved in /w/-borrowing once each. Neither of the two cases is fully convincing as transpires from the subsequent discussion.

Indo-European; 1; 50%

NakhDaghestanian; 1; 50%

Figure 105: Genealogic distribution of /w/-borrowers.

First of all, there is the Nakh-Daghestanian EDL Khwarshi. Khalilova (2009: 15) addresses the question of the status of the labial-velar approximant and states that it “is mostly found in loanwords from Avar and Arabic.” At the same time, it

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 437

also functions as gender and number suffix on loan adjectives besides being used as infix in demonstratives. Furthermore, /w/ is also found in onomatopoeic words. We read this passage from her reference grammar of Khwarshi as follows. Prior to contact, Khwarshi tolerated /w/ only as bound morpheme or occasional segment of sound-imitating words. Only via contact with Avar and Arabic did /w/ enter the domain of autosemantic lexemes. One might object that /w/ was phonemic before the contact-induced expansion of its domain set in. We concede that this scenario is very plausible. Thus, we assume LP /w/ for Khwarshi only with reservations. The distribution of the Nakh-Daghestanian EDLs over the three categories is disclosed in Table 188. Table 188: Nakh-Daghestanian /w/-languages vs. Nakh-Daghestanian /w/-less languages.

/w/-EDLs [21]

auto [20] borr [1]

EDLs

/w/-less [8]

Khwarshi

Aghul, Akhvakh, Andi, Archi, Avar, Bagvalal, Botlikh, Chamalal, Chechen, Dargwa (Icari), Godoberi, Hinukh, Hunzib, Karata, Lak, Lezgian, Tabasaran, Tindi, Tsakhur, Udi (Nidž) Bezhta (Tlyadal), Budukh, Ingush, Khinalug, Kryts, Kryts (Alyk), Rutul, Tsova-Tush

The case of LP /w/ in Romani (Lithuanian) rests on a conjecture by Tenser (2005: 4) who assumes that [p]robably through contact with the Polish language, which has a semi-vowel /w/ – not an inherent Romani sound, word-final -v in Lithuanian [Romani] becomes -w.

With reference to /w/, Matras (2002: 52, 2009: 232) too assumes Polish influence but conceives of it as velarization of Romani /l/ to /w/. Tenser’s case is not covered by this hypothesis. As in the case of Khwarshi, the evidence is not fully supportive of the existence of LP /w/. Table 189 surveys the distribution of /w/ in the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European. The division is clearly geographical. The Indo-Iranian EDLs with autochthonous /w/ are located in Anatolia and the Caucasus, i.e. in the southeast of the continent. In contrast all varieties of Romani – except Romani (Lithuanian) – lack /w/ and at the same time are located in the Balkans or in Central Europe.

438 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Table 189: Indo-Iranian /w/-languages vs. Indo-Iranian /w/-less languages.

auto [4] borr [1]

/w/-EDLs [5]

EDLs Romani (Lithuanian)

Kurmanji, Ossetic, Zaza (Northern), Zaza (Southern Dimili)

/w/-less [6]

Romani (Ajia Varvara), Romani (Bugurdži), Romani (Burgenland), Romani (Kalderash), Romani (North Russian), Romani (Sepečides)

(b) Additions: Matras (2002: 52, fn. 2) mentions Angloromani varieties which replace word-initial /v/ with /w/ under English influence. (c) Geography: With two doubtful /w/-borrowers that are featured on Map LXXIV no areally relevant picture of borrowing emerges. Table 190 shows that the supposed /w/-borrowers are situated in two different nonants, namely MC and SE. Autochthonous /w/ is typical of EDLs in MW and SE with further clusters being visible in SC and MC. The phoneme is occasionally autochthonous also in SW, NC, NE, and ME where it is outnumbered by /w/-less EDLs. Table 190: Distribution of /w/-borrowers over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

1

0

1

S

0

0

1

1

Total

0

1

1

2

(d) Further issues: The co-occurrences of the voiced labiodental fricative and the labial-velar approximant are captured in Table 110. In Table 191 we check to what extent there is parallel behavior of two approximants – /w/ and /j/. As is immediately obvious /j/ is never affected by borrowing whereas the two instances of supposed LP /w/ are reported for EDLs which also have a phonemic palatal approximant. The latter is attested much more frequently than the labial-velar approximant, viz. 172 times as opposed to 83 times. The two approximants are co-present in 81 EDLs (= 39 % of the sample) whereas the class of approximants is absent from 36 EDLs (= 17 % of the sample).

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 439

Table 191: Co-occurrence of /j/ and (LP) /w/.

/j/

/w/

Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

LP

0

2

0

2

autochthonous

0

79

2

81

unattested

0

91

36

127

0

172

38

210

The palatal approximant occurs more often without than with /w/. In contrast, there are only two EDLs whose phoneme inventories host /w/ but lack /j/. Superficially, the two instances of /w/-borrowing could be interpreted as creation of a new place of articulation. The possibility of a facilitating effect – autochthonous /j/ facilitating the borrowing of /w/ – can neither be verified nor falsified on the small basis of our data. The data may become meaningful if together with other cases they are evaluated in a wider context.

17.2.4.28 Singularities In this section, we review as briefly as possible those instances of LPs which involve only a single borrower. There are thirteen LPs of this kind. Figure 106 instructs us as to the general frequency of the phonemes so that we are able to determine whether or not we are dealing with a marginal phenomenon independent of language contact. To our minds, it makes a difference whether a generally frequent phoneme is borrowed once or an infrequent phoneme provides a LP. Since three EDLs – Tatar, Abaza, and Basque (Zuberoa) – have borrowed several of the isolated phonemes the facts are presented for each replica language separately beginning with the most active borrower. We compare our data to those of Eisen’s Eurasian sample. Reference to his global sample and that of Maddieson (1984) are provided at the end of Section 17.2.4.30 in Figures 116–117.

440 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

z̺ z̻ ɸ ɮ ʡ tɬ χ ʁ q ɟ ŋ r l

0%

20%

40% autochthonous

60% LP

80%

100%

unattested

Figure 106: Isolated cases of LP consonants within the sample.

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

Tatar: Comrie (1997b: 901) postulates a voiceless bilabial fricative /ɸ/ which shows up in loanwords from Arabic or Persian; the same is said about /χ/, /ʁ/, and /q/. Occasionally, /ɸ/ is also found in words of Turkic origin and in onomatopoeic words. Thomsen (1959: 412) makes similar statements for LP /ʁ/ and /χ/. Berta (1998a: 283) skips the issue of Arabic/Persian influence. The voiceless bilabial fricative is unique in Europe. /ɸ/ is mentioned as LP for four members of Eisen’s (2019: 41) Eurasian subsample, the other singularities of Tatar yield the following turnouts according to Eisen: /χ/ = 6 borrowers, /q/ = 6 borrowers, and /ʁ/ = 4 borrowers. Their shares range from 3 %–4 % of the subsample. For LP /ʁ/ Eisen reports no borrowers outside of Eurasia. Abaza: Lomtatidze and Klychev (1989: 93) include the voiced lateral fricative /ɮ/ and the lateral affricate /tɬ/ in their list of LPs in this Abkhaz-Adyghe EDL. The donor language remains unidentified. The lateral fricative and the lateral affricate count among the rarer phonemes in European perspective. Neither /ɮ/ nor /tɬ/ are mentioned among the frequent LPs for Eurasia (Eisen 2019: 41). Basque (Zuberoa): As mentioned above Haase (1993: 32) assumes that the voiced alveolar fricative has been integrated marginally into the phoneme system of Basque (Zuberoa). Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 26) are less cautious when they say that the phonemes /z̻/ and /z̺/ “occur almost ex-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 441

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

clusively in borrowed vocabulary” such as Basque (Zuberoa) bedezí (with apico-postalveolar /z̺/) ‘physician’ < French medecin (with /s/) and Basque zurra (with laminal /z̻/) ‘beat up’ < Spanish zurrar (with /θ/). In our interpretation, Haase (1993) and Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003) talk about three different LPs. Since the differentiation of apico-postalveolar and laminal sibilants is a unique trait of Basque in European perspective it is unnecessary to provide further quantitative data. Since the replica language already displayed the opposition /s̻/ ≠ /s̺/ the pair of new LPs can be analyzed in terms of gap-filling because voiced partners for the voiceless sibilants were introduced. It is the property [+voice] that is important for the borrowing. The differentiation of the places of articulation, however, is an already previously established principle of the replica language. Phonation is thus crucial – not the place of articulation. We postulate the existence of LP /z̻/ and LP /z̺/ for Basque (Zuberoa) in addition to plain /z/ as discussed in Section 17.2.4.9. It is no surprise that these singularities are absent from Eisen’s (2019: 41) list. Khinalug: Dešeriev (1959: 13) claims that the trill /r/ occurs most often in loanwords without providing examples. The trill seems to be also possible in the autochthonous Nakh-Daghestanian lexicon of the replica language. Kibrik (1994b) does not mention any LPs for Khinalug. Eisen (2019: 41) mentions six Eurasian languages (= 4 % of the subsample) as /r/-borrowers. Hinukh: The epiglottal plosive /ʡ/ is explicitly classified as LP by Forker (2013: 31) who acknowledges that it is often difficult to differentiate the segmental epiglottal plosive from pharyngealization in loans from Avar (Forker 2013: 27). Note that Eisen (2019: 41) has two /ʡ/-borrowers in Eurasia (= 1 % of the subsample) whereas there seem to be no borrowers outside of this region. Albanian (Salamis): Haebler (1965: 38) emphasizes that /l/ “erscheint als Phonem nur in [neugriechischen] Lehnwörtern“ [occurs as phoneme only in Neo-Greek loanwords] such as Albanian (Salamis) melan ‘ink’ < Greek melani . Like in the case (v), LP /l/ is recorded twice in Eisen’s (2019: 41) Eurasian subsample. Slavomolisano: The voiced palatal plosive /ɟ/ is restricted almost entirely to loanwords. This is what Breu and Piccoli (2000: 385) claim. In the absence of an empirical documentation of this LP candidate it remains doubtful whether we are dealing with borrowing in the first place. In this case too Eisen (2019: 41) counts two instances of borrowing in Eurasia.

442 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

(viii) French: As mentioned in Section 15.2 already, Meisenburg and Selig (2006: 78) consider the velar nasal to be a LP in French. They illustrate this analysis with a number of recent (pseudo-)Anglicisms in French. There is even an isolated minimal-pair, namely French chopine ‘half-liter bottle (wine)’ ≠ French shopping ‘shopping’ where word-final /n/ and /ŋ/ make the difference. According to Eisen (2019: 41) the velar nasal has been borrowed by three Eurasian languages (= 2 % of the subsample). The different size of the turnouts notwithstanding, Eisen’s and our results tell us the same story, namely that the LPs mentioned in (i)–(viii) are indeed rara. Wherever Eisen offers more examples than we do the difference might be accountable for in terms of the different composition of the samples. Asian languages are perhaps responsible for the excess instances in the above catalogue. In Section 17.2.4.1, in addition to Tatar, we have mentioned Ingush and Romani (Kalderash) whose LP /f/ might alternatively be interpreted as /ɸ/ although the empirical details are largely unclear to us. Further evidence of the borrowing of phonemes which are only marginally attested in Europe is scarce. Penhallurick (2008: 118) reports that in Welsh English the voiceless lateral fricative /ɬ/ is retained in loanwords from Welsh such as cawellt ‘wicker basket’. The class of rhotics is particularly intriguing as to contact-induced phenomena (Eisen 2019: 98–106; Grossman et al 2020a: 5319–5320). In Khinalug LP /r/ is the sole representative of this class. Its borrowing has thus introduced a new manner of articulation. This case of /r/-borrowing has to be kept apart from the more frequently attested cases of contact-induced changes in the realization of an already existing rhotic phoneme. We have addressed the diversity in the domain of rhotics already in Sections 4.1.4.2, 4.1.5, and 4.2.4. It suffices to add only some further remarks. Matras (2002: 50) mentions the replacement of the original apical trill /r/ with the uvular trill /ʀ/ in the Sinti-Manuš group of Romani whose speakers have been exposed to long-term influence from German and French which are /ʀ/-languages. The change /r/ > /ʀ/ under the impact of German is also reported for Sorbian (Lower) and Sorbian (Upper) although not all local varieties are affected to the same degree (Schaarschmidt 1998: 156). German influence is likewise invoked for the same process in varieties of Kashubian (Topolińska 1974: 122–123). Trask (1997: 145) notices a parallel process for northern varieties of Basque where the tap /ɾ/ is replaced with /ʀ/ “somewhat resembling French /r/ but noticeably scrapier.” Haase (1993: 32) considers this change to be the most pervasive aspect of French influence on Basque phonology. These processes and others which affect the realization of rhotics do not alter the number of distinctive units in the system of a given replica language. They constitute a category of their own which is related to but different from that of the LPs investigated in this study.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 443

We acknowledge that these subphonemic pieces of evidence for contact-induced processes are an important topic to be addressed in a separate follow-up study. Figure 107 reveals which phyla are involved in the borrowing of isolated cases. Indo-European contributes three replica languages, Nakh-Daghestanian two whereas Abkhaz-Adyghe, Turkic and Isolate are represented with one EDL each. Isolate; 1; 13% Turkic; 1; 13% Abkhaz-Adyghe; 1; 12%

Indo-European; 3; 37%

NakhDaghestanian; 2; 25%

Figure 107: Genealogic distribution of borrowers of isolated cases.

For ease of decipherment, we plot the above isolated cases of LPs jointly on Map LXXV without revealing what EDLs are non-borrowers or lack the phoneme in question. The size of the dot varies according to the number of singularities a given borrower displays. Singularities are absent from the entire north and MC. Only in SC and SE do we find several EDLs which attest to singularities. Accordingly, Table 192 likewise turns a blind eye on the differences that exist between the individual cases. Table 192: Distribution of borrowers of isolated consonant LPs over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

1

0

1

2

S

1

2

3

6

Total

2

2

4

8

444 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

It strikes the eye that the northern nonants are again not involved in any case of borrowing. We find the singularities mostly in those nonants where we would normally expect to find the highest number of borrowers, i.e. singularities do not behave differently from more common cases of borrowing in terms of their geographic distribution. It is difficult to classify the above isolated cases summarily as gap-filling or creation of new places/manners of articulation. In the case of Tatar, except LP /ɸ/, all isolated LPs share the place of articulation, namely uvular. For uvulars in general, Eisen (2019: 91) proposes Universal 10 which assumes that borrowing of a uvular is facilitated if the replica language already has a native uvular. Prior to borrowing Tatar did not have uvulars all of which have been acquired via language contact. The facts do not fully support Universal 10. It is very likely that we are dealing with the creation of a new place of articulation. Abaza gives evidence of the creation of two new manners of articulation (lateral affricates and lateral fricatives). The trill in Khinalug is also a case of a new manner of articulation. LP /ʡ/ in Hinukh establishes a new place of articulation in the system of the replica language. Albanian (Salamis) is different insofar as LP /l/ is inserted into a pre-existing set of lateral approximants, viz. /lˠ/ and /ʎ/. This is probably a case of gap-filling because the erstwhile absent unmarked member of the class is introduced into the system via language contact and the velarized lateral approximant occupies the same place of articulation as LP /l/. Provided that the voiced palatal plosive in Slavomolisano is a LP in the first place, LP /ɟ/ could be understood as filling the gap of the absent voiced partner of the voiceless palatal plosive whose LP status has been rebutted in Section 17.2.4.26a. The velar nasal in French complements the series of autochthonous nasals by way of creating a new place of articulation. The Tatar data show that even multiple parallel borrowing of “marked” consonants is possible. The same can be said about Abaza. The issue of parallel borrowing will be raised again in Section 17.3 below.

17.2.4.29 Secondary articulation, gemination, and non-pulmonic consonants In analogy to Section 17.2.2.8 where secondary, i.e. suprasegmental properties of LP vowels are discussed, we dedicate the following paragraphs to LP consonants which are equipped with secondary articulation, are geminated or belong to the class of non-pulmonic phonemes. The features which are in the focus of this section, however, require a different approach from that applied in the previous sections. We proceed in several steps. We start with calculating how many EDLs are said in the descriptive-linguistic literature to borrow phonemes along with secondary articulations or non-pulmonic properties. This “uncritical” stocktaking is the basis for Figure 108. As we are going to show subsequent-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 445

ly the picture will change drastically if the data are inspected more closely. Figure 111 discloses the “real” quantities. Why this long-winded detour makes sense will transpire from the further discussion below. 9

8

8 7 6 5

4

4 3

2

2

1

1 0 fʲ

rʲ

zʲ, ʒʲ, ʃʲ, tʲ, dʲ, nʲ, lʲ, ʃʲː

pʲ, bʲ, kʲ, gʲ, vʲ, sʲ, xʲ, ɣʲ, mʲ; çʷ, zˤ; tː; f’, k’, kʲ’, tɬ’

Figure 108: Putative LP consonants ranked according to frequency of borrowing.

From the discussion in Section 17.2.2.8 we know that at least two types of borrowing have to be distinguished, namely that of individual phonemes and that of sets or series of phonemes. If several LPs share the same secondary articulation chances are that what is actually borrowed is the secondary articulation and not the quality to which it is applied. This was the case repeatedly with nasalization and long quantity in the domain of LP vowels. For LP consonants the crucial concept is that of correlation. It can be shown for instance that several replica languages introduce formerly inexistent distinctions on the level of phonation via the borrowing of sets of (usually) voiced obstruents. Since the voice-based opposition belongs to the domain of primary articulation these cases are considered to be unproblematic for our approach (see Section 17.3). For secondary articulations such as palatalization, labialization, pharyngealzation, aspiration, etc. on the other hand the question arises whether we are facing proper LP consonants or borrowed correlations. In the latter case, we discount the data as instances of LPs unless the phenomenon is strictly bound to the domain of loanwords. Secondary articulations are treated as facilitating features in Eisen (2019: 84– 90). For ejectives, pharyngealization, labialization, and palatalization it is assumed that the presence of a feature of this kind in the phonological system of the replica language facilitates the borrowing of further elements with the same feature (see Eisen’s Universals 1–3, and 8). This hypothesis impels us to pay special

446 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

attention to cases of (putative) LPs which are equipped with secondary articulations. In Eisen’s (2019: 41) Eurasian hierarchy of frequently borrowed phonemes we find the following cases which involve secondary articulations: (i) pharyngealization: /ðˁ/ 6 borrowers (4 %) /zˁ/, /dˁ/ 5 borrowers (3 %) /rˁ/, /pˁ/, /lˁ/ 2 borrowers (1 %) (ii) aspiration: /kʰ/ 4 borrowers (3 %) /tʰ/, /pʰ/ 3 borrowers (2 %) /ʧʰ/, /ʈʰ/ 2 borrowers (1 %) (iii) palatalization: /tʲ/, /rʲ/, /fʲ/ 3 borrowers (2 %) /pʲ/ 2 borrowers (1 %) (iv) gemination: /ʃː/ 2 borrowers (1 %) None of these 16 LP types is particularly frequent. There is a certain overlap with the inventory in Figure 108. Aspiration does not show up in our account where pharyngealization is represented only by one type. On the other hand, palatalization yields by far more types in our database. Ejectives do not form part of Eisen’s Eurasian list. It is possible that the differences between the two studies can be explained once again with reference to the different scope of the samples. It cannot be ruled out that aspiration is associated particularly with the Asian languages in Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. The same reason might explain the numerous cases of pharyngealization. No matter how the differences can be made plausible we argue that many of the above putative cases of phoneme borrowing can be interpreted differently so that the putative LPs disappear from the hierarchies. To make our point clear we start with a look at palatalization which is by far the dominant secondary articulation according to Figure 108. With 20 LP types (of a total of 26) and 38 borrowers (of a total of 44 EDLs) palatalized consonants oust all other secondary articulations. Stadnik (2002) proves that the existence of palatalized consonants and, ultimately, of the palatalization correlation is a structural trait shared by numerous neighboring languages in East Europe, Eurasia, and northern Siberia. This common property cuts across genetic boundaries so that Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, and Mongolic converge on this parameter. The diffusion of palatalization over a vast region is probably causally connected to language contact although the exact course of the diachronic events is hard to pinpoint. For the present purpose it is sufficient to

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 447

keep in mind that Stadnik has proved the areality of the palatalization correlation – and for a language to have this correlation one palatalized phoneme is not enough. The presence of several palatalized LPs suggests that the replica language has borrowed the correlation but not the primary properties of the consonantal basis. Figure 109 conveys information about the number of EDLs with autochthonous palatalized consonants and that of the putative borrowers. This information is needed to better understand why most of the palatalized LPs are phantoms. Their status calls for being thoroughly revised.

lʲ nʲ tʲ dʲ rʲ kʲ; sʲ gʲ pʲ; mʲ bʲ zʲ vʲ fʲ xʲ ɣʲ ʃʲ ʒʲ kʲ' ʃʲː

0%

20%

40%

autochthonous

60% putative LP

80%

100%

unattested

Figure 109: Palatalized consonants: autochthonous vs. supposedly borrowed.

None of the autochthonous palatalized consonants exceeds the threshold of 20 % of the sample languages. We are thus investigating a minority option. The putative LPs in this domain claim very small shares from below 1 % to slightly less than 4 %. In this section we will demonstrate that even these small shares are exaggerated. The palatalized LP consonant with the highest incidence of putative borrowing is the voiceless palatalized labiodental fricative /fʲ/. It is reported for

448 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

eight EDLs. The prominent position of /fʲ/ in Figure 108 seems to be fully in line with the dominance of LP /f/ in Figure 54 and thus delivers further corroboration for the high degree of borrowability of the voiceless labiodental fricative. On closer scrutiny, the eight supposed /fʲ/-borrowers turn out not to properly borrow this consonant, in the first place. What is borrowed is plain /f/ (see Section 17.2.4.1a). The palatalization results from an automatic phonological rule which is synchronically operative in all eight of the EDLs with /fʲ/. Belarusian, Belarusian (Gervjaty), Bulgarian, Lithuanian, Polish (Lazduny), Russian, Russian (Ostrovcy), and Russian (Permas) are bona fide /f/-borrowers. At the same time, they are also representatives of EDLs with a palatalization correlation. According to Burlyka et al. (1989) 28 of the 36 phonemes of Belarusian participate in the palatalization correlation. For Belarusian (Gervjaty), Sudnik (1975) proposes similar results, namely 26 phonemes which are involved in the palatalization correlation as opposed to ten which remain unaffected. The numbers are even more impressive for Bulgarian with 32 phonemes which form pairs on the basis of the presence/absence of the feature [palatalized] whereas six consonants are immune to palatalization (Feuillet 1996). Of 45 consonantal phonemes in Lithuanian, the only phoneme which escapes palatalization is, for obvious reasons, the palatal approximant /j/ (Vaitkevičiūtė 1965). In Polish (Lazduny), the palatalization correlation comprises 26 phonemes but nine are situated outside its domain (Sudnik 1975). For Russian and its regional varieties, the proportions are as follows: – Russian = 34 phonemes involved in the palatalization correlation / 3 phonemes unaffected (of which /ʧʲ/ lacks a plain partner) (Švedova 1980); – Russian (Ostrovcy) = 28 / 7 (Honselaar 2001); – Russian (Permas) = 26 / 7 (of which /ʧʲ/ lacks a plain partner) (Orlova 1949). In these eight EDLs palatalization is triggered in the appropriate phonological contexts (usually by front vowels and/or the palatal approximant). This means that LP /f/ is subject to the same rule of palatalization as the autochthonous consonants of the replica language. We conclude that there was never any LP /fʲ/ to begin with not the least because the donor languages do not feature /fj/. With the cancellation of /fʲ/ from Figures 108 and 109 palatalized consonants lose their major representative. Lithuanian is the EDL with the most pervasive palatalization correlation of the entire sample. It is therefore not surprising to see that this EDL palatalizes also its other LPs /x/ and /ɣ/ (see Section 17.2.4.3 and 17.2.4.13) before front vowels to yield /xʲ/ and /ɣʲ/. We do not raise the issue of allophony here because the discussion would inevitably lead us astray. What we can do nevertheless is

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 449

delete /xʲ/ and /ɣʲ/ from Figures 108 and 109. Furthermore, Lithuanian and Belarusian have influenced Romani (Lithuanian) to a considerable degree. Tenser (2005: 4) attributes the presence of the palatalization correlation directly to contact with Slavic. Romani (Lithuanian) supposedly has the following 13 palatalized LPs: /pʲ/, /bʲ/, /tʲ/, /dʲ/, /kʲ/, /gʲ/, /vʲ/, /sʲ/, /zʲ/, /ʒʲ/, /mʲ/, /nʲ/, and /lʲ/. All of these consonants form oppositions with plain partners. We assume that it is not true that each palatalized consonant has been borrowed individually but that the principle of palatalization was transferred in language contact. This in turn has repercussions on the above count of LPs with secondary articulations because all the cases involving Romani (Lithuanian) have to be removed from the database. For Tatar, Comrie (1997b: 902) states that “the long fricative” /ʃʲː/ (= ) occurs in Russian loans. In Russian the palatal feature in this phoneme is phonemically irrelevant. Tatar has autochthonous plain /ʃ/ and /ɕ/. Comrie (1997b: 902) also claims that “the full battery of Russian palatalized consonants” is attested in the domain of loanwords, meaning: the palatalization correlation as such has been adopted. The palatal feature associated with LP /ʃʲː/ can thus be explained as resulting from an automatic phonological rule. We doubt that gemination is phonemic in Tatar and therefore discount this as a case of LP. Should the same procedure be applied to those cases which involve Crimean Tatar? Kavitskaya (2010: 10–14) identifies /tʲ/, /dʲ/, /ʃʲ/, /zʲ/, and /nʲ/ as LPs which occur in unassimilated Russian loanwords in the speech of the younger generation. At the same time, she also registers autochthonous /kʲ/. Moreover, she discusses evidence of allophonic palatalization and concludes that “the phonemicization of the palatalized allophones of l, r, s, and z is under way in Crimean Tatar, but the contrast is not fully present yet” (Kavitskaya 2010: 14). Doerfer (1959c: 377–379) assumes no palatalized phonemes for Crimean Tatar but mentions automatic palatalization of dental and palato-alveolar coda consonants after certain vowels – a rule that is narrowed down to the word-final position by Stadnik (2002: 130–131). The situation is not entirely transparent to us but we assume that the principle of conditioned palatalization is currently spreading throughout the consonant inventory also beyond the domain of Russian loanwords. It is possible that allophonic palatalization developed language-internally independent of Russian influence and thus the conditions for the activation of Eisen’s Universal 8 would be fulfilled. It is difficult to assess the Crimean Tatar case properly. Since the palatalized consonants which show up in unassimilated Russian loanwords do not exhaust the inventory of palatalized consonants of the donor language, we stipulate that Crimean Tatar has LP

450 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

/tʲ/, LP /dʲ/, LP /ʃʲ/, LP /zʲ/, and LP /nʲ/ although this stipulation rests on shaky foundations. Chechen has borrowed only the palatalized liquids /rʲ/ and /lʲ/. These LPs are missing from Nichols (1994a: 4–6). They are mentioned, however, by Dešeriev (1960: 13–14) as restricted to Russian loanwords. There are no other cases of (autochthonous) palatalization in Chechen. Not all palatalized consonants of Russian have been integrated into the replica language’s system. There does not seem to be a rule of automatic palatalization either. We thus postulate the existence of LP /rʲ/ and LP /lʲ/ for Chechen. Dešeriev (1960: 13–14 and 26) briefly addresses /ʃj/ in Chechen. Russian influence is mentioned in connection to the adaptation of loanwords which host the (= [ʃjʃj]). Nichols (1994a: 5) claims that “almost any consonant can be doubled by focus gemination.” This means that gemination of autochthonous /ʃ/ can be held responsible for the rise of /ʃː/. However, the feature [palatalized] is new in the context of Chechen phonology and therefore we consider this a case of LP /ʃj/. The grammarian emphasizes that only the educated bilingual speakers master /rj/ and /ʃj/ adequately (Dešeriev (1960: 13–14). The remaining cases of potential borrowing of palatalized consonants involve three Uralic and two Turkic EDLs. LP /rʲ/ is assumed for Karelian (Archangelsk), Komi-Permyak (Jaźva), and Livonian. Karelian (Archangelsk) displays an autochthonous palatalization correlation which comprises the following four pairs: /t/ ≠ /tʲ/, /s/ ≠ /sʲ/, /n/ ≠ /nʲ/, and /l/ ≠ /lʲ/. Leskinen (1984: 248) claims that the four palatalized consonants are attested in the inherited Uralic lexicon whereas /rʲ/ is licit only in more recent Russian loanwords. There is an autochthonous plain /r/ which lacked a palatalized partner (in analogy to the pair /l/ ≠ /lʲ/) so that LP /rʲ/ fills a gap. In our interpretation, this is a genuine case of a LP and an example which corroborates the validity of Eisen’s Universal 8.107 Livonian is similar to Karelian (Archangelsk) insofar as it boasts an autochthonous palatalization correlation for a similar set of consonants, namely /t/ ≠ /tʲ/, /d/ ≠ /dʲ/, /n/ ≠ /nʲ/, and /l/ ≠ /lʲ/ (Stadnik 2002: 72). Moseley (2002: 17–18) comments on the palatalized rhotic as follows: It should be noted that the palatalised /ŕ/ is of infrequent and somewhat inconsistent occurrence, and tends to be found in words of Latvian origin. Interestingly, this sound (formerly written ŗ) has virtually disappeared from spoken Latvian and (since 1945) from the written language.

|| 107 The same analysis is applicable to LP /rʲ/ in Olonets Karelian (Leskinen 1984: 251) which does not form part of the sample.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 451

This quote indirectly characterizes LP /rʲ/ in Livonian as a potentially old borrowing. We apply the same interpretation to it as the one we have proposed for the Karelian (Archangelsk) case. LP /rʲ/ fills a gap in the set of palatalizable consonants and thus complements the domain of the palatalization correlation in the replica language. This means that the criteria of Eisen’s Universal 8 are met also in this case. The situation is clearer in the case of Komi-Permyak (Jaźva) since LP /rʲ/ is isolated within the phonological system of the replica language which has no other palatalized consonant. Lytkin (1961: 35–36) postulates genuinely palatal consonants and no palatalization; the palatalized LP /rʲ/ occurs only in Russian loanwords. Thus, it is uncontroversial that this is another case of a LP. The Turkic EDLs which borrow palatalized consonants are Gagauz and Noghay. In the case of Gagauz, the LP is the voiced palatalized postalveolar fricative /ʒʲ/ whereas Noghay is believed to have borrowed the voiceless palatalized postalveolar fricative /ʃʲ/. We start with the former. Pokrovskaja (1964: 56) claims that, in Gagauz, /ʒʲ/ is limited to loanwords. There is no evidence of the palatalization correlation in Gagauz. It is true that there is autochthonous /ʃʲ/ but the palatalized postalveolar fricatives have no plain partners, i.e. they are “inherently” palatalized and this feature is not distinctive phonologically (Pokrovskaja 1964: 50, 56). Doerfer (1959a: 265–266), however, mentions that before front vowels there is automatic allophonic palatalization of the majority of the Gagauz consonants. Stadnik (2002: 42–43) argues that all postalveolar consonants are inherently palatalized and that all other consonants testify to allophonic palatalization. In her interpretation, it is possible to drop the feature specification [palatalized] for the postalveolar consonants. If this interpretation is applied to LP /ʒʲ/ we get LP /ʒ/. This is the analysis we favor because the borrowing is not motivated by the secondary articulation of the LP but by its primary quality since it is meant to serve as voiced partner of /ʃʲ/ (now: /ʃ/). As to Noghay, Baskakov (1966: 282) and Csató and Karakoç (1998: 333) agree that /ʃʲ/ occurs only in loanwords. Since this EDL is described without any reference to the palatalization correlation we assume that the voiceless palatalized postalveolar fricative is isolated in the system of the replica language. It forms a triplet with autochthonous /ʃ/ and /ʒ/. On account of this marginal position within the phoneme inventory, we assume that we are dealing with LP /ʃʲ/. The above revision of the supposed cases of palatalized LPs changes the picture radically because there remain only seven LP types with relatively low frequency, namely LP /rʲ/ (= 4 borrowers), LP /ʃʲ/ (= 3 borrowers) and LP /tʲ/, LP /dʲ/, LP /zʲ/, LP /nʲ/, LP /lʲ/ (with one borrower each). We turn our attention to labialization, pharyngealization, and ejectives as secondary articulations of LPs. Figure 110 clearly shows that the six phonemes

452 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

which are equipped with these properties are again marginal. Their low frequency holds for borrowed and autochthonous versions. Only the ejective voiceless velar plosive yields a frequency which comes near but does not reach the 20 %-threshold.

k’ tɬ’ kʲ’ zˁ çʷ f’ 0%

20%

40% autochthonous

60% LP

80%

100%

unattested

Figure 110: Putative labialized/pharyngealized/ejective LPs vs. autochthonous phonemes.

Abaza is the sole borrower of /çʷ/, /f’/, and /tɬ’/. On closer inspection, none of these supposed LPs passes the test. In the phonological system of Abaza several correlations interact. Ejectives result from glottalization. In addition, there are two correlations, viz. palatalization and labialization. Labialization affects most of the consonants from the postalveolar to the pharyngeal place of articulation. The domain of palatalization covers the velar and uvular places of articulation. All plosives (except /ʔ/) can undergo glottalization. Glottalization is also attested for voiceless affricates and the voiceless labiodental fricative (Lomtatidze and Klychev 1989). From Sections 17.2.4.23 and 17.2.4.28 we learn that Abaza has borrowed plain /ç/ and plain /tɬ/, too. There is also LP /v/ (see Section 17.2.4.7). We assume that LP /f/, LP /ç/, and LP /tɬ/ are integrated into the autochthonous glottalization and labialization correlations of the replica language so that /f’/, /çʷ/, and /tɬ’/ are produced by the application of language-internal phonological rules. These consonants are not directly borrowed along with their secondary articulations. Thus, the supposed LPs /f’/, /çʷ/, and /tɬ’/ can be removed from Figures 108 and 110. The situation is similar in Abaza’s sister-language Adyghe. According to Paris (1989: 160), the ejective voiceless velar plosive /k’/ occurs only in borrowed lex-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 453

emes. The restriction holds also for the plain velar plosives LP /k/ and LP /g/. Only the labialized consonants /kʷ/, /gʷ/, and /kʷ’/ are autochthonous. Glottalization and labialization affect all classes of plosives – bilabial, denti-alveolar, uvular (with /ʔ/ being accessible to labialization too) – as well as most of the fricatives and affricates. It is therefore possible that /k’/ results from the language-internal application of a glottalization rule. This possibility casts doubt on the LP-status of this ejective. Since our source does not discuss this issue at any length we remain in the dark about the donor language(s). The phoneme /k’/ is relatively frequent for instance in other languages of the Caucasian region. It cannot be ruled out completely that it has entered Adyghe via loanwords. In the absence of tangible proof, however, we delete this consonant from the list of LPs. In Khinalug, the putative LP /kʲ’/ is a similarly problematic case. Dešeriev (1959) describes the phoneme inventory of this EDL. He identifies two pervasive correlations, namely glottalization and labialization. Only at the velar place of articulation do we also find palatalization. The only autochthonous consonant that reflects palatalization is /kʲ/. For its glottalized partner it is assumed that /kʲ’/ is attested only sporadically in Khinalug words. According to Kibrik (1994b: 370–371), there is no palatalization at all. The author assumes a series of palatal consonants instead. Thus, /kʲ’/ has to be replaced with /c’/. From Kibrik’s account it results that /c’/ is not as infrequent as expected. We cannot determine whether the words whose segmental chain hosts /c’/ are of foreign origin. In analogy to the Abaza case, we cancel /kʲ’/ from the list of LPs. The status of LP /zˁ/ in Arabic (Çukurova) is also controversial. Procházka (2002: 22) presents the voiced pharyngealized alveolar fricative as LP in the sense that it occurs (almost exclusively) in loans from Modern Standard Arabic (“Schriftsprache”) to represent /ðˁ/. One might object to including this case among the LPs because of the diglossic relationship between the donor language and the replica language which are too closely related genetically. If we discount this argument for the time being, there remains the problem that Arabic (Çukurova) attests to a series of emphatic consonants which form oppositions with their plain counterparts. Emphatic consonants are velarized/pharyngealized. We find the following pairs of plain/emphatic phonemes: /t/ ≠ /tˁ/, /d/ ≠ /dˁ/, /k/ ≠ /kˁ/, /s/ ≠ /sˁ/, and /r/ ≠ /rˁ/. The question arises whether the pharyngealization rule is still productive so that LP /zˁ/ could be analyzed as being derived from autochthonous /z/. Procházka (2002: 22) remarks that [zˁ] is attested in autochthonous words as the result of voice assimilation of /sˁ/. Furthermore, the author mentions that there are indeed cases in which /z/ is made emphatic to yield [zˁ] in the inherited vocabulary. On this basis, /zˁ/ can also be removed from the list of LPs.

454 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Two cases involve gemination or long quantity, namely /tː/ and /ʃjː/ the letter being discussed above. The geminate voiceless denti-alveolar plosive is registered as being infrequent in genuine Khinalug words (Dešeriev 1959: 13). Should it be correct that language contact plays a role for the existence of /tː/ in Khinalug this factor is most probably not crucial since gemination is a regular process which affects other consonants as well, namely the voiceless alveolar and postalveolar affricates, the glottalized voiceless denti-alveolar plosive, the voiceless velar plosive, and the voiceless velar affricate (probably a voiceless uvular plosive) (Dešeriev 1959: 15). Kibrik (1994b: 370) offers a markedly different account of the consonant phonemes of Khinalug. In his analysis quantity is replaced with the feature [strong]. This feature is relevant for the entire series of voiceless plosives. This is circumstantial evidence against assuming LP /tː/. The revision of the supposed cases of LPs with secondary articulation, gemination, and/or non-pulmonic LPs yields a picture which differs widely from that painted in Figure 108. As promised Figure 111 discloses the “real” situation. 5 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 0 rʲ

ʃʲ

tʲ, dʲ, zʲ, nʲ, lʲ

Figure 111: Approved LP consonants ranked according to frequency of borrowing.

What remains unaltered is the dominance of palatalized LPs which is now a 100 % monopoly. The range of phonemes as such is reduced to seven LPs all of which give evidence of palatalization. Ejectives have disappeared for good from the inventory of LPs as have labialized and pharyngealized consonants. Five of the LP types are borrowed only once so that they complement the list of isolated LPs presented in Section 17.2.4.28. We conclude that the role of secondary artic-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 455

ulations, gemination, or non-pulmonic air-stream mechanisms in the context of LP consonants is severely restricted (see Sections 17.1.2.2.4). Figure 112 tells us that after the above revision the Indo-European phylum no longer forms part of the set of phyla which attest to LPs with secondary articulations. Uralic and Turkic give evidence of multiple borrowing whereas Nakh-Daghestanian participates with a single LP.

Turkic; 2; 33%

Uralic; 3; 50%

NakhDaghestanian; 1; 17%

Figure 112: Genealogic distribution of borrowers with LPs with secondary articulation.

The geographical distribution of the LPs featured in Figure 111 reveals an easterly orientation. Map LXXVI and Table 193 show that the borrowing is for the most an eastern phenomenon with a particularly strong cluster in SE. There is no western EDL which participates in the borrowing. Owing to the mixed nature of the LPs, Map LXXVI only shows the geographical position of the borrowers and closes this section. In analogy to the practice applied to Map LXXV, we represent the borrowers with dots of different size according to the number of LPs with secondary articulation. Table 193: Distribution of borrowers of LPs with secondary articulation over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

1

1

M

0

1

1

2

S

0

0

3

3

Total

0

1

5

6

456 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The geography of borrowing of palatalized LPs by and large resembles the frequently attested pattern according to which the European west and north do not fully participate in a given area of diffusion whereas the south and east are prominently featured in the same area of diffusion.

17.2.4.30 LP consonants in retrospect The task of this section is similar to that of Section 17.2.2.9 where we commented upon the catalogue of individual LP vowels. In what follows we look back on the LP consonants as presented and discussed in Section 17.2.4.1–17.2.4.29. What the observed facts entail is the topic of the evaluative Section 17.3 where we will also take up several of the loose ends of this section to account for them areal-linguistically. The individual LP consonants and their borrowers cover a wide range of kinds of behavior. At the one end of the continuum we find absolutely uncontroversial LPs whose donor is easy to identify and which are fully integrated into the system of the replica language so that they have spread to the inherited lexicon as well (see below). This is the case with the Greek fricatives /ɣ/, /θ/, and /ð/ in Aromanian, for instance (see Sections 17.2.4.13, 17.2.4.16, 17.2.4.17). At the opposite extreme, almost everything is doubtful because several factors speak against the LP-status of a given element. Sometimes it is not only difficult to determine the donor language but the frequency of the phonological unit is so low that proof of its existence in the replica language is hard to provide. Moreover, the foreign provenance of a phoneme is often mentioned together with its occasional occurrence in a small number of native words (see below). Time and again loanwords are characterized as very recent and hardly integrated and/or limited to the written register, high style or religious contexts, etc. A case in point is LP /f/ in Crimean Tatar (see Section 17.2.4.1). Where several of these factors conspire, we have reached the rock bottom, in a manner of speaking. That these cases are part of the empirical catalogue is causally connected to the maximalist approach to which we adhere in this study. Their doubtful status notwithstanding, these problematic pieces of evidence of phonological borrowing have been fed into the calculations in the quantitative part of our investigation. The problems raised by cases of this kind render it necessary to discuss them in some detail so that they are overrepresented in terms of the number of words dedicated to them in this study. Unproblematic cases on the other hand more often than not do not receive as much attention because they meet our expectations and thus do not necessitate further weighing of arguments. In the phenomenology, there are a third and a fourth pattern which recur throughout

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 457

the foregoing sections which deserve to be inspected more closely because of the implication for the theory of loan phonology they promise. For a considerable number of cases the sources explicitly state that the item under review has two or three strongholds. On the one hand, there are the loanwords in whose domain the LP candidate is firmly established. In addition to the lexical borrowings the same phoneme is repeatedly claimed to be attested in the realm of native onomatopoeia (Eisen 2019: 22). Whether the latter remark refers to many or only a small number of onomatopoeic words is never disclosed in the descriptive linguistic literature we have consulted on this subject. It is therefore possible that the bulk of the attestations of the LP candidate indeed stem from borrowed vocabulary. Nevertheless, the onomatopoeic words – no matter how many they are – pose a serious problem for the interpretation of the phoneme as LP because in the absence of any further diachronic information we assume that the lexical layer of which the onomatopoeic words form part is old and predates the borrowings. Given that this assumption is correct it could be argued that there is no LP in the first place since the phoneme existed already in the replica language (long) before the first word hosting the phoneme was borrowed from the donor language. To counter this strong argument, we have to stipulate the following division of the lexicon: a) the lexicon tout court which contains the arbitrary-referential lexemes, b) the marked segment of the lexicon in the widest sense of the term in which (sound)-symbolic-descriptive terms are assembled, and c) proper names (mostly of foreign origin). Phonemes which are exclusively attested in (b) and/or (c) are marginal within the system since they are restricted to a small functional niche. This distribution pattern ((a) ≠ (b)/(c)) is mentioned for Azerbaijani where /ʒ/ is attested in (b) and (c) but not in (a). However, loanwords from Russian do contain LP /ʒ/ (see Section 17.2.4.2a). The loanwords usually add new items to (a) and thus introduce the phoneme to other functional spheres beyond the narrow limits of (b)/(c). This means that it is sufficient for a phoneme to pass as an instance of LP if language-contact widens its domain so that the border between (a) and (b)/(c) is overcome. Figure 113 aims at recounting a development of this kind on the basis of a fictitious case of LP /f/. The story told by Figure 113 is by no means a product of our fantasy since it is reported for a considerable number of EDLs. Table 194 tells us which languages attest to a given LP not only in the borrowed lexicon but also in the onomatopoeic domain.

458 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

stage I ( = pre-contact) lexicon (a) /f/

onomatopoeia (b) [f]

stage II (= initial contact) loanwords /f/

lexicon (a) /f/

onomatopoeia (b) [f]

stage III (= established LP) loanwords /f/

lexicon (a) /f/

onomatopoeia (b) /f/

Figure 113: Leaving the functional niche in three steps.

Table 194: LP consonants which are also attested in onomatopoeia.

LP

EDLs

Section

/f/

Finnic108, Czech, Mari (Hill), Romani (Bugurdži), Slovak, Sorbian Lower, Sorbian Upper, Tatar, Tsakhur

17.2.4.1

/ʒ/

Azerbaijani, Hungarian, Romani (Bugurdži), Tatar, Votic

17.2.4.2

/x/

Mordvin (Moksha)

17.2.4.3

/ʤ/

Finnic

17.2.4.4

/ʦ/

Gagauz

17.2.4.5

/g/

Czech (Moravian-Slovak), Maltese, Sorbian (Upper)

17.2.4.6

/v/

Adyghe

17.2.4.7

/ʧ/

Finnic

17.2.4.8

/ʣ/

Belarusian, Bulgarian, Slavomolisano

17.2.4.10

/ʃ/

Votic

17.2.4.11

/h/

Tatar, Turkish

17.2.4.12

/ʕ/

Khwarshi

17.2.4.19

/p/

Maltese

17.2.4.25

|| 108 Laanest (1982) does not identify the individual members of this branch of Uralic.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 459

LP

EDLs

Section

/c/

Mari (Hill)

17.2.4.26

/w/

Khwarshi

17.2.4.27

/ɸ/

Tatar

17.2.4.28

According to Table 194, there are 16 different types of LP consonants which also show up in onomatopoeic words of the replica language. This applies to at least 33 cases of borrowing. It is possible that the number of cases is higher than that because not all of the descriptive grammars address onomatopoeia specifically. We stipulate that LPs are LPs if they show up in (a). However, the entrance of the LP into (a) is certainly facilitated by the prior existence of its autochthonous version in (b)/(c). One may call this assisted borrowing. The next scenario can be captured by the same term, assisted borrowing. In numerous cases, the LP is not entirely new to the speakers of the replica language because there is allophony which involves a realization form of a phoneme which resembles the LP (Eisen 2019: 23). The donor language, however, does not obey the same allophonic regularities as the replica language so that the LP occurs in phonological contexts which are no-go areas for the phonetically fitting allophone in the replica language. The introduction of loanwords leads to the violation of the rules which govern the allophonic relationship. This allophonic relationship is then suspended and the former phoneme is split in two with each of its erstwhile allophones being promoted to the status of distinct phoneme. We try to capture this development with reference to a fictitious LP /v/ in Figure 114. It mimics the classic type of Maddieson’s Class-3 phenomena. Like in the previous case the figure is not without any empirical foundations. It seems that processes of this kind abound in the contact-history of several EDLs so that one might want to declare them canonical. Not only LP consonants are involved in cases of phonematization of allophony. This pattern is also common among LP vowels as e.g. LP /y/ and LP /œ/ in Kurmanji (see Section 17.2.2.1b) or LP /ø/ in Luxembourgish (see Section 17.2.2.2a). With reference to LP consonants, in Table 195 we present those cases of phonematization of erstwhile allophones for which our sources offer sufficient diachronic information.

460 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

stage I (= pre-contact) [f]

/#__

[v]

/V__V

/f/

stage II (= initial contact) [f]

/#__

/f/

(≠ [v]

/v/

/#__)loanword

/V__V

stage III (= established LP)

/f/

[f]

/#__

≠

/v/

[v]

Figure 114: From allophone to phoneme in three steps.

Table 195: LP consonants which are connected to the phonematization of allophones.

LP

EDLs

Section

/f/

Czech, Macedonian, Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), Polish, Russian, Russian (Ostrovcy), Russian (Permas), Slovak, Slovenian

17.2.4.1

/ʒ/

Aromanian, Basque (Zuberoa), Istro Romanian, Megleno Romanian, Romanian, Romanian (Megleno)

17.2.4.2

/ʤ/

Bulgarian, Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad), Macedonian (Kostur-Korča), 17.2.4.4 Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

/g/

Chuvash, Greek, Kumyk, Saami (Kildin)

17.2.4.6

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 461

LP

EDLs

Section

/v/

Arabic (Çukurova), English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney), Maltese

17.2.4.7

/ʧ/

Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

17.2.4.8

/z/

Aromanian, Basque (Zuberoa), English, English (Bolton Area), English (Cannock), English (Cockney), Istro Romanian, Ladino, Megleno Romanian, Romani (Bugurdži), Romanian, Romanian (Megleno), Saami (Kildin)

17.2.4.9

/ʃ/

Breton, Livonian, Welsh (Northern), Welsh (Southern)

17.2.4.11

/b/

Finnic109, Greek, Saami (Kildin)

17.2.4.15

/d/

Finnic, Greek, Chuvash, Turkish (Trabzon)

17.2.4.20

The scenario circumscribed in Figure 114 is referred to in the case of ten different LP consonant types several of which are also listed in Table 194. The phonematization of allophones is explicitly reported for 56 cases. It is only to be expected that this number will increase further if additional descriptivelinguistic material is consulted. With reference to the borrowers listed in Table 195 it is even possible to be more precise as to the chronological steps of the phonematization of allophones. The allophones which subsequently undergo phonematization very often occur only word-medially. This is the case for instance with voiced obstruents in intervocalic position. Loanwords which trigger the phonematization typically host the LP candidate in the word-initial slot, i.e. outside the context in which the allophone was admitted previously. In this way, the distributional properties of the allophone are altered so that it may occupy positions in which it contrasts with its former partner in allophony. This in turn means that the erstwhile rules which regulated the allophonic relationship are no longer valid. The two allophones are dissociated from each other and thus can be considered distinct phonemes. Like in the case of the onomatopoeia, the existence of pre-contact allophony renders the integration of the LP relatively easy. The ground is prepared because phonetically there are no unsurmountable obstacles impeding the integration of the LP. Again, it might be asked whether we are dealing with proper cases of LP at all since there was already something there which the supposed newcomer could build on. What distinguishes the pre-contact phoneme system from the system that bears the mark of foreign influence is the difference in status of the items under inspec-

|| 109 Laanest (1982) does not mention which Finnic EDLs in particular attest to the phonematization of erstwhile allophones.

462 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

tion. Before the loanwords started to enrich the replica language’s lexicon no phoneme identical to the later LP existed. The phoneme emerged in the context of contact-induced processes. This is why we accept the phonematization of allophones as genuine instances of LPs. We conclude that the borrowing of phonemes is unproblematic provided the LP can be identified with units with which the speakers of the replica language are familiar phonetically be it in the domain of allophony or that of onomatopoeia and/or proper names. LP consonants whose properties are completely at odds with those of the established members of the replica language’s phoneme system are relatively infrequent. Our sources often comment upon their status by way of declaring them unintegrated elements which do not belong to the phonological system in the first place as e.g. LP /g/ in Low German (Westphalian) (see Section 17.2.4.6). In spite of the exclusion of these LPs, it remains a fact that they are attested in loanwords. Their attestation in loanwords is the basis for being classified as LPs by us. More often than not we are absolutely ignorant about the amount of loanwords which involve the LP in question. The descriptive grammars from which we have taken the examples are not primarily occupied with the foreign impact on the language they focus upon. For this reason, they illustrate the domain of LPs frequently only with a minimum of loanwords. We cannot be sure whether the LP we have identified is relatively common or rather exceptional. Likewise, it is frequently impossible to say whether the LP is used by or known to the majority of the replica language’s speech community. On the other hand, there is no generally accepted criterion according to which a certain percentage of the speakers must actively employ the element to legitimately call it a LP. Similarly, we have no yardstick that tells us how many loanwords are required to justify classifying an item as LP. The absence of criteria of this kind has the advantage of giving us a free hand in this matter. Having a free hand implies a certain degree of flexibility when it comes to deciding if we are dealing with a LP or not. We acknowledge emphatically that future studies must impose stricter rules and definitions to avoid comparing like with unlike. For a pioneer inquiry such as ours on the other hand it is even advisable to take a tolerant stance in order to collect as many data as possible and thus go to the very limits of the subject under investigation. The time-depth of the LP cases varies considerably. There are several borrowings which have taken place in the mediaeval era (some of which might even date back to the Dark Ages). These have been in existence for many centuries such as e.g. LP /ʃ/ in Breton (see Section 17.2.4.11). This age-long presence of the LP in the replica language may lead to the complete nativization of the erstwhile foreign element so that it diffuses over the inherited lexicon to become almost indistinguishable from autochthonous phonemes of long standing. If the

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 463

history of the replica language is not documented sufficiently it can be challenging to decide whether a given phoneme has always been autochthonous or not such as LP /g/ in Maltese (see Section 17.2.4.6). In contrast, for several replica languages the sources claim that the loanwords and thus the LPs themselves are contemporary products whose age does not exceed a decade or two. In the latter case, bilingualism and a generation gap between young and elderly speakers are invoked in the sources as is the case with LP /f/ in the Vidzeme variety of Latvian (see Section 17.2.4.1). The replica language’s speech community is divided in two segments only one of which is familiar with the donor language from which loanwords and LPs are taken. Scenarios of this kind can be described and evaluated socio-linguistically for the Post-World War II period. It is next to impossible to be as exact in the case of processes which took place in societies prior to the Early Modern Era. One has to rely on conjectures. We want to avoid burdening our study additionally with too many insecure side issues because many of the fundamental phonological and language-contact related questions are already sufficiently intricate. We therefore cannot afford looking closer at the social side of the phenomena. We do not deny that it is certainly worthwhile studying also these aspects thoroughly. The LPs differ widely as to the success they have in language contact. There are those whose frequency is remarkably high. Like LP /y/ in the domain of vowels LP /f/ can be understood as the showcase of the LP consonants since it is attested in slightly more than a third of the sample languages. In contrast to the vowels, however, there are several other LP consonants which are borrowed frequently. The twelve most frequently borrowed LP consonant types are attested in 5 %–37 % of the sample languages. Except LP /y/ which is borrowed by 4 % of the EDLs (or 5 % if we turn a blind eye on the secondary properties), none of the LP vowels comes even remotely close to the turnouts of these oftborrowed consonants. The least frequently borrowed consonants tend to be also infrequent as autochthonous consonants in the EDLs. Furthermore, there are consonants which are never involved in borrowing because they are phonemic in all of the sample languages (e.g. /m/ and /n/). The problem of distinguishing properly between the borrowing of individual consonants and that of phonological correlations has been addressed in Section 17.2.4.29 to reduce the number of phonemes which are mistaken for LPs in our sources. We have seen that the majority of the LP consonants yield areallinguistically interesting geographical distribution patterns. There is a clearly discernible tendency of phoneme borrowing to involve EDLs in the SC, SE, MC, and ME nonants. There are small-scale counter-tendencies which show that EDLs in the SW and MW can be borrowers as well but their participation in borrowing processes is not as frequent as that of the EDLs in the previously men-

464 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

tioned nonants. Northern nonants are generally underrepresented when it comes to phoneme borrowing. For individual LPs entire phyla or subgroups thereof display identical behavior as opposed to other cases which affect only a selection of members of a given language family. Genetic affiliation is thus sometimes a good prognostic but almost never a fully reliable one. Geography and genealogy will be inspected in detail in Sections 17.3.1 and 17.3.2. As to Maddieson’s (1986) categories and Eisen’s (2019) distinction of facilitating vs inhibiting effects, we have checked the pairwise co-occurrences for each of those LPs which are borrowed twice or more often. In this way, especially the voicing correlation has been tested time and again. It results from the cooccurrence checks that gap-filling describes the situation appropriately for a number of cases. There are cases – especially those which do not involve the feature [αvoice] – which attest to the creation of a new place or manner of articulation. Parallel borrowing plays a role for a subset of the cases – again mostly for those pairs of consonants which are distinguished on the parameter of voicing. Other cases show that there is no particularly strong connection between the LPs. Yet others even give the impression of being incompatible with each other. Figure 115 recapitulates the previous co-occurrence counts and measures the degree of association between the members of a LP pair. The degree of association is identical with the share of those cases of borrowing which bring about the co-existence of the two LPs in one and the same replica language. Technically this means that we simply add up (i) all cases of the co-presence of the two members of a pair of phonemes X/Y with at least one of them being a LP (= all cells hosting A in Table 196) as opposed to (ii) the sum of all cases of X/Y being borrowed in the absence of the other (= all cells hosting B in Table 196). The sum (i) + (ii) yields the total (= 100 %). If the share of (i) is 50 % or more we speak of a high degree of association of X and Y. If (ii) turns out to be higher the degree of association is low. Table 196: How to compute the degree of association.

/Y/

/X/ Total

Sum

LP

autochthonous

unattested

A

B

LP

A

autochthonous

A

unattested

B

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 465

Figure 115 presents the pairs of consonants top to bottom in the order of increasing degrees of association.

ɣ/ʁ

9

ɲ/ŋ

7

1

ħ/h

9 23 24

3 8 9

ç/x x/ɣ h/ʔ

7

4

x/h

21 18 1

17 16 1

ʦ/ʣ c/ɟ ð/ɣ

4 15

5 22

ʣ/ʤ ʦ/ʧ

11 2

24 5

ɲ/λ k/q

1

3

θ/ð

1 3 5 10 4

5 18 33 76 42

v/w ʧ/ʤ f/v ʃ/ʒ p/t; w/j

2 4 9 13 18 25

ʕ/ħ; t/d p/b s/ʃ s/z k/g

0%

20%

40%

60%

co-presence

absence

80%

100%

Figure 115: Degree of association within LP pairs (consonants).

There are altogether 27 pairs of LP consonants. Only eight of these yield degrees of association which do not reach the 50 %-mark. Of the 19 pairs which equal or exceed this mark 11 involve combinations of voiceless and voiced partners. The voicing correlation plays a role for only two of the pairs whose degree of association is lower than 50 %, namely /ʦ/-/ʣ/ and /x/-/ɣ/. Moreover, five of the eight pairs with a degree of association of 100 % are instances of the voiceless-voiced

466 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

distinction (= /k/-/g/, /s/-/z/, /p/-/b/, /t/-/d/, /ʕ/-/ħ/). This speaks in favor of gap-filling as the most important factor in connection with the borrowing of phonemes. One could also interpret high degrees of association as examples of the facilitating effect postulated by Eisen (2019). The creation of new places and manners of articulation outnumbers gap-filling with those LP pairs whose degree of association is lower than 50 %. These findings are relevant for phonological typology and therefore call for being scrutinized further in Section 17.3.3. In Figures 116 and 117 we survey the quantitative role of LPs in the studies by Maddieson (1984) (= M), Eisen (2019) (= E1 global sample + E2 Eurasia), and us (= X). Superficially it is clear from the start that there must be differences because the samples differ in size, composition, and scope. At the same time, the diverging quantities strongly suggest that Europe is not adequately represented in the investigations of our predecessors. Figure 116 features the shares of those LPs which are attested twice or more often in our database whereas Figure 117 hosts the remaining singularities for which we work on the basis of absolute numbers. Figure 116 presents the LPs in the order of increasing frequency (according to our study). For Figure 117 we take the increasing frequency in Eisen’s global sample as point of reference. What we learn from Figure 116 is that the share of borrowers per LP is usually higher in our European sample than in Maddieson’s global sample. There are only two exceptions to this pattern, namely the plosives LP /p/ and LP /d/. The picture is very variegated. For no LP are there four shares of identical size. Maddieson’s shares are usually much smaller than those of the three other samples. In nine cases Eisen’s global sample yields the biggest share for a given LP. The biggest share is claimed eight times by Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. In six cases the biggest share is connected to the sample used in our study. Wherever Eisen’s results surpass ours, one might assume that the surplus is owed to the presence of Asian languages in the Eurasian subsample. Interestingly in four of the six cases in which Phon@Europe yields the biggest shares the LPs do not show up at all in Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. To explain this difference, we cannot refer to the Asian component of the subsample because the LP is completely absent from the subsample. A possible conclusion is that the arealphonological properties of Europe are not adequately represented in the very same subsample. Working solely on the basis of the results gained on the basis of the Eurasian subsample does not allow us to understand the areal phonology of Europe properly. It is recommendable therefore to refrain from subsuming European and Asian languages under one and the same heading.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 467

/w/ /c/ /p/ /ħ/ /ç/ /k/ /ʔ/ /ʃʲ/ /rʲ/ /d/ /ʕ/ /ʎ/ /ð/ /θ/ /b/ /ɲ/ /ɣ/ /h/ /ʃ/ /ʣ/ /z/ /ʧ/ /v/ /g/ /ʦ/ /ʤ/ /x/ /ʒ/ /f/ 0%

10%

20% X

30% E2

E1

40%

M

Figure 116: Comparison of LP shares (Non-singularities in Phon@Europe).

50%

468 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

/dʲ/; /zʲ/; /nʲ/; /lʲ/; /ɮ/; /tɬ/; /z̻/; /z̺/ /ʡ/ /tʲ/ /ʁ/ /ɟ/ /ɸ/ /χ/ /q/ /ŋ/ /r/ /l/

X

E2

E1

M

0

10

20

30

40

50

Figure 117: Comparison of LP turnouts (Singularities in Phon@Europe).

In eight of the eighteen cases surveyed in Figure 117 the LP is exclusively attested in our database. This pattern is skewed perhaps because Eisen (2019) does not disclose which LPs are attested only once in Eurasia or beyond. Therefore, the zeros we use for some of the LPs have to be understood with a grain of salt. In the remaining ten cases, Eisen’s Eurasian LPs outnumber ours. More generally, the LPs are low frequency phenomena in Maddieson (1984), Eisen (2019: 41), and Phon@Europe. Their absolute frequency ranges from a maximum of six attestations to their total absence. Only on the global scale does Eisen (2019: 40) present higher numbers of borrowers for seven of the LP types. One might tentatively generalize that there is a tendency that what is infrequent in our database is also infrequent in Maddieson’s and Eisen’s studies. For those of Eisen’s Eurasian cases which are attested more frequently than in Phon@Europe we assume – in analogy to the discussion of Figure 116 – that Asian languages have contributed to the surplus. The last word has not been spoken yet as to the exact quantities of LPs in Europe. The (b)-parts of the majority of the foregoing sections suggest that the database could probably be enlarged considerably since there are numerous

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 469

EDLs outside our sample that give evidence of cases of phoneme borrowing which are in line with cases attested in the EDLs of our sample. We have by no means exhausted the list of additional EDLs. For many of those which are skipped over in this study we simply lack sufficiently reliable information to admit them to the discussion. For others their close genetic relation to members of the sample seemed to create too strong a bias to be tolerable in a study of this kind. A third reason for not including further cases is the uncertainty as to the appropriate diachronic interpretation of the synchronic facts in the absence of historical documentation. This intermediate summary is promising in the sense that it is possible to identify patterns, i.e. the phenomenology is not chaotic. The patterns deserve being studied further to see to what extent they are linguistically meaningful. This is the task of Section 17.3 where the results gained in the empirical sections will be evaluated systematically.

17.3 Patterns This section is dedicated to assessing the possibility of predicting the behavior of LPs and borrowers on the basis of three different criteria connected to the two guiding hypotheses H0 and HA. In contrast to the previous practice as explained in Section 14.1, we consider the use of the term “isogloss” to be appropriate for the phenomena we address in the following three sections. In Section 17.3.1 we try to determine whether genetic affiliation is a prognostic factor for the borrowing behavior of EDLs. Is it possible to predict that if one member of a phylum or language family is involved in borrowing others with the same genetic background also borrow phonemes? Are there similar parallels which cut across genetic boundaries? Similarly, Section 17.3.2 looks at predictability from the geographical point of view. Do EDLs which are located in the same nonant behave the same as to borrowing? Do different nonants twin with each other under borrowing? The interrelationship between LPs is the topic of Section 17.3.3. Here we take up the issue of the association factor introduced in Section 17.2.4.30 in order to determine whether and what phonemes are prone to undergo parallel borrowing. The answers to the above questions guide us to the final Sections 18 and 19 and prepare the reader for the conclusions.

470 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

17.3.1 Genealogy For a start we investigate the parallel borrowing of phonemes in relation to the genetic affiliation of the borrowers. The guiding question is to what extent members of the same phylum or language family display solidarity as to the borrowing of certain phonemes. A characteristic aspect of genetic solidarity is the parallel behavior of many (ideally all) members of a phylum (or branch) so that numerous particularly extended LP isoglosses of sister-languages arise. This means that multiple borrowing of a given LP within a genetically defined group of EDLs is a prerequisite for the emergence of isoglosses of this kind. Figure 118 distinguishes LPs borrowed by individual EDLs and LPs which are borrowed by several members of the same phylum. Since Mongolic is represented only by one EDL – Kalmyk – and thus multiple borrowing is precluded, this phylum is not discussed in this section. 100% 90%

1

80%

7

3

4

8

10

6

1

13

1

12

22

11

70% 60%

11

50% 40% 30%

10

20%

4

10% 0%

individual

multiple

Figure 118: Shares of individually and multiply borrowed LPs per phylum.

There is a continuum which ranges from Abkhaz-Adyghe with the highest share of individually borrowed LPs (= 88 %) to Uralic with the lowest share of individually borrowed LPs (= 27 %). Turkic, Indo-European, and Uralic attest to a majority of multiple borrowings whereas Abkhaz-Adyghe, Isolate, NakhDaghestanian, and Afro-Asiatic prefer individual borrowings over multiple borrowings. As to Kartvelian, half of the cases go to the credit of individual borrowing and the other half involves multiple borrowings. This means that for the

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 471

members of those phyla which display a preference for individual borrowings the solidarity within the genetic group is limited. In contrast, in those phyla which favor multiple borrowings the degree of solidarity is higher. Solidarity, in principle, is favorable to predictability. If one member of the phylum has a given LP the likelihood that at least one of its sister-EDLs also borrows the same LP is relatively high. Since all of the phyla allow for individual and multiple borrowings it is impossible to achieve full predictability though. It is clear that individual borrowing involves but a single borrower. In the case of multiple borrowing, however, we do not know exactly how many members of a given phylum participate in parallel borrowing. Table 197 informs about the number of EDLs which participate in an isogloss (= extension). This is the task of the leftmost column. The numbers in the column to the right reveal for how many LP types the extension of the isogloss is attested in a given phylum. The rightmost column presents the number of phyla which give evidence of a given extension. Grey shading marks those cells which host a zero.

N of phyla

Indo-European

Turkic

Uralic

Afro-Asiatic

NakhDaghestanian

Isolate

Abkhaz-Adyghe

Kartvelian

Extension

Table 197: Extension of isoglosses and participation per phylum.

2

1

1

0

2

4

1

5

3

7

3

0

0

3

1

1

3

2

3

6

4

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

4

3

5

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

4

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

2

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

8

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

11

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

2

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

13

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

14

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

2

23

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

39

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

Extension > 2 0

0

1

2

2

6

6

11

14

472 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

In none of the cases is the extension co-extensive with the number of EDLs or borrowers which belong to a given phylum. Figure 119 refers to the most extended LP isogloss within a phylum and how many of the phylum’s members (= borrowers) are covered by this isogloss. For two cases – Afro-Asiatic and Isolate – the most extended isogloss involves all member-EDLs. Except NakhDaghestanian, all remaining phyla boast shares of 50 % and more. However, for all phyla except the Isolate, the most extended isogloss is attested only once, meaning: it is absolutely exceptional that so many EDLs of the same genetic background participate in the same LP isogloss. Parallel borrowing which gives rise to LP isoglosses with 2–3 EDLs are relatively common across the phyla. Isoglosses which involve six or more EDLs are attested in maximally three phyla (Indo-European, Uralic, and Turkic) whereas the two extra-extended isoglosses with 23 and 39 EDLs, respectively, are realized by Indo-European EDLs. These discrepancies can be explained with reference to the different size of the phyla. There are twelve different extensions for this phylum, seven for Turkic and Uralic. The other phyla give evidence of 1–3 different length categories. For isoglosses which involve more than four EDLs the number of cases per phylum oscillates between one and two. It is therefore difficult if not impossible to predict how many EDLs of a phylum will be involved in parallel borrowing if one knows there is at least one case of multiple borrowing. 100% 90%

5

3

80%

2

4

1

1

2

2

36

5

39

5

11

70%

14

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

most extended isogloss

missing borrowers

Figure 119: Coverage of most extended LP isogloss per phylum.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 473

On the level of the phyla genetic affiliation seems to be a relatively weak prognostic for determining parallel behavior of EDLs. Chances are that this negative statement needs to be modified if we move down a level to that of the branches within a given phylum. In Figure 120 we take a closer look at the situation within the branches of Indo-European in analogy to Figure 118. There cannot be any doubt that IndoEuropean is subject to variation since what we see is a phylum-internal continuum which resembles that featured in Figure 118 for the entire sample. Individual borrowings are the preferred option in the mixed group of other IndoEuropean languages with 82 %. The reverse is true for Baltic languages all of which attest to multiple borrowings, as well as for Indo-Iranian where multiple borrowing occurs in 53 % of all cases, Romance with a majority of 67 % for multiple borrowing, Germanic with a share of 70 % for multiple borrowing, Slavic with a 71 %-majority of multiple borrowings, and Celtic at the top with 86 % for multiple borrowings. The genetic solidarity is relatively strong in Celtic whereas it is relatively weak in the mixed group which constitutes no surprise since it comprises all varieties of Albanian, both Armenian EDLs, and two Greek varieties which do not form a genetically closely interrelated group of EDLs. Baltic languages display full genetic solidarity since no individual borrowings occur in this branch. 100% 2 80%

9

60% 40% 20%

8

7

5

6

9 8

4

3

2

0%

individual

4

1

multiple

Figure 120: Shares of individually and multiply borrowed LPs within Indo-European.

As to the length of the isoglosses, the picture is more variegated than in the comparison of the different phyla. Table 198 obeys the same principles as Table 197.

474 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

N of branches

Celtic

Slavic

Germanic

Romance

Indo-Iranian

Other

Baltic

Extension

Table 198: Extension of isoglosses and participation per branch of Indo-European.

2

2

1

3

1

3

1

3

7

3

0

1

4

2

0

0

1

4

4

2

0

1

1

2

0

1

5

5

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

6

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

3

7

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

3

8

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

9

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

11

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

27

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Extension > 2

1

1

3

5

3

4

3

9

Not only do all branches of Indo-European attest to isoglosses of the minimal extension of two genetically related sister-languages but they also give evidence of at least one more extended isogloss each. The majority of the branches display isoglosses with two, three, and four close relatives involved. Slavic is exceptional insofar as it is the only branch which yields isoglosses with more than eight sisterlanguages, namely one each with nine, eleven, and twenty-seven Slavic EDLs. It seems that Slavic prefers extra-extended isoglosses over middle-sized isoglosses. Except Baltic and Romance, the Indo-European branches attest to their respective most extended isogloss only once. In the case of Baltic there are two instances of an intra-Baltic isogloss of four (i.e. four Baltic EDLs borrow two LP types) whereas Romance offers two examples of intra-Romance isoglosses of seven (i.e. seven Romance EDLs borrow two LP types). As results from Figure 121 the most extended isoglosses cover between 50 %–100 % of all borrowers within a given IndoEuropean branch. Celtic has an isogloss which includes all borrowers within the branch. Slavic, Baltic, and Indo-Iranian miss the 100 %-mark because in each of these branches one of the multiple borrowers is excluded from the most extended isogloss. The remaining branches have three to four borrowers which fail to join the most extended isogloss.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 475

100%

1 1

90%

1

3

80%

4 3

70% 60% 50%

7

27 6

40%

4

8

30%

7 3

20% 10% 0% Celtic

Slavic

Indo-Iranian

Baltic

most extended isogloss

Germanic

Romance

other

missing borrowers

Figure 121: Coverage of most extended isogloss per branch of Indo-European.

Discounting minor differences, it cannot be denied that the pictures resemble each other at least to a certain extent. The range of variation across the phyla is similar (though not identical) to the range of variation for Indo-European phyluminternally. This means that the borrowing behavior cannot adequately be predicted on the basis of the genealogy of the EDLs in general or the borrowers in particular. Some phyla and some branches display a higher degree of internal solidarity than some other phyla and branches so that genetic affiliation is only partly a suitable prognostic. Given the limited value of genealogy for predicting cases of parallel borrowing other factors might turn out to be more important than membership in a phylum or branch. To close this section, we ask whether there are any significant parallels between different phyla. In Table 199 we disclose for how many LPs the phyla display pairwise parallel borrowing. LPs with secondary properties and singularities are included in the count although the latter are excluded from isoglosses by definition. The grey shaded cells host the number of LP types which are attested for a given phylum. We stress the point that the table is about types and not about tokens.

476 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Abkhaz-Adyghe

8

Afro-Asiatic

Uralic

Turkic

NakhDaghestanian

Mongolic

Kartvelian

Isolate

Indo-European

Afro-Asiatic

Abkhaz-Adyghe

Table 199: Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for phyla (absolute).

3

4

1

1

0

1

4

1

17

14

6

1

2

5

8

9

32

9

2

2

6

12

14

Indo-European Isolate

11

Kartvelian Mongolic

1

2

4

5

6

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

2

14

4

6

25

9

NakhDaghestanian Turkic Uralic

15

There are no pairs of phyla which share 100 % of the LP types. Not even Kartvelian or Mongolic which display small absolute numbers of LP types (= 2 each). In Table 200 we account for the similarity ratios of the 36 pairs of phyla. The ratios are calculated as follows: the absolute numbers of LP types of the two phyla of a pair AB are added up, the resulting sum functions as divisor of the number of shared LP types multiplied by 2 according to the following formula: LP𝑎𝑏 x 2 = LP𝑎 + LP𝑏 Table 200: Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for phyla (ratio).

Rank

Ratio

Pairs

1

60 %

Indo-European+Uralic

2

57 %

Afro-Asiatic+Indo-European

3

56 %

Afro-Asiatic+Uralic

4

50 %

Kartvelian+Mongolic

5

46 %

Isolate+Uralic

6

45 %

Uralic+Turkic

7

43 %

Afro-Asiatic+Isolate

8–9

42 %

Indo-European+Turkic; Indo-European+Isolate

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 477

Rank

Ratio

Pairs

10

41 %

Nakh-Daghestanian+Uralic

11

38 %

Afro-Asiatic+Turkic

12–13

32 %

Afro-Asiatic+Nakh-Daghestanian; Isolate+Nakh-Daghestanian

14

31 %

Isolate+Mongolic

15

28 %

Isolate+Turkic

16

26 %

Indo-European+Nakh-Daghestanian

17–19

24 %

Abkhaz-Adyghe+Turkic; Abkhaz-Adyghe+Afro-Asiatic; Mongolic+Uralic

20–21

21 %

Afro-Asiatic+Mongolic; Nakh-Daghestanian+Turkic

22–23

20 %

Abkhaz-Adyghe+Indo-European; Abkhaz-Adyghe+Kartvelian

24–26

15 %

Isolate+Kartvelian; Kartvelian+Turkic; Mongolic+Turkic

27–29

13 %

Abkhaz-Adyghe+Nakh-Daghestanian; Kartvelian+Nakh-Daghestanian; Mongolic+Nakh-Daghestanian

30–32

12 %

Indo-European+Kartvelian; Indo-European+Mongolic; Kartvelian+Uralic

33–34

11 %

Abkhaz-Adyghe+Isolate; Afro-Asiatic+Kartvelian

35

9%

Abkhaz-Adyghe+Uralic

36

0%

Abkhaz-Adyghe+Mongolic

Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, and Uralic form a network in which each possible pairing between these phyla comes close to or equals the 60 %-mark. This is the most one can get in the domain of cross-phyla parallel borrowing. The majority of the remaining pairs yield ratios which are smaller than 40 %. At least for the pairings from rank #6 downwards the similarity ratios do not differ much from those which hold for the pairs of branches within the Indo-European phylum (from rank #4 downwards). The latter are presented in Table 202. Table 201 discloses the respective absolute number of shared LP types per pair of borrowers. Table 201: Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for branches of Indo-European (absolute).

Baltic Celtic Germanic Indo-Iranian other IE Romance Slavic

Baltic

Celtic

Germanic

Indo-Iranian other IE

Romance

Slavic

4

0

0

3

3

2

1

7

5

2

1

5

1

10

5

3

5

3

17

5

8

2

11

5

4

12

2 7

478 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

With eight shared LP types, the pair formed by Romance and Indo-Iranian stands out from the rest of the pairings. Table 202 indicates that the eight shared LP types guarantee the second rank for this pair of Indo-European branches on the hierarchy of ratios of parallel borrowing within this phylum. Table 202: Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for branches of Indo-European (ratio).

Rank

Ratio

Pairs

1

59 %

Celtic+Germanic

2

55 %

Indo-Iranian+Romance

3

53 %

Celtic+Romance

4

45 %

Germanic+Romance

5

44 %

other IE+Slavic

6

43 %

other IE+Romance

7

40 %

Baltic+other IE

8

37 %

Germanic+Indo-Iranian

9

36 %

Indo-Iranian+other IE

10

35 %

Germanic+Slavic

11–12

29 %

Baltic+Indo-Iranian; Germanic+other IE

13

25 %

Baltic+Romance

14

21 %

Romance+Slavic

15

18 %

Baltic+Slavic

16–17

17 %

Celtic+Indo-Iranian; Indo-Iranian+Slavic

18

14 %

Celtic+Slavic

19

11 %

Celtic+other IE

20–21

0%

Baltic+Celtic; Baltic+Germanic

The top-ranking three pairs of phyla in Tables 200 and 202 yield relatively similar ratios. The phyla have ten pairings for the ratios above 40 %. In contrast, this space is settled by only seven pairings of Indo-European branches in Table 202. On the other hand, Table 200 hosts fifteen pairings of phyla with ratios between 0 %–20 %. The number is down to seven in the case of the branches of Indo-European. In point of fact, the absolute numbers at both ends of the hierarchies need to be put in perspective. There are ten phyla whose ratio is 40 % or higher. They account for 28 % of the pairings featured in Table 200. The seven pairings of Indo-European branches whose ratios surpass or equal 40 % represent 33 % of the pairings featured in Table 202. There is thus a gap of five points.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 479

At the bottom of the scale, we know that there are fifteen pairings of phyla whose ratios do not go beyond 20 %. Their share of the cases in Table 200 is of course 42 %. As to the branches of Indo-European, the seven pairings with ratios between 0 %–20 % represent 33 % of the cases in Table 202 so that nine points separate the two categories under comparison. It can be concluded that higher-level and lower-level categories yield very dissimilar results. In both cases, inter-category parallels exist but are far from being pervasive.

17.3.2 Geography How much does geography tell us about the parallel behavior of borrowers? In analogy to the previous section we address first the opposition of individual vs multiple borrowing within a given nonant. Figure 122 presents another continuum. The NW nonant is excluded from the figure and the subsequent discussion because it does not host any borrower in the first place. 100% 90%

3

80%

4 10

70%

17 18

60% 50%

14 8

4

40%

6

30%

8 12

20%

17 9

10%

6 1

0%

NC

NE

SW

ME individual

SE multiple

SC

MC

MW

Figure 122: Shares of individually and multiply borrowed LPs per nonants.

Multiple borrowing of LPs is the preferred option in MW. This preference has a genetic explanation since MW hosts borrowers (besides French) from the Celtic branch and the four varieties of English which for the most display a relatively high degree of solidarity among members of the same branch or subdivision thereof. In these cases, genetic and geographic solidarity support each other.

480 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

In Table 203 we survey the occurrences of the different length categories of LP isoglosses per nonant. The table does not feature NC because there are no nonant-internal isoglosses at all.

MW

MC

ME

SW

SC

SE

1

2

4

2

1

7

5

Extension

NE

2

N of nonants

Table 203: Extension of isoglosses and participation per nonants.

7

3

2

1

2

3

3

0

4

6

4

0

1

1

2

0

2

3

5

5

0

2

2

0

0

2

3

4

6

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

2

7

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

8

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

5

9

0

0

0

1

0

2

0

2

11

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

13

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

14

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

15

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

23

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Extension > 2 1

5

7

5

1

7

5

13

LP isoglosses which involve two to four and eight EDLs in the same nonant are relatively common. Two of the nonants – MC and SC – realize seven different extensions which involve more than two EDLs. If we compare these numbers to those of the genetic groups (Tables 197 and 198), only Indo-European with eleven different extensions exceeds this number (see Table 197). Figure 123 suggests that at least certain nonants are characterized by a higher degree of solidarity than most of the genetically defined groups of EDLs.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 481

Indo-European

11

MC, SC

7

Uralic, Turkic

6

Romance, MW, ME, SE

5

Slavic

4

Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Celtic

3

Nakh-Daghestanian, Afro-Asiatic

2

Isolate, Baltic, Other I-E, SW, NE

1 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Figure 123: Isogloss extensions (n > 2 EDLs) across genetic and geographic categories.

The most extended isoglosses registered for phyla (39 EDLs) and branches (27 EDLs) surpass the most extended nonant-internal isogloss (23 EDLs) without exhausting the total number of borrowers within the respective genetic category. The non-exhaustiveness also holds for the nonants as shown in Figure 124. The most extensive isogloss involves minimally half of the EDLs of a given nonant, in this case: SC. The maximum coverage is reached in the ME nonant where the most extended isogloss involves 82 % of the local EDLs. 100% 80%

11

4

11

18

8

23

SE

MW

MC

1

1

3

3

SW

NE

3

15

60% 40% 20%

14

15

0% SC

most extended isogloss

missing borrowers

Figure 124: Coverage of most extended isogloss per nonants.

ME

482 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

As to the coverage of the borrowers by the most extended isogloss, except ME, the nonants yield moderate results. On this parameter, genetically defined categories fare much better as shown in Figure 125.

SC, Nakh-Daghestanian, Other I-E

50%

Indo-European

52%

SE

62%

Romance

64%

MW, Abkhaz-Adyghe, Kartvelian

67%

MC

68%

Germanic

73%

NE, SW

75%

Uralic

78%

Baltic

80%

ME

82%

Turkic

85%

Indo-Iranian

86%

Slavic

96%

Afro-Asiatic, Isolate, Celtic

100% 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Figure 125: Coverage of most extended isogloss across genetic and geographic categories.

The solidarity within a given nonant is not so much reflected by the coverage of the most extended isogloss but rather by the relatively numerous isoglosses which involve two to four EDLs. Table 204 takes stock of the parallel borrowings for pairs of nonants. The pairing SC-SE yields the highest absolute number of parallel borrowing followed by SC-MC, SC-ME, SE-MC, and SE-ME. The lowest results are given for NC-MW and NC-SW. Each of the eight nonants shares at least one LP with each of the other nonants.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 483

Table 204: Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for nonants (absolute).

MC

MC

ME

MW

NC

NE

SC

SE

SW

20

11

6

3

7

15

13

7

22

4

3

9

13

13

5

9

1

2

6

4

5

4

3

3

3

1

9

8

8

4

ME MW NC NE SC

27

SE SW

16

9

34

6 12

To better understand what the above absolute numbers imply we reveal the ratios of parallel borrowing for pairs of nonants in Table 205. Boldface highlights those pairings in which the nonants are direct neighbors on the map, i.e. they have a common boundary. Table 205: Pairwise parallel borrowing of LP types for nonants (ratio).

Ratio

Pairs

1

64 %

MC+SC

2

58 %

ME+NE

3

53 %

ME+SC

4–5

52 %

SC+SE; MC+ME

6–8

48 %

MC+NE; MC+SE; MW+SW

9–11

46 %

ME+SE; NC+NE; SC+SW

Rank

12–13

44 %

NE+SC; MC+SW

14

41 %

MC+MW

15

38 %

NE+SW

16

37 %

NE+SE

17

33 %

MW+SC

18

29 %

ME+SW

19–20

26 %

SE+SW; ME+MW

21

25 %

MC+NC

22

23 %

ME+NC

484 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Rank

Ratio

Pairs

23

22 %

MW+NE

24–25

19 %

NC+SC; MW+SE

26

16 %

NC+SE

27

15 %

MW+NC

28

13 %

NC+SW

In contrast to Tables 200 and 202 one of the pairs in Table 205 exceeds the 60 %mark. The nonants produce fourteen pairings with ratios of 40 % and beyond. This equals a share of 50 % of the pairings of nonants. At the bottom end of the hierarchy there are five parings whose share is lower than 20 %. They are responsible for 18 % of all pairings of nonants. This means that the nonants oust both the branches of Indo-European and the phyla as to the number of pairings with ratios above 40 % (nonants = 50 % > branches = 33 % > phyla = 28 %). Moreover, with a share of only 18 %, the pairings of nonants with ratios of 20 % and less is small in comparison to the 42 % calculated for the phyla and the 33 % calculated for the branches. In Table 205, there are ten pairs which involve directly adjacent nonants as opposed to eighteen pairs of nonants whose territories are at a distance from each other. It is interesting to see that nine (out of ten) pairs of neighbors are found in the upper half of the hierarchy whereas in the lower half of the hierarchy pairs of nonants predominate which are geographically distanced from each other. Geographic neighborhood is thus a factor which is favorable to relatively high similarity ratios. The ratio tends to be low where adjacency of the nonants does not apply. We interpret these facts as follows. The genetically defined categories have a different status from the nonants. The latter are arbitrarily construed ad hoc categories which do not impose strictly impermeable boundaries on phenomena which are attested on their inside. Phyla and branches, on the other hand, are the result of historical developments which create relatively close bonds among their members without, however, precluding any outside relations. Nonants are relatively successful in “predicting” the behavior of other nonants not the least because both nonants host members of the same phylum or branch. Since unrelated EDLs in different nonants are involved in parallel borrowing too shared genealogy cannot be the sole explanation for the results in Table 205. What its role is exactly is a question which needs to be looked into in a separate study. For the time being we assume that it makes sense to combine aspects of genetic solidarity with those of geographic solidarity when it comes to hypothesizing about the behavior of borrowers in Europe.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 485

17.3.3 LP pairs (and chains) In the two foregoing sections we have searched for language-external factors which influence the borrowing behavior of the EDLs. Genealogy and geography have been shown to be more or less equally strong in this domain but not strong enough to determine all instances of parallel borrowing. If external factors can be made only partly responsible for the phenomena under review it is logical that one thinks of language-internal factors and their potential involvement in parallel borrowing. This section investigates the parallel borrowing of different phonemes to check whether there is evidence of some kind of facilitating effect (Eisen 2019). The topic is directly connected to the association factor as presented in Section 17.2.4.30. In what follows we employ a slightly different approach to the subject matter. We start with surveying pairwise correlations of LPs, i.e. those binary combinations of LPs in which the presence of one member of the pair presupposes the parallel borrowing of the other. The relation is unilateral. In our database there are 371 pairs of LPs (as a pair we define any case where two LPs occur together in the same EDL). Of these 371, 133 pairs are attested in two and more EDLs. Only 17 pairs (see Table 208) can be classified as strictly implicational whereas the remaining 116 cases can be registered as tendencies (in the sense that in a fictitious pair B-A, the presence of B does not strictly require the presence of A). Table 206 presents those of the 133 pairs which include a vowel as element B. The cases are ordered top-down according to the decreasing number of LP pairs which share a given B. Boldface is used to highlight the LP which serves as A for each of the LPs in the role of B. The columns V and C reveal how many As are vowels or consonants. Table 206: LP pairs with a vocalic B.

B

A

V

C

N of pairs

/y/

/ø/, /ɨ/, /f/, /ʒ/, /v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /h/, /ɣ/

2

7

9

/ø/

/ɨ/, /f/, /ʒ/, /v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /h/, /ɣ/

1

7

8

/æ/

/f/, /ʦ/, /v/, /ʧ/, /h/

0

5

5

/ǝ/

/f/, /ʒ/, /z/

0

3

3

/o/

/f/, /x/

0

2

2

/ɨ/

/f/

0

1

1

486 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

The voiceless labiodental fricative /f/ is compatible with each B. Purely vocalic LP pairs are scarce. There are only three V-V pairings as opposed to 25 V-C pairings. We have identified ten different As with /f/ occurring six times whereas /ʒ/, /v/, /z/, /h/, and /ʧ/ are each attested three times, /ɨ/ and /ɣ/ twice, and /ø/ as well as /x/ and /ʦ/ only once each. Were it not for the pair /æ/-/ʦ/ all sets of As form proper subsets of those registered for the B /y/. The range of variation is thus severely restricted. Table 207 complements the picture by way of presenting LP pairs with both elements being consonants (i.e. which feature a consonant as B). Table 207: LP pairs with a consonantal B.

B

A

N of pairs

/f/

/ʒ/, /x/, /ʤ/, /ʦ/, /g/, /v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ʣ/, /ʃ/, /h/, /ɣ/, /ɲ/, /b/, /ʎ/, /d/, /ʔ/, /k/, /c/, /rʲ/, /ʃʲ/

21

/ʒ/

/x/, /ʤ/, /ʦ/, /g/, /v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ʣ/, /ʃ/, /h/, /ɣ/, /ɲ/, /b/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʎ/, /d/, /ʔ/

18

/x/

/ʤ/, /ʦ/, /g/, /ʧ/, /z/, /h/, /ɣ/, /b/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʕ/

11

/ʦ/

/b/, /g/, /v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ʣ/, /h/, /d/, /ʔ/, /rʲ/, /ʃʲ/

11

/ʤ/

/ʦ/, /v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ʣ/, /ʃ/, /ɣ/, /θ/, /ð/

9

/g/

/v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ʣ/, /ʃ/, /b/, /d/, /p/

8

/v/

/ʧ/, /z/, /h/, /ʔ/, /k/, /p/

6

/z/

/ʃ/, /ɣ/, /b/, /θ/, /ð/, /d/

6

/ʧ/

/z/, /ʃ/, /h/, /p/

4

/h/

/ɣ/, /ʔ/, /ʃʲ/

3

/ʃ/

/ɲ/, /ʎ/

2

/ɣ/

/θ/, /ð/

2

/ɲ/

/ʎ/

1

/b/

/d/

1

/θ/

/ð/

1

/ʕ/

/ħ/

1

There are sixteen different Bs. The function of A is executed by 26 different consonantal LPs. Again in contrast to Table 206 there is no LP consonant which functions as A for each B. The different frequencies of the As are made comparable in Figure 126.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 487

/ʒ/, /c/, /ʕ/, /ħ/ /x/, /k/, /rʲ/ /ʤ/, /ɲ/, /p/, /ʃʲ/ /ʦ/, /g/, /ʎ/ /ʣ/, /b/, /ʔ/, /θ/, /v/ /d/, /ʃ/, /h/, /ɣ/, /ð/ /ʧ/ /z/ 0

2

4

6

8

10

Figure 126: Frequency of LP consonants as  (with consonantal B).

Those seventeen LP pairs which can be captured in terms of strict unilateral implications are listed in Table 208. Table 208: Unilateral implications which occur in two or more EDLs.

EDLs

LP pairs

5

/ð/  /ʒ/, /ð/  /θ/, /ʎ/  /ɲ/

4

/d/  /g/

3

/o/  /f/, /ǝ/  /f/, /ʔ/  /f/, /ʔ/  /ʒ/, /ʔ/  /ʦ/, /ʃʲ/  /f/, /d/  /b/

2

/o/  /x/, /ħ/  /ʕ/, /p/  /g/, /p/  /v/, /p/  /ʧ/, /c/  /f/

The type and token frequency of the LP pairs is not particularly high. What is more, in many cases, it is hard to identify any phonologically convincing relation which connects implicans and implicatum in Table 208. The two interdental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ form a natural pair just like the two palatal sonorants /ɲ/ and /ʎ/ and the two pharyngeal fricatives /ħ/ and /ʕ/. For the remaining fourteen LP pairs the search for a phonological link is more difficult. It is possible to refer to the shared feature [voiced] in the case of the two plosives /d/ and /g/ as well as in the case of the two fricatives /ð/ and /ʒ/. In all other cases implicans and implicatum differ on too many parameters to consider them natural pairs. It cannot be ruled out that it is the high frequency of the LP in the function of

488 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

implicatum together with the relatively low frequency of the LP as implicans which incidentally cause them to pair up exclusively in this combination of LPs. Are there any more extended chains of LPs – at least as preferred combinations if not as strict implications or implicational tendencies? To approach this issue, we take another detour by way of first presenting the matrix in Table 209 which indicates in how many EDLs two LP vowels co-occur. The grey shaded cells host the number of LP vowels in the sample. Table 209: Frequency of pairwise combinations of LP vowels.

/y/ /ø/ /ɨ/ /æ/ /ə/ /o/ /ɯ/ /œ/ /ʉ/ /ɘ/

/y/

/ø/

/ɨ/

/æ/

/ə/

/o/

/ɯ/

/œ/

8

6

2

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

7

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

/ʉ/

/ɘ/

0

0

1

0 1

The majority of the 45 cells containing possible pairs in the matrix are occupied by the zero-symbol. Only ten cells (marked by boldface) give evidence of realized LP vowel pairs. These ten cells represent seventeen EDLs which borrow LP vowel pairs. Seven LP vowel pairs are borrowed only once, two are borrowed twice, and only the two rounded front vowels are jointly borrowed by six EDLs. Superficially, these absolute numbers do not look promising as to the possibility to generalize on their basis. Within the domain of the LP vowels, there are indeed only two patterns, namely /ɘ/-/ɨ/ and /œ/-/y/ in which the one of the elements is attested only once. On the other hand, there is no denying that the two rounded front vowels co-occur far too often to be declared incidental parallel borrowing. In the case of LP /y/, 75 % of the borrowers also borrow /ø/. The share rises to 86 % for LP /ø/ since six of seven /ø/-borrowers also borrow /y/. We assume that there are other cases of preferences which cannot be explained with reference to the chance factor.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 489

According to the discussion in Section 17.1.2 it is exceptional that an EDL borrows only vowels. Most EDLs with LP vowels also gives evidence of LP consonants whereas the majority of the borrowers exclusively borrow consonants. The latter group accounts for 85 % of all borrowers whereas LP vowels are attested only in the case of 15 % of all borrowers with 13 % going to the credit of EDLs with both LP consonants and LP vowels and the remaining 2 % being reserved for EDLs with LP vowels only. There is thus a preference for LP consonants over LP vowels across the sample. This is not a strictly implicational relation but a very pronounced tendency. Nevertheless, the combinations of LP vowels with LP consonants do not yield substantial evidence of marked preferences. If we take account of combinations involving vowels and consonants which occur in at least three borrowers, we can identify only seven pairs, namely /y/-/f/, /y/-/ʒ/, /ø/-/f/ in four EDLs each and /o/-/f/, /ø/-/ʒ/, /ɨ/-/f/, and /ə//f/ in three EDLs each. In each of these cases the two most frequently borrowed consonants participate in the chain. These binary chains are hardly significant quantitatively. However, their existence impels us to check whether preferences can be detected also in the domain of LP consonants (without taking account of LP vowels) and whether there is evidence of (perhaps more extended) chains. Pairs of LP consonants are abundantly attested in our database. Of 1,081 logically possible binary combinations 270 (= 25 %) are realized whereas 811 (= 75 %) are not attested. The sole LP consonant never to co-occur with any other LP consonant is the velar nasal /ŋ/ which is borrowed only once, namely by French (see Section 17.2.4.28). Every other LP consonant gives evidence of parallel borrowing albeit to very different degrees. In Figure 127 we show the different compatibility of LP consonants with other LP consonants under borrowing. Two categories are distinguished: (i) partners = LP consonant types with which a given LP teams up, (ii) zeros = unrealized combinations. For each of 47 consonantal LPs there are potentially 46 partners. Only six LPs cover 50 % or more of these possibilities. The vast majority of the LPs are content with (significantly) smaller numbers of partners. The most frequent LP consonants are compatible with more partners than those LPs which are infrequently borrowed. Table 210 gives an account of the LP pairs as tokens, i.e. the number of borrowers in which both members of a LP pair are borrowed is identified. Table 210 features only those LP pairs which are borrowed into at least two EDLs.

490 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

/ʡ/, /r/ /ħ/ /ʕ/, /w/, /ɮ/, /tɬ/, /lʲ/

45

1

44

2

43

3

/ɟ/, /l/

42

4

/c/

6

/ç/, /rʲ/, /z̺/, /z̻/

7

40 39

/d/, /p/

8

38

/b/, /ʎ/, /k/, /tʲ/, /dʲ/, /zʲ/, /nʲ/

9

37

/ɣ/, /ɸ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/

10

36

/ɲ/

11

35

/ʃ/

12

34

/ʃʲ/ /θ/, /ð/ /ʣ/, /ʔ/

13

33

14

32 30

16

/g/ /ʤ/, /z/

19

27

20

26

/h/

22

24

/ʧ/

23

23

/x/ /v/

27

/ʦ/

28

/ʒ/

20% partners

Figure 127: Shares of consonantal LP pairs (types).

Table 210: Consonantal LP pairs (tokens n > 1).

18

/f/-/x/

18 14 8

38

0%

LP Pairs

19 32

/f/

N of EDLs

21

25

17

/f/-/ʒ/, /f/-/ʦ/

16

/f/-/g/, /ʒ/-/z/

12

/ʒ/-/ʤ/, /ʒ/-/ʦ/

11

/f/-/ʣ/, /ʒ/-/v/

10

/f/-/ʤ/, /f/-/v/

9

/ʒ/-/x/, /ʤ/-/ʧ/, /ʤ/-/z/

40% zeros

60%

80%

100%

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 491

N of EDLs

LP Pairs

8

/f/-/ʧ/, /f/-/h/, /x/-/ʦ/, /ʦ/-/v/

7

/f/-/z/, /ʒ/-/ʧ/, /ʒ/-/ʃ/, /x/-/z/, /ʤ/-/ʣ/, /g/-/ʣ/, /v/-/ʧ/, /ʧ/-/ʃ/

6

/ʒ/-/g/, /ʒ/-/h/, /x/-/ʤ/, /ʦ/-/ʧ/, /g/-/b/

5

/f/-/b/, /ʒ/-/ɣ/, /ʒ/-/θ/, /ʒ/-/ð/, /x/-/ɣ/, /ʤ/-/ʃ/, /ʦ/-/h/, /g/-/v/, /v/-/z/, /ɲ//ʎ/, /θ/-/ð/

4

/f/-/ʃ/, /x/-/θ/, /ʤ/-/v/, /ʤ/-/ɣ/, /ʦ/-/g/, /ʦ/-/ʣ/, /g/-/ʧ/, /g/-/ʃ/, /g/-/d/, /v//h/, /z/-/ɣ/, /z/-/θ/, /z/-/ð/, /ɣ/-/θ/, /ɣ/-/ð/, /b/-/d/

3

/f/-/ɣ/, /f/-/ɲ/, /f/-/ʎ/, /f/-/d/, /f/-/ʔ/, /f/-/rʲ/, /f/-/ʃʲ/, /ʒ/-/ʣ/, /ʒ/-/ɲ/, /ʒ/-/ʎ/, /ʒ/-/ʔ/, /x/-/g/, /x/-/ʧ/, /x/-/ð/, /ʤ/-/ʦ/, /ʤ/-/θ/, /ʤ/-/ð/, /ʦ/-/ʔ/, /ʧ/-/h/

2

/f/-/k/, /f/-/c/, /ʒ/-/b/, /ʒ/-/d/, /x/-/h/, /x/-/b/, /x/-/ʕ/, /ʦ/-/z/, /ʦ/-/b/, /ʦ/-/d/, /ʦ/-/rʲ/, /ʦ/-/ʃʲ/, /g/-/z/, /g/-/p/, /v/-/ʔ/, /v/-/k/, /v/-/p/, /ʧ/-/z/, /ʧ/-/p/, /z/-/ʃ/, /z/-/b/, /z/-/d/, /ʃ/-/ɲ/, /ʃ/-/ʎ/, /h/-/ɣ/, /h/-/ʔ/, /h/-/ʃʲ/, /ʕ/-/ħ/

The range of parallel borrowings of two consonants is comparatively small because the maximum result is eighteen borrowers which attest to the co-presence of LP /f/ and LP /x/. The majority of LP consonants in Table 210 (= 83 %) are attested in two to seven EDLs. Only eleven pairs of LP consonants (= 10 %) are borrowed by ten to eighteen EDLs. We take these eleven top-ranking LP pairs to check what their members have in common phonologically. In Table 211 we compare those of these LP pairs which involve /f/. The specifications of /f/ on the parameters of place of articulation, manner of articulation, and phonation are compared to those of the seven LPs which form pairs together with /f/. Grey shading marks identical properties. The second members of the LP pairs come in the order of decreasing frequency of combinations with /f/. Table 211: Comparison of phonological properties of frequent LP pairs involving /f/.

Pair

Place

Manner

Phonation

/f/

labiodental

fricative

voiceless

-/x/

velar

fricative

voiceless

-/ʒ/

postalveolar

fricative

voiced

-/ʦ/

alveolar

affricate

voiceless

-/g/

velar

plosive

voiced

-/ʣ/

alveolar

affricate

voiced

-/ʤ/

postalveolar

affricate

voiced

-/v/

labiodental

fricative

voiced

492 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Of the seven frequent partners of LP /f/ only two display identical specifications on two parameters. Another two LPs have one specification in common with LP /f/ whereas the remaining three share no feature with the voiceless labiodental fricative. Manner of articulation corresponds to the specifications of LP /f/ in three cases, phonation in two cases. On the parameter of place of articulation, there is only LP /v/ which resembles LP /f/. The phonological profile of the frequent partners of LP /f/ in LP pairs is heterogeneous. Except LP /v/ (see Section 17.2.4.7) and LP /x/, none of the members of the LP pairs in Table 211 is phonologically close enough to LP /f/ to invite an interpretation of their co-occurrence which assumes a primarily phonological motivation for the parallel borrowing. This negative conclusion is largely (but not sweepingly) corroborated by the LP pairs which involve the voiced postalveolar fricative (LP /ʒ/ is also registered among the partners of LP /f/ in Table 211 above). Table 212 hosts a smaller number of cases most of which share two properties with LP /ʒ/. Table 212: Comparison of phonological properties of frequent LP pairs involving /ʒ/.

Pair

Place

Manner

Phonation

/ʒ/

postalveolar

fricative

voiced

-/f/

labiodental

fricative

voiceless

-/z/

alveolar

fricative

voiced

-/ʤ/

postalveolar

affricate

voiced

-/ʦ/

alveolar

affricate

voiceless

-/v/

labiodental

fricative

voiced

The feature [voiced] characterizes three out of five partners of LP /ʒ/. The fricative manner of articulation is also shared by three partners whereas the place of articulation is identical only in the case of LP /ʤ/. Except /ʦ/, the partners of LP /ʒ/ have more in common with the voiced postalveolar fricative than is the case with the partners of LP /f/. If we further differentiate the manner of articulation by admitting [sibilant] as fourth feature on the list of criteria even LP /ʦ/ can be considered to be similar to LP /ʒ/. In sum, the partners of LP /ʒ/ are not as heterogeneous as those of /f/. On the other hand, the partners of LP /ʒ/ do not constitute a natural class as a group. Note that LP /ʦ/, LP /ʤ/, and LP /v/ are partners of both LP /f/ and LP /ʒ/ and that the latter form the second most frequent LP pair. A purely phonological explanation for the parallel borrowing does not suggest itself.

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 493

Particularly frequent are patterns of parallel borrowing which are characteristic of only one borrower as shown in Table 213. Many of these pairs involve at least one consonant which is generally infrequent also outside the domain of borrowing. Table 213: Consonantal LP pairs (tokens n = 1).

LP

Partners

N of pairs

/f/-

/θ/, /ð/, /w/, /ɸ/, /ʡ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/, /ɟ/, /r/, /tj/, /dj/, /zj/, /nj/, /lj/, /z̺/, /z̻/

17

/v/-

/ʣ/, /ɲ/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʎ/, /ç/, /ɸ/, /ɮ/, /tɬ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/, /ʃj/, /z̺/, /z̻/

15

/ʦ/-

/ʃ/, /θ/, /ð/, /k/, /p/, /ɸ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/, /tj/, /dj/, /zj/, /nj/

13

/ʒ/-

/k/, /p/, /ɸ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/, /ʃj/, /tj/, /dj/, /zj/, /nj/, /z̺/, /z̻/

13

/ʧ/-

/ʣ/, /ɲ/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʔ/, /k/, /ɸ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/, /rj/, /ʃj/

12

/x/-

/v/, /ʣ/, /ʃ/, /ɲ/, /ʎ/, /d/, /k/, /ç/, /ħ/, /c/, /w/, /l/

12

/h/-

/θ/, /ð/, /k/, /ɸ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/, /tj/, /dj/, /zj/, /nj/

11

j

/ʤ/-

/g/, /ɲ/, /k/, /ç/, /c/, /ɟ/, /l/, /r /

8

/g/-

/h/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʔ/, /k/, /c/

6

/ʔ/-

/ɸ/, /χ/, /ʁ/, /q/, /ʃj/, /tj/, /dj/, /zj/, /nj/

9

/z/-

/ʣ/, /h/, /ɲ/, /ʎ/, /z̺/, /z̻/

6

/ʣ/-

/b/, /θ/, /ð/, /d/, /p/, /c/, /ɟ/

7

/ʃj/-

/tj/, /dj/, /zj/, /nj/, /lj/

5

/tj/-

/dj/, /zj/, /nj/

3

/ç/-

/ɮ/, /tɬ/, /l/

3

/ɸ/-

/χ/, /ʁ/, /q/

3

/dj/-

/zj/, /nj/

2

/ʃ/-

/b/, /rj/

2

/ɣ/-

/ç/, /l/

2

/ɲ/-

/z̺/, /z̻/

2

/ʎ/-

/z̺/, /z̻/

2

/χ/-

/ʁ/, /q/

2

/rʲ/-

/ʃj/, /lj/

2

/θ/-

/p/

1

/ð/-

/p/

1

/ʕ/-

/w/

1

/c/-

/ɟ/

1

494 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

LP

Partners

N of pairs

/ɮ/-

/tɬ/

1

/ʁ/-

/q/

1

/zj/-

/nj/

1

/z̺/-

/z̻/

1

Some of the members of infrequent LP pairs share features which define them as belonging to a natural class. This is the case for the set of palatalized LPs /ʃj/, /tj/, /dj/, /zj/, /nj/, /lj/ which form several pairs among them. Other LP pairs like /ð/-/p/ defy any attempt at a phonological interpretation. We have to accept that the chance factor is strong in these cases. We come back to this issue at the end of this section. To complement the above absolute numbers, we compute the share of parallel borrowing for two groups of the pairs of LP consonants. This share is calculated in analogy to the similarity ratio (cf. Table 200), i.e. for a pair of LP consonants multiply the number of shared borrowers by two and divide the result by the sum of the borrowers of the two LPs (cf. formula in 17.3.1). In Table 214 these consonantal LP pairs are presented according to the decreasing size of the ratios. Table 214: Consonantal LP pairs with parallel borrowing.

Rank

Ratio

Pairs

1–14

100 %

/tj/-/dj/, /tj/-/zj/, /tj/-/nj/, /ɸ/-/χ/, /ɸ/-/ʁ/, /ɸ/-/q/, /dj/-/zj/, /dj/-/nj/, /χ/-/ʁ/, /χ/-/q/, /ɮ/-/tɬ/, /ʁ/-/q/, /zj/-/nj/, /z̺/-/z̻/

15

91 %

/θ/-/ð/

16

83 %

/ɲ/-/ʎ/

17

73 %

/b/-/d/

18–22

67 %

/ʕ/-/ħ/, /ç/-/ɮ/, /ç/-/tɬ/, /ç/-/l/, /c/-/ɟ/

23

62 %

/ɣ/-/ð/

24

57 %

/ɣ/-/θ/

25

55 %

/ʒ/-/z/

26–38

50 %

/ʔ/-/ɸ/, /ʔ/-/χ/, /ʔ/-/ʁ/, /ʔ/-/q/, /ʔ/-/tj/, /ʔ/-/dj/, /ʔ/-/zj/, /ʔ/-/nj/, /ʃj//tj/, /ʃj/-/dj/, /ʃj/-/zj/, /ʃj/-/nj/, /ʃj/-/lj/

39

45 %

/ʧ/-/ʃ/

40–41

40 %

/g/-/b/, /rʲ/-/lj/

42–46

38 %

/ʤ/-/ʧ/, /ʤ/-/z/, /ʒ/-/ʦ/, /ʦ/-/v/, /v/-/ʧ/

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 495

Rank

Ratio

Pairs

47–48

37 %

/ʒ/-/v/, /g/-/ʣ/

49–50

35 %

/ʒ/-/ʤ/, /z/-/ð/

51–52

34 %

/f/-/ʦ/, /f/-/x/

53–57

33 %

/z/-/θ/, /ʔ/-/ʃj/, /ʎ/-/z̺/, /ʎ/-/z̻/, /ʕ/-/w/

58–59

32 %

/f/-/g/, /ʤ/-/ʣ/

60–62

31 %

/z/-/ɣ/, /h/-/ʔ/, /h/-/ʃʲ/

63–65

30 %

/ʦ/-/h/, /x/-/ʦ/, /g/-/d/

66–70

29 %

/ʦ/-/ʧ/, /x/-/z/, /f/-/ʒ/, /rʲ/-/ʃj/, /ð/-/p/

71

28 %

/v/-/h/

72

27 %

/v/-/z/

73–75

26 %

/ʒ/-/ʃ/, /x/-/ɣ/, /ʒ/-/x/

76–79

25 %

/f/-/v/, /ɲ/-/z̺/, /ɲ/-/z̻/, /θ/-/p/

80–84

24 %

/ʒ/-/ʧ/, /ʒ/-/h/, /f/-/ʣ/, /ʤ/-/ʃ/, /g/-/v/

85

23 %

/ʦ/-/ʔ/

86–93

22 %

/ʒ/-/ð/, /x/-/θ/, /g/-/ʃ/, /ʃ/-/ʎ/, /h/-/ɣ/, /ɣ/-/l/, /ʒ/-/θ/, /ʤ/-/ɣ/

94–96

21 %

/ʧ/-/h/, /ʦ/-/ʣ/, /ʒ/-/ɣ/

97–101

20 %

/x/-/ʤ/, /ʧ/-/p/, /ʃ/-/ɲ/, /ɣ/-/ç/, /g/-/ʧ/

102–104 19 %

/ʒ/-/g/, /v/-/p/, /f/-/ʤ/

105–117 18 %

/f/-/h/, /v/-/ʔ/, /v/-/k/, /z/-/d/, /h/-/ɸ/, /h/-/χ/, /h/-/ʁ/, /h/-/q/, /h//tj/, /h/-/dj/, /h/-/zj/, /h/-/nj/, /ʤ/-/ð/

118–122 17 %

/ʦ/-/g/, /x/-/ð/, /ʤ/-/θ/, /f/-/ʧ/, /ʤ/-/v/

123–124 16 %

/g/-/p/, /z/-/b/

125–129 15 %

/ʦ/-/ʃʲ/, /h/-/k/, /ʦ/-/d/, /ʦ/-/rʲ/, /f/-/z/

130

14 %

/ʒ/-/ʔ/

131–138 13 %

/ʒ/-/ʎ/, /ʦ/-/b/, /h/-/ð/, /z/-/ʃ/, /ʒ/-/ɲ/, /x/-/ʧ/, /h/-/θ/, /ʣ/-/ɟ/

139–144 12 %

/f/-/b/, /x/-/ʕ/, /ʣ/-/p/, /ʣ/-/c/, /ʃ/-/rj/, /ʤ/-/ʦ/

145–156 11 %

/x/-/g/, /ʧ/-/z/, /ʒ/-/ʣ/, /x/-/b/, /ʧ/-/ɸ/, /ʧ/-/χ/, /ʧ/-/ʁ/, /ʧ/-/q/, /z//z̺/, /z/-/z̻/, /ʣ/-/b/, /ʣ/-/d/

157–174 10 %

/x/-/h/, /v/-/ɸ/, /v/-/ɮ/, /v/-/tɬ/, /v/-/χ/, /v/-/ʁ/, /v/-/q/, /v/-/z̺/, /v//z̻/, /ʣ/-/ð/, /ʃ/-/b/, /ʦ/-/z/, /g/-/z/, /v/-/ç/, /ʧ/-/ʔ/, /ʧ/-/k/, /ʧ/-/ʃj/, /ʣ/-/θ/

175–181 9 %

/ʒ/-/d/, /v/-/ʃj/, /ʧ/-/rj/, /f/-/ʃ/, /ʧ/-/ð/, /z/-/ʎ/, /ʒ/-/b/

182– 203

/v/-/ð/, /v/-/ʎ/, /ʦ/-/ɸ/, /ʦ/-/χ/, /ʦ/-/ʁ/, /ʦ/-/q/, /ʦ/-/tj/, /ʦ/-/dj/, /ʦ/-/zj/, /ʦ/-/nj/, /ʧ/-/θ/, /v/-/θ/, /ʦ/-/p/, /ʧ/-/ɲ/, /g/-/c/, /z/-/ɲ/, /v//ɲ/, /ʦ/-/k/, /g/-/ʔ/, /g/-/k/, /f/-/ʔ/, /f/-/ʃʲ/

8%

204–215 7 %

/f/-/d/, /f/-/rʲ/, /f/-/ʎ/, /f/-/ɲ/, /ʦ/-/ð/, /g/-/ð/, /z/-/h/, /f/-/ɣ/, /ʦ//θ/, /g/-/θ/, /ʤ/-/ɟ/, /ʤ/-/l/

496 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Rank

Ratio

Pairs

216–233 6 %

/x/-/l/, /ʤ/-/ç/, /ʤ/-/c/, /x/-/ç/, /x/-/ħ/, /x/-/c/, /x/-/w/, /ʤ/-/k/, /ʧ//ʣ/, /x/-/k/, /ʤ/-/rj/, /g/-/h/, /z/-/ʣ/, /v/-/ʣ/, /x/-/d/, /x/-/ʎ/, /ʦ//ʃ/, /ʤ/-/ɲ/

234– 250

/x/-/ɲ/, /f/-/c/, /f/-/k/, /ʒ/-/ɸ/, /ʒ/-/χ/, /ʒ/-/ʁ/, /ʒ/-/q/, /ʒ/-/tj/, /ʒ//dj/, /ʒ/-/zj/, /ʒ/-/nj/, /ʒ/-/z̺/, /ʒ/-/z̻/, /ʒ/-/p/, /ʒ/-/k/, /ʒ/-/ʃj/, /x/-/ʃ/

5%

251–253 4 %

/x/-/ʣ/, /x/-/v/, /ʤ/-/g/

254– 268

3%

/f/-/ɸ/, /f/-/ʡ/, /f/-/χ/, /f/-/ʁ/, /f/-/q/, /f/-/ɟ/, /f/-/r/, /f/-/tj/, /f/-/dj/, /f/-/zj/, /f/-/nj/, /f/-/lj/, /f/-/z̺/, /f/-/z̻/, /f/-/w/

269– 270

2%

/f/-/ð/, /f/-/θ/

Fourteen LP pairs attest to 100 % parallel borrowing. This absolutely identical behavior under borrowing is far from surprising because all of the consonants involved are themselves singularities, i.e. LPs which are attested only once in the database. The more interesting cases are found on the other ranks of the hierarchy. First of all, of the eleven top-ranking LP pairs presented in Table 210 only one, namely /ʒ/-/z/, ranks rather high (on rank 25), whose sixteen shared borrowers yield a ratio of 55 % for parallel borrowings. All other LP pairs with particularly high percentages for parallel borrowing involve LPs whose frequency is generally low to marginal. This statement holds especially for the shares of 67 % and 50 % which are attested for a plethora of LP pairs whose members are usually borrowed by one to three EDLs only. Five LP pairs stand out because their members are not at the rock-bottom end of the frequency scale of individual LPs. The voiced velar fricative has been borrowed by eight EDLs, the palatal nasal and the bilabial plosive by seven EDLs, the voiceless interdental fricative by six EDLs, whereas there are five borrowers for LP /ð/ and LP /ʎ/. These six LPs are neither frequent nor absolutely infrequent in our database. Therefore, their co-occurrence is most probably not a frequency effect nor absolutely incidental. Most EDLs which borrow /ð/ also borrow /θ/ (in four of five cases) and this implies that /ɣ/ is borrowed too (see Section 17.2.4.17). Similarly, all EDLs which attest to LP /ʎ/ also have LP /ɲ/ (see Section 17.2.4.18). The same pattern holds for LP /d/ whose presence implies that of LP /b/. There is no doubt that LP /θ/ and LP /ð/ constitute a natural class on the parameter of voicing (see Section 17.2.4.16). LP /ɲ/ and LP /ʎ/ are both palatal sonorants. The similarity of LP /b/ and LP /d/ is based on the shared features [plosive] and [voiced]. The voiced velar fricative shares two features with LP /ð/, namely [fricative] and [voiced]. However, LP /ɣ/ is also frequently attested as partner of LP /θ/ with which it only shares the feature

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 497

[fricative]. For four of the five LP pairs under discussion the members give evidence of a relatively high degree of phonological similarity. There is, however, the pair /ɣ/-/θ/ which does not lend itself to a phonological explanation of the parallel borrowing kind. As we will see below the exclusive reliance on phonological properties cannot do justice to the empirical facts and even in those cases for which a strictly phonological motivation superficially seems to make sense it can be shown that this motivation is only of secondary importance at best. As mentioned above ten of the eleven most frequently attested LP pairs are absent from the top ranks of the hierarchy of parallel borrowing in Table 214. Six of the missing patterns are found on ranks 42–59, which cover shares of parallel borrowing with a range from 32 %–38 %. Three of these patterns involve the postalveolar voiced fricative, namely /ʒ/-/ʦ/ with a share of 38 % of parallel borrowing followed by /ʒ/-/v/ with 37 % and /ʒ/-/ʤ/ with 35 %. Of the LP pairs involving /f/ only three appear in the mid-range of Table 13, namely /f/-/x/ and /f/-/ʦ/ with 34 % each as well as /f/-/g/ with 32 %. The number-two combination of Table 210 – /f/-/ʒ/ yields a share of 29 % for parallel borrowing. The three remaining LP pairs with /f/ yield smaller shares, namely /f/-/v/ = 25 %, /f/-/ʣ/ = 24 %, and /f/-/ʤ/ = 19 %. Especially the relatively low result for combinations of the two labiodental fricatives is remarkable. This seems to support the hypothesis that phonology alone cannot satisfactorily account for what happens in parallel borrowing. On the ranks 39–50 of Table 214 there are also pairs of phonologically compatible LPs such as – /ʧ/-/ʃ/ (both are voiceless and [sibilant]) with 45 %, – /rʲ/-/lʲ/ (both are palatalized sonorants or liquids) with 40 %, – /ʤ/-/z/ (both are voiced and [sibilant]) with 38 %, – /ʤ/-/ʧ/ (both are postalveolar [sibilant] affricates) with 38 %, and – /ʒ/-/ʤ/ (both are voiced, postalveolar, and [sibilant]) with 35 %. The relation of the two postalveolar affricates reflects differences in voicing (see Section 17.2.4.4). We notice that the phonological affinity is not strong enough to promote these pairs to the highest segment of the hierarchy. Less than half of the members of these LP pairs can be classified as parallel borrowing. The next paragraphs are dedicated to the question whether there is any evidence of a phonological link of those LPs which partake in chains of borrowed phonemes beyond the above binary combinations. In the database there are 131 borrowers 99 of which give evidence of multiple borrowing. We discount all instances of LP vowels because we do not expect to find any patterns which are

498 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

phonologically meaningful. There remain 73 borrowers which display minimally three and maximally eleven LP consonants (= C-LPs) as shown in Figure 128.

5 C-LPs: 7 4 C-LPs: 19 6 C-LPs: 7

7 C-LPs: 6 8 C-LPs: 1 9 C-LPs: 1 10 C-LPs: 1 11 C-LPs: 1 3 C-LPs: 30

Figure 128: Number of borrowers per length of LP consonant chains.

Chains of three to four LP consonants can be found in 49 EDLs, i.e. 67 % of all borrowers which attest to multiple consonantal borrowing beyond LP pairs opt for relatively short chains whereas the longest chains with eight to eleven consonantal LPs are attested only once each. We go through these consonantal LP chains. For a start, we identify those chains which are borrowed by two or more EDLs (see Table 215). Table 215: Consonantal LP chains borrowed by several EDLs.

Length

Chains

N of borrowers

3

/f/-/x/-/ʦ/

5

3

/f/-/g/-/ʣ/

5

3

/f/-/ʤ/-/ʣ/

4

7

/ʒ/-/x/-/ʤ/-/z/-/ɣ/-/θ/-/ð/

3

4

/ʒ/-/ʤ/-/v/-/z/

3

4

/ʒ/-/ʃ/-/ɲ/-/ʎ/

2

3

/ʒ/-/x/-/z/

2

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 499

Table 216 reveals that the frequently borrowed chains tend to be mixed bags phonologically. The abbreviations are AF = affricate, AL = alveolar, DT = (inter)dental, FR = fricative, LD = labiodental, LT = lateral, NS = nasal, PA = postalveolar, PS = plosive, PT = palatal, VD = voiced, VE = velar, and VL = voiceless. Grey shading marks those cells which host identical specifications for all members of a given chain. Table 216: Properties of the members of frequently borrowed chains.

Chains

Place

Manner

Phonation

/f/-/x/-/ʦ/

LD-VE-AL

FR-FR-AF

VL-VL-VL

/f/-/g/-/ʣ/

LD-VE-AL

FR-PS-AF

VL-VD-VD

/f/-/ʤ/-/ʣ/

LD-PA-AL

FR-AF-AF

VL-VD-VD

/ʒ/-/x/-/ʤ/-/z/-/ɣ/-/θ/-/ð/

PA-VE-PA-AL-VE-DT-DT

FR-FR-AF-FR-FR-FR-FR

VD-VL-VD-VD-VD-VL-VD

/ʒ/-/ʤ/-/v/-/z/

PA-PA-LD-AL

FR-AF-FR-FR

VD-VD-VD-VD

/ʒ/-/ʃ/-/ɲ/-/ʎ/

PA-PA-PT-PT

FR-FR-NS-LT

VD-VL-(VD-VD)

/ʒ/-/x/-/z/

PA-VE-AL

FR-FR-FR

VD-VL-VD

Total identity of specifications is rare. Only three of twenty-one cells attest to this phenomenon. There is no evidence of chains which involve LPs which represent the same place of articulation. The purely phonological motivation for entire chains can be ruled out because most of the features are not pervasive within a given chain. This does not preclude the possibility that several members of a chain share several phonological properties. In Table 217 we present the fourteen chains which involve three LPs and are borrowed only once. Table 217: LP chains with three members (one borrower per chain).

LP

Chains

N of types

/f/

/f/-/x/-/ɣ/, /f/-/x/-/b/, /f/-/ʦ/-/rʲ/, /f/-/ʒ/-/z/, /f/-/ʒ/-/h/, /f/-/g//v/, /f/-/ɲ/-/ʎ/

7

/ʒ/

/ʒ/-/v/-/z/, /ʒ/-/ʤ/-/ʦ/, /ʒ/-/ʤ/-/ʧ/

3

/x/

/x/-/ʕ/-/ħ/, /x/-/ʕ/-/w/

2

/ʤ/

/ʤ/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/, /ʤ/-/ʧ/-/ɲ/

2

500 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

In what follows we determine which of the ternary sets of LPs of Tables 215 and 217 form part of larger LP chains. To achieve this, we first identify those LP chains which comprise four LPs. These are listed in Table 218. Note that we are dealing again with LP chains which are borrowed only once. Table 218: LP chains with four members (one borrower per chain).

LP

Chains

N of types

/f/

/f/-/x/-/ɲ/-/ʎ/, /f/-/x/-/g/-/c/, /f/-/ʒ/-/h/-/ɣ/, /f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/, /f/-/ʒ//ʦ/-/ʣ/, /f/-/ʤ/-/v/-/ʧ/, /f/-/g/-/ʃ/-/b/,/f/-/g/-/b/-/d/, /f/-/rj/-/ʃj/-/lj/

9

/g/

/g/-/v/-/h/-/k/, /g/-/v/-/ʧ/-/p/

2

/ʒ/

/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/

1

/ʤ/ /ʤ/-/ʧ/-/z/-/ʃ/

1

/v/

1

/v/-/ç/-/ɮ/-/tɬ/

The turnout is very humble. The only chain with a length of four members which includes a ternary LP chain is /ʤ/-/ʧ/-/z/-/ʃ/ which can be decomposed into the chain of three /ʤ/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/ and /z/. The scarcity of inclusive relations between chains of four and chains of three seems to speak against the systematic nature of the chaining of LPs in general. A look at the more extended chains, however, shows that inclusive relations are not marginal. Table 219 lists the longer LP chains top-down from a membership of eleven down to chains with a length of five. Table 219: LP chains with five to eleven members (one borrower per chain).

LP

Chains

Length

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/-/h/-/ʔ/-/ɸ/-/χ/-/ʁ/-/q/

11

/f/ /ʒ/

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/h/-/ʔ/-/ʃʲ/-/tʲ/-/dʲ/-/zʲ/-/nʲ/

10

/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/g/-/v/-/ʧ/-/ʣ/-/θ/-/ð/-/p/

9

/f/-/ʒ/-/v/-/z/-/ɲ/-/ʎ/-/z̥/-/z̺/

8

/f/-/ʒ/-/z/-/h/-/ɣ/-/θ/-/ð/ /f/

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/g/-/z/-/b/-/d/

7

/f/-/ʒ/-/x/-/g/-/z/-/b/-/d/ /f/-/ʤ/-/ʦ/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/-/rʲ/ /f/-/x/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/-/h/

6

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 501

LP

Chains

Length

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʤ/-/ʧ/-/z/-/ʃ/ /f/-/ʒ/-/x/-/g/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/

6

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/g/-/v/-/ʔ/ /f/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/-/h/-/ʃ/j /ʒ/

/ʒ/-/x/-/ʤ/-/ʦ/-/z/-/ʣ/ /f/-/x/-/ʤ/-/ʧ/-/k/ /f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/k/

/f/ /f/-/ʒ/-/x/-/ʦ/-/h/ 5

/f/-/ʤ/-/ʣ/-/c/-/ɟ/ /ʒ/

/ʒ/-/ʤ/-/g/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/

/x/

/x/-/ʤ/-/ɣ/-/ç/-/l/

/ʦ/

/ʦ/-/g/-/ʣ/-/b/-/d/

It is no surprise that long chains create more space for shorter chains to form part of them. In Table 220 it is shown which shorter chains from Tables 217 and 218 are included in the extended LP chains of Table 219. Table 219 also accounts for two chains which have been borrowed several times. Only those extended chains are taken account of which attest to the inclusion of shorter chains. Table 220: Chains within chains.

Extended LP chain

Included LP chains

Length

Chain

Length

Chains

11

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/-/h/-/ʔ/-/ɸ//χ/-/ʁ/-/q/

4 4 3

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/ /ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/ /f/-/ʒ/-/h/

10

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/h/-/ʔ/-/ʃʲ/-/tʲ/-/dʲ//zʲ/-/nʲ/

3

/f/-/ʒ/-/h/

9

/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/g/-/v/-/ʧ/-/ʣ/-/θ/-/ð//p/

4 4

/g/-/v/-/ʧ/-/p/ /ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/

8

/f/-/ʒ/-/v/-/z/-/ɲ/-/ʎ/-/z̥/-/z̺/

3 3 3

/f/-/ɲ/-/ʎ/ /ʒ/-/v/-/z/ /f/-/ʒ/-/z/

7

/f/-/ʒ/-/z/-/h/-/ɣ/-/θ/-/ð/

4 3 3

/f/-/ʒ/-/h/-/ɣ/ /f/-/ʒ/-/z/ /f/-/ʒ/-/h/

502 | Loan phonemes in Phon@Europe

Extended LP chain

Included LP chains

Length

Chain

Length

Chains

7

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/g/-/z/-/b/-/d/

4 3

/f/-/g/-/b/-/d/ /f/-/ʒ/-/z/

7

/f/-/ʒ/-/x/-/g/-/z/-/b/-/d/

4 3 3

/f/-/g/-/b/-/d/ /ʒ/-/x/-/z/ /f/-/ʒ/-/z/

6

/f/-/ʤ/-/ʦ/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/-/rʲ/

3 3

/f/-/ʦ/-/rʲ/ /ʤ/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/

6

/f/-/x/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/-/h/

3

/f/-/x/-/ʦ/

6

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʤ/-/ʧ/-/z/-/ʃ/

4 3 3 3

/ʤ/-/ʧ/-/z/-/ʃ/ /f/-/ʒ/-/z/ /ʤ/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/ /ʒ/-/ʤ/-/ʧ/

6

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/g/-/v/-/ʔ/

4 3

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/ /f/-/g/-/v/

6

/ʒ/-/x/-/ʤ/-/ʦ/-/z/-/ʣ/

3 3

/ʒ/-/ʤ/-/ʦ/ /ʒ/-/x/-/z/

5

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/k/

4

/f/-/ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/

5

/f/-/ʒ/-/x/-/ʦ/-/h/

3 3

/f/-/x/-/ʦ/ /f/-/ʒ/-/h/

5

/f/-/ʤ/-/ʣ/-/c/-/ɟ/

3

/f/-/ʤ/-/ʣ/

5

/ʒ/-/ʤ/-/g/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/

3 3

/ʤ/-/ʧ/-/ʃ/ /ʒ/-/ʤ/-/ʧ/

Certain LP chains are recurrently made use of also in more extended LP chains. The ternary chain /f/-/ʒ/-/z/ is especially successful since it forms part of five longer LP chains. This ternary chain consists solely of LPs which share the fricative manner of articulation. Other incorporated chains like /ʒ/-/ʦ/-/v/-/ʧ/ are phonologically less homogeneous because their members differ on several parameters – in this case two voiceless affricates join two voiced fricatives, three LPs are connected via the shared feature [sibilant] whereas the places of articulation range from labiodental via alveolar to postalveolar. We assume that the degree of homogeneity/heterogeneity varies considerably across the LP chains so that it is not possible to exclusively rely on phonological similarity when it comes to explaining parallel borrowing. We agree with Eisen (2019: 52) and SegBo in general that phoneme borrowing can only happen if a favorable condition is met which requires that a donor has phonemes on offer which happen to be absent from the system of the replica lan-

Loan phonemes and phonological classes | 503

guage. The differences between the two partners in contact can be manifold. The surplus phonemes of the donor do not necessarily constitute a natural phonological class. The replica language is in no way compelled to borrow entire phonological classes. It follows that the set of LPs in a given EDL crucially depends on the composition of the set of phonemes which prior to contact exclusively occurred in the donor language. If the differences between donor and replica come to the fore in different parts of the phoneme systems, the set of LPs that results from the contact between the two languages may look very heterogeneous. A paradigm case of a heterogeneous set of LPs is /f/-/x/-/ʦ/ which has been borrowed time and again from Russian into Turkic and Uralic EDLs. The internal coherence of this set in phonological terms is limited. Nevertheless, it has been taken over by seven EDLs which happened to have no voiceless labiodental fricative, no voiceless velar fricative, and no voiceless alveolar affricate before they came into contact with the dominant Russian. Imagine Russian has no phonemes of this kind either. Then of course there would have been no way for the above replicas to borrow them in the first place. To better understand the processes, the individual contact scenarios have to be investigated and evaluated thoroughly. Chances are that phonologically less heterogeneous or more homogeneous sets of LPs are more easily borrowed. If all members of a chain share a given feature this similarity might be considered to be a facilitating factor. On the other hand, the phonological heterogeneity of LP chains does not seem to inhibit borrowing. It is a task for future research to inquire into the heterogeneity-homogeneity dichotomy and its role in connection to borrowability.

18 Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes In this section we address a selection of issues which connect the results of our case-study to the assumption that Europe is a phonological monolith. We remind the reader that scholars like Haarmann (1976a), Ternes (1998, 2010) and Haspelmath (2001) consider Europe to be largely uninteresting phonologically not the least because of its supposed synchronic homogeneity (see Sections 1, 4.1.3, and 4.1.5 in Part A). The subsequent paragraphs are dedicated to testing the homogeneity hypothesis against the backdrop of our findings. The topic of Section 18.1 is the growth of intra-European similarities (and dissimilarities) caused by phoneme borrowing. Section 18.2 reviews the role of the donor languages in the assumed homogenization of the phonological systems in Europe. Those phonemes which are never involved in borrowing in our database are looked at in Section 18.3. In Section 18.4 we shortly discuss the absentees, i.e. those EDLs of our sample which give no evidence at all of LPs.

18.1 On becoming (dis)similar We argue that the LPs we have discussed throughout Section 17 are crucially involved in giving Europe a relatively homogeneous shape phonologically but, at the same time, bring about divergence within phyla and language families albeit on a minor scale. The plethora of cases of phoneme borrowing we have been able to identify suggests that this homogeneity is secondary in the sense that it took shape in the course of time on account of the diffusion of certain LPs via language contact. Our basic assumption is that in the (distant) past Europe was much more heterogeneous as to the phoneme inventories of the EDLs than it is presently. Language contact, lexical borrowing, and the transfer of LPs have leveled out many previous differences between the EDLs so that, superficially, the areal phonology as of today gives the impression of a continent with only a minimum of internal variation. In global perspective, Grossman et al. (2020b: no page number) assume “a higher degree of areal specificity in pre-contact areas,” meaning language contact triggered processes which have ultimately rendered erstwhile differently equipped phoneme systems to become similar to each other. This hypothesis is in line with Haspelmath’s (2001: 1506–1507) attempt to explain the rise of the European Linguistic Area with reference to diachronic developments which contributed to the diffusion of certain structural properties beyond their original domain. Haspelmath (2001: 1506) rightfully states the

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-018

On becoming (dis)similar | 505

obvious by way of saying that “[l]inguistic areas arise through language contact.” This means that what today might look too unspectacular to some to deserve being studied in-depth is the outcome of areal-linguistically relevant prior processes. To prove our point beyond doubt we lack a sufficiently robust diachronic database and the necessary philological equipment. Therefore, we make do with a rather impressionistic and indirect way of rendering our hypothesis plausible. We start from the simplistic assumption that hosting identical phonemes (minimally one) in their phonological system constitutes a case of similarity of two or more EDLs. Thus, if two EDLs differed in the past insofar as only one of them displayed a given phoneme which afterwards was transferred to the other member of the language pair via language contact the two EDLs have become more similar to each other because now they share more phonological units then they did previously. By way of example we present data from Russian and Olonets (Leskinen 1984: 250–251). Figure 129 shows how two phonological systems become more similar because of phoneme borrowing. Both EDLs make extensive use of phonemic palatalization which is not taken account of in the figure. Pre-contact situation both [n = 15] /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /g/, /s/, /ʃ/, /ʧ/, /ʤ/, /m/, /n/, /l/, /r/, /j/ /ʦ/, /f/, /v/, /z/, /ʒ/, /x/

/ʤ/, /h/, /w/

only Russian [n = 6]

only Olonets [n = 3]

After borrowing both [n = 21] /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /k/, /g/, /s/, /ʃ/, /ʧ/, /ʤ/, /m/, /n/, /l/, /r/, /j/, /ʦ/, /f/, /v/, /z/, /ʒ/, /x/ /ʤ/, /h/, /w/ only Russian [n = 0]

only Olonets [n = 3]

Figure 129: Russification of the inventory of consonants in Olonets.

506 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

Before Russian influence altered the composition of the Olonets consonant system, the two EDLs shared fifteen consonants whereas Russian had six further consonants which were unknown in Olonets while Olonets had and still has three phonemes which were absent from the Russian inventory. In sum, this pair of languages gives evidence of 24 phoneme types of which fifteen were shared in the past. The similarity rate between Russian and Olonets for the precontact phase is 63 % ( ). Extensive lexical borrowing from Russian has introduced six additional phonemes to Olonets so that the two EDLs now share twenty-one consonants. The similarity has risen to 88 %. Thus, Olonets has become more similar to Russian (and vice versa). All consonants of Russian are also consonants of Olonets. In contrast, Olonets has kept the three phonemes which were unique to this Karelian variety already at the start of the contact with Russian. As can be gathered in analogy from Figure 129 we (naively) assume that if we subtract the LP cases from the number of attestations a given phoneme has in our sample synchronically we “reconstruct” an earlier state-of-affairs. We indiscriminately call this the PAST. If we readmit the LPs to the frequency count of the phoneme at issue, we describe how the situation looks synchronically. We call this the PRESENT. If we compare PAST and PRESENT we may get an idea of the increasing homogeneity. This practice is of course a very gross simplification of the European diachrony in the phonological domain. However, it is also a handy way to better understand how erstwhile heterogeneity has diminished whereas homogeneity has increased in Europe. In Figure 130 we determine the contact-induced net gain of the consonant phonemes (except the singularities and palatalized consonants) in terms of the increase of the shares in the sample. The phonemes are ordered bottom-up according to the share they had in the PAST. The increase is relatively small at the bottom and at the top of the hierarchy whereas phonemes with original shares between 40 % and 60 % boast much higher rates. This is shown in Figure 131 where the difference between the shares in the PAST and PRESENT are calculated in points for each of the phonemes. The outstanding position of /f/ is immediately visible. The numerous cases of LP /f/ have turned the voiceless labiodental fricative into an element which is shared by the vast majority of the EDLs although, in the past, only half of the EDLs counted /f/ among their phonemes. The synchronic presence of /f/ in EDLs whose phoneme inventory formerly excluded this phoneme means that there is now similarity where there was dissimilarity before.

On becoming (dis)similar | 507

/ʕ/ /ð/ /θ/

present

/ħ/

past

/ç/ /ʔ/ /c/ /ʎ/ /ʣ/ /ɣ/ /ɲ/ /w/ /ʤ/ /f/ /x/ /ʒ/ /h/ /ʦ/ /ʧ/ /v/ /z/ /ʃ/ /g/ /b/ /d/ /k/ /p/

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 130: Increasing shares of consonant phonemes.

To a lesser extent this holds also for other phonemes whose increase has either promoted them from a minor option to a major option by way of extending their share beyond the 50 %-mark (e.g. /x/ and /ʤ/) or has substantially strengthened their position as major option (e.g. /ʒ/, /ʦ/, /g/, /v/, /ʧ/, /z/, /ʃ/, and /h/). Even almost ubiquitous phonemes such as /p/, /k/, /d/, and /b/ have experienced a slight increase to come as near as possible to the 100 %-mark. Apart from these highly frequent phonemes which were present in 93 %–99 % of the EDLs in the past, small increases are typical of phonemes whose original share ranged between 7 %–29 % (an exception being /ʣ/ with a gain of 7 points from 23 % to 30 %). It may be concluded that what was infrequent in the PAST remains infrequent in the PRESENT.

508 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

/p/, /c/, /ʔ/, /ç/, /ħ/, /w/ /k/, /d/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʕ/ /ʎ/, /ɲ/ /b/, /ɣ/ /h/ /ʃ/ /ʣ/ /v/, /z/, /ʧ/ /ʦ/ /g/ /ʤ/ /x/ /ʒ/ /f/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 14 15 19 37 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 131: Points gained in the transition from PAST to PRESENT.

Eisen (2019: 52) proposes a definition of borrowability which can be used to explain the differential behavior of the above phonemes: Segment borrowability is the probability of a segment to be borrowed from one language to another, given an appropriate contact situation. An appropriate contact situation is such in which a language lacking the segment is in contact with a language having it.

In the European context this means that given the high frequency of certain phonemes such as /p/ it is very unlikely that a /p/-language comes in contact with a /p/-less language so that appropriate contact situations hardly ever arise. For a moderately frequent phoneme, however, it is possible that an EDL featuring it and another EDL which lacks it come in contact with each other. According to the probabilistic model used for SegBo (Eisen 2019: 52–60) it is exactly the middle range of frequency which is involved in phoneme borrowing most often. Eisen (2019: 56) claims that borrowing affects for the most segments that appear around 50 % of the world’s language, since those are more likely to appear in a contact situation that permits borrowing in the first place.

Furthermore, “both very common and very rare segments are predicted by the model to be borrowed only rarely” (Eisen 2019: 56). For an originally very infrequent phoneme to increase its share substantially in the sample those lan-

On becoming (dis)similar | 509

guages which have it must be prolific donors in the sense that there must be many borrowing events with many replica languages all of which borrow the infrequent phoneme from the donor (or a chain of donor-replica pairs must emerge). Our results largely corroborate SegBo’s hypothesis. The diffusion of individual LPs is of course not the entire story. Phonological homogeneity is strong if EDLs share several phonemes at the same time. It is clear that also in the period predating the contacts the EDLs must have shared at least a small nuclear set of phonemes (see Section 18.3). What is of interest here is the increased overall similarity of EDLs. The Olonets case presented in Figure 129 features an EDL which has borrowed half a dozen LP consonants from Russian so that the consonant systems of donor and replica have become almost indistinguishable. The three fricatives /f/, /ʒ/, and /x/ borrowed by Olonets are top-ranking LPs in Europe. We know from Figure 131 that these fricatives are among the net-winners in language contact because they have increased their share of the sample considerably. If we look at them as a set of three we notice the following. In the PAST, there were only seventeen EDLs (= 8 %) whose phoneme inventories hosted all three members of this set. In the present this has changed dramatically since now we count 88 EDLs with /f/, /ʒ/, and /x/ as phonemes – an absolute number which equals a share of 42 % of the sample. These 88 EDLs involve 54 /f/-borrowers, 26 /ʒ/-borrowers, and 26 /x/borrowers (with three EDLs borrowing the entire set). It is true that the set covers less than half of the sample languages but the co-occurrence of the three fricatives which was a marginal constellation in the PAST has evolved into a relatively common combination of phonemes in the PRESENT. Before the LPs entered the scene, it was exceptional for EDLs to display this ternary set of phonemes. Only seventeen EDLs featured the set in the PAST. In contrast, the copresence of /f/, /ʒ/, and /x/ in a given EDL nowadays is no longer anything extraordinary since the number of EDLs with all three of these fricatives has risen to 88. This is an increase of over 400 %. Map LXXVII discloses the geographical distribution of the EDLs equipped with the above set of fricatives prior to contact (= PAST) and those which are newcomers as to the co-presence of all three fricatives. Both groups together yield the area of diffusion of the ternary set in the in the PRESENT. In the past, the phenomenon was largely restricted to the SE nonant with an outlier in MW. The Caucasian region is the primary focus. The present situation overwhelmingly involves EDLs in the nonants SE, SC, ME, and MC. The ternary set of fricatives is not only attested in additional EDLs from the Caucasus but also in the bulk of the Slavic EDLs, in Baltic EDLs, in varieties of Romani, and several Uralic EDLs, etc. The co-presence of /f/, /ʒ/, and /x/ is relatively infre-

510 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

quent in the N- and W-nonants. Does the relatively compact presence of the set of fricatives in the remaining nonants imply that the area of diffusion has grown on account of direct language contact involving EDLs in the SE as donors? The answer is negative. The present distribution of the set of fricatives is the result of different processes which started at different points on the map and conspired, as it were, to shape the area of diffusion. We come back to this issue in Section 18.2. Before we address the problems which are related to the donors, we shortly touch upon the question of growing dissimilarity as an effect of language contact. If LPs make donor and replica more similar it might be the case that the latter at the same time takes a step away from its next of kin unless all members of a genetically defined group of EDLs borrow the same phoneme in unison. The dissimilating effect is pervasive. Figure 132 is meant to prove that internal divergence triggered by language contact may occur also in the diasystem of isolates such as Basque. Pre-contact situation both [n = 17] /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /c/, /k/, /g/, /s̻/, /s̺/, /ʦ̻/, /ʦ̺/, /ʃ/, /ʧ/, /m/, /n/, /l/, /r/ /ɟ/, /x/, /ɾ/

/ph/, /th/, /kh/, /h/

only Basque [n = 3]

only Basque (Zuberoa) [n = 4]

After borrowing both [n = 20] /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, /c/, /k/, /g/, /f/, /s̻/, /s̺/, /ʦ̻/, /ʦ̺/, /ʃ/, /ʧ/, /m/, /n/, /ɲ/, /l/, /ʎ/, /r/ /ɟ/, /x/, /ɾ/

/ph/, /th/, /kh/, /v/, /z/, /z̻/, /z̺/, /ʒ/, /h/

only Basque [n = 3]

only Basque (Zuberoa) [n = 9]

Figure 132: Romancization of the inventory of consonants in Basque.

Based on Haase (1993: 30–33) and Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003: 15–18), Basque and its regional variety Basque (Zuberoa) are compared to each other for the pre-contact period and the time of Romancization of Basque (Zuberoa). Ini-

Donors | 511

tially, this pair of EDLs yielded 24 different consonant phoneme types seventeen of which were shared by both, i.e. the similarity rate was 71 % in the past. Currently Basque and Basque (Zuberoa) share twenty of altogether thirty-two consonant types as both give evidence of LP /f/, LP/ɲ/, and LP /ʎ/. However, Basque (Zuberoa) has borrowed further five LPs so that the similarity rate drops to 63 %. For a discussion of the controversial case of LP /z/ see Sections 17.2.4.9 and 17.2.4.28. Phylum-internal divergence is caused by language contact – how frequently and to what extent is a topic that deserves to be studied separately in the future. For the time being, we conclude that there is higher-level convergence on the European scale which brings about a certain degree of homogeneity. To counter this tendency there is also lower-level divergence within phyla and language families which leads to a certain degree of heterogeneity. These antagonistic tendencies are not equally strong since the heterogeneity concerns only the internal relations within subdivisions whereas the homogeneity is relevant across all subdivisions.

18.2 Donors With certain reservations (and without giving a reference) Heine and Kuteva (2006: 289) mention the widely shared idea that “the history of European languages is to a large extent one of the Indo-Europeanization of Europe.” Superficially, this idea does not seem to be too far-fetched because the majority of the EDLs belong to the Indo-European phylum. Equally superficially, one might come to the conclusion that the donor languages from which the LPs are borrowed must also be members of the same phylum. In point of fact, there are many Indo-European donors but the role of donor is not the uncontested privilege of Indo-European. As we will see below other phyla frequently provide the donor in language-contact situations. Grossman et al. (2020a: 5319) speak of the effect so-called large donors have on the phonological diversity of the languages of the world. To their minds, expanding languages – called large colonial languages (Grossman et al. 2020a: 5316) – like English, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Indonesian, etc. are responsible for the large-scale convergence of phonological systems of “smaller indigenous languages” with those of their partners in contact (Grossman et al. 2020a: 5319). At the same time, they relativize the importance of the large colonial languages by way of hypothesizing that

512 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

it may be that there is no significant difference between colonial and other languages in terms of which sounds were borrowed most often (Grossman et al 2020a: 5319).

Grossman et al. (2020a: 5319) mention that there are 144 different donor languages in their sample many of which, in contrast to the handful or so large colonial languages, “only influenc[e] their immediate neighbors.” For Eurasia, Eisen (2019: 34) identifies (in this order) Russian, English, Arabic, Sanskrit, and Mandarin Chinese as the biggest donors. It is interesting to see how the situation is in our European sample. We have identified 32 donors which are involved in a total of 212 donorreplica pairs. We have accepted only those cases in which both donor and replica language are clearly identified by their glossonym in the source. Vague references to Romance, Slavic, Germanic, or “western languages” as donor of a given LP have been excluded. The same holds for internationalisms whose language of origin is usually hard to determine. Thus, Latin and Ancient Greek are not included (whereas Hebrew is). In several cases the sources only speak of loanwords in general without identifying any donor language by name. These cases too have been left out. Figure 133 reveals the shares the donor languages have of the 212 donor-replica pairs. It is worth noting that three of the donors – Arabic, Persian, and Hebrew – are (or used to be) spoken outside of Europe and thus do not count as EDLs. English and Spanish which are very successful donor languages outside of Europe are less important in this role in Europe because their shares are as small as 3 % and 2 %, respectively. There are eight to ten other EDLs which are involved in many more donor-replica pairs than the two large colonial languages. The data in Figure 133 confirm the outstanding position of Russian as donor. Russian functions as donor for eleven times as many replicas as Spanish and five times as many replicas as English. Arabic, the fourth large colonial language is also clearly outnumbered by Russian. It remains an open question whether the relatively limited importance English and Spanish have as donors in Europe as opposed to their prominence in the rest of the world is causally connected to at least some of the differences between EDLs and non-EDLs in the domain of phoneme borrowing. Except Russian, many other EDLs have contributed to shaping the areal phonology of Europe – most notably Turkish, German, Greek, French, Arabic, and Italian whose shares exceed the 5 %-mark. We extract these particularly successful donor languages from Figure 133 and plot their donor-replica relations on Map LXXVIII.

Donors | 513

French; 15; 9% Greek; 20; 12%

Arabic; 13; 7%

Italian; 10; 6%

Romanian; 7; 4%

German; 24; 14%

English, Hungarian, Persian; 6; 3% Albanian; 5; 3% Polish; 4; 2%

Avar, Belarusian, Low German, Serbian,

Turkish; 29; 17%

Spanish; 3; 2% Hebrew, Kurdish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian; 33; 19%

Macedonian; 2; 1% Aromanian, Azerbaijani, Bulgarian, Chuvash, Czech, Manx, Scottish-Gaelic, Welsh, Yiddish; 1; 1%

Figure 133: Shares of donor languages.

It is difficult to differentiate between the category of large colonial donors and that of locally active donors because those EDLs with replica languages which are situated far beyond the national territory of the donor more often than not are also involved in less far-reaching contacts. Arabic is perhaps the sole case of a large colonial donor in our context although Arabic influence is particularly strong where religion is involved – in this case Islam. Moreover, it cannot be expected that all replica languages registered as partners of Arabic have been directly in contact with Arabic (e.g. Tatar and Gagauz). In these cases, it is more likely that the Arabisms have reached the replica languages via an intermediary – which most probably was Turkish. The role of intermediaries is a general problem which is frequently encountered in the domain of language-contact studies. It shows up time and again also in connection to our case-study (see

514 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

below). The frequency of Arabic and Turkish as donors puts a question mark behind the above quoted hypothesis of the contact-induced Indo-Europeanization of Europe. Turkish has properties of a large colonial donor since it has exerted influence on the phonologies of EDLs which are spoken outside Anatolia but on the territory of the erstwhile Ottoman Empire (e.g. Hungarian, Croatian, Armenian (Eastern), etc.). At the same time, co-territorial replica languages in Anatolia have undergone phonological Turkicization (e.g. Arabic (Çukurova), Kurmanji, Laz, etc.). The situation is similar in the case of Russian which has left its mark in the phonologies of EDLs whose home countries nowadays do no longer form part of the Russian state (e.g. Azerbaijani, Estonian, Kazakh, etc.) whereas other replica languages are co-territorial neighbors of Russian (e.g. Bashkir, Kalmyk, Udmurt, etc.). The other especially successful donors reflect similar patterns. The picture painted in Map LXXVIII comprises several local centers of diffusion with a sphere of influence for each donor. Donors may share replica languages at the border of their respective spheres of influence. Moreover, donors may themselves function as replica languages so that chains of transfer emerge. A bona fide case of a chain of this kind involves LP /f/. Greek is the prime mover in the eastward diffusion of the voiceless labiodental fricative which entered the phoneme inventory of Russian with an avalanche of Greek loanwords in the late mediaeval period. Russian integrated LP /f/ into its system and then brought it to the majority of originally (and overwhelmingly non-IndoEuropean) /f/-less EDLs in the European part of the Russian Empire. At the same time, (Low) German exported /f/ to the West Slavic EDLs, Slovenian, the Baltic EDLs, and probably also to Estonian. This is where the German sphere of influence bordered on that of Russian. From two different directions, the two donor languages incidentally co-operated, in a manner of speaking, to reduce the presence of /f/-less EDLs in eastern Central Europe. Similarly, German /f/ was handed down southwards to the Balkans where it encountered Italian /f/ which came in across the Adriatic and Greek /f/ which moved northwards. Three different donors are responsible for the disappearance of /f/-less EDLs in the SC nonant. This and still other cases of diffusion of LPs show that the homogenizing effect alluded to in the foregoing section is by no means the work of only one particularly laborious donor. To the contrary, in many cases, there are several sources from which a given LP diffused over (parts of) the continent. We read the following quote from Heine and Kuteva (2006: 284) as essentially confirming our idea of the pluricentric homogenization of Europe: We saw that there is a continuous development whereby linguistically and/or geographically more peripheral languages gradually acquire new use patterns and categories on

What remains unaffected by borrowing | 515

the model of languages such as French, German, English, and Italian – a process that involves both internal development and contact effects in concert.

The quote makes mention of several donor languages from which typical traits are borrowed by different replica languages. Admittedly French, German, English, and Italian are by no means identical phonologically but it is possible for different replica languages to borrow from any of them what is shared by all of these donors.

18.3 What remains unaffected by borrowing Our focus on LPs should not be misunderstood. It is by no means the case that every phoneme in Europe participates in borrowing. The number of attested phonemes which are exempt from borrowing is impressive. In the domain of vowels, we have identified 85 types in our sample which never function as LPs. In Table 221 we classify these seemingly unborrowable items according to their properties. There are 18 plain vowel types (= 21 %) as opposed to 67 vowel types (= 79 %) which bear additional secondary features such as nasalization, length, pharyngealization or combinations thereof. The classes are ordered top-to-bottom according to their decreasing number of vowel types which belong to the classes. Table 221: Vowel phonemes which escape borrowing.

Properties

Vowels

Sum

plain (half) long

/iˑ/, /iː/, /yˑ/, /yː/, /ɨː/, /ʉː/, /ɯː/, /uˑ/, /uː/, /ɪː/, /ʏː/, /eˑ/, /eː/, /øˑ/, /øː/, /ɘː/, /ɵː/, /ɤˑ/, /ɤː/, /oˑ/, /oː/, /ǝː/, /ɛː/, /œː/, /ɜː/, /ɔː/, /æˑ/, /æː/, /ɐː/, /aː/, /Œː/, /ɑˑ/, /ɑː/, /ɒː/

34

plain

/i/, /u/, /ɪ/, /ʏ/, /ʊ/, /e/, /ɵ/, /ɤ/, /ɛ/, /ɜ/, /ɞ/, /ʌ/, /ɔ/, /ɐ/, /a/, /Œ/, /ɑ/, /ɒ/

18

nasalized

/ĩ/, /ỹ/, /ũ/, /ẽ/, /ø̃/, /õ/, /ǝ̃/, /ɛ̃/, /œ̃/, /ɔ̃/, /ã/, /ɑ̃/

12

nasalized long

/ĩː/, /ɨ͂ː/, /ɯ̃ː/, /ũː/, /ẽː/, /ø̃ː/, /õː/, /ɛ̃ː/, /ɔ͂ː/, /ãː/

10

pharyngealized

/iʕ/, /uʕ/, /eʕ/, /oʕ/, /ǝʕ/, /aʕ/, /ɑʕ/

7

pharyngealized long

/uʕː/, /eʕː/, /oʕː/, /aʕː/

4

Total

85

516 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

On account of our survey of the LP vowel types in Section 17.2.1 it is hardly surprising to see that marked vowels (in terms of secondary features) form the majority of the vowels which are never borrowed. For the plain vowels, it is clear that several of them are majority options in the sample, i.e. most of the EDLs already have established phonemes of this type so that borrowing of the same is precluded. This holds for /i/ and /u/, for instance, which are phonemic in 90 % of the sample languages. Their marked associates are infrequent, namely (i) plain long: /iː/ = 36 %, /uː/ = 34 %; (ii) plain semi-long: /iˑ/ = 1 %, /uˑ/ = 1 % (iii) nasalized: /ĩ/ = 7 %, /ũ/ = 8 %; (iv) nasalized long: /ĩː/ = 3 %, /ũː/ = 3 %; (v) pharyngealized: /iʕ/ = 1 %, /uʕ/ = 2 %; (vi) pharyngealized long: /uʕː/ = 0.5 % The less frequent the phoneme type gets the less likely it becomes that it ever will be borrowed. This hypothesis is in line with the SegBo-borrowability hierarchy as presented in Eisen (2019: 65–67) who distinguishes three categories, namely (a) most borrowable segments, (b) segments of mid-range borrowability, and (c) least borrowable segments. As to category (a), there is but one vowel as opposed to 54 consonants which is associated with a relatively high degree of borrowability, namely /ɑː/. In the mid-range category (b) we find three vowels – /ɛ̃ː/, /ɔ͂ː/, and /ɔː/ – again interspersed between 55 consonants. Low borrowability (= category (c)) is associated with all other vowels including the plain ones. On the lowest 55 ranks of the hierarchy there are nineteen vowels. Thus, the limited borrowability of vowels in general provides a suitable explanation for the absence of the above 85 vowel types from our collection of LPs. On the other hand, /eː/, /ɔː/, and /aː/ appear on the list of most frequently borrowed segments worldwide with 3–4 borrowers (Eisen 2019: 40). The Eurasian hierarchy hosts even eight vowels, namely /ɔ/, /ɛ/, /æ/, /o/, /e/, /oː/, /ɨ/, and /ɔː/ with the number of borrowers ranging from maximally five to minimally two (Eisen 2019: 41). Of these vowels only /ɨ/, /æ/, and /o/ are registered as LPs in our database (see Sections 17.2.2.3, 17.2.2.4, and 17.2.2.6). It is possible that LP /ɔ/, LP /ɛ/, LP /e/, LP /oː/, and LP /ɔː/ belong to the Asian languages which form part of Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. Generalizing it can be concluded that vowels with secondary properties are hard to borrow – especially in Europe. A similar statement can be made as to the behavior of consonants with secondary articulation under borrowing although the situation is not as straightforward as in the case of the vowels.

What remains unaffected by borrowing | 517

Table 222 surveys the 264 consonant phonemes which are excluded from borrowing in Europe. In analogy to the vowels we classify the consonants according to their most salient phonological properties. As can be seen in the leftmost column, there are binary and even ternary combinations of properties which render the consonants complex phonologically. The classes are presented in the order of their decreasing number of members. Table 222: Consonant phonemes which escape borrowing.

Properties

Consonants

Sum

plain

/t/, /ʈ/, /ɖ/, /ɢ/, /β/, /s/, /ɕ/, /ʑ/, /ʂ/, /ʐ/, /ʝ/, /ʜ/, /ʢ/, /ɦ/, /pf/, /ʨ/, /ʥ/, /ʈʂ/, /ɖʐ/, /tç/, /kx/, /qχ/, /ʔħ/, /m/, /n/, /ɳ/, /ʀ/, /ɾ/, /ɽ/, /ɬ/, /ɭ/, /ʟ/, /ɥ/, /ʋ/, /ɹ/, /j/, /ɰ/

37

long

/pː/, /bː/, /tː/, /dː/, /kː/, /gː/, /qː/, /fː/, /ðː/, /sː/, /zː/, /ʃː/, /ʒː/, /xː/, /χː/, /ʦː/, /ʣː/, /ʧː/, /ʤː/, /kxː/, /qχː/, /ʔħː/, /mː/, /nː/, /ŋː/, /rː/, /ɬː/, /tɬː/, /lː/, /wː/, /jː/

31

labialized

/pw/, /tʷ/, /dʷ/, /kʷ/, /gʷ/, /qʷ/, /ɢʷ/, /ʔʷ/, /sʷ/, /zʷ/, /ʃʷ/, 27 /ʒʷ/, /ɕʷ/, /ʑʷ/, /çʷ/, /xʷ/, /ɣʷ/, /χʷ/, /ʁʷ/, /ħʷ/, /ʕʷ/, /ʦʷ/, /ʧʷ/, /ʤʷ/, /qχw/, /ɬʷ/, /tɬʷ/

palatalized

/pʲ/, /bʲ/, /kʲ/, /gʲ/, /qʲ/, /ʔʲ/, /fʲ/, /vʲ/, /sʲ/, /ʒʲ/, /xʲ/, /ɣʲ/, /χʲ/, /ʁʲ/, /hʲ/, /ʦʲ/, /ʣʲ/, /ʧʲ/, /ʤʲ/, /mʲ/, /ŋʲ/, /ʀʲ/, /ɾʲ/, /wʲ/

24

pharyngealized

/pˁ/, /bˁ/, /tˁ/, /dˁ/, /kˁ/, /gˁ/, /qˤ/, /ɢˤ/, /ʔˁ/, /vˁ/, /sˁ/, /χˤ/, /ʁˤ/, /hˤ/, /qχˁ/, /mˁ/, /wˁ/

17

ejective

/p’/, /t’/, /c’/, /k’/, /q’/, /ʡ’/, /fʼ/, /ʃʼ/, /ɕʼ/, /ʦ’/, /ʧ’/, /ʨ’/, /ʈʂ’/, /qχ’/, /ʔħ’/, /ɬʼ/, /tɬ’/

17

aspirated

/pʰ/, /tʰ/, /ch/, /kʰ/, /qʰ/, /fʰ/, /sʰ/, /ʃʰ/, /xʰ/, /ħʰ/, /ʦʰ/, /ʧʰ/, /qχʰ/, /ʔħʰ/, /ɬʰ/, /tɬʰ/

16

desonorized

/b̥/, /d̥/, /g̊/, /m̥/, /n̥/, /ɲ̊/, /ŋ̊/, /r̥/, /ɾ̥/, /l̥/, /ʎ̥/, / ̥w/

12

long ejective

/tʼː/, /k’ː/, /q’ː/, /χ’ː/, /ʦ’ː/, /ʧʼː/, /kx’ː/, /qχ’ː/, /ʔħ’ː/, /tɬ’ː/

10

long aspirated

/sʰː/, /ʃʰː/, /çʰː/, /xʰː/, /ʦʰː/, /ʧʰː/, /ʔħʰː/, /ɬʰː/, /tɬʰː/

9

labialized-ejective

/pʷʼ/, /tʷʼ/, /kʷʼ/, /qʷʼ/, /ʃʷʼ/, /ʦʷʼ/, /ʧʷ’/, /qχʷʼ/, /tɬʷ’/

9

dental

/t̪/, /d̪/, /s̪/, /z̪/, /n̪/, /l̪/

6

long labialized

/kʷː/, /sʷː/, /ʃʷː/, /χʷː/, /ʧʷː/, /ɬʷː/

6

retracted-palatalized

/ṯʲ/, /ḏʲ/, /s̱ʲ/, /n̠ʲ/, /l̠ʲ/

5

labialized-aspirated

/tʷʰ/, /kʷʰ/, /qʷʰ/, /ʦʷʰ/

4 4

pharyngealized-ejective

/pˁʼ/, /kˁʼ/, /qˤʼ/, /qχˁʼ/

velarized

/tɣ/, /sˠ/, /lˠ/

3

labializedpharyngealized

/qʷˁ/, /χʷˁ/, /ʁʷˁ/

3

518 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

Properties

Consonants

Sum

desonorized palatalized

/n̥j/, /r̥j/, /l̥ʲ/

3

long labialized-ejective

/ʦʷʼː/, /ʧʷʼː/, /tɬʷʼː/

3

labialized-pharyngealized- /qʷˁʼ/, /qχʷˁ’/ ejective

2

palatalized-ejective

2

/kʲ’/, /qʲ’/

palatalized-aspirated

/tʲʰ/, /kʲʰ/

2

apical

/s̺/, /ʦ̺/

2

laminal

/s̻/, /ʦ̻/

2

long palatalized

/nʲː/, /lʲː/

2

long velarized

/tɣː/, /sɣː/

2

voiced

/ʡ̬/

1

retracted

/ṟ/

1

raised

/r̝/

1

raised aspirated

/r̝h/

1

Total

264

Table 222 hosts 31 different classes four of which have only one member each. Other classes are populated by a multitude of consonant types. In the most sizable class – the plain consonants – we find the two phonemes /m/ and /n/ which are attested in 100 % of the sample languages and thus are not available for borrowing in the first place. Secondary and marked properties are characteristic of 30 (= 97 %) of the 31 classes or 227 (= 86 %) of the 264 consonant types. We interpret these quantitative relations along the same lines as in the case of the secondary properties of vowels. This means that secondary phonological properties generally render phonemes difficult to borrow. At the same time, most of the phonemes which bear secondary properties are also relatively infrequent in the sample. This is shown for plain nasals /m/ and /n/ and their equivalents with secondary properties below: (i) bilabial nasal /m/ = 100 % > /mj/ = 11 % > /mː/ = 2 % > (/m̥/, /mˁ/) = 1 % (ii) alveolar nasal /n/ = 100 % > /nː/ = 3 % > /n̥/ = 2 % > (/n̥j/, /njː/, /n̠ʲ/, /n̪/) = 0.5 % There is a gap of 89 %–97 % which separates the plain consonants from their next most frequent variant. With reference to the units with secondary properties, this means that we are dealing with relatively infrequent phonemes in the sample. Their low frequency makes them hardly eligible for transfer in lan-

What remains unaffected by borrowing | 519

guage-contact situations – according to the logic of SegBo as argued above. The shares of the remaining plain consonants in Table 222 range from 13 % for the tap/flap /ɾ/ down to 0.5 % for the voiced bilabial fricative /ß/. Twenty-five of the plain consonant types yield shares smaller than 5 %. Low frequency and the absence of secondary properties thus do not exclude each other. Moreover, eleven of the classes in Table 222 are exclusively attested in the Caucasian region (Chirikba 2008: 42–51; Grawunder 2017: 374–378) and in its vicinity so that they are characteristic traits of the SE nonant. These classes are: labialized, pharyngealized, ejective, long ejective, labialized-ejective, long labialized, labialized-aspirated, pharyngealized-ejective, long labialized-ejective, labialized-pharyngealized-ejective, and palatalized-ejective. Map LXXIX features those EDLs whose consonant system involves at least one of the eleven classes. Table 223 recapitulates the distribution in the usual way to better contrast the over-populated SE nonant with the empty cells of the other nonants. Table 223: Distribution of EDLs with Caucasian secondary properties over the nonants.

W

C

E

Sum

N

0

0

0

0

M

0

0

0

0

S

0

0

41

41

Total

0

0

41

41

The eleven classes account for 101 consonant types. This is equivalent to 38 % of all consonant types in Table 222. Some classes are associated with a particular EDL or diasystem such as laminal and apical which are attested only in the Basque varieties. Other properties such as dental or desonorized only infrequently show up in SE but can be found in NW, NC, and/or MW. EDLs in MC, SC, and ME hardly ever give evidence of marked consonants which do not participate in borrowing. If we compare our above list of “unborrowable” consonants in Europe to the list of most frequently borrowed segments in Eurasia as provided by Eisen (2019: 41) we immediately notice interesting differences. Eisen’s hierarchy comprises 68 phonemes 60 of which are consonants. In this number 16 consonants with secondary properties are included. Ten of these marked consonants reappear in Table 222 as representatives of consonant types which never undergo borrowing in Europe, namely: /ph/, /th/, /kh/, /ʧh/, /pj/, /fj/, /ʃː/, /pˁ/, /dˁ/, and /zˁ/. Eisen registers them with maximally four and minimally two borrowers. As

520 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

in previous cases of this kind we assume that these striking differences can be attributed to the presence of Asian languages in Eisen’s Eurasian subsample. Note that the features labialized, ejective, velarized, desonorized, and combinations of these (with or without additional aspiration, palatalization, etc.) are also absent from Eisen’s Eurasian account of LPs. Their absence can be taken as support for our hypothesis that phonemes equipped with properties of this kind are too infrequent and/or too complex phonologically to lend themselves easily to being borrowed. Thus it is not by chance that the phonemes in Tables 221 and 222 fail to be part of the inventory of LPs. There are good reasons for their exclusion from borrowing. Furthermore, those EDLs whose phonological systems host several of the marked consonants are prominently featured in the list of the absentees – a category which we present briefly in the subsequent section.

18.4 Absentees Absentees are those 79 EDLs in our sample which never borrow any phoneme. They are permanent non-borrowers. The members of this group of EDLs have been identified in Table 13 and their distribution over nonants is the topic of Table 14 above. In the light of the phenomena discussed in the previous section it is hardly surprising that absentees are particularly numerous in the SE nonant where 28 cases are reported. Figure 134 shows the distribution of the absentees over nonants. MW; 9; 11% MC; 16; 20%

SC; 9; 11%

SW; 7; 9%

NC; 5; 6%

SE; 28; 36%

NE; 2; 3% NW; 2; 3% ME; 1; 1%

Figure 134: Shares of nonants in the domain of absentees.

Absentees | 521

The distribution of the absentees over the phyla is presented in Figure 135. The three phyla from the Caucasian region together have a share of 29 % which is in accordance with the above dominance of the SE nonant as to the number of absentees. With Kurmanji, Ossetic, Zaza (Northern), and Zaza (Southern Dimili) four Indo-European absentees are located in the same region or in its immediate neighborhood, too.

Indo-European; 49;

NakhDaghestanian; 19; 24%

62%

Uralic; 5; 6% AbkhazAdyghe; 2; 2% Kartvelian; 2; 3% Turkic; 2; 3%

Figure 135: Genetic background of absentees.

The “Caucasian” EDLs stand out from the bulk of the sample languages because of their relatively rich inventory of phonemes which are never borrowed and because of their general aversion against integrating LPs into their systems. AbkhazAdyghe, Nakh-Daghestanian, and Kartvelian, to some extent at least, are special cases when it comes to borrowing phonemes. Ternes (1998, 2010) knew what he had to expect from including the Caucasus in his account of the phonology of the EDLs and thus refrained from doing so (see Section 4.1.5). However, not all EDLs of the Caucasus are immune to language contact in the phonological domain. Moreover, since the NW nonant is never involved in borrowing Icelandic and Faroese could have been declared extra-European languages for similar reasons. It is clear that the absentees and the “unborrowable” phonemes contribute to the diversity of the areal-phonological profile of the continent. We close this section with a cursory look at the Indo-European absentees. Figure 136 reveals to which branches of this phylum the absentees belong. Romance and Germanic together cover three quarters of all Indo-European absentees. This numerical predominance is even stronger than that of the shares the-

522 | Convergence (and divergence) in Europe – the contribution of loan phonemes

se two branches have in the Indo-European component of the sample independent of the distinction autochthonous vs. borrowed. Note that the Greek diasystem is represented by the Italo-Greek variety of Sternatia in Figure 136. Germanic; 17; 35%

Celtic; 6; 12%

Indo-Iranian; 4; 8% Slavic; 1; 2% Romance; 20; 41%

Greek; 1; 2%

Figure 136: Shares of branches of Indo-European absentees.

Among the Indo-European absentees we find many standardized EDLs such as Danish, Faroese, Icelandic, Irish, Ossetic, Portuguese, Scottish Gaelic, Spanish, Swedish, and many more. These EDLs are outnumbered by regional varieties (with or without established norms) which represent 40 Indo-European absentees of our sample such as Dutch (Drente), Greek (Italo-Greek Sternatia), Norman (Jersey), and Russian (Meščera), etc. It cannot be ruled out that amongst these nonstandard varieties there are further borrowers which have escaped our notice because of the nature of the descriptive material. Note that several endangered or revitalized EDLs are described without reference to LPs – this is the case e.g. for Manx and Frisian (Northern Weesdring). The last word on areal-phonological convergence and divergence in Europe has probably not been spoken yet. Nevertheless, we now know that there is continent-wide higher-level convergence which has started from different centers of diffusion. At the same time, there is also local diversification within phyla and branches if genetically related EDLs behave differently under the conditions of language contact. Homogenization in our case means partial homogenization. Neither do the phonological systems of borrowers become fully identical with those of the donors nor are there EDLs which have absolutely nothing in common with the bulk of the sample members. Even the EDLs of the

Absentees | 523

Caucasus with their plethora of marked consonants share common traits with EDLs spoken outside this region. These shared traits, however, do arise from language contact only rarely. We conclude that Europe is not as homogeneous in the domain of phonology as our predecessors assumed. There is more of just a modicum of heterogeneity too. This heterogeneity is not absolutely arbitrary but can be explained in part with reference to the incomplete homogenization of the phonological systems. Much of what counts as an aspect of heterogeneity opens a window on the distant past of the areal phonology of Europe and thus calls for being investigated as closely as possible in a diachronically oriented follow-up study.

19 Conclusions From boredom to heightened suspense, from trivial to interesting – this is how one could summarize the changes the picture of the areal-phonological aspects of Europe has undergone in the course of the case-study presented in Part B. In Part A we have taken issue with the widespread belief that there is nothing remarkable to report in this domain. It has come to the fore, however, that what superficially looks uninteresting turns out to be worthwhile studying in-depth. We have shown that phonological homogeneity and heterogeneity coexist with the former being frequently the product of language-contact processes which involve the transfer of lexical material which, in turn, serves as Trojan Horse for the introduction of LPs in the replica language’s system. This means that Europe was not always as homogeneous phonologically as it seems to be today. At the same time even now there is no 100% identity of the EDLs since the original phonological diversity has not disappeared for good from the European map although its erstwhile range has diminished considerably. Summarily, this is the gist of what we have been able to find out in this pioneer study. In more detail, these findings can be characterized as follows. First of all, the data clearly speak in favor of hypothesis HA whereas the likelihood of H0 is reduced to a minimum. This means that our two working hypotheses as formulated in Section 2.2 have been shown empirically to be of very different value. The distribution of the LPs is not random but depends on a mix of factors – genealogy, geography, and typology – which determines which phoneme is a possible candidate for being borrowed although this possibility might never be realized in the history of a given EDL. As argued within the framework of SegBo donor and replica languages must fulfill certain structural conditions to make borrowing possible in the first place (Eisen 2019). What the donor language does not have in terms of phonemes cannot be borrowed from it by the replica language. What the replica language already counts among its phonemes cannot be borrowed from the donor either. The presence and absence of the future LPs prior to contact more often than not is a property rooted in genealogy, i.e. donor languages of a certain phylum or family are equipped with the autochthonous version of the phoneme whereas the corresponding replica languages from a different phylum or family usually lack the same item. The (repeated) transfer of the phoneme from donor to replica dissociates the feature from its erstwhile genealogical background by way of turning it into an areally shared property. Thus, genealogy becomes geography, in a manner of speaking, because language contact results in phonological neighborhood relations independent of genetic affiliation. Similarly, the typologi-

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-019

Conclusions | 525

cal properties of the donor and the replica languages do not pose insurmountable obstacles to the contact-borne transfer of LPs. This study has proved further that the segmental phonology of the EDLs is a linguistically interesting domain which deserves to be investigated to the benefit of EUROTYP. Contrary to what the original expectations of the proponents of EUROTYP were the areal phonology of Europe – especially (but not exclusively) in the domain of LPs – clearly reflects patterns of contact-induced diffusion of structural traits. This is exactly what is assumed for the distribution of certain morphosyntactic properties in Europe (Haspelmath 2001). Put differently, in areal perspective, phonology does not behave (markedly) differently from morphosyntax. Levkovych et al. (2019) argue that it makes sense to compare the diffusion of phonological phenomena and those from other levels of grammar over the EDLs to better understand whether diffusion is possible only in one direction (see Section 4.2.8). In our database there are a several cases of LPs which have diffused eastwards from the European west. In spite of these cases we have not participated in the quest for the nucleus of the SAE languages or the supposed European Linguistic Area (Haspelmath 2001: 1493) because too many LPs originate from EDLs (or languages from outside Projekteuropa like Persian and Arabic) which are not situated in the western part of the continent. We emphasize that Turkic – one of the most prolific donors in the context of phoneme borrowing – is excluded from Haspelmath’s (2001: 1505) cluster map of shared features of SAE-languages. It is true that French and German (the core of the so-called Charlemagne Sprachbund) are frequently involved in phoneme borrowing but they are ousted by Russian and Turkic (see Section 18.2). The evidence from the realm of LPs strongly supports the idea that there is no need for one center of diffusion which dominates the entire continent. To the contrary, we have found out that the homogenizing tendencies in Europe are connected to several regional centers of diffusion which independently of each other contribute to the diffusion of (frequently identical) LPs (see Section 18.2). As to phonology at least, Europe consists of pluricentric areas if one wants to keep the term area at all. This pluricentricity invites an interpretation of the areal phonology of Europe (if not of the areal linguistic structure of Europe on the whole) as a case of a Contact Superposition Zone according to the definition provided by Koptjevskaja-Tamm and Wälchli (2001: 624–629). The concept of large colonial donor as propagated within the framework of SegBo (Grossman et al. 2020a–b) holds first and foremost for the situation outside of Europe. The fact that there are several large colonial donors at work causing tendencies of global homogenization fits our idea of pluricentricity as well although several of the most successful large colonial donors are (historically) located in Europe.

526 | Conclusions

Within Europe itself the one superspreader which outshines all competitors fails to emerge although English might take over this role in the future. The successful donors in Europe are of a humbler kind. Heine and Kuteva (2006: 287) state that “what is seemingly a development towards ‘convergence’ may actually have the opposite effect, leading to ‘nonconvergence’.” The authors refer to those cases in which MAT or PAT borrowing may render the differences between donor and replica even bigger because the two grammatical systems continue to function according to different principles although identical means of expression are employed. We assume that much the same can be said as to the use of the LPs in the replica language because no 100% identity of donor and replica phonologies is achieved in borrowing. Heine and Kuteva’s (2006: 206–207) criticism of the overuse of the term convergence for any kind of contact-induced changes applies also to our own usage throughout Section 18. However, the quoted authors’ criterion according to which proper convergence must mean similar if not identical structural behavior of transferred items in both donor and replica demands too much of a study like ours where the focus is on LPs in isolation and not on their functional domain. To assess the contact-induced shaping of the latter a follow-up study is called for. This idea of dissimilarity emerging from language-contact is also largely in line with the supposed paradox according to which higher-level homogenization goes along with lower-level heterogenization. Since not all members of a genealogically defined group of EDLs borrow the same LPs if at all, those EDLs which are borrowers become more similar to the donor from which they borrow and at the same time they become more dissimilar from their sister-languages because the latter do not give evidence of the same phonological unit in their systems. Areal convergence thus might mean genealogical divergence. In this sense the pan-European homogenization remains incomplete as long as phyla or language families do not partake in borrowing as entire groups. We have tried to capture this problem by way of computing the degree of geographic and genealogical solidarity of the EDLs (see Section 17.3.1–17.3.2). Individual EDLs display individual borrowing behavior but EDLs from the same neighborhood as well as EDLs with identical genealogical background often participate in the same LP area of diffusion. What contributes further to the resistance of heterogeneity against homogenization is the social stratification of the phenomenon of phoneme borrowing. As argued in Section 17.4.30, a frequent pattern limits the use of a given LP to a certain stratum of society or a certain register or style. Educated speech, the written (formal) register, and the younger (bilingual) generation are frequently identified as the domain of a given LP whereas colloquial, spoken varieties used by elderly speakers are reported to lack the LP under

Conclusions | 527

review. On this sociolinguistic terrain, we find language-internal heterogenization via homogenization: the speech community is split in two – one segment of it is characterized by the presence of the LP, the other by its absence. As to the LPs themselves, our findings generally confirm the oft-cited hypothesis according to which consonants are involved in borrowing more often than vowels. There are many EDLs which exclusively borrow consonants as opposed to a tiny minority of EDLs which attest only to LP vowels (Matras 2009). In this domain, Europe conforms fully to the outside world. We have also seen that complex phonemes tend to be almost immune against being borrowed. Secondary properties – be they suprasegmental with vowels or secondary articulations with consonants – do not completely block the borrowability of a given phoneme. However, they reduce its borrowability considerably as shown in Section 17.2.4.29. Since complex phonological units most probably are not as frequent as simple phonological units both in terms of types and tokens it is tempting to assume that we are facing a frequency effect (Eisen 2019). Phonological complexity perhaps has an inhibiting effect no matter whether frequency is at its roots or not. Interestingly, our database yields results which are frequently in conflict with the inhibiting and facilitating effects postulated by Eisen (2019). The EDLs clearly do not sweepingly obey the global tendencies established by SegBo (see Section 17.3.3). This discrepancy is not visible in SegBo because of the lumping together of European and Asian languages in the Eurasian subsample with the EDLs being numerically underrepresented. On account of this problem, the characteristics of the EDLs in connection with phoneme borrowing cannot be recognized adequately. This also means that the areality of the phenomena remains hidden to the observer’s eye (Eisen 2019: 70–76). Our study strongly suggests that the Eurasian subsample needs to be reformed either by splitting it in two (Europe vs. Asia) or by giving more space to the European component thereof. A facilitating factor which is strong in any case is gap-filling on the basis of the voicing opposition. The presence of a consonant with a given manner of articulation at a given place of articulation without a partner with different voicing specification seems to facilitate the borrowing of a LP which can fill this gap. In most of the cases of gap-filling, the LP is voiced and the already established consonant is voiceless. We have counted seven uncontroversial cases of Maddieson’s Class 1, i.e. gap-filling. In contrast, there are nine cases which are clear instances of Maddieson’s Class 5, i.e. the creation of a new place of articulation is frequently attested too (as e.g. in those cases where the replica languages already had a phonological class of fricatives but without labiodental representatives of this class). EDLs of this kind often borrow /f/. Most probably,

528 | Conclusions

however, Maddieson’s Class 3 – the phonematization of allophony – is by far more important than any of the other classes of Maddieson’s taxonomy as results from the discussion in Section 17.2.4.30. The creation of new distinctions (Eisen 2019: 47–48) in the sense of a new manner of articulation can be observed especially in those cases where affricates enter the replica’s system via language contact. We have evidence of these Class-4 phenomena in two cases to which another two doubtful cases can probably be added. Still in connection with the dichotomy of facilitating and inhibiting effects we have introduced the association factor to assess the degree of compatibility of two LPs of a pair (see Section 17.2.4.30). We have seen that there is a wide range from absolutely identical behavior down to the almost complete impossibility of two phonemes occurring in the same system. We have narrowed the focus down to parallel borrowing in Section 17.3.3 to determine to what extent there is an interconnection between LPs (in the same borrower). It has turned out that the LP pairs come in two kinds. There are those LPs whose parallel behavior is explicable with reference to frequency effects. It is only to be expected that the ubiquitous LP /f/ combines with a plethora of other LPs without any discernible phonological link between them. However, there are also some cases for which shared phonological properties can be identified (as in the case of the interdental fricatives). We assume that these shared properties do not trigger or instigate the borrowing of either of the members of a LP pair but they facilitate the borrowing of the one if the other is borrowed earlier or at the same time as the former. In a way, the borrowing of the one creates a gap that can be potentially filled by the second member of the pair provided the donor language contains it. We have introduced the concept of assisted borrowing which is based on two very frequently reported conditions. As discussed in Section 17.2.4.30, the grounds for the borrowing of a LP are often prepared since phonetically the replica language already possesses an autochthonous equivalent. In numerous instances, our sources mention that a given LP is attested not only in the borrowed vocabulary but also in onomatopoeia (and perhaps in the domain of names), meaning: the speakers of the replica language were already familiar with the element under debate and only needed to accept that it is used also outside its erstwhile narrow domain. Secondly, the replica language is often described as giving evidence of allophonic rules which involve a positional allophone that resembles the later LP phonetically so that the speakers of the replica language are again familiar with it and only have to accept that it is used in contexts from which it was previously excluded.

Conclusions | 529

Having summarized the major results and insights gained in our case-study on LPs in Europe we turn our attention to the entailments. To our mind the results prove beyond doubt that Phon@Europe is an endeavor which is meaningful for several branches of linguistics and therefore deserves to be continued on a grand scale. Part B of this study has shown that the areal linguistics of Europe cannot be properly understood if phonology is not given sufficient attention. EUROTYP needs to be complemented in this domain. Moreover, the example of Phon@Europe might serve as masterplan for other continent-wide phonological accounts of macro-areas elsewhere on the globe. If a study of this kind is feasible for Europe it might also be feasible for Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Oceania. Only if we know how the individual areas behave phonologically can we confidently generalize areal-phonologically. In connection with LPs, SegBo (Eisen 2019) argues that this can be done in global perspective and that phonological typology will benefit substantially from studies of this kind since differences in borrowability might indicate general hierarchies within phoneme systems. The global studies on LPs suffer from the scarcity of historical documentation of what happened in language contact prior to colonialism. In contrast, Europe is privileged in the sense that many (but by no means all) phenomena can be traced back over several centuries so that it is sometimes (but by no means always) easy to tell proper LPs and phantoms apart. The discussion pro and contra the assumed LP status of a given phonological study is a recurrent theme throughout Part B of this study. We therefore claim that wherever it is possible the areal-phonological investigations focusing on LPs should take philological evidence into account because it is there where information on say, allophony and onomatopoeia can be unearthed. The prominent role of gapfilling mentioned repeatedly in the foregoing paragraphs and sections largely corroborates Maddieson (1986) who places this motivation for borrowing at the top of the catalogue of phenomena he assumes in the domain of phoneme borrowing. Many of the results this study has yielded are in line with the findings of SegBo. Probably the only major disagreement between both approaches has been mentioned above already. In our opinion SegBo does not do justice to the LP-related patterns of the EDLs because the latter are outnumbered by Asian languages in the Eurasian subsample. We are convinced that at least some of the generalizations put forward by Eisen (2019) would look different (however slightly) if more EDLs are allowed in the sample after replacing the Eurasian subsample with two separate subsamples for Europe and Asia. If there is a problem with the Eurasian subsample, chances are that some of the other macroareas also call for being reorganized.

530 | Conclusions

It is clear that our findings also have a bearing on loan phonology and historical phonology albeit to different degrees. For the former the rich phenomenology of LPs in Europe alone provides valuable input for further theorizing. Moreover, the recurrent parallel borrowing of some of the phonemes as well as the immunity of some other phonemes against being borrowed require to be put in perspective. Is it the case that the European data provide evidence for universal processes or are some of them unique to the area in question? Historical phonology has supported us crucially in the diachronic interpretation of the facts. This means that we have benefitted considerably from the achievements of historical phonologists. Kümmel’s (2007) account of consonantal sound changes is crucial in this context. Possibly some of his findings can be seen in a different light now that we know that some of the changes may have been enhanced by borrowing. The recurrence of pre-contact allophones which phonetically resemble a later LP lends support to Blevins’s (2017) perceptual magnet effect. The cases are so numerous that one can no longer assume that we are dealing with exceptions. In point of fact, LPs are particularly welcome in a replica language if the latter allows for a phonetic equivalent of the LP to be realized either as a regular positional allophone of another phoneme or features it in a functionally defined niche of the lexicon (see above). There are still many other cases for which the workings of the perceptual magnet effect cannot be proved empirically because the sources do not address allophony in sufficient detail. However, we assume that the number of LPs whose borrowing is made easy by autochthonous allophony (and/or marked vocabulary) is much higher than it might look superficially. Given that the phenomenology of phoneme borrowing is rich not only in Europe but also far beyond LPs should perhaps be even more in the focus of empirical and theory-oriented language-contact studies. The phenomena should be inquired into systematically and no longer only on the basis of selected examples. Besides projects like SegBo and Phon@Europe there is still enough space and need for cross-linguistic accounts of phonemes in language contact along the lines of Matras and Sakel’s (2007) edited volume on grammatical borrowing. It is true that each chapter of this volume also addresses phonological issues but for the most only rather summarily. The time is ripe for another volume of this kind which is dedicated entirely to phonology. The division of labor is clear. Phon@Europe looks at the situation in Europe – with LPs being ticked off already in Part B of this study. SegBo takes stock of LPs universally. The envisaged edited volume, however, could address all kinds of loanphonolo-

Conclusions | 531

gically relevant phenomena without having to care for areality and universality of proper LPs. The general value of our project is clearly visible. This does not mean that we are unaware of a number of shortcomings of our project. As a matter of fact, there is ample space for self-criticism. As emphasized repeatedly at various points in this study, we have taken the liberty to approach the subject matter of LPs on the basis of very vague concepts and definitions in order to allow us to collect as many potential pieces of evidence for phoneme borrowing as possible. We are positive that this plan of attack is licit for a first. However, we know that future studies on LPs in Europe and elsewhere have to rigorously apply a stricter methodology. A prime candidate for being thoroughly revised is the maximalist approach which accepts each and everything as an instance of a LP. This approach is bound to misjudge cases of incidental similarities (van der Auwera 2011: 298). Internally and externally motivated processes may be hard to tell apart (Heine and Kuteva 2006: 284–285) because, in the end, they follow the same logic. This is essentially what Blevins (2017) assumes for the emergence of areal sound patterns without lexical borrowing. We concede that these are problems which will have to be tackled in the Phonological Atlas of Europe. For the case-study in Part B of this book, however, we can rely (at least in the majority of the cases) on material evidence of lexical borrowing which has been instrumental for the introduction of numerous LPs in many different replica languages. There is thus solid ground for assuming that external forces are involved at least to some extent in establishing new phonemes in a given EDL. The discussion of the empirical data in Sections 17.2.2.1–1.2.4.29 involves numerous doubtful cases which we have mostly solved ad hoc by applying the principle of in dubio pro reo, in a manner of speaking. The necessity for this procedure arose from our decision to limit the number of sources per EDL. Had more sources been admitted the decisions might have looked very different at least in some of the disputable cases. To avoid overcrowding the database with too many problems of this kind it will be unavoidable to say farewell to the maximalist approach. This means that more generally the definition of the LP has to be revised. To achieve this goal, the theoretical framework has to be elaborated upon not only as to the central concept of LP but also in regards of languagecontact processes in general. One might take issue in many cases also with our choice of sources because the descriptive linguistic material from which we have drawn the information about the LPs of the sample languages differs in many respects. There are very detailed dedicated phonological studies side by side with the briefest of grammatical sketches with a page or two devoted to phonological issues. It cannot be ruled out that especially the latter genre does

532 | Conclusions

not shed much light on LPs and related topics. This means that our database most probably does not reflect the actual situation in the domain of loan phonology of the EDLs. On the one hand it contains several cases of supposed LPs which might disappear from the database on revision according to new definitions and sources. On the other hand, the reverse is also possible, namely that we ignore the existence of LPs for a number of EDLs simply because the sources do not mention them explicitly. In spite of all these imperfections this first booklength study within the framework of Phon@Europe has the merit of encouraging other scholars to take this as the starting-point of their own projects which will certainly correct us where we are wrong and complement our work where we could not go on with the investigation. We consider our own project finished as far as LPs go. This does not mean that the subject matter has been exhausted already. To the contrary, there is a plethora of loose ends which require being taken care of in the future. We only mention a selection of possible topics to show how insightful the study of the areal phonology (not only) of Europe is. For a start, we think of a process which is the exact opposite of phoneme borrowing, namely the loss of phonemes in language contact. It is probably as important to inventory the LPs as it is important to take stock systematically of all cases of the contact-induced disappearance of erstwhile firmly established phonemes. As far as we can see there is as yet no (areal-linguistic) study dedicated to this phenomenon. Similarly, the role of language contact in causing subphonemic changes deserves to be looked into as well. In Part B we had occasion to mention cases like the change of the articulatory features of rhotics without adding or subtracting phonemes in the language whose rhotics are affected by the change. Given that autochthonous allophony is an important precursor of many LPs, subphonemic issues are indeed of interest for students of language-contact phenomena. A pan-European account of subphonemic processes has not been brought to our attention yet. It follows from the above that other issues such as phonotactics, syllable structure, suprasegmentals, secondary articulations, etc. are also topics for in-depth studies with an areal-linguistic orientation. In all of these potential spin-offs diachrony should be given sufficient space to better determine the extent of the impact donor languages may have on the phonology of replica languages. On top of that, it makes sense linguistically to compare the results of these future projects with those of projects which analyze the areal phonology in other parts of the world. This comparative work is the final piece of the puzzle whose completion will eventually reveal to us how exotic or how commonplace Europe is with regards to loan phonology – and beyond.

References Abaev, Vasilij I. 1964. A grammatical sketch of Ossetic. Bloomington: Indiana University. Abdullaeva, A. Z., N. È. Gadžiaxmedov, K. S. Kadyradžiev, I. A. Kerimov, N. X. Ol’mesov & D. M. Xangišiev. 2014. Sovremennyj kumykskij jazyk. Maxačkala: IJaLI DNC RAN. Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. 1999. Gramática de la Llingua Asturiana. Uviéu: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana. Aitken, A. J. 1984. Scottish accents and dialects. In Peter Trudgill (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 94–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alekseev, Mikhail [Mixail] E. 1999. Andijskij jazyk. In Mixail E. Alekseev (ed.), Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, 220–228. Moskva: Bol’šaja rossijskaja ènciklopedija. Alekseev, Mikhail E. 1994a. Rutul. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages Part 2, 213–258. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Alekseev, Mikhail E. 1994b. Budukh. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian Languages Part 2, 259–296. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Alhoniemi, Alho. 1984. Zur Phonotaktik und Morphonologie des Westtscheremissischen. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 183–194. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Alhoniemi, Alho. 1985. Marin kielioppi. Helsinki: SUS. Alhoniemi, Alho. 1986. Marin kielen lukemisto. Helsinki: SUS. Alhoniemi, Alho. 1993. Grammatik des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Hamburg: Buske. Altmann, Gabriel. 1977. Rezension von Haarmann, H. Aspekte der Arealtypologie. Germanistische Linguistik, 3–4. 305–310. Altmann, Gabriel. 1978. Gedanken zur Areallinguistik. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen 2. 63–69. Altmann, Gabriel. 1984. Beitrag zur Methodologie der Areallinguistik. In Hans Goebl (ed.), Dialectology, 61–69. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Altmann, Gabriel & Werner Lehfeldt. 1973. Allgemeine Sprachtypologie. Prinzipien und Meßverfahren. München: Fink. Altmann, Gabriel & Werner Lehfeldt. 1980. Einführung in die Quantitative Phonologie. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Andersen, Henning (ed.). 1986. Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Anderson, Cormac. 2019. Uses and misuses of the phoneme in phonological typology. Talk presented at the workshop on Current Research in Phonological Typology on occasion of the 13th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology. University of Pavia, 4–6 September. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 1997. Lak phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa. Vol. 2, 973–997. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Anderson, Gregory D. S. 2005. The velar nasal (ŋ). In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie, The World Atlas of Language Structures, 42–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Århammer, Nils. 2001. Das Nordfriesische im Sprachkontakt (unter Einschluß der nordfriesischen Lexikologie). In Horst Haider Munske (ed.), Handbuch des Friesischen, 313–352. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-020

534 | References

Ariste, Paul. 1968. A grammar of the Votic language. Bloomington: Indiana University. Árnason, Kristján. 2011. The phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Arnold, Werner. 2007. Arabic grammatical borrowing in Western Neo-Aramaic. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 185–196. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Atanasov, Petăr. 1990. Le mégléno-roumain de nos jours. Une approche linguistique. Hamburg: Buske. Atanasov, Petăr & Radu-Mihail Atanasov. 2019. Texte meglenoromâne. Beau Bassin: Globe Edit. Authier, Gilles. 2009. Grammaire kryz (langue caucasique d’Azerbaïdjan, dialecte d’Alik). Leuven & Paris: Peeters. Auwera, Johan van der. 1998. Conclusion. In Johan van der Auwera (ed.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 813–836. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Auwera, Johan van der. 2011. Standard Average European. In Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe, 291–306. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Auziņa, Ilze. 2013. Latviešu valodas fonētiski fonoloģiskie procesi un likumi. In Ilze Auziņa (ed.), Latviešu valodas gramatika, 89–137. Rīga: LU Latviešu vaoldas institūts. Avram, Andrei A. 2014. The fate of the interdental fricatives in Maltese. Romano-Arabica 14. 19–32. Aygen, Gülşat. 2007. Kurmanjî Kurdish. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Azevedo, Milton Mariano. 2005. Portuguese. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie. 2011. The vowel system of Xlukkajr and Naduri. In Sandro Caruana, Ray Fabri & Thomas Stolz (eds.), Variation and change. The dynamics of Maltese in space, time and society, 235–254. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Bakker, Dik. 2011. Language sampling. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 100–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barancev, Aleksandr Pavlovič. 1975. Fonologičeskie sredstva ljudikovskoj reči (Deskriptivnoe opisanie). Leningrad: Nauka. Bárczi, Géza. 2001. Geschichte der ungarischen Sprache. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Barić, Eugenija. 2005. Hrvatska gramatika. Zagreb: Školska Knjiga. Barry, Michael V. 1984. Manx English. In Peter Trudgill (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 167– 177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baskakov, N. A. 1966. Nogajskij jazyk. In N. A. Baskakov (ed.), Jazyki narodov mira. Tjurkskie jazyki. Moskva: Nauka. Bechert, Johannes. 1981. Notiz über eine Möglichkeit, die historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft zu vervollständigen, oder: Lesefrüchte zur Verbesserung Europas und anderer Weltgegenden. Papiere zu Linguistik 25. 47–59. Beito, Olav T. 1970. Nynorsk grammatikk. Lyd- og ordlære. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget. Belgeri, Luigi. 1929. Les affriquées en italien et dans les autres principales langues européennes. Étude de phonétique experimentale. Macon: Protat Frères. Benčić, Nikola. 2003. Gramatika gradišćanskohrvatskoga jezika. Željezno: Znanstveni Inst. Benzing, Johannes. 1959a. Das Kumückische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 391–406. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

References | 535

Benzing, Johannes. 1959b. Das Baschkirische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 421–433. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Benzing, Johannes. 1959c. Das Tschuwaschische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 695–713. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Benzing, Johannes. 1985. Kalmückische Grammatik zum Nachschlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Bereczki, Gábor. 2004. The Uralic language family. In György Nanovhszky (ed.), The FinnoUgric World, 165–170. Budapest: Teleki László Foundation. Berg, Helma van den. 1995. A grammar of Hunzib (with texts and lexicon). München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Berta, Árpád. 1998a. Tatar and Bashkir. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, 283–300. London & New York: Routledge. Berta, Árpád. 1998b. West Kipchak languages. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, 301–317. London & New York: Routledge. Beyrer, Arthur, Klaus Bochmann & Siegfried Bronsert. 1987. Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache der Gegenwart. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11. 239–251. Bilodid, I. K. 1969. Sučasna ukrajins’ka literaturna mova. Vstup. Fonetyka. Kyjiv: Naukova dumka. Birnbaum, Salomo A. 1974. Die jiddische Sprache. Ein kurzer Überblick und Texte aus acht Jahrhunderten. Hamburg: Buske. Bisang, Walter. 2004. Dialectology and typology – an integrative perspective. In Bernd Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology meets typology. Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 11–46. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo. 1986. La lingua sarda contemporanea. Grammatica del logudorese e del campidanese. Norma e varietà dell’uso. Sintesi storica. Cagliari: Della Torre. Blaser, Jutta. 2007. Phonetik und Phonologie des Spanischen. Eine synchronische Einführung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Blasi, D. E., S. Moran, S. R. Moisik, P. Widmer, D. Dediu & B. Bickel. 2019. Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363(6432). [download] Bläsing, Uwe. 2003. Kalmuck. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 229–247. London & New York: Routledge. Blau, Joyce. 1989. Le kurde. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium linguarum iranicarum, 327– 335. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Blevins, Juliette. 2007. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blevins, Juliette. 2017. Areal sound patterns: From perceptual magnets to stone soup. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 88–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bokarev, A. A. 1949. Očerk grammatiki čamalinskogo jazyka. Moskva: Akademija Nauk SSSR. Bokarev, E. A. 1967. Bežitinskij jazyk. In E. A. Bokarev & K. V. Lomtatidze (eds.), Iberijskokavkazskie jazyki, 66–109. Moskva: Nauka. Bond, Oliver, Greville G. Corbett, Marina Chumakina & Dunstan Brown (eds.) 2016. Archi. Complexities of agreement in cross-theoretical perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

536 | References

Booij, Geert. 2012. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boretzky, Norbert. 1975. Der türkische Einfluss auf das Albanische. Teil 1: Phonologie und Morphologie der albanischen Turzismen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boretzky, Norbert. 1993. Bugurdži. Deskriptiver und historisches Abriß eines Romani-Dialekts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boretzky, Norbert. 1994. Romani. Grammatik des Kalderaš-Dialekts mit Texten und Glossar. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boretzky, Norbert. 1999. Die Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen den südbalkanischen Romani-Dialekten. Mit einem Kartenanhang. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Boretzky, Norbert & Birgit Igla. 1994. Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch. Mit einer Grammatik der Dialektvarianten. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Boretzky, Norbert & Birgit Igla. 1999. Balkanische (südosteuropäische) Einflüsse im Romani. In Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, 709–732. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Borg, Albert & Marie Azzopardi-Alexander. 1997. Maltese. London & New York: Routledge. Borg, Alexander. 1985. Cypriot Arabic. Stuttgart & Wiesbaden: Steiner. Borg, Alexander. 1997a. Cypriot Arabic phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa (including the Caucasus), 219–244. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Borg, Alexander. 1997b. Maltese phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa (including the Caucasus), 245–286. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bozkov, Rangel. 1984. Dimitrovgradskijat (caribrodskijat) govor. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na Bălgarskata Akademija na naukite. Brendemoen, Bernt. 2002. The Turkish dialects of Trabzon. Their phonology and historical development. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Breu, Walter & Giovanni Piccoli. 2000. Dizionario croato molisano di Acquaviva Collecroce. Campobasso: Associazione Culturale Naš Grad. Broderick, George. 1986. A handbook of late spoken Manx. Vol. 3: Phonology. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Brosnahan, Leonard Francis. 1961. The sounds of language. An inquiry into the role of genetic factors in the development of sound systems. Cambridge: Heffer and Sons. Brown, Wella. 2001. A grammar of Modern Cornish. Callington: The Cornish Language Board. Buchholz, Oda & Wilfried Fiedler. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Bulut, Christiane. 2005. Zum Kopierverhalten türkischer Übergangsdialekte. In Walter Bisang, Thomas Bierschenk, Detlev Kreikenborn & Ursula Verhoeven (eds.), Prozesse des Wandels in historischen Spannungsfeldern Nordostafrikas/Westasiens, 221–234. Würzburg: Ergon. Bunis, David M. 2017. Judesmo (Ladino). In Lily Kahn & Aaron D. Rubin (eds.), Jewish languages, 365–450. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Burlyka, I. R. & A. L. Padlužny. 1989. Fanetyka belaruskaj litaraturnaj movy. Minsk: Navuka i tèchnika. Caferoğlu, Ahmet & Gerhard Doerfer. 1959. Das Aserbaidschanische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 280–307. Wiesbaden: Steiner Calabrese, Andrea & W. Leo Wetzels (eds.). 2009. Loan phonology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Campbell, Lyle. 2006. Areal linguistics: a closer scrutiny. In Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Linguistic areas, 1–31. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

References | 537

Campbell, Lyle. 2017. Why is it so hard to define a linguistic area? In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 19–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Capidan, Th. 1932. Aromânii. Dialectul aromân. Studiu lingvistic. Bucureşti: Imprimeria Naţională. Caragiu Marioţeanu, Matilda. 1975. Compendiu de dialectologie română (nord- şi suddunăreană). Bucureşti: Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică. Carballo Calero, Ricardo. 1979. Gramática Elemental Del Gellego Común. Vigo: Galaxia Cardona, Tony. 1997. Introduzzjoni għal-Lingwistika Maltija. Msida: Mireva. Carrera, Aitor. 2006. Gramatica aranesa. Lhèida: Pagès editors. Cech, Petra & Mozes F. Heinschink. 1996. Sepečides-Romani. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Čerenkov, L. N. & R. S. Demeter. 1990. Kratkij grammatičeskij očerk kèldèrarskogo dialekta cyganskogo jazyka. In R. S. Demeter & P. S. Demeter (eds.): Cygansko-russkij i russkocyganskij slovar’ (kèldèrarskij dialekt). 285–306. Moskva: Russkij jazyk. Cernecca, Domenico. 1967. Analisi fonematica del dialetto di Valle d'Istria. In Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia: Revue publiée par les Sections romane, italienne et anglaise de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Zagreb 23, 137–160. Chambers, Jack K. & Peter Trudgill. 1980. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Charachidze, Georges. 1981. Grammaire de la langue avar. Langue du Caucase Nord-Est. SaintSulpice de Favières: Jean-Favard. Charachidze, Georges. 1989. Ubykh. In B. George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The Northwest Caucasian languages, 357–459. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books. Chirikba, Vjacheslav. 2008. The problem of the Caucasian Sprachbund. In Pieter Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics, 25–94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chumakina, Marina, Oliver Bond & Greville G. Corbett. 2016. Essentials of Archi grammar. In Oliver Bond, Greville G. Corbett, Marina Chumakina & Dunstan Brown (eds.), Archi: Complexities of agreement in cross-theoretical perspective, 17–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, Larry. 1998. Chuvash. In Lars Johanson & Éva A. Csató (eds.), The Turkic languages, 434–440. London & New York: Routledge. Coffin, Edna Amir & Shmuel Bolozky. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coghill, Eleanor. 2019. Northeastern Neo-Aramaic and language contact. In Anthony Grant (ed.), The Oxford handbook of language contact, 494–518. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Colarusso, John. 1988. The Northwest Caucasian languages. A phonological survey. London & New York: Routledge. Colarusso, John. 1989. East Circassian (Kabardian dialect). In George B. Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages, 261–355. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books. Collins, Beverley & Inger M. Mees. 1981. The sounds of English and Dutch. Leiden: Universitaire Pers. Comrie, Bernard. 1993. Language universals and language typology: Data-bases and explanations. STUF/Language Typology and Universals 46(1). 3–14.

538 | References

Comrie, Bernard. 1997a. Turkish phonology. In Alan S. Kaye & Peter T. Daniels (eds.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, 883–898. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Comrie, Bernard. 1997b. Tatar (Volga Tatar, Kazan Tatar) Phonology. In Alan S. Kaye & Peter T. Daniels (eds.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, 899–925. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Comrie, Bernard, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Martin Haspelmath. 2005. Introduction. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie, The World Atlas of Language Structures, 1–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cristofaro, Sonia. 2000. Linguistic areas, typology and historical linguistics: An overview with particular respect to Mediterranean languages. In Sonia Cristofaro & Ignazio Putzu (eds.), Languages in the Mediterranean area. Typology and convergence, 65–82. Milano: Francoangeli. Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David. 1997. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csató, Éva Ágnes. 2001. Karaim. In Thomas Stolz (ed.), Minor languages of Europe, 1–24. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Csató, Éva Ágnes & Birsel Karakoç. 1998. Noghay. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, 333–343. London & New York: Routledge. Cunha, Celso & Lindley Cintra. 1989. Nova gramática do português contemporâneo. Lisboa: da Costa. Dahl, Östen. 1990. Standard Average European as an exotic language. In Johannes Bechert, Giuliano Bernini & Claude Buridant (eds.), Toward a typology of European languages, 3– 8. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Dahmen, Wolfgang. 1989a. Rumänisch: Areallinguistik III. Meglenorumänisch. Les aires linguistiques III. Méglénoroumain. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik. Vol. 3. Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart: Rumänisch, Dalmatisch/ Istroromanisch, Friaulisch, Ladinisch, Bündnerromanisch, 436–447. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Dahmen, Wolfgang. 1989b. Rumänisch: Areallinguistik IV. Istrorumänisch. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik. Vol. 3. Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart: Rumänisch, Dalmatisch/Istroromanisch, Friaulisch, Ladinisch, Bündnerromanisch. 448–460. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie José. 1978. Langue corse. Une approche linguistique. Paris: Klincksieck. Dankovičová, Jana. 1999. Czech. In International Phonetic Association (ed.), Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. 70–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dardano, Maurizio & Pietro Trifone. 2008. La lingua italiana: morfologia, sintassi, fonologia, formazione delle parole, lessico, nozioni di linguistica e sociolinguistica. Bologna: Zanichelli. Darlington, Cyril Dean. 1947. The genetic component of language. Heredity 1. 269–286. Dawkins, R. M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References | 539

Décsy, Gyula. 1973. Die linguistische Struktur Europas. Vergangenheit – Gegenwart – Zukunft. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Décsy, Gyula. 2000a. The linguistic identity of Europe, Part 1: The 62 languages of Europe classified in functional zones. Bloomington: Eurolingua. Décsy, Gyula. 2000b. The linguistic identity of Europe, Part 2: Macrolinguistics and demostatistics of Europe. Bloomington: Eurolingua. Dešeriev, Junus Dešerievič. 1959. Grammatika xinalugskogo jazyka. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Dešeriev, Junus Dešerievič. 1960. Sovremennyj čečenskij literaturnyj jazyk. Čast’ 1. Fonetika. Groznyj: Čečeno-ingušskij NII istorii, jazyka i literatury. Dietrich, Wolf & Horst Geckeler. 2004. Einführung in die spanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Schmidt. Dimitrescu, Florica, Viorica Pamfil, Elena Barborica, Maria Cvashnii, Mirela Theodorescu, Cristina Calavașu, Mihai Marta, Elena Toma & Liliana Ruxandoiu. 1978. Istoria limbii române. București: Editura didactică și pedagogică. Dobó, Attila. 1984. Zwei phonologische Prozesse in syrjänischen Dialekten. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 163– 166. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiádo. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1959a. Das Gagausische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 260–271. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1959b. Das Krimosmanische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 272–280. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1959c. Das Krimtatarische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 269–390. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Doniyorova, Soadat & Toshtemirov Qahramonil. 2004. Parlons koumyk (Daghestan). Paris: L’Harmattan. Draskau, Jennifer Kewly. 2008. Practical Manx. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Eckert, Rainer & Elvira-Julia Bukevičiūtė & Friedhelm Hinze. 1994. Die baltischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung. München & Leipzig: Langenscheidt Enzyklopädie. Eckert, Rainer, Emilia Crome & Christa Fleckenstein. 1983. Geschichte der russischen Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Eckmann, János. 1959. Das Tschagataische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 138–160. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Eggers, Eckhard. 1998. Sprachwandel und Sprachmischung im Jiddischen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Eisen, Elad. 2019. The typology of phonological segment borrowing. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem MA thesis. Ejskjær, Inger. 1954. Brøndum-Målet. Lydsystes met i en Sallingdialekt. København: Schulz. El Mogharbel, Christliebe. 1993. Nehrungskurisch. Dokumentation einer moribunden Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Hector. Eliasson, Stig. 2000. Typologiska och areallingvistiska aspekter på de nordeuropeiska språkens fonologi. In Ernst Håkon Jahr (ed.), Språkkontakt – Innverknaden frå nedertysk på andre nordeuropeiske språk, 21–70. København: Nordisk Ministerråd. Ellis, P. Berresford. 1974. The Cornish language and its literature. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

540 | References

Elšík, Viktor. 2007. Hungarian Rumungro. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 261–282. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Endzelin, Jan [Endzelīns, Jānis]. 1944. Altpreussische Grammatik. Rīga: Latvju Grāmata. Endzelīns, Jānis. 1951. Latviešu valodas gramatika. Rīgā: Latvijas Valsts Izdevniecība. Erdal, Marcel. 1998. Old Turkic. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, 138–157. London & New York: Routledge. Ernštreit, Valt & Péter Pomozi. 2004. The Livonian language. In György Nanovfszky & Antal Bartha (eds.), The Finno-Ugric world, 199–202. Budapest: Szekszárdi Nyomda. Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 2009. Baschkirisch. Lehrbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 2012. Türkische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ewels, Andrea-Eva. 2009. Areallinguistik und Sprachtypologie im Ostseeraum: Die phonologisch relevante Vokal- und Konsonantenquantität. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Faßke, Helmut. 1964. Die Vetschauer Mundart. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag Feoktistov, A. P. 1984. Phonologische Analyse des mokša-mordwinischen Konsonantismus. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologische Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 201–208. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Feuillet, Jack. 1996. Grammaire synchronique du bulgare. Paris: Institut d´études slaves. Feuillet, Jack. 2006. Introduction à la typologie linguistique. Paris: Champion. Fischer, Rudolf. 1970. Tschechische Grammatik. Leitfaden zur Einführung in die tschechische Sprache. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Forgács, Tamás. 2007. Ungarische Grammatik. Wien: Praesens. Forker, Diana. 2013. A grammar of Hinuq. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Fort, Marron C. 2001. Das Saterfriesische. In Horst Haider Munske (ed.), Handbuch des Friesischen, 409–422. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Fougeron, Cécile & Caroline L. Smith. 1999. French. In International Phonetic Association (ed.), Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet, 78–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foulon-Hristova, Jordanka. 1998. Grammaire pratique du macédonien. Paris: Langues & Mondes – L’Asiathèque. Francis, Winthrop Nelson. 1983. Dialectology. An introduction. London & New York: Longman. Friedman, Victor A. 2003. An outline of Macedonian grammar. In Ljudmil Jordanov Spasov (ed.), Dve amerikanski gramatiki na sovremeniot makedonski standarden jazik od Horast G. Lant i Viktor A. Fridman. 167–259. Skopje: Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite. Fromm, Hans. 1982. Finnische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Gabain, Annemarie von. 1959a. Das Alttürkische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 21–45 Wiesbaden: Steiner. Gabain, Annemarie von. 1959b. Die Sprache des Codex Cumanicus. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 46–73. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Gardiner, S. C. 1984. Old Church Slavonic. An elementary grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goebl, Hans. 2007. Kurzvorstellung der Korrelativen Dialektometrie. In Peter Grzybek & Reinhard Köhler (eds.), Exact methods in the study of language and text, 165–180. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

References | 541

Goedemans, Rob & Harry van der Hulst. 2005. (a) Fixed stress locations; (b) Weight-sensitive stress; (c) Weight factors in weight-sensitive stress systems; (d) Rhythm types. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 62–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Göksel, Asli & Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish. A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge. Goɫąb, Zbigniew. 1984. The Arumanian Dialect of Kruševo in SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Golubović, Biljana. 2007. Germanismen im Serbischen und Kroatischen. München: Sagner. Good, Jeff & Michael Cysouw. 2013. Languoid, doculect, and glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language’. Language Documentation & Conversation 7. 331–359. Goossens, Jan. 1974. Historische Phonologie des Niederländischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Gordon, Matthew K. 2016. Phonological typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gouskova, Maria. 2010. Optimality theory in phonology. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 545–566. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gramley, Stephan & Michael Pätzold. 2004. A survey of modern English. London & New York: Routledge. Granqvist, Kimmo. 1999. Notes on Finnish Romani phonology. Grazer Linguistische Studien 51. 47–63. Grawunder, Sven. 2017. The Caucasus. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 356–395. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenberg, Marc L. 2000. A historical phonology of the Slovene language. Heidelberg: Winter. Grossman, Eitan & Elad Eisen, Dmitry Nikolaev & Steven Moran. 2020a. SegBo: A database of borrowed sounds in the world’s languages. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020). Marseille, 11–16 May. European Language Resources Association, 5316–5322. Online: http://www.lrec-conf.org/ proceedings/lrec2020/pdf/2020.lrec-1.654.pdf. Grossman, Eitan & Elad Eisen, Dmitry Nikolaev & Steven Moran. 2020b. Revisiting the uniformitarian hypothesis: Can we detect recent changes in the typological frequencies of speech sounds? In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (EVOLANG 2020). Online: https://brussels.evolang.org/proceedings/papers/EvoLang13_ paper_182.pdf. Grossman, Eitan, Elad Eisen, Dmitry Nikolaev & Steven Moran. 2019. The typology of phonological segment borrowing. Talk presented at the workshop on Current Research in Phonological Typology on occasion of the 13th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, University of Pavia, 4–6 September. Gudava, Togo. 1964. Konsonantizm andijskix jazykov: Istoričesko-sravnitel’nyi analiz. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk gruzinskoj SSR. Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1999. Dutch. In International Phonetic Association (ed.), Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. 74–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gussmann, Edmund. 2007. The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gzella, Holger. 2009. Althebräisch. In Holger Gzella (ed.), Sprachen aus der Welt des Alten Testaments, 65–88. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Haarmann, Harald. 1976a. Grundzüge der Sprachtypologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Haarmann, Harald. 1976b. Aspekte der Arealtypologie: Die Problematik der europäischen Sprachbünde. Tübingen: Narr.

542 | References

Haase, Martin. 1993. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel im Baskenland. Die Einflüsse des Gaskognischen und Französischen auf das Baskische. Hamburg: Buske. Haebler, Claus. 1965. Grammatik der albanischen Mundart von Salamis. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Haig, Geoffrey. 2017. Western Asia: East Anatolia as a transition zone. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 396–423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haiman, John & Paola Benincà. 1992. The Rheato-Romance languages. London & New York: Routledge. Hajek, John. 2005. Vowel nasalization. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie, The World Atlas of Language Structures, 46–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, Kathleen C. 2013. A typology of intermediate phonological relationships. The Linguistic Review 30(2). 215–275. Hall, T. Alan. 2000. Phonologie. Eine Einführung. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Halwachs, Dieter W. 1998. Phonologie des Roman. Arbeitsbericht 5 des Projekts: Kodifizierung und Didaktisierung des Roman. Oberwart: Verein Roman. Halwachs, Dieter W. 2002. Burgenland-Romani. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Hamann, Silke. 2003. The phonetics and phonology of retroflexes. Utrecht: LOT. Hammond, Michael. 1992. The phonology of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hannahs, Stephen J. 2013. The phonology of Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrington, Jonathan & Florian Schiel. 2017. /u/-fronting and agent-based modeling: The relationship between the origin and spread of sound change. Language 93(2). 414–445. Harris, Alice C. 1991. Mingrelian. In Alice Harris (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 1: The Kartvelian languages, 313–394. Delmar & NY: Caravan Books. Harris, John. 1984. English in the north of Ireland. In Peter Trudgill (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 115–134. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A grammar of Lezgian. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, & Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals, 1492–1510. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. Haspelmath, Martin. 2010a. Framework-free grammatical theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 287–310. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2010b. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language 86(3). 663–687. Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. (a) Introduction to the segment chapters; (b) Vowel height distinctions; (c) Nasal vowels; (d) The schwa vowel; (e) Labiodental fricatives; (f) Palato-alveolar sibilants; (g) The voiced sibilant [z]; (h) Interdental fricatives; (i) The palatal nasal; (j) Prenasalized consonants; (k) The segment [h]. In Susanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of Pidgin and Creole language structures, 484–496. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2018. How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Daniël van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds.), Aspects of linguistic variation, 83–114. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

References | 543

Hasselblatt, Cornelius. 2001. Grammatisches Wörterbuch des Estnischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hasselbrink, Gustav. 1965. Alternative analyses of the phonemic system in Central SouthLappish. Bloomington: Indiana University. Hazai, György & Matthias Kappler. 1999. Der Einfluß des Türkischen in Südosteuropa. In Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, 649–675. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Heath, Christopher D. 1980. The pronunciation of English in Cannock, Staffordshire. A sociolinguistic survey of an urban speech-community. Oxford: Blackwell. Heike, Georg. 1964. Zur Phonologie der Stadtkölner Mundart. Marburg & Bonn: Elwert. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2006. The changing languages of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heinschink, Mozes F. & Daniel Krasa. 2015. Lehrbuch des Lovari. Die Romani-Variante der österreichischen Lovara. Hamburg: Buske. Henrich, Günther S. 1999. Das Neugriechische. In Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, 301–338. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Herrera Zendejas, Esther. 2014. Mapa fónico de las lenguas mexicanas. Tomos 1–2. Ciudad de México: El colegio de México. Herrera Zendejas, Esther. 2018. Mapa fónico de las lenguas mexicanas. Tomo 3. Ciudad de México: El colegio de México. Hetzer, Armin. 2001. Sephardisch. Judeo-Español, Djudezmo. Einführung in die Umgangssprache der südosteuropäischen Juden. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hetzer, Armin. 2003. Estnisch. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hewitt, George B. 1989a. Abkhaz. In George B. Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages, 39–88. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books. Hewitt, George B. (ed.). 1989b. The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The North West Caucasian languages. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books. Hewitt, George B. 1995. Georgian. A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hickey, Raymond. 2017a. Areas, areal features and areality. In Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2017b. The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hint, Mati & Heikki Paunonen. 1984. On the phonology of the Southern Estonian Tartu dialect. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 275–284. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiádo. Hockett, Charles F. 1985. Distinguished lecture: F. American Anthropologist 87(2). 263–281. Hoekstra, Jarich F. 2001. Standard West Frisian. In Horst Haider Munske (ed.), Handbuch des Friesischen, 83–98. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hoff, Ingeborg. 1946. Skjetvemålet. Utsyn over lydvoksteren i målet i Skiptvet i Østfold i jamføring med andre østfoldske mål. Oslo: Dybwad. Holisky, Dee Ann. 1991. Laz. In Alice C. Harris (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 1: The Kartvelian languages, 395–472. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books. Holisky, Dee Ann & Rusudan Gagua. 1994. Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). In Rieks Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages, 147–212. Delmar &New York: Caravan Books.

544 | References

Holst, Jan Henrik. 2001. Lettische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Holton, David, Peter Mackridge & Irene Philippaki-Warburton. 2012. Greek: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. Honselaar [Xonselaar], Zep. 2001. Govor derevni Ostrovcy Pskovskoj oblasti. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Hualde, José Ignacio. 1992. Catalan. London & New York: Routledge. Hualde, José Ignacio & Jon Ortiz de Urbina. 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Hualde, José Ignacio, Gorka Elordieta & Arantzazu Elordieta. 1994. The Basque dialect of Lekeitio. Bilbo, Donostia: Universidad del País Vasco. Hulst, Harry van der (ed.). 1999. Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Hulst, Harry van der, Rob Goedemans & Keren Rice. 2017. Word prominence and areal linguistics. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 161–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hume, Elizabeth, Jennifer Venditti, Alexandra Vella & Samantha Gett. 2009. Vowel duration and Maltese . In Bernard Comrie, Ray Fabri, Elizabeth Hume, Manwel Mifsud, Thomas Stolz & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Introducing Maltese linguistics, 15–46. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hyman, Larry M. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25. 81–135. Hyman, Larry M. 2018. What is phonological theory? In Larry M. Hyman & Frans Plank (eds.), Phonological Typology, 1–20. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Iandolo, Carlo. 1994. ‘A lengua ‘e Pulcenella. Grammatica Napoletana. Napoli: Di Mauro. Igla, Birgit. 1996. Das Romani von Ajia Varvara. Deskriptive und historisch-vergleichende Darstellung eines Zigeunerdialekts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Ilešić, Franz. 1900. Slovenica. V. Etymologisches u = ü. Archiv für Slavische Philologie 22. 487– 490. Iordan, Iorgu & Vladimir Robu. 1978. Limba română contemporană. Bucureşti: Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică. Italia, Gemma Gemma & Georgia Lambroyorgu. 2001. Grammatica del dialetto greco di Sternatia (Grecia Salentina). Galatina: Congedo editore. Ivič, Pavle. 1958. Osnovnye puti razvitija serboxorvatskogo vokalizma. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 7(1). 3–20. Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. 1967. A historical phonology of Breton. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Jacobs, Neil G. 2005. Yiddish. A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jahić, Dževad, Senahid Halilović & Ismail Palić. 2000. Gramatika bosanskoga jezika. Zenica: Dom Štampe. Jakobson, Roman. 1931. K xarakteristike evrazijskogo jazykovogo sojuza [Characterizing the European linguistic area.]. Reprinted in Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected writings, vol. I, 144–201. The Hague: Mouton. Janhunen, Juha. 1984. Problems of Nenets phonology. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 19–28. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Jastrow, Otto. 1988. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

References | 545

Jenko, Elizabeta M. 2000. Grammatik der slowenischen Sprache. Eine Einführung. Klagenfurt: Drava. Johanson, Lars. 2002. Structural factors in Turkic language contacts. London & New York: Routledge. Johanson, Lars. 2006. On the role of Turkic in the Caucasus Area. In Yaron Matras, April McMahon & Nigel Vincent (eds.), Linguistic areas, 160–181. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Johanson, Lars & Éva Csató. 1998. Notes on transcriptions and symbols. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, xviii–xxii. London & New York: Routledge. Jones, Michael. 1988. Sardinian. In Martin Harris & Nigel Vincent (eds.), The Romance languages, 314–350. London & Sydney: Croom Helm. Joseph, Brian D. 2019. The Greek of Ottoman-era Adrianoupolis. In Angela Ralli (ed.), The morphology of Asia Minor Greek. Selected topics, 315–332. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Juldašev, A. A. 1981. Grammatika sovremennogo baškirskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva: Nauka. Kalnyn’, L. È. 1992. Fonetičeskij stroj odnogo gucul’skogo govora. In L. È. Kalnyn’ & G. P. Klepikova (eds.), Issledovanija po slavjanskoj dialektologii, 7–74. Moskva: RAN. Kang, Yoonjung. 2011. Loanword phonology. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), Companion to phonology, 2258–2282. Malden: WileyBlackwell. Karanfilovski, Maksim. 1999. Das Makedonische. In Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, 239–260. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Karlsson, Fred. 1984. Finnische Grammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Kartosia, Guram. 2008. Lasisch. In Heinz Fähnrich (ed.), Kartwelsprachen. Altgeorgisch, Neugeorgisch, Mingrelisch, Lasisch, Swanisch, 247–304. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Katara, Pekka & Ingrid Schellbach-Kopra. 1975. Suomalais-saksalainen suursanakirja. Porvoo & Helsinki: Söderström. Kattenbusch, Dieter. 1982. Das Frankoprovenzalische in Süditalien. Tübingen & Münster: Narr. Kavitskaya, Darya. 2010. Crimean Tatar. München: LINCOM EUROPA. Kaye, Alan S. 1997. Arabic phonology. In Alan S. Kaye & Peter T. Daniels (eds.), Phonologies of Asia and Africa, 187–204. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Kaye, Alan S. & Peter T. Daniels (eds.). 1997. Phonologies of Asia and Africa, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Keevallik, Leelo. 2003. Colloquial Estonian. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Estonian language, 343–378. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. Keller, Rudolf E. 1961. German dialects: Phonology and morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Kenesei, István, Robert Michael Vago & Anna Fenyvesi. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge. Keresztes, László. 1990. Chrestomathia Morduinica. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. Kert, Georgij Martynovič. 1971. Saamskij jazyk (kil’dinskij dialekt). Fonetika, morfologija, sintaksis. Leningrad: Nauka. Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: LOT. Khan, Emir Djeladet Bedir & Roger Lescot. 1986. Kurdische Grammatik. Bonn: Kultur und Wissenschaft. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1994a. Archi. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages Part 2, 297–365. Delmar & New York: Caravan.

546 | References

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1994b. Khinalug. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages Part 2, 367–406. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1999. Èlementy caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii. Moskva: Nasledie. Kibrik, Aleksandr E. & Ja. G. Testelets. 2004. Bezhta. In Michael Job (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages Part 1, 217–298. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Kiparsky, Vladimir. 1963. Russische historische Grammatik. Band 1: Die Entwicklung des Lautsystems. Heidelberg: Winter. Kirchner, Mark. 1998. Kazakh and Karakalpak. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, 318–332. London & New York: Routledge. Klagstad Jr., Harold L. 1958. The phonemic system of Colloquial Standard Bulgarian, The Slavic and East European Journal 2(1). 42–54. Klajn, Ivan. 2005. Gramatika srpskog jezika. Beograd: Zavod za Udžbenike i Nastavna Sredstva. Klein, Hans-Wilhelm. 1968. Phonetik und Phonologie des heutigen Französisch. München: Hueber. Kocks, Geert Hendrik. 1970. Die Dialekte von Südostdrente und anliegenden Gebieten: Eine strukturelle Untersuchung. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen. Kodzasov, S. V. 2001. Glasnye. In A. E. Kibrik (ed.), Bagvalinskij jasyk, 40. Moskva: Nasledie. Kollmann, Cristian. 2012. Grammatik der Mundart von Laurein. Eine Laut- und Formenlehre aus synchroner, diachroner und kontrastiver Sicht. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Koneski, Blaže. 1983. A historical phonology of the Macedonian language. Heidelberg: Winter. König, Ekkehard & Martin Haspelmath. 1999. Der europäische Sprachbund. In Norbert Reiter (ed.), Eurolinguistik. Ein Schritt in die Zukunft, 111–128. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2011. Linguistic typology and language contact. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 568–590. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Bernhard Wälchli. 2001. The Circum-Baltic languages: An arealtypological approach. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Vol. 2: Grammar and typology, 615–750. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Korhonen, Mikko. 1984. Zur zentralen Problematik der terlappischen Phonologie. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 311–326. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiádo. Kortmann, Bernd & Johan van der Auwera. 2011. Introduction. In Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe. A comprehensive guide, xv– xviii. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Kowalski, Tadeusz. 1929. Karaimische Texte im Dialekt von Troki. Kraków: Académie Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres. Krajčovič, Rudolf. 1975. A historical phonology of the Slovak language. Heidelberg: Winter. Kramer, Johannes. 1989. Rumänisch: Areallinguistik II. Aromunisch. Les aires linguistiques II. Aroumain. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin & Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik. Vol. 3. Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete von der Renaissance bis zur Gegenwart: Rumänisch, Dalmatisch/Istroromanisch, Friaulisch, Ladinisch, Bündnerromanisch, 423–435. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

References | 547

Krämer, Martin. 2009. The phonology of Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krečmer, A. G. & G. Neveklovskij. 2017. Serboxorvatskij jazyk (serbskij, xorvatskij, bosnijskij, černogorskij jazyki). In A. M. Moldovan, S. S. Skorvid, A. A. Kibrik, N. V. Rogova, E. I. Jakuškina, A. F. Žuravlev, S. M. Tolstaja (eds.), Jazyki mira: Slavjanskie jazyki, 151–211. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija. Krier, Fernande. 1976. Le maltais au contact de l’italien. Hamburg: Buske. Kristoffersen, Gjert. 2000. The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krueger, John R. 1961. Chuvash manual: Introduction, grammar, reader, and vocabulary. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Kümmel, Martin Joachim. 2007. Konsonantenwandel. Bausteine zu einer Typologie des Lautwandels und ihre Konsequenzen für die vergleichende Rekonstruktion. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Laanest, Arvo. 1982. Einführung in die ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Hamburg: Buske. Laanest, Arvo. 1986. Isuri keele ajalooline foneetika ja morfoloogia. Tallinn: Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia. Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell. Lafon, René. 1962. Sur la voyelle ü en basque. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 57(1). 83–102. Lamb, William. 2003. Scottish Gaelic. München: LINCOM Europa. Landmann, Angelika. 2012. Kasachisch: Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Landmann, Angelika. 2014a. Tschuwaschisch: Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Landmann, Angelika. 2014b. Tatarisch: Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Landmann, Angelika. 2015. Baschkirisch: Kurzgrammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Laskowski, Roman. 1972. Polnische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Lavotha, Ödön. 1973. Kurzgefaßte estnische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lazard, Gilbert. 2006. La quête des invariants interlangues. La linguistique est-elle une science? Paris: Champion. Leskinen, Heikki. 1984. Über die Phonemsysteme der karelischen Sprache. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 247– 257. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiádo. Levkovych, Nataliya, Lidia Mazzitelli & Thomas Stolz. 2019. Slavic vis-à-vis Standard Average European: An areal-typological profiling on the morphosyntactic and phonological levels. In Andrii Danylenko & Motoki Nomachi (eds.), Slavic on the Map of Europe. Historical and areal-typological dimensions, 187–223. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Lewis, Henry & J. R. F. Piette. 1990. Handbuch des Mittelbretonischen. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Lewis, Henry. 1989. Die kymrische Sprache. Grundzüge ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Lewis, Henry. 1990. Handbuch des Mittelkornischen. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Lewy, Ernst. 1942. Der Bau der europäischen Sprachen. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 48(2). 15–117. Lewy, Ernst. 1964. Der Bau der europäischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Liddicoat, Anthony. 1994. A grammar of the Norman French of the Channel Islands. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Lindow, Wolfgang, Dieter Möhn, Hermann Niebaum, Dieter Stellmacher, Hans Taubken & Jan Wirrer. 1998. Niederdeutsche Grammatik. Leer: Schuster.

548 | References

Lindqvist, Christer. 2007. Schwedische Phonetik für Deutschsprachige. Hamburg: Buske. Lomtatidze, Ketevan & Rauf Klychev. 1989. Abaza. In B. George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The Northwest Caucasian languages, 89–154. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books. Loporcaro, Michele. 2013. Profilo linguistico dei dialetti italiani. Bari & Roma: Laterza. Lorentz, Friedrich. 1903. Slovinzische Grammatik. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Lunt, Horace Gray, Victor A. Friedman & Ljudmil Jordanov Spasov. 2003. Dve amerikanski gramatiki na sovremeniot makedonski standarden jazik. Skopje: Makedonska Akademija na Naukite i Umetnostite. Lytkin, Vasilij Il’ič. 1961. Komi-jaz’vinskij dialekt. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maddieson, Ian. 1986. Borrowed sounds. In Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), The Fergusonian impact. In honor of Charles A. Ferguson on occasion of his 65th birthday. Vol. 1: From phonology to society, 1–16. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Maddieson, Ian. 2005. (a) Consonant inventories; (b) Vowel quality inventories; (c) Consonantvowel ratio; (d) Voicing in plosives and fricatives; (e) Voicing and gaps in plosive systems; (f) Uvular consonants; (g) Glottalized consonants; (h) Lateral consonants; (i) Front rounded vowels; (j) Syllable structure; (k) Tone; (l) Absence of common consonants; (m) Presence of uncommon consonants. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 10–41, 50–61, 78–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maddieson, Ian. 2018. Is phonological typology possible without (universal) categories? In Larry M. Hyman & Frans Plank (eds.), Phonological typology, 107–125. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Magomedbekova, Zagidat Magomedovna. 1967. Axvaxskij jazyk. Grammatičeskij analiz, teksty, slovar’. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Magomedbekova, Zagidat Magomedovna. 1999a. Botlixskij jazyk. In M. E. Alekseev (ed.), Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, 229–236. Moskva: Bol’šaja rossijskaja ènciklopedija. Magomedbekova, Zagidat Magomedovna. 1999b. Karatinskij jazyk. In M. E. Alekseev (ed.), Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, 17–24. Moskva: Bol’šaja rossijskaja ènciklopedija. Magomedbekova, Zagidat Magomedovna. 1999c. Tindijskij jazyk. In M. E. Alekseev (ed.), Jazyki mira: Kavkazskie jazyki, 25–32. Moskva: Bol’šaja rossijskaja ènciklopedija. Magometov, Aleksandr Amarovič. 1965. Tabasaranskij jazyk. (Issledovanie i teksty). Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Magometov, Aleksandr Amarovič. 1970. Agul’skij jazyk: issledovanie i teksty. Tbilisi: Mecniereba. Malmberg, Bertil. 1963. Structural linguistics and human communication. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer. Mansuroğlu, Mecdut. 1959a. Das Karakhanidische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 87–112. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Mansuroğlu, Mecdut. 1959b. Das Altosmanische. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 161–181. Wiesbaden: Steiner.

References | 549

Martynova, G. I. 2009. Fonologična systema mišanoij govirky. In G. I. Martynova (ed.), Movoznavčyj visnyk: zbirnyk naukovyx prac’ na pošanu profesora Kateryny Gorodens’koji z nagody jiji 60-riččja, 27–37. Čerkasy: Čerkas’kyj nacional’nyj universytet. Mateus, Maria Helena & Ernesto d’Andrade. 2000. The phonology of Portuguese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matras, Yaron. 2002. Romani: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 31–74. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel (eds.). 2007. Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Matras, Yaron & Şirin Tufan. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Macedonian Turkish. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 215–227. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Matthews, William K. 1967. Russian historical grammar. London: The Athlone Press. Maurer, Philippe. 2013. (a) Syllable onsets; (b) Syllable codas; (c) Tone. In Susanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath & Magnus Huber (eds.), The atlas of Pidgin and Creole language structures, 474–483. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayerthaler, Willi, Günther Fliedl & Christian Winkler. 1993. Inifinitivprominenz in europäischen Sprachen. Teil I: Die Romania (samt Baskisch). Tübingen: Narr. Mayo, Peter. 1993. Belorussian. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 887–946. London & New York: Routledge. Mažiulis, Vytautas. 1993. Prūsų kalbos etimologijos žodynas. 2: I-K. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. McCarthy, K. M. 1970. The linguistic adaptation of loanwords in Modern Turkish. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill dissertation. Meisenburg, Trudel & Maria Selig. 2006. Phonetik und Phonologie des Französischen. Stuttgart: Klett. Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1959. Die aralo-kaspische Gruppe. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 434–488. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Mensching, Guido. 1994. Einführung in die sardische Sprache. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. Minassian, Martiros. 1976. Manuel pratique d’arménien ancient. Paris: Klincksieck. Minkova, Donka. 2014. A historical phonology of English. Edinburgh: University Press. Mirčev, Kiril. 1978. Istoričeska gramatika na bǎlgarskija ezik. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo. Moran, Steven & Daniel McCloy. (eds.). 2019. PHOIBLE 2.0. Jena: Max-Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Moravcsik, Edith A. 2013. Introducing language typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moseley, Christopher. 2002. Livonian. München: LINCOM EUROPA. Moulton, William G. 1972. The Proto-Germanic non-syllabics (consonants). In Frans van Coetsem & Herbert L. Kufner (eds.), Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic, 141–173. Tübingen: Narr. Muhamedowa, Raihan. 2016. Kazakh. A comprehensive grammar. London & New York: Routledge.

550 | References

Muižniece, Lalita. 2002. Latviešu valodas praktiskā fonoloǵija. Rīga: Rasa ABC. Musaev, K. M. 1997. Karaimskij jazyk. In Èdgem R. Tenišev & Viktorija Nikolaevna Jarceva (eds.), Jazyki mira: Tjurkskie jazyki, 254–264. Moskva: Indrik. Muysken, Pieter. 2008. Introduction: Conceptual and methodological issues in areal linguistics. In Pieter Muysken (ed.), From linguistic areas to areal linguistics, 1–24. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nagy, Emília. 2004. The Saami language. In György Nanovfszky (ed.), The Finno-Ugric world, 203–207. Budapest: Teleki László Foundation. Nance, Robert Morton. 1978. An English-Cornish and Cornish-English dictionary. Penzance: The Cornish Language Board. Nau, Nicole. 2011. A short grammar of Latgalian. München: Lincom Europa. Newton, Brian. 1972. The generative interpretation of dialect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ní Chasaide, Ailbhe. 1999. Irish. In International Phonetic Association (ed.), Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. 111–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nichols, Johanna. 1994a. Chechen. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages, Part 2, 1–78. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Nichols, Johanna. 1994b. Ingush. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages, Part 2, 79–146. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Nikolaev, Dmitry. 2018. The database of European phonological inventories: A research tool for distributional phonological typology. Linguistics Vanguard 4(1). [download] Nikolaev, Dmitry & Eitan Grossman. 2018. Areal sound change and the distributional typology of affricate richness in Eurasia. Studies in Language 42(3). 562–599. Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. A grammar of Tundra Nenets. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Nocentini, Alberto. 2004. L’Europa linguistica. Profilo storico e tipologico. Firenze: Le Monnier Università. Nordli, Ingrid C. 2008. Tromsø. In Olaf Husby & Tore Høyte (eds.), An introduction to Norwegian dialects, 25–38. Trondheim: Tapir Academic Press. Ó Cuív, Brian. 1975. The Irish of West Muskerry, Co. Cork. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. Ò Dochartaigh, Cathair. 1992. The Irish language. In D. MacAulay (ed.), The Celtic languages, 11–99. Cambridge: CUP. Orlova, V. G. 1949. O govore sela Permas Nikol’skogo rajona Vologodskoj oblasti. In S. P. Obnorskij et al. (eds.), Materialy i issledovanija po russkoj dialektologii. Tom I, 45–70. Moskva & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Özsoy, A. Sumru & Yektan Türkyılmaz. 2006. Front rounded vowels in the Sinemili dialect of Kurmanji – a case of language contact?. In Lars Johanson & Christiane Bulut (eds.), TurkicIranian contact areas. Historical and linguistic aspects, 300–309. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Palmeos, Pauline Jur'evna. 1962. Karjala valdai murrak. Tallinn. Pandey, Pramod. 2014. Sounds and their patterns in Indic languages. Vol. 1: Sound Patterns. Vol. 2: Phonological sketches. Bengaluru: Foundation Books/Cambridge University Press India.

References | 551

Paris, Catherine. 1989. West Circassian. In B. George Hewitt (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 2: The Northwest Caucasian languages, 155–260. Delmar & New York: Caravan Books. Paster, Mary. 2010. Phonological analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 525–544. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paul, Ludwig. 1998. Zazaki. Grammatik und Versuch einer Dialektologie. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Penhallurick, Robert. 2008. Welsh English: Phonology. In Bernd Kortmann & Clive Upton (eds.), Varieties of English. Vol. 1: The British Isles, 105–121. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Petrovici, Emil. 1956. Influenţa slavă asupra sistemului fonemelor limbii române. Bucureşti: Societate de ştiinţe istorice şi filologice. Petrovici, Emil. 1957. Kann das Phonemsystem einer Sprache durch fremden Einfluss umgestaltet werden? Zum slavischen Einfluss auf das rumänische Lautsystem. ‘s-Gravenhage: Mouton. Petrovici, Emil. 1967. Le modèle serbo-croate du système phonématique du istro-roumain. In Josef Hamm (ed.), Phonologie der Gegenwart. Vorträge und Diskussionen anläßlich der Internationalen Phonologie-Tagung in Wien 30.8.–3.9.1966, 262–272. Graz & Wien & Köln: Böhlau. Pétursson, Magnus. 1978. Isländisch. Hamburg: Buske. Pīrāga, Mirdza. 2006. Skrundas izloksnes apraksts. Liepāja: LiePA. Pitrè, Giuseppe. 2001. Grammatica siciliana. Catania: Brancato. Pokrovskaja, L. A. 1964. Grammatika gagauzskogo jazyka: fonetika i morfologija. Moskva: Nauka. Polański, Kazimierz. 1993. Polabian. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 795–824. London & New York: Routledge. Popović, Ivan. 1960. Geschichte der serbokroatischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Priestly, T. M. S. 1993. Slovene. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 388–451. London & New York: Routledge. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1959. Das Karaimische. In Jean Deny & Kaare Grønbech & Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 318–339. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Procházka, Stephan. 2002. Die arabischen Dialekte der Çukurova (Südtürkei). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Puddu, Mario. 2008. Grammàtica de sa limba sarda. Cagliari: Condaghes. Puech, Gilbert. 2018. Loss of emphatic and guttural consonants: From medieval to contemporary Maltese. In Patrizia Paggio & Albert Gatt (eds.), The languages of Malta, 7–54. Berlin: Language Science Press. Quintana, Artur. 1981. Handbuch des Katalanischen. Barcelona: Barcino. Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2018. Phonologische Abstraktheit und symbolische Repräsentation. In Angelika Wöllstein, Peter Gallmann, Mechthild Habermann & Manfred Krifka (eds.), Grammatiktheorie und Empirie in der Germanistischen Linguistik, 549–586. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Ramat, Paolo. 1999. Typologisches Vergleichen und Areallinguistik. In Norbert Reiter (ed.), Eurolinguistik: Ein Schritt in die Zukunft: Beitrage zum Symposion vom 24. bis 27. März 1997 im Jagdschloß Glienicke (bei Berlin), 151–160. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Ramat, Paolo. 2011. The impact of migrations on the linguistic landscape of Europe. In Bernd Kortmann & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe: A comprehensive guide, 683–696. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Rédei, Károly. 1978. Syrjänische Chrestomathie. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Österreichs.

552 | References

Rédei, Károly. 1984. Phonologische Analyse des Erza-Mordwinischen. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 209–230. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Reershemius, Gertrud. 2004. Niederdeutsch in Ostfriesland. Zwischen Sprachkontakt, Sprachwandel und Sprachwechsel. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Rheinfelder, Hans. 1976. Altfranzösische Grammatik. 1. Teil: Lautlehre. München: Hueber. Riad, Tomas. 2014. The phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Riemsdijk, Henk van (ed.). 1999. Clitics in the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Rießler, Michael. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Kildin Saami. In Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 229–244. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Rjagoev, Vladimir. 1977. Tixvinskij govor karel’skogo jazyka. Leningrad: Nauka. Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1977. Grammatica storica dei dialetti italogreci (Calabria, Salento). München: Beck. Romieu, Maurice & André Bianchi. 2005. Gramatica de l'occitan gascon contemporanèu. Pessac: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux. Round, Erich. 2019. Canonical phonology. Talk presented at the workshop on Current Research in Phonological Typology on occasion of the 13th Conference of the Association for Linguistic Typology, University of Pavia, 4–6 September. Rowley, Anthony R. 2003. Liacht as de sproch. Grammatik des Deutsch-Fersentalerischen. Lusern: Istituto Culturale Mòcheno-Cimbro. Rubach, Jerzy. 1993. The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rudzīte, Marta. 1964. Latviešu dialektoloǵiija. Rīga: Latvijas Valsts Izdevniecība. Ruge, Hans. 2001. Grammatik des Neugriechischen. Lautlehre, Formenlehre, Syntax. Köln: Romiosini. Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saadiev, Sh. M. 1994. Kryts. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages, Part 2, 407–446. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Saar, Eeva. 2017. Isuri keele Soikkola murde sõnamuutmissüsteem. Tartu: Tartu Ülikool Kirastus. Saidova, P. A. 2004. Ghodoberi. In Michael Job (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol.3: The North East Caucasian languages. Part 1, 69–112. Ann Arbor: Caravan. Sakayan, Dora. 2000. Modern Western Armenian for the English-speaking world. A contrastive approach. Montreal: Arod Books. Sala, Marius. 1970. Contribuţii la fonetica istorică a limbii române. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Sala, Marius. 1971. Phonétique et phonologie du judéo-espagnol de Bucarest. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Salánki, Zsuzsa. 2004. The Komi language. In György Nanovhszky (ed.), The Finno-Ugric world, 223–226. Budapest: Teleki László Foundation. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1984. New developments in Inari Lappish phonology. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 303– 310. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiádo. Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. The Saami languages. An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi Girji. Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1971. L’édification de la langue hongroise. Paris: Klincksieck.

References | 553

Sauvageot, Aurélien. 1973. L’élaboration de la langue finnoise. Paris: Klincksieck. Sawicka, Irene. 1997. The Balkan Sprachbund in the light of phonetic features. Toruń: Energeia. Saxarova, Marfa Aleksandrovna, Nikolaj Nikitič Sel’kov & Nina Andreevna Kolegova. 1976. Pečorskij dialekt komi jazyka. Syktyvkar: Komi Knižnoe Izdatel’stvo. Scala, Andrea. 2018. Borrowing of phonological rules: Case studies from Romani, Armenian and Yiddish and some general reflections. Journal of Language Relationship 16(3). 215– 230. Schaarschmidt, Gunter. 1998. A historical phonology of Upper and Lower Sorbian languages. Heidelberg: Winter. Schaarschmidt, Gunter. 2004. Upper Sorbian. München: LINCOM Europa. Schanen, François. 2004. Parlons luxembourgeois. Paris: L’Harmattan. Schanen, François & Jacqui Zimmer. 2012. Grammaire luxembourgeoise. Esch-sur-Alzette: Schortgen. Schanidze, Akaki. 1982. Grammatik der altgeorgischen Sprache. Tbilissi: Tbilisis sakhelmšipo universiṭeṭi. Schleicher, August. 1871. Laut- und Formenlehre der polabischen Sprache. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schmitt, Rüdiger. 2007. Grammatik des Klassisch-Armenischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Schönig, Claus. 1998a. Azerbaijanian. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, 248–260. London & New York: Routledge. Schönig, Claus. 1998b. Turkmen. In Lars Johanson & Éva Csató-Johanson (eds.), The Turkic languages, 261–272. London & New York: Routledge. Schulze, Wolfgang. 1997. Tsakhur. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Schulze-Fürhoff, Wolfgang. 1994. Udi. In Rieke Smeets (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages, Part 2, 447–514. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Schwarzwald, Ora R. 2001. Modern Hebrew. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Seegmiller, Steve. 1996. Karachay. Unterschleissheim: Lincom Europa. Selcan, Zülfü. 1998. Grammatik der Zaza-Sprache, Nord-Dialekt (Dersim-Dialekt). Berlin: Wissenschaft & Technik. Sercu, Aurel. 1972. Het dialect van Oostduinkerke en omgeving. Gent: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Taal- en Letterkunde. Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A prehistory of Slavic. Heidelberg: Winter. Shevelov, George Y. 1979. A historical phonology of the Ukrainian language. Heidelberg: Winter. Shorrocks, Graham. 1998. A grammar of the dialect of the Bolton area. Frankfurt/Main: Lang. Short, David. 1993a. Czech. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 455–532. London & New York: Routledge. Short, David. 1993b. Slovak. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 533–592. London & New York: Routledge. Sidorov, V. N. 1949. Nabljudenija nad jazykom odnogo iz govorov rjazanskoj meščery. In S. P. Obnorskij et al. (eds.), Materialy i issledovanija po russkoj dialektologii. Tom I, 93–134. Moskva & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR. Sinha, Jasmin. 2000. Der neuostaramäische Dialekt von Beşpən (Provinz Mardin, Südosttürkei). Eine grammatische Darstellung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

554 | References

Širaliev, M. Š. & E. V. Sevortjan. 1971. Grammatika azerbajdžanskogo jazyka. Fonetika, morfologija, sistaksis. Baku: ĖLM. Sivers, Fanny de. 2001. Parlons live. Une langue de la Baltique. Paris: L’Harmattan. Sivertsen, Eva. 1960. Cockney phonology. Oslo & New York: University Press; Humanities Press. Sjögren, Andreas Johan & Ferdinand Johann Wiedemann. 1861. Livisch-deutsches und deutschlivisches Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Šklifov, Blagoj. 1973. Kosturskija t govor. Prinos kǎm proučvaneto na jugo zapadnite bǎlgarski govori. Sofija: Izdatelstvo na Bǎlgarskata Akademija na naukite. Skulina, Josef. 1964. Severní pomezí moravskoslovenských nářečí. Praha: Naklad. Československé Akad. Věd. Sokolova, Bojka Borisova. 1983. Die albanische Mundart von Mandrica. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Somfai Kara, Dávid. 2002. Kazak. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Sorvačeva, Valentina Aleksandrovna & Ljucija Mixajlovna Beznosikova. 1990. Udorskij dialekt komi jazyka. Moskva: Nauka. Stadnik, Elena. 2002. Die Palatalisierung in den Sprachen Europas und Asiens: eine arealtypologische Untersuchung. Tübingen: Narr. Stathi, Ekaterini. 1995. Phonetik und Phonologie des Lazischen. In Silvia Kutscher (ed.), Das Mutafi-Lazische, 7–20. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln. Steenwijk, Han. 1992. The Slovene dialect of Resia: San Giorgio. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Steinke, Klaus & Xhelal Ylli. 2007. Die slavischen Minderheiten in Albanien (SMA). 1. Teil: Prespa – Vërnik – Boboshtica. München: Sagner. Steinke, Klaus & Xhelal Ylli. 2010. Die slavischen Minderheiten in Albanien (SMA). 3. Teil: Gora. München: Sagner. Stieber, Zidislaw. 1973. A historical phonology of the Polish language. Heidelberg: Winter. Stolz, Thomas. 2004. Review of The linguistic identity of Europe. Parts 1–2 by Gyula Décsy. 2000. Anthropological Linguistics 44(3). 308–320. Stolz, Thomas. 2005. Review of: Birgit Beneš; Uta Fromherz & Fredy Gröbli (eds.), Heinrich Wagner. Beiträge zur typologischen Sprachgeographie. STUF/Language Typology and Universals 58(4). 396–398. Stolz, Thomas. 2006. Europe as a linguistic area. In Keith Brown et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Vol. IV, 278–295. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Stolz, Thomas. 2007. Being monosyllabic in Europe: An areal-typological project in statu nascendi. In Andreas Ammann (ed.), Linguistics Festival, 97–134. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Stolz, Thomas. 2010. Phonologie und areal Europa. In Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), Handbuch der Eurolinguistik, 597–622. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Stolz, Thomas. 2013. Competing comparative constructions in Europe. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Stolz, Thomas & Nataliya Levkovych. 2017. Convergence and divergence in the phonology of the languages of Europe. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, 122–160. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stolz, Thomas & Nataliya Levkovych. 2021. Über die Diffusion von /y/ in Europa und wie viel Verantwortung das Deutsche dafür trägt. In Henning Lobin, Andreas Witt & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Deutsch in Europa. Sprachpolitisch, grammatisch, methodisch, 135–157. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

References | 555

Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2006. On comitatives and related categories. A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Stolz, Thomas, Sonja Kettler, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2008. Split possession. An areallinguistic study of the alienability correlation and related phenomena in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Stolz, Thomas, Aina Urzde & Hitomi Otsuka. 2010. Europäische Liquiden: rhotische und laterale Phoneme – sprachgeographisch betrachtet. In Cornelia Stroh (ed.), Von Katastrophen, Zeichen und vom Ursprung der menschlichen Sprache: Würdigung eines vielseitigen Linguisten, Wolfgang Wildgen zur Emeritierung, 93–114. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Stolz, Thomas, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka. 2011a. The sounds of Europe: Velar and post-velar fricatives in areal perspective. Lingua Posnaniensis 53(1). 87–108. Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze. 2011b. Total reduplication. The areal linguistics of a potential universal. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Stolz, Thomas, Aina Urdze & Hitomi Otsuka. 2012a. Seltene Klänge: Zu den Marginalien der arealen Phonologie Europas. In Cornelia Stroh (ed.), Neues aus der Bremer Linguistikwerkstatt: Aktuelle Themen und Projekte, 1–22. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Stolz, Thomas, Nicole Nau & Cornelia Stroh (eds.). 2012b. Monosyllables. From phonology to typology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Stolz, Thomas, Nataliya Levkovych, Aine Urdze, Julia Nintemann & Maja Robbers. 2017. Spatial interrogatives in Europe and beyond: Where, whither, whence. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Stone, Gerald. 1993a. Sorbian (Upper and Lower). In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 593–685. London & New York: Routledge. Stone, Gerald. 1993b. Cassubian. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 759–794. London & New York: Routledge. Street, John C. 1959. Structure of Kalmyk. American Council of Learned Societies. Research and Studies in Uralic and Altaic Languages. Project No. 1. Strutyński, Janusz. 1997. Gramatyka polska. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Tomasz Strutyński. Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2008. Scottish English: Phonology. In Bernd Kortmann & Clive Upton (eds.), Varieties of English. Vol. 1: The British Isles, 48–70. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Sudnik, T. M. 1975. Dialekty litovsko-slavjanskogo pogranič’ja: očerki fonologičeskix sistem. Moskva: Nauka. Suhonen, Seppo. 1984. Fragen der phonologischen Analyse des Wotischen. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 287– 293. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiádo. Sumbatova, Nina R. & Rasul O. Mutalov. 2003. A grammar of Icari Dargwa. München: LINCOM. Sussex, Roland & Paul Cubberley. 2006. The Slavic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Švedova, Natal’ja Jul’evna. 1980. Russkaja grammatika. Tom 1: Fonetika, fonologija, udarenie, intonacija, slovoobrazovanie, morfologija. Moskva: Nauka. Talibov, B. B. 2004. Tsakhur. In Michael Job (ed.), The indigenous languages of the Caucasus. Vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages, Part 1, 347–419. Delmar & New York: Caravan. Tauli, Valter. 1973. Standard Estonian grammar. Part I: Phonology, morphology, wordformation. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska Akademiens grammatik. 1: Inledning, Register. Stockholm: Nordstedt.

556 | References

Tenser, Anton. 2005. Lithuanian Romani. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Ternes, Elmar. 1992. The Breton language. In D. MacAulay (ed.), The Celtic languages, 371–452. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ternes, Elmar. 1998. Lauttypologie der Sprachen Europas. In Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl-Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen (eds.), Sprache in Raum und Zeit: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, 139–152. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Ternes, Elmar. 1999. Einführung in die Phonologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Ternes, Elmar. 2006. The phonemic analysis of Scottish Gaelic based on the dialect of Applecross, Ross-shire. Dublin: School of Celtic Studies. Ternes, Elmar. 2010. Phonetische Eigenschaften der Sprachen Europas. In Uwe Hinrichs (ed.), Handbuch der Eurolinguistik, 577–596. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Thomas, Alan R. 1984. Welsh English. In Peter Trudgill (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 178– 194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, Alan R. 1992. The Cornish language. In D. MacAulay (ed.), The Celtic languages, 346– 370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1976. Contact-induced language change: Loanwords and the borrowing language’s pre-borrowing phonology. In William M. Christie (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, 167–179. Amsterdam, New York & Oxford: NorthHolland. Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, Creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of California Press. Thomsen, Kaare. 1959. Das Kasantatarische und die westsibirischen Dialekte. In Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & Zeki Veldi Togan (eds.), Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, 407–420. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Thordarson, Fridrik. 1989. Ossetic. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium linguarum iranicarum, 456–479. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1994. Icelandic. In Ekkehard König & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), The Germanic languages, 142–189. London: Routledge. Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Hjalmar P. Petersen, Jógvan í Lon Jacobsen & Zakaris Svabo Hansen. 2004. Faroese. An overview and reference grammar. Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag. Todd, Terry Lynn. 1985. A grammar of Dimili. Stockholm: Iremet. Tompa, József. 1972. Kleine ungarische Grammatik. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Topolińska, Zuzanna. 1974. A historical phonology of the Kashubian dialects of Polish. The Hague & Paris: De Gruyter Mouton. Toso, Fiorenzo. 1997. Grammatica del genovese. Varietà urbana e di koinè. Recco: Le Mani. Touratier, Christian. 2013. Lateinische Grammatik. Linguistische Einführung in die lateinische Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Trask, R. L. 1997. The history of Basque. London & New York: Routledge. Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1939: Zur phonologischen Geographie der Welt. [summary]– In E. Blancquaert (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. 18–22 July, Ghent 1938, 499. Ghent: Laboratory of phonetics of the University. Trudgill, Peter. 1974. Linguistic change and diffusion: decription and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language and Society (3)2. 215–246.

References | 557

Tsvetkov, Dmitri. 1995. Vatjan kielen joenperän murteen sanasto. Helsinki: SuomalaisUgrilainen Seura. Tuite, Kevin. 1997. Svan. München: LINCOM EUROPA. Tyroller, Hans. 2003. Grammatische Beschreibung des Zimbrischen von Lusern. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Uffmann, Christian. 2015. Loanword adaptation. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 644–666. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ulvydas, Kazys. 1965. Lietuviu̜ kalbos gramatika: Fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Urdze, Aina Mārīte. 2010. Ideophone in Europa. Die Grammatik der lettischen Geräuschverben. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Vaitkevičiūtė, V. 1965. Fonetika. In Kazys Ulvydas (ed.), Lietuvių kalbos gramatika. I tomas, 43– 160. Vilnius: Mintis. Valentini, Erwin. 2001. Gramatica dl ladin standard. Urtijei: SPELL. Vasiliu, Emil. 1965. Fonemele /ğ, ʒ/ în limba română. In Iorgu Iordan (ed.), Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti la 70 de ani, 977–978. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Vaux, Bert. 1998. The phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon. Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vermeer, Willem. 1979. Proto-Slavonic *u in Kajkavian. Zbornik za Filologiju i Linguistiku Matice srspke 22(1). 171–177. Viitso, Tiit-Rein. 2003. Phonology, morphology and word formation. In Mati Erelt (ed.), Estonian language, 9–129. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers. Virtaranta, Pertti. 1984. Über das s im Karelischen. In Péter Hajdú & László Honti (eds.), Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen, 247–257. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiádo. Wagner, Heinrich. 1964. Nordeuropäische Lautgeographie. Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 29(1). 225–298. Walker, Alastair & Ommo Wilts. 2001. Das Saterfriesische. In Horst Haider Munske (ed.), Handbuch des Friesischen, 284–304. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Watkins, T. Arwyn. 1992. Kurze Beschreibung des Kymrischen. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Weinhold, Karl, Gustav Ehrismann & Hugo Moser. 1972. Kleine mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Wien & Stuttgart: Braumüller. Weinreich, Uriel. 1954. Is a structural dialectology possible? Word 10(2–3). 388–400. Weinreich, Uriel. 1970. Languages in contact. Findings and problems. The Hague, Paris: Mouton. Wentzel, Tatjana W. & Erika Klemm. 1980. Die Zigeunersprache (nordrussischer Dialekt). Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Werlen, Iwar. 1976. Zur Phonologie der Mundart von Brig. Bern: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Werner, Otmar. 1963. Aspiration und stimmlose Nasale/Liquiden im phonologischen System des Färingischen. Phonetica 9. 79–107. Wexler, Paul. 1977. A historical phonology of the Belorussian language. Heidelberg: Winter. Wexler, Paul. 1987. Explorations in Judeo-Slavic linguistics. Leiden: Brill. Wexler, Paul. 1991. Yiddish – the fifteenth Slavic language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1991(91). 9–149.

558 | References

Whaley, Lindsay J. 1997. Introduction to typology. The unity and diversity of language. London & New Dehli: Sage. Wheeler, Max. 2005. The phonology of Catalan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiemer, Björn. 2003. Dialect and language contacts on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the 15th century until 1939. In Kurt Braunmüller & Gisella Ferraresi (eds.), Aspects of multilingualism in European language history, 105–143. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiik, Barbro. 2002. Studier i de österbottniska dialekternas fonologi och morfologi. Helsingfors: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland. Willkommen, Dirk. 1977. Ladelunder Dänisch: Phonologie eines Schleswiger Dialekts. Kiel: Universität Kiel. Winkler, Eberhard. 1997. Krewinisch. Zur Erschließung einer ausgestorbenen ostseefinnischen Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Winkler, Eberhard. 2011. Udmurtische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, in Kommission. Wmffre, Iwan. 1998. Late Cornish. München & Newcastle: Lincom Europa. Wohlgemuth, Jan & Michael Cysouw (eds.). 2010. Rara & Rarissima. Documenting the fringes of linguistic diversity. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Wüest, Jacob Th. 2008. Ladinisch und Galloromanisch. In Gabriele Blaikner-Hohenwart & Hans Goebl (eds.), Ladinometria 1. Festschrift für Hans Goebl zum 65. Geburtstag, 377–384. Salzburg: Universität Salzburg. Zaicz, Gábor. 2004. The Mordvin language. In György Nanovfszky (ed.), The Finno-Ugric world, 209–216. Budapest: Teleki László Foundation. Zajceva, Marija Ivanovna. 1981. Grammatika vepsskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Leningrad: Nauka. Zamora Vicente, Alonso. 1974. Dialectología española. Madrid: Gredos. Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1966. Lietuvių dialektologija. Lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis.

Index of Authors Abaev, Vasilij I. 265 Abdullaeva, A. Z. 245, 262, 287, 309, 323, 418 Aitken, A. J. 290 Alekseev, Mikhail E. 197, 246f. Alhoniemi, Alho 24, 37, 40, 101ff., 241, 273, 281, 312, 322, 393, 432f. Altmann, Gabriel 11f., 16, 69ff., 77 Andersen, Henning 13 Anderson, Cormac 68 Anderson, Gregory D. S. 12, 153 Århammer, Nils 373 Ariste, Paul 97, 242, 272, 275, 280, 312, 323, 343, 371 Árnason, Kristján 3, 22, 123 Arnold, Werner 326 Atanasov, Petăr 95, 267, 285, 382, 398 Atanasov, Radu-Mihail 382, 398 Authier, Gilles 197 Auwera, Johan van der 3f., 71, 531 Auziņa, Ilze 212, 214 Avram, Andrei A. 398 Aygen, Gülşat 265 Azevedo, Milton Mariano 25, 31, 39, 48 Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie 46, 48, 92, 120, 199, 274, 334, 365, 398f., 403 Bakker, Dik 97 Barancev, Aleksandr Pavlovič 256, 316 Bárczi, Géza 240, 271, 301f., 311 Barry, Michael V. 291 Basbøll, Hans 3, 23, 37, 39, 48, 121 Baskakov, N. A. 332, 342, 451 Bechert, Johannes 74 Beito, Olav T. 23 Belgeri, Luigi 59 Benincà, Paola 266 Benzing, Johannes 212, 253, 262, 274, 287, 324, 331, 341, 376, 394, 414 Bereczki, Gábor 240, 271, 280, 301, 310, 321, 370, 393 Berg, Helma van den 288, 410, 428 Berta, Árpád 245, 262, 286, 310, 331, 341f., 376f., 440

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-021

Beyrer, Arthur 283f. Beznosikova, Ljucija Michajlovna 242, 311 Bickel, Balthasar 71 Bilodid, I. K. 238 Birnbaum, Salomo A. 271 Bisang, Walter 90 Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo 300 Blaser, Jutta 24 Blasi, D. E. 253ff., 337 Bläsing, Uwe 253, 274 Blau, Joyce 265 Blevins, Juliette 12f., 39, 53, 107f., 117f., 122, 197, 226, 530f. Bolozky, Shmuel 270, 296, 345 Booij, Geert 3, 25, 47f., 268, 295, 325, 345, 372 Boretzky, Norbert 83, 122, 203, 205, 210, 216, 249f., 265, 303, 315, 355f. Borg, Albert 46, 48, 120, 334, 365, 398, 403 Borg, Alexander 46, 49, 97, 100, 120, 274, 315, 326, 334, 340f., 365, 399 Bowern, Claire 3, 91 Bozkov, Rangel 238 Brendemoen, Bernt 244, 261, 287, 308, 324, 393f., 414 Breu, Walter 100, 239, 298, 362, 425, 434, 441 Brosnahan, Leonard Francis 14, 24, 53, 59, 63, 66f. Brown, Wella 264, 298, 346, 370 Buchholz, Oda 24, 37, 39, 288 Bulut, Christiane 193, 206 Bunis, David 267, 313, 364f. Burlyka, I. R. 25, 383, 448 Caferoğlu, Ahmet 261, 308, 331, 418, 421 Calabrese, Andrea 116 Campbell, Lyle 74f. Capidan, Th. 267 Caragiu Marioţeanu, Matilda 268, 284, 299f., 382, 388, 398, 403 Cardona, Tony 25 Cech, Petra 189, 202, 205, 250, 354, 378, 384

560 | Index of Authors

Čerenkov, L. N. 216, 250 Chambers, Jack K. 46, 53 Charachidze, Georges 150, 172, 336 Chirikba, Vjacheslav 87, 92, 519 Chumakina, Marina 99 Cintra, Lindley 48 Clark, Larry 245, 262, 286, 309, 324, 357, 394, 414 Coffin, Edna Amir 270, 296, 345 Coghill, Eleanor 251, 334 Colarusso, John 97, 172, 254, 411 Collins, Beverley 295 Comrie, Bernard 37, 48f., 71f., 96, 119, 215, 217, 244f., 261, 286, 309, 331, 342, 376f., 418, 440, 449 Cristofaro, Sonia 77 Croft, William 69 Crystal, David 14, 24, 53 Csató, Éva Ágnes 245, 285f., 309f., 332, 342, 377, 451 Cubberley, Paul 233, 297, 319, 335, 337, 361f. Cunha, Celso 48 Cysouw, Michael 3f.

Dum-Tragut, Jasmine 92, 252

d’Andrade, Ernesto 3, 48, 266, 403 Dahl, Östen 4, 42 Dahmen, Wolfgang 80, 95, 267, 284f., 299f., 351, 382, 398, 403 Daniels, Peter T. 97, 105 Dankovičová, Jana 39 Dardano, Maurizio 37 Darlington, Cyril Dean 14, 24 Dawkins, R. M. 373 Décsy, Gyula 14f., 18ff., 30, 33ff., 50f., 54, 58, 61, 68, 71, 86, 89f. Demeter, R. S. 216, 250 Dešeriev, Junus Dešerievič 246f., 441, 450, 453f. Dietrich, Wolf 267, 283, 300, 313, 352, 397, 403 Dimitrescu, Florica 97, 267f., 284, 351, 388 Dobó, Attila 337 Doerfer, Gerhard 216, 245, 256, 261f., 287, 308, 331, 377, 379, 418, 421, 449, 451 Doniyorova, Soadat 309 Draskau, Jennifer Kewly 264

Faßke, Helmut 237, 335 Feoktistov, A. P. 241, 281, 312 Feuillet, Jack 72, 238, 448 Fiedler, Wilfried 24, 37, 39, 288 Fischer, Rudolf 218 Forgács, Tamás 277f. Forker, Diana 197, 247, 441 Fort, Marron C. 219 Fougeron, Cécile 122 Foulon-Hristova, Jordanka 235 Francis, Winthrop Nelson 73, 372 Friedman, Victor A. 363 Fromm, Hans 22, 82, 242, 322, 337, 371, 393

Eckert, Rainer 212, 234, 282 Eckmann, János 244 Eggers, Eckard 271, 366 Eisen, Elad 115, 130ff., 142, 145, 186f., 203, 229ff., 253, 258ff., 276, 278, 293, 305, 307, 317f., 329, 339f., 349f., 360, 367f., 375, 381, 386, 391, 395f., 400f., 406, 408f., 412f., 417, 419f., 422, 423,銀427, 429, 432, 435, 439ff., 444ff., 449ff., 457, 459, 464, 466, 468, 485, 502, 508, 512, 516, 519f., 524, 527ff. El Mogharbel, Christliebe 255f., 290, 378f. Eliasson, Stig 14 Ellis, P. Berresford 91 Elšík, Viktor 196, 203 Endzelin, Jan 255, 290, 316 Endzelīns, Jānis 34, 212, 248, 281 Erdal, Marcel 286, 308, 323, 331, 376, 393, 414 Ernštreit, Valt 98, 344 Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 217f., 331 Ewels, Andrea-Eva 14

Gabain, Annemarie von 244, 261, 286, 308, 323, 331, 341, 376, 393, 414 Gardiner, S. C. 234 Geckeler, Horst 267, 283, 300, 313, 352, 397, 403 Goebl, Hans 77 Goedemans, Rob 13 Göksel, Asli 217f., 244, 286, 308

Index of Authors | 561

Goɫąb, Zbigniew 382 Golubović, Biljana 239 Good, Jeff 3 Goossens, Jan 269, 325, 373 Gordon, Matthew K. 11 Gouskova, Maria 11, 13 Gramley, Stephan 37, 39 Granqvist, Kimmo 196 Grawunder, Sven 12, 83, 92, 123, 519 Greenberg, Marc L. 195f., 203, 213, 235 Grossman, Eitan 81, 97, 115, 119, 123f., 130, 253, 442, 504, 511f., 525 Gussenhoven, Carlos 47f. Gussmann, Edmund 3, 47, 124f. Gzella, Holger 270, 296, 345 Haarmann, Harald 14ff., 21, 25ff., 39, 41ff., 49ff., 53f., 64f., 68, 71f., 80, 86, 89, 504 Haase, Martin 30, 122, 190, 202, 222, 252, 274, 337, 358, 389, 407, 440ff., 510 Haebler, Claus 82, 289, 303, 384, 424, 441 Haig, Geoffrey 124, 192, 203, 411, 421 Haiman, John 266 Hajek, John 12 Hall, Kathleen C. 124 Hall, T. Alan 68ff., 80 Halwachs, Dieter W. 189, 214, 250, 265, 289, 354 Hamann, Silke 80f. Hammond, Michael 3, 24 Hannahs, Stephen J. 3, 23, 32, 48, 122, 264, 298f., 346, 357 Harrington, Jonathan 197 Harris, John 290 Haspelmath, Martin 4, 11f., 16, 59, 66, 69, 79, 82, 86, 106, 123, 504, 525 Hasselblatt, Cornelius 37, 242, 273, 356f. Hasselbrink, Gustav 40, 240 Hazai, György 297, 303 Heine, Bernd 16, 511, 514, 526, 531 Heinschink, Mozes F. 189, 202, 205, 250, 354, 378, 384 Henrich, Günther S. 315, 365 Hentschel, Gerd 195 Herrera Zendejas, Esther 105 Hetzer, Armin 267, 357, 364 Hewitt, George B. 254

Hickey, Raymond 71, 75 Hint, Mati 242, 312 Hockett, Charles F. 253ff., 337 Hoekstra, Jarich F. 25, 37, 325 Hoff, Ingeborg 99 Holisky, Dee Ann 251 Holst, Jan Henrik 248 Honselaar, Zep 234, 448 Hualde, José Ignacio 32, 189f., 196, 200, 202, 222, 251f., 274, 285, 289, 337, 358, 381, 389, 397, 407, 440f., 510 Hulst, Harry van der 3, 13, 117 Hume, Elizabeth 32 Hyman, Larry M. 70f., 162 Iandolo, Carlo 91 Igla, Birgit 83, 188f., 202, 210, 216, 250, 315, 354ff., 378, 383, 398, 403 Ilešić, Franz 195 Iordan, Iorgu 284 Italia, Gemma Gemma 315 Ivić, Pavle 196, 203 Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone 122f., 198, 263f., 369f., 389, 406 Jacobs, Neil G. 270f., 296, 345, 365f. Jahić, Dževad 238, 335 Jakobson, Roman 4 Janhunen, Juha 240 Jastrow, Otto 251, 289, 302, 326, 341, 421 Jenko, Elizabeta M. 362 Johanson, Lars 118, 197, 244, 261, 285 Jones, Michael 300, 347, 388, 397 Joseph, Brian D. 193f., 198, 304 Juldašev, A. A. 24, 37, 49, 245, 262, 287, 309 Kalnyn’, L. È. 238 Kang, Yoonjung 116 Kappler, Matthias 297, 303 Karakoç, Birsel 245, 286, 309, 332, 342, 377, 451 Karanfilovski, Maksim 298 Karlsson, Fred 85 Kartosia, Guram 251 Katara, Pekka 322 Kattenbusch, Dieter 183 Kaufman, Terrence 194, 203

562 | Index of Authors

Kavitskaya, Darya 25, 217, 245, 261, 287, 309, 377, 418, 449 Kaye, Alan S. 97, 105, 334 Keevallik, Leelo 242, 274, 371 Keller, Rudolf E. 25, 120, 191, 202, 270, 325, 372 Kenesei, István 278 Keresztes, László 37, 241, 273 Kerslake, Celia 217f., 244, 286, 308 Kert, Georgij Martynovič 240, 273 Khalilova, Zaira 288, 411, 436 Khan, Emir Djeladet Bedir 98 Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 99, 197, 247, 441, 453f. Kiparsky, Vladimir 234 Kirchner, Mark 286, 309, 331, 342, 377 Klagstad Jr., Harold L. 363 Klein, Hans-Wilhelm 100, 222 Klemm, Erika 25, 153, 250, 315, 364 Klychev, Rauf 153, 336, 424, 440, 452 Kollmann, Cristian 347 Koneski, Blaže 235f., 285, 363 König, Ekkehard 86 Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria 75f., 525 Korhonen, Mikko 275, 337 Kortmann, Bernd 3f. Kowalski, Tadeusz 262, 310, 324 Krajčovič, Rudolf 237, 320 Kramer, Johannes 267, 285, 299, 351, 382, 398, 403 Krämer, Martin 3, 101, 266 Krasa, Daniel 189 Krečmer, A. G. 238 Krier, Fernande 326, 334, 341, 365, 430 Kristoffersen, Gjert 3, 22, 37, 332 Krueger, John R. 34, 37, 212, 245, 262, 287 Kümmel, Martin Joachim 78, 231, 238, 530 Kuteva, Tania 16, 511, 514, 526, 531 Laanest, Arvo 23, 191, 242, 272f., 275, 301, 310, 322f., 343, 370f., 393, 415, 458, 461 Ladefoged, Peter 70, 82 Lafon, René 189 Lamb, William 23, 37, 48 Lambroyorgu, Georgia 315 Landmann, Angelika 212, 309, 342 Laskowski, Roman 80 Lavotha, Ödön 242, 273, 301, 343, 357, 371

Lazard, Gilbert 72 Lehfeldt, Werner 11f., 69ff., 77 Lescot, Roger 98 Leskinen, Heikki 243, 256, 273, 275, 290, 311, 316, 337, 358, 450, 505 Levkovych, Nataliya 9, 64ff., 89, 106, 187, 525 Lewis, Henry 298, 370 Lewy, Ernst 14, 86, 89 Liddicoat, Anthony 403 Lindow, Wolfgang 219 Lindqvist, Christer 22, 36f., 120 Lomtatidze, Ketevan 153, 336, 424, 440, 452 Loporcaro, Michele 32, 198, 290 Lorentz, Friedrich 255 Lytkin, Vasilij Il’ič 37, 242, 311, 451 Maddieson, Ian 12f., 33, 52f., 60f., 64, 69f., 82, 84, 97, 106, 116, 126ff., 133f., 137f., 142, 145ff., 160f., 180ff., 192, 200f., 204, 207, 209, 211, 214f., 219, 227, 229, 232, 234, 241, 257ff., 264, 276, 278, 292f., 304, 307, 317f., 329, 333, 339f., 349f., 360, 367f., 374f., 380f., 386, 391, 395f., 400f., 405f., 408f., 412f., 417, 419f., 422f., 426f., 429, 432, 435, 439, 459, 464, 466, 468, 527ff. Magometov, Aleksandr Amarovič 411, 428 Malmberg, Bertil 14 Mansuroğlu, Mecdut 25, 244, 261, 376, 393, 414 Martynova, G. I. 237 Mateus, Maria Helena 3, 48, 266, 403 Matras, Yaron 75, 117, 126f., 145, 202, 206f., 210, 216, 249f., 265, 289, 315, 354, 364, 373, 378, 383f., 398, 411, 437f., 442, 527, 530 Matthews, William K. 238 Maurer, Philippe 13 Mayerthaler, Willi 87 Mayo, Peter 236 Mažiulis, Vytautas 316 McCarthy, K. M. 261 McCloy, Daniel 97 Mees, Inger M. 295 Meisenburg, Trudel 39, 82, 100, 122 Menges, Karl Heinrich 286, 377

Index of Authors | 563

Mensching, Guido 403 Minassian, Martiros 252 Minkova, Donka 19, 25, 269, 290, 296, 333, 345, 353, 372 Mirčev, Kiril 238, 363 Moran, Steven 97 Moravcsik, Edith 72, 82 Moseley, Christopher 37, 191, 202, 242, 301, 371, 450 Moulton, William G. 294, 324, 332, 345, 353, 372 Muhamedowa, Raihan 208, 245, 287, 309, 331, 377 Muižniece, Lalita 281 Musaev, K. M. 25, 37, 245, 287, 309, 324, 376 Muysken, Pieter 10 Nance, Robert Morton 298, 370 Nau, Nicole 247, 282 Neveklovskij, G. 238 Newton, Brian 198f., 303 Ní Chasaide, Ailbhe 23 Nichols, Johanna 197, 246, 450 Nikolaev, Dmitry 81, 97 Nikolaeva, Irina 312 Nocentini, Alberto 73 Ó Cuív, Brian 32, 264 Orlova, V. G. 235, 448 Ortiz de Urbina, Jon 32, 189f., 200, 202, 222, 251, 274, 289, 337, 358, 389, 407, 440f., 510 Özsoy, A. Sumru 215 Padlužny, A. L. 25, 383 Palmeos, Pauline Jur'evna 243, 280, 311 Pandey, Pramod 105 Paris, Catherine 172, 327, 336, 378, 421, 452 Paster, Mary 11, 13 Pätzold, Michael 37, 39 Paul, Ludwig 124, 412, 428 Paunonen, Heikki 242, 312 Penhallurick, Robert 291, 442 Petrovici, Emil 268, 284f. Pétursson, Magnus 92

Piccoli, Giovanni 100, 239, 298, 362, 425, 434, 441 Piette, J. R. F. 24 Pīrāga, Mirdza 213, 248, 281 Pitrè, Giuseppe 91, 98 Pokrovskaja, L. A. 37, 217, 245, 262, 287, 309, 377, 451 Polański, Kazimierz 194f., 203, 255, 274, 373 Pomozi, Péter 98, 344 Popović, Ivan 238f., 365 Priestly, T. M. S. 298 Pritsak, Omeljan 262, 310, 324, 376 Procházka, Stephan 187f., 202, 205, 220f., 326, 334, 340, 430, 453 Puech, Gilbert 25 Qahramonil, Toshtemirov 309 Quintana, Artur 403 Raffelsiefen, Renate 79 Ramat, Paolo 10, 71 Rédei, Károly 241f., 273, 280f., 311f. Reershemius, Gertrud 314 Rheinfelder, Hans 222, 266, 296, 408 Riad, Tomas 3, 22 Riemsdijk, Henk van 4 Rießler, Michael 121, 240, 273, 281, 322, 357, 393, 415 Rjagoev, Vladimir 243, 280, 311 Robu, Vladimir 284 Rohlfs, Gerhard 275, 315, 327f., 365, 394, 416 Round, Erich 69 Rowley, Anthony R. 304, 347, 389 Rubach, Jerzy 3 Rudzīte, Marta 248 Ruge, Hans 24, 84, 327, 382, 394, 415 Ryding, Karin C. 430 Saadiev, Sh. M. 197 Saar, Eeva 256, 275, 312, 337 Sakayan, Dora 252 Sakel, Jeanette 530 Sala, Marius 268, 283f., 299f., 314, 351f., 364 Salánki, Zsuzsa 241 Sammallahti, Pekka 23, 240, 273, 275

564 | Index of Authors

Sauvageot, Aurélien 240, 272, 278, 310f., 371 Sawicka, Irene 198, 206, 236, 285, 303, 399, 403 Saxarova, Marfa Aleksandrovna 242, 280, 311 Scala, Andrea 193, 197 Schaarschmidt, Gunter 237, 320, 336, 442 Schanen, François 120, 191, 203, 270 Schanidze, Akaki 378 Schellbach-Kopra, Ingrid 322 Schiel, Florian 197 Schleicher, August 194 Schmitt, Rüdiger 252 Schönig, Claus 244, 256, 286, 308, 331, 376, 421 Schulze, Wolfgang 188, 197, 202, 208f., 246f. Schulze-Fürhoff, Wolfgang 188, 197, 202, 208f. Schwarzwald, Ora R. 296, 345 Seegmiller, Steve 245, 262, 287, 309 Selcan, Zülfü 265 Selig, Maria 39, 82, 100, 122 Sevortjan, E. V. 244, 261, 286, 308, 331, 376, 421 Shevelov, George Y. 238, 274, 297, 321, 335, 361f. Shorrocks, Graham 162 Short, David 218, 221, 237, 320 Sidorov, V. N. 234 Sinha, Jasmin 193, 213, 215, 251, 302, 326, 334, 341 Siptár, Péter 3, 97, 278 Širaliev, M. Š. 244, 261, 286, 308, 331, 376, 421 Sivers, Fanny de 242, 311, 323, 344, 371 Sjögren, Andreas Johan 344, 371 Šklifov, Blagoj 236, 363 Skulina, Josef 237, 320 Smith, Caroline L. 122 Somfai Kara, Dávid 309, 331, 377, 342 Sorvačeva, Valentina Aleksandrovna 242, 311 Stadnik, Elena 27, 103, 274, 433, 446f., 449ff. Steenwijk, Han 235, 298, 362 Steinke, Klaus 196, 399, 403 Stieber, Zidislaw 236f.

Stolz, Thomas 4, 14, 18f., 22, 27, 40, 52ff., 58ff., 67f., 89, 106, 187 Stone, Gerald 195, 236f., 336 Street, John C. 25, 274 Strutyński, Janusz 39 Stuart-Smith, Jane 290 Sudnik, T. M. 37, 236, 248, 282, 362, 383, 448 Suhonen, Seppo 312 Sussex, Roland 233, 297, 319, 335, 337, 361f. Švedova, Natal’ja Jul’evna 448 Talibov, B. B. 197, 246 Tauli, Valter 357 Teleman, Ulf 120 Tenser, Anton 205, 210, 250, 437, 449 Ternes, Elmar 4, 15, 22, 25, 37, 42ff., 53f., 58, 60f., 64, 68, 71, 80f., 86f., 89f., 107, 504, 521 Testelets, Ja. G. 197 Thomas, Alan R. 264, 291 Thomason, Sarah G. 117, 194, 203 Thomsen, Kaare 262, 286, 342, 440 Thordarson, Fridrik 265 Thráinsson, Höskuldur 22f., 295, 344 Todd, Terry Lynn 265 Tompa, József 277 Topolińska, Zuzanna 236, 442 Törkenczy, Miklós 3, 97, 278 Touratier, Christian 266, 313, 351, 388 Trask, R. L. 223, 252, 274, 289, 337, 389, 399, 442 Trifone, Pietro 37 Trubetzkoy, Nikolai 59 Trudgill, Peter 46, 53 Tsvetkov, Dmitri 343 Tufan, Şirin 315 Türkyılmaz, Yektan 215 Tyroller, Hans 304, 347, 366 Urdze, Aina Mārīte 344 Vaitkevičiūtė, V. 122, 248, 282, 382f., 448 Vasiliu, Emil 268 Vaux, Bert 3, 92, 193, 203, 252 Velupillai, Viveka 72, 145 Vermeer, Willem 196

Index of Authors | 565

Viitso, Tiit-Rein 322, 343, 357 Virtaranta, Pertti 275 Wagner, Heinrich 14 Wälchli, Bernhard 75, 525 Watkins, T. Arwyn 23 Weinhold, Karl 270, 296, 345 Weinreich, Uriel 72, 116 Wentzel, Tatjana W. 25, 153, 250, 315, 364 Werlen, Iwar 332 Werner, Otmar 97 Wetzels, W. Leo 116 Wexler, Paul 236, 271, 321, 345, 362 Whaley, Lindsay J. 72 Wheeler, Max 3 Wiedemann, Ferdinand Johann 344, 371

Wiemer, Björn 383 Wiese, Richard 3, 39, 48, 121f., 268, 295, 345 Winkler, Eberhard 241, 243, 273, 275, 281, 311f. Wmffre, Iwan 264, 298, 346 Wohlgemuth, Jan 4 Wüest, Jacob Th. 198 Ylli, Xhelal 196, 399, 403 Zaicz, Gábor 98 Zajceva, Marija Ivanovna 22, 242, 280, 301, 312, 371, 393 Zamora Vicente, Alonso 267 Zimmer, Jacqui 120, 191, 203, 270 Zinkevičius, Zigmas 91, 248f., 383

Index of Languages Abaza 137, 141, 153, 326f., 336, 411, 424f., 439f., 444, 452f. Abkhaz 55, 57, 136f., 232, 254, 326f., 330, 336, 409, 411, 420, 423f., 440, 443, 470f., 476f. Abkhaz-Adyghe 97 Adyghe 136f., 141, 172, 232, 254, 326f., 330, 336, 378, 409, 411, 420f., 423f., 440, 443, 452, 458, 470f., 476f. Aghul 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Akhvakh 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 429, 437 Albanian 21, 24, 37, 39ff., 43, 53, 56, 82, 107, 122, 137, 141, 144, 196, 210, 225, 236, 249, 284, 288, 303f., 316, 351, 355, 363, 384, 399, 403, 424f., 441, 444, 473 Albanian (Mandrica) 137, 144, 304 Albanian (Salamis) 137, 288, 303f., 384, 424, 441 Ancient Greek 512 Andi 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Arabic 97, 100, 119, 124, 511ff., 525 Arabic (Çukurova) 137, 140, 201, 213, 225, 251, 302, 326, 333f., 340, 430, 453, 461 Arabic (Cypriot/Kormakiti) 137, 144, 333 Aragonese 99 Aramaic 137, 141, 193, 213, 215, 251, 288f., 302, 324ff., 333f., 341, 421, 430 Aramaic (Cudi) 137, 141, 193, 213, 215, 251, 302, 326, 333f., 341, 430 Aramaic (Hertevin) 137, 141, 251, 288f., 302, 326, 333f., 341, 421, 430 Archi 99, 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Armenian 3, 18, 40, 56, 86, 92, 127, 137, 144, 193, 203, 252, 254, 473, 514 Armenian (Eastern) 137, 144, 253 Armenian (Western) 137, 144, 252 Aromanian 137, 140, 266f., 282, 285, 299, 313, 347, 351, 363f., 381f., 388, 397f., 402f., 456, 460f. Asturian 137, 266, 282, 285, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-022

Avar 137, 246, 288, 303, 410f., 427, 436f., 441 Azerbaijani 127, 137, 141, 193, 197f., 200, 208, 243f., 246, 261, 286f., 308, 324, 331, 342, 376, 393, 414, 418f., 421, 457f. Bagvalal 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Bashkir 21f., 24, 31, 37, 40, 49, 127, 129f., 137, 141f., 243, 245, 261f., 286f., 308f., 324, 331, 341f., 376, 393, 414, 418, 421 Basque 18, 30, 32, 40, 46f., 53, 57, 93, 122, 127, 137, 140f., 143, 189f., 200ff., 204, 222, 224, 251f., 256, 274, 288f., 337, 358, 389, 399, 407, 439f., 442, 460f., 510, 519 Basque (Lekeitio) 137, 251, 407 Basque (Zuberoa) 137, 141, 202, 251, 274, 337, 407, 440 Belarusian 20, 25, 37, 40, 137, 143, 234, 236, 249, 271, 297, 320f., 335, 337, 361f., 383f., 434, 448f., 458 Belarusian (Gervjaty) 137, 143, 297, 320, 335, 361, 434, 448 Bezhta 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Bosnian 137, 144, 234, 238f., 297, 320, 335, 361, 434 Botlikh 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Breton 19, 22, 24, 37, 40, 46, 53f., 56, 96, 122f., 127, 137, 141, 144, 198, 256, 263f., 298, 346, 358, 369, 389, 406ff., 461f. Breton (Léonais) 137, 141, 263, 298, 346, 369, 389, 406f. Breton (Trégorrois) 137, 263, 298, 346, 358, 369 Breton (Vannetais) 137, 144, 263, 298, 346, 358, 369, 389, 407 Budukh 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Bugurdži 137, 141, 210, 249, 265, 315, 354, 363, 377, 384, 438, 458, 461 Bulgarian 21, 40, 57, 137, 143f., 210, 234, 238, 267, 297, 320, 335, 361, 363, 434, 448, 458, 460

Index of Languages | 567

Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad) 137, 297f., 320, 335, 361, 363, 434, 460 Catalan 3, 44, 56, 137, 144, 196, 266, 282, 285, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 399, 402f. Celtic 32f., 39, 41, 44f., 54, 56 Chamalal 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Chechen 137, 141, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 429, 437, 450 Chinese 39 Chuvash 21, 30, 34, 37, 40, 127f., 130, 137, 140, 142, 211f., 241, 243, 245, 261f., 286f., 308f., 324, 331, 342, 357, 376, 393f., 414, 418, 421, 432, 460f. Cornish 91, 137, 144, 198, 263f., 290, 298, 346, 358, 369f., 389, 407 Corsican 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Crimean Tatar 137, 140, 217, 243, 245, 261, 287, 308f., 324, 331, 342, 376f., 393, 414, 418, 421, 449, 456 Croatian 137, 144, 196, 203, 234, 238, 284, 297, 320, 335, 355, 361, 365, 434, 514 Croatian (Burgenland) 137, 144, 238, 320, 335, 361 Çukurova 137, 140, 187f., 192, 201f., 205, 213, 220ff., 225, 251, 302, 326, 333f., 340, 430, 453, 461 Cypriot Arabic 88 Czech 20, 31ff., 39f., 56, 116, 137, 144, 218, 234, 237, 271, 297, 311, 320, 335, 345, 347, 361, 434, 458, 460 Czech (Moravian-Slovak) 137, 144, 234, 297, 320, 335, 361, 434, 458 Danish 3, 19, 23, 37, 39f., 46, 48, 56, 121, 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372, 403, 522 Danish (Brøndum) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Dargwa 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Dargwa (Icari) 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437

Dutch 3, 18f., 25, 31, 40, 45, 47f., 54, 56, 130, 137, 141f., 268f., 294ff., 314, 325, 332, 344f., 353, 372, 522 Dutch (Drente) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 English 3, 19, 24f., 27, 30f., 34, 37, 39f., 55f., 82, 116, 120ff., 137, 141, 143, 162, 210, 248, 264, 269, 274, 290f., 294ff., 298, 302, 314f., 325, 332f., 337, 341, 344ff., 352f., 357, 365, 370, 372, 393f., 398, 399, 403, 415, 438, 442, 461, 479, 511f., 515 English (Bolton Area) 137, 141, 269, 294, 296, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372, 461 English (Cannock) 137, 141, 269, 294, 296, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372, 461 English (Cockney) 137, 269, 296, 314, 325, 332, 353, 372, 461 Erzya 98 Estonian 20, 32, 37, 40, 43, 53, 56, 66, 137, 141, 191, 240, 242, 272f., 280, 301, 310ff., 321f., 342f., 356f., 370f., 392, 415, 433, 514 Estonian (Rõngu) 137, 240, 272, 280, 301, 310, 312, 321f., 342, 356, 370f., 392, 415, 433 Faroese 3, 19, 22, 40, 53, 55f., 59, 97, 137, 269, 294f., 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372, 429, 521f. Finnish 19, 22f., 30f., 40, 44, 55, 57, 82, 85, 101, 127, 137, 141f., 196, 240, 242, 272, 280, 301, 310f., 321f., 337, 342, 356, 370f., 392f., 415, 433 Franco-Provençal (Faetar) 137, 183, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 French 19, 31, 39f., 46, 49, 56, 59, 61, 82, 100f., 116, 121f., 127, 137, 144, 189ff., 198, 200, 202, 213, 218f., 222, 242, 248, 261, 263, 266, 268ff., 273f., 276, 282, 289, 296, 299, 313, 327, 333, 337, 346f., 351, 364, 370, 371, 381, 388f., 397, 402, 406ff., 441f., 444, 479, 489, 512, 515

568 | Index of Languages

Frisian 18f., 25, 28, 37, 40, 54ff., 137, 144, 201, 218ff., 225, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372f., 522 Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk) 137, 144, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Frisian Northern (Weesdring) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Frisian Western 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Friulian 56 Friulian (Udine) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Gagauz 16, 18, 37, 40, 137, 141, 216, 243, 245, 261f., 287, 308f., 324, 331, 342, 376f., 393, 414, 418, 421, 451, 458, 513 Galician 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Gascon 122 Georgian 57, 88, 127, 137, 144, 185, 251, 375, 378 German 3, 16, 18f., 30f., 39f., 46, 48, 53f., 56, 61, 79, 82, 107, 116, 121, 127, 130, 137, 142, 144, 187, 189, 191, 194f., 198, 200, 202, 214, 218ff., 226, 235ff., 242, 248, 250, 255, 265, 268ff., 273, 281, 284, 289f., 294ff., 301, 311, 313f., 316, 320ff., 325, 332f., 344f., 353, 357, 362, 371ff., 378, 383, 418, 442, 462, 512, 514f. German (Brig) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332f., 344, 353, 372 German (Ladelund Danish) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 German (urban Kölsch) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Godoberi 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Greek 21, 24, 31, 40f., 55, 57, 84, 137, 141, 185, 189, 193f., 198, 203, 234ff., 238, 248, 250ff., 275, 285, 288, 303f., 313, 315, 324, 327f., 334, 340, 351, 353ff., 364f., 373, 382ff., 394, 398f., 403f., 415f., 424, 441, 456, 460f., 473, 512, 514, 522 Greek (Italo-Greek Sternatia) 137 Greenlandic 54f., 57

Hebrew 270, 283, 296, 310, 314, 324, 345, 352, 512 Hinukh 137, 144, 197, 246f., 288, 303, 410, 427, 437, 441, 444 Hungarian 3, 16, 20, 40, 45, 53f., 56, 83, 97, 127, 137, 143, 189, 195f., 198, 200, 203, 225, 237, 239f., 267, 271f., 277, 280, 284, 301, 310f., 320f., 342, 347, 356, 362, 370, 392, 415, 433, 458, 514 Hunzib 137, 143, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Icelandic 3, 19, 23, 40, 44, 56, 92, 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372, 521f. Indonesian 511 Ingush 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437, 442 Irish 19, 23, 32f., 40, 56, 127f., 137, 142, 256, 263f., 290, 298, 346, 358, 369, 388f., 407, 522 Irish (Northern) 137, 263, 298, 346, 358, 369, 407 Irish (Southern) 137, 298, 389, 407 Istriot 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Istro Romanian 137, 143, 266f., 282, 285, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381f., 388, 397, 402, 460f. Italian 3, 19, 34, 37, 40, 45, 55, 57, 101, 122, 125, 137, 144, 235, 238, 266, 282, 298ff., 304, 313, 315, 341, 347, 351, 362, 364ff., 381, 388, 390, 394, 397, 402, 416, 425, 430f., 434 Italian (Genovese) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Kabardian 127, 137, 144, 172, 326f., 336, 411, 424 Kalderash 137, 141, 205, 210, 216, 249f., 265, 315, 354ff., 363, 377, 384, 438, 442 Kalmyk 21, 25, 30, 40, 55, 57, 93, 137, 144, 232, 253, 274, 470 Karachay-Balkar 137, 141, 243, 245, 261f., 287, 308ff., 324, 331, 342, 376, 393, 414, 418, 421 Karaim 18, 25, 37, 40, 91, 96, 110

Index of Languages | 569

Karaim (Eastern) 137, 243, 261f., 287, 308f., 324, 331, 342, 376, 393, 414, 418, 421 Karaim (Galits) 137, 243, 261f., 287, 308f., 324, 331, 341f., 376, 393, 414, 418, 421 Karaim (Trakai) 137, 144, 243, 261f., 287, 308f., 324, 331, 342, 376, 393, 414, 418, 421 Karata 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Karelian 96 Karelian (Archangelsk) 137, 144, 240, 243, 272f., 280, 301, 310f., 321, 337, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433, 450f. Karelian (Tichvin) 137, 143, 240, 243, 272, 280, 301, 310f., 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Karelian (Valdai) 137, 143, 240, 243, 272, 280, 301, 310f., 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Kashubian 20, 32f., 40, 137, 144, 195, 234, 236, 297, 320, 335, 361, 434, 442 Kazakh 88, 137, 140, 208, 243, 245, 261, 263, 286f., 308f., 324, 327, 331, 342, 376f., 393, 414, 418, 421 Khinalug 137, 144, 197, 246f., 288, 303, 410, 427, 437, 441f., 444, 453f. Khwarshi 137, 143, 246, 288, 303, 410f., 427, 436f., 458f. Komi 21, 37, 40, 56, 127, 137, 142f., 240f., 272f., 280, 301, 310f., 321, 337, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433, 450f. Komi-Permyak (Jaźva) 137, 143, 240, 242, 272, 280, 301, 310, 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433, 450f. Komi-Zyrian 137, 143, 240, 242, 272, 280, 301, 310f., 321, 337, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Komi-Zyrian (Pečora) 137, 143, 240, 242, 272, 280, 301, 310, 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Komi-Zyrian (Udora) 137, 240, 242, 272, 280, 301, 310f., 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Kryts 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Kryts (Alyk) 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 437 Kumyk 137, 141, 243, 245, 261f., 287, 308ff., 323f., 331, 342, 376, 393, 414, 418, 421, 460

Kurdish 56, 98 Kurmanji 88, 124, 137, 192, 215, 249, 265, 315, 354, 363, 377, 384, 438, 459, 514, 521 Ladin 137, 198, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Ladino 18, 40, 91, 137, 141, 266f., 282f., 285, 299f., 313f., 347, 351f., 364, 381, 388, 397, 402, 461 Lak 137, 153, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Lapp 19, 22f. Latgalian 137, 144, 247f., 281f., 382f. Latin 98, 184, 236, 248, 266f., 300, 308, 313, 333, 351, 381, 388, 397f., 512 Latvian 20, 34, 40, 56, 116, 137, 143, 191, 212ff., 242, 247ff., 255, 272, 281, 301, 311, 323, 344, 371, 382f., 450, 463 Latvian (Skrunda) 137, 143, 247, 281, 383 Laz 137, 144, 251, 514 Laz (Mutafi Turkey) 137, 144, 251 Letzebuergësh 56 Lezgian 137, 144, 246, 288, 302f., 410, 427, 437 Ligurian 198 Lithuanian 20, 40, 57, 91, 122, 127, 129f., 137, 141ff., 205, 210f., 247ff., 265, 281f., 315, 354, 363, 377, 382ff., 437f., 448 Lithuanian (Dieveniškės) 137, 282, 383 Livonian 17, 20, 37, 40, 91, 137, 140, 191, 201f., 240, 242, 248, 272, 280, 301, 310ff., 321, 323, 342, 344, 356, 370f., 392, 415, 433, 450f., 461 Lombardian 198 Lovari 83, 189 Low German (East Frisian) 137, 144, 219, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Low German (North Saxon) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Low German (Westphalian) 137, 144, 269, 294, 314, 332, 344, 353 Ludian 256, 275, 316 Luxembourgish 18, 25, 40, 120f., 137, 144, 191, 200ff., 204, 269f., 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372, 459

570 | Index of Languages

Macedonian 21, 40, 57, 137, 143, 196, 206, 225, 234ff., 239, 249, 285, 297f., 315f., 320, 335, 361f., 399, 403, 434, 460 Macedonian (Kostur-Korča) 137, 143, 297f., 320, 335, 361, 363, 434, 460 Maltese 18, 25, 32, 34, 39f., 45f., 48, 56, 86, 88, 92, 100, 120f., 137, 140, 199, 251, 274, 302, 315, 326, 333f., 337, 341, 365, 398, 403, 418, 430, 458, 461, 463 Mandarin Chinese 512 Manx 91, 137, 263f., 291, 298, 346, 358, 369, 389, 407, 522 Mari 21, 24, 30, 37, 40, 101ff., 125, 127, 129f., 137, 141f., 144, 240f., 272f., 280f., 301, 310, 312, 321f., 342, 356, 370, 392f., 404, 415, 432f., 458f. Mari (Hill) 137, 141f., 240f., 272f., 280f., 301, 310, 312, 321f., 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 432f., 458f. Mari (Meadow) 137, 142, 144, 240f., 272f., 280, 301, 310, 312, 321f., 342, 356, 370, 392f., 415, 433 Mazatec 116 Megleno Romanian (Greece) 137, 140, 266f., 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397f., 402 Mingrelian 137, 251 Moksha 98 Moldavian 16, 21, 31, 40 Mordvin 21, 31f., 37, 39f. Mordvin (Erzya) 137, 144, 240f., 272f., 280f., 301, 310, 312, 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Mordvin (Moksha) 137, 144, 240f., 272f., 280f., 301, 310, 312, 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433, 458 Nenets 21, 32, 40 Nenets (Tundra) 137, 240, 272, 280, 301, 310, 312, 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Noghay 137, 140, 243, 245, 261, 263, 286f., 308f., 324, 331, 342, 376f., 393, 414, 418, 421, 451 Norman (Jersey) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402ff., 522 North Russian Romani 206 Norwegian 3, 19, 22, 28, 37, 40, 47, 56, 64

Norwegian (Central East Tromsø) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Norwegian (Nynorsk) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Norwegian (Østnorsk) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372 Occitan 30, 56, 59 Occitan (Aranese) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Occitan (Gascon) 137, 189, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Occitan (Languedocien) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Old Church Slavonic 234 Old Prussian 255, 290, 316 Olonets 256, 275, 290, 316, 337, 358, 450, 505f., 509 Ossetic 137, 249, 265, 315, 354, 363f., 377, 384, 438, 521f. Persian 119, 208, 217f., 245, 261, 324, 354f., 377, 418, 440, 512, 525 Piemontese 198 Polabian 194f., 203, 225, 255, 274, 373 Polish 3, 20, 39f., 47, 56, 59, 80f., 124, 137, 144, 234, 236, 238f., 262, 271, 297, 310, 316, 320f., 324, 335, 345, 357, 361f., 383, 434, 437, 448, 460 Polish (Lazduny) 137, 144, 297, 320, 335, 361, 434, 448 Polska Roma 206f., 378 Portuguese 3, 18f., 24, 31, 39f., 48, 57, 137, 266, 282, 285, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402f., 522 Romani 18, 25, 40, 56, 96, 137, 140f., 143, 153, 188f., 196, 201ff., 205, 210f., 214, 216, 249ff., 265, 288f., 315, 354f., 363f., 377f., 383f., 398f., 403, 437f., 442, 449, 458, 461 Romani (Ajia Varvara) 137, 140, 201f., 249f., 265, 315, 354, 356, 363, 377f., 384, 398, 403, 438 Romani (Bugurdži) 137, 141, 249, 265, 315, 354, 363, 377, 384, 438, 458, 461

Index of Languages | 571

Romani (Burgenland) 137, 143, 201, 249ff., 265, 288f., 315, 354, 363, 377, 384, 438 Romani (Kalderash) 137, 141, 249f., 265, 315, 354ff., 363, 377, 384, 438, 442 Romani (Lithuanian) 137, 449 Romani (North Russian) 137, 141, 153, 249f., 265, 315, 354, 363f., 377f., 384, 438 Romani (Sepečides) 137, 140, 201f., 249f., 265, 315, 354, 363, 377f., 384, 438 Romanian 16, 21, 40, 80f., 95, 137, 140, 143, 205, 210, 250, 266f., 278, 282ff., 299, 313f., 347, 351f., 355, 362, 364f., 381f., 388, 397f., 402f., 460f. Romanian (Megleno) 137, 140, 266f., 282, 284, 299f., 313, 347, 351, 364, 381f., 388, 397f., 402f., 460f. Romansch 18, 40, 96 Romansch (Puter) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Romansch (Surmeiran) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Romansch (Sursilvan) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Romansch (Sutselvan) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Romansch (Vallader) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Rumanian 21, 56 Rumansch 198 Rumantsch 56 Russian 19, 30f., 40, 57, 82, 116, 119, 121, 137, 141, 144, 153, 205, 212, 215, 231, 234f., 238ff., 245ff., 249f., 253f., 256, 261f., 265, 272ff., 280, 282, 287f., 290, 297, 308f., 311f., 315f., 320, 322ff., 331, 335, 337, 341ff., 354, 357f., 361, 363f., 371, 377f., 383f., 393f., 414f., 421, 433f., 438, 448ff., 457, 460, 503, 505f., 509, 511f., 514, 522, 525 Russian (Meščera) 137, 234, 297, 320, 335, 361, 434 Russian (Ostrovcy) 137, 144, 297, 320, 335, 361, 434, 448, 460 Russian (Permas) 137, 144, 234, 297, 320, 335, 361, 434, 448, 460 Rutul 137, 144, 197, 246f., 288, 303, 410, 427, 437

Saami 15, 19, 23, 28, 31, 40, 43, 96, 121 Saami (Central-South) 137, 240, 272, 280, 301, 310, 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Saami (Kildin) 137, 140, 240, 272f., 275, 280f., 301, 310, 321f., 342, 356f., 370, 392f., 415, 433, 460f. Saami (Northern Enontekiö) 137, 240, 272, 280, 301, 310, 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Sanskrit 512 Sardinian 32, 59 Sardinian (Campidanese) 137, 144, 266, 282, 299f., 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Sardinian (Limba Sarda) 137, 266, 282, 299, 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402 Sardinian (Nuorese) 137, 143, 266, 282, 299f., 313, 347, 351, 364, 381, 388, 397, 402f. Scottish Gaelic 137, 298, 346, 358, 369, 389, 407, 522 Scottish Gaelic (Applecross) 137, 298, 346, 358, 369, 389, 407 Scottish-Gaelic 19, 23, 37, 40, 43f., 48, 121 Serbian 57, 107, 137, 144, 196, 206, 225, 234, 238, 250, 265, 297, 315, 320, 335, 361, 434 Serbo-Croatian 20, 40, 238, 355, 365 Sicilian 98f. Sketvemålet 99 Slavomolisano 100, 130, 137, 141f., 234, 239, 297f., 320, 335, 361f., 425, 434, 441, 444, 458 Slovak 3, 20, 39f., 56, 137, 144, 234, 237, 272, 297, 320, 335, 345, 361, 434, 458, 460 Slovene 20, 57, 137, 143f., 195, 297f., 320, 335, 361f., 434 Slovene (Resia) 137, 297f., 320, 335, 362 Slovenian 195f., 198, 203, 213, 225, 234f., 239, 335, 460, 514 Sorbian 18, 39f., 66 Sorbian Lower 137, 144, 320, 335, 361, 434, 458 Sorbian Lower (Vetschau) 137, 320, 361, 434

572 | Index of Languages

Sorbian Upper 137, 143, 320, 335, 361, 434, 458 Spanish 18f., 22, 24, 30f., 40, 43, 57, 137, 252, 266f., 282f., 285, 289, 299f., 313f., 347, 351f., 364, 381, 388f., 397ff., 402f., 441, 511f., 522 Svan 137, 251 Swedish 3, 19, 22, 36f., 40, 46, 56, 120f., 137, 191, 196, 242, 269, 281, 294, 314, 325, 332, 344, 353, 372, 522 Swedish (Österbotten) 137, 269, 294, 314, 325, 332, 353 Tabasaran 137, 144, 246, 288, 303, 410f., 427, 437 Tatar 21, 25, 31, 37, 40, 48f., 119, 137, 140ff., 168, 206, 215, 243, 245, 261, 286f., 308f., 324, 331, 342, 376f., 393, 414, 418, 421, 439f., 442, 444, 449, 458f., 513 Thai 39 Tindi 137, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Tsakhur 137, 144, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437, 458 Tsova-Tush 137, 197, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Turkish 21, 25, 40, 43, 45, 57, 86, 88, 122, 137, 141, 143, 188f., 192ff., 196, 198, 200, 202, 205f., 210, 213, 215ff., 220f., 225, 235f., 238, 243f., 250f., 256, 261, 267, 271, 283f., 286f., 289, 297, 300ff., 308, 315f., 324, 326, 331, 334, 340ff., 351f., 355, 362f., 373, 376, 378f., 383, 393, 414, 418, 421, 430, 458, 461 Turkish (Trabzon) 137, 243f., 261, 308, 331, 342, 394, 418, 421 Ubykh 137, 150, 172, 326f., 336, 411, 424 Udi 137, 143, 188, 197, 201f., 208f., 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437

Udi (Nidž) 137, 143, 201, 209, 246, 288, 303, 410, 427, 437 Udmurt 21, 30f., 40, 137, 143, 240f., 272f., 280f., 301, 310f., 321, 342, 356, 370, 392, 415, 433 Ukrainian 20, 39f., 57, 137, 143, 234, 237, 297, 310, 320f., 335, 361f., 434 Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper) 137, 143, 234, 297, 320f., 335, 361f., 434 Ukrainian (North Hutsul) 137, 143, 297, 320f., 335, 361f., 434 Veps 19, 22f., 40, 137, 143, 240, 242, 272, 275, 280, 301, 310, 312, 321, 323, 342f., 356, 370f., 392f., 415, 433 Votic 20, 40, 97, 137, 141, 240, 242, 272, 275, 280, 301, 310, 312, 321, 323, 342f., 356, 370f., 392, 415, 433, 458 Welsh 3, 19, 23, 31ff., 40, 48, 56, 64, 121f., 137, 141, 143, 198, 210, 263f., 291, 298, 346, 357f., 369f., 389, 407, 442, 460f. Welsh (Northern) 137, 143, 263, 298f., 346, 358, 369f., 389, 407, 460f. Welsh (Southern) 137, 141, 263, 298f., 346, 357f., 369f., 389, 407, 460f. Yiddish 18, 40, 91, 116, 137, 143, 269ff., 294, 296, 313f., 325, 332, 344f., 353, 365, 372 Zaza 137, 249, 265, 315, 354, 363, 377, 384, 412, 428, 438, 521 Zaza (Northern) 137, 249, 265, 315, 354, 363, 377, 384, 438 Zaza (Southern Dimili) 137, 249, 265, 315, 354, 363, 377, 384, 438 Zazaki 124

Index of Subjects absentee(s) 39, 171, 249, 504, 520ff. affrication 295f., 302f., 345, 351, 355 allophone(s)/allophony 13, 19, 21ff., 32, 38, 46, 84, 92, 100, 122f., 125, 129, 192, 197f., 200, 203, 205, 210, 212, 220, 227, 234f., 240, 245, 250, 252, 255, 264f., 267ff., 272, 274f., 278, 280ff., 284, 287, 289f., 295ff., 299, 304, 319f., 322ff., 331ff., 343f., 352ff., 357, 361f., 363ff., 370f., 373, 376f., 381ff., 393f., 403, 406f., 414ff., 425, 448f., 451, 459ff., 528ff., 532 Anglicism(s) 121, 295f., 442 Arabism 513 archaism 196, 290, 364 area(s) of diffusion 13, 47, 49, 54, 76ff., 106ff., 125, 201ff., 227, 456, 509f., 526 aspiration 13, 43ff., 65, 79, 179, 445f., 520 assibilation 274 assimilation 13, 19, 119, 199, 326, 334, 352, 365, 453 assisted borrowing 459, 528 association factor 469, 485, 528 backness 149ff., 161f., 185, 327 borrowability 115, 146, 171, 448, 503, 508, 516, 527, 529 chain(s) 82, 84, 109, 202, 218, 224ff., 235, 239, 247, 262, 265, 268, 270, 272, 285, 296, 314, 316, 335, 356, 411, 453, 485, 488f., 497ff., 509, 514 Class 1 (phenomenon) 129, 131, 276, 305, 329, 359, 395, 412, 417, 527 Class 2 (phenomenon) 129, 201, 339 Class 3 (phenomenon) 129, 200, 234, 241, 264, 333, 459, 528 Class 4 (phenomenon) 129, 200, 317, 380, 408, 426, 528 Class 5 (phenomenon) 129, 258, 292, 349, 367, 374, 400, 405, 408, 419, 422, 426f. closure 149, 153, 156ff., 160, 162, 185, 212, 214 contact superposition zone 75, 525

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-023

convergence 10f., 14, 34, 115, 117f., 193, 206, 504, 511, 522, 526 deaffrication 264, 266, 269, 296f., 300, 341, 343, 351f., 355, 361, 364f., 370 devoiced/devoicing 13, 16, 19ff., 45, 234, 237, 252, 255, 382 desonorization 234, 237, 239, 255, 356f., 425 diachrony 8, 23, 45, 78, 200, 274, 320, 347, 351, 362, 369, 506, 532 dialect(s) 10, 22, 32, 46, 50, 72f., 76f., 90f., 93, 95, 103, 188ff., 194ff., 199, 202, 212, 214, 235f., 239, 241f., 244, 248ff., 263f., 266, 268, 274, 280, 282, 284f., 289, 301, 303f., 212f., 320f., 331, 334, 337, 347, 357, 362ff., 370, 377, 382f., 388f., 407, 411, 425 diasystem 72, 90ff., 95f., 242, 248, 263f., 282, 314, 332, 362, 510, 519, 522 divergence 11, 18, 510f., 522, 526 donor(s) (language(s)) 115ff., 122f., 125f., 129, 187ff., 196, 205, 210, 213, 218f., 223, 227, 235, 238f., 247f., 264, 284, 288, 296, 309, 311, 315, 327, 336, 347, 355, 371, 378f., 382f., 399, 410f., 421, 424, 440, 448f., 453, 456f., 459, 463, 502ff., 509ff., 522, 524ff., 528, 532 educated speech 217, 253, 526 ejective(s) 12, 79, 83, 86, 92, 99, 445f., 451ff., 517ff. Eurasia 17, 22, 29, 80, 97, 130f., 142, 186, 229, 231, 254, 259f., 278, 293, 307, 318, 329, 340, 350, 360, 368, 375, 381, 386, 391, 396, 401, 406, 409, 413, 417, 420, 423, 427, 430, 432, 435, 439ff., 446, 466, 468, 512, 516, 519f., 527, 529 Europeme(s) 27ff., 33, 41, 49f. EUROTYP 3ff., 8f., 15, 42, 71, 75f., 86f., 525, 529 facilitating factor 258, 503, 527 fronting 188, 195ff., 202, 221, 262

574 | Index of Subjects

gap-filling 129, 131f., 207f., 213, 218f., 221, 227, 257f., 277, 292, 305, 317, 349, 359, 367, 380, 386, 391, 395, 400, 405, 408, 412, 416, 422, 426, 429, 431, 435, 441, 444, 464, 466, 527 gemination 80, 163, 296, 444, 446, 449f., 454f. genealogy 198, 464, 470, 475, 484f., 524 geography 29f.,76, 106, 138, 149, 180, 184, 199, 203, 206, 208, 211, 213, 256, 275, 291, 304, 316, 328, 337, 348, 358, 366, 373, 379, 384, 390, 394, 399, 403, 407, 412, 416, 418, 421, 425, 428, 431, 434, 438, 456, 464, 479, 485, 524 Germanism(s) 236, 242, 248, 250, 311, 383 glottalization 65, 452f. Hebraism(s) 314 height 43f., 87, 149, 153f., 161f., 185, 524 hierarchy/hierarchies 63f.,120, 126f., 130f., 142, 161f., 181ff., 191, 228f., 318, 329, 391, 446, 478, 484, 496f., 506, 516, 519, 529 Hispanism 285 idiosyncrasy 33 implication/implicational patterns 10, 59, 126, 223ff., 457, 485, 487ff. inhibiting factor 132, 258, 276, 305f., 317, 339, 349, 367, 374, 386, 391, 405, 429, 464, 527f. internationalism 122, 213, 248f., 371, 383, 393, 512 isogloss(es) 5, 7, 12, 14, 17, 22, 26f., 31, 33, 41, 51, 53f., 59, 61, 65f., 72, 74, 106ff., 116, 118, 213, 469ff., 480ff. labialization 80, 179f., 445, 451ff. manner(s) of articulation 12, 35, 44, 47, 64, 79, 83, 85, 99, 129, 171ff., 181f., 254, 277, 306, 317, 349, 380, 405, 408, 426, 442, 444, 464, 491f., 502, 527f. nasalization 13, 44, 80, 82f., 145, 149, 162, 185, 216, 222f., 394, 445, 515 new dimension 200, 206, 214, 220f. non-pulmonic 12, 82f., 444, 454f.

older speakers/generation 210, 248, 252 onomatopoeia/onomatopoeic 104, 237, 241f., 245f., 249, 261f., 265, 271f., 281, 301, 309, 320, 326, 337, 343f., 362f., 371, 376f., 411, 430, 432, 437, 440, 457ff., 461f., 528f. (LP) pair(s) 43, 69, 102, 120f., 124, 181, 199, 203, 205, 241, 267, 296, 304, 311, 323, 325, 333, 345, 349, 353, 365f., 393f., 400, 410, 416f., 421, 427, 441f., 448, 450, 453, 464ff., 476ff., 505f., 509, 511f., 528 palatalized/palatalization 17, 20f., 27, 29, 38f., 43f., 65, 80, 103, 124f., 129, 145, 179f., 182, 188, 197, 262ff., 268f., 272, 274f., 295f., 299, 302, 304, 310, 343, 345, 355, 362, 364, 366, 371ff., 386, 388f., 397, 405f., 432f., 445ff., 494, 497, 505f., 517ff. parallel borrowing 184, 215, 292, 305, 317, 328, 338, 348, 359, 366, 380, 385, 390, 395, 400, 404f., 408, 419, 422, 426, 429, 431, 435, 444, 464, 469ff., 475ff., 482ff., 488f., 491ff., 496f., 502, 528, 530 pattern(s) 8f., 31, 37, 39, 41f., 51, 54, 64f., 73, 75, 77, 105, 116ff., 130, 133, 161, 185, 224, 306, 463, 469, 488, 493, 497, 514, 525, 529, 531 perceptual magnet effect 117f., 197, 226, 530 pharyngealization 65, 80, 149, 179, 185, 208, 441, 445f., 451, 453, 515 Phon@Europe 5ff., 11ff., 26, 28, 33, 41, 50ff., 54, 64, 66ff., 71f., 74ff., 82f., 86ff., 97, 100, 104, 115f., 125, 128, 130, 227, 229f., 260, 276, 278, 293, 318, 350, 391, 466ff., 529f., 532 phonation 12, 32, 64, 83ff., 163, 176ff., 181f., 297, 394, 441, 445, 491f., 499 phonematization 123, 129, 200, 227, 234, 239, 268, 273f., 281, 295, 299f., 303, 312, 324, 333ff., 346f., 351ff., 355, 357, 370f., 393, 414f., 459ff., 528 phonologization 122f. place(s) of articulation 12, 35, 38, 44ff., 61, 64, 76, 79ff., 85, 102, 129, 163ff., 169ff., 181f., 255, 258, 277, 286, 289f., 292,

Index of Subjects | 575

349, 367, 374, 380, 388, 391, 400, 405, 419, 422, 426, 429, 431, 435, 439, 441, 444, 452f., 491f., 499, 502, 527 Projekteuropa 87ff., 93, 109, 133, 231, 244, 251, 326, 409, 525 prototype/prototypical 34, 65, 118, 162f., 183, 252 replica language(s) 115ff., 120ff., 129, 184, 188f., 191, 193, 203f., 207f., 210, 213, 215, 218ff., 222f., 226f., 231, 237, 239f., 256, 258, 264, 273, 276, 288, 290, 296, 311, 317, 321, 323, 326ff., 349, 357f., 367, 374, 379f., 383, 389, 395, 398, 407, 411f., 416, 419, 421, 426, 433, 439, 441ff., 447f., 450ff., 456f., 459, 462ff., 502f., 509f., 512ff., 524ff. Romancization 510 Russification 505

SegBo 97, 115f., 123, 130, 134, 231, 258, 396, 502, 508, 516, 519, 524f., 527, 529f. singularity/singularities 214, 216, 223f., 439ff., 443f., 466ff., 475, 496, 506 Slavicism 206, 268, 272 social (factor(s)/marker(s)) 91, 161, 238, 242, 249, 253 solidarity 470f., 473, 475, 479f., 482, 484, 526 sonorization 365 Sprachbund 7, 16ff., 21f., 26f., 29, 39, 74f., 77, 236, 525 Turkicism/Turkicization 304, 514 typology 7, 11, 68ff., 76, 130, 162, 349, 433, 466, 524, 529 universal(s) 28, 49, 445 velarization 65, 80, 179, 437

SAE(-languages) 4, 16, 18f., 21, 42, 50, 66, 71, 87, 123, 525 secondary articulation 17, 21, 65, 80, 83, 85, 179ff., 388, 444ff., 451, 454f., 516 secondary properties 149, 185, 216, 223, 229, 463, 475, 516, 518f., 527

younger speaker(s)/generation 189, 210, 227, 245, 261, 275, 290, 309, 378, 382, 449, 526

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-024

–

– f, ʒ, ʦ, v, k

Širaliev and Sevortjan (1971) Gudava (1964), Kodzasov (2001)

Azerbaijani (aze), SE, Turkic (Oghuz)

Bagvalal (kva), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

–

–

ʒ, x, ʤ, z, ɣ, θ, ð

f

f

Academia de la Llingua Asturiana (1999)

Dum-Tragut (2009)

Armenian (Eastern) (hye), SE, Indo-European (Armenian)

f, x, ʤ, ʧ, k

Charachidze (1981)

Chumakina et al. (2016)

Archi (aqc), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Avar (ava), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Avar)

Jastrow (1988)

Aramaic (Hertevin) (amh), SE, Afro-Asiatic (Semitic)

ʧ ʉ, f, ʤ, v, ʧ

Asturian (ast), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

Sinha (2000)

Aramaic (Cudi) (amc), SE, Afro-Asiatic (Semitic)

Vaux (1998)

Borg (1985)

Arabic (Cypriot/Kormakiti) (acy), SE, Afro-Asiatic (Semitic)

– y, ø, ɨ, g, v, ʧ, p

Kramer (1989)

Procházka (2002)

Arabic (Çukurova) (acc), SE, Afro-Asiatic (Semitic)

Aromanian (rup), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Alekseev (1999), Gudava (1964)

Andi (ani), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

x, ʤ, ɣ, ç, l

ʤ

ʤ

–

–

g, v, h, k

–

v, ç, ɮ, tɬ

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Armenian (Western) (hyw), SE, Indo-European (Armenian)

Sokolova (1983) Haebler (1965)

Albanian (als), SC, Indo-European (Albanian)

Albanian (Salamis) (alg), SC, Indo-European (Albanian)

Buchholz and Fiedler (1987)

Akhvakh (akv), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

Albanian (Mandrica) (alm), SC, Indo-European (Albanian)

Magometov (1970) Magomedbekova (1967)

Aghul (agx), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Hewitt (1989) Paris (1989)

Adyghe (ady), SE, Abkhaz-Adyge (Circassian)

Lomtatidze and Klychev (1989)

Abaza (adq), SE, Abkhaz-Adyge (Abkhaz-Abaza)

Abkhaz (abk), SE, Abkhaz-Adyge (Abkhaz-Abaza)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

Appendix 1: Sample

y, ø, f, ʒ, v, z, ɲ, ʎ, z̥, z̺ f, g, ʣ

– f

Hualde et al. (1994) Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003) Burlyka and Padlužny (1989) Sudnik (1975) Bokarev (1967) Jahić et al. (2000)

Gudava (1964), Magomedbekova (1999a) –

Basque (Lekeitio) (eul), SW, Isolate (Isolate)

Basque (Zuberoa) (euz), SW, Isolate (Isolate)

Belarusian (bel), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Belarusian (Gervjaty) (beg), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Bezhta (Tlyadal) (kap), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Tsezic)

Bosnian (bos), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Botlikh (bph), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

ʒ, ʦ, v, ʧ

Bozkov (1984)

Gudava (1964), Bokarev (1949) Dešeriev (1960) Krueger (1961) Wmffre (1998)

Chamalal (cji), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

Chechen (che), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Nakh)

Chuvash (chv), ME, Turkic (Bolgar)

Cornish (cor), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Feuillet (1996)

Bulgarian (bul), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Hualde (1992)

Alekseev (1994b)

Budukh (bdk), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Catalan (cat), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

Jackson (1967)

Bulgarian (Dimitrovgrad) (bud), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

ʒ, ʃ

Jackson (1967)

Breton (Trégorrois) (brt), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Breton (Vannetais) (brv), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

ʧ, ʃ

o, f, ʒ, ʦ, g, z, b, d

f, rʲ, ʃʲ, lʲ

–

x, θ

ʤ, ʣ

f, ʤ, ʣ

–

ʒ, ʃ

ʒ, ʃ, ɲ, ʎ

Jackson (1967)

ʒ, ʃ, ɲ, ʎ

Ternes (1992)

Breton (bre), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Breton (Léonais) (brl), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

f, g, ʣ

f, x, ɲ, ʎ

f, ɲ, ʎ

Juldašev (1981) Hualde and Ortiz de Urbina (2003)

Basque (eus), SW, Isolate (Isolate)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Bashkir (bak), ME, Turkic (Kipchak)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

578 | Appendix 1: Sample

Kattenbusch (1982)

Franco-Provençal (Faetar) (frp), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Estonian (Rõngu) (ekr), MC, Uralic (Finnic)

Thráinsson et al. (2004)

Hint and Paunonen (1984)

Estonian (ekk), MC, Uralic (Finnic)

Fromm (1982)

Hasselblatt (2001)

English (Cockney) (enk), MW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Faroese (fao), NW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Sivertsen (1960)

English (Cannock) (enc), MW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Finnish (fin), NC, Uralic (Finnic)

Shorrocks (1998) Heath (1980)

English (Bolton Area) (enb), MW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Sercu (1972) Gramley and Pätzold (2004)

Kocks (1970)

Dutch (Drente) (nll), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

English (eng), MW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Booij (2012)

Dutch (nld), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Dutch (Flemish Oostduinkerke) (nlf), MW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Ejskjær (1954) Sumbatova and Mutalov (2003)

Basbøll (2005)

Danish (dan), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Danish (Brøndum) (dab), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Skulina (1964)

Czech (Moravian-Slovak) (cem), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Dargwa (Icari) (dar), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Dargwic)

Short (1993)

Czech (ces), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

f

Barić (2005) Benčić (2003)

Croatian (hrv), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Croatian (Burgenland) (hrb), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Kavitskaya (2010)

Crimean Tatar (crh), SE, Turkic (Kipchak)

–

f, g, ʃ, b

–

–

f, ʒ, ʤ, ʧ, z, ʃ

ʒ, v, z

ʒ, ʤ, v, z

ʒ, ʤ, v, z

ʒ, ʤ, v, z

–

–

ʒ, ʤ, g, ʧ, ʃ

–

–

–

f, g

f, g

f

– f, ʒ, ʦ, h, Ɂ, ʃʲ, tʲ, dʲ, zʲ, n

Dalbera-Stefanaggi (1978)

Corsican (cos), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

Appendix 1: Sample | 579

ŋ

– h ʒ, ʤ –

– ʦ, g, ʣ, b, d

Haiman and Benicà (1992) Pokrovskaja (1964) Carballo Calero (1979) Hewitt (1995) Wiese (1996) Werlen (1976) Willkommen (1977) Heike (1964) Saidova (2004), Gudava (1964) Holton et al. (2012) Italia and Lambroyorgu (2001) Forker (2013) Kenesei et al. (1998) van den Berg (1995) Thráinsson (1994) Nichols (1994) Ò Dochartaigh (1992)

Friulian (Udine) (fur), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Gagauz (gag), SC, Turkic (Oghuz)

Galician (glg), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

Georgian (kat), SE, Kartvelian (Georgic)

German (deu), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

German (Brig) (del), SC, Indo-European (Germanic)

German (Ladelund Danish) (deb), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

German (urban Kölsch) (dek), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Godoberi (gdo), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

Greek (ell), SC, Indo-European (Greek)

Greek (Italo-Greek Sternatia) (eli), SC, Indo-European (Greek)

Hinukh (gin), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Tsezic)

Hungarian (hun), MC, Uralic (Hungarian)

Hunzib (huz), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Tsezic)

Icelandic (isl), NW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Ingush (inh), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Nakh)

Irish (gle), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

–

–

–

x, ʕ, ħ

ʒ, ʤ, ʦ

f, ʡ

–

–

–

f, ʒ, x, ʦ, h

–

–

–

Walker and Wilts (2001) Hoekstra (2001)

ø

Frisian Western (fry), MW, Indo-European (Germanic)

Frisian Eastern (Seeltersk) (frs), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Frisian Northern (Weesdring) (frr), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Meisenburg and Selig (2006) Fort (2001)

French (fra), MW, Indo-European (Romance)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

580 | Appendix 1: Sample

–

f, ʒ, ʦ, v

Khalilova (2009) Lytkin (1961)

Khwarshi (khv), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Tsezic)

Komi-Permyak (Jaźva) (koi), ME, Uralic (Permian)

æ, f, x, ʦ, v, ʧ, h

Kashubian (csb), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Muhamedowa (2016)

Palmeos (1962) Stone (1993)

Karelian (Valdai) (krv), ME, Uralic (Finnic)

Dešeriev (1959)

Rjagoev (1977)

Karelian (Tichvin) (krt), ME, Uralic (Finnic)

Kazakh (kaz), ME, Turkic (Kipchak)

f

Leskinen (1984)

Karelian (Archangelsk) (kra), NE, Uralic (Finnic)

Khinalug (kjj), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Dargwic)

Magomedbekova (1999b), Gudava (1964) –

Karata (kpt), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

–

f, ʦ, rʲ

x, ʕ, w

f, r

f, x, ʦ

f, x, ʦ

rʲ

ʒ

Musaev (1997) Musaev (1997)

Karaim (Trakai) (kdt), MC, Turkic (Kipchak)

–

ʕ

Karaim (Galits) (kdg), MC, Turkic (Kipchak)

Seegmiller (1996) Musaev (1997)

Karachay-Balkar (krc), SE, Turkic (Kipchak)

Karaim (Eastern) (kde), SE, Turkic (Kipchak)

f, ʒ

Colarusso (1989) Street (1959)

Kalmyk (xal), SE, Mongolic (Oirat)

–

ʒ

ʒ, x, z

Kabardian (kbd), SE, Abkhaz-Adyge (Circassian)

Dahmen (1989)

Istro Romanian (ruo), SC, Indo-European (Romance) Dardano and Trifone (2008)

Cernecca (1967)

Istriot (ist), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

–

–

Toso (1997)

Ó Cuív (1975)

Irish (Southern) (gls), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Italian (Genovese) (itg), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Ní Chasaide (1999)

Irish (Northern) (gln), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Italian (ita), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

Appendix 1: Sample | 581

Ulvydas (1965) Sudnik (1975) Moseley (2002) Reershemius (2004)

Lithuanian (Dieveniškės) (lib), MC, Indo-European (Baltic)

Livonian (liv), MC, Uralic (Finnic)

Low German (East Frisian) (ndf), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Muižniece (2002)

Latvian (lav), MC, Indo-European (Baltic)

Lithuanian (lit), MC, Indo-European (Baltic)

Nau (2011)

Latgalian (ltg), MC, Indo-European (Baltic)

Haspelmath (1993)

Anderson (1997)

Lak (lbe), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lak)

Stathi (1995)

Hetzer (2001)

Ladino (lad), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Lezgian (lez), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Rédei (1978)

Komi-Zyrian (kpv), NE, Uralic (Permian)

Laz (Mutafi Turkey) (lzt), SE, Kartvelian (Zan)

Valentini (2001)

Pīrāga (2006)

Aygen (2007)

Kurmanji (kmr), SE, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Ladin (lld), MC, Indo-European (Romance)

Holisky (1991)

Abdullaeva et al. (2014)

Kumyk (kum), SE, Turkic (Kipchak)

Laz (lzz), SE, Kartvelian (Zan)

Authier (2009)

Kryts (Alyk) (krk), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Latvian (Skrunda) (las), MC, Indo-European (Baltic)

Sorvačeva and Beznosikova (1990) Saadiev (1994)

Saxarova et al. (1976)

Komi-Zyrian (Pečora) (kpp), NE, Uralic (Permian)

Kryts (kry), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Rédei (1978)

Komi-Zyrian (kpv), NE, Uralic (Permian)

Komi-Zyrian (Udora) (kpu), NE, Uralic (Permian)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

ʦ

y, ø, f, ʤ, ʦ, ʧ, ʃ, rʲ

ɣ

f, x, ɣ

ʤ

f

f

o, f, x

o, f, x

f, x

–

ʒ, x, ʤ, ʦ, z, ʣ

f, x, ʦ

–

–

f, ʒ, ʦ, g, v, Ɂ

–

–

–

f, x, ʦ

f, x, ʦ

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

582 | Appendix 1: Sample

y, ʒ

Keresztes (1990) Nikolaeva (2014) Csató and Karakoç (1998) Liddicoat (1994) Nordli (2008) Beito (1970) Kristoffersen (2000) Carrera (2006) Romieu and Bianchi (2005)

Mordvin (Moksha) (mdf), ME, Uralic (Mordvin)

Nenets (Tundra) (yrk), NE, Uralic (Samoyedic)

Noghay (nog), SE, Turkic (Kipchak)

Norman (Jersey) (nrf), MW, Indo-European (Romance)

Norwegian (Central East Tromsø) (nnn), NC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Norwegian (Nynorsk) (nno), NC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Norwegian (Østnorsk) (nne), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Occitan (Aranese) (oca), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

Occitan (Gascon) (oci), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

–

Harris (1991) Keresztes (1990)

ʒ, x, ʤ, z, ɣ, θ, ð

Dahmen (1989)

Mingrelian (xmf), SE, Kartvelian (Zan)

g, b

Alhoniemi (1993)

Mari (Meadow) (mhr), ME, Uralic (Mari)

Megleno Romanian (Greece) (rug), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Mordvin (Erzya) (myv), ME, Uralic (Mordvin)

f, x, g, c

Broderick (1986) Alhoniemi (1993)

Mari (Hill) (mrj), ME, Uralic (Mari)

–

–

–

–

–

–

æ, f, ʦ, v, ʧ, h, ʃʲ

–

x

f, x

–

ʒ, ʦ, g, v, ʧ, ʣ, θ, ð, p

f, ʤ, ʣ

f, ʤ, ʣ

Manx (glv), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Lunt et al. (2003)

Macedonian (mkd), SC, Indo-European (Slavic) Šklifov (1973)

Keller (1961)

Luxembourgish (ltz), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

g, ʃ

–

Borg and Azzopardi-Alexander (1997)

Keller (1961)

Low German (Westphalian) (ndw), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Maltese (mlt), SC, Afro-Asiatic (Semitic)

Keller (1961)

Low German (North Saxon) (nds), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Macedonian (Kostur-Korča) (mkk), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

Appendix 1: Sample | 583

Haiman and Benincà (1992) Švedova (1980) Sidorov (1949) Honselaar [Xonselaar] (2001)

Russian (rus), ME, Indo-European (Slavic)

Russian (Meščera) (rum), ME, Indo-European (Slavic)

Russian (Ostrovcy) (ruy), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Romansch (Sutselvan) (roe), MC, Indo-European (Romance)

Romansch (Vallader) (rov), MC, Indo-European (Romance)

Haiman and Benincà (1992) Haiman and Benincà (1992)

Romansch (Sursilvan) (roi), MC, Indo-European (Romance)

Haiman and Benincà (1992) Haiman and Benincà (1992)

Romanian (Megleno) (ruq), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Romansch (Surmeiran) (ros), MC, Indo-European (Romance)

Atanasov (1990)

Romanian (ron), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Romansch (Puter) (roh), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Cech and Heinschink (1996) Beyrer et al. (1987)

Romani (Sepečides) (rms), SC, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Čerenkov and Demeter (1990) Wentzel and Klemm (1980)

Halwachs (2002)

Romani (Burgenland) (rmc), MC, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Romani (North Russian) (rmr), ME, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Boretzky (1993)

Romani (Bugurdži) (rmn), SC, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Romani (Kalderash) (rmy), SC, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Azevedo (2005) Igla (1996)

Sudnik (1975)

Romani (Ajia Varvara) (rma), SC, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

f

Strutyński (1997)

Polish (pol), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Polish (Lazduny) (pob), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Portuguese (por), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

–

Ossetic (oss), SE, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

f

–

f

–

–

–

–

–

ʒ, x, ʤ, z, ɣ, θ, ð

ʒ, x, z

y, ø, ɨ, f, ʒ, h, ɣ

f, ʒ, ʦ, ʣ

ɨ, ɘ, f, z

y, œ, x

ǝ, f, ʒ, z

y, ø, ǝ, f, ʒ, z, h, ɣ, θ, ð

–

f

–

Romieu and Bianchi (2005) Abaev (1964)

Occitan (Languedocien) (ocl), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

584 | Appendix 1: Sample

f

Alekseev (1994a) Hasselbrink (1965) Kert (1971) Sammallahti (1998)

Rutul (rut), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Saami (Central-South) (sma), NC, Uralic (Saami)

Saami (Kildin) (sjd), NE, Uralic (Saami)

Saami (Northern Enontekiö) (sme), NC, Uralic (Saami)

ʤ, ʧ, ɲ –

f, ʤ f, ʤ, ʣ

Jones (1988) Lamb (2003) Ternes (2006) Klajn (2005) Breu and Piccoli (2000) Short (1993) Priestly (1993)

Sardinian (Nuorese) (src), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

Scottish Gaelic (gla), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Scottish Gaelic (Applecross) (glp), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Serbian (srp), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Slavomolisano (svm), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Slovak (slk), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Slovene (slv), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

–

Sardinian (Campidanese) (srd), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

– –

Faßke (1964) Schaarschmidt (2004) Blaser (2007) Tuite (1997) Lindqvist (2007)

Sorbian Lower (Vetschau) (vsb), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Sorbian Upper (hsb), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Spanish (spa), SW, Indo-European (Romance)

Svan (sva), SE, Kartvelian (Svan)

Swedish (swe), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

–

f, g, v

f

f, v

Steenwijk (1992) Stone (1993)

Slovene (Resia) (slr), SC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Sorbian Lower (dsb), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

f, g

f, ʤ, ʣ, c, ɟ

f

–

ɲ

Puddu (2008) Jones (1988)

Sardinian (Limba Sarda) (sro), SC, Indo-European (Romance)

–

f, ʒ, x, g, z, b, d

–

f

Orlova (1949)

Russian (Permas) (run), ME, Indo-European (Slavic)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

Appendix 1: Sample | 585

Kalnyn’ (1992)

Ariste (1968) Hannahs (2013) Hannahs (2013) Jacobs (2005) Selcan (1998) Todd (1985)

Votic (vot), MC, Uralic (Finnic)

Welsh (Northern) (cyn), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Welsh (Southern) (cys), MW, Indo-European (Celtic)

Yiddish (ydd), MC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Zaza (Northern) (kiu), SE, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Zaza (Southern Dimili) (diq), SE, Indo-European (Indo-Iranian)

Martynova (2009)

Ukrainian (Middle Dnieper) (ukd), ME, Indo-European (Slavic)

Zajceva (1981)

Bilodid (1969)

Ukrainian (ukr), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Ukrainian (North Hutsul) (ukh), MC, Indo-European (Slavic)

Winkler (2011)

Udmurt (udm), ME, Uralic (Permian)

Veps (vep), ME, Uralic (Finnic)

Charachidze (1989) Schulze-Fürhoff (1994)

Udi (Nidž) (udi), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Brendemoen (2002)

Turkish (Trabzon) (tut), SE, Turkic (Oghuz)

Ubykh (uby), SE, Abkhaz-Adyge (Ubykh)

Holisky and Gagua (1994)

Tsova-Tush (bbl), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Nakh)

–

–

ʒ, ʤ, ʧ

ʤ, ʧ, z, ʃ

ʤ, ʧ, ʃ

f, ʒ, x, g, ʧ, ʃ

f, x, b

f, g, ʣ

f, g, ʣ

f, g, ʣ

f, x, ʦ

y, ø, æ

–

f, g, b, d

–

f

Magomedbekova (1999c), Gudava (1964) –

ɯ, f, ʒ, ʦ, v, ʧ, h, Ɂ, ɸ, χ, ʁ, q

ʕ, ħ

Talibov (2004)

Tatar (tat), ME, Turkic (Kipchak)

–

Tsakhur (tkr), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

Comrie (1997)

Tabasaran (tab), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic)

LPs (exclusively based on our own interpretation)

Tindi (tin), SE, Nakh-Daghestanian (Andic)

Wiik (2002) Magometov (1965 )

Swedish (Österbotten) (swo), NC, Indo-European (Germanic)

Primary source(s)

EDL (abbreviation), nonant, phylum (branch)

586 | Appendix 1: Sample

Appendix 2: Maps

Map I: Ejectives in the Caucasus region including Ossetic and Eastern Armenian (Blevins 2017: 102).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110672602-025

588 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map II: Front rounded vowels in Central and Western Europe (Blevins 2017: 106).

Appendix 2: Maps | 589

Map III: Final obstruent devoicing in Europe (Blevins 2017: 95).

590 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map IV: Principal locations of pre- and postaspiration in Scandinavia and the North Atlantic (Blevins 2017: 108 – originally from Helgason 2002: 3).

Appendix 2: Maps | 591

Map V: Distribution of phonemic and allophonic /θ/ ~ [θ], /ð/ ~ [ð], and /ɣ/ ~ [ɣ] in Europe with reference to Décsy’s (2000a) sample.

592 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map VI: Distribution of /h/ and /x/ in Décsy’s (2000b) sample.

Appendix 2: Maps | 593

Map VII: Distribution of [uvular] in Ternes’s (1998, 2010) sample.

594 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map VIII: Distribution of rounded front vowels and phonemic quantity in Stolz (2006).

Appendix 2: Maps | 595

Map IX: High vs. low turnouts of monosyllables across EDLs in Stolz (2007).

596 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map X: S(h)ibilants and affricates in Europe according to Stolz (2010).

Appendix 2: Maps | 597

Map XI: Different number of s(h)ibilants and affricates in east and west according to Stolz (2010).

598 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XII: European regions with an abundance of infrequent types of liquids according to Stolz et al. (2010: 114).

Appendix 2: Maps | 599

Map XIII: Number of (post)velar fricatives in Europe according to Stolz et al. (2011a).

600 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XIV: EDLs with phonological rara and rarissima according to Stolz et al. (2012a: 18).

Appendix 2: Maps | 601

Map XV: Absence of majoritarian and presence of minoritarian configurations in combination (Stolz and Levkovych 2017: 151).

602 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XVI: Predicative possession and secondary articulation in Europe according to Levkovych et al. (2019).

Appendix 2: Maps | 603

Map XVII: Projekteuropa as conceived for Phon@Europe.

604 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XVIII: Geographical location of the EDLs.

Appendix 2: Maps | 605

Map XIX: Density of EDLs in northern Italy and adjacent areas.

606 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XX: Density of EDLs in the Caucasus.

Appendix 2: Maps | 607

Map XXI: Europe divided into nine sections (nonants).

608 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXII: The European geography of loan phonemes based on Maddieson (1984).

Appendix 2: Maps | 609

Map XXIII: The geography of borrowers and non-borrowers in Europe.

610 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXIV: The geography of frequent borrowers in Europe.

Appendix 2: Maps | 611

Map XXV: The geography of LP consonants and LP vowels.

612 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXVI: Location of borrowers of front, back, or central vowels.

Appendix 2: Maps | 613

Map XXVII: Location of borrowers of high, mid, or low vowels.

614 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXVIII: Location of borrowers of closed, open, or neutral vowels.

Appendix 2: Maps | 615

Map XXIX: Location of borrowers of rounded, unrounded, or neutral vowels.

616 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXX: Location of borrowers of labiodentals.

Appendix 2: Maps | 617

Map XXXI: Location of borrowers of postalveolars.

618 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXXII: Location of borrowers of velars.

Appendix 2: Maps | 619

Map XXXIII: Location of borrowers of denti-alveolars.

620 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXXIV: Location of borrowers of pharyngeals or epiglottals.

Appendix 2: Maps | 621

Map XXXV: Location of borrowers of glottals or palatals.

622 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXXVI: Location of borrowers of bilabials, labial-velars, or uvulars.

Appendix 2: Maps | 623

Map XXXVII: Location of borrowers of fricatives.

624 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XXXVIII: Location of borrowers of manners of articulation other than fricatives.

Appendix 2: Maps | 625

Map XXXIX: The geography of borrowers in the domain of phonation.

626 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XL: The distribution of rounded front vowels in the Caucasian region.

Appendix 2: Maps | 627

Map XLI: The geography of /y/.

628 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XLII: The geography of /ø/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 629

Map XLIII: The geography of /ɨ/.

630 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XLIV: The geography of /æ/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 631

Map XLV: The geography of /ə/.

632 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XLVI: The geography of /o/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 633

Map XLVII: The geography of borrowers of single vowels.

634 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map XLVIII: The geography of /f/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 635

Map XLIX: The geography of /ʒ/.

636 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map L: The geography of /x/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 637

Map LI: The geography of /ʤ/.

638 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LII: The geography of /ʦ/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 639

Map LIII: The geography of /g/.

640 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LIV: The geography of /v/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 641

Map LV: The geography of /ʧ/.

642 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LVI: The geography of /z/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 643

Map LVII: The geography of /ʣ/.

644 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LVIII: The geography of /ʃ/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 645

Map LIX: The geography of /h/.

646 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LX: The geography of /ɣ/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 647

Map LXI: The geography of /ɲ/.

648 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXII: The geography of /b/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 649

Map LXIII: The geography of /θ/.

650 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXIV: The geography of /ð/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 651

Map LXV: The geography of /ʎ/.

652 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXVI: The geography of /ʕ/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 653

Map LXVII: The geography of /d/.

654 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXVIII: The geography of /ʔ/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 655

Map LXIX: The geography of /k/.

656 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXX: The geography of /ç/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 657

Map LXXI: The geography of /ħ/.

658 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXXII: The geography of /p/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 659

Map LXXIII: The geography of /c/.

660 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXXIV: The geography of /w/.

Appendix 2: Maps | 661

Map LXXV: The geography of borrowers with isolated cases of LPs.

662 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXXVI: The geography of borrowers with LPs with secondary articulation.

Appendix 2: Maps | 663

Map LXXVII: EDLs with the ternary set /f/, /ʒ/, and /x/.

664 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXXVIII: Successful donors and their replicas.

Appendix 2: Maps | 665

Map LXXIX: Concentration of Caucasian secondary properties.

666 | Appendix 2: Maps

Map LXXX: Identification of EDLs by glossonym.