Language System and its Change: On Theory and Testability 9783110867442, 9783110104776

Table of contents :
Note
Abbreviations
0. Introduction
1. Phonological Variation and Change in Relation to the System
1.1. Organization of the Sound System
1.2. Distinctive Feature Definitions
1.3. Variability in Relation to Asymmetry Within and Between Distinctive Feature Oppositions
1.4. Phonological Speech Errors in Relation to Asymmetry Within and Between Distinctive Feature Oppositions
1.5. Variation and Language Change in Relation to Asymmetry Within and Between Distinctive Feature Oppositions
1.6. Markedness and Ordering at Various Levels
1.7. Prosodic Hierarchy in Phonology
2. Grammatical Variation and Change in Relation to the System
2.1. Case Development Against the Background of the Grammatical Features Involved
2.2. Syncretism in Verb Endings Against the Background of the Grammatical Features Involved
3. Lexical Variation and Change in Relation to the System
3.1. The Kiranti Group of Tibeto-Burman Languages in East Nepal and Contact Phenomena with Indo-Aryan
3.2. Numerals in Kiranti Languages and Their Change
3.3. Numerals in Other Tibeto-Burman Languages
3.4. The Bantawa Rai Numerals Elaborated
4. Language Typology in Relation to the System
5. Conclusions
6. References
Indexes

Citation preview

Language System and Its Change

Trends in Linguistics Studies and Monographs 30

Editor

Werner Winter

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York · Amsterdam

Language System and Its Change On Theory and Testability by

Jadranka Gvozdanovic

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York · Amsterdam

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Gvozdanovic, Jadranka, 1947 Language system and its change. (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs ; 30) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Language and languages - Variation. 2. Linguistic change. 3. Nepal - Languages. 4. Typology (Linguistics) I. Title. II. Series. P120.V37G88 1985 410 85-21607 ISBN 0-89925-122-6 (alk. paper)

CIP-Kurztitelaufnahme der Deutschen Bibliothek Gvozdanovid, Jadranka:

Language system and its change : on theory and testability / by Jadranka Gvozdanovic. Berlin ; New York ; Amsterdam : Mouton, 1985. (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs ; 30) ISBN 3-11-010477-6 NE: Trends in linguistics / Studies and monographs

Printed on acid free paper. © Copyright 1985 by Walter de Gruyter& Co., Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form - by photoprint, microfilm or any other means - nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from Mouton de Gruyter, a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Typesetting: Asian Research Service, Hong Kong. - Printing: Druckerei Gerike GmbH, Berlin. - Binding: Dieter Mikolai, Berlin. - Printed in Germany.

For Galina Larissa Gvozdanovic

Note

I am thankful to the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation of the German Federal Republic for enabling me to carry out the research in Nepal, to the Linguistics Department of the University of Kiel for providing the available Tibeto-Burman data and advice, and to the Slavic Department of the University of Amsterdam for giving me a leave of absence in order to be able to carry out this research. The present publication has been financed in part by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Abbreviations

du C. E. excl. incl. pi S. sg

'dual' 'Central' 'Eastern' 'exclusive' 'inclusive' 'plural' 'Southern' 'singular'

NEPAL EASTERN DEVELOPMENT REGION

:r . 1

v ^ —

·.τ ν

J

r

^

N0IA

v

k

LOCATION Of

a L Ε acwo

CA9TCRN DEVELOPMENT REGION » y

V'

either direction. On the other hand, a change of [±anterior] has no consequences for [±high], as can be seen from the [r] — [1] and [m] — [r] exchanges, in either direction. In the following survey, I shall analyse the speech errors discussed by Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt entirely in terms of the distinctive feature oppositions involved. It can be seen that some errors involve only one distinctive feature opposition. The errors involving more than one distinctive feature opposition form two groups. The first group of such errors is characterized by distinctive feature oppositions which are mutually unrelated, and the second group is characterized by distinctive features for which an implicational relation holds in the sense described above. This is found both in articulatorily based and in acoustically based distinctive feature oppositions.

50

Phonological Variation

(19a) Articulatory distinctive features involved in the errors (from Gvozdanovic (1983b: 134)): — single feature oppositions: [±anterior], [icoronal] and [istrident]; — feature oppositions either as single or independently joining other feature oppositions: [±continuant] and [±nasal] ; — feature oppositions implying a change of another feature opposition as described above: [±vocalic] implies [±continuant] and [±nasal] (if distinctive in either of the segments), [iconsonantal] implies either [±high] or [±low]; [±back] implies [±high], unless [iconsonantal] is changed, too, and [ihigh] implies [ianterior] in the [+consonantal] segments. (19b) Acoustic distinctive features involved in the errors (from Gvozdanovid (1983b: 135)): — single feature oppositions: [igrave], [icompact] and [istrident]; — feature oppositions either as single or independently joining other feature oppositions: [icontinuant] and [±nasal] ; — feature oppositions implying a change of another feature opposition in the errors: [ivocalic implies [icontinuant] and [±nasal] (if distinctive in either of the segments), and [iconsonantal] implies either [idiffuse] or [icompact]. We can conclude that there are clear differences among the distinctive feature oppositions involved in the errors. Some distinctive features (i.e. feature oppositions) are more often involved than others, and especially the articulatorily based feature [ianterior] is the one most frequently involved because it can occur as the only distinctive feature involved, or be implied by a change of [ihigh], which is itself implied by [iconsonantal], and may be implied by [iback], too. The next most frequently involved distinctive feature opposition is that of [icontinuant] .Among the acoustically based features, [icompact] and [icontinuant] are the ones most frequently involved. The significant asymmetry established by Shattuck-Hufnagel and Klatt according to which significantly more errors involved a change of [s] to [/] or [ t f ] , and of [t] to [ t / ] , than vice versa, can now be reanalysed as involving the articulatorily based distinctive feature oppositions [ianterior] and [icontinuant], and the acoustically based distinctive feature oppositions [icompact] and [icontinuant] (in [ t / ] , specification of [icontinuant] occurs in the order +', which was signalled by Andersen (1972) as universally characteristic of diphthongization processes; markedness in relation to distinctive feature specifications will be discussed in a following section). Is there any relation among the distinctive feature oppositions of English which can account for the observed asymmetry in speech errors? Let us

Speech errors

51

try to relate it to hierarchies in the sense of asymmetrical patterning between distinctive feature oppositions defined in the preceding chapters. If we examine the distinctive feature matrices of English presented above, we can see a recurring regularity in which some feature oppositions are relevant only for one term of another feature opposition, but not for both its terms. In the articulatory matrix of English, [±continuant], [±nasal], and [istrident] are distinctive in the [-vocalic] segments but predictable in the [+vocalic] ones; [±low] and [±round] are distinctive in the [-consonantal] segments but predictable in the [+consonantal] ones; [ianterior] is distinctive in the [-high] segments but predictable in the [+high] ones, and [ianterior] and [±coronal] are distinctive in the [-back] segments but predictable in the [+back] ones. In the acoustic matrix of English, [icontinuant], [inasal], [igrave] and [istrident] are distinctive in the [-vocalic] segments but predictable in the [+vocalic] ones, and [idiffuse] and [iflat] are distinctive in the [-consonantal] segments but predictable in the [+consonantal] ones. This equals the hierarchies presented under (20a) and (20b) below, established exclusively on the basis of the distinctive feature matrices of English (i.e. independently of the observed errors). (20a) Hierarchies in the articulatory features of English (from Gvozdanovid (1983b: 139)): [ivocalic] dominates [icontinuant], [inasal] and [istrident] ; [iconsonantal] dominates [ilow] and [iround] ; [ihigh] dominates [ianterior], and [iback] dominates [ianterior] and [icoronal], (20b) Hierarchies in the acoustic features of English (from Gvozdanovid (1983b: 139)): [ivocalic] dominates [icontinuant], [inasal], [igrave] and [istrident]; [iconsonantal] dominates [idiffuse] and [iflat]. The remaining distinctive feature oppositions of English are unordered. If we now compare the patterning established as holding for the distinctive feature matrix of English with the patterning established as causing segmental errors discussed above, we can conclude that the feature hierarchy restricts speech errors in a relevant way. In the segmental errors, a specification for a subordinate or an unordered feature opposition can be changed without consequences for other distinctive features, whereas a change of a dominating feature opposition triggers corresponding changes of its subordinate feature oppositions (to which other subordinate or unordered feature oppositions can be added). The only exception so far is found in [iback], which does

52

Phonological Variation

n o t trigger [±coronal] if [±high] is involved, t o o . This m a y be d u e to the fact t h a t n o hierarchy h o l d s f o r [±high] a n d [ ± c o r o n a l ] . B u t it is also possible t h a t t h e f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n s [±anterior] a n d [±coronal] have t o b e revised. C o m i n g b a c k t o the p r o b l e m f o r m u l a t e d b y S h a t t u c k - H u f n a g e l a n d K l a t t , n a m e l y w h y [ / ] and [ t / ] were intrusions in a significantly higher n u m b e r of cases t h a n their c o r r e s p o n d i n g targets [s] and [ t ] , we are n o w able t o f o r m u l a t e an answer t o it. In b o t h cases, t h e r e is a change of [+anterior] i n t o [ - a n t e r i o r ] , i.e. f r o m m a r k e d i n t o u n m a r k e d , if m a r k e d n e s s is viewed as directly related t o t h e p h o n e t i c specifications in the absence of any relevant paradigmatic or s y n t a g m a t i c f e a t u r e c o n t e x t , as will be s h o w n in the section on m a r k e d n e s s b e l o w . But w h y did this change take place exactly in the case of [±anterior] ? Because it is t h e only f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n w h i c h is s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t w o o t h e r f e a t u r e oppositions, viz. [±high] and [ ± b a c k ] . This means t h a t it stands twice as m u c h chance t o be ' t a k e n along' w i t h a n o t h e r f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n , i.e. whenever one of its d o m i n a t i n g f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n s changes, it m u s t change as well. In a d d i t i o n t o this, it can change i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the remaining f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n s , as all s u b o r d i n a t e f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n s can. [ i a n t e r i o r ] is t h u s 'special' in t h e system o n i n d e p e n d e n t g r o u n d s of phonological p a t t e r n i n g as o u t l i n e d above, a n d it is exactly this p a t t e r n i n g w h i c h a p p a r e n t l y constrains speech errors in a relevant w a y .

1.5. Variation and Language Change in Relation to Asymmetry Within and Between Distinctive Feature Oppositions 1.5.1. On the basis of observable c o n s t r a i n t s on variability analysed in 1.3., I have f o r m u l a t e d a general h y p o t h e s i s by w h i c h a change of a s u b o r d i n a t e or u n o r d e r e d f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n has n o c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r the remaining f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n s , whereas a change of a d o m i n a t i n g f e a t u r e o p p o s i t i o n always does have c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r its s u b o r d i n a t e one(s). This h y p o t h e s i s a p p e a r e d n o t t o be rejected by a n o t h e r area of variability, n a m e l y speech errors, b u t rather t o be able t o a c c o u n t f o r observable p h e n o m e n a in a relevant w a y , indeed. As it is generally assumed that variation results f r o m language change w h i c h has its origin in variability, we can e x p e c t the same constraints t o be operative in language change, and thus t o be observable in variation as well.

Variation and change

53

What do we know about phonological change? We know that speech production may influence change in universally predictable ways (hence its 'naturalness', cf. Hooper (1976)), due to asymmetry of the speech organs (cf. Martinet (1955)) or ease of articulation (cf. Jespersen (1922)). The articulatory phenomena characteristic of speech production are translated into shifts in the acoustic space (cf. Labov, Yaeger and Steiner (1972)), which occur in universally predictable ways, unless they are prevented by speech perception, reflecting the underlying language system. There are two main phonological reasons why sound shifts may be prevented: a) because the slots that would become filled by a sound change are filled already, and/or b) because the distinctive feature patterning of a given system restricts the possibilities of feature changes. Given the fact that distinctive speech sounds are analysed in terms of distinctive features, the first reason is included in the second one. The second reason, that of feature patterning, may have consequences not only for the effectuation of a given change, but also for its direction. Let us examine it on the basis of the hypothesis about constraints imposed by the distinctive feature patterning as formulated at the beginning of this section. And let us do it by examining effectuation of phonetically motivated principles of vowel shifts, assumed to be generally valid. Labov, Yaeger and Steiner (1972: 106) formulated the following general principles of vowel shifting: I: in chain shifts, tense or peripheral vowels rise (mid tense vowels may develop either ingliding or upgliding diphthongs (op.cit.: 228)); II: in chain shifts, lax or nonperipheral vowels usually fall, particularly the lax nuclei of upgliding diphthongs: III: in chain shifts, back vowels move to the front. These general principles are constrained, as can be seen from Kajkavian Serbo-Croatian concerning the first two principles, and Hungarian concerning the third one. Are the involved constraints of a general nature? The vowel system underlying Kajkavian dialectal differentiation can be reconstructed as indicated in (21), following Ivid (1968: 58f.). (21a) Reconstruction of the Kajkavian vowel system, following Ivid (1968: 58f.): i u 9 e ο § a (These vowels could be distinctively either long or short. The long

54

Phonological Variation

ones can be considered 'peripheral', and the short ones 'nonperipheral'. Whenever length is irrelevant to a development, I make no reference to it.) (2lb)Developments of /o/ in Kajkavian, spoken in western Croatia in Yugoslavia: (a) /o/ /o/ in the northern and northeastern areas; (b) /