Sussex R., Cubberley P. The Slavic Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

2. ‘Tense jers’ (before /j/) > y/i (Rus o/e) (3.2.1.1)

3. g > fricative (œ/˜) (also South Russian) (3.2.2.3, 10.3.3)

4. d’ (dj) > dzˇ in verbal system only (alternation d  dzˇ) (Rus d  zˇ)

(4.3.1.2)

5. /v/ > /w/ [w/u

] in specific environments, including final (3.2.2.4)

(Rus [v] or [f] ): Ukr: prevocalic (except before [i] ) > [w], before

[i] > [v]; Ukr and Bel: post-vocalic and pre-consonantal or pre-

pausal > [u

]

6. Similarly post-vocalic, pre-consonantal or pre-pausal /l/ > [u

indicating the ‘‘darkness’’ of /l/ (3.2.2.5) (Rus [l

‘

])

7. Loss of soft labials word-finally and before consonants (3.4.3)

(Russian still soft finally)

8. Gemination of consonants before -({)j-: C

jV > CC

V (loss of /j/

and compensatory consonant length) (3.2.3, 3.4.3) (Russian still

jV)

9. CryCCr{CClyCCl{C > CryC ClyC in unstressed syllables

(probably via syllabic /r

/ and /l

/) (3.2.1.1, 3.2.2.6) (Rus CroC,

CloC)

10. Stress location more often parallel in Belarusian and Ukrainian

than in either with Russian (4.5)

b. Morphology

1. Some Russian adjectives have stressed -oj in NomSgMasc (actually

the result of the Stage 2 NE phonetic change to the tense jers, see

a. 2 above and 3.2.1.1) (5.5.2.1)

2. Russian adjectives and pronouns have a GenSgMasc/Neut written

(and originally pronounced) ‘-ogo’ which in the modern language

is pronounced with a [-v-] (in dialects also [g], [˜] or ø) (5.5.2.1,

10.3.3)

c. Lexis

Specifically Russian is the presence of a large number of words and

expressions which originated in Church Slavonic (9.2.2.1), and which

have remained in the language in spite of various movements in favor

of the vernacular. Many of these words can be identified by their

phonological characteristics, particularly where they exhibit combin-

ations not found in modern standard Russian. Belarusian, and even

more Ukrainian, have gone much further towards adapting these

words to native phonological patterns, which differentiates their

lexis from both the Church Slavonic and the Russian models (con-

trasting features are bolded):

1.6 East Slavic 49

(22) Church Slavonic (South Slavic) features in Russian

(22a) Non-pleophonic forms:

‘reward’: Rus nagra

da Ukr nahoro

‘return’ [Noun]: Rus vozvra

t Ukr po

vorot

‘main’: Rus gla

vnyj Ukr holo

vnyj

‘Wednesday’: Rus sreda

Ukr sereda

‘forewarning’: Rus predve

stie Ukr peredvı

stja (prefix)

(22b) Church Slavonic /zˇ d/ for ESl /zˇ /:

‘clothes’: Rus ode

da Ukr ode

a (Rus, Ukr coll. ode¨z

(22c) Church Slavonic /s

/ for ESl /c

‘illumination’: Rus prosves

nie Ukr osvı

ennja

(22d) Church Slavonic /ra-/ (usually) for /ro/:

‘equal’: Rus ra

vnyj Ukr rı

vnyj (< rov- )

prefix ‘apart’: Rus raz- Ukr roz-

(22e) Church Slavonic prefix forms {so-}, {voz-} for {s-}, {vz-}

(/uz/, /z/):

‘gather’: Rus sobira

Ukr zbira

ty (< s-b-)

‘arouse’ Rus vozbudı

Bel uzbudzı

, Ukr zbudy

(22f) Church Slavonic prefix {iz-} for {vy-}:

‘exile’ Rus izgonja

Ukr vyhanja

1.6.2.2 Features not in support of the traditional Stage 2 grouping

Belarusian shows its intermediate nature in a number of parameters on which it is

closer to Russian than Ukrainian:

1. akan

e: confusion of unstressed vowels, shared with Standard, Central

and Southern Russian (3.2.1.5, 3.5.1, 10.3) (not Ukr and N-Rus)

2. e

> /e/ vs Ukr > /i/ (3.2.1.3)

3. The distinction of i and y is retained; Ukr i > y (with new i later, 3.2.1.5)

4. The palatalization opposition is more developed than in Ukrainian

(3.2.2.2)

1.6.3 Stage 3 features (individual East Slavic languages)

1.6.3.1 Russian

The phonological and morphological features of Russian are those which were

discussed under 1.6.2.1 as Stage 2 NE features.

50 1. Linguistic evolution, genetic affiliation and classification

1.6.3.2 Ukrainian

a. Phonology

1. Unstressed /o/

The Ukrainian vocalic system shows free and mobile stress, but with

less strength, and less contrast of quality and length between stressed

and unstressed syllables. A corollary is that Ukrainian does not

show akan

e, the pronunciation in particular of unstressed /o/ as [a]

(3.2.1.5, 10.3).

2. The most typical feature of the Ukrainian morphophonological

system is the alternation resulting from the development of /e/

and /o/ in closed syllables – into /i/: /i/ before zero-desinence or

some consonant clusters (especially geminate), /e/ or /o/ otherwise:

(23a) ‘table’: PSl stoly  stol-a NomSg  GenSg

[NomSg] Rus stol Ukr stil [s

il] (Pol sto

ł )

[GenSg] Rus stola

Ukr stola

(Pol stołu)

(23b) ‘honey’: PSl medy  medu NomSg  GenSg

[NomSg] Rus me

d Ukr mid [m

id] (Pol mio

d )

[GenSg] Rus me

du/a Ukr me

du (Pol miodu)

(23c) ‘night’: PSl noc

{  noc

{jo˛ NomSg  InstrSg

[NomSg] Rus noc

Ukr nic

itS] (Pol noc)

[InstrSg] Rus no

ju Ukr nı

ju (Pol noca)

3. /e

/ > /i/ without any contextual constraint, thus with no alterna-

tion of vowels in open and closed syllables (3.2.1.3):

(24) ‘snow’: PSl sne

gy  sne

ga NomSg  GenSg

[NomSg] Rus sneg Ukr snih (Pol s

nieg)

[GenSg] Rus sne

ga Ukr snı

ha (Pol s

niegu)

The new Ukrainian /i/ would have come into conflict with for-

mer /i/ if the latter had not been lowered and backed to /y/ as the

consonants hardened (see below):

(25) ‘blue’: PSl sin-{j{ > Ukr sy

n-ij

cf. PSl syny ‘son’ > Ukr syn

4. Ukrainian /c/ can be hard (mainly foreign source) or soft (native

source – PSl /c

/), whereas in Russian it is always hard. (In

Belarusian it can also be hard or soft, but the latter is from /t

see below and 3.2.2.2.)

1.6 East Slavic 51

5. Consonants are hard before /e/ (vs soft in Russian and Belarusian)

(3.2.2.2)

6. Final obstruents do not devoice, a feature found only in B/C/S

among the other Slavic literary languages (3.2.3, 3.4.3.6), though

some dialects of Belarusian and Russian share this feature (10.3)

b. Morphology

1. Retention of the old -ovi dative ending of the u-stem Masculine

nouns (expanded to soft -evi) (5.5.1.1–5.5.1.2):

(26) ‘brother’ [DatSg] Ukr bra

t-ovi Rus, Bel bra

t-u

2. Normal (‘‘long’’) adjectives show a ‘‘short’’ ending (in fact, con-

tracted) for the nominative and accusative singular (feminine and

neuter), and the nominative plural (all genders). Belarusian has a

‘‘short’’ form only in the masculine singular, and Russian not at all

in the normal adjective (5.5.2.1):

(27) ‘new’:

Ukr: nov-y

j [MascSg] nov-a

[FemSg] nov-e

[NeutSg] nov-ı

[Pl]

Bel: no

v-y no

v-aja no

v-ae no

v-yja

3. The locative singular of adjectives and pronouns in the masculine/

neuter has two possible inflexional forms, one of which is identical

to the dative singular (see 5.4.2 and 5.5.1 on the larger topic of the

loss of locative):

(28) ‘green field’ Ukr zele

ne po

le Rus zele

noe po

‘in the green field’ Ukr uzele

nomu/zele

nim po

lju Rus vzele

nom po

4. In the present tense of Class I verbs (5.5.5.2) with velar stems,

which in Russian and Belarusian preserve the final velar in the

1 Person singular and 3 person plural, Ukrainian has normalized

the stem to the palatalized consonant (that is, removed the

alternation):

(29) ‘I can’ Rus mog-u

Bel mah-u

Ukr mo

zˇ-u

‘you [Sg] can Rus mo

zˇ-es

Bel mo

zˇ-as

Ukr mo

zˇ-es

‘they can’ Rus mo

g-ut Bel mo

h-uc

Ukr mo

zˇ-ut

c. Lexis

Ukrainian has applied native phonological processes to Church

Slavonic borrowings, so that pleophony occurs regularly in words

which in Russian preserve Church Slavonic phonology (1.6.2.1 above).

52 1. Linguistic evolution, genetic affiliation and classification

Ukrainian has a number of lexical Polonisms, dating from the period

between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries when Polish was the

dominant cultural force. Most are shared with Belarusian, but there are

some differences:

(30) ‘town’: Ukr mı

sto Pol miasto

Rus go

rod Bel ho

rad

1.6.3.3 Belarusian

a. Phonology

1. The Belarusian orthographic norm is more phonetic than that of

Russian, in that the quality of unstressed vowels is expressly indi-

cated. The akan

e system, where /o/ – as well as /a/ – is pronounced

[a] and written with a in Belarusian, is said to be ‘‘strong(er)’’ and

more active than in Russian: after hard consonants it has (for both)

a vowel quality closer to [a] (¼ lower) in all positions than Russian,

which has [

] in absolute word-initial and first pre-tonic syllables,

and [

] elsewhere. And [a] occurs also after soft consonants

( ja-kan

e), where Russian has [I](i-kan

e, 3.2.1.5, 10.3).

2. Most typical of the Belarusian consonant system are cekanne,

or the reflex /c

/ for Old Russian /t

/, and dzekanne, that is /dz

for Old Russian /d

/ (this affrication is a process typical also of

Polish and Sorbian, where the reflexes are alveolo-palatal (c

)–

see 1.7.1 below):

(31) ‘shadow’: Bel cen

( [ts



] ) Rus ten

([t

] ) Ukr tin

([t

])

‘day’: Bel dzen

( [dz



] ) Rus den

([d

] ) Ukr den

([den

])

3. All the palatals have hardened, that is, have low tongue positions,

compared to Russian, where only some have hardened, and

Ukrainian, where hard and soft appear as allophones (3.2.2.1,

3.4.1):

(32) ‘what’ GenSg: Bel c

ˇaho

([tSa¨h

] ) Ukr c

ˇoho

([tS

¨h

])

Rus c

ego

([tS

I ¨v

])

‘six’: Bel s

([Ses



] ) Rus s

est

([Ses

])

Ukr s

ist

([S

])

4. /r

/ has also hardened, while remaining a soft phoneme in Russian

and a soft allophone in Ukrainian (3.2.2.1):

(33) ‘river’ Bel raka

(/ra/-[ra] ) Rus reka

(/r

e/-[r

I] ) Ukr rika

(/ri/-[r

i] )

1.6 East Slavic 53

b. Morphology

1. Belarusian has retained the old locative inflexion in -i (-y) after the

hardened consonants /r c c

zˇ s

/) of soft-stem ( jo-) masculine and

neuter nouns:

(34) ‘knife’ LocSg: Bel nazˇy

Rus nozˇe

Ukr nozˇı

(i < e

)

‘beast’ LocSg: Bel zve

ry Rus zve

re Ukr zvı

ri (i < e

)

2. Retention of the old dative and locative of feminine soft-stem ( ja-)

nouns:

(35) ‘earth’ DatLocSg: Bel zjamlı

Rus zemle

Ukr zemlı

(i < e

)

3. The nominative/accusative of neuters has acquired the masculine

ending:

(36) ‘village’ Nom/AccPl: Bel se

ly Rus se

la Ukr se

1.7 West Slavic

The West Slavic languages cover modern Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics,

and a small area in the east of Germany.

The Northern branch of West Slavic consists of Polish, which with 35 million

speakers is in no danger; Kashubian, spoken in northern Poland by perhaps only

3,000 people (see Introduction 1.3, 1.4, table 0.3), but without the status of a full

literary language; and Upper and Lower Sorbian, spoken by perhaps 70,000 people

in the eastern part of Germany around Bautzen and Cottbus, respectively. The

Slavs on the Baltic originally covered a much larger area, including two now extinct

languages, Polabian and Slovincian (10.4.2.1).

The Czecho-Slovak, or Southern, branch of West Slavic comprises two major

modern Slavic languages, Czech and Slovak.

1.7.1 Stage 1 features of West Slavic

1. The jers merge into e (probably via schwa) (3.2.1.1, Table 3.1)

2. t’ d’ > c

, then > cdz; the latter then changes at Stage 2 (1.7.2,

3.2.2.1 (36) )

3. Extensive contraction through loss of intervocalic /j/; this then con-

tributes to (5)

4. Stress is fixed on the initial syllable (3.2.4) until Stage 3 (Polish) (1.7.3.1)

5. Quantity is developed strongly until Stage 2.

54 1. Linguistic evolution, genetic affiliation and classification

1.7.2 Stage 2 features of West Slavic

The principal genetic treatment of West Slavic involves either two or three groups:

Lekhitic, or Northern, includes at least Polish and Kashubian, but for some also

Upper and Lower Sorbian, while for others Sorbian counts as a separate group;

and Czecho-Slovak, or Southern. For discussion of the various attempts at sub-

division see 2.4.2–2.4.3.

In some respects the Sorbian group represents a transition between the two other

groups (Upper Sorbian being linguistically closer to Southern, Lower Sorbian to

Northern). The Sorbian dialects are extremely diverse, and there are virtually no

linguistic features common to all Sorbian dialects which distinguish them as a

group from the other Slavic languages (10.4.1). There are also major dialect chains

within West Slavic (10.4.5), and between West Slavic (especially Polish) and East

Slavic (especially Belarusian and Ukrainian) (10.4.6).

The primary division is between Czecho-Slovak and the rest, Polish and Sorbian

being much further apart than Czech and Slovak. Some of the features of Czecho-

Slovak (especially Slovak) are also found in other Slavic languages, especially

South Slavic, and especially Western South Slavic (Slovenian and B/C/S). From

a typological viewpoint, the two Sorbian varieties present some features which cut

across the underlying Lekhitic grouping (see 1.7.2.2). We shall treat Stage 2 as

opposing Northern (N) to Southern (S).

1.7.2.1 Features in support of the traditional Stage 2 grouping

1. The phonetic distinction between /i/ and /y/ is retained in N, lost in S

(though with some retention of the effect on preceding consonants).

The orthography does not indicate the phonetic fusion in S:

(37) ‘to be’: PSl byti: Pol, Sorb byc

([bi-t



]) Cz by

t ([biøt])

Slk byt’ ([bi-c])

‘to beat’: PSl biti: Pol, Sorb bic

([b



]) Cz bı

t ([biøt])

Slk bit’ ([bi-c])

2. /e/ > /o/ in some contexts in N, similar to East Slavic, especially Ukrainian:

(38) ‘woman’: Cz, Slk zˇena Pol

zona Sorb zˇona

3. A highly developed hard  soft opposition in N, very restricted in S

(3.2.2.2, 3.4.1)

4. Syllabic liquids are retained in S, but become ‘vowel + liquid’ in N

(3.2.2.6)

5. /l/ > /w/ in N (3.2.2.5)

1.7 West Slavic 55

6. t’ d ’ > c

in N (except LSorb, below), > t’ d’ (palatal stops) in S:

(39) ‘calf ’: Cz tele ([te-] ) Slk tel’a ([ce-] ) Pol ciele˛ ([te-] )

USorb c

elo

‘day’: Cz den ([de-] ) Slk den

([e-] ) Pol dzien

([d



e-] ) USorb dz

´en

7. CoRC etc. > CRaC etc. in S, CroC etc. in N (1.3.1.7)

8. Distinctive vowel length in S, lost in N (3.2.4, 3.5.3)

1.7.2.2 Features not in support of the traditional Stage 2 grouping

Beyond these features, at least in phonology, the languages show few features

which group them differently:

1. d’ (dj) (via dz

and dz) > z in Polish and Slovak, dz in Czech and

Sorbian (3.2.2.1)

2. v > v/f in Polish and Czech, >v/u

in Slovak, >w in Sorbian (3.2.2.4)

1.7.3 Stage 3 features (individual West Slavic languages)

One feature has different reflexes in each of the languages:

1. r

(or Palatal r’) > r˘ / r

(devoiced) (Czech), > zˇ/s

(orthographic rz)

(Polish), > r/s

/s’ (Sorb), > r (Slovak):

(40) ‘river’ (PSl re

ka): Cz r

eka Pol rzeka Sorb re

ka Slk rieka

‘a shout’ (PSl kriky): Cz kr

ik (devoiced) Pol krzyk ([kSç-] ) Slk krik

USorb kr

ik ([kSi-] ) LSorb ks

1.7.3.1 Polish

1. Retention of nasal vowels (3.2.1.2)

2. e

> /a/ or /e/ (depending on the following consonant) (3.2.1.3)

3. g remains a stop [g] (also LSorb), but becomes [œ] in Cz, Slk, USorb

(3.2.2.3)

4. Stress is fixed on the penultimate syllable, on the initial in the rest of

West Slavic (3.5.1)

1.7.3.2 Sorbian

a. Both Upper and Lower

1. Prothetic consonants are attached to all initial vowels (elsewhere to

some vowels or in some dialects only) (3.2.1.4)

2. Retention of the dual (5.4.1)

3. Retention of the aorist and imperfect (5.5.5.6)

56 1. Linguistic evolution, genetic affiliation and classification

b. Upper Sorbian

1. o/a > e before soft consonants (a also in Polish, cf. Czech after

palatal consonants):

(41) ‘salt’ (PSl sol{): USorb sel LSorb sol Cz su

l (<



Slk sol’ Pol so

‘to run’ (PSl be

zˇ a t i ): USorb be

zˇ e c

LSorb be

zˇ a s

Cz be

zˇ e t

Slk bezˇat’ Pol bie

zec

2. e˛ > o in final position:

(42) ‘calf’ (see (39) PSl tele˛): USorb c

elo

3. e

> y after (hard only) szc:

(43) ‘hay’ (PSl se

no): Cz, Slk, LSorb seno Pol siano USorb syno

c. Lower Sorbian

1. { (> e) > a before hard consonants:

(44) ‘dog’ (PSl p{sy): Cz, Slk pes Pol pies USorb pos LSorb pjas

2. e˛ > e

/e (others a/e):

(45) ‘meat’ (PSl me˛so): Cz maso Slk ma

so Pol mie˛so

USorb mjaso LSorb me

ˇso

3. t

> s

(see (39) also):

(46) ‘calf’: USorb c

elo LSorb s

ele

‘day’: USorb dz

´en

LSorb z

´en

4. r > r

> s

after /p t k/:

(47) ‘right’ (PSl prav-): USorb, Pol prawy LSorb ps

awy

5. /g/ = stop (as Polish) (3.2.2.3)

1.7.3.3 Czech

a. Phonology

1. pr

ehla

ska: the Czech ‘‘umlaut’’: back vowels are fronted after

palatal consonants (3.2.1.5)

2. Prothetic glottal stop before all initial vowels (a feature of literary

Czech now breaking down) (3.2.1.4, 11.3.2)

3. Loss of the hard/soft opposition, retained functionally only in /t d n/

before /i/, where the distinction is actually hard/palatal (see examples

of /e/ in (39) ) (3.2.2.2, 3.4.3)

1.7 West Slavic 57

b. Morphology

1. Generally Czech has a relatively archaic nominal system, with less

regularization of paradigms (5.5)

2. Secondary gender distinguishes only Animate, as in East and

South Slavic, but unlike the rest of West Slavic, which has

Personal (5.4.4)

1.7.3.4 Slovak

a. Phonology

1. Long vowels have mostly become diphthongs ia, ie, iu, o

([u

])

(3.3.2.2)

2. Rhythmic Law: the avoidance of two consecutive long vowels or

diphthongs (3.5.3)

3. x > s in the 2nd and 3rd Palatalization of the Velars (cf. > s

in the

rest of West Slavic) (1.3.1.7, examples (5) and (6) )

b. Morphology

1. Loss of the vocative (cf. retention in the rest of West Slavic) (5.4.2,

5.5.1)

1.8 Overview

In spite of the considerable divergence since the break-up of Proto-Slavic unity

between the sixth and tenth centuries AD, the Slavic languages have remained both

genetically and typologically coherent. There is nothing like the controversy over

the genetic origins of Japanese (Shibatani, 1990: Ch. 5). And while foreign influ-

ences on Slavic have contributed a great deal in the area of lexis (chapter 9), and to

a lesser extent to verb morphology (chapter 5) and syntax (chapter 7), the Slavic

languages remain clearly Slavic in character, and Indo-European in inheritance.

They are also, to different extents, mutually intelligible. Speakers of the three

languages within East Slavic – Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian – communicate

with reasonable ease. So, too, do speakers of Czech and Slovak; Serbian, Croatian

and Bosnian; Bulgarian and Macedonian; and to some extent Polish and

Kashubian. All of these sets of languages also show dialect continua which act as

transitional variants between the standard languages (10.5). Communication

between Polish and Sorbian, and B/C/S and Slovenian, is more difficult, given

the typological differentiation of the languages. That said, however, it is also true

that sentiments of ethnic identity, and from 1991 pressures of nationalism and

separatism, are encouraging the speakers of the ‘‘smaller’’ languages to emphasize

and develop the distinctiveness of their languages vis-a

-vis the ‘‘larger’’ (first-cousin)

58 1. Linguistic evolution, genetic affiliation and classification