Vowel-Zero Alternations in Albanian and Morphophonological Contact

1
Vowel-Zero Alternations in Albanian and
Morphophonological Contact

• Andrew Dombrowski

2
Introduction

• Slavic Geg Albanian both have vowel-zero
  alternations in inflection, due to independent
  processes of syncope.
• Some Geg dialects in contact with Slavic extend
  vowel-zero alternations to include nouns ending
  in ull, -ur, -urr.
• In some instances, the alternating vowel in Geg
  is shifted to match corresponding Slavic jer
  reflex.

3
Introduction

• Goals of this paper
• argue that the extension of vowel-zero
  alternations in Geg is due to Slavic influence
• demonstrate that this cannot be accounted for in
  terms of direct Slavic gt Albanian grammatical
  transfer
• explore ramifications of this for modeling
  phonological contact

4
Introduction

• Outline
• Vowel-zero alternations in Geg
• Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic
• Extension of alternations in Geg
• Analysis
• Repercussions

5
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• /?/ gt Ø except when conflicts with phonotactics
• note schwa is always unstressed
• Can be accounted for phonologically
• Sample and sketch account taken from Luznia e
  Dibrës, a central Geg dialect near Debar along
  Albania-Macedonia border

6
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• Schwa deleted in Luznia e Dibrës
• See handout key examples below

Luznia e Dibrës Original Gloss
prrallz përrallës fairy tale-gen.sg.def.
kpuc këpucë shoe-nom.sg.indef.
shnre shëndre December-nom.sg.indef.
7
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• Schwa preservation in Luznia e Dibrës
• See handout key examples below

Luznia e Dibrës Original Gloss
e kërmashme e kërmashme red and white (of sheep)-fem.sg.indef.
përjashta përjashta outdoors
i vokël i vogël small-masc.indef.
pullën pullën button-acc.def.
8
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• Descriptive generalizations
• Complex onsets are tolerated except for CRCV
  syllables CNCV is permitted.
• Rising sonority codas are not permitted.
• Codas of two sonorants are not permitted.
• Sketch OT account
• Constraints Sonority, OCP-son, CrC, ?
• See handout for details

9
Vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• Sketch OT account is not complete
• Luznia e Dibrës dialect description does not have
  a complete lexicon above account is consistent
  with the lexicon given.
• Vowel-zero alternations in Luznia e Dibrës can be
  captured straightforwardly in an OT model.
• With the exception of morphemes like për, the OT
  model is agnostic as to whether schwa is present
  in the UR.

10
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic

• Slavic vowel-zero alternations are older and much
  more complicated than Geg.
• See handout for outline of standard Macedonian
  vowel-zero alternations.
• Fairly representative of Slavic dialects with
  which Geg is in contact.
• Much lexical variation.

11
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic

• Key examples from standard Macedonian
• Adjectives in en
• gladen hungry gladniot gladna
• zelen green zeleniot zelena
• Nouns in -ok
• dobitok livestock dobici
• pocetok start pocetoci
• Nouns in ol
• jazol knot jazli
• sokol falcon sokoli / sokli

12
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic

• Analysis of Geg does not extend.
• Several possible approaches (cf. study of
  vowel-zero alternations in Russian)
• Abstract jer vowels with rules for deletion
  (Lightner 1965, Rubach 1986) requires lexical
  specifcation
• Government Phonology translation of this
  (Scheer 2005)
• Treat as synchronic vowel insertion with
  morphological conditioning of resulting
  alternations (Darden 1989)
• Treat jer vowels as morphological constituents
  (Chew 2000)

13
Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic

• Cannot be treated in terms of pure phonology
• Reference must be made to the lexicon
• Classical generative approach involves lexical
  specification (/dobit?k-?/ vs. /pocetok-?/
  /jaz?l-?/ vs. /sokol-?/)
• Alternative approaches involve morphological
  specification

14
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• Extension to nouns ending in (idiosyncratically)
  unstressed ull, -ur, -urr
• Patterns of behavior
• (1) Preservation without alternation
• (2) /u/ gt /?/ introduction of alternation in
  paradigms
• (3) Preservation of /u/, introduction of
  alternation in paradigms

15
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• (1) - /u/ preserved, no alternations
• Plava and Gucia in Montenegro, Kastrati, Hoti,
  Kelmendi, Peshteri in the Sandžak region of
  southern Serbia, and Reç-e-Dardhës e Dibrës near
  Debar.
• Data from Kastrati dialect

Nom.sg.indef. Nom.sg.def.
vetull eyebrow vetulla
kumull plum kumulla
hekur iron hekuri
16
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• (2) - /u/ gt /?/ introduction of alternation in
  paradigms
• Hasi, Qyteza e Kaçanikut, Shala e Bajgorës,
  Gjakova, Tuhini i Kërçovës, Morava e Epërme,
  Vila-e-Kalisit të Lumës.
• Data from Hasi dialect

Nom.sg.indef. Nom.pl.def.
vetëll eyebrow vetlla
kumëll plum kumlla
hekër iron Hekra
17
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• (3) - /u/ preserved, introduction of alternation
  in paradigms
• Mirdita, in Gryka e Madhe e Dibrës, Ana e Malit,
  the Debar city dialect, Luznia e Dibrës, Karadak,
  and Puka
• Data from Puka dialect

Nom.sg.indef. Nom.sg.def.
vetull eyebrow vetlla
kumull plum kumlla
hekur iron hekri
18
Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg

• Fourth pattern in Opoja, /u/ gt /o/ in these
  nouns, mirroring jer reflexes in neighboring Gora.

Nom.sg.indef. Nom.pl.def.
vetoll eyebrow vetlla
kumoll plum kumlla
grumoll pile grumlla
19
Opoja

• Actually, in Opoja, ? gt o
• Nominal declension

Opoja Standard Albanian
Indef Def. Indef. Def.
Nom (ni) motor motra (një) motër motra
Acc (ni) motor motron (një) motër motrën
Gen (i, e ni) motros (i, e) motros (i, e një) motre (i, e) motrës
Dat (ni) motros motros (një) motre motrës
Alb (pi(j) ni) motros (pi(j)) motros (prej një) motre (prej) motrës
20
Opoja

• Adjectival declension compared to general Geg

Opoja General Geg
Masc.Sg. Fem.Sg. Masc.Sg. Fem.Sg.
clothed i veshom e veshme i veshun e veshun
dried i terom e terme i terun e terun
slow i kadalshom e kadalshme i ngadalshëm e ngadalshme
21
Opoja

• Changes in adjectival declension compared to
  other Geg dialects
• (1) /o/ corresponding to /u/
• Possible intermediate stage /u/ gt /?/ gt /o/, but
  this implies intermediate forms like i terën,
  which are not attested
• (2) generalization of feminine ending e
• Result similar to template in Macedonian

22
Opoja

• Adjectival declension in Opoja compared to
  Macedonian

Masc.(Indef). Sg. Fem.(Indef). Sg.
Opoja Macedonian Opoja Macedonian
Class A i vesh-om clothed slad-ok sweet e vesh-me clothed slat-ka sweet
i kadal-sh-om slow mrt-ov dead e kadal-sh-me slow mrt-va dead
Class B i ble-m bought rod-en born e ble-m-e bought rod-en-a born
i shti-m added zelen green e shti-m-e added zelen-a green
23
Analysis

• Degree of isomorphism between Opoja and
  neighboring Slavic strongly suggests
  contact-driven explanation
• On u gt ? dialects
• All in Kosovo or vicinity (Hasi is between Kukës
  and Kosovo Vila-e-Kalisit të Lumës is in
  vicinity of Kukës, but economic ties have
  historically been with Kosovo)
• This correlates strongly with Slavic dialects
  where ?, ? gt ?, suggesting that this pattern is
  structurally very similar to Opoja

24
Analysis

• On dialects with preserved /u/ and innovated
  alternations
• Geographical position on periphery of /u/ gt /?/
  zones, ranging from Montenegro in the NW (Ana e
  Malit) to Debar in the south to Karadaku in the
  E.
• Suggests that this is not under Slavic influence,
  but instead is diffusion within Albanian

25
Analysis

• Stages
• (1) Albanian dialects in and around southern
  Kosovo shift /u/ in endings ull, -ur, -urr to ?
  under influence from neighboring Prizren-Timok
  dialects of Serbian where jers gt ?.
• (2) Opoja developments (can be seen as subset of
  stage (1) with subsequent shift due to
  neighboring Gora, except for participles).
• (3) Spread of vowel-zero alternations to
  neighboring dialects without /u/ gt /?/ shift

26
Analysis

• Things to account for
• (1) equation of (one) Slavic alternating vowel
  with Albanian alternating vowel.
• Opoja is clearest example of this as an overt
  change, but is arguably implicit in u gt ?
  dialects.
• (2) extension of alternations to nouns ending in
  ull, -ur, -urr.
• (3) subsequent spread of alternations in
  neighboring Albanian dialects without u gt ? shift

27
Analysis

• Can (1) and (2) be analyzed as direct borrowing
  of Slavic grammar by Albanian?
• (1) probably not. If Slavic alternating vowels
  are underlying, specification of quality is
  nowhere in the grammar.
• (2) also probably not. Slavic vowel-zero
  alternations involve lexical specification, and
  the relevant lexemes morphemes are not borrowed.

28
Analysis

• Suggestion
• Some reorganization seems to be happening at an
  intermediate interface stage between the two
  languages
• An interlanguage? Similar on first glance, but an
  interlanguage analysis might make overly strong
  claims re sociolinguistic particulars. Also,
  this would only account for reanalysis of Slavic,
  not its impact in Albanian.
• Interface-based approach might be an interesting
  prism to look at questions structural
  compatibility in borrowing.

29
Analysis

• Sample implementation 1 the Opoja shift (? gt o)
• stage A ltoØgtSlavic, lt?ØgtAlbanian
• change ltoØgtSlavic ? Albanian
• stage B ltoØgtSlavic, Albanian
• Elements in stage A reflect generalizations made
  by speakers of Albanian, and elements in
  brackets are metadata.
• Key point a generalization ltGgtSlavic does not
  have to actually be completely true of Slavic it
  should be deducible from the Slavic evidence but
  can be a reanalysis.

30
Analysis

• Sample implementation 2 spread of alternations
  without u gt ? between dialects D1 and D2
• possibility (a) reanalysis of D1
• stage A lt-ull, -ur, -urr-alternationsgtD1
• lt-ull, -ur, -urralternationsgtD2
• change lt-ull, -ur, -urralternationsgtD2
  ? D1
• stage B lt-ull, -ur, -urralternationsgtD1
  , D2
• In this analysis, D1 speakers reanalyze D2 such
  that the only salient feature of D2 is the
  presence of alternations in the marked nouns.

31
Analysis

• Sample implementation 2 spread of alternations
  without u gt ? between dialects D1 and D2
• possibility (b) partial implementation
• stage A lt-ull, -ur, -urr-alternationsgtD1
• lt-ull, -ur, -urralternationsgtD2
• lt-ull, -ur, -urr u gt ?gtD2
• change lt-ull, -ur, -urralternationsgtD2
  ? D1
• stage B lt-ull, -ur, -urralternationsgtD1,
  D2
• lt-ull, -ur, -urr u gt ?gtD2
• D1 only partially reassign tags from D2

32
Analysis

• The distinction made in sample implementation 2
  between reanalysis and partial implementation of
  shift might be useful in other instances.
• How to characterize the mechanism of tag
  reassignment, and what constraints might be
  involved?
• Can the concept of grammatical interface be
  productively applied to other situations?