Slav 20100 lecture_slides_week_03


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Slav 20100 lecture_slides_week_03

  1. 1. 10/17/2012 SLAV 20100/30100 intro, organizationIntro to Slavic Linguistics instructor: Yaroslav Gorbachov Autumn 2012 Foster 403 Yaroslav Gorbachov office hours: Wed 4:35 – 6 pm texts: Comrie, Corbett, The Slavonic Languages ” Sussex, Cubberly, The Slavic languages extra readings: available as PDFs č ę requirements: see syllabus Slovenian / Slovene Slovenian / Slovenespeakers: ca. 2.4 million; 30+ dialects late 10th c.: the Freising Fragments, the earliest instance of written Slovene 16th c.: Adam Bohorič develops Slovene orthography (the Roman-based bohoričica) first books in Slovene written by the Lutheran preacher Primož Trubar 1
  2. 2. 10/17/2012 Slovenian / Slovene earliest adaptation of Roman2nd half of 16th c.: multiple books printed in Ecçe bi detd nas ne ze- gresil te u veku gemu beSlovene siti starosti ne prigem- lióki nikolige se pet- sali neimugi ni slzna…incl. Jurij Dalmatins translation of the Bible teleze imoki nú uv uę- ki gemu be siti bone-mid-19th c.: the Reformation model of se zavuiztiu bui ne- priiazninu vuignanliterary Slovenian is abandoned; a new od zlavui bosige <…>literary norm based on the Central Sloveniandialects gradually takes shapeCroatian gajevica is adopted to replace the Freising Fragments (p. 158v), from Slovenia 2nd half of 10th c.16th c. bohoričica source: earliest adaptation of Roman Bulgarian Ešte bi děd naš ne sŭ- grěšil tŭ v věku jemu by speakers: ca. 8.5 million žiti starosti ne prijem- loči nikolije že pe- 12-19th c.: Bulg. recension of Church Slavonic čali neimyjĭ ni slzna telese imoči nŭ v vě- ky jemu by žiti pone- mid-19th c.: codification (standardization) že zavistju by ne- prijaznĭnu vygnan based on N-E dialects (around Veliko Tărnovo) od slavy božijě <…> late 19th c.: underwent influence from the Russian language (special terminology) Freising Fragments (p. 158v), since the 20th c.: influence from the W Bulg. from Slovenia 2nd half of 10th c. source: dialect of Sofia 2
  3. 3. 10/17/2012 Macedonian Macedonianspeakers: ca. 1.6 million 1945: the present orthography was adoptedprior to WWII: mostly classified as Bulgarian based on the Serbian version of the Cyrillic1944: the Anti-Fascist Assembly of Macedonia alphabet (as modified by Vuk Karadžić)proclaimed the territory as part of Yugoslavia 1946: the first official Macedonian grammarAug. 2, 1944: Macedonian becomes the was written by Krume Kepeskiofficial language of the Republic of Macedonia by mid-50s: the literary language wasOct. 29, 1944: 1st iss. of the Nova Makedonija standardized (west-central dialectal base,newspaper (the first document to appear in areas around Skopje)literary Macedonian) 3
  4. 4. 10/17/2012 phonetic symbols & conventions vocal tract and articulatory phonetics points of articulation symbols & conventions phonetic symbols & conventions IPA chart – pulmonic consonants IPA chart – vowels source of the vowel chart: 4
  5. 5. 10/17/2012phonetic symbols & conventionsclickable IPA charts with audio recordings (click on a character to "sound" it!) phonetics vs. phonology; the phoneme phonetics vs. phonology phonetics vs. phonology notions: tie [thɑɪ] phonetics sty [stɑɪ] phonology steam [stji:m] phone (speech sound) but [bʌʔ] phoneme (underlying sound) butter [bʌɾǝɹ] allophone 5
  6. 6. 10/17/2012 phonetics vs. phonology phonetics vs. phonology [thɑɪ], [ǝ.ʹthæk] [thɑɪ], [ǝ.ʹthæk] [stɑɪ] [stɑɪ] t [stji:m] t [stji:m] [bʌʔ] [bʌʔ] [ʹbʌ.ɾǝɹ] [ʹbʌ.ɾǝɹ]complementary distribution! allophones (positional variants)! phonetics vs. phonology phonetics vs. phonology [th] [th] [t] [t] брат [brɑt] мат [mɑt] /t/ [tj] /t/ [tj] брать [bratj] мать [matj] [ʔ] [ʔ] [ɾ] [ɾ]allophones (positional variants)! contrastive sounds or positional variants? 6
  7. 7. 10/17/2012 phonetics vs. phonology phonetics vs. phonology [th] [th] дан [dɑn] дань [danj] [t] /t/ [t] брат [brɑt] брать [bratj] /t/ [tj] /tj/ /t/ [tj] мат [mɑt] мать [matj] [ʔ] [ʔ] дал [dɑl] даль [dalj] [ɾ] [ɾ] рана [rɑ.nǝ] раня [rɑ.njǝ] in Russian ― contrasƟve sounds! what about [ɑ] vs. [a]? phonetics vs. phonology phonetics vs. phonologyphonemes in (Hiberno)English and Russian: phonemes in English and Russian: /ɑ/ [ɑ] /ɑ/ /t/ [t] /t/ /æ/ [a] [tj] /tj/ what about [ɑ] vs. [a]? what about [t] vs. [tj]? 7
  8. 8. 10/17/2012 phonetics vs. phonology phonetics vs. phonologypalatalized consonants + low vowels in Russ.: are Russian [m] and [mj] phonemes or allophones мат mat /mɑt/ [ mɑt ] of the same phoneme? мят wrinkled /mjɑt/ [ mjat ] what about [t] and [tj]? мать mother /mɑtj/ [ matj ] unlike Eng., they are phonemes (contrastive) мять to wrinkle /mjɑtj/ [ mjætj ] what about Russian [ɑ] [a] [æ] [ɒ] [ʌ]?velar ("dark") /ɫ/, stress + low vowels: they are all allophones мал small /mɑl/ [ mɒɫ ] what about English [ɑ] [æ] [ʌ]? малой tight (shoes) /mɑloj/ [ mʌ.lɔj ] can you come up with minimal pairs? definitions definitionsphonetics (Gk. phonē sound) phonologythe study of the sounds of human speech Gk. phonē + logia the study of soundsstudies the physical properties of speech studies sound systems (sound patterns) ofsounds (a.k.a. phones), such as [t], [th], [tj]… specific human languages physiological production phonemes (such as /t/) as opposed to phones acoustic properties (such as [t], [th], [tj], [ɾ]…) auditory perception so, what are phonemes? 8
  9. 9. 10/17/2012 definitions definitionsa few possible definition of phonemes: allophones a class of sound identified by a native speaker non-contrastive speech sounds as "the same" positional variants (i.e., they surface in different abstract mental representations of sounds in positions, hence are in complementary the speakers mental grammar (underlying snd.) distribuƟon ― like Clark Kent and Superman) smallest discrete (segmental) units of sound speech sounds (phones) that are classified by a employed to form meaningful contrasts native speaker as belonging to the same class, between words and word forms or phoneme contrastive sounds (in minimal pairs): as in R. (usually speakers are unaware of the existence мат vs. мать, Eng. bid vs. pit, bid vs. bead, etc. of those variants in their language!) hands on hands onlabial stops in English and Korean (p, ph, b): phones in English:spat [spæt] [pul] fire [p] [ph] [b]pat [p hæt] [phul] grass phones in Korean:bat [bæt] [pɑl] foot [p] [ph] [b]stab [stæb] [phɑl] arm phonemes in English and Korean:tab [thæb] [kɑp] small box, packdab [dæb] [kɑbe] in small box (loc.) /ph/ [ph] /ph/bit [bɪt] [pɒp] law [p]phit [pɪt] [mubɒp] lawlessness /b/ [b] /p/ 9
  10. 10. 10/17/2012 VOT; categorical perception VOT; categorical perception VOICE ONSET TIME (VOT) VbV gradual continuum, not discrete changes VpV VphV source: source: VOT; categorical perception VOT; categorical perception spit [sp] – pit [ph] – bit [b] sty [st] – tie [th] – die [d] why do you categorize a [p] as the phoneme /b/?? categorical perception: a change in some variable along a continuum is perceived not as gradual but as instances of discrete categories (i.e., two different sounds) 10
  11. 11. 10/17/2012 VOT; categorical perception VOT; categorical perception spit [sp] – pit [ph] – bit [b] for English CV and VCV stops, the VOT may be sty [st] – tie [th] – die [d] negative (voicing precedes the burst), but even if it occurs within 20 ms following the release, thenreason: for Eng. "voiced" stops, the VOT kicks in the stop is still perceived as voicedvery late, it may even follow the release (burst)! if the VOT is over 20 ms after the burst the stop is perceived as voiceless very un-Slavic! the real pronunciation of Eng. voiced stops: spit [sp] – pit [ph] – bit [p]; sty [st] – tie [th] – die [t] perceptions and orthographies are misleading! a toe a doe to sum up to sum upspeech sounds (phones) are imprecise, they vary the phonetic environment in which they occur,within a permissible range of a value (the VOT of affects the allophonic realization of a phonemea vcd. consonant between, say, -20 ms & 20 ms) (phonological conditioning / rules)phonemes are discrete units on the level of Eng. [ph] vs. [p] /ph/ → [p] / s ___mental representation: Eng. /p/, /b/, /t/, /d/, etc. Kor. [p] vs. [b] /ph/ → [b] / V ___ Vin actual speech they are realized as phoneticsegments, and not necessarily the same ones: phonological conditioning leading to allophonic Eng. /ph/ → [p], [ph] variation is thus language-specific (the rules of pronunciation)! Eng. /th/ → [t], [th], [ʔ], [ɾ] 11
  12. 12. 10/17/2012 to sum up to sum up it is not reliable to ask native speakers about their…phonetics deals with universal aspects of phonological intuitions, because they usually arespeech sounds, be they Eng., Russ., or Ainu unaware of allophonic variation [t], [tj] in English and Russian categorical perception: [p], [ph], [b] in English and Korean a stop with a positive VOT of up to 20 ms will be…phonology deals with language-specific mapped onto a voiced consonant by an Englishaspects of sound (language-specific patterning speaker (but not a Russian one!)of sounds, the sound systems) 3 sounds [p], [ph], [b] map onto 2 phonemes: /p/, /b/ by English speaker but /p/, /ph/ by a Korean one /i/, /ɪ/, /p/, /b/ in English, etc. брат [ɑ] брать [a] брали [a] брал [ɒ] ― Russ. /a/ phonology phonologyphonology is concerned with: beyond phonemes (what else speakers are sound systems (phonemic inventories) aware of): restrictions on segment occurrence and co- syllable (phnlg. deals with syllable structures occurrence (phonotactics), e.g. *h#, *#hC, *#ŋ ― permissible structures, restricƟons, etc.) allophonic variation, phonological conditioning ― the ex. of Japanese the mapping between phonemes and phones (accomplished by using phonological rules) stress (emphasis or prominence that may be given to certain syllables in a word) categorical perception of sounds (R. [ɑ] & [a], Eng. [ɑ] & [ʌ] for a native speaker of Russian) tone (the use of pitch in some languages to distinguish lexical or grammatical meaning) free variation (tomato, either, genuine) 12
  13. 13. 10/17/2012history of the concept phoneme history of the concept phonemePolish Russian linguist Ivan (Jan) Baudouin de elaborated during the years 1926-1935, prince N.Courtenay, professor of the Imperial Kazan Univ. Trubetzkoy (prof. of Slavic Philology at the Univ.and the Imperial Derpt (Tartu) Univ. of Vienna) + others of the Prague Linguistic Circleintroduced the distinction between language (an taken over by the structuralists (F. de Saussure, E.abstract system of elements) and speech (its Sapir, and L. Bloomfield)implementation by individuals) used in generative linguistics by N. Chomsky and – before Saussures langue vs. parole! M. Hallein the 1870s – 1880s, B. de Courtenay was the since R. Jakobson and M. Halle, phonemes arefirst scholar to introduce the notion phoneme considered to be further decomposable into(фонема) as a linguistic abstraction features, the true minimal constituents of lang. 13