Laryngeal Features of Armenian Dialects

THE SOUND OF INDO-EUROPEAN Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics Edited by Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead Thomas Olander Birgit Anette Olsen and Jens Elmegård Rasmussen Museum Tusculanum Press University of Copenhagen 2012 @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 he Sound of Indo-European: Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics © Museum Tusculanum Press and the authors 2012 Edited by Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, homas Olander, Birgit Anette Olsen & Jens Elmegård Rasmussen Cover design by hora Fisker Set by homas Olander Printed in Denmark by Specialtrykkeriet ISBN 978 87 635 3838 1 Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European, vol. 4 ISSN 1399 5308 Published with support from: Roots of Europe – Language, Culture, and Migrations Museum Tusculanum Press 126 Njalsgade DK 2300 Copenhagen S www.mtp.dk @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 CONTENTS Preface iX Václav Blažek Indo-European laryngeals in the light of Afroasiatic 1 Lars Brink he etymology of Nordic kuna ‘woman’ 27 Andrew Miles Byrd Predicting Indo-European syllabification through phonotactic analysis 33 Paul S. Cohen & Adam Hyllested A new sound law of PIE: Initial **h3uʢ > *h2uʢ 53 Michael Frotscher he fate of PIE final *-rʘ in Vedic and Latin 73 José Virgilio García Trabazo Phonologische und morphologische Bemerkungen zu den hethitischen -e/a-Verben 97 Piotr Gąsiorowski he Germanic reflexes of PIE *-sr- in the context of Verner’s Law 117 Aaron Griffith Non-raising before *μ in Old Irish 129 Irén Hegedűs he RUKI-rule in Nuristani 145 Eugen Hill Hidden sound laws in the inflectional morphology of Proto-Indo-European 169 Anders Richardt Jørgensen Palatalization of *sk in British Celtic 209 Götz Keydana Evidence for non-linear phonological structure in Indo-European: he case of fricative clusters 223 @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 vi Contents Alwin Kloekhorst he phonological interpretation of plene and non-plene spelled e in Hittite 243 Guus Kroonen Consonant gradation in the Germanic iterative verbs 263 Martin Joachim Kümmel Typology and reconstruction 291 Rosemarie Lühr & Susanne Zeilfelder Optimale Onsets im Indogermanischen 331 Paolo Milizia On the morphophonemics of Proto-Indo-European *-s e/opresents 361 Kanehiro Nishimura Vowel reduction and deletion in Sabellic: A synchronic and diachronic interface 381 Georges-Jean Pinault Remarks on PIE amphikinetic and hysterokinetic nouns 399 Charles Prescott Germanic and the ruki dialects 425 Giancarlo Schirru Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 435 Vitaly Shevoroshkin Anatolian laryngeals in Milyan 459 Zsolt Simon PIE ‘me’ and a new Lydian sound law 485 Thomas Smitherman On ancient Kartvelian-Indo-European lexical contacts and their consequences for Proto-Indo-European 501 David Stifter Lenition of s in Gaulish? 523 @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Contents vii Brent Vine PIE mobile accent in Italic: Further evidence 545 Gordon Whittaker Euphratic: A phonological sketch 577 Paul Widmer Notiz zur holokinetischen Ablautklasse 607 Nicholas Zair A new environment for laryngeal loss in Proto-Celtic 613 @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects Giancarlo Schirru University of Cassino his paper concerns the laryngeal features of the Armenian stop system in a comparative perspective. First we will summarize a well-known problem in Armenian historical phonology, concerning the status of the series traditionally called “voiced.” hen we will present the acoustic data from field research, carried on in the Republic of Armenia, on diferent Armenian dialects, and we will discuss a possible phonological analysis, in both synchronic and diachronic terms. In the end we will analyze the position of the Armenian language in an Indo-European perspective, with special regard to Indo-Aryan reflexes of Indo-European stops. he aim of this study is to motivate a line of research in the area of Indo-European consonantism, based on the hypothesis that the IndoEuropean series of stops traditionally called “voiced aspirated” could be better analyzed if specified by the [+slack vocal folds] or [-stif vocal folds] features. For this purpose, we will make use of phonetics observations on living Indo-European varieties as arguments for their phonological analysis, and we will treat phonology of modern languages (the only ones investigable by “experimental phonology”) as an object of comparison within the perspective of Indo-European phonology, together with arguments coming from historical phonology of singular historical traditions, comparative phonology and internal reconstruction. 1 Phonology of Armenian stops Modern Standard Eastern Armenian, based on the Erevan variety, has a system of 15 stops; it can be classified in 3 series and 5 classes (see Table 1);1 1 See Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 66–68; Vaux 1998: 12–13 and bibliography quoted therein; Hacopian 2003. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 436 Giancarlo Schirru in Armenian writing, each stop in this system is expressed by a diferent graphical sign: bilabial alveolar alveolar africate postalveolar africate velar Table 1 voiceless aspirated /pȹ/ < > /tȹ/ < > /tsȹ/ < > /tʃȹ/ < > /kȹ/ < > plain voiceless /p/ < > /t/ < > /ts/ < > /tʃ/ < > /k/ < > voiced /b/ < > /d/ < > /dz/ < > /dȢ / < > /DZ/ < > Stop system of Modern Eastern Armenian he 5 classes refer to the place of articulation and to the presence of africation. he 3 series are defined in terms of laryngeal features: in many descriptions, they are named “voiceless aspirated,” “plain voiceless” and “voiced.” In the traditional reconstruction of historical phonology,2 Old Armenian has the same stop system as Modern Standard Eastern Armenian. he origin of the 3 series is linked with the Proto-Indo-European system through a chain shit, which may be summarized as follows: 1 a PIE *t > O. Arm. /tȹ/, ex. PIE *sept¤ > O. Arm. և ewṭn /ewtȹn/ ‘7’ PIE *d > O. Arm. /t/, ex. PIE *de Š > O. Arm. tasn ‘10’ PIE *dh > O.Arm. /d/, ex. PIE *dhur-Š (acc.) (cf. Gr. ϑύρᾱ, Lat. fores) > O.Arm. dowrɷn ‘door’ But ater a sonorant (nasal, lateral and rhotic), there is a diferent reflex of the Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops: in this context, the first PIE series becomes voiced, and not voiceless aspirated: 2 PIE *t > O.Arm. /d/; ex. PIE *anti (cf. Gr. ἀντί, Lat. ante) > O. Arm. ənd ‘against, to, with, etc.’.; PIE *rʘtu- (cf. Skr. ṛtuḥ, Gr. ἀρτύς) > O. Arm. ard ‘shape, adornment’. 2 E.g. Hübschmann 1897: 407–9; Meillet 1936: 23–38. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 437 By contrast, PIE voiced stops continue in Old Armenian as voiceless ater sonorants as well, at least in the oldest stage of the literary language.3 Giancarlo Bolognesi found a paradox in this traditional phonological reconstruction:4 if we consider as (3) the conditioned evolution ater sonorants from PIE voiceless stops to O.Arm voiced ones, and as (4) the O.Arm. evolution of PIE voiced stops, it is impossible that (3) would occur earlier than (4); otherwise O.Arm. ard would become *art. But it is also impossible that (4) would occur earlier than (3); otherwise O.Arm. sirt would become *sird: 3 PIE *rʘtu- > O.Arm. ard ‘shape, adornment’ 4 PIE. * ērd- (cf. Gr. κῆρ; Lat. cor, cordis) > O.Arm. sirt ‘heart’ On the basis of these facts, Bolognesi argues that the input to (3) must be diferent from the output to (4):5 and concludes, following Holger Pedersen (1906: 336–41), Antoine Meillet (1922: 12–13; see Bolognesi 1987: 128– 129), Émile Benveniste (1959), and Hans Vogt (1938: 326–27; 1959), that the Old Armenian so-called “voiced” series of stops, must instead be considered as voiced aspirated; therefore, in this reconstruction, the development (1.c) should be rewritten as (5): 5 PIE *dh > Arm. [dȺ] “Après nasale, les sourdes arméniennes p, t, c, č, k subsistent de date ancienne, mais, de bonne heure, tendent à devenir sonores dans certains parlers” (Meillet 1936: 29). 4 Bolognesi 1960: 19–21; see also Godel 1975: 9–10 and n. 7 p. 9; Belardi 2006: 205–16. 5 An anonymous reviewer suggests another perspective to solve the paradox: namely a development *rt > *rth (aspiration of voiceless stops, like in other positions) > *rdh (voicing) > *rd. We can observe that such reconstruction has the disadvantage of postulate a voicing in *rth (where *th is in Armenian, at least in modern varieties as we will see, a true aspirate stop, and not a fricative like in Germanic) but not in rt, although such process is more predictable in a consonant with a shorter VOT than in a consonant with a longer one. Our reconstruction is consistent with a splitting of the PIE voiceless series in diferent Armenian reflexes: aspiration in strong position (fortition), voicing ater sonorants (lenition), and further lenition until the status of approximants ater vowels. 3 @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 438 Giancarlo Schirru he same reflex – a voiced aspirated – should be reconstructed ater sonorants: for ex. in O.Arm. orb ‘orphan’ < PIE *orbȹ-o- (cfr. Lat. orbus, Gr. ὀρφανός); O.Arm. barjr ‘high’ < PIE *bȹrʘĝȹu- (cfr. Skr. brʘh-ánt-; O.H.G. berg etc.). So, the process described in (3) would be better expressed as (6), thus solving the paradox: 6 PIE *rʘtu- > O.Arm. ard [ardȺ] he presence of voiced aspirated stops was already pointed out in modern Armenian dialects by a tradition of studies that began with Eduard Sievers (1901: §§ 436, 442) and continued on to Hratchia Adjarian (1909) and Sidney Allen (1951). Articles by Benveniste (1959) and Vogt (1959) gave rise to broad debate on the nature of these sounds, which were considered either primary or secondary in the historical development.6 Nor is there agreement in the literature on the phonetic and phonological analysis of the Eastern Armenian “voiced” series for both the standard and the local dialects: thus, we have calls for new experimental research (e.g. in Lamberterie 1984: 227; Pisowicz 1997: 215; 1998: 45). 2 he field research Here we present data from field research carried out in the Republic of Armenia in May 2006: speech signals were collected by means of a list of 34 minimal pairs, read by a total of 27 speakers.7 We will consider just 15 of them here – native speakers of three diferent regional dialects: the variety of Erevan, the country’s capital, which belongs to the Ararat dialect and is the basis for the modern standard of Eastern Armenian; the variety of Gyumri (the former Leninakan, and earlier Alexandropol), the country’s 6 See references in Pisowicz 1976: 20–27; Kachaturian 1983; Vaux 1998: 211–41; Bolognesi 1998: 162–69. A new argument, supporting a reconstruction of the Proto-Armenian third series of stops as breathy, is ofered by Garrett 1998. 7 he data were recorded with a Marantz PMD 670 digital recorder connected to a head-mounted, Shure unidirectional microphone. Acoustic analysis was made using Praat 5.1.03 sotware (www.praat.org). he analysis discussed below considers only a sub-set of the minimal pairs originally present in the list read by the speakers: 15 minimal pairs for the VOT values (§ 2.1) and 6 minimal pairs for the spectral tilt parameters (§ 2.1, 2.2.). @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 439 second largest city and main centre of the Širak region, in the Republic’s northwestern corner, where a dialect usually classified as part of the Western Armenian group is spoken; and a group of speakers studied in Aštarak, a town situated around 30 kilometres northwest of Erevan, with a dialect of the Ararat group, where the so-called “voiced aspirated stops” were already documented.8 Investigations were made on site (fig. 1). Figure 1 Republic of Armenia he aim of the research is to improve the knowledge of the acoustic properties distinguishing the three series of Armenian stops: such knowledge is 8 See the short description by Sievers 1901: § 436; and the auditory descriptions made in Pisowicz 1998: 44 about the 1968 sound recordings. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 440 Giancarlo Schirru mostly based on experimental observations illustrated in Allen (1951) and in Hacopian (2003).9 Our investigation is intended as a field research, and not a laboratory research: thus it can give just a first approximation to the linguistic reality, that could be better illustrated by a larger experimental observation: data are collected by mean of a technique currently used in similar researches.10 2.1 Erevan For the Erevan dialect, we considered 5 speakers: speaker 1 (F, 34 years); speaker 2 (F, 53 years); speaker 3 (F, 25 years); speaker 4 (M, 72 years); and speaker 5 (M, 56 years). Voice Onset Time (VOT) is the main acoustic correlate distinguishing the voiceless aspirated series from the plain voiceless one (see Kachaturian 1983: 60; Hacopian 2003). A longer VOT is attested in all the aspirates contrasting with a plain voiceless: this fact is constant in the 9 minimal pairs attesting to this opposition listed in (7a). Voiced stops have a voice bar (the so-called voice-lead) with a negative VOT, although this is not everpresent and, in some cases, is very weak: 6 minimal pairs (7b) display such opposition;11 the data are summarized in Table 2: 7a payt /pajt/ ‘horseshoe, cleat’ ~ tank /tank/ ‘tank (armored vehicle)’ ~ tarm /taɾm/ ‘flock (of birds)’ ~ toł /toȑ/ ‘line’ ~ ¥ayt /pȹajt/ ‘wood’ ṭank /tȹank/ ‘expensive’ ṭarm /tȹaɾm/ ‘fresh, new’ ṭoł /tȹoȑ/ ‘let, allowed’ 9 In Allen (1951) are analysed data recorded in London from one speaker of New Julfa; Hacopian (2003) is a laboratory research on the VOT parameter, with data ofered by three native speakers of Teheran Eastern Armenian living in Los Angeles. 10 See, for example, Maddison & Ladefoged (1985); Cao & Maddison (1992). 11 Since the six minimal pairs listed in (7b) were also used for the spectral structure analysis of the first vowel pulses as described below, they were chosen among the 3 classes of stops without africation phase, in which it is easier to identify the consonantal release; moreover, they all contain postconsonantal vowel /a/, in order to control for the influence of (diferences in) vowel formant frequencies on the spectral tilt. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 441 towrḳ /tuɾkȹ/ ‘duty, tax’ ~ tow¥ /tupȹ/ ‘small box, carton’ ~ ceł /tseȑ/ ‘stem, stalk’ ~ čał /tʃaȑ/ ‘knitting needle, rod, bar’ ~ kor /koɾ/ ‘curved, bent’ ~ ṭowrḳ /tȹuɾkȹ/ ‘Turk’ ṭow1 /tȹupȹ/ ‘bush, shrub, vein’ cʖeł /tsȹeȑ/ ‘tribe, race’ čʖał /tʃȹaȑ/ ‘fat, stout, fertile’ ḳor /kȹoɾ/ ‘itch’ bah /bah/ ‘spade, hoe’ ban /ban/ ‘thing, word’ dal /dal/ ‘beestings’ dašt /daʃt/ ‘field, plain’ gal /DZal/ ‘come, arrive’ gav /DZav/ ‘carafe, jug’ pah /pah/ ‘moment, second’ pan /pan/ ‘landlord, nobleman’ tal /tal/ ‘give’ tašt /taʃt/ ‘tub, basin’ kal /kal/ ‘have’ kav /kav/ ‘clay’ b VOT (msec) Table 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ voiceless aspirated 104.4 plain voiceless 26 voiced –115.9 Average VOT values in Erevan (5 speakers, 15 minimal pairs) Since the opposition between voiceless aspirated and plain voiceless stops is always implemented by bigger values of VOT, this parameter will not be discussed further, and the situation of the Erevan dialect may be taken as representative of the picture for the other varieties as well. But VOT is not the only acoustic correlate distinguishing the voiced series from the plain voiceless one. here is also a diferent quality of voice in the beginning of the post-consonantal vowel. If we take the first 50 msec. of the vowel signal following the consonantal release, and we compare this acoustic signal to the portion extracted ater the voiceless stop, we find a smoother increase of the intensity of the vowel (already observed in Kachaturian 1983: 58), a lower pitch12 and a slacker voice (as opposed to a stifer voice ater voiceless stops). his last property, the diference of voice quality, can be analysed in quantitative terms: one of the phonetic diferences between slack and stif voice is the spectral tilt, i.e. “the degree to which intensity drops of as frequency increases” (Gordon & Ladefoged 2001: 397). his property, already 12 We do not make further observations on the pitch, since the technique of recordings collection is not able to give valid data in this topic. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 442 Giancarlo Schirru investigated by Eli Fischer-Jørgensen (1967: 103–15) in her study on Gujarati murmured vowels, can be quantified by means of the following parameters measured in the first 50 msec. of the vowel ater the consonantal release (see figures 2 and 3):13 8 a H2–H1 b A1–H1 c A3–H1 Where: H1 = amplitude14 of harmonic 1 H2 = amplitude of harmonic 2 A1 = amplitude15 of formant 1 A3 = amplitude of formant 3 msec 50 0.4588 0 -0.4308 0 0.3771 Time (s) Figure 2 Erevan, speaker 2 (F, 53 y.); oscillogram of the vowel in the word /bah/ ‘spade’; the two vertical bars mark the first 50 msec of the vowel signal. 13 See also Cao & Maddieson 1993 for Wu Chinese; Ní Chasaide & Gobl 1997; Hanson et alii 2001. 14 Measures of amplitude of harmonics are taken in dB directly on the spectral editor of the sotware Praat. 15 More correctly speaking, we measured the amplitude of the harmonics closer to first and the third formants; we followed the suggestions ofered in Gordon & Ladefoged 2001: 397. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects Sound pressure level (dB/Hz) H1H2 A1 A3 H1H2 A1 443 A3 40 40 20 20 0 0 4000 Frequency (Hz) Figure 3 Frequency (Hz) Erevan, speaker 2 (F, 53 y.); spectra of the first 50 msec of vowel sound signal in the words /bah/ ‘spade’ (let) and /pah/ ‘moment’ (right); H1, H2, A1, and A3 are marked at top. Data from Erevan speakers, recorded during the performance of the 6 minimal pairs illustrated in (7b), are summarized in Table 3; all the considered parameters are highly significant, as may be argued by observing the diference between each pair of voiced and voiceless cells, the mean values, and the p-values (calculated in the overall set of 60 items) in the bottom row:16 speaker 1 speaker 2 speaker 3 speaker 4 speaker 5 mean p-value Table 3 voiced voiceless H2–H1 H2–H1 4.5 5.2 3.9 5.8 1.6 3.2 1.9 6.2 –1.5 3.4 2.2 4.8 0.00007 voiced voiceless A1–H1 A1–H1 11.8 18.3 8.2 18.7 5.9 12.9 10.6 18.1 2.4 8 7.9 15.4 0.0000003 voiced voiceless A3–H1 A3–H1 –9.3 –1.7 –12.1 1.2 –21.1 –5.2 –20.8 –16.2 –28.2 –15.9 –18 –7.3 0.00003 Erevan; average spectral tilt values in voiced and plain voiceless stops (5 speakers, 6 minimal pairs). 16 Cf., for this table and the following ones, the way of presenting data in Cao & Maddison (1992). @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 444 Giancarlo Schirru As a result, we may take the spectral tilt as one of the main acoustic correlates distinguishing between the plain voiceless and the voiced stops: the two series are thus characterized as having a stif vs. slack voice quality in the first vocal pulses ater the release of the consonant. Since many scholars have already described Armenian plain voiceless stops as “ejectives” (see, e.g., Allen 1951: 188), it may be stressed that in our corpus there are no more than 4 instances (in the set of 225 tokens of plain voiceless stops considered here) of ejective consonants, similar to ejectives in Georgian, and having the acoustic correlate of a double release (the glottal and the oral one; see Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 78–81). hese may be considered as a minority type of phonetic realization of this series, perhaps influenced by contact with Kartvelian languages, an element quite strong in the history of the Standard Eastern Armenian variety which was originally greatly influenced by the dialect of the Tbilisi Armenian community.17 herefore, we may draw a clear distinction between glottalized consonants, like ejectives, and consonants characterized by an increased stifness (or tenseness) of vocal folds. 2.2 Aštarak and Gyumri he distinction between aspirated voiceless and plain voiceless stops in the Aštarak and Gyumri dialects does not difer from that illustrated for the Erevan dialect in the previous section; no further acoustic accounts of it need be provided. Here we present the data for the distinction between the plain voiceless and voiced series. In Aštarak, we recorded data from 5 native speakers: speaker 6 (M, 16 years), speaker 7 (M, 16 years), speaker 8 (M, 41 years), speaker 9 (M, 30 17 For this explanation for the presence of ejectives in some Armenian varieties, cf. Pisowicz 1989: 218–19; 1997: 217; Rasmussen 1989: 160; Lamberterie 1984: 229–30; 1994: 154; Belardi 2006: 214–16. he development of an ejective series of stops in contact with Caucasian languages is clearly attested in Ossetic (Abaev, Belardi & Minissi 1965: 62; Rasmussen 1989: 160; hordarson 1989: 462); on the role played by the Tbilisi Armenian dialect in the making of Standard Eastern Armenian, see Nichanian 1989: 283–330. For a diferent interpretation of Armeninan ejective stops in the framework of the glottalic theory, see Kortlandt 1978: 110–11, and references cited therein; Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 36. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 445 years), and speaker 10 (M, 31 years). he realization of voiced stops is through two diferent allophones. A first phonotype does not display any voice bar during the occlusion of the consonant: it is, strictly speaking, voiceless in initial position. A diferent phonotype may occasionally be found, characterized by the voice bar and a clear aspiration phase across the consonant release: stops of this group can probably be connected to the “voiced aspirated” already heard by E. Sievers and A. Pisowicz. he main acoustic cue distinguishing the voiceless aspirate series and the voiced one is in the spectral tilt of the following vowel (50 msec ater the release of the consonant): all the parameters are significant, apart from the diference between A3 and H1, which in one speaker (speaker 9) presents inverted values in comparison to the others.18 Data are summarized in Table 4, collected from the performance of the 6 minimal pairs already listed in (7b): speaker 6 speaker 7 speaker 8 speaker 9 speaker 10 mean p-value Table 4 voiced voiceless H2–H1 H2–H1 0.5 6.6 2.3 4.8 5.9 7.6 4.7 7.7 2.3 5.4 3.1 6.4 0,0000005 voiced voiceless voiced voiceless A1–H1 A1–H1 A3–H1 A3–H1 12 23 –7.2 –0.8 12.6 15.6 –13.7 –4.1 18.5 21.8 1.4 –0.6 11.5 14.7 –10.4 –12.1 3.8 17.4 –24.9 –6.1 11.7 18.5 –11 –4.7 0,000003 0,007 Aštarak; average spectral tilt values in voiced and plain voiceless stops (5 speakers, 6 minimal pairs). For Gyumri as well, we have data recorded from 5 native speakers: speaker 11 (M, 48 years), speaker 12 (M, 51 years), speaker 13 (F, 47 years), speaker 14 (M, 47 years), and speaker 15 (F, 48 years). In this dialect, voiced stops never display, at least in initial position, the voice bar during the occlusion phase: they are all voiceless in this context. But there is no merging with the plain voiceless stops: the two series are held distinct by the diferent spectral tilts observed in the first 50 msec. of vowel ater the consonantal 18 Cfr. the discussion in Cao & Maddison (1992) for the spectral tilt measured in Wu Chinese three stop series, where the diference between H2 and H1 is highly significant, and that between A1 and H1 is irrelevant. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 446 Giancarlo Schirru release. Data are presented in Table 5, and come from the 6 minimal pairs of (7b): speaker 11 speaker 12 speaker 13 speaker 14 speaker 15 mean p-value Table 5 voiced voiceless H2–H1 H2–H1 1.6 5,9 2.4 5.2 –1.7 4.2 5.7 9.2 –0.6 4.7 1.5 5.8 0,000002 voiced voiceless voiced voiceless A1–H1 A1–H1 A3–H1 A3–H1 9.1 20 –15 –8,6 9.2 11.8 –14.9 –11.8 3.1 11.1 –13.2 –9.3 12.5 19.9 –14.4 –9.6 6.3 15.1 –16.1 –1.1 8 15.6 –15.3 –8,1 0,0000002 0,0000006 Gyumri; average spectral tilt values in voiced and plain voiceless stops (5 speakers, 6 minimal pairs). his observation is consistent with the traditional classification of Gyumri dialect (and the rest of Širak dialects) in the western group, on the basis of morphological features (see, e.g. Adjarian 1909: 45–46). In this variety, the first step in the western consonantal shit – a strong devoicing of the voiced series – is attested. As a result, in both the Aštarak and Gyumri varieties, the distinction between voiceless and voiced series is mostly a matter of a diference between stif vs. slack voice in the first vocalic portion immediately following the consonant. 3 Phonological analysis In order to provide a phonological analysis of the phonetic observations illustrated above, we may distinguish between two diferent dimensions: each may be considered as an equipollent opposition. he first dimension regards the diference between aspirated, plain and ejective (glottalized) consonants, and may be treated through the [spread glottis] and [constricted glottis] features in the following way (cf. Halle & Stevens 1971; Stevens 1977; Kenstowicz 1994: 38–41): @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 9 aspirated [+spread glottis] plain [–spread glottis] [–constricted glottis] 447 ejective [+constricted glottis] his dimension seems to be responsible for the opposition between the plain voiceless series and the voiceless aspirated series of the Armenian varieties, which, as we illustrated in § 2.1, is phonetically implemented by VOT. herefore we may identify the following specifications for Eastern Armenian: 10 [+spread glottis] voiceless aspirated stops [-spread glottis] plain voiceless stops he second dimension concerns the diference between slack (or murmured) voice, modal voice and stif (or tense) voice: the specifications of the [slack vocal folds] and [stif vocal folds] features can be arranged as follows:19 11 slack (murmured) voice [+slack v.f.] modal voice [-slack v.f.] [-stif v.f.] stif (tense) voice [+stif v.f.] For the observed opposition between stif and slack consonants in Armenian, we have two possible analyses, depending on the use of either the [slack vocal folds] or [stif vocal folds] feature: 12 a plain voiceless stops [-slack v.f.] “voiced” stops [+slack v.f.] b plain voiceless stops [+stif v.f.] “voiced” stops [-stif v.f.] 19 For the use of the [slack vocal folds] and [stif vocal folds] features in consonantal inventories, cf. Halle & Stevens 1971; Stevens 1977; Kenstowicz 1994: 38– 41. Diferent solutions are proposed for tone implementation in the phonological literature on tone languages: [slack v.f.] is connected to the Register (and the feature [±Upper] or [±High], with the manifestations H and L), and [stif v.f.] to the Pitch diference (the feature [±high], realized as h and l), cf. Yip 1995; 2002: 56–61, and literature cited therein, and the description in Stevens 1990: 251–52; in this way, a set of four primary tones (H, h; H, l; L, h; L, l) is derived. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 448 Giancarlo Schirru his phonological analysis can be proposed not only for the modern varieties, but for Old Armenian as well (cf. Garrett 1991: 797–98; 1998): the [spread glottis] feature can be used for marking the opposition between aspirated and plain stops, and either the [stif vocal folds] feature or the [slack vocal folds] feature can be seen as responsible for the opposition between plain voiceless and the traditionally called “voiced” stops. herefore, the three series of stops can be specified, for the oldest literary language, in two alternative sets: 13 a [spread glottis] [slack vocal folds] voiceless aspirated + plain voiceless – – “voiced” plain voiceless – + “voiced” + b [spread glottis] [stif vocal folds] voiceless aspirated + – he diference between (13a) and (13b) could be viewed as merely nominalistic; but the two solutions difer in one point: they ofer an opposite solution on which series (between plain voiceless and “voiced”) must be considered as the marked one (and thus specified by the sign +), and which is the neutral one. herefore, the final decision on which of the two representations is preferable can be taken ater a more general consideration of the status of plain voiceless and “voiced” stops in Armenian phonology. he analysis in (13) has two advantages. First of all, it allows a straightforward phonological and phonetic derivation of all the three dialects analyzed, which represent as many historical evolutions of Old Armenian: and one of them, the Gyumri dialect, belongs to the Western Armenian varieties. herefore the schemas in (13) can represent the original stage from which all the modern dialects may be derived. As a second goal, the analysis in (13) is able to solve the Bolognesi paradox illustrated in § 1. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 4 449 Comparative observations Armenian is the only Indo-European group, beside Indo-Aryan, in which the reflexes of the traditionally called “voiced aspirates” of PIE share three crucial properties: they are clearly distinct from the reflexes of PIE voiced stops; they are not voiceless but can be associated with some kind of laryngeal activity; in both groups, the third PIE series can be associated to “slack” or “murmured” voice quality.20 First of all, the voiced aspirated stops are actually murmured (breathy) in many modern Indo-Aryan languages, like Hindi, Marathi and Bengali; they are realized with a breathy voice vibration throughout the closure of the consonant, although a clear aspiration phase is observable across the consonantal release.21 In Gujarati, vowels adjacent to “voiced aspirated” are murmured and have the following general properties: they have a sharper spectral tilt than “clear” vowels; when they follow the voiced aspirated consonant, they have a small tone dip in the beginning and an increase in pitch throughout the development of the vowel; they sometimes have a longer duration than “clear” vowels, as is usual for non-modal vowels contrasting with modal ones.22 Tonal properties associated with originally “voiced aspirated” consonants can be better observed in many Indo-Aryan varieties, where such a series of stops can merge with other series (either the voiceless or the voiced one), while its properties were transferred to adjacent vowels in terms of tonal features: in the most widespread pattern, the vowels following the consonant develop a rising tone, and the vowels preceding it develop a falling tone. In such a process the depressive consonants (i.e. causing a fall in pitch of the adjacent vowel portions) are not simply voiced, as is observable in many tonal languages, but associated with breathy or 20 For a phonological comparison of Armenian and Indo-Aryan reflexes of PIE third series, see, among others, Benveniste 1959; Garrett 1991: 797–98; 1998: 13; Donati 2007. 21 See Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 57–60 and references quoted therein. 22 On Gujarati murmured vowels, see Pandit 1957; Fischer-Jørgensen 1967; on duration patterns in non-modal vowels cf. observations in Gordon & Ladefoged 2001: 393–94, 400. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 450 Giancarlo Schirru murmured voice (see Hombert, Ohala & Ewan 1979: 47–48; Yip 2002: 36– 38), at least at some stage of previous historical derivation. his evolution is attested, in the north-western area, in Panjabi (included the northern side of the so-called Lahndi varieties), where Indo-Aryan “voiced aspirated” series is merged with voiceless, and in many Dardic languages (with diferent patterns); the same process can be found in some varieties of Bengali for the eastern area, with merging of “voiced aspirated” series and voiced one.23 All these facts allow a reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-Aryan consonant system with a contrast between a series of voiced and a series of murmured stops, apart from the relevance of the [spread glottis] feature at this stage of derivation and for this opposition.24 In such a case, the basis of comparison for a series of voiced aspirated consonants in Proto-Indo-European becomes weak; instead the concordance of Indo-Aryan and Armenian ofers an argument for reconstructing the opposition between the traditional PIE “voiced” and “voiced aspirated” series in terms of vocal tenseness, and specifies it, in phonological terms, either with the [stif vocal folds] feature, or with the [slack vocal folds] feature. It must be observed that such a solution difers from the glottalic theory in a crucial point: for the glottalic theory, the series of the traditional “voiced” is marked in terms of glottis adduction, and not vocal tenseness.25 herefore, it is consistent with the use of the [constricted glottis] feature. 23 For a description of the phenomenon in an Indo-Aryan context, Elizarenkova 1990: 151–54; Masica 1991: 102; for Panjabi and so-called Lahndi (on this denomination see Rossi 1974), see Bahl 1957; Bahl 1969: 160–61; Wells & Roach 1980; Shackle 1980; Shackle 1994 (and references cited therein); Shackle 2003: 592–94; for Dardic languages, see Bart 1999; Bashir 2003: 827, 865, 894; for eastern dialects of Bengali, see Pal 1965. 24 For a more extensive analysis of Proto-Indo-Aryan phonology, we should consider the restructuring of the system in four diferent series of stops, with a series of voiceless aspirates progressively increasing. his is the stage of derivation already attested by Sanskrit, where voiced and voiceless aspirates seem to form, at least in some processes, a natural class; for a debate on this topic, cf. Joseph & Janda 1988; Janda & Joseph 2002, and literature cited therein. 25 Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1973; Hopper 1973; Haudricourt 1975; Kortlandt 1978; Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 5–70. For further Armenian counter-evidence to the glottalic theory, see Pisowicz 1989: 217–20; Lamberterie 1994: 151–54; Olsen 1999: XL. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 451 he proposal developed here is similar to the observations by James Clackson (2007: 48), who already recalled the continuum of voicing types discussed by Peter Ladefoged and Ian Maddieson (1996: 49): 14 breathy slack modal stif creaky However, two diiculties can be found in the full applicability of this model to Proto-Indo-European: here vocal tenseness and glottis constriction are plotted in the same dimension; so creaky voice (and any kind of glottalization) is considered an increase of stif voice. But creaky and glottalized voice is usually associated with a fall in pitch, while stif (or tense) voice causes a rise in pitch, as we can see in Armenian and Indo-Aryan.26 It seems preferable to distinguish between two diferent dimensions: the first one concerns glottis spreading or constriction, and is responsible for aspiration; the second is connected with vocal tenseness, and is reflected in the diference between slack and stif voice. 5 Conclusions Comparison between Armenian and Indo-Aryan phonology leads to the following hypothesis: the Proto-Indo-European consonants traditionally called “voiced aspirates” may be characterized in terms of vocal tenseness; they may be considered as specified, within the consonant system, with the [+slack vocal folds] or [-stif vocal folds] features. his hypothesis also has the advantage of better explaining the evolution of PIE “voiced aspirates” as voiceless in many Indo-European groups where the opposition between PIE “voiced” and “voiced aspirated” series was not dephonologized: not only in Modern Western Armenian (characterized by such evolution of Old Armenian “voiced stops”) and in many modern Indo-Aryan languages (like Panjabi), but also in Ancient Greek and, at least in many contexts, in Latin and Italic. Such arguments can motivate further research to investigate the entire phonological system more extensively; to decide which specification – 26 For a discussion on this topic, see Henderson 1977, Gordon & Ladefoged 2001. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 452 Giancarlo Schirru [+slack v.f.] or [-stif v.f.] – can be more adequate; and to find other evidence within Indo-European comparative phonology. 6 Acknowledgments We would like to thank Prof. R. M. Tokhmakhyan, of Erevan State University, and Prof. V. L. Katvalyan, of Gavar University, for assistance and suggestions during the field work. Acknowledgments also to two anonymous reviewers and the editorial board of this volume. We are also grateful to professor W. Belardi for the conversations about this study. References Abaev, V[asilij] I., W[alter] Belardi & N[ullo] Minissi. 1965. Profilo grammaticale dell’osseto letterario moderno. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli – Sezione Linguistica 6, 49–68. Adjarian, H[ratchia]. 1909. Classification des dialectes arméniens. Paris: Champion. Allen, W. S[idney]. 1951. Notes on the phonetics of an Eastern Armenian speaker. Transactions of the Philological Society (1950), 180–206. Baart, Joan L. G. 1999. Tone rules in Kalam Kohistani (Garwi, Bashkarik). Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 62, 88–104. Bahl, Kali Charan. 1957. Tones in Punjabi. Indian Linguistics 17 (1955–1956), 139–47. Bahl, Kali Charan. 1969. Punjabi. In Murray B. Emeneau & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Linguistics in South Asia (Current Trends in Linguistics 5), 153–200. he Hague: Mouton. Bashir, Elena. 2003. Dardic. In Cardona & Jain (eds.) 2003: 818–94 Belardi, Walter. 2006. Elementi di armeno aureo. II. Le origini indoeuropee del sistema fonologico dell’armeno aureo (Biblioteca di ricerche linguistiche e filologiche 57.2). Roma: Il Calamo. Benveniste, E[mile]. 1959. Sur la phonétique et la syntaxe de l’arménien classique. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 44, 46–68. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 453 Bolognesi, Giancarlo. 1960. Le fonti dialettali degli imprestiti iranici in armeno (Pubblicazioni dell’Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore. Scienze filologiche e letteratura 1). Milano: Vita e pensiero. Bolognesi, Giancarlo. 1987. Il contributo di Antoine Meillet agli studi di linguistica armena. In Adriana Quattordio Moreschini (ed.), L’opera scientifica di Antoine Meillet. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia (Pisa, 12–14 dicembre 1986), 119–46. Pisa: Giardini. Bolognesi, Giancarlo. 1998. Sul sistema consonantico indeuropeo e i suoi riflessi in epoca storica. In M[ario] Negri, G[iovanna] Rocca & F[rancesca] Santulli (eds.), L’Indeuropeo: prospettive e retrospettive. Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia (Milano IULM, 16–18 ottobre 1997), 147–76. Roma: Il Calamo. Cao Jianfer & Ian Maddieson. 1992. An exploration of phonation types in Wu dialects of Chinese. Journal of Phonetics 20, 77–92. Cardona, George & Dhanesh Jain (eds.). 2003. he Indo-Aryan languages. London & New York (NY): Rouledge. Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Donati, Margherita. 2007. Le occlusive “sonore aspirate” ricostruite per l’indoeuropeo: aspetti fonetici e confronto tipologico. Studi e saggi linguistici 45, 141–68. Elizarenkova, Tatjana Ja. 1990. Fonologia diacronica delle lingue indoarie. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Italian translation of: Issledovanija po diaxroničeskoj fonologii indoarijskix jazykov. Moskva: Nauka, 1974. Fischer-Jørgensen, Eli. 1967. Phonetic analysis of breathy (murmured) vowels in Gujarati. Indian Lingusitics 28, 71–139. Gamkrelidze, T[homas V.] & V[jačeslav V.] Ivanov. 1973. Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindogermanischen Verschlüsse. Vorläufiger Bericht. Phonetica 27, 150–156. Gamkrelidze, homas V. & Vjačeslav V. Ivanov. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a protolanguage and a proto-culture (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 80). Berlin & New York (NY): Mouton de Gruyter, 2 vols. Garrett, Andrew. 1991. Indo-European reconstruction and historical methodologies. Language 67, 790–804. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 454 Giancarlo Schirru Garrett, Andrew. 1998. Adjarian’s law, the glottalic theory, and the position of Armenian. In Benjamin K. Bergen, Madelaine C. Plauché & Ashlee C. Bailey (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (February 14–16, 1998): Special session on Indo-European subgrouping and internal relations (February 14, 1998), 12–23. Berkley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Godel, Robert. 1975. An introduction to the study of Classical Armenian. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Gordon, Matthew & Peter Ladefoged (2001), Phonation types: A crosslinguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics 29, 383–406. Hacopian, Narineh. 2003. A three-way VOT contrast in final position: Data from Armenian. Journal of International Phonetic Association 33, 51–80. Halle, Morris & Kenneth N. Stevens. 1971. A note on laryngeal features. MIT Research Laboratory Quarterly Progress Report 101, 198–213; now in Morris Halle. 2002. From memory to speech and back: Papers in phonetics and phonology 1954–2002, 45–61. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter. Hanson, Helen M., Kenneth N. Stevens, Hong-Kwang Jef Kuo, Marilyn Y. Chen & Jenet Slifka. 2001. Towards models of phonation. Journal of Phonetics 29, 451–80. Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1975. Les mutations consonantiques (occlusives) en indo-européen. In Mélanges linguistiques oferts à Émile Benveniste (Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70), 267–72. Paris: Klincksieck. Henderson, Eugénie J. A. 1977. he larynx and language: A missing dimension? Phonetica 34, 256–63. Hombert, Jean-Marie, John J. Ohala & William G. Ewan. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55, 37–58. Hopper, Paul J. 1973. Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa. An International Journal of Linguistics 7, 141–166. Hübschmann, Heinrich. 1897. Armenische Grammatik. I. Armenische Etymologie. Leipzig. New print, Hildesheim: Olms, 1962. Janda, Richard D. & Brian D. Joseph. 2002. Sanskrit as she has been misanalyzed prosodically. Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 5, 59–90. Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda. 1988. On the unity of Sanskrit aspiration. Wiener Linguistische Gazette Supplement 6, 29–31. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 455 Kachaturian, Amalya. 1983. he nature of voiced aspirated stops and africates in Armenian dialects. Annual of Armenian Linguistics 4, 57– 62. Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 7). Cambridge (MA): Blackwell. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1978. Proto-Indo-European obstruents. Indogermanische Forschungen 83, 107–18. Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. he sounds of the world’s languages. Malden (MA) & Oxford: Blackwell. de Lamberterie, Charles. 1984. Benveniste et la linguistique arménienne. In Jean Taillardat, Gilbert Lazar & Guy Serbat (eds.), E. Benveniste aujourd’hui. Actes du Colloque international du C.N.R.S. (Université François Rabelais – Tours, 28–30 septembre 1983), vol. 2, 225–38. Louvain: Peeters. de Lamberterie, Charles. 1994. L’arménien. In Françoise Bader (ed.), Langues indo-européennes, 137–63. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Maddison, Ian & Peter Ladefoged. 1985. “Tense” and lax” in four minority languages of China. Journal of Phonetics 13, 433–54. Masica, Colin P. 1993. he Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meillet A[ntoine]. 1922². Les dialectes indo-européens (Collection linguistique publiée par la Société de Linguistique de Paris 1). Paris: Champion. Meillet, Antoine. 1936. Esquisse d’une grammaire comparée de l’arménien classique. Vienne: Imprimerie des PP. Mekhitaristes. Ní Chasaide, Ailbhe & Christer Gobl. 1997. Voice source variation. In William J. Hardcastle & John Laver (eds.), he handbook of phonetic sciences, 427–61. Malden (MA) & Oxford: Blackwell. Nichanian, Marc. 1989. Ages et usages de la langue arménienne. Paris: Entente. Olsen, Birgit Anette. 1999. he noun in Biblical Armenian: Origin and word formation – with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 119). Berlin & New York (NY): Mouton de Gruyter. Pal, Animesh K. 1965. Phonemes of a Dacca dialect of Eastern Bengali and the importance of tone. Journal of the Asiatic Society (Calcutta) 7, 39– 48. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 456 Giancarlo Schirru Pandit, P[rabodh] B. 1957. Nasalisation, aspiration and murmur in Gujarati, Indian Linguistics 17 (1955–1956), 165–72. Pedersen, Holger. 1906. Armenisch und die Nachbarsprachen. Zeitschrit für vergleichende Sprachforschung 39, 334–484. Pisowicz, Andrzej. 1976. Le développement du consonantisme arménien. Wrocław: Polska akademia nauk. Pisowicz, Andrzej. 1989 [1988]. Objections d’un arménologue contre la théorie glottale. Folia Orientalia 25, 213–225. Pisowicz, Andrzej. 1997. Consonant shits in Armenian dialects during the post-classical period revisited. In Nicholas Awde (ed.), Armenian perspectives: 10th anniversary conference of the Association Internationale des Études Arméniennes, 215–30. Richmond: Curzon. Pisowicz, Andrzej. 1998. What did Hratchia Adjarian mean by ‘voiced aspirates’ in Armenian dialects? Annual of Armenian Linguistics 19, 43–55. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1989. Die Tenues Aspiratae: Dreiteilung oder Vierteilung des indogermanischen Plosivsystems und die Konsequenzen dieser Frage für di Chronologie einer Glottalreihe. In heo Vennemann (ed.), he new sound of Indo-European: Essays in phonological reconstruction (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 41), 153– 76. Berlin & New York (NY): Mouton de Gruyter. Rossi, Adriano V. 1974. La posizione del “lahndi” e la situazione linguistica nel Panjab pakistano. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli 34, 347– 365. Shackle, C[hristopher]. 1980. Indko in Kohat and Peshawar. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 43, 482–510. Shackle, C[hristopher]. 1994. Lahnda. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (eds.), he encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 1892. Oxford: Pergamon. Shackle, Christopher. 2003. Panjabi. In Cardona & Jain 2003: 581–621. Sievers, Eduard. 19015. Grundzüge der Phonetik zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. Stevens, Kenneth N. 1977. Physics and laryngeal behaviour and larynx modes. Phonetica 34, 264–79. Stevens, Kenneth N. 2000. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge (MA): he MIT Press. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012 Laryngeal features of Armenian dialects 457 hordarson, Fridrik. 1989, Ossetic. In Rüdiger Schmitt (ed.), Compendium linguarum Iranicarum, 456–79. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Vaux, Bert. 1998. he phonology of Armenian. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vogt, Hans. 1938. Arménien et caucasique du sud. Norsk Tidsskrit for Sprogvidenskap 9, 321–38. Vogt, Hans. 1959. Les occlusives de l’arménien. Norsk Tidsskrit for Sprogvidenskap 18, 143–59. Wells, Clarice & Peter Roach. 1980. An experimental investigation of some aspects of tone in Punjabi. Journal of Phonetics 8, 85–89. Yip, Moira. 1995. Tone in East Asia languages. In John A. Goldsmith (ed.), he handbook of phonological theory, 476–94. Malden (MA) & Oxford: Blackwell. Yip, Moira 2002. Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. @ Museum Tusculanum Press and the author 2012