The Mongolic Vowel Shift revisited

Transcription

Paradigm change in historical reconstruction: the Transeurasian languages and beyond
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz | March 7-8, 2013
Comparative consequences of the
tongue root harmony analysis
for proto-Tungusic, proto-Mongolic,
and proto-Korean
SEONGYEON KO
ANDREW JOSEPH
JOHN WHITMAN
City University of New York
Cornell University
NINJAL & Cornell University
INTRODUCTION
Goal
• This paper examines the role of retracted
tongue root ([RTR]) harmony for establishing
areal and genetic relationships in Northeast
Asia.
3/8/2013
Comparative consequences of the TRH analysis for pTg pMg & pK
3
Synopsis
• Recent research:
– Korean, Mongolic, and Tungusic (below KMT)
should be reconstructed with RTR harmony (Vaux
2009; Ko 2010, 2011, 2012).
• In this paper, we reinforce this conclusion:
– arguing specifically against proposals that RTR
harmony is secondary (e.g. Svantesson 1985 for
Mongolic)
– or that ATR is the dominant feature (Zhang and
Dresher 2004).
3/8/2013
4
Synopsis
• We also argue against the proposal of
Starostin et al. (2003) that specific protofamilies such as proto-Tungusic, and by
extension proto-Altaic, should be
reconstructed without vowel harmony (Joseph
& Whitman 2013, to appear).
3/8/2013
5
Synopsis
• We then compare the status of [RTR] harmony
– as product of inheritance or contact – to the
status of TR harmony as a contact-induced
phenomenon in the Central Sudanic Zone
(Clements & Rialland 2008).
3/8/2013
6
Synopsis
• Then we turn back into NEAsian linguistic area
– Within and outside of Altaic, [RTR] or height
harmony appears to be an “eastern” trait, while
palatal harmony appears to be a “western” trait in
the region (cf. Janhunen 1981).
• We discuss whether KMT-style [RTR] harmony
should be viewed as an innovation or a
retention, and examine the particular issue of
the Korean vowel inventory.
3/8/2013
7
The argument for reconstructing
[RTR] harmony in KMT
•
•
•
•
•
Vowel harmony in Altaic
ATR vs. RTR
Basic Vowel correspondences in KMT
PH > TRH in Mongolic & Korean?
Reconstructing a harmonic contrast for Altaic
Vowel harmony in Altaic
Major types of vowel harmony in
Altaic
• Major types of vowel harmony
Type
Palatal harmony PH
Labial harmony
Height harmony
Tongue root harmony TRH
Harmonic Feature
[back] or [front]
[labial (round)]
[high] or [low]
[ATR]* or [RTR]**
*Advanced Tongue Root; **Retracted Tongue Root
10
3/8/2013
Harmonic grouping of vowels
•
•
Turkish (PH)
Set A
i
Set B
ɨ
ü
u
e
a
ö
o
Ewen (North Tungusic; TRH)
Set A
i
ə
u
o
Set B
ɪ
a
ʊ
ɔ
(Novikova 1960; J Kim 2011; Kang & Ko 2011)
11
3/8/2013
Harmonic grouping of vowels
•
Khalkha (Eastern Mongolic; TRH)
Neutral
i
Set A
ə
u
o
Set B
a
ʊ
ɔ
(Svantesson 1985; Svantesson et al. 2005)
•
Middle Korean (K-M Lee 1972)
Neutral
i
Set A
ə
ɨ
u
Set B
a
ʌ
o
12
3/8/2013
TR analyses of KMT
a. Tungusic:
–
Novikova 1960; Ard 1981, 1984; Hayata 1980; Hattori 1982; J
Kim 1989, 1993, 2011; Zhang 1996; Li 1996; Kand & Ko 2011;
Aralova et al. 2011; Lulich & Whaley 2012
b. Proto-Tungusic: Li 1996; Joseph & Whitman 2013; Ko
2012
c. (Eastern) Mongolic:
–
Čenggeltei 1959, 1963; Svantesson 1985; Svantesson et al.
2005; Kang & Ko 2011
d. Proto-Mongolic: Ko 2011, 2012
e. (Middle) Korean:
–
f.
J-H Park 1983; B-G Lee 1985; J Kim 1988, 1993; J-S Lee 1992; Y
Lee 1993; M-H Cho 1994; D-Y Lee 1994; J-K Kim 2000; Park &
Kwon 2009; Ko 2010, 2012
Across Altaic languages: Vaux 2009; Ko 2012
3/8/2013
13
Evidence in favor of TR analysis for
non-Turkic varieties (1)
• TR position in X-ray tracings: the Set B vowels are
produced with more retracted tongue root
(Čenggeltei & Sinedke 1959; Buraev 1959;
Novikova 1960)
• Size of pharyngeal cavity (Möömöö 1977, as
cited in Svantesson et al. 2005; Novikova 1960; Li
1996)
• Greater muscular effort or tension associated
with the active feature (Möömöö 1977)
• Impressionistic “voice quality” phenomena
3/8/2013
14
Evidence in favor of TR analysis for
non-Turkic varieties (2)
• Formant frequency
– relatively lower F1 values for Set A vowels
– Kang & Ko 2011 for Ewen and Buriat; Aralova et al.
2011 for Ewen; Svantesson 1985 for Khalkha and
other eastern Mongolic; Svantesson et al. 2005; Lulich
& Whaley 2012 for Oroqen
• Phonemic distinction btwn velar vs. uvular Cs
– Nevins’s generalization: the distinction is conditioned
• By [±ATR(RTR)], [±high], or [±low]
• But NOT by [±back]
(Nevins, 2010, pp. 92–93)
3/8/2013
15
X-ray tracings for Ewen (Novikova 1960)
ATR-/i/
3/8/2013
RTR-/ɪ/
16
From Ko’s pilot study. Cf. Kang & Ko 2011, Aralova et al. 2011
Ewen formant chart
i
u
ʊ
o
e
ɔ
a
19
3/8/2013
From Ko’s pilot study. Cf. Svantesson et al. 2005
Khalkha
speaker m1
speaker f5
u
o ʊ
ɔ
i
e
u
o
ʊ
ɔ
i
e
a
a
3/8/2013
20
From Ko’s pilot study. Cf. Kang & Ko 2011
ɔ vs. o >>> >>>
Male
ʊ vs. u
>>>
>
ɔ vs. o >>>
>>
>>>
H1-A3
(>)
H1-A2
(>)
H1-A1
>>> <<< >>> <<< <<< <<< <<<
H1-H2
Normalized A1-A2
>
H2 (dB)
<<<
H1 (dB)
<<<
A3
Measured A1-A2
>>>
>>> >>> <<< <<< >>>
<<< <<<
<<<
<<<
>>>
<<<
<<<
<<<
<<<
<
<<
>
<<< <<< >>> >>> <<<
<<< >>>
<<
a vs. e >>> <<< <<< >>>
A2
>>
>
>>> >>>
A1
ʊ vs. u >>>
fb3
<<
fb2
a vs. e >>> <<<
fb1
F3
F1
F2
Female
harmonic pair
Khalkha preliminary result
<
<
>>
>
>
<
<<<
<<
<<
‘<‘ and ‘>’ show which one has higher value; the number of the symbol ‘<’ or ‘>’ means p<001 if 3, p<
.01 if 2, p<.05 if 1, p>.05 if none.)
21
3/8/2013
ATR vs. RTR
ATR vs. RTR
• Are they two distinct features or two opposing
values of a single feature? (Steriade 1995)
– Still highly controversial
• The acoustics or gestural mechanisms have yet to
be decisively established
– Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996)
• ATR (African) vs. “Pharyngealized” Vs (Ewen, Novikova 1960)
• Acoustic correlates: F1 for ATR, F3 for Pharyngealized Vs?
– cf. Catford’s (1994: 59) observation on Caucasian langs
• F3 is irrelevant even for Ewen (Kang & Ko 2011)
3/8/2013
23
Three gestural mechanisms ?
(B. L. Hall & Hall 1980: 207)
a.
b.
c.
Set 1 (larger pharynx)
advanced tongue root
advanced tongue root
neutral tongue root
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
Set 2 (smaller pharynx)
retracted tongue root
neutral tongue root
retracted tongue root
• A survey of previous descriptions of a number of African
and Mon-Khmer languages by Li (1996: 108-9) seem to
support this.
24
3/8/2013
Assumption
• Three tongue root positions
a. Advanced
b. Neutral
c. Retracted
Full feature specifications
[+ATR, -RTR]
[-ATR, -RTR]
[-ATR, +RTR]
• Cf. [high] vs. [low]
3/8/2013
25
Phonological criteria
• Phonological markedness (Rice, 2007, p. 80)
Marked
subject to neutralization
unlikely to be epenthetic
trigger of assimilation
remains in coalescence
retained in deletion
26
Unmarked
result of neutralization
likely to be epenthetic
target of assimilation
lost in coalescence
lost in deletion
3/8/2013
[RTR] as the phonologically active feature in Altaic
(Li 1996, Ko 2012, Joseph & Whitman 2013)
• Evidence from the behavior of neutral vowels in
harmony
i. neutral vowels do not trigger harmony: the class
of vowels found in suffixes attached to neutral
roots--i.e., the default class--does not bear the
active feature
ii. neutral vowels may block harmony: the feature
that fails to propagate over neutral vowels is the
active feature
iii. the inactive feature surfaces when a harmonic
contrast is neutralized
3/8/2013
27
A case study: [RTR] dominance in Written Manchu
(Li 1996, Ko 2012, Joseph & Whitman 2013; cf. Zhang & Dresher 2004)
• The direction of merger/neutralization
– Merger:
/*i, *ɪ/ > /i/
– Neutralization: /u, ʊ/  [u] / [non-dorsal C] ___
• Velar ~ Uvular alternation
– Widespread throughout Tungusic and Mongolic languages
/k/ → [q]
/x/ → [χ]
when adjacent to [RTR] vowels
/g/ → [ɢ]
– When adjacent to a neutral vowel (e.g., /i/), they surfaces
as velars [k, x, g].
3/8/2013
28
Vowel correspondence
Vowel correspondences in Tungusic
(Joseph & Whitman 2013)
TR
*i
*ɪ
*ə
*a
*u
*ʊ
*o
*ɔ
Benzing (1955)
*i
*ï
*ä
*a
*ü
*u
*ö
*o
Ewen
i
ɪ
ə
a
i/u
ʊ
u/o
ɔ
Oroqen
i
ɪ
ə
a
i/u
ʊ
u/o
ɔ
Oroch
i
i
ə
a
i/u
ʊ
u
ɔ
Udihe
i
i
ə
a
i/u
u
u
ɔ
Nanai
i
ɪ
ə
a
u
ɔ
u
ɔ
Orok
i
ɪ
ə
a
u
ʊ
u/o
ɔ
Manchu
i
i
ə
a
u
3/8/2013
ʊ/u u(~ə)
ɔ
30
Vowel correspondences in Mongolic
(Modified from Svantesson et al. 2005)
TR (Ko 2011, 2012)
Poppe (1955)
Khalkha
Mongolian
Chakhar
Proper
Baarin
Kangjia
Monguor
Bonan
Santa
Moghol
Buriat
Khamnigan
Dagur
Kalmyk
3/8/2013
*i
*i
i
i, ɪ
i
i
i
i, ɯ
i
i
i
i
i
i
*ə
*e
e
ə
ə
e
i, e
ə
ie, ə
e
e
e
ə
e
*a
*a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a, o
a
a
a
a
*u
*ü
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
y
*ʊ
*u
ʊ
ʊ
ʊ
ʊ
u, o
u
u
u
ʊ
ʊ
ɔ, wa
u
*o
*ö
o
o
o
o, u
o, u
o
o
o
u
u
u
ø
*ɔ
*o
ɔ
ɔ
ɔ
ʊ, ɔ
o
o
o
o
ɔ
ɔ
ɔ
o
31
Vowel correspondences in Korean
(Ko 2012, based on Kwak 2003)
TR
*i
*ə
*a
*ɨ
*ʌ
*u
*o
OK (K-M Lee 1972)
*i
*ä
*a
*ɔ̈
*ɔ
*ü
*u
MK (K-M Lee 1972)
*i
*ə
*a
*ɨ
*ʌ
*u
*o
NW Korean
i
o
a
u
a
u
o
NE Korean
i
ə
a
ɨ
a
u
o
Central Korean
i
ə
a
ɨ
a
u
o
SE Korean
i
ɨ
a
ɨ
a
u
o
SW Korean
i
ə
a
ɨ
a
u
o
Jeju Korean
i
ə
a
ɨ
ɔ
u
o
3/8/2013
32
In favor of TRH analysis
• None of the correspondences in the three
families reveal any trace of PH
– All rounded vowels are realized as back vowels .
– Only exception: Kalmyk (and Oirat) in Mongolic
• For proto-Altaic, “majority-wins” principle will
favor:
– (i) reconstruction of VH
– (ii) reconstruction of TRH
• There is a clear phonological route from TRH to
PH, but none in the opposite direction (Vaux 2009,
Ko 2012 ).
3/8/2013
33
Conventional view: PH analysis
• However, the conventional view remains
– (i) that VH in the proto-languages operated on a
palatal contrast,
– (ii) that the attested TRH in later varieties is the
result of PH to TRH shift
• Janhunen’s Vowel Rotation hypothesis for KMT (1981)
• K-M Lee’s Korean Vowel Shift hypothesis (1964 et seq.)
• Svantesson’s Mongolic Vowel Shift hypothesis (1985)
3/8/2013
34
PH > TRH Shifts in Mongolic &
Korean?
Contra Svantesson (1985) & K-M Lee (1974)
The Mongolic Vowel Shifts
Svantesson (1985 et seq.)
Gist
• Mongolic (Great) Vowel Shifts (MVS hereafter)
(Svantesson 1985)
– Old Mongolian: a palatal system (front-back contrast)
– Mod. Khalkha: an RTR system (tongue root contrast)
 Thus, a palatal-to-RTR shift
• Our view
– Old Mongolian: an RTR system
– Thus, no great vowel shift
• Cf. Mod. Kalmyk/Oirat palatal system
3/8/2013
37
Pre-modern Mongolic vowel system
• Proto-Mongolic (Janhunen 2003: 4)
• Old MongolianSvantesson et al. (2005:111)
3/8/2013
38
Old Mongolian: a palatal system?
• An assumption that has never been proven to be
true
– ’Phags-pa Mongolian
• Not suitable for a reliable reconstruction (Hattori 1975:16ff)
• E.g., “no one-to-one correspondence between Middle
Mongolian /ü/ in ’Phags-pa and Written Mongolian /ü/”
(Vovin 2000:65)
– “It would be more reasonable to analyze Mongolian
vowels based on 15th c. Korean vowels since the latter
is more convincing.” (J. Kim 1993:50)
3/8/2013
39
MM-Chinese correspondence
• Hattori (1975)
– “It is more likely that Middle Mongolian had a vowel
harmony of ‘open-narrow’ type (= TR type)”
• In the transcription of the Secret History of the
Mongols into Chinese characters
– MM ü – Chinese u
• /ɡü/ (or /kü/) 古[ku2] 估[ku2] 沽[ku1,2] 誥[ku2,3]
• /kü/
枯[k’u1] 窟[k’uʔ2]
– Rationale:
• The transcription was made based on Northern dialect, maybe
Beijing dialect (by assumption).
• 14th c. Pekingese had the distinction between [u][uʔ] and [y][yʔ].
3/8/2013
40
Modern Mongolic vowel systems
Khalkha
Monguor
Dagur
Kalmyk
3/8/2013
41
MVS (1): Kalmyk/Oirat type
• Kalmyk and Oirat
= OM palatal system
3/8/2013
42
MVS (2): Monguor type
• Monguor, Santa, Bonan, Moghol
3/8/2013
43
MVS (3): Mongolian type
• Mongolian, Buriat, Khamnigan, Shira Yugur, Kangjia
3/8/2013
44
MVS (4): Dagur type
3/8/2013
45
Problems of the MVS
• Based on an assumption yet to be proven
– “It is generally assumed that OM (and Proto-Mongolic)
had palatal (back~front) vowel harmony, and we will
also make this assumption. There is, however, only
incomplete support for this in the sources.”
(Svantesson et al. 2005:113)
• No internal motivation
– “Velarization and pharyngealization are not
conditioned by the phonological environment, and
have no obvious internal motivation.” (Svantesson et
al. 2005:178)
3/8/2013
46
Velarization
• Front Vs are assumed to move backward.
– A violation of Labovian Principles of vowel shifting
Three principles of vowel shifting (Labov 1994:116)
In chain shifts,
PRINCIPLE I
PRINCIPLE II
PRINCIPLE IIA
PRINCIPLE III
long vowels rise.
short vowels fall.
the nuclei of upgliding diphthongs fall.
back vowels move to the front.
• Velarization alone cannot explain the emergence of the
phonemic velar-uvular distinction in, e.g., Monguor
and Santa
3/8/2013
47
Majority wins
• Reconstruction of OM vowels
3/8/2013
48
Economy (1)
Kalmyk/Oirat
An RTR analysis
Monguor
1 rule: RTR  Pal
Old
Mongolian
Khalkha
Dagur
3/8/2013
49
Economy (2)
Kalmyk/Oirat
A palatal analysis
Monguor
3 rules: Pal  RTR
Old
Mongolian
Khalkha
Dagur
3/8/2013
50
Naturalness: Vaux (2009)
• Palatal-to-TR shift (Svantesson 1985)
– No known phonetic principles
– No known attested cases (except Mongolic)
• TR-to-palatal shift (a reverse shift)
– Phonetically grounded
– Attested across languages all over the world
3/8/2013
52
Phonetic grounds for TRH > PH
• Articulation (Lindau 1979, Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994)
– TR movement entails TB movement up and forward (not vice
versa)
• Perception
– Kiparsky (2003: 335): “vowel shifts are the result of a tendency
to maximize perceptual distinctness”
• Phonologization (Hyman 1976) of a secondary, redundant feature
Articulation
Perception
Shift
Example
TB forward
F2
TRH > PH
OM > Kalmyk
(Ko 2011)
TB up
F1
TRH > height MK > EModK
(Ko 2010)
3/8/2013
53
Naturalness: Vaux (2009)
• Palatal-to-TR shift (Svantesson 1985)
– No known phonetic principles
– No known attested cases
• TR-to-palatal shift (a reverse shift)
– Phonetically grounded:
• TB movement is concomitant with TR movement (Lindau 1975;
Archangeli & Pulleyblank 1994)
–
–
–
–
Attested in e.g., Somali, Louisiana English
Explains the Southwest Turkic voicing
Simplification
Enhancement of the perceptability (F2 difference)
• Maximal distribution of the back vowels
3/8/2013
54
Attested cases of TRH > PH
• Vaux (2009)
– Fronted realization of Somali [+ATR] vowels
– /u/-fronting in Louisiana English
– Southwest Turkic voicing:
• Voiceless stops became voiced before front Vs (< ATR Vs)
• Calabrese (2000)
– Vowel fronting in Altamura (a Romance)
3/8/2013
55
Historical development of the
Mongolic vowel systems
Ko (2011, 2012)
Khalkha type
• No shift (except for the fronting of *ə)
OM
3/8/2013
Khalkha
57
Monguor type
• Merger by RTR neutralization (No velarization)
OM
Monguor
– The same type of merger is also widely attested in
other Altaic languages such as Tungusic (e.g., Manchu)
and Korean
3/8/2013
58
Dagur type
• Merger by height neutralization
OM
Buriat/Khamnigan
Dagur
– /u/ = [-low, -RTR] vs.
/ɔ/ = [+low, +RTR]
–  Both are “contextually” unmarked.
3/8/2013
59
Kalmyk/Oirat type
• RTRH > PH shift (an innovation)
OM
Kalmyk
– A reinterpretation (reanalysis, Ko 2012) of the harmonic feature
– Phonetically grounded shift: [α RTR]  [α dorsal] (Vaux 2009)
– Possibly due to Turkic influence (cf. Kögjiltü 1982)
• Cf. Kazakh: reported as an RTR system (Vajda 1994)
3/8/2013
60
Development of Mongolic vowel systems
3/8/2013
61
The Korean Vowel Shift
Ki-Moon Lee (1964 et seq.)
Gist
• Korean Vowel Shift
– “Documentary evidence suggests that a significant
phonological change – a “Korean Vowel Shift,” as it
has been called – took place between the 13th and
15th centuries. The evidence for the change comes
primarily from Mongolian loanwords.” (KM Lee &
Ramsey 2011:94)
• The proposed KVS hypothesis is untenable
– Mongolian loanwords do not support the hypothesis
3/8/2013
63
Korean Vowel Shift
K-M Lee 1961[1972]; Lee & Ramsey 2011)
• Old Korean had a ‘palatal’ system
• MK vowel harmony is based on OK vowel system
– = “Discrepancy” between vowel system and vowel harmony
• How is this possible?
– Mediated by the proposed KVS
3/8/2013
64
Old Korean
3/8/2013
65
Early Middle Korean
3/8/2013
66
Late Middle Korean
3/8/2013
67
Empirical evidence
• Mongolian loanwords transcribed into Korean in
– Pŏnyŏk Pak T’ongsa 飜譯朴通事 (1517)
– Hunmong chahoe 訓蒙字會 (1527)
• Jīlín lèishì鷄林類事 ‘Assorted matters of Jīlín’
– 350 words and phrases
• 天1曰2漢捺3
• ‘sky’1 is called2 ‘[the Korean word]’3 (LMK 하
)
Chinese pronunciation
3/8/2013
68
Mongolian loanwords in MK
• Examples (KM Lee 1964, 1972, 2011:96ff)
M~K
ü~ㅜ
ö~ㅝ
u~ㅗ
o~ㅗ
Mong
küreng
kögsin
baɣudal
olang
Kor
kurəŋ
kwəkcin
paotal
oraŋ
Gloss
‘dark brown’ (Pak. I, 63r)
‘old wild falcon’ (Hun. I, 15 v)
‘military camp’(Hun. II, 8 r)
‘belly-band, girth’ (Pak. I, 30r)
3/8/2013
69
Mongolian loanwords (KM Lee 2011:94)
• “Why was the Korean vowel ㅜ equated to a front
vowel?”
– “ㅜ was not a back vowel, but rather a front vowel, *ü, which
moved to the back of the mouth by the 15th century.” (KM
Lee 2011:94)
• “Similarly, ㅓ represented the Mongolian front vowel e
and therefore must itself have been a front vowel *e
that only later became [ə].”
3/8/2013
70
Jīlín lèishì鷄林類事 (KM Lee 2011:94ff)
• LMK /ʌ/ < EMK */ɔ/
– 河屯 ‘one’ (LMK *hʌtʌn *
), 末 ‘horse’ (LMK mʌl
– Yuan-period Chinese: 河 *xɔ
末 *mɔ
)
• LMK /ɨ/ < EMK */ə/
– 黑根 ‘big’ (LMK khɨn 큰 < *hɨkɨn)
– Yuan-period Chinese: 黑 *xəj
3/8/2013
根 *kən
71
Problems of the KVS (a summary)
• Provides no link to the description in
Hunminjeongeum Haerye
• Discrepancy between harmony and system?
• Cannot be reconstructed by the comparative
method (Hattori 1975)
– No traces of PH in modern systems
• Lack of phonetic motivations (S-s Oh 1998)
• A counterexample to the typology of vowel
shifting (Labov 1994)
• ‘Arae a’: a low unrounded vowel?
3/8/2013
72
Problems of the KVS (cont.)
• Adequacy of the proposed documentary evidence?
– Simply insufficient (Martin 2000, Vovin 2000)
– Only partial support for the whole shifts
– Different views on Jīlín lèishì
• S Kang (1980), C Park (2000), H Park (2001)
• Esp. H Park (2001) based on Song-Chinese (not Yuan-Chinese)
• Wrong predictions (Hattori 1975, Martin 2000)
• Inconsistent with Kor-Jap V correspondences
– Frellesvig & Whitman (2005)
• Incompatible with OK vowel system
– Reconstruction by Ito’s (2007:267)
3/8/2013
73
Comparative Method
• No modern reflexes of the proposed front-back vowel
contrast (cf. Hattori 1975:12)
3/8/2013
74
RTR-RTR analysis
• OM (RTR system)
MK (RTR system)
3/8/2013
75
KVS-Conclusion
• The Korean Vowel Shift hypothesis is primarily
based on the PH analysis of Old Mongolian.
• If the RTR analysis of OM is correct, there is no
reason to believe that Old and Early Middle
Korean had a palatal system.
• The loanword data are better explained under
an RTR-RTR analysis.
3/8/2013
76
Proto-Altaic (Poppe 1960: 92)
3/8/2013
85
TR(H)-related innovations
assuming proto-Altaic
3/8/2013
87
Turkic shift: a hypothesis (Ko 2012)
3/8/2013
88
Secondary [RTR] harmony in pT?
• Starostin, Dybo, & Mudrak 2003
– proto-Tungusic was non-harmonic
– Tungusic languages acquired PH from Mongolic
3/8/2013
97
Starostin et al.’s 6-vowel inventory
for proto-Tungusic
*i
*ü
*u
---------------------------------------------------------------*e
*o
*a
3/8/2013
98
Co-occurrence restrictions
• *a and *o on the one hand, and *e on the
other, cannot co-occur in stems
• *o is restricted to the initial syllable
• NO *o…u
• NO *ü…u
3/8/2013
99
Comparison of Starostin et al.’s pTg high
vowels to the traditional reconstruction
TR
*i
*ɪ
*u
*ʊ
*o
3/8/2013
Benzing
*i
*ï
*ü
*u
*ö
Starostin et al.
*i
*ü
*u
100
Deriving the harmonism of daughter
languages
• *a, *o > “back” vocalism
• *e > “front” vocalism
• *ü > “front” vocalism
– EXCEPT: {ü, a} or {ü, o} > “back”
• *i and *u in any combination (without other
vowels) > “back” vocalism
3/8/2013
101
Do these stipulations work?
• Testing predictions regarding *ü
– *ü in combination any other high vowels should
yield “front” vocalism
This works in some cases, such as:
3/8/2013
102
Proto-Tungusic *xürgü ‘tail’
Ewen
Ewenki
Negidal
Oroqen
Ewenke
Oroch
Udihe
Nanai
Ulcha
Orok
3/8/2013
[irgə̆]
[irgi]
[i:ɣi] ~ [idgi]
[irgi]
[ig:ə]
[ig:i]
[igi]
[xujgu]
[xuʤu]
[xudu]
103
Proto-Tungusic *silkü- ‘to wash’
3/8/2013
Ewen
[hilqă-] ~ [ɪlqă-] ~ [selqa-] ~
[helka-] ~ [hilkă-] ~ [hɪlkɔ-]
Ewenki
[silki-] ~ [hilki-] ~ [ʃilki-]
Negidal
Oroqen
[sɪlkɪ-]
[ʃɪlkɪ-]
Ewenke
Oroch
Udihe
[ʃɪx:ɪ-]
[sik(:)i-]
[siki-]
Nanai
[sɪlqɔ-]
Ulcha
[silʧu-]
Orok
[silʧi-] (: PERF [siltu-xa-])
104
Do these stipulations work?
• Testing predicitons regarding *i and *u
– in stems with no other vowels, “back” vocalism is
predicted
Again, this works in some cases, such as:
3/8/2013
105
Proto-Tungusic *uńi- ‘small river, brook’
Oroch
[ʊɲi] ~ [ɔɲi] ‘small river; Anjuj river’
Udihe
[uni] ‘Anjuj river’
Nanai
[ɔɲɪ]
Ulcha
[ʊɲɪ] ‘brook’; [ʊɲa] ‘spring’
Orok
[uɲi] ‘river’; [ʊɲa] ~ [ʊɲaɣa]
‘small river, tributary’
3/8/2013
106
Proto-Tungusic *gusi ‘eagle’
3/8/2013
Ewen
[gusə-tə] ~ [guhi-tə] ~
[guhu-tə] ~ [guhə-tə]
Ewenki
[gus] ~ [gusi-kə:n] ~ [guhi-kə:n]
Negidal
Oroch
Nanai
Ulcha
[gusi-xa:n] ~ [gusi-kan]
[gusi]
[gusi]
[gusi]
Orok
[gusi]
107
Other sorts of failures:
• Starostin et al.’s *u…ü > “front” vocalism, but
the observed vowel reflexes do not match
their *ü
• Generally, the distribution of their *ü is not
free as stated: occurs overwhelmingly in
words that develop “front” vocalism;
combinations with “back” vowels *a and *o
are all problematic
3/8/2013
108
observations:
• proto-Tungusic cannot be reconstructed
without (TR) harmony
• Starostin et al.’s 6-vowel inventory is
unworkable, regardless of the type of
harmony assumed
3/8/2013
109
RTRH as an inherited trait ?
3/8/2013
110
RTR harmony as an inherited trait
• Question: IF RTR harmony in KMT languages is
inherited from a shared ancestor, what should
this look like?
– e.g., do we expect cognate vocabulary to belong
to the same harmony class in all descendants?
Not necessarily.
3/8/2013
111
Consider the case of an established
clade such as Tungusic:
• some languages have lost RTR harmony
altogether (Manchu dialects)
• some languages attest pervasive but (so far?)
unpredictable shifts from one class to another
(Udihe)
• some lexical items appear to go back to
original doublets (one form in each harmony
class, aka ‘isotopes’)
3/8/2013
112
ATR words often shift to RTR in Udihe
TR version of
Benzing’s pTg
*səːksə? *səːgsə? ‘blood’
Ewen
həːs ‘dried and hardened blood’
Ewenki
səːksə ~ səːhsə ~ ʃəːwʃə ~ ʃəːhə
Negidal
səːksə
Solon
səːkʧə ~ səːgʧə
Oroch
səːksə
Udihe
sakeæ (TMS), sakia (Kazama)
Nanai
səːksə
Ulcha
səːksə
Orok
səːksə (Kazama)
Manchu
səŋgi
Jurchen
*səgi (四譯館), *ʃəŋgi (會同館)
3/8/2013
113
Some lexical items might go back to
original doublets:
‘fat, thick’
ATR *borgə?
Ewen
[bərgə] ~ [borgo] ~ [burgə]
~ [bə̆rgə̆]
Ewenki
[burgu-]
Negidal
[bəjgə]
Ewenke
[bogːo]
Solon
[burgu]
RTR *bɔrga?
[bɔjgɔ] ~ [bɔjgu] ~ [bɔgːɔ]
Oroch
[bɔgːɔ]
Udihe
[bɔgɔ]
Nanai
[bujgu]
Ulcha
[buʤu]
[bɔʤɔ]
Orok
[bodo]
[bɔd(ː)ɔ]
3/8/2013
114
And proto-Altaic?
• the same situations might also occur there
• MOREOVER: conservation of harmony class
depends on the specific assumptions about
vowel correspondences
3/8/2013
115
Altaic vowel correspondences in KMT languages
(initial σs, Poppe 1960 and Robbeets 2005)
Mongolic
TR
pA
Poppe
1960
Robbeets
2005
*i
*i
*ə
Tungusic
Koreanic
Poppe
(pMo >)
WMo
Robbeets
pMo
Poppe
pTg
Robbeets
pTg
Poppe
(MK >)
ModK
Robbeets
pK
*i
(*i >) i
*i
*i
*i
i
*i, (*i >) *ye
*e
*e
e
*e
*ä
*e
ə
*e
*o
*ö
*ə
ö
*ö
*ö
*u
(*o)
u
*u, (*u>)zero
*u
*ü
*u
ü
*ö, *u
*ü
*u
ɨ
*wu
*ɪ
*ï
---
(*ï >) i
[*i]
*ï
[*i]
i, jə
[(*i >) *je]
*a
*a
*a
a
*a
*a
*a
a
*a
*ɔ
*o
*o
o
*ü, *a
*o
*u, *ū
o, u
*wo
*ʊ
*u
*ʉ
u
*u
*u
*u
u, (ʌ >) a
o(?)
(*o >) zero
3/8/2013
116
Consequences for conservation of
harmonic classes:
• The correspondences in both systems predict
harmony class mismatches between pA and
particular daughters (esp. Korean) under
specific conditions.
• Neutralizations such as *i, *ɪ > /i/ give rise to
additional complications:
– Manchu “RTR /i/” ≠ “ATR /i/” versus
– Modern Korean /i/ → ATR
3/8/2013
117
RTRH as an areal feature
[RTR] harmony as an areal feature
• Janhunen (1981) points out that within
Northeast Asia, “apertual harmony” (our RTRH)
is an eastern feature, while “palato-velar
harmony” (our PH) is a western feature.
• We argue that the domain of RTRH extends to
the center of the region, to include Korean,
Mongolic, and Tungusic.
3/8/2013
119
“Vowel rotation” hypothesis
(Korean, Janhunen 1981)
*ü1
*u2
*ü
*ŭ3
*u1
*ŏ5
*o2
*a6
*ɔ4
*u
*ö3
*o4 

*ö
*o
*ä5
*a6
*ä
*a
3/8/2013
120
Problems with the vowel rotation
hypothesis
• The VRH is based primarily on Ki-Moon Lee’s
(1972) hypothesis of a “Korean vowel shift”.
• As we have seen, the evidence for a vowel shift
between EMK and LMK is weak.
3/8/2013
121
NE Asian families with RTRH (1):
Chukotko-Kamchatkan (Janhunen 1981)
• Proto-Chukotkan Vowel Inventory (Bobaljik 2009)
Recessive
*i
*u
*ε
Dominant
*e
*o
*a
Transparent
*ə
• *ε and *e merged in Chukchi, *ε > *a, *o > *u in Alutor.
3/8/2013
122
Nivkh (Janhunen 1981)
• Nivkh prefixes alternate between
– i- before /u, ə/
– e- before /o, a/
• Shiraishi and Botma (2012) show significant
stem-internal co-occurrence restrictions:
– /o/ never occurs stem-internally with /ə/
– /a/ never occurs with /u/ and only once with /ə/
3/8/2013
123
Yukaghir (Maslova 2003)
• Maslova (2003: 35, fn. 8):
– present-day Kolyma Yukaghir harmony “might be more
appropriately described as (advanced) tongue root (rather
than palatal) harmony” (suggestion attributed to Comrie and
Lehmann).
• In the Kolyma Yukaghir system,
– /e/, /ø/ contrast with /a/, /o/
– The high vowels /i/, /u/ are transparent, but stems with /i/,
/u/ normally belong to the same class as /e/, /ø/, with the
majority of exceptions involving /i/.
3/8/2013
124
Yukaghir
• Proto-Yukaghir vowels (Nikolaeva 2006: 57)
Front
Back
*i
*y
*e
*a
*ö
*o
(*ü)
*u
• RTRH reinterpretation
ATR
RTR
*i
*ɪ
*e
*a
*o
*ɔ
*u
*ʊ
• On the RTRH reinterpretation, the TR contrast is lost
for high vowels.
3/8/2013
125
[RTR] harmony as an areal feature:
summary
• Korean, Mogolian, and Tungusic reside at the center
(or western and southern edges) of an RTRH zone.
• Most languages in the zone show some degree of
erosion of an earlier RTRH system
• It is not easy to identify a focal center of the zone.
• This is similar to the situation with tongue root
harmony in the Central Sudanic Zone (CSZ) of Africa
(Clements & Rialland 2008), where it is unclear
what phylum or phyla might be the “source” of TRH.
3/8/2013
126
The NE Asian RTRH zone and the behavior
of TRH in contact: commonalities
• The African (CSZ) example shows us that TRH spreads
across and within families and phyla.
• In the CSZ case, specialists dispute whether TRH should
be reconstructed for proto-families (e.g. Güldemann 2008
for proto-Niger-Congo) or not (Dimmendaal 2001, Hyman
2011).
• In NE Asia, RTRH seems to have to be reconstructed for
the various proto-families.
• Given the lack of evidence for relatedness between at
least some of the families, RTRH in NEA was almost
certainly spread by contact too (Janhunen 1981).
• But as a feature, RTRH in NEA is old.
3/8/2013
127
The NE Asian RTRH zone and the behavior of
TRH in contact: differences
• Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan TRH includes
languages that are ATR-dominant and RTRdominant (Casali 2003).
• Where we can tell, TRH languages in NE Asia
appear to be RTR-dominant.
• CSZ TRH languages typically have contrasting ATR
vs. RTR series for mid vowels (72 of 110
languages in Casali’s 2003 sample)
• NEA RTR languages do not. NEA RTR languages
typically motivate just a single height contrast.
3/8/2013
128
Reconciling the Korean vowels
• Even prior to EMK, evidence for a PH > RTRH vowel shift
is poor.
• Janhunen (1981) compares LMK kǒm :: J kuma ‘bear’. But
since proto-Japonic *o underwent raising to central
dialect /u/ in non-final position, this example is
inconclusive.
• Pre-EMK phonograms such as 毛 (MC maw, OC *C.mʕaw;
Baxter-Sagart 2011), 老 (MC lawX, OC *C-rʕuʔ), 所 (MC
srjoX, OC *s-qhraʔ), 刀 (MC taw, OC *C.tʕaw) all
transcribe syllables whose LMK vowel is /o/. If a shift *u >
LMK /o/ had occurred, we would expect the antecedents
of LMK /o/ to be spelled with phonograms relatable to
MC (less likely OC) /u/.
3/8/2013
129
• As noted by many authors, internal evidence suggests a
special status for the LMK non-low central vowels /ɨ/
and /ʌ/.
• These vowels are restricted in their distribution,
occurring not at all (in the case of /ʌ/) or only once (in
the case of /ɨ/) in absolute onset position.
• They are considered to have been the target of
syncope (K-M Lee 1991, Martin 1996)
• They are generally characterized as “weak” vowels.
• We hypothesize that these vowels were delabialized
prior to EMK.
3/8/2013
130
Korean
(e.g., MK)
3/8/2013
vs. Mongolic/Tungusic
(e.g., Khalkha)
131
• Analysis of pre-EMK vowel inventory prior to
weakening (unrounding) of low [labial] vowels
ㅣ
*i
[coronal] +
[labial]
[low]
[RTR]
3/8/2013
ㅓ
ㅏ
ㅡ
ᆞ
ㅜ
ㅗ
*ǝ
+
-
*a
+
+
*o
+
+
-
*ɔ
+
+
+
*u
+
-
*ʊ
+
+
132
• Analysis of LMK vowel inventory in Ko (2012)
ㅣ
ㅓ
ㅏ
ㅡ
ᆞ
ㅜ
ㅗ
i
[coronal] +
[labial]
[low]
[RTR]
-
ǝ
+
-
a
+
+
ɨ
-
ʌ
+
u
+
-
o
+
+
3/8/2013
133
Conclusions
• RTRH should be reconstructed for pK, pMo, and pTg.
• The shift RTRH > PH is better motivated than the
opposite.
• If pK, pMo, pTg, pTü form a genetic unity, RTRH
should be reconstructed for the proto-language.
• KMT reside in a larger zone of RTR-dominant TRH
families or phyla.
• In each of these, RTRH appears to be reconstructable
to the proto-family level.
3/8/2013
134
References
Ahn, Sang-Cheol. 2002. A dispersion account on Middle Korean vowel shifts. In N. M. Akatsuka & S. Strauss
(Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics (Vol. 10, pp. 237–250). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Aralova, Natalia, Sven Grawunder, and Bodo Winter. 2011. The acoustic correlates of tongue root vowel
harmony in Even (Tungusic). Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
(ICPhS XVII) (pp. 240–243). Presented at the The 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
(ICPhS XVII), Hong Kong, China.
Archangeli, Diana. B., & Pulleyblank, Douglas. G. 1994. Grounded phonology. MIT Press.
Ard, Josh. 1981. A sketch of vowel harmony in the Tungusic languages. In B. Comrie (ed.), Studies in the
Languages of the USSR. Linguistic Research, Edmonton.
Ard, Josh. 1984. Vowel harmony in Manchu: a critical overview. Journal of Linguistics, 20(01), 57–80.
Baxter, W. H. and L. Sagart. 2011. Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction. Version of 20 February 2011. URL:
http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1203.
Benzing, Johannes. 1955. Die tungusischen Sprachen: Versuch einer vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur in Mainz.
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2009. Disharmony and decay: Itelmen vowel harmony in the Soviet period. Ms. University
of Connecticut.
Buraev, Ignatij Dmitrievich. 1959. Zvukovoj sostav burjatskogo jazyka [The sound structure of Buriat]. Ulan-Ude.
Campbell, Lyle. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Edinburgh University Press.
Casali, Roderic F. 2003. [ATR] value asymmetries and underlying vowel inventory structure in Niger-Congo and
Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Typology, 7(3), 307–382.
Casali, Roderic F. 2008. ATR Harmony in African Languages. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(3), 496–549.
Castrén, A. 1856. Grundzüge einer tungusischen Sprachlehre nebst kurzem Wörterverzeichniss. St.-Petersburg.
Catford, J. C. 1994. Vowel systems of Caucasian languages. In H. I. Aronson (ed.), Non-Slavic languages of the
USSR: papers from the Fourth Conference (pp. 44–60). Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.
3/8/2013
135
Čenggeltei. 1959. Mongɣol kelen-ü baɣarin ayalɣun-u abiy-a-yin jüi ba üges-ün jüi [Phonology and morphology
of the Baarin dialect of Mongolian]. Ö bör Monggol-un Yeke Surgaguli-yin Erdem Sinjilegen-ü Sedgül:
Gün Uqagan Neyigem Sinjilekü Uqagan [Journal of Inner Mongolia University: Philosophy and
Social Sciences], 1959/2, 1–96.
Čenggeltei. 1963. Mongɣol kelen-ü abiyan-u sistem [The Mongolian sound system]. Ö bör Monggol-un Yeke
Surgaguli-yin Erdem Sinjilegen-ü Sedgül: Gün Uqagan Neyigem Sinjilekü Uqagan [Journal of Inner
Mongolia University: Philosophy and Social Sciences], 1963/2, 1–84.
Čenggeltei & Sinedke. 1959. Mongɣol kelen-ü ündüsün egesig-üd-ün tuqai [The basic vowels of Mongolian].
Ö bör Monggol-un Yeke Surgaguli-yin Erdem Sinjilegen-ü Sedgül: Gün Uqagan Neyigem Sinjilekü
Uqagan [Journal of Inner Mongolia University: Philosophy and Social Sciences], 1959/2, 97–114.
Cho, Mi-Hui. 1994. Vowel harmony in Korean: a grounded phonology approach. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN.
Clements, G. N., and Annie Rialland. 2008. Africa as a phonological area. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (Eds.), A
linguistic geography of Africa (pp. 36–85). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2001. Areal diffusion versus genetic inheritance: an African perspective. In Aikhenvald,
Alexandra Y. and Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: problems in
comparative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 359-392.
Dresher, E. and Zhang, X. 2004. Contrast in Manchu vowel systems. In C. Naeher (ed.): Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies (ICMTS) 2: Trends in Tungusic and Siberian
Linguistics. (Tunguso-Sibirica 9). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. The Macro-Sudan belt: towards identifying a linguistic area in northern sub-Saharan
Africa. In Heine, Bernd and Derek Nurse (eds.), A Linguistic Geography of Africa. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 151-185.
Hall, Beatrice L., R. M. R. Hall, Martin D. Pam, Amy Myers, Stephen A. Antell, and Godfrey K. Cherono. 1974.
African Vowel Harmony Systems from the Vantage Point of Kalenjin. Afrika Und Ü bersee 57: 241–
267.
Hattori Shiro. 1975. Boin chowa to chuki chosengo no boin taikei [Vowel harmony and the Middle Korean vowel
system]. Gengo no Kagaku 6: 1–22.
Hattori, Shiro. 1978. Remarks on the Sounds of Middle Korean of the Late Fifteenth Century. In Proceedings of
the 6th International Symposium. Seoul, Korea: National Academy of Sciences.
3/8/2013
136
Hattori, Shiro. 1982. Vowel harmonies of the Altaic languages, Korean, and Japanese. Acta Orientalia Hungarica
36, 207–14.
Hayata, Teruhiro. 1980. Non-Abstract Vowel Harmony in Manchu. Gengo Kenkyu (Journal of the Linguistic
Society of Japan) 77, 59–79.
Hu, Zengyi. 2001. Elunchun yu yanjiu [Research on the Oroqen language]. Beijing, China: Minzu chubanshe.
Hyman, Larry. 2011. The Macro-Sudan belt and Niger-Congo reconstruction. Language Dynamics & Change 1.1,
3-49.
Ikegami Jirō. 1997. Uirutago jiten [A dictionary of the Uilta language spoken on Sakhalin]. Sapporo, Japan:
Hokkaidō Daigaku Tosho Kankōkai.
Ito, Chiyuki. 2007. Chōsen kanzion kenkyū [Sino-Korean phonology]. Tokyo: Kyuko-shoin.
Janhunen, Juha. 1981. Korean vowel system in North Asian perspective. Hangeul 172. 129
Janhunen, Juha. 2003. Proto-Mongolic. In J. Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages (Routledge Language
Family Series), 1–29. London: Routledge.
Janhunen, Juha. 2012. Khitan: understanding the language behind the scripts. Scripta 4. 107-132.
Joseph, Andrew, and John Whitman. 2013. The Diachronic Consequences of the RTR Analysis of Tungusic Vowel
Harmony. In Ö zge, Umut (ed.) MIT Working Papers in Linguistics: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop
on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL8).
Kang, Hijo, and Seongyeon Ko. 2011. In search of the acoustic correlates of tongue root retraction in three
Altaic languages: Western Buriat, Tsongol Buriat, and Ewen. Altai Hakpo 22. 179-203.
Kang, Sinhang. 1980. Kyeylim yusa Kolye pangen yenkwu [A study of Koryeo dialect in the Jīlín lèishì]. Seoul,
Korea: Sungkyunkwan University Press.
Kaun, Abigail Rhoades. 1995. The Typology of Rounding Harmony: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kazama, Shinjirō. 2003. Basic Vocabulary (A) of Tungusic Languages. (Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim
Publications Series A2-037. Publications on Tungus Languages and Cultures 25.) Ōsaka: Ōsaka
Gakuin University.
Kim, Chin-Wu. 1978. “Diagonal” vowel harmony?: Some implications for historical phonology. In J. Fisiak (Ed.),
Recent Developments in Historical Phonology (1978th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 221–236). Berlin; New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Kim, Jong-Kyoo. 2000. Quantity-sensitivity and Feature-sensitivity of Vowels: a Constraint-based Approach to
Korean Vowel Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.
3/8/2013
137
Kim, Juwon. 1988. Moumcohwawa selchwuk: Hwunminjengum haylyeyuy selchwukey tayhaye [Vowel harmony
and “selchwuk”: On the tongue retraction in Hunminjeongeum]. Eoneohag (Journal of the
Linguistic Society of Korea), 9/10.
Kim, Juwon. 1989. Mancwu thwungkwusuceyeuy moumcohwa yenkwu [A study on vowel harmony in the
Manchu-Tungus languages]. Ph.D. dissertation, Seoul National University.
Kim, Juwon. 1993. Moumcohwauy yenku [A study on vowel harmony in Korean]. Kyeungsan, Korea: Yeungnam
University Press.
Kim, Juwon. 1999. Selkunhwuchwukkwa selkuncencin [RTR and ATR]. In Eneuy yeksa [History of languages: in
honor of Professor Baeg-in Seong], 311–341. Seoul, Korea: Thaehaksa.
Kim, Juwon. 2011. A grammar of Ewen. Altaic Languages Series. Seoul National University Press.
Kim-Renaud, Y.-K. 2008. The vowel system and vowel harmony in 15th century Korean revisited. Proceedings of
the SCRIPTA 2008: Hunminjeongeum and alphabetic writing systems, 23–36.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. The phonological basis of sound change. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.), The
handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 313–342). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Ko, Seongyeon. 2010. A contrastivist view on the evolution of the Korean vowel system. In Hiroki Maezawa and
Azusa Yokogoshi (eds.): MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 61: Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on
Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL6).
Ko, Seongyeon. 2011. Vowel contrast and vowel harmony shift in the Mongolic languages. Language Research
47.1
Ko, Seongyeon. 2012. Tongue root harmony and vowel contrast in northeast Asian languages. PhD dissertation,
Cornell University.
Kwak, Chung-gu. 2003. Hyentay kwukeuy moumcheykyewa ku pyenhwauy panghyang [The vowel system of
Contemporary Korean and direction of change]. Kwukehak 41, 59–91.
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Vol. 1. Language in Society 20.
Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
Ladefoged, Peter, and Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lee, Byung-Gun. 1985. Moum cohwauy thukseng [Some tangible properties of vowel harmony].
Inmwunnonchong 15, 3–36.
3/8/2013
138
Lee, Duck-Young. 1994. Korean vowel harmony: ATR-harmony. Hangeul 223, 157–199.
Lee, Jin-Seong. 1992. Phonology and sound symbolism of Korean ideophones. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, Bloomington, IN.
Lee, Ki-Moon. 1958. A comparative study of Manchu and Korean. Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 30, 104-120.
Lee, Ki-Moon. 1964. Mongolian Loan-words in Middle Korean. Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 35, 188–197.
Lee, Ki-Moon. 1972. Kwukesa kaysel [Outline of the history of the Korean language] (2nd edition). Seoul, Korea:
Tower Press.
Lee, Ki-Moon. 1991. Kwuke Ehwi-sa Yenkwu [A study of Korean lexical history] Seoul: Thap Chwulphansa.
Lee, Ki-Moon, and S. Robert Ramsey. 2011. A History of the Korean Language. Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Yongsung. 1993. Topics in the vowel phonology of Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN.
Li, Bing. 1996. Tungusic Vowel Harmony: Description and Analysis. HIL Dissertations 18. Dordrecht: Holland
Institute of Generative Linguistics.
Lindau, Mona. 1979. The feature expanded. Journal of Phonetics 7, 163–176
Lulich, Steven and Lindsay Whaley. 2012. An acoustic phonetic study of Oroqen vowels. In A. Malchukov and L.
Whaley (eds.): Recent advances in Tungusic Languages. (Turcologica 89), 59-78. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Martin, Samuel. 1996. Consonant Lenition in Korean, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Martin, Samuel. 2000. How Have Korean Vowels Changed Through Time? In Joe J. Ree (ed.) Korean Linguistics
(Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics) 10, 1–60.
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Möömöö, Sürèngijn. 1977. Sistema fonem sovremennogo mongol’skogo jazyka [The phoneme system of
modern Mongolian]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
Nevins, Andrew. 2010. Locality in Vowel Harmony. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 55. MIT Press.
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2006. A Historical Dictionary of Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nikolaeva, Irina Alekseevna, and Maria Tolskaya. 2001. A Grammar of Udihe. Mouton Grammar Library 22.
Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
3/8/2013
139
Novikova, K. A. 1960. Ocherki dialektov Evenskogo jazyka: ol’skij govor (Vol. 1). Leningrad: Nauka.
Oh, Sang-suk. 1998. The Korean Vowel Shift revisited. Language Research, 34(2), 445–463.
Park, Changwon. 2000. Kyeylimyusa Kolyepangenuy moumchekyey [The vowel system of Koryeo dialect in Jīlín
lèishì]. Kwukyel Yenkwu 6: 173–199.
Park, Hye-Jung. 2001. A study on the vowel of the Middle Korean: by a side view of phonetics. Master thesis,
Seoul, Korea: Ehwa Women’s University.
Park, Jong-Hee. 1983. Kwuke umwunlon yenkwu [A study on Korean phonology]. Wonkwang University Press.
Park, Jong-Hee. 1994. Cwunglipmoum /i/-uy poncilkwa moumcohwa [The nature of the neutral vowel /i/ and
vowel harmony]. In nonchongkanhayngwiwenhoy (ed.), Wulimal yenkwuuy saymthe, 134–153.
Daejeon, Korea: Mwunkyeng Press.
Park, Jong-Hee. 2002. Cwungsengmoum /i/-uy thwumyengsengkwa pwulthwumyengseng [The transparency
and opacity of the neutral vowel /i/ in Middle Korean]. Hangeul, 257, 71–101.
Park, Jong-Hee, and Pyong-Ro Kwon. 2009. Moumcheykyeyuy pyenchenkwa cacilkyelhap coken [The change of
vowel system and featural combination conditions in Middle Korean]. Kwukemwunhak 47, 37–61.
Poppe, Nicholas N. 1955. Introduction to Mongolian comparative studies. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura.
Poppe, Nicholas N. 1960. Vergleichende Grammatik der altaischen Sprachen. Teil I. Vergleichende Lautlehre
[Comparative grammar of the Altaic languages, Part 1: comparative phonology]. Wiesbaden,
Germany: Otto Harrassowitz.
Przezdziecki, Marek. 2005. Vowel harmony and coarticulation in three dialects of Yoruba: phonetics
determining phonology. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.
Rybatzki, Volker. 2003. Intra-Mongolic taxonomy. In J. Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, Routledge
Language Family Series (pp. 364–390). London: Routledge.
Robbeets, Martine. I. 2005. Is Japanese Related to Korean, Tungusic, Mongolic and Turkic? (Turcologica 64).
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge University Press.
Shiraishi, Hidetoshi and Botma, Bert. 2012. Asymmetries and attractors in Nivkh vowel sequences. Sapporo
Gakuin University and Leiden University ms.
Starostin, S. A., Dybo, A. V., and Mudrak, O. A. 2003. Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages.
(Handbuch der Orientalistik VIII.8.1-3). Leiden: Brill.
3/8/2013
140
Stewart, John. 2000/2001. Symmetric versus asymmetric vowel height harmony and e, o versus i, u in ProtoBantu and Proto-Savanna Bantu. Journal of West African Languages 28.2, 45–58
Sunik, O. P. 1968. Udėgejskij jazyk [Udihe language]. In Jazyki narodov SSSR [Languages of the peoples of the
USSR]. Vol. 5, 210-32. Leningrad: Nauka.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1985. Vowel harmony shift in Mongolian. Lingua 67, 283-327.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Anna Tsendina, Anastasia M. Karlsson, and Vivan Franzén. 2005. The phonology of
Mongolian. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Titov, Je. I. 1926. Tungussko-russkij slovar’ s priloženijem knigi M. A. Kastrena “Osnovy izučenija tungusskogo
jazyka” . Irkutsk.
Tsintsius, Vera. 1949. Sravnitel’naja fonetika tunguso-man’chzhurskikh jazykov [Comparative Phonetics of the
Manchu-Tungus Languages]. Leningrad: Nauka.
Tsintsius, Vera. 1975-1977. Sravnitel’nyj slovar’ tunguso-man’chzhurskikh jazykov [Comparative dictionary of
the Manchu-Tungus Languages]. Leningrad: Nauka.
Vajda, Edward. 1994. Kazakh Phonology. Opuscula Altaica: Essays Presented in Honor of Henry Schwarz, 603650.
van der Hulst, Harry, and Jeroen van de Weijer. 1995. Vowel harmony. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of
phonological theory (pp. 495–534). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vaux, Bert. 2009. [atr] and [back] harmony in the Altaic languages. In S. Tatevosov, ed., Investigations into
Formal Altaic Linguistics: Proceedings of WAFL3, 50-67. Moscow: MAKS Press.
Vovin, Alexander. 2000. On the Great Vowel Shift in Middle Korean and Position of Stress in Proto-Korean. In
Joe J. Ree (ed.) Korean Linguistics (Journal of the International Circle of Korean Linguistics) 10, 61–
78.
Zhang, Xi. 1996. Vowel Systems of the Manchu-Tungus Languages of China. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Toronto.
Zhang, Xi, and B. Elan Dresher. 2004. Tongue Root Harmony in Written Manchu. In Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies (Bonn, August 28-September 1, 2000) Vol 2:
Trends in Tungusic and Siberian Linguistics, ed. Carsten Naeher, Giovanni Stary, and Michael Weiers,
2:161–190. Tunguso Sibirica. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag
3/8/2013
141

The Mongolic Vowel Shift revisited

Transcription

Similar documents

Stress: How Does Your Body Respond? Poster

Korean Language Immersion

Fall 2006 Healthlink - Taylor Regional Hospital

Untitled - Bradford Schools Online

Geek is Chic - Intermountain West Society of Cosmetic Chemists

News letter - Polimiroir

248-373-5151 www.hydra

I enjoyed WBBP very much!

IRD Lathe BB

TRH CRown PRinCe Haakon and CRown PRinCess MeTTe