1998. “The Common Slavic vowel shifts”

The Common Slavic Vowel Shifts

Hennins Andersen

0. Introduction

In the course of the twentieth century students of comparative Slavic phonol-

ogy have tended toward a consensus that the prehistorical development of CS

comprises three typological vowel shifts (Andersen 1986).tThe first of these-the First CS Vowel Shift (VS,)-relates the earliest vocal-

ism we can reconstruct from within Slavic (with four short and four long vowels

and oral, nasal, and liquid diphthongs) to the successor vowel system with CS*l for PS u, and *1, *A, *

0 )u for the Proto-Slavic oral diphthongs (that is, with

five long and four short vowels, but no oral diphthongs); cf. Furdal 196l:41,

Lamprecht 1987:70.2 'Tonality shifts' such as this are documented in the history

of many languages. They include subtypes with r.r > el (and o > u, as in Gallo-

Romance), r ry (and (or r) o I u, as in CS), i > y (and € > i, asin Ukrainian), and

| > i, ti > r* (and t > i, u > u, as in Faroese).The Second CS Vowel Shift (VSz) follows a qualitative differentiation of short

and long vowels and gives rise to LCS vowel systems similar to that of Old

Church Slavonic (tense i, !, u, d, a; lax i, il, e, o); cf . Jakobson 1929 U971]:33-36,Lamprecht 1987 71-74. Some parallels to this vowel shift from other languages

will be mentioned below (Section 2). In the light of such parallels, the different

outcomes of VS, in different CS dialects can be interpreted as minor variations

on one and the same subtype of 'protensity shifts'.The Third CS Vowel Shift (VS,)-with Isadenko's apt term, the Jer-Shift

(1970)-exemplifies one of the chief subtypes of 'sonority shifts', in which certain

lax and/or high vowels are reanalysed as zero in specific, usually metrically

defined, environments; cf. Jakobson 1929 U9711:55, Lamprecht 1987:137-44.The

divergent development of jers in certain weak and strong positions in different

LCS dialects lose their appearance of idiosyncrasy when the Jer Shift is com-

pared with similar sonority shifts in other languages, such as Latvian, French,

Danish, or English.Although the basic facts surrounding the CS vowel shifts are well known, there

are still many details concerning each of them that remain to be clarified and

interpreted. In the following pages I will focus on VS, (Section 1) and discuss its

relation to two other CS developments, the elimination of liquid diphthongs(Section 2), and the emergence of new quantitative relations (Section 3). My aim

is to define more clearly some of the issues of interpretation that are raised by

this vowel shift' Americart contributions to th.e Tw,elflhInternational Congress of Slattists. Craco',r), Au.g.-Sept. 1998. Literature. Lirtgulsrrcs. Poetics, ed. R.A. Maguire & Alan Timberlake. Bloomingtc-rn,Ind.: Slavica, 1998.

240 HENNING ANDERSEN

1. VS2

According to the scholarly tradition, the period after the monophthongizationof oral diphthongs and the CS *1,, *, change-in short, after VS,-is charac-terized by such changes as the origin of the jers, CS *d ) LCS *4 the develop-ment of CS *e, the rise of new quantity oppositions, and changes of *e > *o and*d > *a (cf. Stieber 1979). But there has long been an understanding that severalof these changes are parts of a single, comprehensive reorganization of the vowelsystem (cf. Jakobson 1929 |9711:33-36). This understanding recognizes a vowelshift comprising a sequence of innovations, (a) an allophonic differentiation oflong and short vowels into, respectively, tense and lax and (b) a subsequent rein-terpretation of the allophonic differences in protensity (tenseness) as phonemic.

This is a common type of vowel shift. The allophonic phase of such vowelshifts is often observed; it is illustrated by Modern Czech; cf. Figure I (Lehiste197031). The classic example of the phonemic reinterpretation such a qualitativedifferentiation can lead to is the loss of distinctive quantity in (varieties of) LateLatin (see Figurc 2), which was undoubtedly mediated by realizations of theoriginal long and short vowels similar to those of Modern Czech (Lausberg 1963:rs2).

There is a fair amount of variation in the outcomes of such shifts to phonemicprotensity. High and low vowels may be differentiated in tandem, but often lowvowels are differentiated earlier or more than high or mid vowels. In triangularsystems, when the c-vowels are differentiated, the tenseness of the long vowelmay be manifested either in fronting or in backing and/or rounding. In Dutch,for instance, the opposition latl vs. lal is realized as [a:] vs. [o], tending towards

[re:] vs. [o]. In Swedish, by contrast, la'./ vs. lal is realized as [or] vs. [a]. Inrectangular systems, the long low vowels may be raised, as in Lithuanian: OLi.dvs . e > e [e : ] vs . e [a ] - [a r ] ; OL i . dvs . a> o [o r ] vs . a la l - [a r ] (w i th a newquantity opposition); or the short low vowels may be raised, as in Bulgarian: CS*d vs. *r, Bg. lel, lal (and lel - laD vs. /e/; CS *c vs. *a > Bg. lal vs. /o/; or frontand back vowels may go separate ways, as in most CS dialects, where CS *e and*a were raised, and*e and*d, lowered (CS *avs. *e > R dial. /G/ vs. lel,CS *a

vs. *a > R dial. lal vs. lttol or lol).

2. Liquid diphthongs and VS,

VS, bears an interesting chronological relation to the elimination of liquiddiphthongs and CS innovations in vowel quantity, which has often been over-looked in the past.3

In the South Slavic and the Pre-Slovak-Czech dialects of CS, the apparentmetathesis of low-vowel liquid diphthongs (CS TART sequences) occurred beforeVSr. Subsequently, in VS2, the secondary, "metathetic" two-mora vowels CS *a

and *E changed to LCS dial. *a and *4' cf. Figure 3. In the Pre-Sorbian and Pre-Polish-Kashubian dialects, the qualitative differentiation of long and short vowelsoccurred before the development of secondary vowels (CS TART ) LCS TORT);hence the metathetic (or "pleophonic") two-mora vowels were LCS dial. *d and*e-,' see Figure 3. As the display shows, both north and south of the LCS TR1T

THE COMMON SLAVIC VOWEL SHIFTS

Realizations of Long and Short Czech Vowelsand F, frequencies of long vowels, filled dots, those of short

241

'Tl

=N

Figure l: PhoneticCircles represent average F1vowels.5

Classical Latin e e a a o o u u

Late Latin e a a o u

Figure 2: Regular Diachronic Correspondences in the Development of the LatinVocalism

ll TRAI isogloss, in dissyllables, initial circumflex long vowels were shortened;similarly, final acute long vowels. In Pre-Polish-Kashubian and Pre-Slovak, also

initial acute long vowels were shortened. These are changes that affected all

original (CS) long vowels in these dialects. It looks as if the shortenings may

have occurred after the metathesis of liquid diphthongs.It is difficult to ignore the fact that the contrasting long and short West Slavic

reflexes of low-vowel liquid diphthongs have exact counterparts in East Slavic.

Due to a peculiarity in the development of Ukrainian, this contrast can only be

illustrated with wordforms in which the pleophonic vowel preceded a LCS weakjer and underwent compensatory lengthening; and in Russian only LCS TORTgroups with LCS *o have illustrative, distinct vowel reflexes. Sample corre-

spondences are displayed in Figure 4. Here the Ukrainian wordforms have

identical pleophonic vowels in acute and circumflex ToRoT groups, but different

F 2 ( H z )

Upper Sorbian Polish

Acute Neoacute &pretonic

Circumflex Acute Neoacute &pretonic

Circumflex

TROT TROT TROT TROT TROT TROT

hrdch

bl6to

brdza

wrbna

kruwa

drdha

pluwa

kl6da

sl6ma

drdn,

ml6t,

w16bel, -bla

mloko

irddlo

br6zda

str6ia

pr6ca

-a

-a

hl6d, -oda

hl6s, -osa

brj6d, -oda

irjewo

drje *-o

zloto

strona

broda

hlowa

groch

bloto

brzoza

wrona

krowa

droga

plewa

kloda

sloma

dial. dion, -u

dial. ml6t,

dial. mlii

wrobel

dial. mliko

irbdlo

br6zda

str62a

gl6d, -odu

glos

wrzbd, -odu

strzewo

drzewo

zloto

strona

brodu

glowa


Figure 3: West Slavic Reflexes of CS TART Sequences

reflexes under the neoacute (cf. Polish and Slovak). Russian, on the other hand,has identical reflexes of acute and neoacute ZoRoT groups-stressed pleophonicvowel, R dial. 6 for LCS *o-distinct from those with a circumflex (cf. UpperSorbian and Czech).

The Ukrainian data exemplified in Figure 4 were first interpreted by Bulaxov-s'kyj (1949,1961). They have sometimes been considered controversial, but no-thing can be gained by continuing to question their value as evidence.4 Ukrainianspecialists have recognized for some time that the dialects of Ukraine present asignificant spatial gradation in TORT reflexes: TOR1T reflexes are largelylimited to original neoacute wordforms in the extreme southwest (as in Figure4), but are attested more and more commonly in both neoacute and acute word-forms as one progresses toward the north and northeast. This statistical grada-

Czech Slovak



Circumflex

TRAT TRAT TRAT TRAT rRAT TRAT

hrach

blato

biIza

vrdncr

krava

drdha

pldva

klada

slama

diin

mlit

dial. vrabel

mliko

znato

brdzda

strdi

prdce

hlad

hlas

vied

slfevo

dievo

zlato

strana

brada

hlava

hrach

blato

breza

vrana

krava

draha

pleva

klada

slama

driei

mliec

Iop. Vrabel'

mlieko

iriedlo

praca

hlad

hlas

vred

trevo

drevo

zlato

strana

brada

hlava

Ukrainian Russian



Circumflex

TOROT TOROT TOROT TOROT TOROT TOROT

moroz

sordk gen.pl.

kol6d gen.pl.

nahordd gen.pl.

dol6n'

bol6t gen.pl.

por6v pst .m.

pol6v pst.m.

mol6v pst .m.

kol6v pst.m.

bor6vs 'a pst.m.

borid gen.pl.

storin gen.pl.

holiv gen.pl.

borfn gen.pl.

dolit gen.pl.

uolik pst.m.

pdrox

v6ron

h6lod

k6los

xblod

s6lod

vdroh

mor6z

sor6k

kol6d

ogor6d

ladbn'

bol6t

por6l pst.m.

pol6l pst.m.

mol6lpst .m

kol6l pst.m.

bordls'a

pst .m.

bor6d gen.pl.

stor6n gen.pl.

gol6v gen.pl.

bor1n gen.pl.

dol6t gen.pl.

vol6k pst.m.

pbrox

vdron

gdlod

kdlos

x6lod

sdlod

dial. vorog

merez zberfh pst.m.

sterih pst.m.

bdreh

vdred

vdres

idreb

siren

bdrest

m e r o z b'er '69 pst .m.

st 'er '69

pst .m.

b ' i r 'eg

v 'er 'ed

v'ir 'es

iir 'eb

s ' i r 'en

b'dr 'est

sordika

kol6dka

meriika

boridka

storfnka

holivka

ter[dka

bdroSno sor6ika

kol6dka

m'er'6ika

bor6dka

stor6nka

gol6vka

ier'6dka

dial .

bdroino

THE COMMON SLAVIC VOWEL SHIFTS 243

Figure 4: East Slavic Reflexes of CS TART Sequences

tion cannot be the result simply of analogical leveling. It is unmistakable

evidence of an ancient prosodic isogloss that cut across Ukraine in the past, but

has been thoroughly blurred over the centuries, e.9., OldU SW-dial. *kol6d,

*bordd, *hdlod ll N-dial. *kol6d, *bordd, *h6lod (Nazarova 1975). The statisticalgradation in Ukraine forms an obvious counterpart to the loose bundles of lexi-

cal isoglosses that now reflect the ancient, phonological isogloss for Acute Short-

ening between Czech and Slovak (see BElid 1972:133-37 and maps 21,22).

But not only do the East Slavic correspondence sets in Figure 4 correlate with

the similar West Slavic sets in Figure 3. As we shall see, their geographical

distribution is consistent with other CS dialect features of similar kind and age.

3.0. VS2 and the Quantitative Differention

The correspondence sets in Figures 3 and 4 highlight the shortenings of CS

two-mora syllabics that are traditionally enumerated in the handbooks (e.9.,

Shevelov 1965:506-24).In the following I want to comment on these; however,

due to space constraints I limit myself to observations on the northern CS


dialects. As a consequence, I will not comment on the shortening of initial two-mora syllabics in unaccented (circumflex) disyllables ("Circumflex Shortening"),which appears to set North Slavic apart from South Slavic.

3.1. Acute Shortening

It is well known that CS acute long (two-mora) syllabics have short-vowelreflexes in all the modern Slavic languages, except that Czech and Upper Sorbianhave long-vowel reflexes in the initial syllable of disyllabic words, and UpperSorbian, possibly also in polysyllabic words (Dybo 1963). This diachroniccorrespondence is usually accounted for by hypothesizing a shortening of acutelong vowels ("Acute Shortening") some time after VS, in parts of CS (Timber-lake 1993, Bethin 1997). But consider the changes of low-vowel liquid diphthongsreflected in Figures 3 and 4.

The Figures imply an isogloss that delimits a central, East-Lechitic-Slovak-Southwest Ukrainianareaagainst peripheral Sorbian-Czech and North UkrainianBelarusian-Russian areas. This is a familiar sight to the historical dialectologist:Acute Shortening was a central CS innovation. The fact that this central area isbisected both by the TR7Tll TRAT isogloss and by the TR1T TRATII TOR1Tisogloss suggests that Acute Shortening may have preceded the changes in liquiddiphthongs. Since the metathesis of liquid diphthongs preceded VS, in part of thearea (Pre-Slovak), we can infer that Acute Shortening may have preceded VSr.

This conclusion does not necessarily conflict with the observation made inSection 3.0, that Acute Shortening appears to have taken place after VSr. On thecontrary, these two inferences merely show it may be useful to distinguish be-tween (a) allophonic innovations in vowel duration (including a reduced durationassigned to acute vowels) prior to the changes in liquid diphthongs and VS, and(b) a subsequent phonemic reinterpretation of these allophonic differences induration, at the time of VSr, by which qualitatively identical vowels of differentduration were analysed as quantitatively distinct. I will return to this suggestionin Section 4.

3.2. Polysyllabic Shortening

Once we recognize that CS Acute Shortening was a central innovation, we arein a better position to interpret two other CS dialect differences.

Most CS dialects show evidence of a fairly general shortening of long vowelsin words of three or more syllables ("Polysyllabic Shortening"). This putativechange is usually explained in phonetic terms in agreement with the commonobservation that the more syllables a word has, the less duration is assigned toits individual syllables. But there is evidence in Upper Sorbian that suggests thatPolysyllabic Shortening did not occur here, or that, if it did, it did not affecttrisyllabic words; see (1).

(1) a. US mr6iit 'darken' (P mroczyt, Cz mraiil r, Sk mraiit', Bg mrdia besidedial. mra\d, Sn mraiiti, mraiim, but U moroiyty, R moroiit);

b. US pl6iit'frighten' (P ploiyt, Cz plaiiti, Sk plaiit'sa, Sn pldiiti, but SCpldiiti, U poloijtty, poloiyt', R poloiit', poloift);

c. US tl\tit 'press' (P tloczyi, Cz tlaiitt, Sk tlaiit', Sn tldiiti, tldiim, but SCtldiiti, tldiim, u toloijtty, toloiyt" R toloitt" toloitt, but also toloiit"

THE COMMON SLAVIC VOWEL SHIFTS

The evidence, though not limited to the examples in (l), is somewhat skimpy (seeDybo 1963). But if it is taken at face value, the peripheral location of UpperSorbian immediately suggests that Polysyllabic Shortening too may have been acentral innovation. If it was, then perhaps the few East Slavic correspondentswith regular acute reflexes (R, U ToRdT) can be taken as evidence of similarlyperipheral East Slavic dialects in which the change did not affect trisyllabicwords. And the Russian and Ukrainian attestations with non-acute liquid diph-thongs can be understood as results of Polysyllabic Shortening.

3.3. Final Shortening

Yet another traditionally recognized shortening of CS long vowels affectedword-flnal vowels ("Final Shortening"). There are apparent exceptions to thischange in several of the Slavic languages, but they can be defined in morphologi-cal terms, and it is not certain they reflect phonological constraints on the gen-eral Final Shortening.

Final Shortening is usually viewed narrowly as a change affecting original two-mora vowels. However, if we suppose it too originated as a general allophonicshortening, then it is reasonable to inquire whether perhaps this shorteningaffected not only final (tense) two-mora vowels, but also final (lax) one-moravowels. From this point of view it is relevant that there is in fact a central Slavicarea that may reflect an allophonic shortening of final one-mora vowels.

In Andersen 1978 and 1998 I describe the CS *e > *o change that gave rise tothe correspondences in (2) as an allophonic diphthongization ([e] > [S]) thatmade it possible for lel realizations to be subsequently reinterpreted as lol, andI argue that such reinterpretations were possible only in contexts where the diph-thongs were assigned full, unshortened realizations (cf. 1998, section 2.1.4). Thishypothesis allows us to interpret the otherwise unexplained absence of the *e >*o change reflected in the correspondences in (2) and the -o ll -e and -e ll -o

isoglosses (isogloss 5) in Andersen 1998, Figure 6. They are consistent with ageneral allophonic shortening of final vowels and indicate that this shortening,like those that gave rise to Acute and Polysyllabic Shortening, spread out fromthe center of the CS language area.

(2) CS *-e.' LS lico, zboio, buto, buio.fo ll P lice, zboie, bedzie, bedziecie: lJ tyc6,moj6, nesett, hl'adyt6; Br S-dial. l'ic6, mojt, n'es'ac'6, hl'a3'ic'e 2pl. pres. ll BrN-dial. l'ico, majo, n'as'ic'6, hl'a3'ic'd; R l'ico, mojo. NE-dial. n'es'it'6,gl'ed'it'o.

4. Conclusion

The apparently early date of Acute Shortening (Section 3.1) and its geographi-cal coherence with Polysyllabic and Final Shortening (Sections 3.2-3.3) supportthe idea that the CS shortenings of long vowels originated as allophonic innova-tions prior to VSr.

One can sketch the following hypothesis. Simultaneously with the CS qualita-tive differentiation of long and short vowels-as the realizations of phonemicquantity became supported more and more by differences in vowel tenseness-

245


ere were changes in the durational profile of phonological words; the prosodic

template manifested in every spoken word was adjusted more closely to accentual

conditions (accent vs. none, acute vs. circumflex) and metrical conditions (word

length, foot structure). Subsequently, when the vowel system was reinterpreted

in terms of qualitative differences, the shift to phonemic protensity was accom-panied by a quantity shift: in the new LCS vowel systems that resulted from VSr,

the more or less intricately conditioned allophonic distributions of relative

duration became reflected as quasi-phonemic quantity. These phonetic differences

in length were available to be exploited in new contexts by the development of

the neoacute accent from non-initial circumflexes and from accented jers, by con-

tractions, and by the development of compensatory lengthening. Or they could

be abandoned for ever.It seems it would be worthwhile elaborating this hypothesis in terms of the

method of phonetic reconstruction illustrated by Timberlake's admirable account

of CS compensatory lengthening (1983a, 1983b). A full-f ledged hypothetical de-

scription along these lines could perhaps overcome the limitations of Jakobson's

overly schematic theory (1963, 1965). It might be able to side-step a certain

typological weakness in Timberlake's theory of prosodic shortening (acknowl-

edged at 1983b:307, 1986:419). And it might well demonstrate the ultimate com-

patibility of a substance-oriented approach with the framework of formal

constraints achieved by Bethin (1998).University of California, Los Angeles

NOTES

t Any discussion of the CS vowel shifts presupposes a typology of vowel shifts, whichis part of the theory of phonologial change. I cannot present such a typology within thesebrief remarks, but I must mention that I use the term vowel shiftnot in the general senseof chain shift as recently done by Labov (1994.113-293), but in the more specific senseof 'chain shift implying a shift in vowel system type'. Implicit in this notion of vowel shiftis (a) an understanding (first articulated by Trubetzkoy in 1928; cf. Jakobson 1985:117,Trubetzkoy 1958 tl962]) that vowel systems represent a small number of types and (b) anassumption that the developmental possibilities of a given vowel system is significantlyconditioned by its type-or groundplan, as Sapir called it (1921). Hence a shift in typeentails a shift in developmental possibilities (cf. Andersen 1974, Cekman 1919).2 I use the following abbreviations for the reconstructed languages: CS (Common

Slavic), LCS (Late Common Slavic), PS (Proto-Slavic). CS refers to the entire prehistori-

cal development of Slavic. LCS refers to the last part of this development, the period

from the qualitative differentiation of long and short vowels to the fall of the jers. LCS

dialect wordforms and segments are referred to in terms of their successor languages, e.g.Pre-Slovenian *q (abbreviated thus: LCS Pre-Sn. dial. *g). The term PS is used for thereconstructed wordforms and segments that serve as point of departure for the reconstruc-tion of the chronological development of CS; cf. Andersen 1996:183-87. PS segments arewritten in small capitals without an asterisk.3 In this exposition, for simplicity's sake, I follow standard usage and speak of 'metathe-

sis of liquid diphthongs' as if the modern correspondences arose through such a change.Traditionally many Slavists have thought that the metathesis of liquid diphthongs in

THE COMMON SLAVIC VOWEL SHIFTS 247

South Slavic and in the Pre-Slovak-Czech dialects was preceded by a vowel lengtheningthat supposedly did not occur in Pre-Lechitic-Sorbian; thus Shevelov (1965:408) and morerecently Carlton 1990:145, Schenker 1995:94, Townsend and Janda 1996:94. Bethin corre-spondingly speaks of "mora preservation" in the south, but not in Pre-Lechitic-Sorbian(1998, with references). The idea that the southern and central CS dialects lengthenedliquid diphthongs before the metathesis is incompatible with the parallel quantity reflexesin Lechitic-Sorbian and Slovak-Czech, displayed in figure 3. This understanding goes backto Fortunatov (1980); see Timberlake 1986:423; cf. Andersen 1973, Lamprecht 1987:58.a Often in the past scholars who hesitated to recognize deep differences among the EastSlavic languages would try to argue these correspondences away by presenting them asthe results of contradictory and chaotic analogical levelings; thus most recently Zaliznjak(1985:161-63). In fact, however, forms that do not fit the regular pattern of reflexes, say,in Standard Ukrainian, testify to different directions of analogical leveling in differentperiods of the history of the language; cf. nom.sg. por[h, gen.pl. ber[2, dorfh, koriv, vorit,diminutives ber[zka, dor{ika, korivka, vorftcja, motivated by currently productive rules ofalternation and, on the other hand, such old derivatives as hol1dnyj, kor|tkyj, xolodnyj,perbdnij, seridnij. Such diverse formations cannot be treated on a par, but need to beexamined with due attention to the historical perspective.5 The diagram is based on the first syllable of 571 dissyllabic Czech words; see Lehiste1970:31.

REFERENCES

Andersen, Henning. 7973. "Prosodic Innovations and the Development of Liquid Diph-thongs in Early Slavic," Siodmy Miqdzynarodowy kongres slawist|w, Warszawa 21-27VIII 1973; streszczenia referatow i komunikatow, ed. Janusz Siatkowski et al., l0-ll.Warsaw.

1974. "Markedness in Vowel Systems," Proceedings of the Eleventh InternationalCongress of Linguisls, ed. Luigi Heilmann, 1136-41. Bologna.

1978. "Perceptual and Conceptual Factors in Abductive Innovations," RecentDevelopments in Historical Phonology, ed. Jacek Fisiak, l-22. The Hague.

1986. "Protoslavic and Common Slavic: Questions of Periodization and Terminol-ogy," Slavic Linguistics, Poetics, Cultural History. In Honor of Henrik Birnbaum on hisSixtieth Birthday, I3 December 1985 (= International Journal of Slavic Linguistics andPoetics,3ll32), ed. Michael S. Flier and Dean S. Worth, 67-82. Columbus, Ohio.

1996. Reconstructing Prehistoric Dialects. Initial Vowels in Slavic and Baltic(Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 91.) Berlin.

1 998. "Dialektnaj a differenciacij a obideslavj anskog o jazyja. Paradoks ob56ix ten-dencij razvitija s razlidnymi lokal'nymi rezul'tatami," American Contributions to theTwelfth International Congress of Slavists, Cracow,27 August-2 September 1998: Litera-ture, Linguistics, Poetics, ed. Robert A. Maguire and Alan Timberlake, 565-600.

B6lid, Jaromir. 1972. Ndstin ieske dialektologre. Prague.Bethin, Christina. 1998. S/avic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory.

Cambridge.Bulaxovs'kyj, L. A. 1949. "Sxidnoslovjans'ki movy jak dZerelo vidbuvannja spil'noslo-

vjans'koji akcentolohidnoji systemy," Movoznavstvo 415:7 -17 .1961. "OtraLen|ja tak nazyvaemoj akutovoj intonacii drevnejiego slavjanskogo

jazyka v vostodnoslavjanskix," Issledovanija po leksikologii i grammatike russkogojazyka, 3-31. Moscow.

HENNING ANDERSEN

Carlton, Terence R. 1990. Introduction to the Phonological History of the Slavic Lan-

guages. Columbus, Ohio.eekman, V. N. 1979. Issledovanie po istoriieskoj fonetike praslavjanskogo jazyka.

Tipologija i rekonstrukcija. Minsk.Dybo, Vladimir Antonovid.1963. "Ob otraZenii drevnix kolidestvennyx i intonacionnyx

otnoSenij v verxneluZickom jazyke," Serbo-luiickij lingvistiteskij sbornik, ed. L. E.

Kalnyn', 54-83. Moscow.Fortunatov, F. F. 1880. "Zur vergleichende Betonungslehre der lituslavischen Sprachen,"

Archiv fiir slqvische Philologie 4:575-89.Furdal, Antoni. 1961. Rozpad jqzyka praslowiaitskiego w iwietle rozwoju glosowego (Prace

Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego, seria A, 70.) Wroclaw.Isadenko, Aleksandr.l970. "East Slavic Morphophonemics and the Treatment of the Jers:

A Revision of Havlik's Law," International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics

13:73-124.Jakobson, Roman (ed.). 1985. N ,S. Trubetzkoy's Letters and Notes (= Janua Linguarum,

Series Major, 47.) Berlin/New York/Amsterdam.1929ll97l). Remarques sur l'|volution du russe comparbe d celle des autres langues

slaves (= Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 2.) Repr. Jakobson 1971:7-116.

1963119711. "Opyt fonologideskogo podxoda k istorideskim voprosam slavjanskoj

akcentologii. Pozdnij period slavjanskoj jazykovoj praistorii," American Contributions

to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, 1: Linguistic Contributions. The Hague.

Repr. Jakobson 197l:664*89.196511971]. "Information and Redundancy in the Common Slavic Prosodic Pat-

tern," Symbolae Linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kurylowicz (Polska Akademia Nauk,

Oddzial w Krakowie, Prace komisji jgzykoznawstwa, 5), 145-51. Wroclaw, Warszawa,

Krak6w. Repr. Jakobson l97l 693-699.1971. Selected Writings, l: Phonological Studies [First edition, 1962]. The Hague.

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, l'. Internal Factors. Oxford/Cam-

bridge, Mass.Lamprecht, Arnoit. 1987. Praslovanitina. Brno.Lausberg, Heinrich. 1963. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, 1: Einleitung und Vokalismus

(= Sammlung Goschen, 1281128a.) Berlin.Lehiste, Ilse. I 970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass./London.

Nazarova, T. V. 1975. "Zaminne podovZennja v ukrajins'komu areali na tli sxidnoslovjan-

s'kyx prosodydnyx peretvoren'," Movoznavstvo 197 5, 6:22-32.

Sapir, Edward. l92l [1949). Language, An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York.

Schenker, Alexander M. 1995. The Dawn of Slavic. An Introduction to Slavic Philology.

New Haven/London.Shevelov, George Y. 1965. A Prehistory of Slavic. The Historical Phonology of Common

Slavic. New York.Stieber, ldzislaw. 1979. Zarys gramatyki por6wnawczej jqzyk|w slowiartskicft. Warsaw.

Timberlake, Alan. 1983a. "Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, l: Conditions and Dia-

lect Geogr&phy," Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth International Congress of Slavists,

Kiev, September, 1983 (= UCLA Slavic Studies, 12), ed. Vladimir Markov and Dean

S. Worth, 207-36. Columbus, Ohio.1983b. "Compensatory Lengthening in Slavic, 2: Phonetic Reconstruction,"

American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists, Kiev, September,

1983, 1: Linguistfcs, ed. Michael S. Flier, 293-319. Columbus, Ohio.

1986. "The Metathesis of Liquid Diphthongs in Upper Sorbian," Slavic Linguis-

tics, Poetics, Cultural History. In Honor of Henrik Birnbaum on his Stxtieth Birthday,

1998. “The Common Slavic vowel shifts”

Documents

Transcript of 1998. “The Common Slavic vowel shifts”