Vowel Length and Syllable Structure in &Chachekcz;akavian
Keith
Langston
The &chachekcz;akavian dialects are characterized by the
lengthening of vowels in a broader range of environments than is
typical for &shachekcz;tokavian; e.g., Novi
stãrca old man (G sg.): N
sg. st&adgrave;rac, krãj
edge: G sg. kr&adgrave;ja,
dĩm smoke: G
sg. d&idgrave;ma, sĩr
cheese: G sg. s&idgrave;ra, Hvar
dîd grandfather: G
sg. d&idgrave;da versus standard
Croatian/Serbian stârca, krâj, d&idgrave;m,
s&idgrave;r, dj&edgrave;d/d&edgrave;d. This is usually
attributed to a historical process of compensatory lengthening
triggered by the reduction and eventual loss of a jer vowel:
CVCŭ/&ibreve; > CV:C. The lengthening was subject to
additional conditioning factors, such as the nature of the accent or
the intervening consonant, which vary among different Slavic dialects
(e.g. Timberlake 1983a, b; Bethin 1998).
While a phonological analysis of the synchronic &chachekcz;akavian
alternations in terms of compensatory lengthening is possible in
principle, a consideration of a wider range of data suggests the need
for an alternative approach. Many dialects lengthen vowels before
voiceless obstruents, in addition to the environments illustrated
above, and there are numerous examples of lengthening in forms where
there is no evidence for positing a jer vowel;
e.g. dîgnuti to raise,
lâstavica swallow,
mâslina olive,
mêsto place (examples
attested in various central &chachekcz;akavian dialects). While
lengthening before sonorants is more consistent in internal than in
final syllables in some &chachekcz;akavian dialects, the reverse
situation, with lengthening restricted to final syllables, is never
found (the same is true of &shachekcz;tokavian). The opposite state of
affairs obtains for lengthening before obstruents, a number of
dialects lengthen vowels in final but not internal syllables;
e.g. Le&shachekcz;će bobrîg
kidney: N pl. bobr&idgrave;zi,
jezîk language: G
sg. jez&idgrave;ka versus
b&adgrave;&chachekcz;va barrel,
j&adgrave;&chachekcz;men barley,
pr&adgrave;sci pig (I pl.). It
would be difficult to account for these facts if the lengthening is
treated as compensatory in nature.
This paper will suggest that a more satisfactory explanation is
possible in terms of syllable structure. Patterns of accent retraction
that occur in numerous &chachekcz;akavian dialects indicate that CVC
syllables are treated as heavy, and the lengthenings illustrated here
will be explained as a reinterpretion of a bi-moraic CVC syllable as
CVVC. The different behavior of final as opposed to medial syllables
may then also be attributed to constraints on permissible syllable
types. &Chachekcz;akavian dialects differ with respect to the types of
segments that may be moraic, and discrepancies are also found within
certain individual dialects, where all CVC syllables may count as
heavy for the placement of accent but only some CVC syllables are
lengthened. Similar inconsistencies, while rare, have been pointed out
in other languages (e.g. Hayes 1995: 299–305). While Hayes
proposes a two-layer moraic representation to account for these, the
&chachekcz;akavian facts are more consistent with an approach along
the lines of Steriade (1991), in which there is a single level of
moraic representation of weight, but different processes may refer to
this representation in different ways, based on the sonority level of
the segments. As a final note, the lengthening in historical
circumflex stems (e.g. brôd
ship: G sg. br&odgrave;da), which
is common to all northwest SSl. dialects and is not dependent on the
nature of the final consonant, appears to require a different
interpretation than the one suggested for the types of forms discussed
here. The &chachekcz;akavian data may call into question historical
explanations which lump all these lengthenings together as part of the
same process.
References
Bethin, Christina. 1998. Slavic Prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Steriade, Donca. 1991. Moras and Other Slots.
Proceedings of the Formal Linguistics Society of
Mid-America 1. 254–80.
Timberlake, Alan. 1983a. Compensatory lengthening in
Slavic, 1: Conditions and Dialect Geography. In Markov,
Vladimir and Dean S. Worth, eds. From Los Angeles to Kiev:
Papers on the Occasion of the Ninth International Congress of
Slavists. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 207–235.
Timberlake, Alan. 1983b. Compensatory Lengthening in
Slavic, 2: Phonetic Reconstruction. In Flier, Michael S.,
ed. American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress
of Slavists 1. Columbus, OH: Slavica. 293–319.