Volume 35, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2007 Vowel Epenthesis vs. Schwa Lexicali

Volume 35, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2007 Vowel Epenthesis vs. Schwa Lexicalization in Classical Armenian* Marc Pierce University of Texas at Austin In an article that unfortunately has not received much attention in the relevant literature, Schwink (1994) argues that vowel epenthesis, as in forms like n[e]man man ‘similar’, was a lexicalized alternation in Classical Armenian, in contrast to the traditional view, which holds that vowel epenthesis was a living phonological alternation. This paper critically evaluates Schwink's proposal, and argues that three main factors contradict it. First, vowel epenthesis is a robust phonological phenomenon in Modern Armenian, and the simplest historical account of this is that it was also alive and well in Classical Armenian. Second, Schwink's suspicion about the age of the alternation is unfounded, as phonological alternations may indeed exist for centuries without becoming lexicalized or fossilized. Finally, the existence of various layers of loan words that are treated differently with regard to a phonological alternation or restriction is also unremarkable. Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence supporting it, Schwink’s proposal must be rejected in favor of the traditional assumption that epenthesis was an active phonological process in Classical Armenian. In an article that unfortunately has not received much attention in the relevant literature, Schwink (1994) argues that vowel epenthesis, as in forms like n[e]man ‘similar’, was a lexicalized alternation in Classical Armenian, in contrast to the traditional view, which holds that vowel epenthesis was a living phonological alternation. Until Schwink’s arguments are discussed and countered, his analysis remains a viable alternative to the traditional account. This paper therefore offers a critical evaluation of his proposal. I begin with a brief discussion of epenthesis in general, then present a number of forms that are generally agreed to exhibit epenthesis in Classical Armenian, and finally consider Schwink’s proposal at *I thank San Duanmu, Benjamin Fortson, and Robert Kyes for their assistance in the preparation of this paper, as well as the JIES referees and James Mallory for his assistance in his role as editor. 112 Marc Pierce The Journal of Indo-European Studies some length. Epenthesis can be defined either synchronically or diachronically; in synchronic terms, it is the insertion of any segment not contained in the underlying representation, while in diachronic terms, it is the insertion of any segment not found at an earlier stage (or stages) of the language, as in the following examples.1 In Axininca Campa, an Arawakan language spoken in the Amazon region, for instance, [t] is inserted between vowels to resolve hiatus, as in forms like [nompisiti] ‘I will sweep’, derived from an underlying /noN- pisi-i /, as opposed to forms like [nompoki] ‘I will come’, from an underlying /noN-pok-i/ (Itô 1989: 237).2 The history of Romance yields a diachronic example, as Latin initial sC clusters have shifted to esC in Spanish, e.g. Latin spiritus > Spanish espiritu ‘spirit’, and Latin schola > Spanish escuela ‘school’ (Hock 1991: 125). There are a number of possible triggers for epenthesis. It can occur in order to break up a dispreferred consonant cluster, as in non-standard pronunciations of Modern English athlete as ath[e]lete, or to conform to general syllable preference laws, e.g. so that all syllables have onsets, as in the Axininca Campa example cited above. There can also be historical or sociolinguistic motivations, as in the case of Eastern Massachusetts r insertion, e.g. He put the tuna[r] on the table, where the loss of r in words like car and yard has led to reanalysis and hypercorrection, resulting in r insertion.3 Classical Armenian vowel epenthesis is normally viewed as an example of the first type, in that consonant clusters were dispreferred and thus eliminated through epenthesis, as indicated in the statements from the handbooks cited below. Why vowel epenthesis was used to eliminate consonant clusters and not some other strategy, e.g. deleting one of the 1One terminological point is in order, as a number of different terms are used for the insertion of segments. For example, Hock (1991: 117) distinguishes between the insertion of consonants and that of vowels, which he refers to as ‘epenthesis’ and ‘anaptyxis’ (or ‘svarabhakti’), respectively, and furthermore uses the cover term ‘epenthetic changes’. In line with the literature on Armenian, I use the term ‘epenthesis’. 2The symbol /N/ represents a “nasal archisegment … which always assimilates to the following consonant” (Itô 1989: 237). 3This particular case of epenthesis has recently taken on increased importance as a Paradebeispiel in the debate between proponents of Optimality Theory and those of derivational phonology (cf. Vaux 2003). Vowel Epenthesis vs. Schwa Lexicalization in Classical Armenian 113 Volume 35, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2007 consonants in the cluster, remains an open question, although it can be formalized with relative ease. The Armenian handbooks largely agree with each other in their statements about vowel epenthesis. Here I give two relatively typical descriptions of the phenomenon for reference purposes. Schmitt (1981: 30-31) states that “gesprochen wurde der ‘Murmelvokal’ [e]…vor oder zwischen jeder anlauntenden (graphischen) Doppelkonsonanz CC.” Schmitt further notes that the position of the (inserted) schwa depended on the first consonant of the cluster: if the first consonant was a sibilant, then the schwa was inserted preceding the first consonant, while otherwise the schwa was inserted between the consonants. Godel (1975: 15-17) suggests that “all initial clusters were resolved by inserting [schwa],” before listing the various permissible word-final clusters and indicating that “all other final clusters have to be resolved by inserting [schwa] before the last consonant.” The following forms, culled from the extensive list of examples in Thomson (1989: 116-121), exhibit vowel epenthesis. Syllable breaks are indicated with a period, and Thomson’s division of the data into groups according to the number of consonants in the relevant cluster is retained. Note the different treatment of sibilant + consonant clusters, in that the epenthetic schwa is inserted before the cluster, not within the cluster. (1) Forms that exhibit vowel epenthesis (a) Clusters of two consonants nman>> ne.man ‘similar’, krap>> ke.rap ‘fire’, srel>> se.rel ‘to cut’, otn>>o.ten ‘foot’ BUT zgal>> ez.gal ‘to feel’, stapel>> es.ta.pel ‘to hasten’ (b) Clusters of three consonants xnlal >> xen.lal ‘to rejoice’, otnharel>> o.ten.ha.rel ‘to trample’ BUT ambcowt‘ iwn>> am.be.cow.t‘ iwn ‘purity’ (c) Clusters of four consonants cnndakan>> ce.nen.da.kan ‘birth’, bzskowt‘iwn>> be.zes.kow.t‘iwn ‘doctor’ (d) Clusters of five consonants trtnsiwn>> ter.ten.siwn ‘murmur’, anxndrol>> an.xend.rol ‘not demanding’ (e) Clusters of six consonants anxlçmtank‘>> an.xelç.me.tank‘ ‘lack of scruple’ 114 Marc Pierce The Journal of Indo-European Studies To account for these alternations, Schwink (1994: 289- 290) proposes the following system of rules:4 (2) Rules for Classical Armenian vowel epenthesis (a) Ø→ e/ C __ R’ (b) Ø→ e/ # __ {s,l,z}’C (c) Ø→ e/ # __ s’t (d) Ø→ e/ C’__ The problem with this rule system is that it makes some incorrect predictions (as Schwink himself indicates), e.g. Rule (2a) will produce forms like *anxelçemtank‘ ‘lack of scruple’, instead of the attested an.xelç.me.tank‘ The contrasts between forms like manawand ‘especially’, which lacks epenthesis, but baned ‘word’, which shows epenthesis, although the two forms represent identical phonological environments, are also troublesome5 Furthermore, while Schwink’s rules successfully account for the position of the inserted schwa in sibilant + stop clusters, exactly why the schwa is inserted before the cluster, instead of within it, remains unclear. As Schwink (1994: 291) points out, a number of the exceptions to his rules can be accounted for by treating some of these putative cases of vowel epenthesis as cases of vowel reduction, and he therefore postulates a rule of vowel reduction, by which underlyingly full vowels are reduced to schwas when unstressed. Such schwas may not be deleted if that would result in unsyllabified elements. Since these schwas are reduced surface versions of underlying full vowels, their distribution is not necessarily predictable, hence the seeming exceptions to Schwink’s rules.6 The most important aspect of Schwink’s work is his proposal that vowel epenthesis has been lexicalized (i.e. that the schwa was underlying) — a conclusion he reaches for two major reasons, namely (1) his analysis of the Classical Armenian data requires nearly the same rules as those proposed for Modern Western Armenian in Levin (1985), and 4Here R stands for ‘resonant’ and <’> following a segment indicates that the segment is as yet unsyllabified. 5This has to do with the distinction between loan words and native Armenian vocabulary, discussed more extensively below. 6As Schwink (1994) indicates, he was not the first to propose that vowels were reduced rather than deleted (cf. Winter 1962, for example), but the handbooks consistently refer to vowel deletion rather than to vowel reduction. Vowel Epenthesis vs. Schwa Lexicalization in Classical Armenian 115 Volume 35, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2007 (2) the treatment of loan words. Schwink (1994: 290) notes that his reaction to this discovery was mixed: “on the one hand, I felt I had reinvented the wheel, on the other hand, I was gratified that we reached essentially the same results independently…. [A] third reaction was one of suspicion about such an epenthesis rule being uploads/Societe et culture/ 06pierce-111-119.pdf

• Détails
• Publié le Dec 03, 2022
• Catégorie Society and Cultur...
• Langue French
• Taille du fichier 0.0863MB