Vowel-Zero Alternations in Albanian and Morphophonological Contact

1. Vowel-Zero Alternations in Albanian and Morphophonological Contact Andrew Dombrowski

2. Introduction • Slavic + Geg Albanian both have vowel-zero alternations in inflection, due to independent processes of syncope. • Some Geg dialects in contact with Slavic extend vowel-zero alternations to include nouns ending in –ull, -ur, -urr. • In some instances, the alternating vowel in Geg is shifted to match corresponding Slavic jer reflex.

3. Introduction • Goals of this paper: • argue that the extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg is due to Slavic influence • demonstrate that this cannot be accounted for in terms of direct Slavic > Albanian grammatical transfer • explore ramifications of this for modeling phonological contact

4. Introduction • Outline: • Vowel-zero alternations in Geg • Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic • Extension of alternations in Geg • Analysis • Repercussions

5. Vowel-zero alternations in Geg • /ə/ > Ø except when conflicts with phonotactics • note: schwa is always unstressed • Can be accounted for phonologically • Sample and sketch account taken from Luznia e Dibrës, a central Geg dialect near Debar along Albania-Macedonia border

6. Vowel-zero alternations in Geg • Schwa deleted in Luznia e Dibrës • See handout; key examples below

7. Vowel-zero alternations in Geg • Schwa preservation in Luznia e Dibrës • See handout; key examples below

8. Vowel-zero alternations in Geg • Descriptive generalizations • Complex onsets are tolerated except for CRCV syllables; CNCV is permitted. • Rising sonority codas are not permitted. • Codas of two sonorants are not permitted. • Sketch OT account • Constraints: Sonority, OCP-son, *CrC, *ə • See handout for details

9. Vowel-zero alternations in Geg • Sketch OT account is not complete • Luznia e Dibrës dialect description does not have a complete lexicon; above account is consistent with the lexicon given. • Vowel-zero alternations in Luznia e Dibrës can be captured straightforwardly in an OT model. • With the exception of morphemes like për, the OT model is agnostic as to whether schwa is present in the UR.

10. Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic • Slavic vowel-zero alternations are older and much more complicated than Geg. • See handout for outline of standard Macedonian vowel-zero alternations. • Fairly representative of Slavic dialects with which Geg is in contact. • Much lexical variation.

11. Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic • Key examples from standard Macedonian: • Adjectives in –en: • gladen ‘hungry’ ~ gladniot ~ gladna • zelen ‘green’ ~ zeleniot ~ zelena • Nouns in -ok: • dobitok ‘livestock’ ~ dobici • početok ‘start’ ~ početoci • Nouns in –ol: • jazol ‘knot’ ~ jazli • sokol ‘falcon’ ~ sokoli / sokli

12. Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic • Analysis of Geg does not extend. • Several possible approaches (cf. study of vowel-zero alternations in Russian): • Abstract jer vowels with rules for deletion (Lightner 1965, Rubach 1986); requires lexical specifcation • Government Phonology ‘translation’ of this (Scheer 2005) • Treat as synchronic vowel insertion with morphological conditioning of resulting alternations (Darden 1989) • Treat jer vowels as morphological constituents (Chew 2000)

13. Vowel-zero alternations in Slavic • Cannot be treated in terms of ‘pure’ phonology • Reference must be made to the lexicon • Classical generative approach involves lexical specification (/dobit+ъk-ъ/ vs. /počet+ok-ъ/; /jazъl-ъ/ vs. /sokol-ъ/) • Alternative approaches involve morphological specification

14. Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg • Extension to nouns ending in (idiosyncratically) unstressed –ull, -ur, -urr • Patterns of behavior: (1) Preservation without alternation (2) /u/ > /ə/; introduction of alternation in paradigms (3) Preservation of /u/, introduction of alternation in paradigms

15. Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg • (1) - /u/ preserved, no alternations • Plava and Gucia in Montenegro, Kastrati, Hoti, Kelmendi, Peshteri in the Sandžak region of southern Serbia, and Reç-e-Dardhës e Dibrës near Debar. • Data from Kastrati dialect

16. Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg • (2) - /u/ > /ə/; introduction of alternation in paradigms • Hasi, Qyteza e Kaçanikut, Shala e Bajgorës, Gjakova, Tuhini i Kërçovës, Morava e Epërme, Vila-e-Kalisit të Lumës. • Data from Hasi dialect

17. Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg • (3) - /u/ preserved, introduction of alternation in paradigms • Mirdita, in Gryka e Madhe e Dibrës, Ana e Malit, the Debar city dialect, Luznia e Dibrës, Karadak, and Puka • Data from Puka dialect

18. Extension of vowel-zero alternations in Geg • Fourth pattern: in Opoja, /u/ > /o/ in these nouns, mirroring jer reflexes in neighboring Gora.

19. Opoja • Actually, in Opoja, [ə]>[o]… • Nominal declension:

20. Opoja • Adjectival declension compared to general Geg:

21. Opoja • Changes in adjectival declension compared to other Geg dialects: • (1) /o/ corresponding to /u/ • Possible intermediate stage: /u/ > /ə/ > /o/, but this implies intermediate forms like *i terën, which are not attested • (2) generalization of feminine ending –e • Result: similar to template in Macedonian

22. Opoja • Adjectival declension in Opoja compared to Macedonian

23. Analysis • Degree of isomorphism between Opoja and neighboring Slavic strongly suggests contact-driven explanation • On u > ə dialects: • All in Kosovo or vicinity (Hasi is between Kukës and Kosovo; Vila-e-Kalisit të Lumës is in vicinity of Kukës, but economic ties have historically been with Kosovo) • This correlates strongly with Slavic dialects where ъ, ь > ə, suggesting that this pattern is structurally very similar to Opoja

24. Analysis • On dialects with preserved /u/ and innovated alternations: • Geographical position: on periphery of /u/ > /ə/ zones, ranging from Montenegro in the NW (Ana e Malit) to Debar in the south to Karadaku in the E. • Suggests that this is not under Slavic influence, but instead is diffusion within Albanian

25. Analysis • Stages: • (1) Albanian dialects in and around southern Kosovo shift /u/ in endings –ull, -ur, -urr to ə under influence from neighboring Prizren-Timok dialects of Serbian where jers> ə. • (2) Opoja developments (can be seen as subset of stage (1) with subsequent shift due to neighboring Gora, except for participles). • (3) Spread of vowel-zero alternations to neighboring dialects without /u/ > /ə/ shift

26. Analysis • Things to account for… • (1) equation of (one) Slavic alternating vowel with Albanian alternating vowel. • Opoja is clearest example of this as an overt change, but is arguably implicit in u > ə dialects. • (2) extension of alternations to nouns ending in –ull, -ur, -urr. • (3) subsequent spread of alternations in neighboring Albanian dialects without u > ə shift

27. Analysis • Can (1) and (2) be analyzed as direct borrowing of Slavic grammar by Albanian? • (1): probably not. If Slavic alternating vowels are underlying, specification of quality is nowhere in the grammar. • (2): also probably not. Slavic vowel-zero alternations involve lexical specification, and the relevant lexemes + morphemes are not borrowed.

28. Analysis • Suggestion: • Some reorganization seems to be happening at an intermediate interface stage between the two languages • An interlanguage? Similar on first glance, but an interlanguage analysis might make overly strong claims re: sociolinguistic particulars. Also, this would only account for reanalysis of Slavic, not its impact in Albanian. • Interface-based approach might be an interesting prism to look at questions structural compatibility in borrowing.

29. Analysis • Sample implementation 1: the Opoja shift (ə > o) stage A: <o~Ø>[+Slavic], <ə~Ø>[+Albanian] change: <o~Ø>[+Slavic]  [+Albanian] stage B: <o~Ø>[+Slavic, +Albanian] • Elements in stage A reflect generalizations made by speakers of Albanian, and elements in [brackets] are metadata. • Key point: a generalization <G>[+Slavic] does not have to actually be completely true of Slavic; it should be deducible from the Slavic evidence but can be a reanalysis.

30. Analysis • Sample implementation 2: spread of alternations without u > ə between dialects D1 and D2 • possibility (a): reanalysis of D1 stage A: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][-alternations]>[+D1] <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2] change: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2]  [+D1] stage B: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D1, +D2] • In this analysis, D1 speakers reanalyze D2 such that the only salient feature of D2 is the presence of alternations in the marked nouns.

31. Analysis • Sample implementation 2: spread of alternations without u > ə between dialects D1 and D2 • possibility (b): partial implementation stage A: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][-alternations]>[+D1] <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2] <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+ u > ə]>[+D2] change: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D2]  [+D1] stage B: <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+alternations]>[+D1, +D2] <[-ull, -ur, -urr][+ u > ə]>[+D2] • D1 only partially reassign tags from D2

32. Analysis • The distinction made in sample implementation 2 between reanalysis and partial implementation of shift might be useful in other instances. • How to characterize the mechanism of tag reassignment, and what constraints might be involved? • Can the concept of grammatical interface be productively applied to other situations?