Andrew Dombrowski

Home ❀

Cokan’e and the Velar Palatalizations in the Old Novgorod Dialect

Presented September 2006 at the Slavic Linguistics Society

Download outline as pdf.

I. Introduction

salient isoglosses that possibly reflect archaisms:

anomalous reflexes of *tort groups
masculine nominative singular ending –e
apparently unpalatalized velars in environments for 2nd regressive + progressive palatalization of velars

early East Slavic dialectal feature of cokan’e

"the non-differentation of the affricates č and c" (Borkovskij 2004: 84)
wide geographical distribution

purposes of the presentation:

to examine the relevance of cokan’e for theories attempting to account for the palatalization of velars or lack thereof in the Old Novgorod dialect,
to discuss the relevance of the above question for the study of the Old Novgorod dialect as a whole,
in the light of the previous points, to explore issues relating to early dialect divisions within (East) Slavic.

II. Cokan’e and the Velar Palatalizations

evidence that has been taken to suggest the lack of the 2nd regressive and/or progressive palatalization:

kěle < *kail- "whole," xěr- "gray," and vьxь "all."

two major approaches:

explain velars as archaisms (Zaliznjak 1981: 64)
posit that the palatalizations did take place + the unpalatalized velars may be explained differently

Vermeer: the monophthongization of diphthongs and the palatalizations reached the extreme north of Russia in the opposite order from the rest of Slavic (Vermeer 2000)
Sjöberg: positing of an early dialectal sound change /c/ > /t’/ > /k’/ (Birnbaum 1991: 195-197).

cokan’e

is cokan’e a conservative or an innovative phenomenon?
implications tying cokan’e and the velar palatalizations:

(1a) {[K2 /\ KPROG] > [cokan’e = innovative]}
A > B
*(1b) *{[cokan’e = innovative] > [K2 /\ KPROG]}
*B > A
but (1c) {[cokan’e = innovative] > [K2 \/ KPROG]}
(2a) {[~K2 /\ ~KPROG] > [cokan’e = conservative]}
~A > ~B
(2b) {[cokan’e = conservative] > [~K2 /\ ~KPROG]}
~B > ~A

conclusion: if the velar palatalizations are reconstructed for the Old Novgorod dialect zone in a way so that /č/ (< *k / _Vf, *tj, *kti) is the only voiceless affricate in the phonemic inventory, then cokan’e is a conservative phenomenon. If the velar palatalizations are reconstructed so that a phonemic distinction between voiceless affricates existed in the Old Novgorod dialect, then cokan’e is an innovative phenomenon.

III. The relevance of cokan’e for the study of the Old Novgorod dialect

close relationship between cokan’e and velar palatalizations; little independent data available
desirability of a general timeline of the Old Novgorod dialect

IV. Divergence of the Old Novgorod Dialect

major isoglosses:

Old Novgorod dialect area:

the presence of what appear to be unpalatalized velars in the environments for the second regressive and the progressive palatalizations
cokan’e
the presence of anomalous reflexes in *tort groups

срочька (2х), срочькъ, погро[д](ье)
the spelling ъро, ъло
modern forms from the roots *bolt- and *berz:

балэ́нья, балы́нья «болотистое место», блонь, бло́нье «низкое место», брезне́ц «берёза» (Zaliznjak 1995: 35)

the o-stem nominative singular ending –e

explanation 1: a borrowing of the o-stem vocative singular ending to avoid formal neutralization of the nominative / accusative singular ending (Birnbaum 1991: 203-205)
explanation 2: survival of the Indo-European casus generalis (Ivanov 1985)
explanation 3: a generalization of the phonetically regular reflex of the Indo-European jo-stem nominative singular ending (Vermeer 1991: 285 286)

the early generalization of –ě as the only a-stem genitive singular ending.

Pskov

*tl and *dl > /kl/ and /gl/

aspect A: preservation of the cluster, aspect B: dental stop > velar stop
/k/ and /g/ not inserted before all /l/
non-morphologically motivated

t *tj, *dj, *sj, and *zj > [k’], [g’], [x’], and [γ] respectively

the development of *tj and *dj probably necessitates positing an intermediate step of [t’] and [d’] (Zaliznjak 1995: 39)
reliance on contemporary dialectal data

šokan’e

V. Conclusions

importance of isoglosses (4) and (7)
pravostočnoslavjanskij (proto-East Slavic) ~ obščevostočnoslavjanskij (common East Slavic) distinction (Krys’ko 1998: 374)
it is probable that the isoglosses separating the Novgorod-Pskov dialects from the rest of East Slavic date at least to the differentiation of West Slavi from non-West Slavic.

References

Birnbaum, Henrik. 1991. "Reflections on the Language of Medieval Novgorod." Russian Linguistics 15: 195 – 215.

Borkovskij, V. I. and P. S. Kuznecov. 2004. Istoričeskaja grammatika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: URSS.

Ivanov, Vjacheslav V. 1985. "Otraženie indoevropejskogo casus indefinitus v drevnenovgorodskom dialekte." Russian Linguistics 9: 327 – 334.

Krys’ko, V. B. 1998. "Drevnij novgorodsko-pskovskij dialekt na obščeslavjanskom fone." In Trubačev, O, N. ed. Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: XII mezhdunarodnyj s"ezd slavistov, Krakov. Moskva: Nauka: 367-380.

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lunt, Horace. 1981. The Progressive Palatalization of Common Slavic. Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

Nikolaev, S. L. 1986. "Sledy osobennostej vostočnoslavjanskix plemennyx dialektov v sovremennyx velikorusskix govorax. 1. Kriviči." Balto-slavjanskie issledovanija 1986: 115-154.

Vermeer, Willem. 1991. "The Mysterious North Russian Nominative Singular Ending –e and the Problem of the Reflex of Indo-European *-os in Slavic." Die Welt der Slaven 36: 271 – 295.

Vermeer, Willem. 1994. "On explaining why the Early North Russian nominative singular in –e does not palatalize stem final velars." Russian Linguistics 18: 145 157.

Vermeer, Willem. 2000. "On the status of the earliest Russian isogloss: four untenable and three questionable reasons for separating the progressive and the second regressive palatalization of Common Slavic." Russian Linguistics, 24: 5 – 29.

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1981. "K istoričeskoj fonetike drevnenovgorodskogo dialekta." Baltoslavjanskie issledovanija 1981: 61-80.

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1991. "Berestjanye gramoty pered licom tradicionnyx postulatov slavistiki i vice versa." Russian Linguistics 15: 217 – 245.

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1995. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Moskva: Škola "jazyki russkoj kul’tury."

Zaliznjak, A. A. 2004. Drevnenovgorodskij dialekt. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.

Živov, V. 1984. "Pravila i proiznošenie v russkom cerkovnoslavjanskom pravopisanii XI - XIII veka." Russian Linguistics 8, 251-293.