Cover not available

Article published In: Diachronica
Vol. 35:4 (2018) ► pp.552–580

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Language contact and prosodic change in Slavic and Baltic

 | Leiden University
Published online: 17 January 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.16038.pro
Abstract
This paper discusses several Slavic and Baltic dialects which have undergone stress shifts as a result of language contact. Two types of change are discussed: (1) stress retractions from the final syllable onto the initial syllable of a prosodic word, and (2) the rise of fixed stress replacing earlier free stress. It is argued that in all cases discussed in the paper, contact with a language with fixed initial stress caused a stress shift. Examples from Croatian and Lithuanian demonstrate that pitch contours played an important role in these shifts. The results of the shifts are not always identical, but the underlying mechanism is the same in each of these cases: the lexical pitch contour of the donor language was imposed on the target language, thereby introducing constraints on the position of stress in the target language. It is argued that a similar mechanism operated in West Slavic, where languages with free stress introduced fixed stress on the initial or penultimate syllable due to contact with German and possibly Hungarian.
Zusammenfassung
In diesem Aufsatz werden verschiedene slawische und baltische Dialekte diskutiert, in denen Sprachkontakt Akzentverschiebungen verursacht hat. Zwei Arten von Veränderungen werden untersucht: (1) Akzentverschiebungen von der letzten Silbe auf die Anfangssilbe eines prosodischen Wortes und (2) die Festlegung des freien Akzents. Es wird die These vertreten, dass in den diskutierten Fällen Sprachkontakt mit einer Sprache mit festem Akzent eine Akzentverschiebung verursacht hat. Beispiele aus dem Kroatischen und Litauischen zeigen, dass Tonhöhenkonturen dabei eine wichtige Rolle gespielt haben. Die Auswirkungen der Verschiebungen sind nicht immer identisch, aber der zugrundeliegende Mechanismus ist jeweils der gleiche: die lexikalische Tonhöhenkontur der Quellsprache wurde in die Zielsprache eingeführt, was zur Folge hatte, dass die Lage des Akzents eingeschränkt wurde. Es wird dafür argumentiert, dass in den westslawischen Sprachen ein ähnlicher Mechanismus gewirkt hat, wobei aufgrund des Kontakts mit dem Deutschen und, möglicherweise, dem Ungarischen der ursprünglich freie Wortakzent auf die Anfangssilbe oder die vorletzte Silbe festgelegt wurde.
Résumé
Cette étude examine plusieurs dialectes slaves et baltes qui ont subi des changements d’accent sous l’influence du contact langagier. On y examine deux types de changements: (1) les déplacements de l’accent de la syllabe finale vers la syllabe initiale d’un mot prosodique, et (2) la fixation de l’accent libre. On fait valoir que, dans les cas examinés, le contact avec une langue à accent fixe a abouti à un déplacement de l’accent. Des exemples croates et lituaniens montrent que les contours toniques ont joué un rôle important dans ces changements. Les résultats des déplacements de l’accent ne sont pas toujours identiques, mais le mécanisme sous-jacent est le même dans chaque cas présenté: le contour tonique lexical de la langue source a été imposé à la langue cible, introduisant ainsi des contraintes sur la position de l’accent dans la langue cible. On propose qu’un mécanisme similaire a fonctionné en slave occidental, où les langues à accent libre ont introduit l’accent fixe sur la syllabe initiale ou sur la pénultième en raison du contact avec l’allemand et, probablement, le hongrois.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Proto-Slavic and Proto-East Baltic prosodic systems
  • 3.Stress shifts onto the initial syllable of the prosodic word
  • 4.The Zaonežje dialect of Russian
  • 5.The Valpovo dialect of Croatian
  • 6.The Žemaitian dialects of Lithuanian
  • 7.Stress retraction onto the initial syllable of the prosodic word
  • 8.The Kajkavian Podravian dialects of Croatian
  • 9.West Slavic
  • 10.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (87)
References
Aleksandravičius, Juozas. 1957. Kirtis ir priegaidė Kretingos tarmėje. Lietuvių kalbotyros klausimai 11. 97–107.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Kretingos tarmės žodynas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexander, Ronelle. 1993. Remarks on the evolution of South Slavic prosodic systems. In Robert A. Maguire & Alan Timberlake (eds.), American contributions to the Eleventh International Congress of Slavists, 181–201. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Altmann, Heidi. 2006. The perception and production of second language stress: A cross-linguistic experimental study. Newark, DE: University of Delaware dissertation. [URL] (September 2016).
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1990. Sravnitel’nyj sintaksis pričastij baltijskich jazykov. Vilnius: Mokslas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. On the development of the nominative object in East Baltic. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 2: Grammar and typology, 391–412. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 2009. The satem languages of the Indo-European northwest. First contacts? In Angela Marcantonio (ed.), The Indo-European language family: questions about its status (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 55), 1–31. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkočaitytė, Daiva. 2000. Kirčio atitraukimas pietų žemaičių raseiniškių tarmėje. Baltistica 34(2). 151–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bacevičiūtė, Rima, Audra Ivanauskienė, Asta Leskauskaitė & Edmundas Trumpa. 2004. Lietuvių kalbos tarmių chrestomatija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Balode, Laimute & Axel Holvoet. 2001. The Latvian language and its dialects. In Östen Dahl & Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.), Circum-Baltic languages. Volume 1: Past and present, 3–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarczuk, Leszek. 2000. Czy istnieją wpływy niemieckie w fonetyce czeskiej? In Henryk Wróbel (ed.), Studia z filologii słowiańskiej ofiarowane profesor Teresie Zofii Orloś, 47–56. Kraków: Wydawn. Uniwersitetu Jagiellońskiego.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, Tilman. 1995. Überlegungen zur Geschichte des festen Akzents im Westslavischen. In Uwe Junghans (ed.), Linguistische Beiträge zur Slawistik aus Deutschland und Österreich II1 (Wiener slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 37), 29–49. Wien: Gesellschaft zur Förderung slawistischer Studien.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Der alttschechische „Umlaut” – ein slavisch-deutsches Kontaktphänomen? In Ernst Hansack et al.. (eds.), Festschrift für Klaus Trost zum 65. Geburtstag, 19–27. München: Sagner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bulaxovskij, Leonid Arsenevič. 1983. Izbrannye trudy v pjati tomax. Tom pjatyj: slavjanskaja akcentologija. Kiev: Izdatel’stvo “Naukova dumka”.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ding, Picus Sizhi. 2006. A typological study of tonal systems of Japanese and Prinmi: Towards a definition of pitch-accent languages. Journal of Universal Language 71. 1‒35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Endzelin, Jan. 1922. Lettische Grammatik. Riga: Kommissionsverlag A. Gulbis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fancev, Franjo. 1907. Beiträge zur serbokroatischen Dialektologie. Der kaj-Dialekt von Virje, mit Berücksichtigung der Dialekte Podravina’s (Koprivnica-Pitomača). Archiv für slavische Philologie 291. 305–389.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finka, Božidar & Antun Šojat. 1981. Valpovo (OLA 41). In Pavle Ivić (ed.), Fonološki opisi srpskohrvatskih/hrvatskosrpskih, slovenačkih i makedonskih govora obuhvaćenih opšteslovenskim lingvističkim atlasom, 387–392. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Girdenis, Aleksas. 1967. Mažeikių tarmės priegaidžių fonetinės ypatybės. Kalbotyra 151. 31–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1971. Mažeikių tarmės fonologinės sistemos apžvalga. Baltistica 7(1). 21–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. Opyt morfonologičeskoj interpretacii severožemajtskoj attrakcii udarenija. Baltistica 18(2). 179–188.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Girdenis, Aleksas & Albertas Rosinas. 1974. Review of Grinaveckis 1973. Baltistica 10(2). 187–207.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grinaveckis, Vladas. 1973. Žemaičių tarmių istorija (fonetika). Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guzik, Czesław & Jan Leśnicki. 2003. Development of rural settlement in Podhale. Prace geograficzne 1121. 161–172.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamm, Josip. 1936. Kriza savremene akcentologije. Glasnik Jugoslovenskog profesorskog društva 161. 437–443.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1949. Štokavština donje Podravine. Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 275(2). 5–70.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. How old is Standard Average European? Language Sciences 20(3). 271–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Martin Haspelmath et al.. (eds.), Language typology and language universals. Volume 21 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20/2). 1492‒1510. Berlin & New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1905. Die Indogermanen. Ihre Verbreitung, ihre Urheimat, ihre Kultur. Erster Band. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 2015. Prosody and dialectology of tonal shifts in Lithuanian and their implications. In Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to Baltic linguistics, 111‒137. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 2003. From phrase-final to post-initial accent. In Paula Fikkert & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Development in prosodic systems, 249–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 231. 225–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences 311. 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivić, Pavle. 1951–1952. Review of Hamm 1949. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 291. 252–259.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1959. Die Hierarchie der prosodischen Phänomene im serbokroatischen Sprachraum. Phonetika 31. 23–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1961–1962a. Prilog rekonstrukciji predmigracione dijalekatske slike srpskohrvatske jezičke oblasti. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 4–5. 117–130.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1961–1962b. Broj prozodijskih mogućnosti u reči kao karakteristika fonoloških sistema slovenskih jezika. Južnoslovenski filolog 251. 75–113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Srpskohrvatski dijalekti: njihova struktura i razvoj. Sremski Karlovci & Novi Sad: Izd. knjižarica Zorana Stojanovića.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ivšić, Stjepan. 1911. Prilog za slavenski akcenat. Rad Jugoslavenske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti 1871. 133–207.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kijak, Anna. 2009. How stressful is L2 stress? A cross-linguistic study of L2 perception and production of metrical systems. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kingston, John. 2005. The phonetics of Athabaskan tonogenesis. In Sharon Hargus & Keren Rice (eds.), Athabaskan prosody, 137–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klaić, Adolf Bratoljub. 1936. O podravskom akcentu i kvantitetu. Južnoslovenski filolog 151. 181–183.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Bizovačko narječje. Bizovac: Matica hrvatska.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klemensiewicz, Zenon. 2002. Historia języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kortlandt, Frederik. 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 16). Amsterdam & New York, NY: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010a. Glottalization and tonogenesis in Athabaskan, Balto-Slavic and Germanic. Suvremena lingvistika 691. 37–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. Balto-Slavic accentuation revisited. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch 561. 61–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Selected writings on Slavic and general linguistics (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 39). Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langston, Keith. 2011. Tone Reversal in Kajkavian Dialects of Croatian. In Tijmen Pronk & Rick Derksen (eds.), Accent matters: Papers on Balto-Slavic accentology. (Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 37), 263–276. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leer, Jeff. 1999. Tonogenesis in Athabaskan. In Shikegi Kaji (ed.), Cross-linguistic studies of tonal phenomena. Tonogenesis, typology and related topics, 37‒66. Tokyo: ILCAA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz. 1923. De la stabilisation de l’accent dans les langues slaves de l’Ouest. Revue des études slaves 3(3–4). 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lončarić, Mijo. 1977. Jagnjedovački govor (S osvrtom na pitanje kajkavskoga podravskoga dijalekta). Hrvatski dijalektološki zbornik 41. 179–262.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Stabilizacija naglaska u kajkavštini. In Angelika Lauhus & Bodo Zelinsky (eds.), Slavistiche Forschungen. In memoriam Reinhold Olesch, 111‒117. Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mucke, Karl Ernst. 1965. Historische und vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der niedersorbischen (niederlausitzisch-wendischen) Sprache. Unveränderterter Nachdruck der Originalausgabe 1891. Leipzig: Zentral-Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murinienė, Lina. 2005. Rytinių šiaurės žemaičių fonologija: vokalizmas ir prozodija. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murinienė, Lina & Aleksas Girdenis. 2001. Kirčio atitraukimo į proklitiką savitumai rytinėje šiaurės zemaičių tarmėje. Baltistica 36(1). 87–102.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Neweklowsky, Gerhard. 1978. Die kroatischen Dialekte des Burgenlandes und der angrenzenden Gebiete. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newerkla, Stefan Michael. 2011. Sprachkontakte Deutsch – Tschechisch – Slowakisch. Frankfurt a.M: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olander, Thomas. 2009. Balto-Slavic accentual mobility. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pabrėža, Juozas. 1981. Kirčio atitraukimo svyravimai šiaurės žemaičių tarmėje. Kalbotyra 32(1). 66–73.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petit, Daniel. 2010. Untersuchungen zu den baltischen Sprachen. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petřík, Stanislav. 1937–1938. Spôsoby stredoslovenského zdôrazňovania prízvukom. Slovenská reč 6(1–2). 25–29. Slovenská reč 6(3–4). 72–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polański, Kazimierz. 2009. Gramatyka języka połabskiego. Electronic publication at [URL] (September 2016.).
Pronk, Tijmen. 2012. Indo-European long vowels and Balto-Slavic accentuation. Baltistica 47(2). 205–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Klaićev opis akcentuacije valpovačkoga podravskog govora. Rasprave 40(2). 479–495.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Curonian accentuation. In Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen et al.. (eds.), Usque ad Radices: Indo-European Studies in Honour of Birgit Anette Olsen, 659–669. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramovš, Fran. 1935. Historična gramatika slovenskega jezika VII. Dialekti. Ljubljana: Učiteljska tiskarna.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ratliff, Martha. 2015. Tonoexodus, tonogenesis, and tone change. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 245‒261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rejzek, Jiří. 2003. Ještě k fonetickým vlivům staré němčiny na starou češtinu. Bohemistyka 31. 251–264.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rinkevičius, Vytautas. 2013. Žemaitian accent retraction as a typological parallel to Olander’s Mobility Law. Handout at the International Workshop on Balto-Slavic Accentology 9, Pula, Croatia.
Romportl, Milan. 1958. Zur Akzentstabilisierung in den westslawischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 31. 8–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph. 1992. Accentual change and language contact: Comparative survey and a case study of early northern Europe. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Salys, Antanas. 1992. Raštai IV: Lietuvių kalbos tarmės. Roma: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademija.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sekereš, Stjepan. 1974. Govor slavonske Podravine I. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 17(2). 125–166.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1975. Govor slavonske Podravine II. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 18(1). 185–221.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Akcenatske zone slavonskog dijalekta. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 20(2). 179–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stang, Christian. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ter-Avanesova, Aleksandra Valer’evna. 1989. Ob odnoj slavjanskoj akcentnoj innovacii. In Andrej A. Zaliznjak et al.. (eds.), Slavjanskoe i balkanskoe jazykoznanie: prosodija, 216–250. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. 2003. Contact as a source of language change. In Richard D. Janda & Brian D. Joseph (eds.), A handbook of historical linguistics, 687–712. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Terence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Topolińska, Zuzanna. 1961. Z historii akcentu polskiego od wieku XVI do dziś. Wrocław: Ossolineum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turska, Halina. 1950. Zagadnienie miejsca akcentu w języku polskim. Pamiętnik literacki 41/2. 434–468.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Varga, László. 1983. Hungarian sentence prosody: An outline. Folia Linguistica 171. 117–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Rhythmic stress alternation in Hungarian. The Even Yearbook 11. 233–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1994. Linguistic reconstruction in the context of European prehistory. Transactions of the Philological Society 92(2). 215‒284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinkevičius, Zigmas. 1966. Lietuvių dialektologija. Lyginamoji tarmių fonetika ir morfologija. Vilnius: Mintis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Pronk, Tijmen
2025. Tonogenesis and tone renewal in Baltic and Slavic languages. Diachronica 42:3-4 ► pp. 428 ff. DOI logo
Rinkevičius, Vytautas
2021. The Žemaitian Accent Retraction as a Typological Parallel to Olander’s Mobility Law. Scando-Slavica 67:2 ► pp. 269 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue