The Glottalic Theory: Survey and Synthesis (Journal of Indo-European Studies, Monograph No. 10)

The Glottalic Theory Survey and Synthesis

Joseph C. Salmons Purdue University

Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series Number 10

Institute eor the Study oe Man 6861 Elm St., Suite 4H McLean, Virginia 22101

ISBN 941694-40-2

Copyright©, Institute for the Study of Man 1993

Institute for the Study of Man 6861 Elm Street, Suite 4H McLean, Virginia 22101 Tel: (703) 442-8010 Fax: (703) 847-9524

To Monica because PIE obstruents mean so much to you

Table of contents Preface

vii

1. Introduction

1

2. The Prehistory of the Glottalic Theory

6

3. The Glottalic Theory 3.1 Classic Statements of the Theory 3.2 Critical Responses 3.3 Refinements & Additional Variants

15 19 26

4. The Implications of the G10ttalic Theory 4.1 Refonnulating Some Laws of IE 4.2 Dialectal Developments 4.3 Distant Genetic Relationships

34 40

46

5. Key Issues and Some Middle Ground 5.1 The Traditional P1ain Voiced Series 5.2 The TraditionaI Voiced Aspirate Series 5.3 The Chronological Solution

51 58 63

6. On the Role of Typology in Reconstruction 6.1 Theoretical Issues 6.2 Phonetics & Phonology in Reconstruction 6.3 A Note on Linguistic Methodology

7. Summary, conclusion, and outlook

66 73 75

77

Bibliography of work on the Glottalic Theory 79

Preface This essay was originally conceived in the summer of 1989 as a relatively short article, first showing that some middle ground was developing concerning a handful of the central questions in the debate raging about PIE obstruents and, second trying to synthesize some of the middle ground into a less controversial view of PIE obstruents. It was also intended to include a very brief discussion of the role of typology in linguistic reconstruction. During the fall of 1989, as I reread much of the literature on the Glottalic Theory and began to read new work, some just appearing, it became increasingly clear that a longer work introducing the Glottalic Theory to a broader audience was sorely needed. Moreover, given the partisan character of much of the debate, it seemed that a survey from a relatively neutral corner might be useful. Mter discussion with and encouragement from Edgar Polome that such a project would indeed be worthwhile, I began to expand the original piece into the present monograph. In a number of ways, F.O. Lindeman's 1987 Introduction 10 the Laryngeal Theory served as a model, since it seeks to introduce a complex and controversial fjeld within Indo-European stodies, and does so, I think, clearly and concisely. I have tried here to keep the discussion accessible to an even broader audience than Lindeman's book by providing English translations of quotes from other languages, by defining terms used primarily within Indo-European studies, and by providing relevant tables and figures. Still, the book does assurne a basic knowledge of historical linguistics, Indo-European and basic background in phonology. I wish to thank a number of people for comments and discussion on this issue, especially but not only the following: lulie Bellquist, Bridget Drinka, Paul Hopper, Greg Humpa, Greg Iverson, Monica Macaulay, Alexis Manaster-Ramer, Dan Nützei, Fred Schwink, and as always, I owe Edgar Polome special thanks. In the Spring of 1990 I taught a seminar on Indo-European and Linguistic Reconstruction during which much of the bulk of a ftrst draft of this manuscript was written. The stodents in that seminar provided an audience for working out and testing formulations of a number of the arguments and interpretations presented here. Any and all mistakes of fact or interpretation throughout this work are my responsibility alone. I.S. Lafayette, IN

-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I

Chapter 1 Introduction So not everything has been done yet with accounting for the Indo-European sound system. (So ist also mit dem Ansatz der idg. GrundJaute noch nicht alles erledigt)

-Hennann Hirt on PIE obstruents (1927:220) In the early 1970s, a direct attack began on traditional reconstructions of the Proto-Indo-European obstruent system. This assault struck at the heart of not only comparative Indo-European linguistics, but also at the heart of historicallinguistics itself. It assailed the very core of the most studied proto-language, namely the obstruent system, as it had been reconstructed using our most basic tool, the comparative method. In this way the debate raised, directly and indirectly, questions about the status of the very method of reconstruction itself. As Watkins has recently written (1989:783), "the Comparative Method is one of the most powerful theories about human language that has ever been proposed and the one most consistently validated and verified over the longest period of time." Anything, therefore, that might require reevaluation of the role of the comparative method demands the most careful consideration from historical linguists-and indeed, probably by alllinguists. The first articles dealing directly with what has come to be known as the "Glottalic Theory" appeared slightly over 15 years ago. In the short time since, a substantial and often bewildering litemture has grown up for and against many different versions of this set of hypotheses about PIE and about linguistic reconstruction. The importance of this work reaches, however, far beyond the problem of PIE obstruents. The debate about various reconstructions of PIE obstruents is simply the clearest and best-known example of the application of typologica1 considerations 10 reconstructing proto-Ianguages; that is, the development of a new corroborative principle for reconstruction on the order of economy, parsimony, and naturalness. These issues reach still farther, namely to a greatly increased role for phonetic considerations in linguistic reconstruction, firing up an old debate between abstractionist and realist approaches. In spite of the importance of these issues for historicallinguistics, no full-length introduction to the topic exists, as Lehmann (1989:269) has recently noted. I hope this small volume can be of sorne help as a state-of-the-art report and can also help distill some of the most irnportant issues which underlie the current debates. I

l

2

1HE GI..01TAIlC 1HEORY

undertake this project without any overriding ideological bent about the Glottalic 1beory itself, although I certainly cannot claim the same about the theory of language change or linguistic reconstruction. In this volume, I understand the name "Glottalic Theory" as referring to the array of attempts to reconstruct PIE obstruents incorporating typological evidence as a control on comparative and intemal reconstruction. The Glottalic Theory is, in that way, not strictly limited 10 the positing of a glottalic series for the traditional plain voiced series, although that is certainly central to almost every prominent proposal in the liteJ'3ture and is where the theory's name comes from. At this juncture, a few words are needed about the definition of 'glottalic', Le., consonants produced with a glottalic airstream mechanism. 1 The two most common types are ejectives and implosives. The former are produced "by raising the larynx with the glottis closed; with a constriction in the oral cavity, air is compressed in the space enclosed between the oral constriction and the glottal closure. The oral occlusion or constriction is subsequently released with outward airflow" (Maddieson 1984:99). Implosives differ in having a lowered larynx and an inward flow of air on release of the oral closure. Ejectives are overwhelming voiceless and implosive voiced. Preglottalized and laryngealized consonants also involve glottalic constriction, but differ in that the glottalic airstream mechanism is not the primary airstream initiator (again, Maddieson 1984:99). Tbe same motives that lead to positing a glottalic series for Proto-Indo-European also lead to the reinterpretation of at least one other equally important issue, the status of the traditional voiced aspirate series. In asense, all reconstructions of PIE obstruents put forth since 1973 must be understood in the context of the Glottalic Theory, even if they are not part of it. This extends 10 adjustments made 10 the traditional system in order 10 save it from the glottalic onslaughl While these are not, strictly speaking, part of the Glottalic Tbeory, I think we have 10 see them as falling within the confines of the subject matter of this volume. The present discussion contains relatively little not found in previous work, although I have sougbt to update and supplement arguments and data in line with as many recent publications in the field as possible. It seems useful especially for those not directly involved in these debates to draw the pieces together in a more coherent and less controversial way than earlier research bas. This is in line with the development of the field: the Glottalic Theory is maturing 10 the point that we can set about the task of sorting and sifting through the many varied views to start presenting the most coherent and plausible view of PIE obstruents, a necessary step if the Glottalic Theory is indeed to become a standard paradigm. A number of specialists a1ready grant it this status, most notably perhaps Gamkrelidze (1987:57), but also Bomhard (1988), at least on the matter ofpositing a glottalic series for the 1I follow here primarily Maddieson's (1984) chapter on glottalic and laryngealized consonants, but Tefer the reader to Greenberg (1970) and Catford (1988) as weIl.

INfRODucnON

3

traditional plain voiced series. Collinge (1985:265) is more reserved: "probably more Indo-Europeanists currently welcome some version of the 'new look' (in a spirit of relief) than reject it altogether", cf. also Mayrhofer (1983:152).2 On the other band, Garrett (1991:803) describes the Glottalic Theory as having been "an exciting proposal but perhaps ... one whose time has come and gone."3 Much synthesis and compromise has already appeared in the scholarly literature and most points of view with regard 10 Indo-European obstruents look much closer in 1991 than they did, say, ten years ago. Most of the key steps 10ward a new consensus on this important problem (not 10 mention the theoretical implications for historicallinguistics) have, however, been published in widely scattered sources that many students and nonspecialists might not be familiar with. Even cursory treatment of the Glottalic Theory was hard 10 fmd in bandbooks on historical1inguistics weil into the 19808. although that situation has generally changed over the last five or so years. EarIy in that first stage, when the theory was still in its infancy, a standard work such as Bynon (1977) did not mention it. It remains possible 10 this day 10 find works overlooking the Glottalic Theory. Anttila (1989) does not deal with it directly in bis compendious introduction to comparative linguistics, although he notes it in passing. He does refer 10 Dunkel's attack on the Glottalic Theory, calling typological approaches "seriously misguided", but this apparently is largely in reference to syntactic and not phonological work. Hock, in another recent and lengthy introduction 10 comparative linguistics (1986) does treat the Glottalic Theory at some length, but the discussion is not without problems. Until recently, this lack of attention extended even 10 introductions 10 IndoEuropean linguistics. Reflective of how quickly the theory has found a place in the handbooks is this case: Baldi (1983) essentially ignores the Glottalic Theory in his Introduction, but more recently (1981:46-49) gives it a relatively detailed and a sympathetic treatment. Haudry (1984:10-11) does accept a glottalic view of PIE obstruents, without ado. He simply notes the "absence" of *b and that "this is why one today considers the corresponding series is not 10 be reconstructed as voiced but as a glottalized series .... " It is getting rarer, but one does still encounter articles treating PIE obstruents or closely related issues without any mention of the Glottalic Theory at alt. Halle & Bromberger (1989), for instance, deal at some length with Grimm's Law (the Germanie or First Sound Shift), but make no mention of the current alternative analyses. They describe the nineteenth century version of the Indo-European protolanguage as "reconstructed in a surprisingly convincing way" (1989:61) and, on the same page, go so far as to call Grimm's Law "surely one of the most securely 2collinge's summary aptly describes the spirit in which I began this project. 3This comment seems, however, to be in part directed at the faiIure of the contributions to Vennemann (1989a) to move the theory substantially beyond the stage it had aIready reached before that volume appeared.

1HE GIDITAUC 1HEORY 'sound lawS."'4 To take a another example, Oavenport & Staun 1IIiIft'"exl)liciUy address the Glottalic Theory in their article on the Germanie _ but they da employ the notion of the traditional Media Aspiratae as .. illUJ~1h pace of progress in incorporating the Glottalic Theory into general Unguistics and sometimes even into handbooks on Indo-European reflects aatutal pace of things. but it also clearly accentuates the need for an accessible inuoduction to the field. Ouring the preparation of this manuscript, the theory has begun 10 reach a broader audience, in particular by way of Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's 1990 article in Scientific American. Let us now turn to abrief overview of the book and its organization. Chapter 2 treats the historical continuity of views on PIE obstruents, something which has been overlooked 10 a certain extent. By that I mean not only the often-cited works by Jakobson, Martinet and others, which have come to be seen as the precursors of the Glottalic Theory, but also other long-standing criticisms of what is considered the traditional reconstruction. I argue that the current disagreement over the nature of PIE obstruents represents a continuation and an escalation of discussions reaching back to the early twentieth century. This takes nothing away from the import of those who developed the Glottalic Theory, but rather it is intended 10 show the natural evolution of these views. Tbe seminal wodes ofthe early 1970s are laid out in Chapter 3, briefly compared and contrasted, and then put into the context of the major critiques. Refmements and adjustments to the theory and the rise of additional variants are then sketched. Chapter 4 is devoted to two widely explored implications of the Glottalic Theory, frrst. the reformulation of some important Indo-European phonological and morphophonemic roles to reflect a glottalic reconstruction, and second, questions of distant genetic relationships between Indo-European and other phyla, especially AfroAsiatic and Caucasian. Chapter 5 looks at the two most central issues of the competing reconstructions, namely 1) the marked status ofthe traditional plain voiced series and 2) the phonetic and typological difficulties with the traditional voiced aspirate series. The frrst of these is examined in line with Jakobson's appeal for typologies not of inventory but of system (1957:19). That is, I do not understand the problem as being the rarity or absence of a particular phoneme (*b) in the reconstructed lexicon, but rather see the problem as a variety of indications that this entire series (Le., the plain voiced) was highly marked. The traditional voiced aspirate series has become less problematic since some have reinterpreted that series as having had breathy phonation (or something similar). This does little violence to the traditionaI reconstruction and 4It is of course indeed securely established that Germanic obstruents differ very systematically from obstruents in other Indo-European daughter languages, but the security of Grimm's Law rests equally on the PIE system from which Germanic evolved.

JNTRODUCIlON

5

could be regarded. from a conservative point of view. as simply adding phonetic detail to our knowledge of that series. Tbe chapter concludes with a look at a way out of the controversy chosen by a number of scholars, namely by distinguishing different stages of the proto-language. Tbe eore of this solution is positing a development from an obstruent system like that proposed in the Glottalic Theory to a stage with the traditionally reconstructed series. While this solution offers some advantages, it increases the number of ehanges whieh must be posited. Turning to more general historicallinguistic methodology and theory, Chapter 6 briefly attempts 10 define a reasonable role for typology in linguistic reconstruetion in light of the debate surrounding the Glottalie Theory. Ironieally. two ultimately typologically-driven proposals for reconstructing PIE obstruents treated here originale in works ostensibly arguing against the ~se of typology. These are Haider (1985) and Hock (1986), both of whom actually present what I take 10 be important typologieal arguments. Almost every work opposing the new reconstruetion of PIE obstruents draws an opposition between typology and reconstruetion. Dunkel (1981) caUs these the "two poles of linguistie eomparison" (cf. similar views by Haider 1985 and Hock 1986). In the view of proponents of the Glottalie Theory, typology supplements eomparative reconstruetion. It was clearly never intended to supplant eomparative work, but rather has been added 10 the historieallinguist's set of 1Ools. Instead of dismissing typology as opposed 10 and inferior 10 eomparative and internal reconstruction, I see our task as being 10 reconcile the findings of typology within the conte~t of comparative reconstruction, an explicit gaal of even early work on the Glottalic Theory. I sketch one way of doing that, giving passing attention to other questions of method and theory of linguistic reconstruction along the way.

Chapter 2 The Prehistory of the Glottalic Theory It is customary to trace the inspiration for the Glottalic Theory back to Jakobson's 1957 presentation (published in 1958 and again in 1971), with frequent mention of work by Pedersen (1951) and Martinet (1955). But even before the middle of this century, dissatisfaction with the system of PIE obstruents was widespread. In this chapter, after briefly looking at how the classical three-series reconstruction became the established system, I sketch the discomfort about that system found in important works from the early twentieth century, using especially Hirt, Prokosch, and Meillet as examples, but drawing on others as weIl. FoHowing that, I turn to the mid-century direct antecedents of the Glottalic Theory: Jakobson, Pedersen and Martinet The reconstruction of basic PIE phonology is treated with great and justifIable reverence by historicallinguists as one of the most monumental achievements in the history of the study of human language. As a result, the reconstruction is sometimes regarded as more solid than it actually is. Hock (1986:626), for example, considers this system to rest. on "palpable comparative evidence." However venerable the previous work in the field, such deference can impede the progress of linguistic science. This chapter will show that while the triumphs of the reconstruction of PIE obstruents were many. the system was never accepted as set in stone by specialists. Such a survey should also underscore the fact that the Glottalic Theory no more tarnishes the accomplishment of the Neogrammarians than Einsteinian physics should be understood as in any way tamishing Newton's contributions. s Earlier scholars were weH aware of the problems that the Glottalic Theory addresses, but often were not particularly concemed with them-especially the precise phonetic representation of the sounds they posited. To some extent they did not yet have the tools to address those problems. Indeed, even phonetics did not exist in its modem form at the time of the Neogrammarians.6 Before we turn to such issues, a word is needed about the earlier evolution of views on Proto-Indo-European obstruents, beginning with some data. Table 1, SIndeed, Floyd Merrell has reminded me that just as Newtonian physics is more useful than Einsteinian physics for building a house, typological concerns will not prove terribly relevant for all instances of linguistic reconstruction. 60ne holdover from this early period still appears in the literature. The traditional terrns "Tenues" and "Media" date back to the earliest work, and are still in Iirnited use for "voiceless" and "voiced", respectively. Within that nomenclature, the aspirated variants-narnely '"Tenues Aspiratae" and "Media Aspiratae" are often abbreviated as '"TA" and "MA."

7

1HEPREHISlORY OFTIIE GLOITAUC nrnoRY

presented below, gives some raw correspondences across a number of major JE

dialects. TABLE 1.7 PROfO..INDO-EUROPEAN OBSTRUENTS: DATA Sanskrit Larin Greek OldIrish OCSlav. Gothic Armenian Hittite Toch.A B

Skt

Lat Gk OIr OCS Goth Ann Ritt TochA B

11-

t-

k-

pitarpater

trayas tres treis tri trije/tri

cor (gen. col'dis) IcanJia aide

pater athir

fiM"

preis

hayr

erek'

pacar

tre/U'i

patar

trai/tarya

'fadler'

'three'

b-

11dINi

bitl

srüdice hairto silt

ker-/kard-

baJa-m de-bilis belteron???

deamI

d&a deich

bolje, etc. taihun tasn

Säle Sak 'strength, size', etc.

'tenth'

'heart'

,,jänu genn g6nu glnn koleno kniu cunr genu kanweq:t ken1ne 'knee'

71 have given examples from a relatively wide range of dialects, examples with the obstruents in question in initial position. Furthermore, I have restricted the examples to three points of articulation: labial, dental and velar, with the exception of the labio-velar example for the voiced aspirates (gn).

nIE GLOTIAllC 1lIEORY

8 Skt Lat Gk OIr OCS Goth Arm Ritt TochA B

bhbhräta ftäter pluiter bräthir

dhdv8r forls ejrä
ghn-anti (pI.) de-fendo 'ward off 9efno gonim

bratrii

dv1r1

Zeno

bröl'a-

dalr dutn

gül' (Old English)

eibayr

pracar procer 'brother'

PluNCIPLE SOURCES:

jnem kuenzi

kuillw; 'doot, gate'

'strike, kill, wound'

LEHMANN (1986) & BUCK (1949).

The earIy versions, in harmony with the strong overall emphasis placed on the role of Sanskrit, included four obstruent series, contrasting both voice and aspiration (for example, the following oral labials: p, b, ph, bh). Even before and during Neogrammarian times, though, the status of one series, the voiceless aspirates, had already become questionable. For example, while Brugmann and Delbrück included it in their Grundriss, Schleicher's Compendium (1871; see also Pedersen 1931:270-272, for a more readily available discussion) posited a consonant system without voiceless aspirates and within a generally less complex inventory than some others proposed. The laryngeal theory provided a convenient way to getting rid of the voiceless aspirates, by analyzing these as a sequence of voiceless stop plus laryngeal. A tradition of scholarship early in the twentieth century (including Saussure, Cuny and Meillet) posited the development of a single, aspirated stop from exactly such a sequence.s By the time of the classic handbooks of the early twentieth century, Hirt (1927:240-241) calls the voiceless aspirates "very uncertain" fot the proto-language. 9 These stops are relatively uncommon in the reconstructed lexicon and the distinction between two aspirate series is geographically limited 10 the eastem area, Indo-lranian and Armenian.l 0 While details of the three-series proposals vary, a PIE obstruent inventory containing only three series (Le., without the voiceless aspirates) has been often 8See Sturtevant (1941), Szemerenyi (1972:131-134) as well as Bomhard (1988:2-4) for additional details. 90ccasionally though, one finds work that hardly acknowledges the controversy about the fourth series, e.g., Misra (1968:35-37). HYl'he major study of voiceless aspirates in Indo-European languages is Hiersehe (1964).

1HE PRElllSIDRY OF1HE GWITAllC TIIEORY

9

considered the accepted standard through the main part of the present century, e.g., by Lehmann. Still, Lehmann (1955:2) finds that "the evidence could be widely interpreted, and no interpretation has yet been widely accepted." Opposition 10 this view in favor of the old four-series solution was isolated, but quite persistent, so that Szemerenyi was still able to write after the advent of the Glottalic Theory that the voiceless aspirate series "has been under strong attack for several decades now, but probably to no avail" (1975:134). Szemerenyi continues to reconstruct four series, and Rasmussen (1989) brings somewhat different arguments for the same type of system. The issue of the number of slots in an obstruent system has been perceived as much more basic than questions of the phonetic realization of the slots, given the phonemic rather than phonetic orientation of Indo-European studies in this century. We might keep in mind that weIl over a century of work using the comparative method and internal reconstruction has yet to resolve this problem completelyalthough most Indo-Europeanists probably do not currently consider the three- versus four-series problem a burning one--with the issue more or less resolved in favor of three series. In part (but as we will see below only in part), it was the elimination of the fourth series that brought the whole system into question. While a four-way contrast would not have been typologically odd, the elimination of the voiceless aspirates is responsible for the anomalous status of the voiced aspirates. This forrnulation of matters was in fact presented by Kuryrowicz (for example, 1973:68-69). He realized that eliminating the voiceless aspirates meant that the remaining aspirate series would contrast with the other two series by aspiration, i.e., the aspirates were not PHONOLOGICALLY marked for voice. He argued then for an original three-series solution: voiceless, voiced, aspirate. Only with the development of voiceless aspirates from the combination of plain voiceless plus laryngeal, did the old aspirates-previously unmarked for voice--become phonemically voiced. While he sees "no necessity to speculate on the phonetic realization of IE dh" (emphasis in original), this would alleviate the typological problem. Handbooks treat the period after the establishment of the three series system as uneventfuI. A look at some central works from the early part of this eentury may show otherwise. Even Meillet, whose Introduction al'etude comparative des langues indo-europeennes has served on many points as a statement of the status quo for generations of Indo-Europeanists, is hardly uncritical with regard 10 the IE obstruent system. Meillet (1964: 86-88, originally published in 1922) does not even use the traditional name for the "voiced aspirates", calling them instead "voieed stops ealled aspirated" ("sonores dites aspirees"). He coneludes that these sounds were "distinguished from the plain voieed undoubtedly by agIottal articulation, the means of which cannot be exactly deterrnined" (1964:88). Hirt's views were published in 1927, only shortly after Meillet's. His account already addresses many of the centraI points hotly debated during the early period of

10

1HE GIDITAl1C lHEORY

the Glottalic Theory, and raises significant concems not onIy about the nature of the voiced aspirated s1ops, but also of the plain voiced stops. He notes (1927:214-216) attempts to deny the existence of *b, but goes on 10 give six examples of *b in initial position, some of which have since been discounted by more recent etymologists (as discussed below). Hirt then suggests that probably the only viable solution for the numerous medial examples of *b is the assumption of development from another bilabial, either *p or "'bk. He also refers to an earlier study by Johansson (1900) which determines that many words containing *b are "vulgar", an observation that sets up the arguments of B. Joseph and Wescott discussed in Chapter 5 below. On the voiced aspirates, Hirt is more direcl He questions both the phoneticsspeculating about whether /bh/ sounded like the /bh/ in German Rebhuhn (Le., [b+h])-and the areal distribution, since they are attested only in the eastemmost languages. These sounds are "so strange", he says, that people have tried various other solutions. Among these, he notes Hermann's suggestion of a lenis-fortis distinction, Prokosch's suggestion that they were reaIized as voiceless fricatives, and M~ller's description of voiced aspirated stops produced with muscular tension ("tönende, aber mit straffen Muskeln gesprochene aspirierte Verschlußlaure").l1 Hirt seems unwilling to commit to any of the solutions, expressing skepticism about Prokosch's suggestion whiIe accepting Prokosch's critique of positing voiced aspirates. He closes the discussion by saying that only the reconstruction of the plain voiceless stops seems phonetically safe. Prokosch (1939:39-41, building on his 1918-1920 articles) rejects outright the notion that the segments in question could have actually been realized as voiced aspirates, suggesting instead that they were spirants. It is interesting to note that Prokosch also makes some of the same points being made today, e.g., about limited attestation of any voiced aspirates in the languages of the world. He also traces the reconstruction of voiced aspirates directly back to the exaggerated role given 10 Sanskrit in early reconstructions of the proto-Ianguage, a problem which has been raised repeatedly in recent years not just about phonology but about other areas of the grammar of the proto-Ianguage as weIl (see, for instance, Polome 1981, 1985 and Drinka 1988 on verbal morphology). Also important is Prokosch's observation (1939:68) about the other major typological problem with the traditionally reconstructed PIE obstruent system, namely the rarity of "'b in the proto-Ianguage. He concludes a discussion of these problems by saying: "all of this is admittedly vague and open to some obvious objections, but we can hardly get any farther untiI new methods are devised." Hopper (1989c) implies, as many would openly claim, that typology provides exactly such llThe earliest suggestion I can fmd to positing fricatives for the voiced aspirates is Walde (1897:468), cited in Huld (1983:173) and to my knowledge Prokosch was the fIrst to fully develop the idea.

1HEPREIDSTORY OF 1HE GWITAUC 1HEORY

11

methodological progress. Wbile Prokosch's views never becarne standard, they were welcomed by a number of his contemporaries, most enthusiastically by Collitz (e.g., 1926:178), but also by Hirt and van Velten (cf. Prokosch 1939:303-304). The mid-twentieth century brought intensified and more explicit criticism of the classic PIE obstruent system. Before turning 10 the most famous of theseJakobson's-let us first briefly review the arguments brought earlier by Pedersen (1951). Pedersen pointed to a number of problems with the traditional reconstruction. He noted the cross-linguistic rarity of voiced aspirates and took the most plausible explanation of this rarity 10 be an origin from an older combination of voiceless stop plus laryngeal, but concluded that this was not completely satisfactory. He then turned 10 the "particularly striking" rarity of *b within the pro1O-language and reviewed etymologies containing initial *b (1951:12). Pedersen ultimately eliminated all but two etymologies (Sanskrit buli-s and related items meaning 'buttocks, behind', etc. as weil as bdla and related terms meaning 'strong'). He contended that b's do not tend to disappear from sound inventories. while p's often show weakening and loss. He therefore eventually comes 10 redefine the traditional plain voiced series as plain voiceless, in this way better accounting for the absence or rarity of traditional *b. Interesting here also from a contemporary perspective is the fact that Pedersen used Armenian as his key example and model, the dialect which is generally seen as most archaie in most variants of the Glottalic Theory. The traditional voiced aspirates Pedersen considered more plausibly 10 have been voiceless aspirates, parallel 10 the suggestion of KuryJ:owicz noted above. This system then is posited as apre-PIE stage from which the evolution of the c1assic PIE obstruent system might be understood, a move again parallel 10 one found in some recent discussions. Bach of the points mentioned in the last several pages has been greatly developed in the recent work on PIE obstruents. We see, then, that much of the specific and even most substantial justification of the Glottalic Theory had been clearly laid out and many of the solutions which are now so intensely debated had already been sketched, at the latest by the middle of this century. Jakobson's 1957 paper is, of a11 the works discussed in this chapter, undoubtedly the most widely cited as a precursor to the Glottalic Theory, usually on two points (1957:23): 1) that voiced aspirates appear to be found only in languages with voiceless aspirates and 2) that a conflict between a reconstruction and the typological evidence from the languages of the world "makes the reconstruction questionable." Beyond these important insights, however, this most theoretical of the early works on the subject also anticipated several key issues of the contemporary debate. Three exarnples seem particularly instructive for putting the well-known quotes from this paper into context. First, Jakobson (1957:20-21) draws a clear distinction between universals and near-universals, making clear that the rare counter-example to a typological claim about the languages of the world by no means invalidates that claim. Second, he (1957:23) fits his typological insights on reconstruction into the

12

1HE GWITAUC TIIEORY

realist versus abstractionist debate, opposing both "naive empirieism whieh dreamt about a phonographie record of IE sounds" as weIl as "an agnostie reluctance to inquire into the patteming of the IE phonemes and a timid reduetion of their system to a mere numerical catalogue." Third, Jakobson (1957:24) ultimately assigns a plausible and relatively modest role to typology in reconstruetion: "typologieal verifieation raises the probability of reconstrueted phonemie and morphological patterns, and permits changing the reconstruction from a mere numerical eatalogue into a more realistie portrayal of the linguistie system. 11 Read in the context of his immediate predecessors, Jakobson's work seems most important as the clearest and most incisive theoretieal statement on the role of typology in reconstruction applied 10 the problem of PIE obstruents (among other problems). Martinet (1955:114-115, see now Martinet 1991 as weIl) makes a claim similar 10 lakobson's somewhat earlier, namely that "a series of the type bh, dh, gh only appears to be attested in lariguages in whieh there also exist aseries of voiceless aspirates, ph, th, kh." He finds this easily explicable in terms of economy. That is, a voiced aspirate series would be doubly marked-by voice and aspiration-within a three-series system. From here, he notes that the tendeney 10 reconstruct only one aspirate series in Indo-European, a voieed one, becomes questionable. Hammerieh (1956), beginning from the Germanie evidenee and seeking 10 put the First Sound Shift into an Indo-European eontext, reconstructs the tradition al voiced aspirates as "laryngealized" stops (1956:6 and elsewhere), from whieh the voiced aspirates of modern Indie languages could have developed. From this system, he argues. it becomes mueh easier to motivate ehanges not only into Germaniewhere phonetic motivation of the First Sound Shift has always been difficult-but also into the array of other daughter languages. 12 More recently, a paper by Haudrieourt (1975, but written in 1948, cf. KortIandt 1985: 184), shows that yet another scholar essentially independently (although starting from Jakobson's famous statement on eonfliet between reconstruction and generallaws of typology) proposed a glottalic reconstruetion of Indo-European obstruents. Mter becoming acquainted with glottalized consonants in his work with Asian languages, Haudrieourt suggested a system like that of Classieal Armenian: voieeless aspirate (tradition al plain voieeless), voiced glottalie (traditional plain voiced), and plain voiced (traditional voieed aspirate). His major innovation vis-a-vis other early proposals is the dynamization of the typology, i.e., he considers a glottalie series in terms of the ehanges from the reconstrueted proto-system. This

12Also, Hammerich does not explicitly treat the plain voiced, but does give *b in parentheses, indicating its marginal status rather than proc1aiming it non-existent.

1HE PREHISIDRY OFnIE GLoITAllC TIIEORY

13

would make the crucial step to the dialect, at least outside of Armenian and Germanic, the sonorization of the glottalic series)3 To conclude this historical survey, then, one fails 10 find a strongly held consensus about the nature of Proto-Indo-European obstruents during the course of the last hundred years. That is, one cannot appeal to some uncontroversial reconstruction of the obstruent system and claim that Glottalic Theory deviates radica11y from such an accepted system. Indeed, serious debates about something as basic as three versus four obstruent series, as weIl as about the nature of the ttaditional voiced aspirates, and the uncertain status of *b all point to a rather tenuous hold on what recent generations have come to consider the standard view of the obstruent system. Tbe elimination of the traditional voiceless aspirates early in this century may have helped things along, but the just-mentioned objections represent a far broader set of concems and doubts. In fact, the Glottalic Theory, by challenging the picture usually found in handbooks on historicallinguistics and Indo-European, simply represents the most recent and perhaps extensive attack (or better, set of attacks) in a long line which includes work by Hammerich, Jakobson, Martinet, Pedersen, Prokosch, and others. Even Collitz, Hirt, Meillet, and Kurytowicz have expressed substantial reservations or suggested substantial revisions to what has since been treated as a standard system. We cannot then accept overly simple views like this: "The thoroughgoing application of the comparative method leads to the conelusion, [sie] that the PIE stop system eonsists of the following array:

b d g

P t

k." (Haider 1985:1).

A long tradition ineluding work by leading Indo-Europeanists of several generations indicates that the application of the comparative method leads to multiple possibilities on several crucial phonetic and phonological issues. Many if not most of the views discussed above are widely known. Still, the implications of this broader picture are often ignored. Narnely, there were not just occasional suspicions about minor difficulties with the phonetic and phonological nature ofPIE obstruents, but rather, the objections to the best known reconstructions were many and serious. Moreover, these critiques carne from theoretica1ly diverse quarters. While even the most radical of these critiques does not reach the fundamental reshaping currently proposed in the Glottalic Tbeory, the point is that generations of leading Indo-Europeanists have at the very least carefully set the stage for the work treated in the next chapters. 13Note also in passing the intriguing passages in Swadesh's posthumous work (1971:127, 219), which proposed a system consisting of plain. glottalized and aspirated stops.

Chapter 3 The Glottalic Theory and Responses 3.1 The c1assic statements or the Glottalic Theory Let us turn now to consider the two seminal articles in the evolution of the Glottalic Theory, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1973) and Hopper (1973). These two worlcs appeared independently, although Hopper did have correspondence from Gamkrelidze before his own work appeared. While the similarities between these two articles are profound, the differences between their views are also significant on several points. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's 1973 article is sometimes cited as their earliest work on the Glottalic Theory, but it is actually buHt on an even briefer Russian-Ianguage version (1972). They begin their 1973 "preliminary report" (to quote their subtitle) with a methodological observation about the nature of linguistic reconstruction. In reconstructing PIE phonology and morphology, "linguistic probability" or " linguistic plausibility" ("linguistische Wahrscheinlichkeit") has only sporadically been taken into account and has been considered by some, for example Saussure, 10 be irrelevant. "Typological verification", they argue, must be used 10 show that proposed reconstructions are plausible. This passage seeks 10 establish the place of typology alongside other similar principles, such as naturalness of the sound changes postulated, economy and parsimony, simplification, explanatory power, and regularity of sound changes. Like typology, these principles have become indispensable tools of the historical linguist engaged in linguistic reconstruction, but, as Gamkrelidze & Ivanov point out, such considerations are not incorporated "by means of an explicit methodologicaJ principle." The result of this discussion is the following prolO-system: Series I Series TI SeriesIll

g10ttalized (weakly) voiced with aspirated allophones voiceless with aspirated aJlophones.

Theyargue that the absence (or "extremely rare occurrence") of *b is at odds "with universally valid linguistic typological evidence" (1973: 151-152)-and that the traditional plain voiced series must, therefore, be reinterpreted. Two parts of this statement have since evoked overstated interpretations and have given footholds to critics of the theory: first, some people have understood this to mean that *b was entirely absent from the proto-Ianguage and second, some have seen this as a claim that no language shows a bilabial gap in a plain voiced series. These two problems, which rest on narrow readings of this discussion of typology, will be dealt with below.

nm GUJITAUC 'IHEORY AND RESPONSES

15

Tbey start by discussing the root structure constraints of Proto-Indo-European, which have traditionally resisted explanation. Tbe irrst constraint is against two voiced stops within a CVC root, or Media+Media such as *ged-, a gap which is explained as parallel to constraints in some Caucasian languages, where glottalic slOPS can be limited to one occurrence per root Tbe co-occurrence of roots differing with regard to both aspiration and voicing-in the traditional reconstruction roots of the fonn *ghet- or *tegh- -is disallowed because in the new system such roots would involve two aspirated stops disagreeing in voicing. The second constraint does not sound as intuitively appealing as the first, although the difficulty is certainly ameliorated when one considers that aspiration is allophonic here; that is, we have a simple voice assimilation rule or a constraint against differences in voicing. In phonological terms this might be seen as mandatory spread within the root consonantism. Tbe discussion of the dialectal developments focuses largely on the issuecentral throughout the early work on the theory-of the previously "shifted" dialects (especially Germanic and Armenian) now being reconstructed as more archaic and the previously more archaic dialects seen as having undergone a shift 14 They note that the two non-glottalic series would have had both aspirated and unaspirated allophones, with aspiration unnecessary for the phonological description of the proto-language obstruent system, but necessary to explain later dialectal developments. Glottalization would have probably been "weak", in order to help explain its loss in the later dialects. Note also the role given to phonetic versus phonological reconstruction hefe. Tbe claims and arguments found in Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1973) are as often phonetically as phonologically based. Even if they do not draw explicit attention to this move, it does represent a distinct break with most previous work and foreshadows a direction found in much reconstruction since. Hopper's 1973 artide begins with a methodological discussion of typology and reconstruction. He derives his typological considerations from the customary assumption that "the hypothetical entities which are posited are constructed within the same parameters as those found in extant languages." After noting that this consideration has proven problematic with regard to the traditional voiced aspirate series for many Indo-Europeanists (as treated in some detail in the previous chapter), Hopper compares typology in reconstruction to the notion of "naturalness" in language in general. This is limited, he concedes, by "recourse to impressionism with respect to 'plausibility"' (1973:144). Still, one might think that explicitly addressing the matter would represent an improvement over earlier approaches, which 14Garnkrelidze & Ivanov do not appear, at this time, to have been aware of Emonds' work (1972) arguing that such areinterpretation could more economically handle changes horn the proto-Ianguage into Germanic and some other dialects.

Fi 16

1HE GIDITAllC 1lffiQRY

sometimes implicitly assumed this. His most general summary of the method of reconstruction is notable (1973:148): It should be recalled that conclusions about the phonological or other systems of a proto-Ianguage are drawn from two general sourees: the comparative and internal data offered by the daughter-languages, and the constraints on language structure imposed by universallinguistic considerations. In the discussion that follows, Hopper uses the second of these sources as a controlon the first. He defmitely does not see the traditional system as "impossible", but rather as "improbable, or at least as unusual enough to justify considering alternative hypotheses" (1973:150). This passage is crucial and is largely overlooked by Hopper's critics, who often imply or state that he discarded the old system as entirely impossible and dismissed solid comparative evidence. In fact, Hopper seeks to develop an alternative proposaI that overcomes some significant problems with the traditionaI system, i.e., to build a more probable reconstruction. He notes several times in the course of the article that his arguments do not represent proof, but rather result in more economical developments (e.g., 1973:163), a more plausible phonetic picture ofthe proto-language (e.g., 1973:143), and so forth. In a passage which has often been attacked, Hopper cites phonetic work by Ladefoged and others indicating that true "voiced aspirates" are unknown in the languages of the world and represent near articulatory impossibilities. He then rejects the possibility that these were "tense" stops (as Emonds had argued the year before) and instead replaces this series in Indo-European with breathy or murmured stops. Hopper has since abandoned this part of bis original proposaI, but it lives on in some variants of the Giottalic Theory. Among the most basic typological observations Hopper makes is that obstruent systems contrasting one voiceless series with two voiced series (such as the traditional IE system) are extremely rare cross-linguistically (1973:149-150). That is, he argues that the extremely marked nature of the system would not even be dependent on the aspiration of the third series. More recent work has weakened this point considerably, however. Maddieson (1984:28-29) shows many counterexamples in his sampie of phonemic inventories, including 12languages having plain voiceless, plain voiced and voiced implosives. Tuming to the plain voiced stops, Hopper describes examples of initial *b as "difficult to find". calling examples other than *bel-Latin de-bilis 'lacking in strength', Sanskrit balt 'strong', etc.-"dubious" (1973:155). In the next line, this is referred to as a "missing phoneme", something which has been interpreted as an inconsistency by numerous critics of the theory. Hopper goes on to describe the traditional plain voiced stops as being highly marked, using the root structure constraints and the rarity of this series in inflectional morphology as evidence. Hopper concludes with abrief survey of the dialectal developments within his model, fIrst the now-conservative systems of Germanie and Armenian and then the

nIE GLOTI'AUC 1HEORY AND RESPONSES

17

other dialects, as treated in 4.2 below. 1S Two points crucial 10 this discussion should be mentioned briefly. First, Hopper endeavors to trace developments direct1y from his glottaIie reconstruetion 10 the dialects. While doing so, he argues against positing a glottalic stage simply as an earlier diachronic layer leading 10 the ttaditional reconstruction (1973:161), a passage overlooked or ignored by several scholars who have since proposed such a path without bringing arguments 10 refute Hopper's original points. Second, Hopper motivates these developments by appeal to the inherent instability of glottalic stops over time, eiting Greenberg. This point has sinee been used in a very different way, as we will see below. by critics who have maintained that exact1y the very marked nature of the traditional system made it unstable. Hopper's point is a relatively tenuous one, given the sketchy and preliminary nature of Greenberg's claims on the subject (1970:134). The more general problem of whether marked status can be equated with diachronie instability is certainly an important and sometimes controversial one in the study of language change; it will be dealt with briefly in a general context in Chapter 5. Light on the relationship between Hopper's views and those of Gamkrelidze & Ivanov is shed by Gamkrelidze's letter ofFebruary 7,1973 to Hopper (listed in the bibliography as Gamkrelidze 1973). In that missive, Gamkrelidze clearly appreciates the additional and, more importantly, independent support for what we now know as the Glottalie Theory. While he reviews the similarities between his own work with Ivanov and Hopper's work, he also treats differences, especially Hopper's continuation of the traditional plain voiceless vs. Gamkrelidze' s positing of voiceless aspirates. Gamkrelidze also stresses the areal and genetic implications of the new reconstruction, an issue which both he and Hopper have since retumed to. The third early work on the radical revision of PIE stops does not involve any glottalic component, only reference to tense stops. Ernonds (1972) can almost be counted among the precursors of the Glottalic Theory. He explicitly relies on reconstruction backwards from Germanic and proposes areversal of direction for twothirds of Grimm' s Law, namely ph ~ p and p ~ b. rather than vice versa. The third element, ph ~ f and bh ~ v. he leaves unehanged. Emonds uses h 10 indicate tenseness and makes clear that "no specific claim about the phonetic nature of the 'tense' feature of the IE stops can be made" (1972: 109). His primary argument is not unlike Hock's later Occam's Razor arguments against the Glottalic Theory: Emonds' version posits fewer changes between the proto-Ianguage and the daughters, and the Cbanges he posits fit into broader phonological trends. This does not just apply to Germanie and Armenian, where developments of course become very stIaightforward. For example, Emonds assumes a Hittite system where traditional IE t and d become t and traditional dh becomes d. Traditional IE requires two rules to yield the Hittite

lSAlso important to Hopper's theory is the broader. non-Indo-European, areal context of the Glottalic Theory. This will be treated in 3.6 below.

f?1 18

1HE GUJITAUC TIIEORY

system-devoicing of the plain voiced and deaspiration of the voiced aspirates. His alternative requires simply the loss of the feature [±tense] in the entire system. Emonds brings a number of additional arguments. One general and important feature of his view is that many changes from proto-language to daughter are posited as lenition rather than fortition processes. He also notes, as do many later commentators, the problem with positing a change as complex as Grimm' s Law in : two such divergent groups as Armenian and Germanic. Methodologically he distinguishes himself from Jakobson, since Emonds avoids the more standard typological move of positing voiceless rather than voiced aspirates. He ends with a ' cautious tone, conceding the possibility that his proposal may be refuted, but concluding that "it is inadmissible to take [the] traditional view as the null I hypothesis in discussing Indo-European" (1972:121).1 6 I

3.2 Critical responses to the Glottalic Theory Before dealing with the numerous positive responses and proposed amendments 10 the theory, let us fIrst briefly chart out the other side of the field, the outright rejections of this new view. A number of the early critiques were shrill, which was perhaps to be expected given how much accepted wisdom the new view rejected. The specifics of the critiques fall into one or more of these three categories: 1) arguments that *b was not absent but simply rare, or that /b/ gaps exist in attested languages; 2) arguments that a voiced aspirate series is possible without a voiceless aspirate series; and 3) arguments against the inclusion of typology in linguistic reconstruction. The frrst two rest on the rejection of the typological claims on which the Glottalic Theory is based and the third goes against the theoretical thrust of the Glottalic Theory. This section presents these views briefly; Chapter 5 addresses responses to the fIrst two points in more detail and Chapter 6 is devoted to the third point.17 Szemerenyi, in a variety of wodes, has with little doubt established himself as the leading opponent of the Glottalic Theory. His views on this issue must, however, be understood against the background of his seminal 1967 article, proposing the "new look of Indo-European" (contrasted with the "old" system represented by Lehmann 1955). Szemerenyi calls this work the "fIrst attempt to present an integrated and typologically acceptable view of the IE phonological system" (1967:97) and rejects a one-vowel system for IE on typological grounds: " .. .if natural languages never show a one-vowel system, that surely is a strong indication of its being incompatible with the nature of the linguistic code. If such a 16Schrodt (1976:292) rejects Emonds' work, the only one of the modem glottalic(like) views he refers to. The rejection results perhaps in part because Emonds represents a generative approach, something Sehrodt has consider reservations about. 17'fhe set of views discussed here is intended to show the variety of arguments and not to review all negative responses. Others are listed in the bibliography, such as Kaiser & Shevoroshkin (1986).

THEGWITAUC 1HEORY AND RESPONSES

19

state is reconstructed for any stage of m, we can regard it as impossible, or, if we wish 10 be quite cautious, as utterly unlikely" (1967:73). Turning to the obstruent system, he begins with the observation that the tendency in IE studies has not simply been 10 move away from the Sanskrit-based model, but more generally to reduce the size of the phonemic inventory (1967:84). Szemerenyi fmds "no intrinsic reason against that assumption" that two aspirate series existed and cites Jakobson as supporting evidence, i.e., the four-series system Szemerenyi posits would overcome lakobson's problem with the voiced aspirate series. Thus, several years before the GlottaIic Theory appeared as such, Szemerenyi explicitly endorsed the inc1usion of typological considerations in reconstruction and suggested a solution 10 one of the major typological concems. In the years since, Szemerenyi has discussed his opposition to the Glottalic Theory many times (see his wortes listed in the bibliography). For simplicity's sake, I base the discussion below on three of his most recent and relatively detailed treatments (1985, with reference to 1989, the latter a work with a much harsher tone, as well as 1990:159-163). Let us begin with what Szemerenyi takes 10 be the heart of the Glottalic Theory, the status of *b. Szemerenyi refers on several occasions 10 the "(alleged) rarity or absence of the voiced labial stop and the (alleged) ability of the glottalized stops to explain this defect" (this formulation from 1985:7). He goes on 10 argue that even a limited occurrence of b "means that the very foundation of the glottalic theory becomes more than somewhat shaky" (1985:11-12). Proponents of the Glottalic Theory have often, though inconsistently in the early days, conceded a marginal status for *b, i.e., they have proposed its rarity rather than its absence. Initial b may be rare, Szemerenyi concedes, but its clear existence in medial position establishes it as a phoneme, which "shows up the typological argument as completely bogus" (1985:12). Intervocalic voicing, it should be pointed out contra Szemerenyi, is one of the most commonly attested sound changes known, and it would yield medial b from p. This is in fact the standard treatment of such cases in much of the IndoEuropean literature. More importantly, the general problem with the plain voiced s10ps is their marked status, of which the rarity of *b is simply one indication. As for the traditional voiced aspirates, Szemerenyi focuses on Hopper's claim, since abandoned, that voiced aspirates represent an articulatory impossibility. Moreover, Szemerenyi finds Jakobson's original objection 10 voiced aspirates without voiceless aspirates unproblematic in view of Blust's (1974) parallel from KeIabiL He does, however, allow for the realization ofthe traditional voiced aspirates as breathy (e.g., 1985:13).1 8 180ne important part of Szemerenyi's argument against the Glottalic Theory need not be dealt with in more detail at the moment. As Bomhard (1988: 18-19) notes. Szemerenyi's criticism (1985: 13-14) of the root structure constraints appears 10 rest on a rnisunderstanding of the arguments in the literature. since Szemerenyi argues about roots

~'-

20

1HE GLaITAI.lC 1HEORY

Szemerenyi (1967) has then in the past acknowledged typological problems with IE obstruents before the rise of the Glottalic Theory proper, but has from that time on chosen a radically different path for solving them, namely going back to the Neogrammarian system of four-way contrasts, [± voice] and [± aspiration], while leaving open the possibility that the voiced aspirates might have been realized as breathy. Is Szemerenyi's four series proposal a solution to typological concerns, as he suggests in several works and as Birnbaum (1977:22) endorses? In fact, this only solves tbe voiced aspirate problem, leaving tbe equally serioos problem of the marked status of the plain voiced stops completely untouched. On this crucial issue, Szemerenyi buihls bis case largely on against the complete rejection of *b. Gamkrelidze (1990a:8) goes so far as to regard positing four stop series as a misinterpretation of the comparative data, essentially turning the tables on critics who have accused him and others of ignoring or misusing comparative data. Gamkrelidze may weIl be right-tbe reduction from four series to three was, after all, based on comparative evidence. Still, the fact that eminent comparativists like Szemerenyi can posit four series underscores again the uncertainty of the traditional reconstructions and even the limits of the comparative method (in the narrowest sense). Szemerenyi (1990:160-161) most recently argues that the current geograpbical distribution of glottalics does not bode weIl for positing them for PIE. Namely, they occur mostly in the western hemisphere and in Africa, with a few in the Caucasus. This is distwbing because these are areas where "the Indo-Europeans certainly never lived" The general structure of the argument then is that because they came from an area not at present characterized by glottalics of any kind, glottalics are unlikely for the parent language. While this may indeed warrant some consideration given the distinct areal patteming of glottalic consonants, it is unclear how much weight can be given to this argument, especially in light of tremendous controversies about the homeland of the Indo-Europeans.19 While Szemerenyi has proven the most persistent and without doubt the most prolific critic of the Glottalic Theory, the most aggressive response was that of Dunkel (1981). His objections are methodological and theoretical in nature. I turn now briefly to two of those objections, first about the nature of typological claims and second about the role of considerations beyond the comparative method in the process of linguistic reconstruction.

of the type **tVgh and not of the type **deg. Szemerenyi's treatment of **tVgh roots is discussed in section 4.2.3 below. 19In point of fact, Hamp (1989:210) lists a number of good reasons for suspecting that Indo-European has distant connections to the Caucasus, ranging from Ablaut to culture.

1lIB GLO'ITAUC TIIEORY AND RESPONSES

21

Dunkel's premise is that typology is diametrically opposed to comparative reconstruction. It appears, however, that he means "typology" in a sense radically different from that Hopper, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov and others have employed. In fact, Dunkel explicitly defines typology simply as "classification according to shared characteristics" (1981:559), a rather different use of the teem from that found in works on the GlottaIic Theory and found throughout much of the present work. Such work employs SYSTEMATIC typology, in search of universal or near-universal patterns across the languages of the world.20 Olle charge that comes up repeatedly is that typological claims can be falsified and are thus useless. Dunkel, for instance, demeans typologica1 generalizations as "typological opinions" (1981:562, also see Haider 1984:3-4) and misstates Jakobson's principle of typology as follows: "since no examples of a particular type bappen to have been found. therefore this type could never have existed" (1981:563). Jakobson's intent was quite different, suggesting rather that reconstruction should be guided by what we know about extant human languages. These kinds of accusations fall short of raising the crucial and reasonable theoretical problem of the role of empiricism in historical linguistics. Universal claims in typological work are inherently inductive and therefore always falsifiable. Bloomfield had already laid this point out clearly: "The only useful generalizations about language are inductive generalizations. Features which we think ought to be universal may be absent from the very next language that becomes accessible" (1933:20). After one-thied of a century of generative theory, it would seem worthwhile and necessary to pursue a More explicit argument against empiricism than Dunkel's sketched above. Perhaps, though, taking a generative turn is unpalatable to many traditionally oriented IndoEuropeanists who oppose the GlottaIic Theory. Turning now to my second point, Dunkel denies the usefulness of any corollary principles in linguistic reconstruction, insisting that the comparative method alone is suitable for reconstruction (although even it is dependent on chance). Implicitlyat least, he sees no role whatsoever for considerations such as naturalness of sound change or even internal reconstruction. Instead of modifying the results of comparative work to reflect typological considerations, he suggests entering the products of comparative reconstruction into the "typologica1 data bank" (1981:569), although he notes repeated1y that comparative reconstructions are tentative and incomplete. Both Dunkel' s understanding of typology and his insistence that reconstruction must utilize exc1usively the comparative method show hirn to be working from very different assumptions than most historical linguists. This makes it difficuIt to integrate his views into the broader discussion on the Glottalic Theory. Moreover, the tone of Dunkel's contribution virtually precludes scientific debate: typologists 20Schwink (1992:13-21) provides the most recent and one of the best discussions of \Vhat 'typology' means in linguistic reconstruction.

22

1HE GLO'ITAUC 1HEORY

have an "anti-factual attitude" (1981:564); typology is inherently "circular" and typologists "remake" data which do not fit the theory (1981:566); typology leads 10 methodological "corruptions" and "all this work must be rejected without ado" (1981:567). and so forth. It was presumably on the basis of this kind of less-thanscientific tenor that Hopper called the piece "unfortunate in the extreme" (1981:140141). Gamkrelidze (1990a:5-6) attempts to clarify some of Dunkel's points from bis own perspective. Returning from questions of method to the specific matter of PIE obstruents. what does Dunkel suggest with regard to the reconstruction of that obstruent system? He claims that the reconstruction identified with the work of Lehmann. Benveniste. Kurylowicz and others is "brutally reductionist" because of the incorporation of internal reconstruction (1981:560). and he goes on to call this tradition "extremist" (1981:560. 561). The assertion that this view of PIE obstruents has been a widely accepted standard is illusory. according to bim-a point on which I agree, as discussed in Chapter 2. above, albeit on different grounds. Like Szemerenyi, then, Dunkel returns to the four-series solution. Dunkel. however, attacks Szemerenyi for using typologiCai acceptability as a supporting argument for his own reconstruction. that iso for not explicitly denying any role to typological evidence and working solely with the one useful tool Dunkel sees as being available, comparative reconstruction (1981:562). Clearly, Dunkel's approach differs from most historical linguists. not simply by the vehemence of his rejection of typology. but also by his fiat rejection of internal reconstruction and all tools corollary to the comparative method. Back (1979). a student of Szemerenyi's. supports a four-series model. noting that the abandonment of the four-series model for a three-series model created part of the reason for creation of the glottalic theory .21 His harshest criticism of the glottalic theory is theoretical and methodological in nature. claiming that it "avoids strict comparative reconstruction" (1979: 184). "abandons the reality of the Indo-European proto-Ianguage". and makes reconstruction into agame and a matter of taste (1979: 185).22 In rejecting the more widely accepted three-series system for four series. Back seems himself 10 have shown that ANY view of the proto-language falls far short of "reality." According to Back. typology rests on "only statistics" and can offer "no explanation whatsoever." While most of Chapter 6 is devoted to clarification of such claims. note here that typological arguments use cross-linguistic comparison explicitly in conjunction with articulatory and phonological considerations to provide some motivation for why particular features are more or less common or even 21 Recall that in Chapter 2, above, I argued that this is only partially correct. 22Back's dissatisfaction is limited to Iakobson's typologies for reconstruction and implicational hierarchy; he explicitly leaves aside word order typology, as do many discussions of the PIE obstruent system.

'Jl{E GImTAUC lHEORY AND RESPONSES

23

unattested. One of the most basic arguments for replacing the ttaditional plain voiced with ejectives has been an articulatory motivation for a p' gap, namely the relatively targer cavity between glottis and labia which lessens the salience of a bilabial ejeCtive. A second important argument regards the coostraint forbidding roots of the type **deg, that is, roots containing two non-aspirated voiced stops. The traditional formulation of this root structure constraint rests on no particular articulatory motivation, and markedness considerations give no hint as to why a Ianguage would forbid the co-occurrence of two plain voiced stops within a CVC rooL Nor does this consttaint show a pattern of cross-linguistic parallels (although the native vocabulary of Japanese has been recently cited as a possible parallel, as will be discussed below). That constraint in glottalic terms fits into a pattern of data from other languages of the world, and crucially, also makes articulatory sense, because of the difficulty of producing two segments with such a complex glottal gesture within a single syllable or mot. This brief example should make clear that the typological approach embodied in work on the Glottalic Theory actually does attempt explanation of a fairly basic sort Back attributes the rise of the Glottalic Theory to the inherent weakness of the three-series models standard during most of this century (1979:184). Here he finds a elose parallel between the treatment of *b and the treatment of the fourth series, the voiceless aspirates. Rarity, he says, leads to the elimination of both in modern reconstructions. Back goes on to say that eliminating rare items would greatly simplify the phonemic inventories of the world's languages. Of course, eliminating a set of voiceless aspirates from the pmto-Ianguage and accounting for the rarity of *b are two entirely different matters, steps taken at very different times for very different reasons. The elimination of a fourth series was motivated by and argued for on comparative grounds. It was, for instance, direct1y relevant to their demise tbat they are attested 'in a very restricted subset of the daughter Ianguages, while their relative rarity supported their elimination. That *b has a marginal status in the inventory of PIE is by no means tantamount to declaring it absent. The point is to account for its anomalous character, something glottalic theorists find lacking in traditional work. Much of the rest of Back's artiele is dedicated to tracing problems with dialectal developments within a glottalic reconstructioo. The specifics of such developments will be dealt with in section 4.2 below. For the moment, suffice it to note that bis basic claim is that a four-series PIE obstruent series provides a more satisfactory accounting of matters. Meid (1987) makes several of the same points found above, taking, for instance, an abstractionist position and accusing Vennemann, in his glottalic-like theory, of using "exclusively typological considerations" (1987:6). But he also treats loanwords in IE dialects in search of evidence about relative chronology, using *reg as an example ('king, ruler', cf. Gothic reiks, Latin rex, Old Irish ti, 1987:10-11). This item has often been presumed to be a Celtic to Germanic loanword, foremost on the

24

1HE GLO'ITAI1C 1HEORY

basis of its vocalism-raising of e being a typical Celtic development, but one uncharacteristic of Germanic. In a traditional framework, Meid argues, the Celtic g surfaces in Germanic as k, in accordance with the Germanic Consonant Shift. From a glottalic perspective, the voiceless consonant would point toward Germanic, while the vocalism points 10ward Celtic origin. Tbe resolution of this etymology is so shot through with problems that Meid finds the entire Glottalic Theory called into question. Aside from the fact that this etymology has acheckered his tory as a problematic item (see Polome 1972:67-68 and Lehmann 1986, for instance), Gamkrelidze (1990a:60-61) points out that Germanic, during the relevant period, would bave bad no voiced stops and would have thus been forced 10 adapt the Celtic g to its phonological system. In stark contrast 10 the extremely polemical tone of many early responses (and the dialribes of a few), a number of far more sober critiques have emerged of late. Hock (1986), for example, disputes the empirical basis for the typological claims on which the Glottalic Tbeory is based, that is, he seeks 10 show that some attested languages show b gaps and that voiced aspirates exist in languages without voiceless aspirates. Both of these points will be dealt with below in Chapters 5 and 6. He objects, however, most strenuously to typological reconstruction on the grounds that an ejective series would violate Occam's Razor, since the traditional reconstruction requires major systemic restructuring in only two dialects (Armenian and Germanie), while the typological model requires restructuring in all but two dialects. 23 These objections can be, however, largely overcome by positing a variable glottalic set, consisting of implosives and/or ejectives, since no new major dialectal changes are needed (Le., vis-a-vis the traditional view). This idea will be explored in some detail below. Tbe early reactions to the Glottalic Theory were often emotional and often rested on unsympathetic readings of crucial points, such as the arguments against the absolute absence of *b. While the focus of these early critiques rests on utter rejection of typology and the G lottalic Theory for the most part, note that these critics also propose changes to the traditional IE system, either areturn to the Neogrammarian view (Szemerenyi, Dunkel, Back) or adjustments to particular series (Hock, in particular).

3.3

Refinements, adjustmeots aod other variaots

The purpose of this section is less to trace the evolution of a nascent consensus about PIE obstruents than to sketch minor adjustments, and give an overview of some of the many recent alternative formulations of PIE obstruents. 23Cf. Bomhard (1984:29-30) for the complicated sets of changes involved in one glottalic theory to get from the proto-Ianguage to the dialects. Normier (1977) is also of interest here.

I I

I

THEGUJITAUC 1HEORY AND RESPONSES

25

One notable result of the earliest proposals was a proliferation of variants of the GlottaIic Theory. A few of those variants are introduced bere and several of them will be further discussed in Chapter 5.24 Haider's view (1985) is basically that the typological oddities pointed out by Hopper and Gamkrelidze & Ivanov warrant attention but cannot be used 10 overtum the traditional system. He claims that, at a theoreticallevel, typological applications 10 linguistic reconstruction are inherently fallacious because they represent a leap from a statistical generalization to a single case. Tbus, "the assumption that typological statements can predict reconstructed language states is mistaken" (1985:9). Individual exceptions, he argues, can be explained diachronically. Take for instance the implicational universal that the existence of q implies the existence of k in a phonemie inventory. Some languages of the US Paeifie Northwest violate this as a result of a change of k -+ (!, leaving systems without k but with q. Haider then applies this kind of argument to PIE S1OpS. First, the fact that the root structure constraints apply onIy to roots and not to words already indicates their archaism, i.e., the root structure constraints were pre-PIE, not PIE or IE. This is emphasized by the violations of the *deg constraint brought about by reduplication in forms like Sanskrit dddaimi 'give' and Greek öiÖOJp.z from PIE *dö. Haider also contends that, since glottaIics are particularly stable, they should have survived in at least some IE daughter languages. Note that this is a typological argument of a rather weak kind: appeal 10 a marked segment as being resistant to change. As discussion in Chapters 5 and 6 will show, markedness is ultimately a weak argument for motivating sound change. Also, Kortlandt (treated below) actually argues that numerous attested phenomena in IE dialects are direct reflexes of the glottaIics. Haider then proposes his own-typologically unproblematic-solution 10 matters, namely positing implosives for the traditional plain voiced. The traditional voiced aspirates are simply voiced in his view. From here, a deglottaIization rule for the implosive series and a fortition ofthe plain voiced to voiced aspirates (or breathy stops) yields the classical system. The *b gap results from a change of *6 to *m. The *deg constraint works much as it does in the standard glottalic views, via the prohibition of two highly marked stops within a rool. The *teghldhek constraint on the other hand is given a novel solution: it represents essentially an accidental gap because the plain voiced in such roots did not shift to voiced aspirates in the abovenoted change except in dissimilatory contexts. Thus, -+ PIE pre-PIE *~ *ber *~

*deg

*beid

*lteid"

24The proposals of both Vennemann (1984. etc.) and Emonds (1972) will be dealt with in section 4.2 on dialectal developments in Germanie. since their views are built more specifically around Germanie rather than PIE as a whole.

26

1HE GlDITAIlC TIIEORY

But *dek does not become *dhek. He defends this move ultimately by saying that it does not fare any worse than MiIIer's solution to the same problem. In 4.1, I provide a view which can avoid this difficultyaltogether. The most notable features of Haider's contribution are then (1) positing implosives rather than ejectives, motivating changes to voiced rather than voiceless stops, and (2) chronological differentiation, making his proposal "consistent with the reconstructively ascertained system" rather than "competing with it" (1985:21). This should presumably help balance out the high costs of positing additional changesindeed additional STAGES-in the proto-language. Hock's arguments about the role of Occam's Razor in reconstruction are perhaps most applicable not to the classic Glottalic Theory but rather 10 these chronological solutions. Hamp (1989) defines the traditional plain voiceless stops as lenis voiceless aspirate (which he writes as p', so that the *b gap becomes a *p gap, ala Pedersen, a system which then developed into the traditional system. Hamp's aspirate series is relatively marked within the whole obstruent system and in this way he is able to account for other indications of markedness. A dissimilation like Grassmann's Law is used to explain the absence of *deg roots. While the oldest layer here is unique, the proposal as a whole should perhaps best be understood as a chronological solution (see 5.3 below). One of the most substantial criticisms of the Glottalic Theory comes from Hayward (1989)-although he delivers it without explicitly rejecting the theory. This is perhaps precisely because Hayward challenges Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, at least to some extent, within their own framework. Many of the specifics of that critique have been presented above, but the nature of those criticisms also deserves comment. His first relevant point is that cross-linguistic rarity in phonemic inventories does not necessarily correspond to lexical rarity (1989:42-43). More concretely, just because few languages contain a given segment or feature does not mean that that segment or feature will occur in few lexical items in languages which do have it. Thus, in the case at hand, the relative rarity of *b is not necessarily connected 10 the bilabial gaps in numerous languages of the world. Hayward may weIl be right that such a formulation of matters is too strong and that the relationship cannot be assumed apriori. Still, as the discussion based on Maddieson's data (1984) in Chapter 5 shows, items which show gaps in numerous languages also appear likely to show anomalous distributions, such as being limited to loanwords or being rare. A somewhat weaker formulation of the typological claim would still hold, for example that lexical rarity is often motivated by the same factors which motivate crosslinguistic rarity. That is, these are related phenomena, explicable in similar terms. Hayward shows that complex segments are not inevitably lexically rare. While this is different from showing that there is no general relationship between frequency and markedness, he is certainly right that such an assumption should be supported by cross-linguistic data.

1HE GLOTI'AllC 1'HFDRY AND RESPONSES

27

Hayward also finds that Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's Kartvelian/lndo-European etymologies in most cases point to a correspondence between Indo-European ejectives and Kartvelian voiced stops, such that PIE *k' en/*k'n 'to hear, to understand' would have been loaned into Kartvelian as *gen/*gn (1989:52). I will argue below that a strict distinction between ejective and implosive is not needed, so that such etymologies would fit without problem, either by coming after a shift from implosive to plain voiced stops or by losing implosion when they were borrowed. Moreover, the use of such ancient and controversial loanwords as evidence for or against a particular reconstruction stands on shaky ground. See Gamkrelidze (199Oa: 7-8) for a skeptical treatment of the value of loans used in this way. Djahukian (1990) argues a more general point about JE consonants while rejecting the Glottalic Theory. The heart of his argument is that there was "no common Indo-European nonn: the Indo-European language structure was characterized by areal variation" (1990:12) This variation includes aspiration (found in Indie, Armenian, Greek and Italian, not found elsewhere), labialization (found in Greek, Italie, Celtic and Albanian), and palatalization (Iranian, Slavic, Baltie and Albanian). He claims that this variability provides a more satisfactory account of developments than the traditional view and that positing a "glottalized series is not justified by the comparative historical data" (1990:7). This rests in part on the argument that glottalization is not attested in the older JE dialects and is secondary in the newer dialects. Kortlandt's arguments and evidence to the contrary are dismissed as simply "to say the least, inconvincing" [sic] (1990:7). Throughout, he argues that typologists have not checked whole stop systems for plausibility. Two other proposals, those of Merlingen and Griffen, stand weIl outside the mainstream discussions, but are direct1y relevant here. Merlingen (1986) objects to the usual formulation of the Glottalic Theory on the basis that ejectives, normally voiceless, cannot have regularly become plain voiced stops, and concludes that this series does not require revision. Tbe traditional voiced aspirates are seen as the sole typological problem. They show up regularly in the daughter languages as voiced. For this reason, that series is reconstrueted as implosive, as Haider (1985) had done a year before. 25 Tbe basic strategy is to show that implosives are particularly archaic in human language. First, he argues (1986:328), implosives ultimately derive from the act of swallowing and the artieulatory gesture associated with them is therefore older than human language. Second, he claims that the archaism of implosives is "shown already by their occurrence among peoples with languages about which we

25Collinge (1985: 263) makes a passing comment that it is "a pity" that nobody had proposed replacing the voiced aspirate series with ejectives, essentially what Merlingen does here. Collinge's interest is in the treatment of Grassmann's Law within such a theory, something Merlingen does not deal with. At any rate, the root structure constraint explanation paralieis this, except for the clear directionality of Grassmann.

28

1HE GlDITAIlC 'ffiEORY

can rightly claim that they are more archaie than European languages, which have certainly moved farther from their origins" (1986:328). Even aside from the clear implication that some languages are more primitive than others, and the attendant dangerous social and political implications, Merlingen's work proves highly problematic. Foremost, it confuses the two central issues of the Glottalic Theory: the marked status of the traditional plain voiced stops and the aberrant character of voiced aspirates within the system traditionally posited. The motivation for positing ejectives, of whatever subclass, is a more plausible account of the rarity of *b and so forth. The motivation for questioning the voiced aspirates is quite different within the context of the whole PIE obstruent system.26 Finally, the entire proposal rests on a false assumption, which will be discussed in Chapter 5 below. Namely, ejectives are not, as he claims, "so closely associated with voicelessness" that voiced consonants could not have developed from them "with such regularity and so widely attested" (1986:325). Numerous counter-examples will be discussed below. Although Griffen certainly does not see hirnself in the tradition of Hopper and Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, he has for a number of years been proposing a rather similar revision ofPIE obstruents (1988,1990, cf. also his earlier wodes listed below in the bibliography). Griffen proposes an original two-way Voice Onset Time (VOT) contrast for his "Germano-European", between lenis and fortis stops, from which a three-way lenis-fortis contrast evolved, which he writes as d, t, /., running from lenis to fortis. This rests on a type of aspiration, but "not the aspiration found only in the puff of breath after the initial consonant in a word such as pill, but an aspiration characterized by complex physiological and acoustic characteristics" (1988:xx-xxi). With such a system, Griffen argues, the rest of the dialects, which he calls "IndoEuropean", split away from Germanic and Armenian.27 Virtually all developments in "Germano-European" obstruents can be solved, he claims, in terms of movement along a single fortis-lenis scale. He does not directly address the problem of the marked status of the traditional plain voiced stops. His objection to a glottalic series, which he equates with the Glottalic Theory as a whole, is that "glottalization is based upon the need for making the changes work in the phonemic systems and not upon any basic consideration of the way in which 26Remember that Hammerich had a!ready made a very similar proposal-i.e., replacing traditional voiced aspirates with glottalized or laryngealized consonants-in the same journal exactly 30 years before (cf. Chapter 2, above). Merlingen does not refer to Hammerieh at aIl. Hammerieh's proposal does not rest, though, on eonfusion of issues a la Merlingen. Hammerich considers laryngealization a plausible feature from whieh aspiration could develop. 27Griffen loeates the homeland within what is more recently Germanic-speaking territory and that appears to be the reason for his renaming of the proto-Ianguage. This new name might be regarded as ill-ehosen in light of similarities, however vague, to theories advaneed partieularly during the Nazi era.

'fHE GWITAUC 1HEORY AND RESPONSES

29

tbe overall sound system of Indo-European might have functioned" (1988:214). On tbe other hand, he fmds that the glottalic series can account for later developments "quite neatly and (in isolation) in a compelling and convincing manner" (1988:213214). Griffen claims that glottalics "may be seen as a type of aspiration" (1989: 145). In a certain sense, I think the standard view is actually closer 10 seeing aspirates and glottalics as diametrically opposed, given that aspiration quintessentially involves an open glottis and glottalics require glottal closure followed by release. Griffen also claims that the Glottalic Theory had reinterpreted tbe traditional "tenues, *p, *1, and *k" as "glottalics." In fact, the best-known versions of glottalic JE propose glottalics for the traditional plain VOICED stops and either leave the plaiD voiceless untouched (Hopper. foe example) or propose optional aspiration (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, foe instance). Turning 10 his own theory, Griffen describes sound change largely in terms of movement along his version of a sonority hierarchy, which he calls a fortis-lenis scale. Lenition is described simply as a decrease in aspiration and fortition ("provection") as an increase in aspiration. He posits only two general tendencies in sound change in JE S1Ops: provection in positions of strength such as initial S10pS or stressed positions. and medial and fmal weakening. Griffen's work might appear more plausible had it included consideration of some theoretical work on the relationship between phonetics and phonology or between segmental and non-segmental analyses (although he does cite one early article by Goldsmith). The most interesting claim here is that Grimm's Law works better "backwards" than "forwards", i.e., that the changes from a basically glottalic system 10 the dialects is phonetically and phonologically more natural than the reverse. traditional point of view. This, as was described in the preceding section, explicitly formed the heart ofEmonds' thesis in bis 1972 article, where Emonds also introduced the notion of "tense" stops in PIE, which is not dissimilar to Griffen 's use of "aspirate tension. "28 Griffen (1988:36-41, 207-209 and elsewhere) takes a very different approach 10 typology as part of the method of linguistic reconstruction. He attacks typology harshly in most places (although he praises it elsewhere), but Griffen confuses the nature and goals of typological work with the basic tenets of Saussurean structura1ism: "At the heart of language typology (based on countless observations) is the conclusion that language operates as a system" (1988:40). That, of course. is the heart of classical structuralism, namely Saussure's system, in which everything fits together (a system "ou tout se tient") and nothing which typologically-oriented scholars lay claim 10. Amazingly, Griffen repeatedly charges that typological 281 should note however that Griffen does not appear to see himself working in the tradition of Emonds' work, since in bis book, Griffen refers to Emonds only once in passing in a rather different context. In earlier works, such as Griffen (1984), Emonds is not mentioned at alI.

30

1HE GLaITAIlC 1HEORY

proposals were developed by using "phonologieal (phonemie) systems without eonsideration for phonetie plausibilities" (1988:210), taking, he claims, a purely abstraetionist position. It should be elear from the many passages above that typologieal approaches 10 PIE obstruents have been guided by phonetie plausibility, something whieh has led 10 eritieism from some abstraetionists, who have generally lined up with the traditional view of Indo-European obstruents. In summary then, Griffen's theory of Proto-Indo-European obstruents seems to rest on numerous questionable assumptions and questionable readings of the literature and brings along with it several theory-intemal problems.29 Perhaps a rough taxonomy of variants of the Glottalic Theory ean help elarify matters to conelude this ehapter and its array of proposals. A number of early erities had suggested redefining the typologieally problematie voieed aspirate series phonetieally, e.g., as voieed frieatives or as breathy or murmured stops. Hopper follows the latter move, but also addresses another very different typologieal problem, the marked status of the traditional plain voiced s1ops, by positing ejectives. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov share this move in eommon with Hopper, but they suggest aspiration as a non-distinctive charaeteristie of the other two series, viz. the traditional plain voiceless stops and voieed aspirates. Note that they posit plain voiced stops with allophonic aspiration, and not breathy stops. Shevoroshkin & Markey defme the highly marked series, traditional plain voiced as plain voieeless, and make series m into voieeless aspirates. Haider, working with apre-PIE stage, reconstructs the plain voieed as implosive. Merlingen leaves the plain voiced untouehed, but declares the tradition al voieed aspirates to be implosives. Vennemann, building a theory specifieally for Germanie and using Germanie evidenee, posits a glottalie series, a lax, non-aspirated series (potentially with voieed allophones), and a voieeless aspirate series. Hock also declines 10 tamper with the plain voieed and considers the traditional voieed aspirates 10 be voiceless aspirates, eliminating half of the lypological problem while essentially declaring typology an inappropriate tool for linguistie ' reconstruetion. Griffen sees all three series eontrasting along his fortis-lenis scale. Finally, bringing us full eirele, Szemerenyi and Rasmussen return us to the Neogrammarian-like four-series obstruent system. ' Looked at froni another angle, series I appears in various theories as plain voiced, ejective, implosive, lenis or plain voieeless stops. Kortlandt's variant of the ' theory, discussed below in 4.2, includes preglottalized voieed stops to eomplete the set. Series II has recently been reconstrueted as voiced aspirate, voiceless aspirate, : plain voieed, breathy or murmured, and implosive stops-and earlier, within the , classie period, as fricatives. Series m provides some solace however, sinee voiceless '

!

29S uch problems include, beyond those noted here, the failure of this theory 10 account in any way for basic phenomena such as Grassmann's Law, a point raised by Edgar Polome at the 1991 meeting of the International Linguistic Association in New York.

'

31

1'HE GWITAUC 1HEORY AND RESPONSES

(and/or fortis) is agreed upon by all, with only Shevoroshkin & Markeyadding aspiration.

TABLE2.

PRarD-lNDO-EUROPEAN OBSTRUENT INVENI'ORlES30 Series I

Series 11

Series III

Series IV

p, t, k

pt', 1"', k··

Neogrammarian b, d, g ~, ~, g' (also Szemerenyi, Back, Rasmussen)

Traditional views p, t, k p, t, k

Lehmann

b, d, g Hock b,d,g (also Kuryiowicz and others)

Glottalic Theory and variants Hopper

Gamkrelidze

(p'), t', k' (p'), t ' I k'

& Ivanov (also Bomhard) Emonds P, t, k Shevoroshkin p, t, k & Markey Merlingen b,d,g p', t ' , k' Vennemann

b, d, g b(lt)I d(It), g(lI)

~,dlt,g'

b,d,g 6,d,{f

\', p, g,

300riffen' s proposal is not included because it is unclear to me exactly how one would render his three degrees of complex fortition/lenition in phonetic transcription.

Chapter 4 The Implications of the Glottalic Theory

4.1 Rerormulating the laws or Indo-European Yarious interpretations of basic comparative evidence have been laid out in the preceding chapters. Still, virtually no working historical linguist would accept a reconstruction based solelyon such evidence for a proto-language with the complex tradition of Indo-European. An integral part of the application of the comparative method and internal reconstruction goes further to provide a plausible and coherent account of the changes from the proto-Ianguage to the attested daughter languages. These issues represent fundamental tests of the Glottalic Theory. Let us turn now to the problem of whether this new theory is better able to explain central phonoIogicaI processes in Indo-European, that is, the "laws" developed in the nineteenth century.31 4.4.1 Grassmann's Law is a distant dissimilation rule for aspirates occurring within roots, a rule which applied right to left in both Greek and Sanskrit. Thus, an original sequence of bhVdh became bVdh in traditional terms. Grassmann's Law has been seen as an entirely independent innovation in these two languages. The principle argument for the independence of the phenomenon in Greek and Sanskrit is one of relative chronology, summarized here from Iverson (1985). As has already been seen above, within a traditional framework, Greek devoiced its originally voiced aspirate series. Rad Grassmann's Law operated before aspirate devoicing, the outcome in Greek would have been bVth rather than pVth. Tbe fact that Greek shows the laUer forms mandates this relative chronology within the traditional framework: 1) Greek aspirate devoicing: 2) Grassmann's Law:

bh~

ph

phYth

~

pYth.

In Sanskrit, where there was no devoicing ruIe, we find that the simple application of Grassmann's Law yields bVdh. Independent application of such a rule is problematic given the irregularity and unpredictability of dissimilation rules cross-

31S ee Collinge (1985) for a detailed review of these Indo-European laws and the relevant literature on them.

1HE IMPUCATIONS OFTIIE GLO'ITAUC TIIEORY

33

Iinguistically-as opPOsed to, say, assimilation mies, where no one is surprised to find parallel roles voicing intervocalic obstruents across various different languages.32 Those working within a glottalic framework were quick to realize that some serious problems with traditional formulations of Grassmann's Law could be overcome. Hopper (1974) already proposed that Grassmann's Law reflected a feature of the proto-Ianguage, whereby complete manner contrasts were maintained in only one position within the rooL Since that paper is not available elsewhere and does not appear to be widely known Gudging from the fact that it is at best seldom cited), I include a long quote from the abstract: A constraint in the proto-language prevented the occurrence of two ejective stops in the same root; consequently only one segment position could attain the maximum number of contrasts. In other positions, the contrast was between voiced and voiceless (t/d). Since the ejectives did not figure in PIE suffixes, no sandhi rule could produce two ejectives in the same word. and it may therefore be assumed that this constraint also existed in surface structure. When in Greek and Sanskrit the ejectives became voiced stops, the aspirated stops became the most highly marked members of the obstruent system and the other two sets of stops stood in an unmarked opposition voiced/voiceless. The restrietion of Grassmann's Law to Sanskrit and Greek is thus diachronically motivated: these are the only two languages which both retained a multiple manner contrast in stops and changed ejectives into voiced stops. In general, most variants of the Glottalic Theory reduce aspiration of the voiced stops to an allophonic matter, which means that the inception of Grassmann's Law can be posited for the proto-Ianguage (as per Iverson 1985) and that there is no need to posit two independent occurrences of a highly unusual phonological process in different PIE daughter languages. If aspiration is allophonic, then its restrietion to one occurrence per root becomes mundane. Taking Iverson (1985) as a starting point, I have suggested elsewhere (Salmons 1991) that Grassmann's Law may fit into a broad cross-linguistic tendency for laryngeal features-such as aspiration, breathiness or gloualization-to be limited to a single occurrence within a root. If Grassmann 's Law was actually an allophonic alternation in Indo-European, then a limit on whichever laryngeal feature one chooses to posil would be unproblematic.3 3

32See Hock (1986:113 and elsewhere) for detailed discussion on the irregularity of dissimilation rules. 330hala (1981, 1986) has proposed a phonetic motivation for such dissimilations, namely that these laryngeal features are exactly those which can spread across vowels, making these dissimilations local and thus less disturbing than the traditional characterization of 'distant dissimilation.'

34

1HE GWITAllC 1HFDRY

4.4.2 Bartholomae's Law, in a traditional framework, changes a sequence of voiced aspirate + voiceless stop across a mOipheme boundary into a sequence of plain voiced plus voiced aspirate. Thus, budh- 'awaken' + -ta becomes buddha 'the awakened one.' This process differs from many others in pm by being progressive instead of regressive, i.e., working from the beginning 10ward the end rather than the other way around. Because the data is limited 10 the eastemmost m languages. it has been questioned whether Bartholomae's Law was an mora dialecta1 phenomenon. Miller (1977a. 1977b) has argued that Bartholomae's Law can be projected back into the proto-language and that this phonological process accounts for the absence of roots of the type *dhek by a similar process of assimilation, only within a CVC root rather than across a morpheme boundary. 4.4.3 This is the appropriate place to devote some detailed attention 10 the root structure constraints of Proto-Indo-European which were introduced above. In traditional terms. these restrictions "forbid" the cooccurrence within a single root of 1) two plain voiced stops and 2) a voiceless stop and a voiced aspirate. These results are summarized in Table 3 (examples from Watkins 1985). TABLE3

ROOT STRUCfURE CONSTRAINI'S (IN CV(V)C ROOfS) (1) A'ITESTED (OR PERMITTED) SEQUENCES vi + vd vd + vi vi + vi *ped- 'foot' *gWet_ 'speak' *pek- 'fleece, comb' *tag- 'touch' *dek- 'take' *tep- '\0 be warm' *kad- 'fall' vd + asp asp + vd *deigh- 'insect' *bhag- 'share' *gWadh_ 'sink' *dheb- 'dense

asp + MP *bheudh- 'be aware' *dheigh- 'form. fIrm. build'

(2) UNATIESTED (OR PROHIBITED) SEQUENCES vd + vd vi + asp asp + vi **bed**pegh**bheg**dhek**deg**tebhIn the traditional view of PIE stops. these root structure constraints were unusual. with few if any paralleis across the known languages of the world. The Glottalic Theory has a distinct advantage here. since a constraint against two glottalics in a CVC root is common cross-linguistically. Also. the constraint against co-occurrence of a traditional voiceless stop and a voiced aspirate within a single root becomes a simple rule mandating voicing agreement within the root.

'!'HE IMPUCATIONS OFTHE GUJITAUC 1HFDRY

35

although that rule remains problematic (see the discussion of Iverson & Salmons below). Huld (1983:140) takes a different stance on the constraints, fmding it "clear that the voiced stops function as the unmarked pivot members of the system with the voiceless and voiced aspirated stops marked by different features of articulatory release." He proposes that a single rule can cover the entire set of constraints, namely that CVC roots "possessed one and onIy one discrete feature of articulatory release." Tbis rule is, of course, stated abstractly enough to stand in various reconstructions and Huld opts for the three series as voiceless fortis, glottalized and lenis (the unmarked member), a solution closest perhaps to that of Vennemann. But as for the plausibility of this scheme, the notion of markedness employed here is, at best, unusual. In any normal setting, the voiceless stops are considered the least marked and in this particular proto-Ianguage the plain voiced appear to be particularly marked. Tbis system-specific evidence for markedness would seem to make it unlikely that the plain voiced would serve such a pivotal role. Aside from this matter of basic formulation, I am unaware of any language employing such a complex constraint on possible root structure, which is normally defined, positively or negatively, in terms of the identity of the consonantal segments involved (see the discussion of this issue in Iverson & Salmons (1992». Nonetheless, Huld at least is abte to provide a coherent description of the root structure constraints, even if it is unlikely to prove workable phonologically. Tbe reaction from opponents of the Glottalic Tbeory has brought forth some alternative proposals. Szemerenyi (1985:13) calls the explanation "an advantage we can do easily without", reiterating the traditional account, namely that roots of the type **pegh- as weIl as **bhek- assimilated to **bhegh-. Szemerenyi notes, first, the high frequency of asp+asp roots, which he interprets as an indication that this group has "absorbed" other types and, second, that the restriction does not apply after s-mobile (a prefIx).34 Tbis is not impossible but it does leave the most puzzling constraint in the old system-and the most easily explicable in the Glottalic Theory-unmentioned, Le., the constraint against two plain voiced stops within a rool Moreover, this bidirectional assimilation rule is posited only to account for the gap, without any other motivation or evidence. Voyles (1989:32) challenges the assumption of a root structure constraint against two voiced stops by citing 12 etymologies in Pokomy containing exact1y such forms. 35 From this, he argues, parallel to the absence vs. rarity debate with regard to *b, that the constraint was a tendency and thus proves nothing. Serious 34Actually, the number of double aspirate roots is still quite small, certainly under 20

in Pokorny's entire lexicon of over 2,000 items, depending on which weak etymologies one chooses to discard. See Iverson & Salmons (1992). 35His objections 10 the voiced aspirate + voiceless constraint within the Glottalic Theory ignore the substantial work by Miller and others on this problem. discussed above.

36

11ffi GUJITAUe TIIEORY

problems exist however with most, if not all, of Pokomy's roots of the type **deg. First of all, Pokorny hirnself was quite skeptical about a number of these items, marking at least half of them with "1" or "??"-*deg, *geid-, *bed-, *band-, *grVd-, *gröd-. Second, it might be worth noting that seven ofthe 12 roots are not CVC at all, but rather CVRC/CRVC roots, in several cases enlargements or probable enlargements, e.g., *gre(n)d 'bundle' < *ger- 'to turn, wind.' Finally, while Voyles cites the frrst example just given as being widely attested, it is in fact only attested in Tocharian and Germanic, and this connection has been challenged (cf. Markey 1988:24). Several show suspiciously limited distributions, particularly in the northwestem area. Most of these examples can be eliminated in this way. If we are left with a residue of one or two cases, that is indeed a shaky foundation on which to construct an attack on the root structure constraint. Wedekind (1991) devotes an article 10 showing that not alilanguages disallow sequences of the type t' Vk' (i.e., containing two glottalized segments within a root or other morpheme). The argument usually advanced, however, is that SOME languages disallow such sequences, thus creating a typological parallel and precedent to the proposed glottalic view of pm. Wedekind appears 10 believe that this rests on an assumption that ALL languages with glottalics would prohibit such phenomena. No one, even in the darkest recesses of the literature on the Glottalic Theory, has to my knowledge suggested that t'Vk' constraints represent absolute universals. Iverson & Salmons (1991) take a radically different lack with regard to the constraints from those found previously in the literature, arguing that the root structure constraints themselves are actuaily a marginal phenomenon. Following a Benvenistean root analysis where a11 roots are CVC, only 3.5% of the pm root inventory given by Pokomy both begin and end with a stop, with a specific preference for high sonority codas, as found in many languages of the world. 36 The ENTIRE c1ass of double-stop roots is extremely limited and even more so given that a majority of that group from Pokorny (after eliminating some obviously weak etymologies) are of the types *tek and *dhegh, i.e., voiceless or voiced aspirate sharing manner of articulation. If accepted, this argument would profoundly weaken the importance of the root structure constraints. Still, we take the marked nature of the plain voiced series to be clear in light of other evidence. 4.4.4 Other assimilatory phenomena have been proposed for pm and these might also be relevant tests for the Glottaiic Theory. For example, Green (1983) argues thal the Glottalic Theory could not comfortably handle some voicing assimilation phenomena which can be reconstructed for the proto-Ianguage using

36As argued at some length in the paper, our ultimate conclusion does not demand absolute adherence to Benvenistean root theory. Exceptions in the direction of ev roots strengthen our position and it would take a tremendous number of evee roots 10 dUute our point substantially.

nIE IMPUCATIONS OF1HE GlDITAUC 1lIEORY

37

internal data. Namely, he reminds us that regressive assimilation occurs in cases

like: *Ieg- - *lek-towhere the widespread reflexes in attested daughter languages would point to such an alternation. 37 From this, he goes on to claim that zero-grades could show assimilation from voiceless 10 a following voiced, namely full-grade *ped - zerograde *bd-, on the basis of Avestanfra-bd-a 'fore part of the foot' and Sanskrit upa-bda 'aet of trampling, stepping on something' and, less certain yet, Greek Exipoot 'day after a holiday.' (I'he last example is noted as problematic by Green and by B. Joseph (1985:318).) Assimilation to a following glottalic, Green argues, is unlikely, but voice assimilation is perfectly normal, thus a glottalic view of Indo-European obstruents fails to account for a common phonological process. A number of problems arise here, even if one accepts the assumed etymologies and analysis proposed.3 8 The most important one, as is argued at length in the present work on very different grounds, is that alternations would have to have existed within the glottalic series between ejective (voiceless) and implosive (voiced), which is weil attested in a variety of other languages. With implosives, it is hardly counterintuitive to expect the reduced grade of pet/. to occur as -bd-. The glottalization-specifically implosion-would be lost in the cluster and a straightforward voicing assimilation role would result, regressive as in Grassmann's Law and in Green's own examples above. Such a process is also needed 10 aecount for such classic examples as *ni-zdos < *nisd-os 'nest.' If the traditional voiced aspirates are reconstructed as either breathy or plain aspirate, a general tendency could be discerned in PIE. BuHding on Jucquois' 1966 data (which is based on a strict Benvenistean reading of root structure, i.e., exclusively CVC), that series has by far the highest ratio of occurrence in initial versus final position. That is, traditional voiced aspirates appear disproportionately in root-initial position, as in Table 4 below.

37Pred Schwink (p.c.) points out that such a rule is "eminently expectable" and would "not need to be reconstructed" in most views. 380ne might, for instance, also challenge the jump from assimilation across morpheme boundaries to within roots.

38

1HE GIDITAllC 1HEORY

TABlE4 FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCEOF STOP SERIES:

INITIAL YS FINAL Root-initial

Root-fmal

Ratio i/f

Voiced aspirate

307

50

6.14

Plain voiced

187

70

2.67

Voiceless

552

161

3.43 Based on Jucquois (1966:59)

On the other hand, in a rightheaded phonological system (to use the tenninology of frameworlcs such as Halle & Vergnaud 1987), i.e., a system where phonological processes tend to work from right to left (Bartholomae's Law excepted), a demarcative function of breathy voice and related phenomena could easily be associated with the rightmost rather than the leftmost element The phonological processes treated briefly in this section-Grassmann's Law, Bartholomae's Law, the root structure constraints, regressive voice assimilationwould be PIE mIes within the Glottalic Theory, but from a traditional perspective several are of problematic date. The Glottalic Theory unmes what traditional views bad to regard as several distinct processes. Two other phonological processes in IE daughter languages have been given some attention within the Glottalic Theory, Winter's Law and Lachmann's Law, which are vowellengthening mIes in Balto-Slavic and Italic respectively. These two mIes are ioherently problematic and their status uncertain. Until further research is published in this area, I must remain skeptical that these can be used to test the validity of the Glottalic Theory, following Collioge (1985).

4.2 Dialectal developments An important test for any proposed proto-language is its ability to posit coherent changes into its attested daughter Ianguages. That iso ceteris paribus. a protolanguage will be preferred from which the changes ioto later varieties can be explained most economically-Le.• by positing fewer and simpler changes. Also. it should ideally posit more natural changes--Le.• well-attested types of change and phonetically and phonologically explicable types of change. For example, the change from stop to continuant is far better attested than the reverse. For a protolanguage with so many diverse descendants as PIE, the application of this simple principle becomes extremely complex. The earliest works on the Glottalic Theory provided, naturally enough, only cursory overviews of dialectal developments. so that even today this remains one of the areas where some of the most substantial

1HE IMPUCATIONS OFTHE G1DITAUC 1lIEORY

39

work remains to be done. In this section, I treat briefly some of the more interesting issues which have arisen in the Glottalic Theory. The basic innovation of the Glottalic Theory here is that it proposes reversing the set of languages whieh have remained eonservative and those which have undergone major shifts: Germanie and Armenian come to reflect astate of affairs eloser to the proto-language, and developments in Indie reflect greater evolution. This kind of mini-Coperniean Revolution has proven one of the most eounterintuitive aspects of the Glottalic Theory for many Indo-Europeanists and Germanists as weIl. 4.2.1 Let us deal first and most extensively with the Germanic evidence, which has played a crucial role in this debate given the radical changes between Germanic and most reconstructed forms of the PIE obstruent system. The Germanic Consonant Shift or Grimm's Law has always been diffieult to motivate and, perhaps for that reason, is probably the most studied sound change in the history of linguistics. Some have even elaimed that such a change is unparalleled in attested instances of language change, although Haider (1985:23) gives a parallel to two crucial elements of Grimm's Law in Mon-Khmer, namely changes from voiceless to voiceless aspirate (which continued to fricativization in Germanic) and voieed to voiceless. Perhaps as a result of both the importance of Grimm 's Law and the myriad problems with its formulations, the discussions among Germanie linguists have developed into a microcosm of the whole debate over the Glottalic Theory. The Germanic obstruent system, in a glottalic perspective. moves from being one of the most innovative-by Grimm's Law-to becoming one of the most conservative. 39 Marchand (1988:91), however, reminds us that Germanic has long been regarded as conservative in its phonology (if not its phonetics). Vennemann has, in a number of works (1984, 1985, 1989b, etc.), set forth his own theory of Germanic developments which would not simply account for Grimm's Law, but unite the First and Second Sound Shifts (the Germanie and High German shifts), generally assumed to represent two entirely distinct and independent changes. Vennemann proposes to derive, in other words, essentially all Germanic obstruent consonantism from Indo-European by a pair of parallel shifts. Assuming an early Proto-Germanic obstruent stop system containing lenis, fortis and glottalized-much as in most versions of the Glottalic Theory-he suggests the following scenario (1984:23). 'Paleo-Germanic'-a stage prior to Proto-Germanic-showed a contrast among voiceless aspirate, lenis (written here as plain voiced) and ejective stops, so that the coronal stops would have been 'P, T' and D. The transition to Proto39Rather than review the most widely discussed sound change in the history of linguistics, I refer the reader to any handbook on historical linguistics, the history of any Germanic language or most introductory textbooks for a discussion of Grimm's and Verner's Laws. Relatively complete treatment, up to the beginning of the Glottalic Theory, can be found in Schrodt (1976).

40

TIm Gl.DITAlle 'fHEORY

Germanie consisted simply of the aspirate becoming a fricative: 'P' ~ p. At this point, the split into High Germanic and Low Germanie by virtue of Proto-Germanic T' becoming 'fS and 'P' respectively. From there, the two branches of Germanic develop into these forms: High Germanic

p

~

D

'fS D

~

SS T

~

Low Germanic

p 'P D

~

D

~

D

This system should yield several major advantages over the traditional formulations. First, in terms of plausibility or naturalness of sound changes, Vennemann posits only changes in accordance with the lenition hierarchy while the most common versions of Grimm' s Law have been forced to posit a change counter to one of the best-established elements of that hierarchy, namely fricative to stop, without much further motivation. 40 Second, in terms of economy (i.e., Occam's Razor), Vennemann argues that his changes are far more direct for two of the three series, namely the tradition plain voiced and the traditional voiced aspirate, and as direct for the third series. Most substantially, Vennemann's split of T' into Low Germanic 'P and High Germanic 'fS is intended to replace Grimm' s chain of D -+ T ~ 'P'~'fS.

Most notably, though, Vennemann has succeeded in uniting the two major consonantal shifts of Germanic. The other advantages basically fall out from an assumption of a glottalic-like consonant system as a starting point. One potentially troublesome part of the Indo-European implications of this model can be found in Greek, where Vennemann is forced to posit a change from lenis voiced in the protolanguage to voiceless aspirate. As already noted, the discussion surrounding Vennemann's "branching" theory has progressed to a surprising extent independently but closely parallel to discussion of the general Glottalic Theory. For example, as recently as Voyles (1989), one fmds arguments against Vennemann that are well-wom in the broader Indo-European context and which have long since been answered by proponents of the GlottaIic 40Note that a highly marked individual fricative may become a stop-cf. the facultative or obligatory occlusion of especially word-initial interdental dental fricatives in many varieties of English-but I refer here to entire series of fricatives becoming stops.

1HE IMPUCATIONS OFTIIE GLUITAUC lHEORY

41

Theory, viz. the absence vs. rarity question and the root structure constraint against traditional voiced aspirate plus voiced.41 Van Cootsem (1990:56) raises an extremely important point for both Vennemann's view and the general Glottalic Theory as weIl. He caUs our attention 10 the fact that, although Vennemann otherwise reconstructs "from below" that on the crucial matter of positing a glottaIic series, Vennemann must reconstruct 'from above', i.e., with reference to Indo-European. In fact, this problem exists at the broader, Indo-European level as weIl, since there is littIe direct evidence for a glottaIic series of any type across the Indo-European dialects. I will return 10 this issue briefly below. Marchand provides a self-described "jeremiad" (1988:93) against Vennemann's bifurcational theory, a jeremiad that is primarily methodological in nature. He shows that previous scholars have proposed many of the details of Vennemann's theory (e.g., the ordering of Verner's Law before the Germanic Consonant Shift), although it must surely be admitted that Vennemann's formulation, taken as a whole, indeed represents a radical departure from the tradition of work on the Germanic Consonant Shift. More importantly, he denies typology any possible significant role in linguistics, calling cross-linguistic parallels for Vennemann's proposal "merely the usual Parallelenjägerei [hunting or scrounging around for parallels] without meaning" (1988:92). He goes on to conelude that the use of "statistics" (meaning apparently evidence about what types of sound change are weIl-attested, poorly-attested or unattested) is a reductionist enterprise, implying that 10 use such evidence is to eliminate all irregularity (1988:95). Marchand takes an extremely abstractionist position (1988:96), one which seems 10 deny a possible role to phonetics. Because our evidence comes from letters on parchment, he argues, historicallinguists can virtually never make any claims about phonetics of even attested languages, let alone reconstructed ones. His demamis fot abstraction seem 10 imply a denial of the unifonnitarian principle, according 10 which historical linguists assume that the same general processcs at work in languages today were those found in earlier varieties and even reconstructed varieties.42 Moving from Vennemann 10 the broader problem of typology in reconstruction for amoment, the Glottalic Theory rests, in some sense, on this kind of argument: 1) Using the comparative method and internal reconstruction, linguists have reconstructed a sound system which shows a number of extremely curious patterns-e.g., the *b gap and the *deg constraint. 41Among the other critiques devoted specifically to Vennemann's work, see Draye (1986), Messing (1986), Stephens (in press) and von Stechow (1986), all of whom are critical but none of whom see their criticisms as entirely devastating 10 Vennemann's position. 421t is naturally possible to choose 10 reject the Uniformitarian Principle, although the consequences of such a move would be tremendous.

42

1HEGUJITAllC TIIEORY

2) With a new reconstruction, these patterns in the data turn out to show elose paralleIs in a number of unrelated contemporary languages. 3) These patterns can be motivated phonetically and/or phonologically. This is taken as evidence that the proto-language in question may have had the same sounds as those found in these attested languages. Phonetic detail has generally been lacking from reconstructions and the addition of such detail is therefore seen as progresS.43 While Germanic has received the most attention with regard to the Glottalic Theory, I see linIe in this discussion which would mandate the ultimate acceptance or rejection of the Glottalic Theory. Few criticisms of Vennemann's views, in particular, appear any more serious than the problems which exist for more traditional views of Grimm' s Law. 4.2.2 The Anatolian and Tocharian evidence has also been traditionally problematic. Hittite, although the oldest attested JE dialect and in a wide variety of ways considered an archaic daughter language, shows an aberrant stop system vis a vis the traditional reconstructions. Some views hold that Anatolian lost alllaryngeal manner contrasts, while others posit the collapse of the voiced aspirate and voiced into a voiced series still contrasting with voiceless. For Tocharian, loss of alt series contrasts is usually assumed. One common view among proponents of the Glottalic Theory is that Anatolian split off early and that the Anatolian consonant system reflects an archaic system. If one adopted the view that the three series in PIE were realized as [±voiced], [±aspirate]. [±glottalized], then voicing need not have EVER been contrastive in these languages (something argued by Kortlandt). 4.2.3 In Italic, Baldi and Staver-lohnstoo (1989) find the Glottalic Theory 00 less plausible than traditional theories, since the crucial change in Italic would be the development of the glottalized stops ioto plain voiced. Still, as Szemerenyi (1989:250-251) points out, this involves more than one sees on the surface, which Baldi & Staver-lohnstoo (1989:94) likewise acknowledge, noting that a direct change from ejective (i.e., voiceless) to plain voiced constitutes a change in which there is "such articulatory distance ... that a direct change seems phonotogically impossible." This leads to the oecessity of positing intermediate stages for early Italic. In my owo view, a direct change from glottalic to plain voiced is quite simple because, as will be shown below, ejective and implosives often coexist withio a system or in closely related dialects. If Proto-Italic is reconstructed with (voiced) implosives rather than with (voiceless) ejectives, then the change is simply a loss of glottalic character, an extremely straightforward process. That also overcomes the main objectioo of Garrett (1991:799-800) to the Baldi & Staver-lohnston proposal.

43See also Timberlake (1990: 40-46) for paralIeIs between Germanie developments within a glottalic reconstruction and Takelma (a Penutian language).

nIE lMPUCATIONS OFTHE GLO'ITAllC 1HEOR.Y

43

4.2.4 In Baltic, Kortlandt (1977, 1985:185) traces the rise of Latvian glottalic tones on vowels originally followed by glottalic stops, as in peds 'footstep.' In his view, the PIE laryngeals became a glottal stop, wh ich in turn merged with the glottalization of the traditional plain voiced. While Kortlandt's views on the chronology of such Baltie accentual features has been controversial at times, his proposed source of distinctive tone is plausible, found often in the literature on tonogenesis. 4.2.5 A substantial set of daughter languages has lost the distinction between traditional voiced and voiced aspirates: Celtic, Baltic, Slavic and Albanian. In these cases, the crucial point for older formulations of the Glottalic Theory is the voicing of the PIE ejectives. I suggest instead-as just noted for ltalic-that it is more plausible that this series in some daughter languages developed from implosives, obviating the step of voicing and leaving the simple change of deglottalization. 4.2.6 While the Armenian developments are generally treated within the Glottalic Theory as closely parallel to the Germanic developments. the responses from critics have taken a rather different tack in terms of the Armenian-specific changes. Swiggers (1989a:189-191) rejects the interpretation of the Classical Armenian system found in glottalic views, in particular the claim that was actually voiceless, whereas he interprets it as deriving from a lenis stop. See also Garrett (1991:797-798). 4.2.7 Such changes proposed within the Glottalic Theory find surprisingly close parallels in other language families. For instance, Bright (1954) posits three series for Northern Hokan (in the narrowest sense of this term, i.e. a frrst-level protolanguage)-plain voiceless, aspirate, and glottalized. Parallel to developments posited for Hittite and Tocharian, one language, Karok, has reduced those three to a single series, plain voiceless.44 Only one of the languages he treats, Chimariko, appears to have maintained a full three-way distinction, while others have reduced the obstruent system to a two-way contrast In Shasta, this involves glottalized vs. plain (P' - p) and in Achumawi and Atsugewi it involves aspirate vs. plain (ph vs. p). In Achumawi, the reflex of the collapsed plain and glottalic series can occur as voiced, voiceless or glottalic. 4.2.8 This treatment of reflexes in the IE daughter languages may help illuminate one more crucial point. Critics of the Glottalic Theory have often charged that positing glottalization means positing a feature for the proto-language that has disappeared from all of the daughter languages except Armenian. To counter this charge, Kortlandt (1985:197) discusses possible direct traces of (pre-)glottalization in a broader range: Baltic (the Latvian glottalic tone and likewise Lithuanian dialectally in stressed syllabies), Sindhi (retained as glottalies), and Danish (st;d). Kortlandt's 441 use this parallel here simply to establish how another group of related languages can show most of the developments proposed for PIE. The missing parallel is obviously the rise of a fourth series in Hokan.

44

1HE GLOITAUC 1HE'ORY

proposal-rejected without any supporting argumentation by Djahukian (1990)would provide evidence for continuation of glottalization, in some fairly broad sense, across numerous important daughters of PIE, but it still provides relatively weaker evidence than the retention of a full glottalic stop series. On the other hand, rejecting an proposals which posit aseries different from those well-attested in the daughters makes reconstruction a cIearly reductionist enterprise. It is, of course, thoroughly possible that a particular feature of a proto-Ianguage can fall to survive in any (attested) daughter language. In such cases, only the kind of methods employed by glottalic theorists would be ahle to uncover the lost feature, shy of the discovery of new direct evidence as in the case of Anatolian and PIE laryngeals. The methodological and theoretical implications of this problem will be aIluded to again occasionally in the next two chapters.

4.3 Distant genetic relationships Hopper noted early on (1977a:42 and elsewhere) that one goal of the Glottalic Theory was to help place Indo-European into a broader genetic context and he refers in that paper to paralleIs or possible parallels with Caucasian and with Semitic.4S Gamkrelidze & Ivanov repeatedIy note ties with Caucasian languages, perhaps not surprisingly for Indo-Europeanists working in Soviet Georgia. Since the GIottaIic Theory has such great impIications for this field and since the theory has been taken over with great enthusiasm by many working in the field, a word about the GIottaIic Theory and distant genetic relationships seems in order here. Let us briefly look at two attempts to integrate PIE into a broader genetic affiliation using variants of the GIottalic Theory: the best-known, developed by Allan Bomhard in a book and aseries of articIes, and a lesser-known one, proposed by Griffen, using his own theory which cIearly resembles the GIottaIic Theory. There are, of course, numerous other recent attempts to connect Indo-European with other genetic groups, most notably perhaps those from the Soviet Union. 46 Bomhard (1984,1989 and elsewhere) undertakes a detailed analysis ofProto-IndoEuropean and Proto-Afro-Asiatic (earIier often called Hamito-Semitic), a comparison that has tempted scholars such as Mf/tIler to propose genetic relationships since the turn of this century. Crucial to the affinity Bomhard finds between these two 45 1 should confess my own skepticism about distant genetic work here. This skepticism derives from the belief, lurking perhaps in this section, that we need even more advances in the methodology of reconstruction before we Can establish sufficiently rigorous comparisons at such time depths to allow us to conclusively demonstrate genetic affmity. Much of the current work is tantalizing, but progress must be made before Nostractic can be accepted as much more than a very tentative working hypothesis. PIE remains tentative enough and the steps beyond it still seem dangerous. 46Shevoroshin & Markey (1986) provide translations of a number of key articles on the subject from Soviet perspectives, including both Nostraticists and then opponents. See also the detailed and useful review of that work by Anttila & Embleton (1988).

1HE IMPUCATIONS OFTHE GLO'ITAUC 1HFDRY

45

families is the identification of PIE ejectives with Proto-Afro-Asiatic emphatics. A series of Proto-Afro-Asiatic ejectives can account for developments in the daughter languages (Bomhard 1984:134-138), where the general tendencies are a) glottalized stops (Semitic languages of Ethiopia), b) plain voiceless stops (some Neo-Aramaic dialects), and c) uvularized or pharyngealized stops (Arabic). Such a system has, in fact, been accepted by a number of specialists in Afro-Asiatic historicallinguistics. While the paralIeIs in the obstruent systems are the backbone of Bomhard's argument, it should be noted that he also draws parallels between PIE and Proto-AfroAsiatic in root structure, laryngeals, etc. More recently, Bomhard (1988:16-17) also notes that common views of the Proto-Indo-European homeland would place the proto-language in contact with languages showing ejective series.47 Gimbutas places that homeland between the Black Sea and the Caspian, which would have put PIE speakers in "direct areal contact with Caucasian languages." An Anatolian homeland, as proposed by Gamkrelidze & Ivanov (1984, 1985, the latter included in an issue of the Journal o/Indo-European Studies devoted 10 the homeland problem), would have PIE speakers in contact with Proto-Semitic. Griffen (1990) seeks to build distant genetic relationships based on his "Germano-European" obstruent system developed in Griffen (1988), treated briefly above. As elsewhere, he discounts other revisions of the PIE obstruent system, 10 the extent that he acknowledges them, in favor of his own very similar system. At any rate, he concludes that Germano-European is a very conservative branch of Nostratic. This is done with reference only 10 Kaiser & Shevoroshkin's critique of the Glottalic Theory (below), without reference to the distant genetic context into which Hopper, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, Bomhard and others have carefully developed and refined their views. One common criticism of work on distant genetic relationships or long-range reconstruction (leading to the label "long-rangers")48 is that our tools for reconstruction, whiIe easily adequate for first level reconstruction (such as ProtoRomance, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Finnic, Proto-Pomo) and adequate for second level (such as ProlO-Indo-European, Proto-Finno-Ugric, Proto-(Northem-) Hokan), are simply not sharply enough honed to allow reIiable application to more distant relationships, such as between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Finno-Ugric, ProtoAfro-Asiatic (previously known as Hamito-Semitic), or Caucasian. Hopper's aim, then, is to use typology to push back the limits of linguistic reconstruction and to move beyond seeing Proto-Indo-European as being, as he puts it (1977:42), "a typological and genetic isolate." 47See also Ropper (1982) on this point. 48Work on distant genetic relationships has brought forth numerous sarcastic labels by more traditional historical linguists. Other labels include "megalo-comparison" (Matisoff 1990) and "mystical-foggy omni-comparativism" ("mystisch-verschwommener Omnicomparativismus", Doerfer), the latter quoted in the foreword to Markey & Shevoroshkin (1986).

46

1HEGLO'ITAllC 'IHFDRY

While increasing interest in more distant genetic relationships encourages us to read parallels in consonantism as support for genetic affinities, another possibility must however be considered. Namely it is possible that PIE and other nearby language groups all bad glottalized obstruents, but that this simply reflected diffusion and does not reflect genetic affinity. Haas (1969:84-92) shows that glottalic consonants represent a key areal feature extending across at least eight genetic groups in the Pacific Northwest, along with other parallels in the consonant systems. Shaul (1982) makes similar arguments about the Pueblo area, maintaining that Zuni glottalized stops were borrowed, which resulted in them appearing as a partial series.49 Thomason & Kaufman (1988:84,90-91) also attribute the glottalic series of Ossetic to contact with Caucasian, with the glottalics eventually spreading to native vocabuIary, Le.• not limited only to loans. It should be noted, however. that the contact was intense, falling into Thomason & Kaufman's category 4, which involves "moderate to heavy structural borrowing." The paralieis among IndoEuropean, Caucasian and Semitic may put Indo-European into an areal, but not necessarily genetic context. Nostratic researchers must therefore remain cautious in placing weight on the Glottalic Theory as a support for arguments about distant genetic relationships. The proof must still be found elsewhere, even if the Glottalic Theory can provide important potential additional evidence. An areal-diffusional interpretation of glottalic consonants has perhaps been implied in the previous literature, but as far as 1 know, never stated. Unill systematic sound correspondences between Indo-European and other families are widely accepted, this possibility must be acknowledged. To conclude this discussion then, distant genetic relationships remain highly controversial (and have become more controversial oflate) among Indo-Europeanists and among hisoorical linguists in general. so Moreover, the claims made in such research rest on lists of etymologies that reach far beyond the scope of the present study. Still, the Glottalic Theory has spurred interest in the area in at least two ways. First, the Glottalic Theory proposes a consonant system for PIE that brings PIE much eloser to consonant systems proposed for several other geographically nottoo-distant proto-Ianguages, especially Caucasian and Afro-Asiatic. Second, the inclusion of typological considerations into linguistic reconstruction can be seen as refining our methods of reconstruction, the sort of progress that makes work on increasingly distant genetic relationships more feasible. 49Recall that the borrowing scenario for glottalies in Quechua has also been connected with gaps in the system, relevant in the reaIm of PIE's distant genetic or areal relationships. sOIn fact, working theories that have proven useful for investigating distant genetic relationships have sometimes played a negative role in the sociology of the acceptance of theories in Indo-European studies. Note the kind of "guilt by association" that Saussure's Laryngeal Theory suffered until the discovery of Hittite because of its use by those working on a possible Indo-European-Semitic relationship (cf. Hock 1986:548).

1HE IMPUCATIONS OFTHEGUJITAUC 'IlffiORY

47

In this chapter, some crucial potential advantages and disadvantages of the GlottaIic Theory have become apparent. Two classic problems of pm phonology appear 10 have more straightforward solutions within a glottalic framework than in a traditional reconstruction: Grassmann's Law and Bartholomae's Law. The pm root structure constraints,-particularly the *deg- consttaint, have been widely treated as one of the strongest arguments for the Glottalic Tbeory, but Iverson & Salmons (1992) have provided a far easier and far more general account of that problem, if that work fmds approval from other comparativists. Much remains 10 be done on the ramitications of the Glottalic Tbeory for dialecta1 developments and many questions remain open. If the possibility of alternation between ejectives and implosives (and development into 000 or the other at the dialecta1level) proposed in the next chapter is accepted, the key developments become simpler from a glottalic perspective. In the case of Germanie, where the implieations of the Glottalic Tbeory are massive, much attention has been focused on Vennemann's "branching theory", whieh attempts to unite the Germanic and the High German consonant shifts. Tbe Glottalie Theory brings pm into line with its probable original neighbors and potential distant kin, partieularly Caucasian and Semitie. Even if the Glottalic Theory is accepted, this still by no means offers conclusive support for Nostratic claims of genetie affinity, because very closely parallel examples of borrowing of glottalie consonant series have been posited for some other cases of language contact. Some cases of such borrowings in fact show similarities to the anomalous distribution fouod in the proposed pm glottalie stops.

Chapter 5 Key issues and a search for some middle ground The two most central issues in the current debate on Indo-European obstruents, simply put, are the status of two of the three stop series: the traditional plain voiced stops and the voiced aspirate series. This chapter reviews those two problems with an eye 10ward finding common ground between traditional reconstructions and the criticisms of such models, and revisions 10 such models brought forth in the context of the Glottalic Theory. I elose with a proposed third area of significant compromise, namely an appeal to different diachronie layers of Indo-European to explain conflicts between the traditional and glottalic views.

5.1 The status or the plain voiced stops Of the three series, the plain voieed stops-series I-seem at first blush to be the most problematic. Traditionally reconstructed as voiced stops, typologists have questioned fust the absence (or at least very near absence) of *b in such aseries. Furthermore, it has often been seen as articulatorily unsatisfactory-not 10 mention typologically very unusual-to fmd a eonstraint forbidding two voiced stops within a monosyllabic root without some motivation. Likewise, one finds few plain voiced stops in affixes, although voiced aspirates occur. This runs against the common tendency to employ relatively less marked series in affixes, as Hopper nOtes (1973:157) using Georgian as an example. Quechua (Carenko 1975:14), Mixtec (where glottalization occurs only in roots, Macaulay & Salmons 1992) and numerous other languages show similar tendencies. While much debate has centered on the individual issues within the theory, such as whether PIE *b is simply rare or completely unattested (cf. in particular Szemerenyi 1985:9-15), the more relevant point is that this entire stop series is highly marked, as Hopper, Haider, Normier and others have argued from several different perspectives on the actua1 reconstruction of the PIE stop system. Before moving on to that debate, let us try to clarify the always diffieult notion of "markedness." Lass (1984:132-133) gives a good summary of some of the usual criteria for determining which of a pair of items is marked or unmarked. A marked segment is usually one that 1. Is cross-linguistically less common 2. Tends not 10 appear in neutralization situations 3. Shows lower frequency (in texts and otherwise) 4. Appears later during language acquisition 5. Is usually absorbed by the unmarked member in phonemic merger

KEY ISSUES AND 50ME MIDDLEGROUND

6. 7.

49

Tends to be less stahle over time Tends to imply the existence of its unmarked counterpart

Some of these factors cannot be judged for the problem at hand, e.g., the fourth point, since acquisitional evidenee is obviously lacking for a proto-language. Still, the evidenee points powerfully toward marked status for this series, especially given that we are dealing with a proto-language. Tbe crucial points are: 1. 2. 3.

4.

A (near) gap in an otherwise extremely symmetrieal obstruent system. Low frequency, not just lexically but in partieular in the inflectional morphology . Change away from the marked segment in phonological processes as well as avoidanee via the root strueture constraints (cf. the Prague Sehool notion of "neuttaIization "). Diachronie instability.

Generally, such indications of markedness correlate with cross-linguistie raritypointing away from plain voiced stops and to something more marked.S1 Note that Lass himself ultimately argues against "explanation by markedness" in a eontext very different from ours, although he does tater suggest that "frequency distributions can serve as a partial check on the reconstruction of unattested Ianguagestates: the 'odder' the system we reconsttuct, the more argumentative support it needs" (1984:155). This view, which will be touched on again in Chapter 6, is panicularly appealing since it avoids artifieially blaek and white claims about reconstructing marked forms and aeknowledges the variable strength of our evidence for particuIar reconstructions. The usual starting point for discussion of the traditional plain voieed stops is the rarity or absence of *b in PIE etymologies. That iso most are willing to agree with Meid (1989:6) that items like Sanskrit bO/a-m 'power. strength, OCS ho/je, etc. are valid eorrespondences. Meid would probably find less agreement in arguing that forms for 'drink'-Sanskrit pfbati, Old Irish ibid, Armenian ampem 'I drink'presuppose (voraussetzen in Meid's text) the existence of a voiced bilabial, even though they are of secondary origin.S2 Meid's strongest argument for why *b only APPEARS rare is that few languages show distinct reflexes of *b as opposed to *bh, so that few languages serve as testing grounds. He gives numerous cases where a SlFor other discussions of markedness, see Moravcsik & Wirth (1983) and Greenberg (1966). 52The standard account of this form does not posit a *b here. The voicing of the medial consonant in plbati and related forms is thought to derive from a sequence like *pipHre-ti and that the presence of the o-coloring laryngeal brought about voicing of the bilabial stop. See Lindeman (1987:73-74) for further discussion and the crucial literature on this question by Mayrhofer, Polome and others.

50

1HE GWITAUC 1HEOR.y

Germanic *p (i.e., presumably an unambiguous reflex of the plain voiced) corresponds to a Baltic or Slavic *b (which might reflect PIE *b or *bh, but not the plain voiceless). These forms would indeed seem 10 reflect an original plain voiced stop, but some serious problems with such regional distribution will be discussed in a moment. In spite of occasional claims to the contrary (e.g., Collinge 1986:5), the RARITY of *b across the PIE lexicon is hardly in question. According 10 Jucquois (1966:59), 25 *b's occur root-initially and six more root-finally in the 2,027 roots53 found in Pokorny's etymological dictionary of Indo-European. This compares with *p, where Jucquois records 143 initially and 46 finally, and *bh with 129 initially and 13 finally. (See also Table 4 above for similar data on the distribution of the series as a whole.) Note also that many of Pokomy's etymologies, particularly with *b, are regionally restricted (e.g., 10 the northwest) or have otherwise been called in10 question in recent decades. It is important to remember that our PIE lexicon rests on reconstruction. IndoEuropean etymologies are not hard evidence in the way that attested lexemes are and therefore our reconstructed lexicon cannot be treated as equivalent to an attested lexicon. In this light, claims of rarity versus absence cannot be taken too literally. That is, just because Indo-Europeanists have traditionally reconstructed a couple of initial *b's does not prove conclusively that the PIE phonemic system contained a voiced bilabial stop. The converse holds equa1ly weil: reconstructing PIE without *b's cannot conclusively prove their absence. Rarity does not necessarily mean that no *b's existed in the proto-language. Hamp (1990) notes that the northwestemmost IE dialects show numerous *b's and also numerous violations of the **deg constraint, which may be, he argues, attributable to a substrate. Such a regional distribution of the few occurrences of this item would support the suspicion that the rarity of *b makes its reconstruction for the proto-Ianguage problematic, i.e., that cases of *b may yield to other explanations, including substrate or regional innovation. (See the set of general criteria for determining substrate status established by Polome 1986.) Especially items which prove to be regionally limited might be understood as late innovations, i.e., not attributable 10 the proto-Ianguage per se (see also Salmons 1992b).54 But dialeclal innovations, of whatever provenance, are not the only way 10 account far a present but marginal segment. Languages do indeed sometimes possess marginal sounds, sounds used only for few words, be they onomatopoetic or borrowings. In the PIE lexical items reconstructed with *b, there is certainly evidence for marginal status, a point originally made by Johansson almost a century 53JUcquois eliminates certain onomatopoetic items from the full count of 2,044 roo18. 540n the other hand, see Meid (1989), who argues that these regional forms are simply our best evidence for *b, and not actually for i18 existence but even that its frequency was not particularly marked.

KEY ISSUES AND SOME MIDDLE GROUND

51

ago. Johansson (1900:390) speculates that vocabulary with *b, in part at least, may have developed from initial *bh- among a "lower class" of Indo-European society ("niedrigere schichte des indogerm. urvolkes") and that these words then maintained themselves. Their vulgar status would have kept them from appearing in many early literary sources. Havers (1946:96-97) picks up on the same line of argument, connecting *b specifically with physical handicaps as taboo vocabulary, e.g., *klombos 'bent, crooked, lame, etc.' Joseph (1985) argues this present-but-marginal status not only for *b, but also for voiceless aspirates, since the most solid etymologies for these forms are expressive or affective vocabulary. This would alleviate some of the typological strangeness of the voiced aspirates and one of the indications that the ttaditional plain voiced stops were extremely maIked, but leaves many other concems. Since, to my knowledge, Joseph has never developed this into a complete account of PIE obstruents, we can leave matters at thaL Wescott (1988) also treats the issue of *b. showing that *b was used largely in derogatory or taboo words, and moreover, that these words are unusual in their voca1ism, none of them containing a root vowel tel, something of course extremely common in PIE roots.55 On the marginal status of *b, see also Shields (1979) who takes another approach, namely applying the theory of lexical diffusion to Pro1O-Indo-European. While lexica1 diffusion has been widely accepted (see Kiparsky 1988), its application to this level of prehistoric data remains a very speculative enterprise. To resolve problems associated with aseries that shows many characteristics of being highly marked but which has traditionally been reconstructed as plain voiced (Le., one of the least marked series), typologists have sought aseries across the languages of the world containing similar indications of markedness, specifically labial gaps and similar root structure constraints. The familiar answer 10 this question is found in Hausa, Quechua and some Caucasian languages, etc.: glottalized, or often more specifically ejective stops. Haider (1985) specifies these as implosives, for reasons discussed in some detail below. Ejective series, which are very common across the languages of the world, often show gaps at the bilabial point of articulation for a relatively simple phonetic reason. 56 Ejectives involve the closure and raising of the glottis while the primary occlusion of the airstream is occurring, say, at the velum. This has the effect of compressing the air in the chamber, which when released, provides the popping sound characteristic of ejectives. This requires enough compression so that the pop is audible and is thus easier to produce at more posterior points of articulation. The chamber created by a bilabial ejective is large enough-hence weak enough-that it 55Neither B. Joseph nor Wescott appears to have known the earlier work of Johannson. Meid (1989) also treats this phoneme as associated with taboo and with "lower spheres" of life. 56Beyond the usual examples of the Ip'l gap, a number of others could be given, such as Caddoan, cf. Chafe (1976:56).

52

1HE GUYITAUC lHEORY

is entirely lacking in some systems. (See Catford 1988:30-31 and Ladefoged 1975:114-115.) To dea1 with the problem of the apparent (near) gap within a more traditional framework, Hock (1986:625-626) claims that numerous languages actually show bilabial gaps in the voiced stops, including "languages as diverse as Cherokee, Dargwa, Dehu, Mixe (one variety) or Mude."s7 In fact, these examples are all quite problematic. Cherokee and Dargwa both have systems in which numerous other gaps exist, that is, these are systems which are generally asymmetrical. Cherokee has, for instance, no oral bilabial consonants at all, according to Ruhlen.s8 Dehu and Mude have only partial gaps in voiced bilabial stops. In Mude, five stop consonants (about one third of the stop inventory) are accorded marginal status and the role of a lvi within a very incomplete fricative series is unclear as weIl. In Mixe /vI and /PI are the only bilabials in the system, with, e.g., no If/. lvi is, moreover, the only voiced fricative in the inventory.S9 These obstruent systems all contrast sharply with Indo-European for which an extremely symmetrical stop system has, for all practica1 purposes, always been reconstructed. 60 Even if /bl gaps do exist, Lass' notion of relative oddity of systems might be helpful here. A survey of Maddieson's 317 phonemic inventories (1984) shows /PI gaps in 211anguages, one of which (Efik) has an extremely asymmetrical obstruent system. While many of these languages are African-from three different families, Niger-Kordofanian (e.g., Katcha), Nilo-Saharan (e.g., Songhai), and Afro-Asiatic (e.g., Tigre)-this group also includes several Indo-Pacific languages (Chuave, Yareba, and Koiari), thus eliminating a Ipl gap as an areal or genetic characteristic. Six other languages (some of them American) show anomalous distributions of Ipl such as infrequency of occurrence, occurrence restricted to loanwords, etc. A voiced bilabial gap occurs only in Mixe, as noted above, and Wapishana, an Arawakan language with the following stop system: pi' 1'" Ir' d g

l?

!.i

Even this system, with two gaps among nine oral stop slots, is unbalanced in comparison with the generally agreed-upon symmetrical slots ofPIE. S7He does not name bis source, but it is, with little doubt, Ruhlen (1975). s8Maddieson (1984:106-107) points out other sirnilar exarnples of "hierarchically arran~ed phonological hierarchies", e.g., Hupa, with no bilabials either oral or nasal. 9Note also that Mixe does coexist with Spanish, a language without a phonemic distinction between voiced stop and fricative at the bilabial position. The possibility of a change from b -+ v, via [ß] might weIl need to be considered here. Such changes appear to be attested in other Mexican languages Monica Macaulay (p.c.). 60Ultirnately however, Hock unfortunately does not choose to consider the far more serious problems that go along with the rarity of b and that point toward a marked series: the root structure constraints, restrictions on voiced stops in affixes, etc.

KEY ISSUES AND SOME MIDDLE GROUND

53

Two additionallanguages, Kaliai and Chuvash, show anomalous distributions of /bI-viz. rarity and restriction to loans respectively.61 Summing up, a bilabial gap in the voiceless plosives would presumably not cause much concern in a reconstruction given its broad attestation. A voiced bilabial gap, however, represents a notable oddity in the world's languages, even if we could identify one clear case. Any ejective series can deal with most of the typological problems found in series I, but let us now move on to consider the alternative glottalic proposals other than the most common suggestion, voiceless ejectives. Haider's suggestion of implosives might prove more satisfactory, since the change from implosive to plain voiced stops (as opposed to the voiceless stops which one would expect to emerge from other glottalic series) is very common and can be straightforwardly motivated and described, phonologically and also articulatorily. This solution could also explain the relatively high occurrence of the bilabial nasal in PIE (Haider 1985:12), since /61 often becomes Iml across the languages of the world.62 Note however, that positing implosives remains typologically more problematic than positing ejectives, since in perfect contrast to ejectives, the bilabial point of articulation is the least marked and the velar the most marked. Reconstructing implosives requires positing a change, albeit an attested one, while reconstructing ejectives leaves us with a natural gap without sound changes. This apparent conflict between ejective and implosive reconstructions could, however, turn into an advantage for a glottalic view. A sharp distinction between implosives and ejectives is not always made within a given phonological system. In Hausa, the glottalic series includes both implosive (bilabial and alveolar) and ejective (velar) consonants. Maddieson (1984:114-120) includes thirteen languages with such altemations in his sampie, a number indicating a substantially greater than chance cooccurrence. 63 In such cases then, the phonologically relevant feature is glottalization, which can be realized either as ejection or implosion. Let us look in a bit more detail at two Central American examples (neither one in Maddieson's sampie), both Mayan but from distinct subgroups-Mam, part of Greater Mamean, and Tzutujil, a Quichean language. In Mam, the glottalic stop series is split between ejectives (at the alveo-palatal, palatal and velar points of articulation) and implosives (bilabial and uvular). According to England (1983:2561A number of other languages show a single voiced plosive other than b, e.g., Diyari which has six voiceless stops and one voiced. These were not counted as having b gaps. 62The best attempt to deal with this problem in a traditional framework is a simple merger of the oral and nasal bilabial stops in pre-PIE (cf. Vine 1988:397). The serious problem of motivating such a change historically remains however. 63In addition to the West African and Central American examples given here, such alternations exist in some Bantu languages and other East African languages as weH (Edgar Polome, p.c.).

54

THE GLOITAIlC TIIEORY

26), the alveolar glottalic varies in Mam "according to speaker." Both types are devoiced word-finally. In Tzutujil, the altemations reflect even closer connections between the two types, according to Dayley (1985: 14-15). At the points of articulation where one fmds ejectives in Mam-tz'. eh' and k'-the surface fonns are voiceless ejectives, but b'. d' and q' (Le., bilabial, alveolar, and uvular) surface as voiced implosives before vowels with that alternation optional for the uvular consonant. Thus, underlying d'ood' 'snail' appears as do:t.' In such a case, rather than simply finding alternation by place of articulation, we have an allophonic alternation, another strong indication of affmity between the two series. These two types of consonants can interact in other equally subtle ways in some languages. Rigsby & Ingram (1990) challenge an earlier proposal (Hoard 1978) which had posited alternation between voiceless ejectives and implosives in Gitksan, with voiceless ejectives becoming voiced implosives before sonorant segments. Using both articulatory and instrumental evidence, Rigsby & Ingram describe the latter set as "lenis glottalized obstruents." They write that these lenis glottalics "do strike the casual observer as having a 'voiced' character" (1990:261) and indeed Rigsby-as Hoard also had done-apparently mistakenly transcribed these as voiced stops in his first fieldwork. 64 Alternation within a single series between implosives (almost universally voiced) and ejectives (overwhelmingly voiceless) is well-attested cross-linguistically and such alternations can be captured by describing the series simply as glottalic. This would help explain the dialectal developments within Indo-European, where Gennanic and Annenian could have had (or evolved) ejectives and most other InOOEuropean dialects would have had (or evolved) implosives. This idea would also avoid what I take to be Garrett's most serious objection to the Glottalic Theory as a whole (1991:795), namely the fact that so many Indo-European daughter tongues show voiced reflexes of a supposedly ejective series. This is also consistent with the recent Gennanic-Finnish loanword evidence of Koivulehto (cited in Anttila & Embleton 1988:83-84), who shows that pre-Gennanic must have had voiced stops in series I to yield, e.g., Finnish aja- 'drive' (in the traditional reconstruction PIE *ai-). To summarize this section then, the marked status of the traditional plain voiced stops is clear from the rarity of *b, the *deg root structure constraint and the rarity of such segments in morphology. In view of this marked status and in light of the other possible explanations of the few best-attested *bs in the proto-lexicon, the great deal of energy spent by opponents of the glottalic theory seems out of place: the total absence vs. rarity of *b is ultimately irrelevant Either way, its status is quite 64While Gitksan appears to evidence aIlophonic alternation of different types of glottalies. it may be more interesting for the Glottalic Theory that the lenis ejectives appear to be extremely close to voiced stops perceptually.

KEY ISSUES AND SOME MlDDLE GROUND

55

relevant as one more indication that the traditional plain voiced stops were a highly marked series. Attempts to keep the plain voiced in their traditional realization must move beyond simply arguing about a handful of etymologies and begin to address the more general problem of the marked status of the series as a whole. Even if a language (or a set of several) is confmned to have a b gap, the characteristics just noted are far less likely to be found for aseries of plain voiced stops contrasting with a normally far more highly marked series like voiced aspirates. Given similar indications of marked status, the most likely replacements for this series are either ejectives or implosives, both of which would have some advantages from a comparative standpoint. The conflict between positing ejectives or implosives is only apparent, however, since evidence from the languages of the wodd would indicate that these two can interact with great subtlety. PIE could easily have included alternations between the two, and even a dialectal split (or a set of individual splits) into ejective versos implosive varieties appears very plausible.

5.2 The voiced aspirates Bomhard concludes his 1988 survey of the Glottalic Theory by noting ftrst the "growing consensus" that the old plain voiced stops were actually glottalic, observing that no similar consensus has yet been reached on the other two series (1988:20). The traditional plain voiceless stops have generally been by far the least controversial, although some questions coold arise in some reconstructions, such as the introduction for Germanic of a fortis-lenis distinction rather than a voicedvoiceless distinction (see for example, Alexander 1983) or the positing of (allophonic) aspiration. The growing consensus about a glottalic series and the lack of controversy about the plain voiceless series leaves the traditional voiced aspirates as the most problematic series. Series 11, traditionally reconstructed as voiced aspirates, is typologically difficolt in part because languages with one aspirated series always or virtually always show voiceless aspirates, while only languages with four stop series show voiced aspirates, thos establishing contrasts along the lines of two features: [±Voice], [±a8piration].6S Part of the problem with the nature of this system is no doubt the phonemic rather than phonetic orientation of Indo-European studies throughout much of this century. Lehmann (1955:7), for instance, considers the phonetic nature of the voiced aspirates "of secondary importance" for his purposes (but see the discussion of phonetics versus phonology within linguistic reconstruction in Chapter 6, below). 6SHock objects to the typological claim that "no languages exist with voiced aspirates but without voiceless aspirates." In fact, bis exceptions come from languages where voicing is unclear and/or non-distinctive, something the sources Hock draws from make explicit ("murmured fuzzy quality", "voiceless stops with indifferent tension", "aspirated stops beginning voiced and ending voiceless"). Thus these examples are not all as clear as they need to be to establish bis case solidly.

56

TIm GlDITAUC 1HEORy

As a result of this kind of view, it seems, it has not been perceived as particularly radical when a number of scholars---as discussed above-have posited breathy rather than voiced aspirate stops for this series. Breathy voice--dosely related to murmur and creaky voice-actually represents a different glottal gesture: "the glottis is rather widely open, but the rate of airflow is so high that the vocal folds are set 'flapping in the breeze' as the air rushes by" (Catford 1988:55). Catford classifies the "voiced aspirates" as being produced with whispery voice (murmur), i.e., with "the vocal folds vibrating to produce voice but at the same time there is a continuous escape of air generating the sound of whisper." Part of the problem with the traditional view, then, might simply be terminological, since "voice" and "aspiration" are seen in modem phonetics as diametrically opposed, being for instance atopposite ends ofthe VOT scale. Typological approaches, however, have usually reconstructed this series as plain voiced, although Haider chooses not to take a stand on the issue and simply shows this slot as "mediae" in Pre-PIE becoming aspirated in the transitional stage 10ward PIE. Aspiration is, however, well-enough attested across a variety of IE dialects that eliminating it altogether from the pro1O-language would require strong arguments. Hock (1986:623-634) on the other band argues that the comparative evidence for series 11 allows the aspirates to be voiceless or, perhaps better for our purposes, unmarked for voice: it is by no means certain that the aspirated series should be identified as voiced. The comparative evidence would equally permit identification of the aspirates as voiceless or as unmarked for voice." (Cf. also Allen 1976 for some additional arguments and literature.) Hock then goes on 10 divide the PIE dialects into four groups: 1) those with an attested voiceless aspirate series (Greek and ltalic); 2) Germanic and Armenian, where "voicing is not probative, since both languages have undergone major shifts"; 3) the eastern dialects in which voicing resulted from polarization, i.e., to contrast with newer voiceless aspirates; and 4) Celtic, Baltic and Slavic, etc., in whieh "it is at least possible" that the developments have run parallel to Indo-Iranian, i.e., voicing by polarization. Note that the eore of this argument follows the views expressed long aga by Kurylowicz and others as described in Chapter 2. One corollary issue not dealt with in the literature to my knowledge is the role of labio-velars in such a system. Since traditional reconstructions include voiced aspirated labio-velars, these would presumably be included in the PIE inventory by many. Typologically, a breathy labio-velar would be unusual but not without parallel. A survey of Ruhlen (1975) turns up only a single attested instanee of such, namely in Igbo, also the only example included in Maddieson's sample.66 Labiovelars in general appear to be fairly marlced cross-linguistically, although they appear It

•••

66Thi.s question was raised to me by Dan Holscher.

KEY ISSUES AND SOME MIDDLE GROUND

57

in 37 of Maddieson's 317languages surveyed (1984:213).67 A number oflanguages in Ruhlen show voiceless labio-velars without their voiced counterparts in otherwise symmetrical systems, including Nubian, Temein, Xvarshi, and the following pair of languages (only the relevant parts of the obstruent inventories are given here): Pueblo Nahuatl p t b d Tucuna t P b d

k g

kW

k g

kW

The clearest example of the markedness of labio-velar stops may be Tewa, which has three stop series, plain, voiced and glottalized. It has labio-velars in both the plain and glottalized series but lacks one in the voiced series. No inventory in Ruhlen shows a gW without a k". This is perhaps problematic with regard to Indo-European, though, where Jucquois shows 12 instances of gh" in initial position and three fmally. That is, based on Jucquois' IE data, the traditionallabio-velar voiced aspirate does not appear to show a particularly marked status. In Maddieson (1984:28-29). a clear majority of the languages investigated with three stop series (50 languages out of 76) can be grouped together under the rubric "two-way VOT contrast plus glottalic." Given an emerging-and, it appears, wellsupported-consensus about a glottalic series for PIE, the most logical place to seek the distinction between the remaining two series is along the VOT continuum, i.e., voiced-voiceless and/or aspirated-unaspirated.68 Most attention has gone to the former subset, but let us look for a moment at the latter solution. Aspirates unmarked for voice, la Hock, are plausible within a comparative framework. Aspiration would serve to distinguish them from the other two series, i.e., they would be unmarked for voice-since voicing is not distinctive at all until the implosives become plain voiced stopS.69 Note how many of the American

a

67Edgar Polome also calls attention (p.c.) to the closely related matter of labial-velar stops such as /kpl and Igb/, found mostly in West Africa, a set of more highly marked segments employing labial and velar articulation. While k W is a velar stop with secondary labialization, these segments are co-articulated at two distinct points. Cf. Catford (1988:104-110). Polome notes the similarity between the complex articulation of the latter sounds and glottalized occlusives. 681t is perhaps worth noting here that the extreme contrast along the VOT continuum-i.e., aspirated versus voiceless-is attested in Maddieson's corpus, e.g., in Wapishana (as discussed above) and several others. 69Hopper has given up the breathy stops he posited in his earliest work. Interestingly, as noted earlier, some scholars working in the traditional reconstruction have redefmed voiced aspirates into breathy stops, in line with some views on Indic languages, etc. On the other hand, such stops are surprisingly uncommon cross-

r

<

58

1HE GLUITAUC lHEORY

languages discussed above have exacdy such systems, as weIl as having very close parallels in root structure constraints. Tbe change of implosive to plain voiced stops would be, from a structural point of view, the crucial moment for the aspirated series, since voicing would become relevant in the aspirates when the implosive series is marked only by voice. Tbe crucial step is what happens to the glottalic series: if they develop from implosive to plain voiced, that could initiate a push-chain to keep the aspirates distinct, where voice would then and only then have to become probative. Looking at the broader picture and series I, it might be possible to divide the dialects into those where the glottalic series basically show up as reflexes of ejectives--Germanic, Armenian, Hittite. Thracian-Phrygian-versus the dialects where the glottalics became implosives en route to dialecta1 developments-IndoIranian (to account for breathy release). Greek, etc. Tbe ejective versus implosive split is a perfecdy plausible one cross-linguistically, as seen above, and it would easily and naturally yield the broad array of reflexes found in the IE daughter languages.70 Tbe system described above represents an extremely unmarked system across the languages of the world. As noted, Maddieson (1984:28-29) fmds a contrast based on either aspiration or voice plus one glottalic series the most common three-series system, for instance systems like p vs. b vs. p' or p vs. ~ vs. p'. Contrasts based on voicing or aspiration all rest on VOT distinction, running from latest voice onset [aspirated] to earliest [voiced]). 12languages show the contrast plain and aspirated voiceless plus ejective, while 13 show the usually proposed typological alternativevoiceless, voiced, ejective. Another 12 languages show the system discussed above: voiceless, voiceless aspirate, implosive (keeping in mind here the variability between ejective and implosive). Any of these systems is perfecdy acceptable typologically. By opting for the last system over the others, one would retain the traditionally reconstructed aspirate series, i.e., this proposal would not gratuitously run against the current of b'aditional work. Stevens & Keyser (1989:83, 91) establish, as have some previous studies, two laryngeal features listed with vocalic (not consonantal) features: [± spread glottis] and [± constricted glottis]. Tbe three series contrast discussed above would then fit together in this way: ASPIRATED PLAIN IMPWSIVE Spread glottis + Constricted glottis +

linguistically. According 10 Maddieson (1984:27), only seven languages of his over 300language sampIe show thern. Five of these have four s10p series. Changchow has p/ri'fbA and Javanese contrasts these with only plain voiceless. 70Remember also Kortlandt's cornparative proposal treated in Chapter 3 above.

KEY ISSUES AND SOME MIDDLE GROUND

59

The system sketched here does not include voicing as a distinctive feature within the obstruent system until the implosives lose the feature [+glottaliC].71 Under these circumstances, allophonic voicing would be completely normal in the stop system. Such allophonic voicing could serve as aprelude to the "voicing by polarization" postulated by Hock. This solution is, however, a problematic one, like all others currently under discussion. For example, the reduction of Grassmann's Law to an allophonic variation is an appealing feature of Hopper's and Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's reconstructions and that would be lost here--since in the system just described aspiration would remain distinctive. The relative chronology problem would disappear for Greek, since the voiceless aspirates would be inherited unchanged from the proto-language. The voicing of Sanskrit aspirates would remain problematic, parallel to the problem of Greek within a traditional framework. Another possibility should be mentioned before leaving this section, one which is eloser to traditional reconstructions than those treated above. Voiceless stops with breathy release are phonetically elose to voiceless aspirates. Note for example the controversies in living languages about the classification of such segments (Hayward 1989:44-45). Given this ambiguity in languages studied with the laryngograph, one might expect some difficulty in resolving the issue for a proto-language with such a colorful set of daughter languages as PIE has. Such a view has been, I think, widely accepted as a modification of the traditional system, Le., that the "voiced aspirate" series was actually realized as murmured or breathy. See for instance Davenport & Staun (1983) as weIl as the earlier proposal by Butler (1974). 5.3 The chronological solution: stages of PIE A number of scholars have proposed that the apparent conflict between traditional and glottalic versions of PIE obstruents can be explained as representing different diachronie layers. This view is developed in Haider (1985) in particular, but has also been discussed positively by Lindeman (1987:90-91) and others. Miller (1977a:385 and elsewhere, 1977b) endorses crucial features of the Glottalic Theory, but then ultimately also posits a stage showing the traditional reconstruction. Likewise, K.H. Schmidt (1980:97-98) sees a glottalic reconstruction of Pre-IndoEuropean obstruents followed by a stage with the three traditional series. Hopper (1973:161) had, however, anticipated this move in his original artiele on the Glottalic Theory, and he raised a substantive objection. Specifically, he notes that one of his principle aims, that of typological plausibility, is essentially lost by positing typologically improbable intermediate stages. Gamkrelidze (199Oa:7) traces the chronological solution back to Pedersen (1951) and asks whether we should posit 71 Ejectives are overwhelmingly voiceless across the languages of the world, in 309 of 312 cases (Maddieson 1984:120), and implosives are overwhelmingly voiced: in 72 of 74 instances across Maddieson's sampie (cf. also Greenberg 1970).

r 'I

60

1HE GLOTIAllC THFDRY

a change from a relatively stable system (basically a glottalic-like view) to an unstable system (traditional PIE) to stable systems (in the daughter languages). Still other significant arguments could be raised against this solution. For example, parsimony and economy are as important 10 the theory of reconstruction as they are in other areas of linguistic theory. Positing additional stages containing two competing theories rather than resolving the conflict between two theories would be neither parsimonious nor economical. Tberefore, without evidence that such stages existed, it is preferable 10 avoid positing them. Nonetheless, this is balanced, at least to some degree, by the need to avoid a problem raised in Chapter 4, namely the difficulty of positing aseries for the proto-Ianguage which has been lost in virtually all daughters. Much has been and more stands to be gained by general proposals for chronological differentiation of PIE and other pro1o-Ianguages-see the important works of Georgiev (1984) and Andreev (1957) for example. Proto-Ianguages become less idealized and less abstract when we acknowledge different diachronie stages. Doing this has become completely routine in Indo-European studies over the last decade or so, especially in the area of inflectional morphology. Still, this does not imply that such a move is necessary here, where it can have the ring of an ad hoc solution. Before leaving this issue, let us take passing note of one final attempt at a chronological resolution, one dealing with a very different absolute chronology. Shevoroshkin & Markey (1986:xxvi-xxvii) do not reconstruct a glottalic series for Indo-European, but suggest that a "non-intensive" voiceless s10p would have represented a reflex of earlier Nostratic glottalic consonants.72 This chapter has raised three major issues, showing at least some lessening of differences on key points: 1) Tbe traditional plain voiced stops show clear characteristics of having been highly marked on the basis of frequency, distribution, etc. Tbis is uncharacteristic of voieed s1ops, but the particulars of their markedness lines up nicely with crosslinguistically common features of glottalic stops. This much is on the verge of becoming consensus within the field. While some have debated whether ejectives or implosives would better flll that series, there is ample evidence from other languages that the two could have coexisted in the proto-language. In fact, some later developments are easily motivated by assuming a dialectal split between implosives and ejectives. A general glottalic series, realized dialectally as implosive or ejective, would strengthen the Glottalic Theory substantially.

72Presumably Shevoroshkin suggested this, since Markey seems to remain fairly skeptical about the nature of Nostratic and the possibilities of third-Ievel reconstruction.

KEY ISSUES AND SOME MlDDLE GROUND

61

2) Tbe traditional tenn "voiced aspirates" has virtually fallen out of usage even within traditional views, where these have sometimes been (re)defined as breathy stops. Another possibility, proposed outside of and even in opposition to the Glottalic Tbeory, is that the stops of this series were indeed aspirated, but were not (phonemically) voiced. Tbis is a promising area for further investigation, in particular since such a reconstruction would do less violence 10 traditional views about what has proven 10 be the most problematic stop series in PIE. Still, some advantages of the original glottalic proposals would be lost by such a move, e.g., the reduction of Grassmann's Law 10 an allophonic phenomenon. 3) It has been proposed by various parties seeking some compromise that a glottalic stage preceded the traditional reconstruction-essentially that both views are correct, representing different diachronic layers. While work on differentiated layers of proto-languages has been productive in other areas, it appears that such a solution in this case complicates our reconstruction. Its most significant advantage is that it avoids the problem of positing the loss of a glottalic series across virtually all of the proto-language's daughters, although for most people this advantage will be overridden by the disadvantage of positing another set of changes.

r Chapter 6 On the role of typology in linguistic reconstruction73 Collinge (1986:6) in his discussion of the role of typology in contemporary historicallinguistics finds that typology is: ... not yet in usable form at all: we have not yet got the ground rules for a 'proto-typology', meaning at least a principled set of things which are impossible to reconstruct simultaneously in prehistory, even in what is proved to be an unstable pseudo-idiom. That is what the fight should be about; still, it is healthy that there is a fight. While the lack of ground roles is certainly a point weH-taken, I find limiting this criticism of typological approaches to reconstruction somewhat curious. We can broaden the critique considerably, as has Koemer (1989:1), observing that ... historical linguists have generally tended to be reticent about making theoretical statements regarding the practice of their field. Most of them have been avoiding laying bare the methodological principles which underlie their research or facing up to epistemological questions about what they are really doing. This observation is particularly true about one of the most essential aspects of their craft, the practice of reconstruction of unattested forms. CoHinge's larnent would seem to be equally applicable to reconstruction in general, and it seems a logical outgrowth of the tendency Koemer describes. 74 Similarly, Schmalstieg (1986:93) finds that "the major problem for IE studies [is] the lack of any really strong basis for making a decision as to which of competing theories 10 accept. ''75

73My focus, even in this chapter, remains overwhelmingly limited to phonologie al reconstruction. The problems of typological considerations in syntactic reconstruction are different; for a positive assessment of typological considerations in syntactic reconstruction, with particular attention to method and theory, see J. Joseph (1989). 74The exception to such reluctance 10 treat methodological problems comes most notably from the Nostraticists, see especially Shevoroshkin & Markey (1986). 75In spite of the impression created by much of the foregoing discussion, acceptance of typological arguments is not aprerequisite for the acceptance of the Glottalic Theory. Schmalstieg (1986:91-92) does not consider himself a "strong proponent" of typological arguments, but considers both the traditional and the glottalic views to have been shown "possible. "

1YPQLOOYIN LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCITON

63

This chapter aims to join Collinge's healthy fight, but on Koemer's terms. Tbat is, this chapter discusses what the ground roles for typology in reconstruction should look like, but it does so in the broader context of the lack of definition of ground rules for other aspects of reconstruction such as naturalness and markedness. Tbe rise of typological considerations certainly predates the GlottaIic Tbeory, but the theory has focused greater attention on the role of typology in linguistic reconstruction than previously. Birnbaum (1977:20-21) attributes an increasing role for typology 10 the post-war period, saying that it has had a "major impact on the modification and further elaboration of the methods of reconstruction at all levels of linguistic structure." Before moving on, let us consider what "typology" means. It has commonly been understood as "the other comparative method" , namely a synchronie comparison using broad cross-linguistic data. Given that cross-linguistic component, typology has often, if ineorrectly in most eases, been called a statistical method, a tradition which goes back to the turn of this century.76 Kiparsky (1988:376) in a general discussion oftypology and sound change (that is, one without reference 10 the PIE obstruent system) sees the typological approach as a "more or less self-contained" method, but one whose "results are of great interest for theoretical and historicallinguistics." I understand typology in a way probably consistent with Kiparsky's view, but in a somewhat stronger formulation. Typology has been added 10 the historical linguist's set of tools, supplementing comparative work on reconstruction, and never intended to supplant comparative work. Rather than dismissing typology as opposed to and inferior to eomparative and internal reconstruction, our task should be to reconcile the findings of these approaches. Tbe comparative method and internal reconstruction often admit multiple reconstructions, Le., they are often inconclusive. Typology, like naturalness and so on, may help us eliminate some proposed reconstructions. Tbe distinction between synchronie and diachronie typology should also be noted at least in passing here (something explored at more length in Salmons in press). Truly diachronie typology must be understood as a typology of change or constraints on change. Tbe reconstruction of Indo-European obstruents explored here has its typological aspect not primarily in the changes or constraints on changes proposed, but rather in the plausibility of the synchronie phonologieal system ultimately reconstructed for a given stage of the proto-Ianguage. Almost every work opposing the new reconstruction of PIE obstruents draws a sharp opposition between typology and reconstruetion. Dunkel (1981) cails these the 76Plank (1990: 165) quotes Georg von der Gabelentz as follows: "that kind of grammatical statistic, which I have previously labeled typology..... This thread of discussion, Le., typology as statistical method, is most often picked up in contemporary discussions by opponents of typological considerations.

r 'I

... 64

TIIEGWITAUC 1HEORY

"two poles of linguistic comparison." Hock (1986:626) claims that his arguments show that "it is premature to reject palpable comparative evidence simply because it does not agree with current typological findings. " Tbe present study argues that typology is best used in conjunction with comparative reconstruction (as, I think, all typologists have argued) and not in place of it. In fact, in arguing for voiceless rather than voiced aspirates in the proto-language, Hock is using typological evidence and argumentation: where comparative evidence is inconclusive, typological evidence can sometimes indicate which model is more plausible. In this case, comparative evidence, sans typology, has in fact been widely-albeit not universally-interpreted as pointing 10ward voiced aspirates, although the actual comparative arguments for voiced over voiceless aspirates are very weak (exactly what Hock tries to show). Typologically, however, voiceless aspirates are far more plausible. Thus, the more sensible reconstruetion is of voiceless aspirates. Likewise, Hock does not reject the arguments about ab gap out of hand. but attempts to refute it lypologically, i.e., by bringing evidence to show that the original typological claim was false rather than attacking typology on theoretical grounds. Hock coneludes that possible parallel b gaps from other languages eliminate the marked status of the traditional plain voiced and that the voiced aspirates were actually voiceless. Ultimately, from a theoretical perspective, what most directly undercuts Hock's position is the double-edged nature of his claim. On the one hand, bis position rests on the assumption that the traditional system is solid and supported by palpable evidence; on the other, he then proposes significant changes to that system. As discussed at the end of Chapter 3, Haider is even harsher in his critique of lypology~onsider the title of his artiele--and he goes even farther in establishing his own typological view of matters. After rejecting typology as a way of redefining PIE, he goes on 10 create aPre-PIE system based on lypological eonsiderations that easily evolves into the traditionally reconstructed system, basically by the early PIE change of implosive stops into plain voiced stops. Rather than replacing the traditional system with the typologically plausible one, Haider posits an earlier diachronie layer, thus avoiding the conflicl Again, like Hock, Haider uses typology not to replace reconstruction but 10 refme and extend models built predominantly on comparative and internal reconstruction. Both Hock and Haider however still posit stages which are typologically improbable: Hock by leaving the traditional plain voiced series unaltered and Haider by leaving the PIE system (as opposed to the Pre-PIE system he reconstructs) untouched. Ultimately though, their responses are formulated in the terms of the Glottalic Tbeory and they have both laken over key arguments from typological approaches. Neither chooses to defend an unmodified traditional reconstruction. All this, however much ado there is about the sanctity of the traditional view, indicates massive concessions to the Glottalic Theory and more specifically to the methodological innovations brought about by the inclusion of typological

I

TYPOLOGYIN LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION

65

considerations in reconstruction. All this gets to the heart of Shevoroshkin & Markey's statement (1986:xi) that "the historicallinguist can no longer work in a universal or typological vacuum."

6.1 TbeoreticaI Issues Let us now turn more direct1y 10 the question of the precise relationship between typology and reconstruction.77 In early works on the Glottalic Theory, the role of typology in reconstruction was sometimes assigned the status of a method (e.g., Hopper 1973:141). Hopper (1977:41) noted that "appeal 10 universals" had until recently not yet "been accorded the same status as the comparative method." This implies that typology is an independent method, a position that was out of character with Hopper's general approach, I think. More recently, Hopper and a variety of the other key figures involved in the Glottalic Theory have made quite clear that the comparative method, along with internal reconstruction, should hold sway as our basic method of reconstruction, while typology serves as a "control" on the method. This is seen most clearly in Hopper (1989) and Gamkrelidze (1989), and can be found implicitly in Jakobson's early view that a conflict between typology and a given reconstruction ca1led that reconstruction into question. Those who have defined and refined linguistic typology within general linguistics assign it a far more modest and reasonable role than that attributed 10 typology by numerous critics whose works have been discussed above. Comrie (1989:202) notes, for example, that absolutes seldom play any role in reconstruction and that we must instead practice compamtive reconstrnction with an eye to universal tendencies. Hagege (1983) redefines the notion "linguistic universal" to include general tendencies, in line with natural sciences, where he says that "laws" apply to 75-80% of all instances. Hawkins (1983:210-212, 263-264, etc.), in a long treatment of typology and reconstruction (focused far more on syntax than phonology), seems 10 see typology as placing certain limits on what can be reconstructed. This is quite consistent with Jakobson's implicational universals as weIl as with Labov's uniformitarianism, not to mention a far cry from the typology versus reconstruction views discussed earlier. Typologica1 concerns, it would seem, deserve a place in linguistic reconstruction (compamtive and internal) right beside the very necessary issues of naturainess and markedness, parsimony and economy, simplicity, explanatory power and the regularity (but not exceptionlessness) of sound change. All of these factors are subject to some limited dispute, but every one of them provides at least a very useful working assumption for reconstruction. No one, as far as I know, accepts as universally and literally true the Neogrammarian principle of the "Ausnahmslosigkeit 77Schwink (1992) was completed after the present manuscript. That study represents a great step toward clarifying how typology has been used in reconstruction, especially Indo-European, and how it might best be employed in future work.

r 66

1HE GLaITAUC THEORY

der Lautgesetze", the absolute exceptionlessness of sound changes (evidence for lexical diffusion alone refutes that), yet every historicallinguist bases reconstruction on the regularity of sound change (see especially Kiparsky 1988 for further discussion).78 Linguistic reconstruction relies directly on these principles to validate and corroborate the findings of internal reconstruction and of the comparative method. It is difficult to draw clear boundaries between some of these factors and typology. In fact, Hopper (1973: 143) virtually equates the role of "naturalness" in reconstruction with typological considerations, and perhaps rightly so, a point I will address in a moment. Take the example of naturalness and typology in treatments of the root structure constraints. Typological considerations lead to proposing a system like ones in which the Indo-European root structure constraints would be rendered at least in part more natural. Still, even if these corroborative principles need not be distinguished among themselves, their role vis-a-vis the comparative method and intemal reconstruction must remain clear. Namely, these considerations are used to verify and strengthen reconstructions constructed on the basis of the comparative method and intemal reconstruction. Without the just-named corroborative principles, internal reconstruction or the comparative method would be far less powerful tools than they are. Even the rigorous application of intemal reconstruction and the comparative method by brilliant linguists has not always found approval in the broader scholarly community, although all had access to the same methods and largely to the same data. Consider, for instance, one of the great achievements of nineteenth century Indo-European studies, Saussure's reconstruction of the "coefficients sonantiques." In thal case, Saussure's analysis proved unable 10 establish itself among Indo-Europeanists until virtually half a century later, when it was finally confmned by direct comparative evidence. Tbe crucial point of method, namely that secondary considerations are necessary and are routinely employed in reconstruction, is in line with views found in the most widely-used handbooks in historicallinguistics. This topic warrants a more detailed survey here to confirm that, on the one hand, such factors are universally acknowledged as necessary, but thal on the other, their status is left quite vague. 79

78In some sense it can be argued that the regularity principle should be understood less as a "factual statement" and more as a "methodological requirement", cf. Robins (1967: 191). 79Another approach to the matter is Lightfoot's (e.g., 1988: 317). He appears to see reconstruction in general as essentially misguided for anything beyond establishing systematic correspondences among languages. a more militant formulation of views expressed by Meillet. Still, it is worthwhile to note that Lighfoot has repeatedly and very harshly attacked syntactic reconstruction as a field in which the ground roles have never been spelled out explicitly (1988: 306), although handbooks like Anttila (1989) devote many pages to issues of syntactic reconstruction.

1YPOLOGYIN LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUcnON

67

Arlotto (1972:100) notes, for example, that Grassmann's Law was acceptable because it was verifiable through other comparative data-an advantage that Grassmann over Saussure as weIl as the contemporary glottaIic theorists. On the matter of comparative reconstruction, he simply notes that additional factors are necessary and lists the two most important as: 1. Likelihood of a change in one direction as opposed to another, as shown by experience with a wide number of languages. 2. Considerations of what the whole phonologieal pattern of the parent language will look like. (1972:93) Both of these fall at most only a little short of typological principles: the fIrst by reference to "a wide number of languages" and the second more in Jakobsonian typological terms. Bynon (1977:47, 98) remains at least this vague although she includes considerations such as economy. Hock, a few pages before outlining his opposition to the GlottaIic Theory, is actually far more explicit about these additional considerations and their role(s) than the scholars just noted. He treats Occam's Razor in particular, but also naturalness, explanatory power, regularity and other factors. These are assigned important but secondary roles in reconstruction. Typology would seem to belong among these factors, but Hock treats typology as a method on the level of the comparative method and internal reconstruction, something those who have developed typological work explicitly reject. The apparent contradiction between accepting other secondary factors and rejecting typological considerations might be overcome in this way. None of this denies, nor should it deny, the substance of the quote from Walkins cited in the Introduction to this work about the import and value of the comparative method or of intemal reconstruction. That is, I do not see how the power of the comparative method is in any way compromised by its reliance on support frorn corroborative principles or controls. Such principles have also been recognized in the philosophy of science completely independent oflinguistic method. Hesse (1980:187) describes theories as being "logically constrained by facts, but. .. underdetermined by them." In other words, multiple theories are possible given any set of data, even when we are guided by simplicity. She sees as central to science "not fact plus prima facie simplicity, but fact plus interpretation in terms of some intelligible or desirable world model." Her other "rational postulates or conventions or heuristic devices" include analogy and probability . Typological plausibility would seem to constitute exactly such a "rational postulate." In the process of describing such evolution, she notes how science attempts to filter out "value judgments" from theories·-such as an anthropocentric universe-something she finds typical of "young" sciences. The obvious parallel here would be the Sanskrit-oriented reconstructions begon in the late

68

1HE GUJITAUC 1HEORY

eighteenth century and the slow but steady evolution away from such reconsttuctions ever since. Typological arguments have, in part, been stated in terms of absolutes, probably more by opponents of the approach than by those who have used typology. But as Comrie (1989:19-23) and others have noted, most typological insights are tendencies and not absolutes. This should not be particularly disturbing, but rather might serve as a caveat. Let us say, for instance, that when all the world's languages have been described, one single language is established to have a one-vowel system. Striclly following lakobson, such a system could legitimately be reconsttucted for other Ianguages onIy after discovery of that single language. Still, given such crosslinguistic rarity, a one-vowel system would have 10 be regarded as extremely marked, i.e., as a problematic reconsttuction. That is, a historical linguist would normally hesitate 10 posit a one-vowel system unless the comparative and internal evidence could be shown very strong (see also Schwink 1992:34-40). In this sense, typology is not only not in conflict with the usual principles of reconsttuction, but actually reinforces them. If typology is in fact intended to (let alone able to) establish some kind of limit on possible reconstructions, how should that be done? The discussion has been formulated most often in terms of absolutes: if no attested language shows feature X, then feature X should not be reconsttucted. In fact, the real world applications are much messier, with crucial attestations often resting on limited data or on questionable analyses. In practice, it would seem more reasonable 10 see typological constraints (if we can even use such a word) more as a sliding scale: If a feature or type is simply not attested, it should not be reconsttucted, e.g., a dorso-Iabial fricative or a language without vowels. If it is tenuous, for example by virtue of resting on a controversial analysis, one would presumably need 10 have extremely powerful and unproblematic comparative and internal evidence before the reconstruction could be regarded as solid. This was the situation of one-vowel systems for a number of years, with possible one-vowel analyses of some Caucasian languages. If the feature in question is rare, especially areally and/or genetically restricted, a reconstruction would seem plausible. Any feature attested in a few languages of diverse areal distribution and genetic afflliation is presumably safe. If field linguistics uncovers features previously thought impossible, then that simply represents progress in our empirical data base of possible features. As noted earlier, the Glottalic Theory is fundamentally the resuIt of the applieation of synchronie typological (and other) considerations 10 a synchronie cross-section of a proto-language. Only secondarily is it diachronie. The role assigned to "naturalness" constitutes, in some sense, a kind of diachronie typology. When one seeks to establish naturalness, one tries to show that a given proposed change occurs across various languages of the world in similar fashion. This is traditionally less systematically done than, for example. in the application of typology in the case of the Glottalic Theory, e.g., without any attempt at

,

\

TYPOLOGYIN LINGUISTIC RECONSTRUenON

69

representative sampling and with less attention 10 counterexamples. Thus, while Ropper's equation of typology and naturainess has truth 10 it, a distinction can be drawn, and probably should be as the field of inquiry matures. Explicit attempts at diachronic typology come from surprising quarters, namely studies of accentuation. The considerable literature on tonogenesis and my own more recent work on tone-tostress shifts (Salmons 1990, 1992a, and in press) both treat two sides of a typology of language change. These are perhaps the clearest examples of truly diachronic typology in the literature aside from the often-problematic work on syntactic typology. It remains of course to be seen 10 what extent such diachronic typologies are accepted on theoretical and methodological grounds by historical Iinguists.

6.2 Phonetics & phonology in reconstruction Typology is not the only 1001 currently being added to the historical linguists' workshop. The relationship between phonetics and phonology has been changing in historical work much like it has in theoretical synchronic work. These changes have profound implications for the practice of Iinguistic reconstruction and historical linguistics in general. The role of phonetic data and the nature of phonetic reconstruction has varied substantially from Saussure's day, when he posited extremely abstract sounds, and since Lehmann's landmark Proto-Indo-European Phonology. The reaIist-abstractionist debate in reconstruction is longstanding and has been conducted overwhelmingly independently of the GIottalic Theory but with profound implications for it, cf. especially Anttila (1989:341-342), Koerner (1989), Robins (1967:164-197), Schlerath (1987), Schwink (1992). Here again para1Iels between the GIottaIic Theory and the LaryngeaI Theory become apparent. since the Laryngeal Theory has long entailed debate about abstraction in reconstruction, as discussed at length in Polome (1965) and Lindeman (1987) as weIl as the recent, highly phonetically-oriented contribution of Beekes (1989). A number of explicitly abstractionist proposals have been made recently, largely by opponents of the Glottalic Theory. For example, Meid (1987:8) regards reconstructions as "algebraic relations"; see also Penzl (1989). The most notable recent abstractionist move is Schrodt (1989:147), who suggests replacing traditional p-b-bh and glottalic p-p'-phlb(h) with a "consensus" pl-p2-p3. Still, a shift appears to be taking place now with advances in phonetics allowing the mainstream to move somewhat eloser 10 a realist point of view. Lehmann (1955:5-7 and elsewhere) notes a shift from the nineteenth century concern with phonetics 10 a need in the mid-twentieth century for more careful phonological analysis of IE, i.e., with distribution of sounds within the system. Now, alm ost another half century later, the availability of more detailed phonetic descriptions of more languages and beuer integration of phonetics into phonology both help allow the pendulum to swing at least partially back in the other direction. This does not mean discarding previous analyses just as Lehmann explicitly did not reject the

t I

70

1HE GUJITAUC lHEORY

findings of Brugmann (1955:5).80 Similar developments have also been noted by Kiparsky (1988:376-377) as an important general trend in the study of sound change. By adding greater phonetic detail using typological and other tools we can and do, concomitantly, reduce the nagging abstraction of earlier analyses. That is, much work from roughly 1930-1970, which Szemerenyi (1985:4)-in a different contextcalls the "mainstream" of the twentieth century, focused on slots in phonemic systems and phonological processes, shifting consciously away from the more phonetically-oriented work of previous generations. In asense, much of the attack on the G10ttalic Theory comes from an anti-realist point of view, from those who object to a relatively realist innovation. That is, the attempt to add phonetic detail and phonetic piausibility 10 our reconstruction of PIE stops is, ultimately, a realist undertaking, albeit one far removed from writing tales in proto-Ianguages. The objections of, for instance, Penzl (1989:11) come on the grounds that disceming any phonetic detail in PIE stops is impossible: "a technique of modem Schallanalyse of Indo-European sounds is utopian and no specific sound values will ever be proven for a proto-language assumed 10 have been spoken thousands of years ago."81 If one is arguing against trying to reconstruct phonetic detail, how can one support the traditional "voiced aspirates" beyond them being completely abstract slots? Only Schrodt's suggestion, noted above, would address this. Such comments would seem at best to render all recent work on PIE obstruents untestable, certainly an undesirable and unacceptable trait in scientific enrerprise. 82 Retuming to the relationship between phonetics and typology in linguistic reconstruction, we see a relatively holistic approach to understanding language change, and hopefully, to linguistic reconstruction-i.e., taking all relevant information into account Typological restrictions on reconstruction do not rest on mere empiricism, as has sometimes been implied or claimed. Typology is irrevocably intertwined with general linguistic explanation. If, for instance, one simply found few bilabial ejectives in the languages of the world or observed that languages with implosive series tended not to have two such sounds within a simplex root, one would then have only extremely weak grounds for limiting 80As the whole of this discussion should indicate. these trends toward and away from abstraction in any given period are merely trends and many scholars in any given period differ on this important issue. 81Schallanalyse was developed by Eduard Sievers in an attempt to decipher phonetic detail through reading ancient texts, but was never widely accepted. It attributed much of the substance of sound change to intonation and depended very directly on the scholar's intuition. The differences between this and supplementing traditional methods of reconstruction with typology should be clear enough. 82Nostratic and other distant-genetic-relationship researchers have been understood as being less interested in phonetics (cf. Shevoroshkin & Markey 1986:xi). This may not be inconsistent with the reorientation toward phonetics in more traditional reconstruction however, since one might argue that phonetics can be viably discussed at the level of Indo-European, but that more distant reconstruction must be handled more algebraically.

TYPOLOGYINLINGUISTIC RECONSTRUCTION

71

reconstruction of these items. In fact, articulatory phonetics offers good reasons why ejective bilabials are uncommon and markedness theory helps us to understand why ejectives/glottalized stops would be subject to particular cooccurrence restrictions and infrequent in affixes, etc. Typological analysis does indeed seek to describe patterns across the languages of the world, but it is horribly incomplete until we can explain the patterns it finds. To reduce typological considerations to arithmetic about welldescribed languages is wholly wrong and out of line with the established usage of typological considerations in reconstruction.

I

I

I' I

I

~

6.3 A note on tbe nature of linguistic metbodology The broadest questions underlying the debate should at least be mentioned, even if not treated in detail here. Historicallinguists indeed avoid discussing theoretical concems far more than (mainstream) synchronic linguists, but at the same time, historical linguists tend probably to be more aware of the underlying assumptions of our undertaking and their shortcomings, e.g., the regularity or exceptionlessness of sound change. Such discussion leads irrevocably to the long-standing, but healthy debate over induction versus deduction in linguistic method and, more generally, in science as a whole. Discussions of reconstruction, especially second-Ievel and beyond, always call to mind a comparison (attributed to Karl Popper) between "knowledge" and piles which can be driven down into swampy land for us to build on. These piles will never, of course, be completely firm, given that they rest in a swamp, but if we drive them deep enough and are careful not to place too much weight on them, they can be serviceable. While Popper's analogy applies to all of science, in reconstruction the evidence and the arguments are particularly tenuous. As in the case of the Laryngeal Theory in its early days, the Glottalic Theory hinges on tantalizing evidence about the nature of PIE phonology, but we are frustrated by the inability of our methods, as they stand, to resolve matters.

Chapter 7 Summary, conclusion, and outlook While there is some evidence 10 support the claim that the Glottalic Theory is becoming the standard view of PIE obstruents. it is somewhat clearer that the old system is dead. The attempts to counter the GlottaIic Theory without exception propose other alternatives rather than defending the system canonized in the great works from Schleicher to Lehmann. This speaks for the devastating power of the critiques ofHopper, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov and others, even ifnone oftheirparticular systems has yet established itself. The complexity of the problem treated here can be seen in the fact that Birnbaum (1977:68) considers the Glottalic Theory as, in some sense, a response to Szemerenyi's "new look" of Indo-European consonants. This is probably correct enough, but it sounds odd, given Szemerenyi's strong and repeated opposition 10 any version of the Glottallc Theory. Some typologists have thrown away more of the obstruent system than typological concems would call for, especially in light of a century and a half of comparative work. On the Other hand, the traditional reconstructions remain less able to address the rarity or perhaps complete absence of *b, etc. A PIE obstruent system can be proposed that stands in less serious, less direct conflict with traditional reconstructions, although it does require more phonetic and phonological detail by adding implosion/ejection 10 the voiced stops and making the aspirates unmarked for voice with the possibility of breathy release. This move would be in line with the current shift away from abstraction in reconstruction and 10ward increased attention to phonetic detail. At the same time, this proposal would attend to the serious objections of typologists, namely the marked status of the plain voiced series and the typological problem of having voiced aspirates in a system without voiceless aspirates. While this middle ground would seem likely to satisfy the central demands of both points of view, it is unlikely that any single proposal will emerge as a standard in the near future. In this monograph, I have tried 10 show more generally that typology, as used in the recent literature on reconstruction, does not stand in conflict with reconstruction, but rather serves as an additional resource for doing reconstruction. Rather than undermining the use of intemal reconstruction and the comparative method, typology has already served 10 catalyze debate about general methods of reconstruction. Much of the criticism of reconstruction could equally weIl be made about the other corroborative principles, such as naturalness and economy; principles whose role is widely accepted if often still ill-defmed. I

i

r SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

73

The import of this debate obviously goes far beyond the very specific matter of the stop system in one proto-language. It cuts to the most central methodological and theoretical concems of linguistic reconstruction itself. The Glottalic Theory and debate over it have initiated a discussion of method and theory that historical linguists have traditionally shied away from. This in and of itself represents significant progress in the field, especially at a time when historicaI linguistics is regaining some of its lost stature in general and theoretical Iinguistic circles.

A Bibliography of Work on the Glottalic Theory Worles dealing explicitly with the Glottalic Theory or with other critiques of traditional views on PIE obstruents are marked with a .... Alexander, Gerda L. 1983 Fortis and Lenis in Germanic. Bem: Peter Lang. Allen, W. Sidney *1976 The PIE aspirates: phonetic and typological factors in reconstruction. Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion 01 his sixtieth birthday, eds. Alphonse luilland et al. Saratoga, Calif.: Anma Libri. 237-247. Andreev, N.D. 1957 Periodizacija istorii indoevropejskogo parajazyka. Voprosy Jazykoznanija 1957(2): 3-18. Antilla, Raimo 1989 Historical and Comparatille Linguistics. Amsterdarn: lohn Benjamins. 2nd revised edition. Antilla, Raimo, & Sheila Embleton *1988 Review article on Shevoroshkin & Markey (eds), Typology, Relationship and Time. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33(1): 79-89. Arlotto, Anthony 1972 /ntroduction to Historical Linguistics. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. Back, Michael * 1979 Die Rekonstruction der idg. Verschlußlautsystems im Lichte der einzelsprachlichen Veränderungen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 93: 179-195. *1989 'Das Arlbergmodell'-ein Diskussionsbeitrag. In Vennemann 1989a. 255258. Baldi, Philip 1983 An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. *1987 Indo-European languages. The World's Major Languages, ed. Bernard Comrie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 31-67. Baldi, Philip, & Ruth 10hnston-Staver *1989 Historical Italic phonology in typological perspective. In Vennemann 1989a. 85-101. Beekes, R.S.P. 1989 The nature of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals. In Vennemann 1989a. 23-34.

BmUOORAPHY

I'

I

75

Bemabe, Alberto. *1988 Tipologfa frente a reconstrucci6n. La hip6tesis glotalica. Revista Espanola de Lingüistica. 18(2): 357-371. Birnbaum, Henrik *1975a Genetische, typologische und Universale Linguistik: einige Überlegungen über ihr hierarchisches Verhältnis. Folia Linguistica 7(3-4): 221-244. * 1975b Typology, genetic and linguistic universals. Linguistics 144: 5-26. *1977 Linguistic Reconstruction: its potential and limitations in new perspective. Washington, OC: Institute for the Study of Man. nES Monographs, 2. Bloomfield, Leonard 1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston. Blust, Robert A. 1974 A double counter-universal in Kelabit. Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 5(6): 49-56. Boisson, Claude *1989a Letter 10 Tbeo Vennemann. In Vennemann 1989a. 225-226. * 1989b Lettre aux participants de l'Atelier zur l'indo-europeen du Congres de Pavie. In Vennemann 1989a. 259-263. Bomhard, Allan *1975 An outline of the historical phonology of Indo-European. Orbis 24(2): 354390. *1979 The Indo-European phonological system: New thoughts about its reconstruction and development. Orbis 28(1): 66-110. *1984 Toward Proto-Nostratic: a new approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. *1986 Tbe aspirated stops of Proto-Indo-European. Diachronica 3(1): 67-79. *1988 Recent trends in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European consonant system. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 101(1): 2-25. Bright, William 1954 Some Northem Hokan relationships. University of California Publications in Linguistics 10: 64-67. Buck, Carl Darling 1949 A Dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Butler, Ionathon *1974 A murmured proposal conceming Grassmann's Law. Indogermanische Forschungen 79: 18-30. Bynon, Tbeodora 1977 Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carenko, E.1. 1975 On laryngealization in Quechua. Linguistics 146:5-14. Catford, I.C. 1988 A Practical Introduction to Plwnetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

, 76

1HE GWITAllC TIIEORY

Chafe, Wallace L. 1976 The Caddoan. lroquoian, and Siouan Languages. The Hague: Mouton. Trends in Linguistics, S.A.R., vol. 3. Collinge, N.E. *1985 The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: Benjamins. *1986 The New Historicism and its Battles. Folia Linguistica Historica 7(1): 3-19. Collitz, Hermann *1926 A century of Grimm's Law. Language 2: 174-183. Comrie, Bernard 1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2nd ed. Dayley, Jon P. 1985 Tzutujil Grammar. University of California Publications in Linguistics, 107. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Davenport, Michael & J~rgen Staun 1983 Dependency Phonology and the First Germanic Consonant Shift. Folia Linguistica Historica. 4(2): 219-240. Djahukian, G.B. *1990 A variational model of the Indoeuropean consonant system. Historische SprachforschunglHistoricai Linguistics 103(1): 1-16. Draye,Luk 1986 Niederländisch und Germanisch. Bemerkungen zu Theo Vennemanns neuer Lautverschiebung. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache 108: 180-189. Drinka, Bridget 1988 Evidence for the Space-Time Hypothesis: The IE S-Aorist. lIES 16(3-4): 253-265. Dunkel, George *1981 Typology vs. reconstruction. Bono homini donum: essays in historical lingusitics in memory of l. Alexander Kerns, eds. Yol!! Arbeitman & Allan Bomhard. 559-569. Emonds, Joseph *1972 A reformulation of Grimm's Law. Contributions to generative phonology. ed. Michael Brame. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press. 108-122. England, Nora C. 1983 AGrammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press. Erhart, Adolf *1981 Nochmals zum indogermanischen Konsonantismus. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 34(4): 403409.

BmuOGRAPHY

77

Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. *1973 Letter to Paul Hopper, February 7. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America Archives, American Philosophical Society Library. (105 S. 5th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106). 1975 On the correlation of stops and fricatives in a phonological system. Lingua 35: 231-261. *1976 Linguistic typology and Indo-European reconstruction. Linguistic Studies offered to loseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. ed. Alphonse Juilland et al. Saratoga, Calif.: Anma Libri. 399-406. *1981 Language typology and language universals and their implications for the reconstruction of the Indo-European stop system. Bono Homini Donum: Essays in historical linguistics in memory of I. Alexander Kerns. eds. Yoel Arbeitman & Allan Bomhard. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 571-609. *1986 Der griechische Konsonantismus im Lichte der "GIottaltheorie." oo-pe-rosi: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag. ed. Annemarie Etter. Berlin: de Gruyter. 19-28. *1987 The Indo-European glottalic theory: a new paradigm in IE comparative linguistics. lIES 15(1-2): 47-60. *1989 Language typology and Indo-European reconstruction. In Vennemann 1989a. 117-121. *1990a The Indo-European GIottalic Theory in the light of recent critique. Folia Linguistica Historica 9(1): 3-12. *1990b Diachronie typology and reconstruction: The "archaism" of Germanie and Armenian in light of the GIottalic Theory. Language Typology 1987: Systematic Balance in Language. ed. Winfred P. Lehmann. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 57-66. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V., & Vjacheslav V. Ivanov *1972 Lingvisti~eskaja tipologija i rekonstrukcija sistemy idoevropejskix smy~nyx. Konferencija po sravnitel'noo-istori,eskoj grammatike indoevropejskix jazykov. Moscow: Nauka. 15-18. *1973 Sprachtypologie und die Rekonstruktion der gemeinindo-germanischen Verschlüsse. Phonetica 27: 150-156. *1984 1ndoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. Tbilisi: Izd. Tbilisskogo Univ. (See also detailed reviews in English by Hayward, Schmalstieg, and Vine.) *1985 The migrations of tribes speaking Indo-European dialects from their original homeland in the Near East to their historical habitations in Eurasia. lIES 13(1-2): 49-91. *1986 On the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European stops. Glottalized stops in Indo-European. TypoJogy. Relationship and Time, eds. Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin & Thomas L. Markey. Ann Arbor: Karoma. 87-108. *1990 The early history of Indo-European languages. Scienlijic American 262(3) March: 110-116.

78

TIIE GUYITAllC 1HEORY

Garrett, Andrew *1991 Indo-European reconstruction and historical methodologies. Language 67(4): 790-804. Georgiev, V.I. 1984 Die drei Hauptperioden des Indoeuropäischen. Diachronica 1: 65-78. Green, G. Michael * 1983 An argument against reconstructing glottalized stops in PIE. Studies in Historical Linguistics, ed. Gregory Stump. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics, 27: 50-55. Greenberg, loseph H. 1966 Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton. 1970 Some generalizations concerning glottalic consonants, especially implosives. International Journal o[ American Linguistics 36: 123-145. Griffen, Toby D. *1979 Lenition, provection and the Indo-European sound shift. Forum Linguisticum 4: 26-43. *1982 On the position of Germanic in the Indo-European sound shift. Colloquia Germanica 15(1): 1-16. *1984 Dynamic phonology and the Indo-European sound shift. The Tenth LACUS Forum. eds. A. Manning et al. Columbia, SC: Hombeam. 155-166. *1988 Germano-European: breaking the sound law. Carbondale: Southem Illinois University Press. *1989 Nostratic and Germano-European. General Linguistics 29(3): 139-149. Haas, Mary R. 1969 The Prehistory o[ Languages. The Hague: Mouton. Hagege, Claude 1983 Linguistic universals as general tendencies. Proceedings o[ the XIIIth International Congress o[ Linguists. eds. Shirö Hattori & Kazuko Inoue. Tokyoffhe Hague: CIPL. 936-940. Haider, Hubert *1983 Der Fehlschluß der Typologie. Akten der /0. Österreichischen Linguistentagung (/982), eds. Wolfgang Meid & Hans Schmeja. Innsbrucker Beitriige zur Sprachwissenschaft, 43. 79-92. *1985 The fallacy of typology: remarks on the PIE stop system. Lingua 65: 1-27. Halle, Morris, & Sylvain Bromberger 1989 Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 51-70. Halle, Morris, & lean-Roger Vergnaud 1987 An essay on stress. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hammerich, Louis L. *1956 Die germanische und die hochdeutsche Lautverschiebung. Beitrage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 77: 1-29.

BmuOGRAPHY

79

Hamp, Erle P. *1989 Tbe Indo-European obstruent features and phonotactic constraints. In Vennemann 1989a. 209-214. *1900 Tbe Pre-Indo-European language ofnorthern (central) Europe. When Worlds Collide: Indo-Europeans anti Pre-Indo-Europeans, eds. Tbomas L. Markey & John A.C. Greppin. Ann Arbor. Mich.: Karoma. 267-290. Haudricourt, Andre-Georges *1975 Les mutations consonantiques (occlusives) en indo-europ&m. Melanges Benveniste, eds. Fr. Bader et a1. Paris: Klincksieck. (Collection linguistique, 70.) 267-272. Haudry, Jean *1984 L'jndo-europeen. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. (Que sais-je?). 2nd edition. Havers, Wilhelm 1946 Neuere Literatur zum Sprachtabu. Wien: Akademie der Wissenschaften. Sitzungsberichte, 223(5). Hawkins, John A. 1983 Word Order Universals. New York: Academic Press. (Quantitative Analyses of Linguistic Structure.) Hayward, K.M. *1989 Tbe Indo-European Language and its Speakers: The theories of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. Lingua 78: 37-86. Hesse, Mary 1980 Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy 0/ Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hiersehe, Rolf 1964 Untersuchungen zur Frage der Tenues aspiratae im Indogermanischen. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Hirt, Hermann 1927 Indogermanische Grammatik, Teil 1: Einleitung, I Etymologie, II Konsonanten. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Hoard, James E. 1978 Obstruent voicing in Gitksan: some implications for distinctive feature theory. Linguistic Studies 0/ Native Canada, eds. Eung-Do Cook & Jonathan Kaye. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 111-119. Hock, Hans Henrich *1986 Principles 0/ Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (2nd edition, 1991, with some additional bibliography on the Glottalic Theory.) Hopper, Paul *1973 Glottalized and murmured occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7: 141-166. *1974 Indo-European Origins of the Greek-Sanskrit De-aspiration Conspiracy. Paper presented to annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.

80

1HE GUJITAUC THEORY

*1977a The typology of the Proto-Indo-European segmental inventory. JIES 5: 41-53. *1917b Indo-European consonantism and the new look. Orbis 26: 57-72. 1981 'Decem' and 1'aihun' languages: an Indo-European isogloss. BOnD Homini Donu.m: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns, eds. Yo!l Arbeitman & Allan Bomhard. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 133-142. *1982 Areal Typology and the Early Indo-European Consonant System.lndoEuropeans in the 3rd and 4th Millennia. ed. Edgar Polome. Ann ArOOr, Mich.: Karoma. 121-139. *1989a Remarks on Baldi-Johnston-Staver, 'Historical !talic phonology .. .' Vennemann 1989a. 221-222. *1989b Remarks on F. Kortlandt, 'Lachmann's Law.' In Vennemann 1989a. 223224. *1989c Remarks on T.V. Gamkrelidze, 'Language typology .. .' In Vennemann 1989a. 229-230. *1989d Remarks on J.E. Rasmussen, 'Die Tenues Aspiratae .. .' In Vennemann 1989a. 245-248. Huld, Martin E. *1983 Basic Albanian Etymologies. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica. *1986 On the unacceptability of the Indo-European voiced stops as ejectives. Indogermanische Forschungen 91: 67-78. Iverson, Gregory K. *1985 Grassmann's Law in Indo-European. Folia Linguistica Historica. 6(2): 203213. Iverson, Gregory K., & Joseph C. Salmons *1992 The phonology of the Proto-Indo-European root structure constraints. Lingua 87: 293-320. *In press Implications of Proto-Indo-European Root Structure for Distant Genetic Relations. Language Origins. Jakobson, Roman *1971 Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics.Selected Works: Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton. 523-532. Originally published 1958 in: Proceedings of the 8th Congress of Linguists. Oslo: Oslo University Press. 17-24. Job, Michael *1989 Sound change typology and the 'Ejective Model.' In Vennemann 1989a. 123-136. Johansson, Karl F. 1900 Anlautendes Indogermanisches b-. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 36: 342-390.

BmuOGRAPHY

81

Joseph. Brian D. * 1985 Proto-Indo-European consonantism: methodological and further concerns. Papers [rom the 6th InternatiOfUlI Conference on Historical Linguistics. ed. Jacek Fisiak. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 313-322. Joseph. John E. 1989 Typology, diachrony, and explanatory order. Diachronica 6(1): 55-74. Jucquois, Guy 1966 La structure des racines en indo-europeen envisagee d'un point de vue statistique. Linguistic Research in Belgium, ed. Yves Lebrun. Wetteren: Universa. 57-68. Kaiser, Mark, & Vitalij Shevoroshkin * 1986 Inheritance versus borrowing in Indo-European, KartveIian, and Semitic. lIES 14(3-4): 365-378. Kiparsky, Paul 1988 Phonological Change. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 1: Linguistic Theory: Foundations, ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 363-415. Koerner, Konrad 1989 Comments on reconstruction in historical linguistics. In Vennemann 1989a. 1-20. Kortlandt, Frederik *1977 Historical Law of Slavic Accentuation. Baltistica 13(2): 319-330. *1978 Proto-Indo-European Obstruents. Indogermanische Forschungen 80: 107118. *1985 Proto-Indo-European Glottalic Stops: the comparative evidence. Folia Linguistica Historica. 6(2): 183-201. *1988 Vestjysk st~d, Icelandic preaspiration, and Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops. Languages and Cultures: Studies in honor o[ Edgar C. Polomi, eds. Moharnmad AIi Jazayery & Werner Winter. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 353-357. *1989 Lachmann's Law. In Vennemann 1989a. 103-105. KurylOWicz, Jerzy * 1973 Internal reconstruction. Current Trends in Linguistics, ed. Thomas Seheok. The Hague: Mouton. 11(2): 63-92. Ladefoged, Peter 1975 A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Lass, Roger 1984 Phonology: an introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehmann, Winfred P. 1955 Proto-Indo-European Phonology. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

82

1lffi GLaITAUC lHEORY 1973

Historical Linguistics: An introduction. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston. 2nd edition. 1986 A Gothic Etymological Dicti01'llJTY. Leiden: Brill. *1989 Notes on the Workshop: Reconstructions of the Proto-Indo-European sound system and their consequences. In Vennemann 1989a. 267-269. Lightfoot, David 1988 Syntactic change. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, voll, ed. Frederick Newmeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 303-322. Lindeman, Frederik Otto *1987 Introduction to the 'Laryngeal Theory.' Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Macaulay, Monica & Ioseph C. Salmons 1992 The Phonology glottalization in Mixtec. Paper presented to the American Anthropological Association. San Fransisco. Maddieson, Ian 1984 Patterns of Sound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marchand, Iames W. *1988 The sound shift revisited-or Iacob Grimm vindicated. Germanic Linguistics J1, eds. EImer H. Antonsen & Hans Henrich Hock. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 90-96. Markey, Thomas L. 1988 The Celto-Germanic 'Oog/Wolf-Champion and the Integration of Pre/NonIE Ideals. NOWELE 11: 3-30. Martinet, Andre *1955 Economie des changements phonetiques. Traite de phonologie diachronique. Beme: Francke. *1986 Des steppes aux oceans: L'indo-europeen el les "Indo-Europeens." Paris: Payot. *1991 Thoughts about the Glottalic Theory. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 44(3): 285-289. Matisoff, Iames 1990 On megalocomparison. Language 66(1): 106-120. Mayrhofer, Manfred *1986 Lautlehre (Segmentale Phonologie des Indogermanischen). Indogermanische Grammatik, 1(1). Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Meid, Wolfgang *1987 Germanische oder indogermanische Lautverschiebung. Althochdeutsch I: Grammatik, Glossen und Texte. Heidelberg: Winter. 3-11. *1989 Das Problem von indogermanisch Ibl. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und kleinere Schriften, 44. Meliki!Vili, I. 1972 Otno§enije markirovannosti v fonologii (uslovija markirovannosti v klasse mmnych fonem). Dissertation. Tbilisi.

BmUOORAPHY

83

Merlingen, Weriand *1986 Indogermanisch. Germanisch und die Glottis. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 108: 323-332. Miller, D. Gary *1977 a Bartholomae's Law and an IE root structure constraint. StJUlies in descriptive and historical linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann, eds. Paul J. Hopper et al. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 365-392. *1977b Some theoretical and typological implications of IE root structure constraints. J1ES 5: 31-40. Misra, Satya Swarup 1968 A Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Greek and Hittite. Calcutta: World Press. Moravcsik, Edith A., & Jessica R. Wirth 1983 Markedness: an overview. Markedness, eds. Fred R. Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik & Jessica A. Wirth. New York: Plenum. 1-14. Nonnier, R. *1977 Indogermanischer Konsonantismus, germ. 'Lautverschiebung' und Vemersches Gesetz. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 91: 171-218. Ohala, John J. 1981 Tbe listener as a source of sound change. Papers /rom the parasession on language and behavior, eds. C. Masek et al. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago. 178-203. 1986 Phonological evidence for top-down processing in speech perception. Invariance and variability in speech processes, eds. J. S. Perkell & D. H. KlatL Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 386-403. Pedersen, Holger 1931 The Discovery of Language: Linguistic science in the 19th century. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Trans. by John Webster Spargo. *1951 Die gemeinindoeuropäischen und die vorindoeuropäischen Verschlußlaute. K~benhavn: Munksgaard. DeI kongelige Daanske Videnskabernes Selskab 32(5). Penzl, Herbert *1989 Positivism and 'hocus-pocus' in Germanic and English linguistics. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 1(1): 1-16. Plank, Frans 1990 Typologie als Bedürfnis. Linguistische Berichte 126: 165-167. Pokomy, Julius 1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bem: Francke. 4 vols. Polome, Edgar C. 1965 Tbe laryngeal theory so far: A critical bibliographical study. Evidence for Laryngeals, ed. Wemer Winter. Tbe Hague: Mouton. 9-78.

84

TIm GLOTIAUC 1lIEORY

Germanic and the other Indo-European Languages. Toward a Grammar o[ Proto-Germanic, eds. Herbert Kufner & Frans van Coetsem. TUbingen: Niemeyer. 43-69. 1981 Indo-European Verb Morphology: an outline of some recent views with special regard to Old Indic. Research Journal o[ the Akhila Bharatiya Sankrit Parishad. Volume dedicated to Ludwig Sternbach. 851-86l. * 1985 How archaic is Old Indic? Studia Linguistica et Synchronica, Werner Winter sexagenario ... oblata, eds. Ursula Pieper & Gerhard Stickel. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 671-683. * 1986 Tbe Non-Indo-European Component of the Germanic Lexicon. o-o-pe-ro-si: Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Annemarie Etter. Berlin: de Gruyter. 661-672. Prokosch, Eduard *1918-1920 Die indogermanischen "Media Aspirata." Modern Philology 15:621628, 16:99-112. 325-336, 543-552. * 1939 A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Baltimore, Md.: Linguistic Society of America. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegärd *1974 Haeretica Indogermanica. A selection o[ lndo-European and Pre-IndoEuropean studies. Det kongelige Daanske Videnskabernes Selskab. K~benhavn: Munksgaard. * 1983 Two phonological issues in Germanic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 18: 201-219. *1989a Die Tenues Aspiratae: Dreiteilung oder Vierteilung des indogermanischen Plosivsystems und die Konsequenzen dieser Frage für die Chronologie einer Glottalreihe. In Vennemann 1989a. 153-176. * 1989b Erwiderung auf Paul J. Hoppers 'Remarks.' In Vennemann 1989a. 249-254. Rigsby, Bruce, & John Ingram 1990 Obstruent voicing and glottalic obstruents in Gitksan. International Journal o[ American Linguistics 56(2): 251-263. Rix, Helmut 1976 Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Robins, R.H. 1967 A Short History o[ Linguistics. London: Longman. 2nd ed. Rosenkranz, Bernhard 1978 Vergleichende Untersuchungen der altanatolischen Sprachen. Trends in Linguistics, State-of-the-Art Reports, 8. Tbe Hague: Mouton. Ruhlen, Merritt 1975 A Guide to the Languages o[ the World. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Universals Project. 1972

BmuOGRAPHY 1988

85

A Guide to the World's Languages, vol 1.: Classijication. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Rycroft, David K. 1980 The depression feature in Nguni languages and its interaction with tone. Grahamstown: Department of African Languages, comrnunication no. 8. Sahnons, Joseph C. 1990 Tone-to-Stress: Mechanisrns and Motivations. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, eds. Kira Hall et al. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 282-291. *1991 Motivating Grassmann's Law. Historische Sprachforschungl Historical Linguistics 104(1): 44-51. 1992a AccentuaJ Change and Language Contact: comparative survey and a case study of early northern Europe. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. *1992b Substrate phonology and northwest Indo-European vocabulary. Perspectives on Indo-European Language, Cu/ture and Religion: Studi.es in Honor of Edgar C. Polomi. ed. Roger Pearson. Volume 2. Washington. DC: Institute for the Study of Man. (nES monograph, no. 9). 265-279. In press Diachronie Typology and Tone-to-Stress Shifts. Journal of Indo-European Studies. 20(3&4). Schleicher, August 1871 Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen. Weismar: Hermann Böhlau. Schmalstieg, William R. *1986 Toward a new paradigm in Indo-European studies. (Review article on Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1984.) Diachronica 3(1): 81-96. Schmidt, Karl Horst *1980 Zur Typologie des Vorindogermanischen. Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax, eds. Paolo Ramat et a1. Arnsterdam: Benjamins. 91-112. Schrodt, Richard 1976 Die germanische Lautverschiebung und ihre Stellung im Kreise der indogermanischen Sprachen. Wiener Arbeiten zur germanischen Altertumskunde und Philologie. Wien: Halosar. 2nd ed. *1989 Neue Forschungen zur germanischen Lautverschiebung--ein Fall von Paradigmenwechsel? In Vennemann 1989a. 137-152. Schlerath, Bernfried 1987 On the reality and status of a reconstructed language. JIES 15(1&2):41-46. Schwink, Frederick *1992 Linguistic Typology and the Reconstruction of Proto-Languages: A study in methodology. PhD dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.

86

1HE GlDITAUC 1lIEORY

Shaul, David L. 1982 Glottalized consonants in Zuni. Linguistics 48(1): 83-85. Shevoroshkin, Vitalij V. & Thomas L. Markey

*1986

International Journal of American

Foreword.Typology, Relationship and Time, eds. Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin & Thomas L. Markey. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Karoma. vii-xliv.

Shields, Kenneth *1979 IE ./bl and the theory of Iexical diffusion. Linguistics 17: 709-714. Snider, Keith L. 1986 Apocope, tone and the glottal stop in Chumburung. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 8(2): 133-144. Stevens, Christopher M. *In press The use and abuse of typology in comparative linguistics: An update on the controversy. lIES 20(1&2). Stevens, Kenneth N., & Samuel Jay Keyser 1989 Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 65(1): 81-106. Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1941 The Indo-European voiceless aspirates. Language 17:1-11. Swadesh, Morris *1971 TM Origin and Diversification of Language. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Swiggers, Pierre *1989a Towards a characterization of the Proto-Indo-European sound system. In Vennemann 1989a. 177-208. "'1989b Latin phonology and the 'Glottalic Model.' [Discussion of Baldi & Johnston-Staver 1989.) In Vennemann 1989a. 217-220. Szemerenyi, Oswald *1967 The new look of Indo-European phonology: reconstruction and typology. Phonetica 17(2): 65-98. *1972 Comparative linguistics. Current Trends in Linguistics, ed. Thomas Sebeok. The Hague: Mouton. 9(1): 119-195. *1985 Recent developments in Indo-European Iinguistics. Transaclions of the Philological Society. 1985: 1-71. *1989 Review article:The New Sound of Indo-European. Diachronica 6(2): 237269. *1990 Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 4th edition. Thomason, Sarah G., & Terrence Kaufman 1988 Language Contact, Creolization, and Genelic Linguisties. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

BlBUOGRAPHY

87

Timberlake, Alan * 1990 Typology and phonological history . Language Typology 1987: Systematic Balance in Language, ed. Winfred P. Lehmann. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 35-56. van Coetsem, Frans *1990 Grimm's Law: A reappraisal of Grimm's formulation from a present-day perspective. The Grimm Brothers and lhe Germanic Past, eds. EImer Antonsen et al' Amsterdam: Benjamins. 43-59. Vennemann, Tbeo *1984 Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch-Die Verzweigungs-theorie der germanisch deutschen Lautverschiebung. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 106: 1-45. *1985 Tbe bifurcation theory of the Germanie and German consonant shifts: synposis and sorne further thoughts. Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. Jacek Fisiak. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 527-548. * 1987 Betrachtung zum Alter der Hochgermanischen Lautverschiebung. Althochdeutsch, vol. 1: Grammatik, Glossen und Texte, eds. Rolf Bergmann et al' Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 29-53. * 1988 Die innergermanische Lautverschiebung und die Entstehung der germanischen und deutschen Dialekte. Languages and Curtures: Studies in honor of Edgar C. Polomi, eds. Mohammad Ali Jazayery & Werner Winter. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 749-761. *1989a ed. The New Sound of Indo-European: Essays in Phonological Reconstruction. BerIin: Mouton de Gruyter. *1989b Phonologieal and morphological consequences of the 'Glottalic Theory.' In Vennemann 1989a. 107-115 . • 1989c Reply 10 Claude Boisson's remarks. In Vennemann 1989a. 227-228. * 1989d Indo-European consonant shifts-Algebra, arithmetic, or normal science? [Discussion of Job 1989, Schrodt 1989.] In Vennemann 1989a. 231-244. * 1991 The relative chronology of the High Germanie Consonant Shift and the West Germanic Anaptyxis. Diachronica 8(1): 45-58. * 1992 Language universals: Endowment or inheritance. Diachronica 9(1): 47-60. *In press Zur relativen Chronologie von Lautwandel und Wortentlehnung: Die Hochgermanisehe Lautverschiebung und ahd. pforta , churt and impftton. Ineontri Linguistici. Vine, Brent .1988 Review of Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy (1984). Language 64(2): 396-402. Voyles, Joseph *1989 Bifureational Germanie and Glottonie Indo-European: A critique. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache 111(1): 16-34.

88

THE GLaITAUC 1lIEORY

Walde, Alois 1897 Die verbindung zweier dentale und tönendes z im indogermanischen. Kuhns Zeitschrift 34: 461-536. Waktins, Calvert 1985 American Heritage Dictionary 0/ Indo-European Roots. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin. 1989 New parameters in historical linguistics, philology, and culture history. Language 65(4): 783-800. Wedekind, Klaus *1991 Glottalization constraints and Ethiopian counter-evidence. F 01 ia Linguistica 24(1-2): 127-137. Wescott, Roger W. 1988 Derogatory use of the marginal phoneme Ibl in Proto-Indo-European. lIES 16(3-4): 365-369. Winter, Wemer *1976 The distribution of short and long vowels in sterns of the type Lith. Isti .. vesti .. misti and DCS jasti .. vesti : mesti in Baltic and Slavic languages. Recent Developments in Historical Phonology. ed. Jacek Fisiak. The Hague: Mouton. 431-446. Young, Robert W., & William Morgan 1980 The Navajo Language .. a grammar anti colloquial dictionary. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.