Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:31:43.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vowel deletion in Latvian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

A. Krišjānis Kariņš
A. Krišjānis Kariņš
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the constraints on variable deletion of short vowels in word-final unstressed syllables found in the variety of Latvian spoken in Riga. The affected vowels are almost always inflectional endings. Results from a variable rule analysis of 8 native speakers from Riga indicate that internal phonological and prosodic factors (especially distance from the main word stress) act as the strongest constraints on vowel deletion, along with the educational level of the speaker. The functional constraint of the recoverability of the deleted vowel is not significant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 15 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bielenstein, A. ( 1863). Die lettische Sprache nach ihren Lauten und Formen erklärend und vergleichend dargestellt. Erster Theil: Die Laute; die Wortbildung. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler's Verlagsbuchhandlung (Harrwitz und Gossmann).Google Scholar
Cameron, Richard. (1992). Pronominal and null subject variation in Spanish: Constraints, dialects and functional compensation. Doctoral dissertation. University of PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J. (1986). Metrical structure and vowel deletion in Montreal French. In Sankoff, David (ed.), Diversity and diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. (1981). The languages of the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christy, Craig. (1983). Uniformitarianism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dambriunas, Leonardas, Klimas, Antanas & Schmalstieg, William R. (1966). Introduction to modern Lithuanian. Brooklyn: Franciscan Fathers (Darbininkas).Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. (1922). Lettische Grammatik. Riga: Lettischen Bildungsministerium.Google Scholar
Endzelīns, Jānis. (1948). Jānis Endzelins' comparative phonology and morphology of the Baltic languages. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. (Slavistic Printings and Reprintings, 85.) Translated into English by W. R. Schmalstieg and B. Jēgers.Google Scholar
Gāters, Alfrēds. (1977). Die lettische Sprache und ihre Dialekte. (Trends in Linguistics, State of the Reports, 9) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory. 1980. Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory. (1993). Functional constraints on linguistic variation. Unpublished manuscrpt. York University.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. (1993). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
Hochberg, Judith. (1985). Final /s/ deletion in Puerto Rican Spanish: Functional Constraints and consequences. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Hochberg, Judith (1986). /s/ deletion and pronoun usage in Puerto Rican Spanish. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Diachrony and diversity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. (1992). Are there any truly quantity-insensitive systems? BLS 7:123–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. (1993). Shapes of the generalized trochee. Proceedings of the 11th West Cost Conference on Formal Linguistics. 298–312.Google Scholar
Kariņš, A. Krišjānis. (1995). Phonetic evidence for phonological structure: Word stress in Latvian. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 4:642–645.Google Scholar
Karulis, Konstantīns. (1992). Latviešu etimoloģijas vārdnīca. Riga: Avots.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri. (1938). Livisches Wörterbuch. Helsinki: Lexica Societatis Fenno-ugricae.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. (1972). Explanation in phonology. In Peters, S. (ed.), Goals of linguistic theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 189–225.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1987). The overestimation of functionalism. In Dirven, R. & Fried, V. (eds.), Functionalism in linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Linguistic & Literary Studies in Eastern Europe, 20.) 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Linguistic factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Yaeger, Malcah & Steiner, Richard. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. (1979). Function and process in a variable phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. (1981). Mortal phonemes as plural morphemes. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (eds.), Variation omnibus. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 59–72.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. (1993) Optimality theory. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University and The University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Ranson, Diana L. (1991) Person marking in the wake of /s/ deletion in Andalusian Spanish. Language Variation and Change 3:133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudzīte, Marta. (1964). Latviešu dialektoloģija. Rīga: Latvijas valsts izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Rūķe-Draviņa, Velta. (1977). The standardization process in Latvian, 16th century to the present. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Stockholm Slavic Studies. 11.)Google Scholar
Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira & Naro, Anthony J. (1992). The serial effect on internal and external variables. Language Variation and Change 4.1:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senn, Alfred. (1966). Handbuch der Litauischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Sjögren, J. A. (1861). Gesammelte Schriften. Band II. Theil I. Livische Grammatik nebst Sprachproben. St. Petersburg: Eggers et Comp.Google Scholar
Sokols, E., Bergmane, A., Grabis, R. & Lepika, M. (eds.), (1959). Mūsdienu latviešu literārās valodas gramatika, I: Fonētika un morfoloģija. Rīga: LPSR Zinātņu akadēmijas izdevniecība.Google Scholar
Stang, Christian S. (1966). Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Steinbergs, Aleksandra. (1977). The phonology of Latvian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence. (1988). Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trautmann, Reinhold. (1923). Baltisch-Slavishes Wörterbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (reprinted in 1970).Google Scholar
Weiner, Judith E. & Labov, William. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19:29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zvidriņš, Pēteris. (1992). Changes in the ethnic composition in Latvia. Journal of Baltic Studies 23.4:359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar