adjarians law 2-10

8/6/2019 Adjarians Law 2-10

1/18


2/18

2

and Goris to the list of dialects showing the rule. The basic distribution of the rule can then be

represented as in (5)2:

(5)

[There was a word list here in the original paper, but it has not survived on my computer.Representative words with initial voiced and voiceless stops can be found in ch. 6 of my 1998OUP bookBV]

That is to say, Adjarians Law fronts back vowels in initial syllables when preceded by

and an initial h always appears in the dialect form, so we cannot be sure that the r is actuallybehaving like the other triggering consonants, or is even a trigger at all. Consequently, I have

decided not to include it in our set of environments.2 The base map comes from Hewsen 2001; the set of dialects showing Adjarians Law is

taken from ahukyan 1972 and therefore does not include the dialects that I have added to theinventory (Malatia and Musaler). I have chosen a representative word for each triggering

environment, and shown its outcome in the dialects which I believe show Adjarians Law; due to

learned pronunciation and other interfering factors, the forms are not always consistent. For that

reason I have also provided overall percentages (where available) of words undergoing the rule

in the various vocalic environments: a 77 under Goris/a, for example, indicates that 77% of

words beginning with {b g d z l j y v} changed following /a/ to []. I could not providepercentages for Salmast, Meghri, and Kirzan, as grammars of these dialects were not available to

me; I have taken the forms for these dialects from Adjarian (1927) and Muradyan (1973). All

other forms are taken from the respective dialect grammars, listed in the bibliography. I have not

included {lo, zo, zu, o, u, yo, yu}, because there are too few relevant lexical items in thegrammars to determine whether or not these environments trigger the rule.


3/18

3

voiced obstruents, l, and y. This distribution is difficult to formulate within traditional

phonological frameworks, such as that employed in (4); y and lare [+son, +cont], and {z v} are[+cont], so we cannot maintain the environment described in (4), and no other conglomeration of

traditional features can capture our rule.

Adjarian and Muradyan describe it as a type of palatalization, but this is only a description of

what happens to the vowels; it does not help us understand why such a development wouldoccur. They are justified in calling it palatalization insofar as the vowels (apparently) become

[-back] (except in the Malatya dialect), but we obviously cannot say that the voiced obstruents

and {z y l v} are [-back] and all other consonants are [+back]. Analyses so far have also notbeen able to explain why the rule appears to affect only back vowels (actually, there is good

reason to believe that front vowels are involved as well, as we shall see in section 2.6).

It seems clear that there is some kind of interaction between voiced consonants and following

vowels in Adjarians Law; we can interpret this as a case of the consonants spreading some

feature to the vowels, the vowels spreading some feature to the consonants, or as two

independent developments. The third possibility, namely that the coocurrence of vowel fronting

with voiced consonants is merely a coincidence, seems highly unlikely, though this has been

proposed by most scholars studying this type of phenomenon in other languages (we willconsider these proposals in section 2.4). The second possibility, namely that the vowels are

affecting the consonants, is equally unlikely, for in that case we would expect all consonants to

be affected, not just voiced consonants, and in fact we would not be able to account for the vowel

fronting with this hypothesis.

We are forced to conclude that Adjarians Law is actually a case of voiced consonants

spreading some feature to following vowels; I propose that this feature is [ATR]. The feature

[ATR], or advanced tongue root, refers to the general expansion of the pharyngeal cavity

which often plays a phonological role in distinguishing the vowels traditionally labelled tense

and lax; it also is often implicated in the production of voicing in obstruents. It is the interplay

of these vocalic and consonantal features of [ATR] which seems to be at work in Adjarians

Law. [ATR] is generally accepted for vowels (see section 2.4), and Westbury (1979, 1983) andKohler (1984) have shown that it may also be present in consonants. Trigo (1987), based on

evidence from Akan, Buchan Scots English, and Madurese, has proposed that [ATR] is active in

consonants, so that for example [ATR] values of consonants can affect the [ATR] values of

neighboring vowels. I argue in this paper that the data from Adjarians Law in the Armenian

dialects provide compelling support for this hypothesis. I propose that we view Adjarians Law

as a case of the feature [ATR] spreading from consonants to following vowels, as follows:

(6) ## C V

|

[ATR]

I believe we can also use evidence from the behavior of consonantal [ATR] in Akan, Buchan

Scots English, Madurese, Coeur dAlene, Sahaptian, Maasai, Jingpho, and Mon Khmer to

explain the apparent anomalies in the behavior of Adjarians Law mentioned above. I examine

the evidence for my proposal in section 2, and then consider some problems that Adjarians Law

entails for the history and classification of the Armenian dialects in section 3.


4/18


5/18

5

iv. vowels occupying two moras are phonetically realized as long; segments not

associated to segmental slots are deleted

k a y a

[kya]

(8) vowel harmony (Clements (1976))

i. Akan roots specified for melodic features, including [ATR]

E-bu-O nest E-b-O stone

| |

[+ATR] [-ATR]

ii. Melodic features of root spread to affixes

E-bu-O E-b-O

[+ATR] [-ATR]

iii. [-ATR] E, O [], []; [+ATR] E, O [e], [o]

surface forms: ebuo nest, b stone

For a basic introduction to non-linear phonology, one may consult Hogg and McCully (1987)and Goldsmith (1990).

2.2 Let us consider a case where non-linear notation allows us to account for a common

phonological process which is difficult to represent within the framework of linear phonology.

Voiced consonants and tense vowels clearly pattern together in many languages, for example, as

in Buchan Scots English, which only allows tense vowels to follow voiced consonants. It is not

clear how to explain this relationship in the framework of linear phonology; since voiced

consonants are lax, we would have to postulate a rule something like (9):

(9) V [+tense] / C[+lax]_

Both voiced consonants and tense vowels are [+ATR], on the other hand (that is to say, both

sets are produced with the tongue root advanced), so we can easily account for these situations

by using the feature [ATR] instead of [tense/lax] (see Westbury (1979, 1983)). It is also

somewhat easier to see this interaction between consonantal and vocalic [ATR] if we use the

formulation in (6) above, where the idea that [ATR] is actually spreading from the consonant to

the vowel is made explicit.

Adjarians Law in fact seems to be precisely such a case of [ATR] interaction between

O RO RNC N


6/18

6

consonants and vowels. As I mentioned above, such interactions are not unusual; we find similar

phenomena in some dialects of English, Akan, Madurese, Coeur dAlene, Sahaptian, Maasai,

Jingpho, and various Mon Khmer languages. The mechanics of these interactions may not be

immediately obvious to the reader, however, so we will briefly consider the reasons for positing

a feature [ATR] in consonants and vowels now, and then see how such a system can account for

the Armenian data.

2.3. In order to produce voicing, there must be a pressure differential of at least 2 cm H2O across

the glottis, with the sub-glottal pressure being higher, so that air may flow up freely through the

vibrating vocal folds (Catford (1977:74)). This is simple enough in sonorants, where the vocal

tract is relatively unconstricted. Obstruents require a complete closure at some point in the vocal

tract, however, which quickly neutralizes any pressure differential across the glottis.

Consequently, other articulatory mechanisms must be employed in order to produce voiced

obstruents. What tends to occur is an expansion of the pharyngeal cavity, implemented primarily

by lowering of the larynx and advancing of the tongue root, which lowers the supra-glottal

pressure sufficiently to allow voicing. The advancement of the tongue root often entails a

fronting and raising of the tongue body as well, as we will consider in section 2.6.These maneuvers were detected as early as the nineteenth century, when Ellis (1877) and

Jesperson (1889) observed that there was noticeable lowering of the larynx during the production

of voiced stops. Then in our century, House and Fairbanks (1953) observed that vowels have

lower fundamental frequencies and greater acoustic energy at high frequencies after voiced

stopsthe same features which were later discovered to be the primary acoustic correlates of

[+ATR] vowels (Lindblom and Sundberg (1971)).

2.4. These discoveries laid the groundwork for our theory of consonantal [ATR], but the

importance of the tongue root itself was not actually noticed until 1967, when Stewart observed

that the differences between the harmonic sets {} and {i e o u} in Akan could only be

satisfactorily accounted for in terms of the relative advancement of the tongue root involved inproducing the first set of vowels3. Many languages were shown soon thereafter to have vowel

harmony systems based on tongue root oppositions, such as Lhasa Tibetan and the Paleo-

Siberian languages Koryak and Gilyak(Aoki (1968)), numerous Niger-Kordofanian and Nilotic

languages (Hall et al. (1974)), Mon Khmer (Gregerson (1976)), Nez Perc (Rigsby and

Silverstein (1969), Hall and Hall (1980)), DhoLuo (Jacobson (1977, 1978)), and Mongolian

(Rialland and Djamouri (1983)).

Halle and Stevens (1969) first proposed using [ATR] as a phonological feature for vowels,

replacing the old tense/lax opposition, based on experimental observations and data from vowelharmony systems of the type just mentioned. Then, in 1976, Gregerson (following earlier

observations by Haudricourt and MArtinet (1947)) noticed that the [+ATR] vowels in Mon

Khmer always occurred after what had originally been voiced consonants (in the modernlanguage these consonants became voiceless), but concluded that there was no causal

relationship between the two. Similar observations were made by Diffloth (1980) for Wa (a Mon

Khmer language) and by Maddieson and Ladefoged (1985) for Jingpho (a Tibeto-Burman

language), but these analyses also stopped at pointing out the correlation between voiced

consonants and [+ATR] vowels, and did not suggest that one might have led to the other.

3 Ladefoged (1964) made similar observations, but we need not consider these here.


7/18

7

Westbury (1979, 1983) and Kohler (1984) then provided experimental evidence that voiced

consonants were phonetically [+ATR], but did not consider the phonological implications of that

fact.

2.5. It was not until 1987 that the causal relationship between [ATR] and consonant voicing was

made explicit, when Loren Trigo proposed that such cooccurrences in Mon Khmer, BuchanScots English, and Madurese were actually cases of the feature [+ATR] spreading from

consonants to vowels. In Buchan we find cases such as:

(10) bed-I small bed bed

wiskt-I little waistcoat wiskti

b e d I w i s k t - I

[+ATR] [-ATR]

Similarly in Madurese we see:

(11) budE back budi

khusE gums khus

b u d E kh u s E

[+ATR] [-ATR]

Madurese also has ATR harmony, so that [+ATR] values derived from consonants can

spread beyond immediately adjacent vowels, unless blocked by a [-ATR] consonant. We shouldnote that intervening {l r h y w} do not block [+ATR] spreading, which indicates that they are

either [+ATR] themselves or unspecified for [ATR]:

(12) bArAs health baras

bAtO stone bat

b A r A s b A t O

[+ATR] [+ATR] [-ATR]

Similarly, in Maasai (Tucker (1955), Cole (1987:41)) the glides {y w} spread [+ATR] ontoimmediately preceding and following vowels:


8/18

8

(13) a-I-rOwA hot a--row

( = [+ATR] equivalent of a)a-I-wAn evade a-i-wn

a I r O w A a I w A n

[-ATR] [+ATR] [-ATR][+ATR]

These data may help us explain the behavior of {y l v} with respect to Adjarians Law, as we

will see in section 2.6.

In the American Indian language Coeur dAlene, all non-lax vowels become tense when

followed by uvular and pharyngeal consonants (Cole (1987:90)). Consider the forms in (14):

(14) kwn answer : ako-stq he answered back

tsic tall : tsc-alqw he is tall

These data are easily accounted for if we assume that uvulars and pharyngeals are specified

[-ATR]; this feature then spreads to preceding vowels, in a fashion directly parallel to Madurese

and Buchan. We can represent this process as follows:

(15) k u s t q

[+ATR] [+ATR] [-ATR]

There is evidence that pharyngeals are specified [-ATR] in Arabic and Kurdish as well (seeDjamouri (1984:342)); we shall consider the Kurdish case further in section 2.7.

We should also note the parallel between tonogenesis and the development of distinctive

[+ATR] vowel series in such languages. Many tonal languages, such as Mon Khmer and

Jingpho, are believed to have developed their systems of distinctive tone through the loss of their

voiced consonant series, which often produce lower pitch in following vowels than voiceless

consonants do. When the conditioning environment for phonetic tone distinction disappeared,

tone became phonemic in these languages. We can easily draw a parallel to western Armenian

dialects which devoice the classical plain voiced series, and say that the advancement of the

tongue root inherent in voiced consonants became a phonemic feature of the following vowels

when this voicing distinction was lost.

2.6. The cases described in 2.5 are strikingly similar to the workings of Adjarians Law in the

Armenian dialects. As we just mentioned, the languages with [+ATR] and [-ATR] harmonic

series often develop this configuration through the loss of an old series of voiced consonants, just

as all the Armenian dialects showing Adjarians Law (except Kirzan, Meghri, Karchevan, Goris,

Musaler, and Varhavar) have devoiced the classical plain voiced series. Similarly, we can

observe that in many languages showing [ATR] spreading, only the back vowels are affected (cf.

Mongolian, Rialland and Djamouri (1984), Steriade (1987)), as with Adjarians Law.


9/18

9

We should expect this to be the case with Armenian, because i and e are already [+ATR], and

should therefore not be affected by a rule spreading [+ATR]. For those to whom the feature

specifications of the proto-Armenian vowel system are not clear, I will present my interpretation

here:

(16) feature specifications of the proto-Armenian vowel system4

i e a

high + - + - -

low - - - - +

back - - + + +

ATR + + - - -

round - - + + -

We should note that (according to Khachaturyan (1982:88)) classical i and eshow differentreflexes after voiced and voiceless consonants in the dialects of Karabagh. Consider:

(17) classical kir container > kr : gir letter > ky

ircit sparrow > ct : jig taut >cikhyket insect > kt : get river > kyet

We see a similar type of distribution in Meghri (Aghayan (1954:44,265)):

(18) classical kem grass rope > km : get river > getkir container > kr : gin price > gin

It appears that the [-ATR] specification of voiceless consonants spreads to i and e in thesedialects, just as the [+ATR] specification of voiced consonants spreads to following vowels in

Adjarians Law ( (hard (Gharibyan (1953), p. 45) must be [-ATR]cf. Buchan i, u,Trigo (1987:8); I will henceforth refer to and i with what I consider to be their IPA values, and respectively). It should not surprise us then that in some dialects of Armenian we also get

cooccurrence restrictions of the type in (19):

(19) (a) voiced consonants and resonants occur with { i e}

(b) voiceless consonants occur with {a u o }(data from Khachaturyan (1982:88))

We might say simply that series (a) is [-back] and series (b) is [+back], which seems to be

true, but this would not explain why (a) occurs with voiced consonants and resonants, and (b)

occurs with voiceless consonants. It makes more sense to interpret (a) and (b) as [+ATR] and[-ATR] respectively, with a rule which makes all [+ATR] vowels [-back], and all

[-ATR] vowels [+back], as in (20):

4There is good reason to believe that schwa was not phonemic in early Armenian, but since

this point is not relevant to our discussion I will not consider it further here. I have also left out

, which I believe was not a simple short vowel, but rather a long vowel or diphthong (note thatit alternates with i in unaccented syllables).


10/18


11/18

11

half of the rule (namely [+ATR] [-back]) applies in Kurdish.

There seem to be three distinct stages of [ATR]/[back] interaction in the languages which

show [ATR] systems. Many west and east African languages (see Hall and Hall (1980) for

examples) have complex [ATR] systems, but no correlation with backness. Somali has a

complex [ATR] system with a concomitant rule which fronts [+ATR] vowels. Several dialects

of Armenian (Karchevan, Maragha, Cilicia, Agulis, Meghri, etc.; see Muradyan (1960)), as wellas Mongolian, Nez Perc, and numerous other languages, fully implement the rule in (20). I

have schematized these stages as follows:

(24) Stages of [ATR]/[back] interaction

i. Classical (original system) {ba da ga}, {pa ta ka}

ii. Malatia [atr] spreads to V {bA dA gA}, {pa ta ka}iii. Krzen [atr] [-back] {b d g}, {pa ta ka}iv. Van loss of voicing contrast {p t k}, {pa ta ka}

These groupings may well reflect historical stages in the development of [ATR] systems:

when [ATR] becomes phonemically distinctive in a language, we get languages of the type in(24(ii)); when for phonetic reasons the [+ATR] vowels are then fronted, we get languages of the

type in (24(iii)); when this process is generalized to the form in (20), we get languages of the

type in (24(iv)). Adjarians Law actually presents us with a nice case study of this

phenomenonwe have to postulate precisely these stages to account for the results we see in the

various dialects, as in (25):

(25) Stages of Adjarians Law5

(o) proto-Armenian [+ATR] i e

[-ATR] a

(i) [ATR] spreads [+ATR] i e u o A

(as in (6)) [-ATR] a

(ii) [+ATR] [-back] [+ATR] i e

[-ATR] a

(iii) [ATR] [-back] [+ATR] i e (as in (20)) [-ATR] a

Stages (o) and (i) are basically the same; we assume that [ATR] values of consonants always

spread phonetically to adjacent vowels, so that the vowels in (o) would have non-phonemicvariants {uoA}. At stage (i) these oppositions are phonemicized. At stage (ii) the [+ATR]

vowels are fronted, and we obtain the vowel system of Musaler, etc. Stage (iii) is reflected in the

dialects which show [+back] equivalents ofi and/or e, such as Karabagh, Meghri, Urmia, etc.We should note that and , the [+back] equivalents of i and e, do not always appear

together: many dialects (e.g. Van, Shatax, eastern Mush, New Bayazed, Hadjin, Zeytun; see

5 merges with e after the classical period, as represented in (i).


12/18

12

Gharibyan (1953:110-114), Grigoryan (1957:82-84)) have , but not . Consider the cases in theKarchevan dialect:

(26) classical Karchevan gloss

[-ATR] esay si spouse

ki ki beesting[+ATR] bem bem seat

gir gir letter

The Armenian dialects actually reflect three levels of complexity, corresponding to the types

of complex segments they allow:

(27) (i) *[+high, -ATR, -round] * **[-low, +back, -round] (Goris, Musaler)

(ii) *[+high, -ATR, -round] (Shamaxi, Urmia, etc.) * (iii) no filters (Karabagh, Meghri)

One might object that there is no reason to say that the filter *[+high, -ATR, -round] is active

in type (i) dialects, since the filter *[-low, +back, -round] alone can account for the vowel gap,

but the fact that many dialects show the gap in (ii) indicates that we probably have two different

filters overlapping (it is also possible that the cases in (27(i)) are direct products of (25(ii)),

which have not undergone the stage represented in (25(iii))). The distribution in (27) indicates

that the feature [ATR] is actually playing a role in the Armenian dialect vowel systems.

Based on the considerations we have just discussed, we can now specify the general vowel

system of the Armenian dialects as follows:

(28) high low back ATR round

i + - - + -e - - - + -

- - - + +

+ - - + +

- + - + -

+ - + - -

- - + - -

- - + - +

+ - + - +

a - + + - -

2.7. If we accept that Adjarians Law is a spreading of [+ATR], we still must explain why {z yl v} trigger the rule, as only voiced stops and affricates are normally considered to be specified[+ATR]. The voiced fricatives are not difficult to account for, as they also require some

mechanism to create the pressure differential needed for voicing (Catford (1977:111)); I see no

problem with specifying them as [+ATR]. The glides {y v} are not too problematic, either: we

have already seen that glides in Maasai (and perhaps Madurese) are [+ATR] (though for different

reasons). Unfortunately, l remains problematic.

I have been assuming that the change of classical ya- > modern (h)- observed by


13/18

13

Weitenberg (1986) was actually triggered by y before it became h, because h is if anything[-ATR]. We could account for h triggering the rule if it were voiced, however, which is basicallywhat Weitenberg proposes. If this were the case, we would have more evidence for an extension

of the rule to all voiced continuants. Unfortunately, the issue of whether or not certain Armenian

dialects have a voiced h, and what the phonetic properties of such a sound might be, are

unresolved. Haneyan (1985) states that the so-called voiced h is a voiced laryngeal sonant inall of the dialects in which it appears, except in the Shatax dialect, where it is a voicedpharyngeal sonant. Further experimental study of the articulation of these consonants is required

before we can truly determine what is happening. We should also note that in the Shatax dialect,

which supposedly has voiced h, Adjarians Law applies to what were originally initial as, whichnow are preceded by an initial voiced h. Khachaturyan (1982) attributes this to the presence of afollowing resonant {l r} (see footnote 1), which in fact seems to account for all the data, thoughit is not clear how land r would motivate such a change.

We have now accounted for the various consonantal triggers of the rule, and the distribution

of its vocalic targets; the only remaining issue is why our rule tends to occur in initial syllables.

One might suspect that this could be related to stress, but unfortunately there is not much

information available on the stress patterns of the dialects showing Adjarians Law. Thisquestion will require further study.

2.8. Now that we have considered the basic facts of Adjarians Law, I would like to consider the

related issue of palatalization in the Armenian dialects, which we mentioned briefly in section

2.6. The type of palatalization we see in the dialects showing Adjarians Law is of significant

theoretical interest on its own merits, but it also bears on our discussion of ATR. Consider the

forms in (29):

(29) classical gan sheep > Maragha kyrgo thief > Maragha kygund heap > Van k

y

ndgir letter > Maragha kyir

gerezman tomb > Van kyerezman

We can represent Armenian dialect palatalization as follows:

(30) C V

We clearly have to order this palatalization after Adjarians Law and the rule in (20) have

applied, as { }, which would be back vowels before these two rules had applied, also triggerpalatalization, as shown in (29). This is precisely the form of palatalization we find in

innumerable languages; for discussion of this representation of palatalization, see Calabrese

X Xplace placedorsal dorsal[+back] [-back]


14/18

14

(1991).

3. Philological and dialectological aspects of Adjarians law

Now that we have accounted for the phonetic and phonological aspects of Adjarians Law, I

would like to consider briefly a few more general problems that arise when we look at this

phenomenon. First, let us consider the locations of the dialects showing Adjarians Law:

(31)

1-Goris; 2-Karchevan; 3-Xoy; 4-Kirzan; 5-Maragha; 6-Meghri; 7-Salmast; 8-Shamaxi; 9-Shatax;

10-Musaler; 11-Van

The dialects showing Adjarians Law basically cluster together in southern Armenia and

southeastern Turkey, except for Musaler, which is in the extreme south of Turkey, on the

Mediterranean. We must assume that the speakers of the Musaler dialect originally came from

the same area as the other dialects showing our rule; consequently, ascertaining the time at which

Armenians moved to Musaler might help us refine our dating of Adjarians Law. Unfortunately,

it is extremely difficult to find historical records concerning the Armenian community in

Musaler. It seems to have been well-established by the 11th century (Sanjian (1964:53)), and

according to Jacquot (1931), there is an Armenian monastery in Musaler dating from the 5th

century, but I am not sure these facts tell us much about when the linguistic community was

established.

Adjarians Law itself has been dated between the 7th and 11th centuries by Adjarian, based

on the behavior of Arabic and Turkish loanwords, whereas Muradyan (1962) dated it to the 5th

century (his reasons for postulating such an early date are unclear). Sanjians evidence that the

Armenian community in Musaler was well-established by the 11th century supports Adjarians

upper limit for the rule, but I am not sure we can accurately establish a lower limit before which

the law could not have applied.

Adjarians Law raises another problem for our study of the history of the Armenian dialects,

in particular our reconstruction of the historical grouping of the dialects, and the times at which

these groups separated from each other. The type of phonological change that Adjarians Law

shows is rare enough in the worlds languages that we would not expect it to develop

1

26

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

Yerevan

Tiflis


15/18

15

independently in separate dialects; consequently, we must assume that all dialects showing

Adjarians Law were originally members of a single dialect group. It is also possible that the

rule spread from an original dialect group to neighboring dialects, but this cannot account for

dialects such as Musaler, Shamaxi, and Kirzan, which are substantially distant from what appears

to be the center of the rule, in southern Armenia.

Based on these considerations, we might expect to find other isoglosses shared by thedialects showing Adjarians Law, but further research on this issue should be the subject of a

separate investigation. We should also be skeptical of prior groupings of the Armenian dialects,

such as those of Gharibyan (1959, 1969), Djahukyan (1972), and Kortlandt (1978), which do not

include all dialects showing Adjarians Law in a single group. Further research on this matter

would be useful.

4. Conclusions

We have seen that there is compelling evidence to view Adjarians Law as a case of the

feature [ATR] spreading from voiced consonants to following vowels, as schematized in (6). In

this way we are able to account for the range of consonants that trigger the rule, and why it tends

to affect back vowels. The reasons why it tends to occur primarily in initial syllables, and istriggered by l, remain unclear. Our theory also enables us to explain the cooccurrencerestrictions we find in Karabagh and Meghri, and motivate the palatalization that takes place in

many of the dialects showing Adjarians Law. The dialects we have added to the list showing

Adjarians Law may be helpful in understanding certain aspects of the rule; in particular,

ascertaining the date at which the Armenian linguistic community was established in Svedia

might help us date the approximate time at which Adjarians Law took place. It is hoped that the

materials presented in this paper will serve as a springboard for further research.

References

Adjarian, H.(1901) Lautlehre des Van-Dialekts. Zeitschrift fr Armenische Philologie 1, pp. 74-86, 121-138. Marburg.

(1909) Classification des dialectes armniens. Paris.

(1911) Hay Barbaagituthiwn [Armenian Dialectology]. Moscow.(1926) Khnnuthiwn Maraayi Barbai [Analysis of the Maragha Dialect]. Erevan.(1927) Hayeren Armatakan Baaran [Armenian Root Dictionary]. Erevan.(1953) Khnnuthiwn Vani Barbai [Analysis of the Van Dialect]. Erevan.

Aghayan, E.

(1954) Meru Barba [The dialect of Meghri]. Erevan.Andreasyan, T.

(1967) Svediayi Barba [The dialect of Svedia [Musaler]]. Erevan.Asatryan, M.(1962) Urmiayi/Xoyi Barba [The dialect of Urmia/Xoy]. Erevan.

Aoki, H.

(1968) Toward a typology of vowel harmony. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics 34.

Baghramyan, R.

(1961) Kzeni Barba [The dialect of Kirzan]. Erevan.


16/18

16

(1964) amaii Barba [The dialect of Shamaxi]. Erevan.Calabrese, A.

(1991) Palatalization. Manuscript, Harvard University.

Catford, J.

(1977) Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Clements, G.N.(1976) Vowel Harmony in Nonlinear Generative Phonology: an Autosegmental Model.

Published in 1980 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Cole, J.

(1987) Planar Phonology and Morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.

Diffloth, G.

(1980) The Wa Languages. Fresno: California State University.

Djahukyan, G.

(1972) Hay barbaagituthyan neracuthyun [Introduction to Armenian Dialectology].Erevan.

Ellis, A.

(1877) Pronunciation for Singers. London.Gharibyan, A.

(1941) Hamaotuthyun Hay Barbaagituthyan [Short Course in Armenian Dialectology].Erevan: Erevan State University Press.

(1959) Ob Armyanskom Konsonantizme [On Armenian Consonantism]. VoprosyYazykoznaniya, vol. 5.(1969) A propos de la premire mutation des consonnes occlusives dans larmenien. In

Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata, vol. 2. Rome.Goldsmith, J.

(1990) Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gregerson, K.

(1976) Tongue root and register in Mon Khmer. inAustroasiatic Studies I, P. Jenners, ed.University of Hawaii.Greppin, J. and Khachaturian, A.

(1986) A Handbook of Armenian Dialectology. Caravan.

Hall, B., R. Hall, M. Pam, A. Myers, S. Antell, and G. Cherono.

(1974) African vowel harmony systems from the vantage point of Kalenjin. Afrika undbersee 57.

Hall, B. and Hall, R.

(1980) Nez Perc Vowel Harmony. in Vago, ed. (1980).

Halle, M. and K. Stevens.

(1969) On the Feature Advanced Tongue Root. Quarterly Progress Report #94, Research

Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.Haneyan, A.

(1985) Grabari Baaskzbi Y Jaynordi Artachoum Ardi Hayereni Barbanerum [ThePronunciation of Grabar Initial Voiced Y in the Modern Armenian Dialects]. In Hayereni

Barbaagitakan Atlas, vol. 2.Haudricourt, A. and A. Martinet

(1947) Assourdissement et sonorisation docclusives dans lAsie du Sud-Est. Bulletin de laSocit de Linguistique de Paris 43.


17/18

17

Hewsen, Robert.

(2001) Armenia: A Historical Atlas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hogg, R., and C. McCully

(1987) Metrical Phonology: A Coursebook. Cambridge.

House, A., and G. Fairbanks

(1953) The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acousticalcharacteristics of vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 25.Jacobson, L.

(1977) Voice-quality harmony in Western Nilotic languages. In Vago, ed. (1980).

Jacobson, L.

(1978) DhoLuo vowel harmony. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 43.Jacquot, P.

(1931) Antioche. Beirut.

Jesperson, O.

(1889) The Articulation of Speech Sounds Represented by Means of Analphabetic Symbols.

Marburg.

Kahn, M.(1976) Borrowing and Variation in a Phonological Description of Kurdish. PhD.

dissertation, University of Michigan.

Khachaturyan, A.

(1982) Aayan ew hay barbaagituthyun [Adjarian and Armenian Dialectology]. InHayereni Barbaagitakan Atlas, H. Muradyan, ed.

Kohler, K.

(1984) Phonetic explanation in phonology: the feature fortis/lenis. Phonetica 41:150-174.Kortlandt, F.

(1978) Notes on Armenian Historical Phonology II (The Second Consonant Shift). StudiaCaucasica 4.

Kuipers, A.(1967) The Squamish Language. Mouton, the Hague.

Ladefoged, P.

(1964) A phonetic study of West African languages. West African Language Monograph

no. 1, Cambridge.

Lindau, M., L. Jacobson, and P. Ladefoged

(1972) The feature Advanced Tongue Root. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 22.Lindau, M.

(1976) Larynx height in Kwa. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 31.Lindblom, B. and J. Sundberg.

(1971) Acoustical consequences of lip, tongue, jaw, and larynx movement. Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America 50.Maddieson, I. and P. Ladefoged(1985) Tense and lax in four minority languages of China. Journal of Phonetics13:433-454.

McCarthy, J.

(1991) The Phonology of Semitic Pharyngeals. Manuscript, University of Massachusetts,

Amherst.


18/18

18

Muradyan, H.

(1960) Karevani Barba [The dialect of Karchevan]. Erevan.(1973) Inhps haskanal Aayani orenkh [How to understand Adjarians Law]. BanberErevani Hamalsarani, 1973.2.161-170.

(1982) Hayereni Barbaagitakan Atlas [Armenian dialect atlas], vol. 1. Erevan.(1986) How to Interpret Adjarians Law. In Greppin (1986).Muradyan, M.

(1962) atai Barba [The dialect of Shatax]. Erevan: Erevan State University Press.Rialland, A. and Djamouri, R.

(1984) Harmonie vocalique, consonantique et structures de dpendance dans le mot en

Mongol Khalkha. Bulletin de la Socit de Linguistique de Paris.Rigsby, B. and M. Silverstein.

(1969) Nez Perc vowels and Proto-Sahaptian vowel harmony. Language 45.Sanjian, A.

(1964) Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Dominion. Harvard University

Press.Sezer, E.

(1985) An Autosegmental Analysis of Compensatory Lengthening in Turkish. In Studies inCompensatory Lengthening, Wetzels and Sezer, eds.

Steriade, D.

(1987) Redundant Values. Papers from the 23d annual meeting of the Chicago LinguisticSociety, Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, A. Bosch, B. Need, and E.Schiller, eds.

Stewart, J.

(1967) Tongue Root Position in Akan Vowel Harmony. Phonetica 16.(1971) A theory of the origin of Akan vowel harmony. Proceedings of the sixth

international congress of phonetic sciences, Prague: Academia Publishing House.Trigo, L.(1987) Voicing and Pharyngeal Expansion: ATR Harmony in Buchan and Madurese.

Manuscript, MIT.

Tucker, A. and J. Mpaayei.

(1955) A Maasai Grammar. Longmans Green and Co.

Vago, R., ed.

(1980) Issues in Vowel Harmony. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Weitenberg, J.

(1986) Additional h-, initial y- and Indo-European *y- in Armenian. In La place delarmnien dans les langues indo-europennes, M. Leroy and F. Mawet eds. Louvain.

Westbury, J.(1979) Aspects of the temporal control of voicing in consonant clusters in English.

Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.

(1983) Enlargement of the supraglottal cavity and its relation to consonant voicing. Journalof the Acoustic Society of America 73:1322-1336.

Williamson, K.

(1974) Some reduced vowel harmony systems. Afrika und bersee 57.

adjarians law 2-10

Documents