The phonetics and phonology of a disyllabic foot in Soikkola Ingrian.
1. IntroductionThe principal aim of this paper is to investigate certain phonetic regularities in contemporary Soikkola Ingrian using experimental techniques, and to discuss their phonological interpretation.
The two most intensively studied Finnic languages--Estonian and Finnish--demonstrate important differences in their prosodic organization. Finnish has a binary quantity opposition of vowels in any position, and a binary quantity opposition of consonants in any intervocalic position (Karls-son 1969; Lehtonen 1970; Suomi, Toivanen, Ylitalo 2008). Estonian demonstrates a tree-way quantity contrast of vowels in the first syllable, and a tree-way quantity contrast of consonants on the border of the first and second syllable in the foot. The duration of the second syllable vowel is not contrastive by itself, but depends on the quantity of the first syllable vowel, so the crucial parameter in describing the Estonian quantity system is the duration ratio of the first to the second syllable in the foot (Lehiste 1997; Ross, Lehiste 2001) (1).
It has been suggested that the Estonian prosodic system was once very similar to that of contemporary Finnish, but later transformed significantly due to the apocope, syncope, and other sound changes (Lehiste 2003 : 47-48). Similar processes took place in other Finnic languages, but yielded different results (Viitso 1997). A detailed study of the prosodic structure in different Finnic varieties would provide an insight into the evolutionary pass from a quantity to an accent language. Here, I intend to present and analyze contemporary Ingrian data, and thus to contribute to the study of Finnic prosody.
The object of the study is limited to disyllabic feet with an open second syllable. In particular, I have studied the following aspects:
--durational characteristics of different types of vowels and consonants;
--durational contrasts of vowels in the second syllable;
--durational contrasts of consonants at the border of the first and second syllable;
--correlations between the duration of different segments in the foot.
2. Background
The phonetics of Ingrian has previously not been studied in depth. The only works involving experimental research on the subject are by A. Sovijarvi (1944), M. Gordon (2009), and N. V. Kuznecova ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2009b). More information can be found in the works of the principal researcher of Ingrian A. Laanest ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1966; 1978; Laanest 1986), but these works do not provide any instrumental measurements. The problem of phonological contrasts was only addressed in a short article (Laanest 1987) and in a recently defended doctoral thesis ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2009a). Except for these two, all the works on Ingrian (including the dictionary Nirvi 1971) use phonetic transcription which is highly diverse and individual depending on the author.
According to the samples of Ingrian speech as presented in the dictionary and other sources, Ingrian has short and long vowels that are phonologically contrastive in any syllable: kukka 'flower:Nom'--kukka 'flower:Part', nokka 'beak:Nom'--nokka 'beak:Part', etc. The words of CVCV structure are said to have a half-long vowel in the second syllable: kala 'fish:Nom', maDo 'snake:Nom' (Sovijarvi 1944 : 17), similar to Estonian (Ross, Lehiste 2001 : 44--45) and a part of Finnish dialects (Wiik, Lehiste : 1968).
Like other Finnic languages, Ingrian originally had a binary opposition of single and geminate consonants (Viitso 1997 : 226--227). Later, Ingrian developed the so-called secondary geminates and prolonged consonants (Porkka 1885 : 37--42; Sovijarvi 1944 : 81--95; JJaaHecT 1978 : 121--136). Both developed from single consonants before long vowels or diphthongs of recent origin. The same lengthening process yielded different results depending on the quantity of the first syllable. If the first syllable was short (i.e. open and contained a short vowel), an originally single consonant changed into a secondary geminate: *kalaa > kallaa 'fish:Part' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1978 : 121). If the first syllable was long (i.e. closed by a sono-rant or/and containing a long vowel), the consonant became half-long: *alkaa > alkaa 'begin:Prs:3Sg', jootii > jootii 'drink:Imprs:Pst' ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 1978 : 127). In Laanest 1987 : 291, secondary geminates together with half-long consonants are regarded as separate phonological units contrasting with both single consonants and original geminates. A different opinion is expressed in Gordon 2009 : 94--96, where secondary geminates preceded by a short vowel are durationally not differentiated from the original geminates.
In my previous study (Markus 2010), I showed that in contemporary Soikkola Ingrian secondary geminates are contrasting with the original geminates in foot types with a short first vowel. The opposition is manifested in duration, secondary geminates being clearly shorter than the primary ones. In this study I will look at all the possible disyllabic foot types.
3. Data and methods
The overall set of hypothetically possible disyllabic structures is shaped by the combination of short and long vowels both in the first and second syllable, and single consonants, secondary geminates or prolonged consonants, and original geminates on the syllable boundary: (2)
V2 V1 Short Long
Short CVCV CVCVV
CVCCV CVCCVV
CVCCV CVCCVV
Long CVVCV CVVCVV
CVVCCV CVVCCVV
CVVCCV CVVCCVV
V--short vowel
VV--long vowel
C--single consonant
CC--secondary geminate or a prolonged consonant
CC--original geminate
However, from the available Ingrian materials and from my previous field research it became clear that of the twelve hypothetically possible structures, only nine are present in contemporary Soikkola Ingrian. The three missing structures are CVC CV, CVVC CV, and CVCVV (those shaded grey in the table above). The CVCCV and CVVC CV feet (i.e. the structures with secondary geminates followed by a short vowel) are impossible, because secondary geminates arose historically only before long vowels or diphthongs, and this rule remains intact in the contemporary language. The CVCVV structure does not occur in Ingrian, because in this structure a single intervocalic consonant changed into a secondary geminate. This is one of the features differentiating Ingrian from Finnish, c.f. standard Finnish kalaa and Ingrian kallaa 'fish:Part'.
Hence, disyllabic feet in Soikkola Ingrian can be of the following nine structures (examples are given in phonetic transcription):
Foot type Example Gloss CVCV kada roof:Imp:2Sg CVVCV saDa accompany:Imp:2Sg CVVCVV maDa sleep:Imprs:Prs CVCCV kukka flower:Nom CVCCVV tappa kill:Prs:3Sg CVCCVV makka sleep:Imp:2Sg CVVCCV vutta year:Part CVVCCVV satta accompany:Prs:3Sg CVVCCVV tuka bring:Imp:2Pl
For the present study, I compiled a list of test words containing intervocalic plosives (k, t, and p) in the nine possible disyllabic foot types. The carrier phrases contained the test words in phrase-final and sentence-final positions, like in kiukaz on va r o k k a, miulle ei t a p p a 'In the oven there is only soup, it is not enough for me' and miulle sukkia ei t a p p a, kiukaz on va r o k k a 'There is not enough food for me, in the oven there is only soup'. Altogether there were 60 test words placed both in the phrase-final and sentence-final position.
The carrier phrases were recorded during a field trip to Ingria in the summer of 2010 from two native speakers of Soikkola Ingrian (a female born in 1927, and a female born in 1932). It should be mentioned right away that measuring absolute segmental durations gave different results for the two speakers (most probably due to different speech rates), but the duration ratios of segments in the foot appeared to be the same for both speakers. This fact indicates that the prosodic organization of the foot in Ingrian is strictly determined by the foot structure and does not depend on the speaker's individual pronunciation.
Table 1 gives average measurements for all the nine foot types (N stands for the number of measurements). In particular, it lists average durations of the first vowel, the intervocalic consonant, and the second vowel, the duration ratios of the second vowel to the first vowel and of the consonant to the second vowel, the average duration of the first and second syllables, the duration ratio of the second to the first syllable, and the average foot duration. Syllable durations were calculated in the following way. The duration of the word-initial and syllable-initial consonants was not included (3), thus the duration of the second syllable always equals the duration of the second syllable vowel. The duration of the first syllable equals the duration of the first syllable vowel in foot types with a single intervocalic consonant (the types kaDa, saDa, and maDa). In foot types containing a geminate, the duration of the first syllable equals the duration of the first syllable vowel plus the duration of the first part of the geminate. The latter is calculated by measuring the duration of the geminate and subtracting the average duration of the syllable-initial consonant (= the single intervocalic consonant in kaDa, saDa, and maDa foot types). The foot duration is calculated by adding the durations of the first vowel, the intervocalic consonant, and the second vowel.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Vowel length oppositions in the second syllable
The results of the acoustic measurements of modern Soikkola Ingrian data confirm the traditional opposition of short and long vowels in the second syllable. In all cases, vowels transcribed as short are indeed shorter than vowels transcribed as long, although the difference between the two vowel types is not very big, and there is variation in absolute duration in both types (for short vowels: from 112 ms to 123 ms; for long vowels: from 137 ms to 161 ms).
The half-long vowel in the CVCV [kaDa] foot type appeared to be actually longer than the long V2 (possible reasons for this are discussed below in this section), so synchronically "overlong" would probably be a better term to refer to it.
Figure 1 presents graphically the three types of V2 in modern Soikkola Ingrian:
Figure 1. Average duration (in ms) of V2 in the three contrastive types. short V2 117 long V2 148 overlong V2 186 Note: Table made from bar graph.
Type 1 (the average duration 117 ms) corresponds to the structures with a short V2: CVVCV [saDa] (V2 = 112 ms), CVCCV [kukka] (V2 = 123 ms), CVVCCV [vutta] (V2 = ll7 ms).
Type 2 (the average duration 148 ms) corresponds to the structures with a long V2: CVVCVV [maDa] (V2 = 137 ms), CVCCVV [tappa] (V2 = 153 ms), CVCCVV [makka] (V2 = 153 ms), CVVCCVV [satta] (V2 = 138 ms), CVVCCVV [tuka] (V2 = 161 ms).
Type 3 (186 ms) corresponds to the structure CVCV [kaDa], where V2 was previously described as half-long.
It can be easily noticed that the differenre in the duration of V2 in the contrasting structures (CVCCV [kukka] vs. CVCCVV [tappa], CVVCCV [vutta] vs. CVVCCVV [satta], CVVCV [saDa] vs. CVVCCV [maDa] is actually quite small: between 20 and 30 ms. However, in modern Ingrian, there is another perceptional cue that distinguishes short and long vowels in the second syllable. This cue concerns not the length, but the quality of the vowels: often, short vowels in the second syllable are reduced to schwa, while long vowels never are. Phonetically, the pair kukka 'flower:Nom'--kukkaa 'flower: Part' is realized as [kukk[??]]--[kukka], which makes an easily perceivable opposition.
The degree of reduction varies considerably among the speakers and depends also on the speech rate. In slow and distinctive pronunciation the reduced vowels are pronounced as full, thus it is not yet justified to claim [??] as a phoneme. Apparently, Soikkola Ingrian is currently in an intermediate state: the quantity opposition of short and long vowels in non-first syllables is on the way to be leveled out and replaced by the quality opposition of reduced and full vowels. A similar process took place in the neighbouring Votic dialects, and went further developing into a full apocope in Jogopera Votic, cf. kukk 'flower: Nom'--kukka 'flower:Part' (Jogopera Votic), kukk[??] 'flower:Nom'--kukka 'flower:Part' (Luutsa Votic) (Mapkyc, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in print).
There are no available acoustic data on the duration of long vowels of the second syllable in Ingrian from earlier periods, but if the short--long opposition used to be manifested in the same way as in Standard Finnish, then long vowels should have been at least twice as long as short vowels. If this was the case, then the long vowels in the second syllable were longer than 200 ms, and V2 in the CVCV [kaDa] type (186 ms) was indeed half-long. In modern Ingrian, long vowels in the second syllable are considerably reduced, while the half-long vowel preserved its duration. This hypothesis explains why the half-long vowel is longer than the long vowels in the analyzed data.
Phonetically, the second vowel in the CVCV [kaDa] type is clearly long. However, its length is not contrastive in Ingrian, as there is no structure that would provide a context for a phonological opposition. Thus, both short and long interpretations of the second vowel in the CVCV structure are possible. I will transcribe it as phonologically short in order not to violate the traditional interpretation, and not to contradict the historical rule of changing single consonants into secondary geminates before long vowels.
Another issue that I would like to address here is whether the length of V2 is the only feature differentiating the foot types CVCCV [kukka] vs. CVCCVV [tappa], CVVCCV [vutta] vs. CVVCCVV [satta], and CVVCV [saDa] vs. CVVCVV [maDa]. It was noted in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 2009b : 37--38 that the lengthening of the second vowel causes also the lengthening of the segment that closes the first syllable. However, my own results cannot be directly compared with the results obtained by N. Kuznetsova, as she was measuring words containing sonorants, consonant clusters, and diphthongs in the first syllable (structures of the types sula 'salt:Part', linna town:Part', kulma 'cold:Part', kuiva 'dry:Part').
An instrumental analysis of the words with intervocalic plosives gave the following results.
The foot types CVCCV [kukka] vs. CVCCVV [tappa] are opposed only by the duration of V2, while the length of the geminate and V1 is the same in both types.
The foot types CVVCCV [vutta] vs. CVVCCVV [satta] are opposed by the duration of V2, the length of the geminate is the same in both types, and V1 is 12 ms longer in the CVVCCVV [satta] foot.
In the foot type CVVCVV [maDa], not only the duration of V2, but also the duration of V1 is 26 ms longer than in the type CVVCV [saDa]. Additionally, the duration of the intervocalic consonant is 15 ms longer in CVVCVV [maDa]:
Figure 2. Average durations (in ms) of V1, C(C), and V2 in foot
types contrasted by the duration of V2.
V1 CC V2
kukka 109 287 123
tappa 107 291 153
vutta 173 242 117
satta 185 248 138
saDa 211 92 112
maDa 237 107 137
Note: Table made from bar graph.
The comparison of syllable durations shows that the foot types CVCCV [kukka] vs. CVCCVV [tappa] are opposed by the duration of the second syllable. In case of the foot types CVVCCV [vutta] vs. CVVCCVV [satta] and CVVCV [saDa] vs. CVVCVV [maDa], both the first and the second syllable are longer in the foot type including a long V2:
Figure 3. Average durations (in ms) of Syl1 and Syl2 in
foot types contrasted by the duration of V2.
Syl 1 Syl 2
kukka 299 123
tappa 301 153
vutta 318 117
satta 336 138
saDa 211 112
maDa 237 137
Note: Table made from bar graph.
4.2. Durational contrasts of intervocalic consonants
From the phonetic point of view, there are two cues to the opposition between different types of consonants in Soikkola Ingrian.
The first one is easily perceivable without any acoustic measurements: single consonants in the CVCV [kaDa], CWCV [saDa], and CVVCW [maDa] foot types are half-voiced, unlike all other consonant types. The exact pronunciation of a single intervocalic stop varies among the speakers from fully voiced to unvoiced, but the comparison of several pronunciations of the same word from different speakers easily classifies the consonant type. On the other hand, prolonged consonants in the CVVCCVV [tuka] type are never voiced.
The second phonetic feature carrying the opposition between different types of consonants is the duration. In my acoustic data there are five clearly defined types of consonants according to their duration:
Figure 4. Average duration (in ms) of intervocalic consonants in five constrastive types. 1 97 2 167 3 223 4 245 5 289 Note: Table made from bar graph.
Type 1 (the average duration 97 ms) includes the structures with a single half-voiced consonant: CVCV [kaDa] (C = 92 ms), CVVCV [saDa] (C = 92
Type 2 (167 ms) corresponds to the structure CVVCCVV [tuka] with a prolonged consonant preceded by a long vowel.
Type 3 (223 ms) corresponds to the structure CVCCVV [makka] with a secondary geminate preceded by a short vowel.
Type 4 (the average duration 245 ms) includes the structures with original geminates preceded by a long vowel: CVVCCV [vutta] (CC = 242 ms), CVVCCVV [satta] (CC = 248 ms)
Type 5 (the average duration 289 ms) includes the structures with original geminates preceded by a short vowel: CVCCV [kukka] (CC = 287 ms), CVCCVV [tappa] (CC = 291 ms).
From the phonological point of view, one should first of all look at the opposition of different consonant types in the same environment. The foot types that are present in contemporary Soikkola Ingrian are distributed between the four possible vowel contexts in the following way:
V2 V1 Short Long
Short CVCV [kaDa] CVCCVV [makka]
CVCCV [kukka] CVCCVV [tappa]
Long CVVCV [saDa] CVVCVV [maDa]
CVVCCV [vutta] CVVCCVV [tuka]
CVVCCVV [satta]
The context between two long vowels demonstrates a three-way opposition of consonants, thus the minimal number of contrastive consonant types is 3. As shown in Figure 4, original geminates have two durational variants: they are shorter after a long vowel and longer after a short vowel. The same effect is observed with secondary geminates and prolonged consonants: the former occur after a short vowel, and the latter after a long vowel. In both cases, the shorter and longer variants are never contrastive in the same foot structures, and thus we can combine the shorter and longer allophones into one phoneme (types 2 and 3 correspond to short geminates; types 4 and 5--to full geminates). Treating prolonged consonants as phonological geminates is fully justified from the functional point of view: they make a shorter counterpart of secondary geminates and thus make an exact match to the shorter and longer allophones of original geminates (see also next section for more arguments). Thus, I think it is justified to propose a three-way phonological opposition of plosives in contemporary Soikkola Ingrian: single stops vs. short geminates vs. full geminates. If we symbolize the plosives as /g/ vs. /k/ vs. /kk/ and the like, the oppositions listed above can be phonologically transcribed as
/kada/ vs. /kukka/
/tappaa/ vs. /makaa/
/saada/ vs. /vuutta/
/maadaa/ vs. /tuukaa/ vs. /saattaa/
Apart from the intervocalic position, different types of plosives are opposed in Ingrian in consonant clusters starting with a sonorant (in all other contexts the opposition is neutralized). I do not yet have enough acoustic data to illustrate the duration of plosives as a part of clusters, but the distribution of different consonant types among possible foot structures is the following (R stands for a sonorant in the consonant cluster):
V2 V1 Short
Short CVRCV [jalga] 'foot:Nom'
CVRCCV [kirkko] 'church:Nom'
Long CVVRCV [kardo] 'rainbow:Nom'
V2 V1 Long
Short CVRCVV [valgia] 'white:Part'
CVRCCVV [jalka] 'foot:Part'
CVRCCVV [kirkko] 'church:Ill'
Long CVVRCVV [tuldui] 'ventilate:Pst:3Sg'
CVVRCCVV [karto] 'rainbow:Ill'
It is noteworthy that I have not found a single example in Nirvi 1971, nor in any other source, where the first long vowel would be followed by a cluster with a full geminate. It seems that this structure is impossible in Ingrian, probably because the first syllable would have become too long.
The distribution of plosives as part of clusters among the possible contexts differs from the distribution of intervocalic plosives, but the triple opposition of consonant types is nevertheless preserved (the context between the short V1 and long V2).
4.3. Correlations between segment durations in the foot
The results of the acoustic measurements reveal a strong mutual correlation between the duration of the first vowel and intervocalic consonant in the foot.
4.3.1. Vowels
The duration of the short first vowel remains approximately the same irrespective of the foot type. An ANOVA indicates no significant difference between the duration of V1 in four possible foot types: F (3; 84) = 0.275; p = 0.843 (CVCV [kaDa] (V1 = 102 ms), CVCCV [kukka] (V1 = 109 ms), CVVCVV [tappa] (V1 = 107 ms), CVVCVV [makka] (V1 = 104 ms)). Thus there is no effect of foot type on the duration of the short V1.
However, the duration of the long V1 correlates strongly with the foot type. It is shorter before geminates (both full and short): CVVCCV [vutta] (V1 = 173 ms), CVVCCVV [satta] (V1 = 185 ms), CVVCCVV [tuka] (V1 = 176 ms), and longer before singletons: CVVCV [saDa] (V1 = 211 ms), CVVCVV [maDa] (V1 = 237 ms). An ANOVA indicates significant difference between the duration of V1 in foot types with geminates vs. foot types with singletons: F (1; 84) = 18.120; p < 0.001. There is no statistical difference between the duration of V1 in words with prolonged consonants (CVVCCVV [tuka]) vs. full geminates (CVVCCV [vutta], CVVCCVV [satta]): F (1; 55) = 0.099; p = 0.753. This is another argument for treating prolonged consonants as geminates, but not as single consonants.
The durational contrasts of V1 are summarized in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Average duration (in ms) of V1. short V1 /kada, kukka, tappaa, makaa/ 106 long V1 before geminates /vuutta, tuukaa, saattaa/ 178 long V1 before singletons /saada, maadaa/ 224 Note: Table made from bar graph.
4.3.2. Consonants
An ANOVA indicates no significant difference between the duration of single intervocalic consonant in different foot types: F (2; 45) = 1.977; p = 0.15 (CVCV [kaDa] (C = 92 ms), CVVCV [saDa] (C = 92 ms), CVVCVV [maDa] (C = 107 ms)). Hence, the foot type has no effect on the duration of single consonants.
As already indicated above, the duration of full geminates correlates strongly with the foot type, being shorter after a long vowel: CVVCCV [vutta] (CC = 242 ms), CVVCCVV [satta] (CC = 248 ms), and longer after a short vowel: CVCCV [kukka] (CC = 287 ms), CVCCVV [tappa] (CC = 291 ms). An ANOVA indicates a significant difference between the consonant duration in feet with a short V1 vs. feet with a long V1: F (1; 80) = 31.512; p < 0.001.
Similarly, short geminates are shorter after a long vowel: CVVCCVV [tuka] (CC = 167 ms), and longer after a short vowel: CVCCVV [makka] (CC = 223 ms). An ANOVA shows a very significant effect of foot type on the duration of short geminates: F (1; 42) = 59.060; p < 0.001.
Figure 6 plots the duration of intervocalic consonants and the preceding vowel (for geminates) in different foot types:
Figure 6. Average duration (in ms) of different consonant
types as compared to the duration of the preceding vowel.
V1 C(C)
Singletons
/kada, saada,
maadaa/ 97
Short geminates
after long V1
/tuukaa/ 176 167
Short geminates
after short V1
/makaa/ 104 223
Full geminates
after long V1
/vuutta,
saattaa/ 179 245
Full geminates
after short V1
/kukka,
tappaa/ 108 289
Note: Table made from bar graph.
4.3.3. Foot
The observed tendency to redistribute length between V1 and the following geminate explains the fact that foot types with the same type of V2 and intervocalic geminate, but different type of V1 have very similar foot durations and almost identical ratios of the second to the first syllable:
Foot type Foot duration Syl2/Syl1 ratio
1 CVCCV /kukka/ 519 ms 0,4
CVVCCV /vuutta/ 531 ms 0,4
2 CVCCVV /makaa/ 480 ms 0,7
CVVCCVV /tuukaa/ 504 ms 0,7
3 CVCCVV /tappaa/ 550 ms 0,5
CVVCCVV /saattaa/ 570 ms 0,4
Figures 7 and 8 represent graphically the foot durations and syllable ratios for the compared three types of structures:
Figure 7. Average foot duration (in ms) for structures
with the same type of V2 and CC, but different type of V1.
Structures Structures
with a short V1 with a long V1
/kukka vuutta 519 531
makaa tuukaa 480 504
tappaa saattaaa/ 550 570
Note: Table made from bar graph.
Figure 8. Average syllable durations and syllable ratios
(in white boxes) for structures with the same type
of V2 and CC, but different type of V1.
Syl 2 Syl 1
/kukka 123 0,4 299
vuutta 117 0,4 318
makaa 153 0,7 230
tuukaa 161 0,7 246
tappaa 153 0,5 301
saattaa/ 138 0,4 336
Note: Table made from bar graph.
5. Conclusions
An acoustic study of contemporary Soikkola Ingrian data defined the durational characteristics of vowels and consonants in disyllabic feet, and provided empirical evidence for their phonological interpretation.
On the phonetic level, there are three durational types of vowels both in the first and second syllable. However, only two contrastive types--short and long vowels--are distinguished on the phonological level. Long vowels of the first syllable have shorter and longer allophones depending on whether they are followed by a geminate or by a single consonant. Short vowels of the first syllable preserve approximately the same duration irrespective of the following consonant.
Vowels of the second syllable can be either short or long. The overlong second vowel in the CVCV foot type is not phonologically contrastive, and is conventionally transcribed as short. Hypothetically, the reason why the second vowel in the CVCV foot is longer than the long vowels is that the latter were considerably shortened in modern Ingrian.
Soikkola Ingrian consonants have five durational types on the phonetic level, and three contrastive types on the phonological level: single consonants vs. short geminates vs. full geminates. Both short and full geminates have shorter allophones if preceded by a long vowel, and longer allophones if preceded by a short vowel.
A ternary contrast of consonants is typologically quite a rare phenomenon. Among the related languages, it was previously attested only in Estonian and Livonian (Lehiste, Teras, Ernstreits, Lippus, Pajusalu, Tuisk, Viitso 2008 : 94), both of which belong to the southern group of Finnic languages. Ingrian, a northern Finnic language, demonstrates the same ternary opposition, though of a different historical origin.
The Ingrian prosodic system is comparable neither with Finnish nor with Estonian types. Like Finnish, Ingrian has the opposition of short and long vowels in non-first syllables. However, this opposition is becoming neutralized in Soikkola Ingrian: the quantitative vowel contrast is being changed into a qualitative opposition of reduced and full vowels. In Ingrian, this process is still on the way, while in the neighbouring Votic dialects the opposition of short and long vowels in non-first syllables has recently been totally lost. Most probably, the tendency to level out the vowel length contrast in non-first syllables is an a real phenomenon. Thus, the little that remains of the Finnic languages spoken in modern Ingria provides a unique living illustration of a gradual transition from a northern to a southern type Finnic language.
The acoustic study also showed that the prosodic organization of the foot in Ingrian is strictly determined by the foot structure. The duration ratios of segments in the foot are preserved even when the absolute duration varies due to different speech rates.
Abbreviations
2--2nd person. 3--3rd person, C--singleton, CC--short geminate (= secondary geminate or a prolonged consonant), CC--full geminate (= original geminate), Ill--Illative, Imp--imperative, Imprs--impersonal, Nom--Nominative, Part--partitive, PF--phrase final, P1--plural, Prs present, Pst past, SF--sentence final, Sg--singular, Syl1--first syllable, Syl2--second syllable. V--short vowel, VV--long vowel, V1--vowel of the 1st syllable. V2--vowel of the 2nd syllable.
doi: 10.3176/lu.2011.2.03
Acknowledgements
The present research was partly supported by the Estonian Science Foundation grant JD100, and Ministry of Education and Sdence of the Russian Federation state contrast no. 02.740.11.0595. I am grateful to Fedor Rozhanskiy and Karl Pajusalu for their valuable comments and to Eva Liina Asu for language editing this paper.
REFERENCES
Asu, E.-L., Lippus, F., Teras, P., Tuisk, T. 2009, The Realization of Estonian Quantity Characteristics in Spontaneous Speech.--Nordic Prosody. Proceedings of the Xth Conference, Helsinki 2008, Frankfurt am Main, 49-56.
Karlsson, F. 1969, Suomen yleiskielen segmentaalifoneemien paradigma.--Vir., 351-362.
Gordon, M. 2009, Prominence and Gemination in Ingrian.--LU XLV, 81-100.
Laanest, A. 1986, Isuri keele ajalooline foneetika ja morfoloogia, Tallinn.
-- 1987, Zur Phonologie der ingrischen Dialekte.--Studien zur Phonologie und Morphonologie der uralischen Sprachen. Akten der dritten Tagung fur uralische Phonologie. Eisenstadt, 28. Juni--1. Juli 1984, Wien, 285-293.
Lehiste, I. 1960, Segmental and Syllabic Quantity in Estonian.--American Studies in Uralic Linguistics, Vol. 1, Bloomington, 21-82. (UAS 1)
-- 1997, Search for Phonetic Correlates in Estonian Prosody.--Estonian Prosody: Papers from a Symposium, Tallinn, 11-35.
-- 2003, Prosodic Change in Progress. From Quantity Language to Accent Language.--Development in Prosodic Systems, Berlin-New York, 47-65.
Lehiste, I., Teras, P., Ernstreits, V, Lippus, F., Pajusalu, K., Tuisk, T., Viitso, T.-R. 2008, Livonian Prosody, Helsinki (MSFOu 255).
Lehtonen, J. 1970, Aspects of Quantity in Standard Finnish, Jyvaskyla.
Markus, E. 2010, Primary and Secondary Geminates in Ingrian.--LU XLVI, 38-52.
Nirvi, R. E. 1971, Inkeroismurteiden sanakirja, Helsinki (LSFU XVIII).
Porkka, V. 1885, Uber den ingrischen Dialekt mit Berucksichtigung der ubrigen finnisch-ingermanlandischen Dialekte, Helsingfors.
Ross, J., Lehiste, I. 2001, The Temporal Structure of Estonian Runic Songs. A Study of the Relationship between Language and Music, Berlin.
Sovijarvi, A. 1944, Foneettis-aannehistoriallinen tutkimus Soikkolan inkeroismurteesta, Helsinki.
Suomi, K., Toivanen, J., Ylitalo, R. 2008, Finnish Sound Structure. Phonetics, Phonology, Phonotactics and Prosody, Oulu.
Viitso, T.-R. 1997, The Prosodic System of Estonian in the Finnic Space.--Estonian Prosody: Papers from a Symposium, Tallinn, 222-234.
Wiik, K., Lehiste, I. 1968, Vowel Quantity in Finnish Disyllabic Words.--CIFU II. Pars I, 569-574.
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].
ELENA MARKUS (Tartu-Moscow)
Address
Elena Markus
University of Tartu
Institute of Linguistics of the Rusian Academy of Sciences
E-mail: helenmarkusCyahoo.com
(1) Not to mention the important role of stress and tone that interact with the duration in Estonian.
(2) The list of possible disyllabic structures is longer, if we consider cases with consonant clusters and with diphthongs. I do provide some information on consonant clusters in 4.2, but these structures are not analyzed in detail in this paper.
(3) First, it allows comparing words both with and without an initial consonant, and second, this way of calculating makes the Ingrian data comparable to the data from other Finnic languages, as syllable-initial consonants are usually excluded from syllable duration (Lehiste 1960 : 54; Lehiste, Teras, Ernstreits, Lippus, Pajusalu, Tuisk, Viitso 2008 : 41; Asu, Lippus, Teras, Tuisk 2009 : 53-54).
Table 1 Average durations (in ms) of the first and second vowel, the intervocalic consonant, the first and second syllable, and the foot; standard deviations (in ms); duration ratios of the second vowel to the first vowel, of the consonant to the second vowel, and of the second to the first syllable Structure Position N V1 C(C) V2 V2/V1 CC/V2 CVCV [kaDa] Average PF 10 111 92 198 1.8 0.5 StDev 19 16 43 Average SF 10 94 93 174 1.9 0.6 StDev 18 16 24 Overall Average 20 102 92 186 1.8 0.5 Overall StDev 18 16 33 CVVCV [saDa] Average PF 10 226 87 114 0.5 0.9 StDev 39 20 41 Average SF 10 197 98 111 0.6 0.9 StDev 36 22 19 Overall Average 20 211 92 112 0.5 0.9 Overall StDev 38 21 30 CVVCVV [maDa] Average PF 5 242 113 136 0.6 0.9 StDev 16 12 9 Average SF 5 231 100 139 0.6 0.8 StDev 6 15 6 Overall Average 10 237 107 137 0.6 0.9 Overall StDev 11 13 5 CVCCV [kukka] Average PF 10 116 282 127 1.1 2.2 StDev 21 38 13 Average SF 10 103 291 120 1.2 2.5 StDev 20 32 19 Overall Average 20 109 287 123 1.2 2.4 Overall StDev 20 35 16 CVCCVV [tappa] Average PF 12 120 285 169 1.5 1.7 StDev 16 37 28 Average SF 12 94 296 137 1.5 2.2 StDev 13 39 25 Overall Average 24 107 291 153 1.5 2 Overall StDev 15 38 26 CVCCVV [makka] Average PF 12 113 220 155 1.4 1,5 StDev 23 31 36 Average SF 12 94 227 152 1.6 1.6 StDev 18 19 27 Overall Average 24 104 223 153 1.5 1.6 Overall StDev 21 25 31 CVVCCV [vutta] Average PF 9 186 233 120 0.7 2 StDev 49 39 24 Average SF 9 159 251 113 0.7 2.3 StDev 25 28 19 Overall Average 18 173 242 117 0.7 2.1 Overall StDev 37 33 21 CVVCCVV [satta] Average PF 10 196 236 133 0.7 1.9 StDev 53 23 23 Average SF 10 174 260 142 0.9 1.9 StDev 36 33 15 Overall Average 20 185 248 138 0.8 1.9 Overall StDev 44 28 19 CVVCCVV [tuka] Average PF 10 170 170 151 0.9 1.2 StDev 30 17 30 Average SF 10 182 165 171 1 1 StDev 26 16 20 Overall Average 20 176 167 161 1 1.1 Overall StDev 28 17 25 Structure Position Syl1 Syl2 Syl2/Syl1 Foot CVCV [kaDa] Average PF 111 198 1.8 402 StDev 19 43 67 Average SF 94 174 1.9 360 StDev 18 24 41 Overall Average 102 186 1.8 381 Overall StDev 18 33 54 CVVCV [saDa] Average PF 226 114 0.5 426 StDev 39 41 86 Average SF 197 111 0.6 405 StDev 36 18 60 Overall Average 211 112 0.5 416 Overall StDev 37 30 73 CVVCVV [maDa] Average PF 242 136 0.6 491 StDev 16 9 13 Average SF 231 139 0.6 470 StDev 6 6 5 Overall Average 237 137 0.6 481 Overall StDev 11 5 9 CVCCV [kukka] Average PF 301 127 0.4 525 StDev 45 14 58 Average SF 297 120 0.4 514 StDev 46 18 53 Overall Average 299 123 0.4 519 Overall StDev 46 16 56 CVCCVV [tappa] Average PF 308 169 0.6 574 StDev 46 28 65 Average SF 293 137 0.5 527 StDev 43 25 63 Overall Average 301 153 0.5 550 Overall StDev 44 26 64 CVCCVV [makka] Average PF 236 155 0.7 487 StDev 45 36 74 Average SF 224 152 0.7 472 StDev 28 27 52 Overall Average 230 153 0.7 480 Overall StDev 36 31 63 CVVCCV [vutta] Average PF 322 120 0.4 539 StDev 80 24 101 Average SF 313 113 0.4 523 StDev 47 19 65 Overall Average 318 117 0.4 531 Overall StDev 64 21 83 CVVCCVV [satta] Average PF 335 133 0.4 565 StDev 72 23 89 Average SF 337 142 0.4 576 StDev 58 15 56 Overall Average 336 138 0.4 570 Overall StDev 65 19 73 CVVCCVV [tuka] Average PF 243 151 0.6 491 StDev 39 30 55 Average SF 249 171 0.7 517 StDev 40 20 50 Overall Average 246 161 0.7 504 Overall StDev 39 25 53
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Markus, Elena |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Linguistica Uralica |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Geographic Code: | 4EUFI |
| Date: | Jun 1, 2011 |
| Words: | 5921 |
| Previous Article: | Jack Rueter, Adnominal Person in the Morphological System of Erzya. |
| Next Article: | Discussions about the Estonian literary language in the second half of the 17th century: arguments and examples/Diskussionen uber die Estnische... |
| Topics: | |