Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:47:08.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A phonemic interpretation of the g/γ isogloss in Great Russian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Richard L. Leed
Richard L. Leed*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A bundle of isoglosses running from the northwest Leningrad area southeast through Moscow divides the Great Russian area into North Great Russian (NGR) and South Great Russian (SGR). The three principal differences between these two areas are said to be: (1) the voiced velar stop [g] in NGR corresponds to the voiced velar fricative [γ] in SGR; (2) NGR has a distinction between /o/ and /a/ in unstressed position whereas SGR does not; and (3) the third person verb ending has a plain (nonpalatalized) /t/ in NGR but not in SGR. This paper deals with the analysis and interpretation of the first of these isoglosses.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1966 , pp. 94 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1966

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

1 Avanesov, R. I., Očerki russkoj dialektologii, Moscow (1949), pp. 212–3 Google Scholar. Also, Kuznecov, P. S., Russkaja dialektologija, Moscow (1960), pp. 141–2 Google Scholar.

2 Garde, Paul, “Réflexions sur les différences phonétiques entre les langues slaves,” Word 17 (1961), p. 37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 McDavid, Raven I. Jr., in Structure of American English by Francis, W. Nelson, New York, 1958, pp. 498–99 Google Scholar.

4 Gumperz, John J., “Phonological differences in three Hindi dialects,” Language 34 (1958), pp. 219–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Réflexions, p. 35.

6 Examples adapted from Avanesov, R. I., Voprosy teorii lingvističeskoj geografii, Moscow, 1962, pp. 39–41 Google Scholar.

7 Réflexions, pp. 39-40.

8 Cf. Avanesov, R. I., “Iz istorii russkogo vokalisma,” Vestnik Moskovskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta I (1947)Google Scholar: “The transition from okan’e [NGR distinction of unstressed /o a/] to akan’e [SGR lack of distinction] is effortless and easy, while the transition from akan’e to okan’e is very difficult. This is the usual result when both of the contiguous dialects are more or less on the same level with respect to their historical and socio-economic relationships.”

9 Vysotskij, S. S., “O govore derevni Leka,” Materialy i issledovanija po russkoj dialektologii II (1949), p. 7 Google Scholar.