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