Does historical linguistics need the Cognitive Commitment? Prosodic change in East Slavic
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/10567Dato
2016Type
Journal articleTidsskriftartikkel
Peer reviewed
Forfatter
Nesset, ToreSammendrag
On the basis of a case study of the so-called jer shift in Slavic, I argue
that the Cognitive Commitment is essential for an adequate analysis of language
change. While the “social turn” and the “quantitative turn” open up
important perspectives and provide new opportunities for cognitive historical
linguistics, the Cognitive Commitment remains essential because it facilitates
elegant and insightful analyses and paves the way for more general hypotheses
about language change. The jer shift is a prosodic change that originated
in Late Common Slavic and spread to Old East Slavic in the twelfth century.
This sound change involved the lax vowels /ĭ, ŭ/ (often referred to as jers or
yers), which either disappeared or merged with /e, o/ depending on the
prosodic environment. Contrary to traditional practice, I argue that the jer
shift should be analyzed in terms of trochaic feet, i. e., rhythmic groups of
two syllables, where the leftmost syllable is prominent. This account is psychologically
realistic, as dictated by the Cognitive Commitment, since rhythmic
grouping is a fundamental property of human cognition (Nathan 2015.
Phonology. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of cognitive
linguistics, 253–273. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton and Ding et al. 2016.
Cortical tracking of hierarchical linguistic structures in connected speech.
Nature Neuroscience 19. 158–164). While the Cognitive Commitment is essential
for historical linguistics, one important limitation deserves mention. Historical
changes such as the jer shift can be represented as “sound laws”, i.e., statements
that summarize changes that span over many generations. Such statements
are not about processes in the minds of individual speakers or speech
communities at any point in time. They are therefore not directly relevant for
the Cognitive Commitment, but are nevertheless among the most valuable tools
historical linguists have at their disposal.
Beskrivelse
Published version. Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0026