Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio, Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017
Edited by Bridget Drinka
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 350] 2020
► pp. 473–488

Neuters to none

A diachronic perspective on loanword gender in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian

This study documents a diachronic change in the status of neuter noun gender in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (BCS). Previous research demonstrates that the neuter class is closed in BCS (Simonović 2010), and that recent loanwords from western European languages fitting its phonological profile are instead classed as masculine. I show that this is not the case for earlier loanwords from Turkish. New neuter nouns are still accepted, and when changed, are classed as feminine, not masculine. This follows an attested pattern of assigning gender according to lexical distributions. An account of gender assignment utilizing Optimality Theory and incorporating gradiently-ranked constraints captures this pattern in which rankings can shift over time, thus leading to the observed historical changes in rates of neuter gender assignment.
Keywords: grammatical gender, loanwords, borrowing, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Slavic, Balkan, phonology, Optimality, Turkish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Noun gender in BCS
  • 3.BCS Loanwords and Gender
    • 3.1Corpus 1
    • 3.2Corpus 2
    • 3.3Corpus 3
    • 3.4Summary
  • 4.Comparison across time and space
    • 4.1South Slavic
    • 4.2Outside Slavic
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.Formalization
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.350.22wal
References (23)
References
Ban, L. & Matovac, D. (2012). On Turkish loanwords in Croatian language. Trakya Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2:4, 155–166.Google Scholar
Becker, M., Ketrez, N. & Nevins, A. (2011). The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87:1, 84–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 45–86.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cahen, L. (1920). Serbian-English and English-Serbian pocket dictionary. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, M. & Baayen, H. (2003). Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch. Language 79, 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedman, V. (2003). Turkish in Macedonia and beyond: Studies in contact, typology and other phenomena in the Balkans and the Caucasus. Turcologica 52. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L. & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1:2, 151–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology 59:1, 30–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. (1997). The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamusella, T. (2012). The politics of language and nationalism in modern central Europe. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Manova, S. & W. U. Dressler. (2001). Gender and declensional class in Bulgarian. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 67, 45–81.Google Scholar
Mønnesland, S. (1973). Loanwords in the two variants of Serbo-Croatian. Scando-Slavica, 19:1, 197–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, C. (2006). Optimizing gender. Lingua, 116, 1394–1417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonović, M. (2010). Lexeme formation, morphological parsing and constituency in loanword adaptation: A case study from Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian. Poster presented at the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, Hungary.
Sjoberg, M. J. (1972). Turkish loanwords in the language of Aleksa Šantić. PhD dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Škaljić, A. (1966). Turcizmi u srpskohrvatskom jeziki [Turkisms in the Serbo-Croatian language]. Sarajevo: Svjetlost Izdavačko Preduzeće.Google Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walter, M. A. (2011). Probability matching in Arabic and Romance morphology. In E. Broselow & H. Ouali (Eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Probability matching and Macedonian gender morphology: The case of Turkish loanword adaptation. Presentation at the 11th Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Potsdam, Germany.
(2017). Frequency distributions as faithfulness targets: Or, why Bulgarian feminized Turkish nouns. In Y. Oseki, M. Esipova, & S. Harves (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Meeting of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E. & E. L. Newport. (2005). Novelty and regularization: The effect of novel instances on rule formation. In A. Brugos, M. R. Clark-Cotton, & S. Ha (Eds.), BUCLD 29: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Zuraw, K. (2000). Patterned exceptions in phonology. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar