Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2022: Selected papers from the 25th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022
Edited by Holly Kennard, Emily Lindsay-Smith, Aditi Lahiri and Martin Maiden
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 369] 2025
► pp. 94–109

Modelling combined linguistic and non-linguistic evidence in language reconstruction

| University of Heidelberg
On the general level, the paper evaluates analytical methods for combined linguistic, archaeological and historical research. Specifically, the paper takes up the controversially discussed, but never fully resolved, history of the g > ɣ > h lenition in Bohemia, a core migration area of medieval Slavic, investigates the distribution of lenition in space and time and establishes a clear distinction between the phonetic phase of lenition, preceding yer loss, and the phase of phonological reanalysis following it. Kernel Density Estimation points to the beginning of the phonological phase between the archaeological area of Prague-type ceramics and Germania Slavica with northeastern Bavaria, from where it spread to neighboring areas. Potential indicative value of toponymy in Winden- and windisch- is evaluated relative to a hypothesis about language contacts.
Keywords: Kernel Density Estimation, phonetic lenition, yer loss, phonological reanalysis, Prague-type ceramics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sound changes with asymmetrical outcomes
  • 3.Lenition and the Prague-type ceramics
  • 4.Sources of the phonetic lenition
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Author queries
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (27)
References
Andersen, Henning. 1969. Lenition in Common Slavic. Language 45/3. 554–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bichakjian, Bernard H. 1977. Romance Lenition: Thoughts on the Fragmentary-Sound-Shift and the Diffusion Hypothesis. Romance Philology 31,2,196–203.Google Scholar
Bláha, Ondřej, Robert Dittman, Karel Komárek, Daniel Polakovič & Lenka Uličná. 2015. Kenaanské glosy ve středověkých hebrejských rukopisech s vazbou na české země, 1st edn. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
Curta, Florin. 2001. The Making of the Slavs: History and archaeology of the Lower Danube region 500–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Čornejová, Michaela. 2009. Tvoření nejstarších českých místních jmen: Bohemika z 11.–13. století. Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gvozdanović, Jadranka. 2009. Celtic and Slavic and the Great Migrations. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
. 2020. Evaluating Evidence on Slavic migrations. In: Tomáš Klír, Vít Boček & Nicolas Jansens (eds.), New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic, 151–70. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Contributions to the study of Czech accent. In: Selected Writings I, 614–25.Google Scholar
Janka, Wolfgang. 2007. Slawische Siedlung in Nordostbayern, 6.-12. Jahrhundert. In: Reinhard Riepertinger, Evamaria Brockhoff, Ludwig Eiber, Stephan Lippold & Peter Wolf (eds.): Bayern — Böhmen. 1500 Jahre Nachbarschaft. Bavorsko — Cechy. 1500 let sousedstvi. Katalog zur Bayerischen Landesausstellung 2007, Zwiesel, 25. Mai bis 14. Oktober 2007. (Veröffentlichungen zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur 54), 126–28. Augsburg.Google Scholar
Jocz, Lechosław. 2015. Studien zum obersorbischen Konsonantismus. Szczecin. Auszug aus der Habilitationsschrift Studien zum obersorbischen und kaschubischen Konsonantismus mit einer vergleichenden Analyse. Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Klír, Tomáš. 2020. Language, material culture and ethnifying on the Carolingian border: Slavs in Northeast Bavaria. In Tomáš Klír, Vít Boček & Nicolas Jansens (eds.), New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic, 193–274. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lambert, Pierre-Yves. 2003. La language gauloise. Paris: Errance.Google Scholar
Lamprecht, Arnošt, Dušan Šlosar & Jaroslav Bauer. 1984. Historická mluvnice češtiny. Praha: Státní Pedagogické Nakladatelstvi.Google Scholar
Lejeune, Michel. 1974. Manuel de la langue vénète. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1952. Celtic lenition and Western Romance consonants. Language 28(2). 192–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niederle, Lubor. 1902–1924. Slovanské starožitnosti (Slaw. Altertümer) hist. R., 4 Bde. Praha: Bursík & Kohout.Google Scholar
Profantová, Nad’a & Martin Profant. 2020. Ethnicity and the Culture with ceramics of the Prague type. In Tomáš Klír, Vít Boček & Nicolas Jansens (eds.), New Perspectives on the Early Slavs and the Rise of Slavic, 301–40. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Profous, Antonín. 1947–1957. Místní jména v Čechách. Praha: Česká Akademie Vĕd a Umení.Google Scholar
Schrijver, Peter. 2011. The High German Consonant Shift and Language Contact. Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 38. 217–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A prehistory of Slavic. The historical phonology of Common Slavic. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Shevelov, George. 1977. On the chronology of H and the new G in Ukrainian. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1(2). 137–52.Google Scholar
Šaxmatov, Alexei. 1915. Očerk drevneišago perioda istorii russkago jazyka. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1909. Handbuch des Alt-Irischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1924. Einiges über die russische Lautentwicklung und die Auflösung der gemeinrussischen Spracheinheit. Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 1(3/4), 287–319.Google Scholar
Vendryes, Joseph. 1925. Celtique et roman. Revue de Linguistique Roman 1, 3–4, 262–277.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Willem. 1997. Notes on Medieval Novgorod sociolinguistics. Russian Linguistics 21(1). 23–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar