Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:47:11.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative Analyses of the Bulgarian Nonsyllabic Phonemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Joseph A. Van Campen and
Jacob Ornstein
Joseph A. Van Campen
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Jacob Ornstein
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of the nonuniqueness of phonemic solutions, first raised by Chao in 1934, remains one of the most intriguing problems of structural linguistics. It is therefore of interest to note that the attempts of various American and European linguists to arrive at a structural analysis of the nonsyllabic phonemes of present-day standard Bulgarian have resulted in three significantly different descriptions of the system in question. The phonemic inventory most frequently advocated, henceforth referred to as system I, includes (1) a series of hard, nonpalatalized, or plain consonants /p b t d k g f v s z x c m n r l/; (2) a series of corresponding soft, palatalized, or sharp consonants /p' b' t' d' k' g' f' v' s' z' x' c' m' n' r' 1'/; and (3) a glide or nonconsonantal-nonvocalic phoneme /j/. System II, less frequently encountered, admits only groups (1) and (3) as independent phonemes, and regards the palatalized consonants as clusters of consonant plus /j/. System III recognizes the phonemic status of (1) and (2), but considers [j] an allophone of unstressed /i/.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 35 , Issue 2-Part1: April-June , June 1959, pp. 264 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © 1959 by Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Y. R. Chao, The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology (Accidentia Sinica) 4.363-97 (1934).

2 For our purposes we define ‘standard Bulgarian’ as the material presented as standard by the sources at our disposal.

3 Harold L. Klagstad Jr., The phonemic system of colloquial standard Bulgarian, The Slavic and East European journal 16.42-54 (1958); Ivan Lekov, Opit za fonologiana kharakteristika na bulgarskija ezik, Godišnik na Sofijskija universitet, Istoro-filologičeski fakultet 37 (1941); Jurij S. Maslov, Očerk bolgarskoj grammatiki 11-42 (Moscow, 1956); Stojko Stojkov, Bulgarski knižoven izgovor, Sbornik na Bulgarskata akademija na naukite i iskustvata 37.281-415 (1942); id., Palatální souhlásky ve spisovné bulharštině, Slavia 19.76-85 (1949); id., Palatalni suglasni v bulgarski knižoven ezik, Izvestija na Instituta za bulgarski ezik 1.5-63 (1952); N. S. Trubetzkoy, Principes de phonologie 200, 249, 253, 260-1 (Paris, 1949). The list of sharp consonants varies slightly from author to author; Maslov, for instance, includes /x'/, while Klagstad omits it. Such minor differences have been ignored as irrelevant to our problem. For the same reason, no mention is made of the palatal or 'neutral' phonemes /š ž č /.

4 Carleton T. Hodge and assistants, Spoken Bulgarian (FSI Basic Course, unpublished; 1956); S. B. Bernštejn, Bolgarskij jazyk, Bol'šaja sovetskaja enciklopedija 2 (Moscow, 1950); K. Horálek, K otázce měkkostní korelace souhláskové ve spisovné bulharštině, časopis pro moderní filologii 28.362-367 (1942); id., K otázce palatálních souhlásek v bulharštině, Slavia 20.57-60 (1950). Only Hodge has expounded this view consistently and systematically; aside from the cited work, it is expressed in two letters to the authors, dated 4 December 1957 and 10 September 1958. Cf. Bernštejn, Učebnik bolgarskogo jazyka (Moscow, 1948), which presents not system II, but system I.

5 N. S. Trubetzkoy, Anleitung zu phonologischen Beschreibungen 23 (Brno, 1935). The same view was proposed by Roman Jakobson in a conversation with one of the authors. (Cf. the analysis of the Serbo-Croatian phonemic system in his paper On the identification of phonemic entities, TCLC 5.205-13.) As for Trubetzkoy's varying interpretations of his own data (cf. footnote 3) : if one accepts the data, the interpretation of [j] as an allophone of unstressed /i/ is the only satisfactory conclusion. As we shall see below, however, Trubetzkoy's statements do not apply to the standard language.

6 We wish to express our gratitude to Charles A. Ferguson and Horace G. Lunt of Harvard University, for their constructive criticism and advice, and to Roy Fallis of Washington, D. C., who was good enough to read this study in manuscript. We regret that circumstances prevented our introducing into this paper several useful changes suggested by Lunt.

7 The phonemic system 49.

8 M. I. Matusevič, Eksperimental'no-fonetičeskie issledovanija soglasnykh bolgarskogo jazyka, Kratkie soobščenija Instituta slavjanovedenija 15.3-16 (1955).

9 Očerk 14, 19-22, 29.

10 Palatální souhlásky 84.

11 Ibid. 82.

12 Letter of 10 September 1958.

13 K otázce palatálních souhlásek 59.

14 Bulgarski knižoven izgovor 318.

15 Ljubomir Andrejčin, Za mekostta v bulgarskija knižoven ezik, Bulgarski ezik 7.490-1 (1957).

16 The phonemic system 49.

17 Očerk 29.

18 Letter of 4 December 1957.

19 Principes 200.

20 Letter of 4 December 1957.

21 Očerk 18.

22 Opit 19.

23 R. Jakobson and M. Halle, Fundamentals of language 6 (The Hague, 1956).

24 This statement implies the acceptance of ‘clarity-norm speech’ as the proper basis for phonological analyses; cf. Charles F. Hockett, A manual of phonology 220-1 (Baltimore, 1955). A ‘frequency-norm’ analysis would apparently result in the elimination of /j/ in the rapid speech of those Bulgarians who never pronounce Cj clusters in place of C'. For such speakers, once the distinction [mój] vs. [mói] is lost, [j] and unstressed [i] are in complementary distribution. Since one can hardly analyze [C‘] as /Cj/ if there is no /j/ elsewhere in the phonology of the language, a different solution is necessary; cf. Charles A. Ferguson's unpublished paper Phoneme, cluster, or juncture. The correct solution is not, however, necessarily /C‘/, since /Ci/ is also possible.

25 The phonemic system 49-51.

26 Cf. Trubetzkoy, Anleitung 12.

27 Our case can be restated as an application of Trubetzkoy's first and third rules for distinguishing phonemes from allophones (Principes 47-9, 50-2) and his seventh rule for distinguishing single phonemes from clusters (Principes 63-4).

28 Principes 200.

29 While there is complete agreement regarding the stressed vowels /i é á ə́ ó ú/, Klagstad (The phonemic system 45-6) finds only three unstressed phonemes /i ə u/, while Hodge (letter of 4 December 1957) finds five in ‘slow speech’ /i e ə o u/. Maslov (Očerk 17-8) adds /a/ to this list, at least for the ‘full style.‘

30 Cf. Lekov, Opit 20.

31 Jakobson and Halle, Fundamentals 45.

32 The phonemic system 50. It must be noted that Klagstad lists and distributes the distinctive features in a manner with which we cannot entirely agree. For instance, how can /j/ be ‘marked by the sharp feature’ if it is already distinguished from all the other phonemes by being both non vocalic and nonconsonantal? But such disagreements do not affect the question here considered.

33 Notes on Gilyak, Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology (Academia Sinica) 29.267-8 (1957).

34 Erwin Koschmieder, Bemerkungen zur Aussprache des Bulgarischen, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 69.216-24 (1951).

35 The phonemic system 49.

36 Jakobson and Halle, Fundamentals 29.

37 The phonemic system 46, 50. Whether this allophone is [i] or [i] is irrelevant.

38 According to Jakobson and Halle (Fundamentals 29), ‘vowels are vocalic and non-consonantal’. We suggest that phonemes which are distinctively nonconsonantal, but which are neither distinctively vocalic nor distinctively nonvocalic, be designated as semivowels, the term used by Hockett (A manual of phonology 75) for phonemes which occur both as peaks and as margins.