Advertisement

Vowel Disharmony in Czech Words and Stems

  • Jiří Milička
  • Hana Kalábová
Chapter
Part of the Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences book series (QMHSS)

Abstract

This corpus study describes vowel phonotactics in Czech words. The results suggest that some probabilistic patterns are employed in Czech: some vowel combinations are overrepresented, while others are underrepresented. A syllable containing a short front vowel tends to be followed by a syllable with a long front vowel. A long front vowel is typically followed by a back vowel and a long back vowel tends to be followed by a short vowel; thus, an interesting circular dissimilative pattern can be observed. An explanation of the phenomena can be facilitated by the Shannonian theory of communication. The analysis was performed both on words and word stems (i.e, words without endings), obtaining different results.

Keywords

Corpus linguistics Quantitative linguistics Czech Hungarian Phonotactic patterns Vowel harmony 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was written within the programme Progres Q08 Czech National Corpus implemented at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University. We would like to thank Václav Cvrček and Masako Ueda Fidler (the editors of this volume), Alžběta Růžičková, Jakub Sláma, and Sadie Gold-Shapiro for their suggestions and comments.

References

  1. Altman, D. G. (1990). Practical statistics for medical research. Cleveland, OH: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, G. (1980). Prolegomena to Menzerath’s law. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), Glottometrika 2 (pp. 1–10). Bochum, Germany: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, L. B. (1980). Using asymmetrical and gradient data in the study of vowel harmony. In R. M. Vago (Ed.), Issues in vowel harmony (pp. 271–340). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bičan, A. (2011). Phonotactics of Czech. Ph.D. thesis, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://theses.cz/id/eguqrt
  5. Bičan, A. (2015b). Corpus-based analysis of the Czech syllable. In E. Guetiérrez Rubio (Ed.), Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (POLYSLAV) 18 (pp. 26–36). Munich, Germany: Harrasowitz Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. Bičan, A. (2015c). Fonologický lexikální korpus češtiny a slabičná struktura českého slova [Phonological Lexical Corpus of Czech Language and the Syllabic Structure of Czech Words]. Bohemica Olomucensia, 7(3-4), 45–59.Google Scholar
  7. Bičan, A. (2015a). Distribution of vocalic quantity in Czech. Grazer Linguistische Studien, 83, 133–138.Google Scholar
  8. Čermák, F., Doležalová-Spoustová, D., Hlaváčová, J., Hnátková, M., Jelínek, T., Kocek, J., et al. (2005). SYN2005: žánrově vyvážený korpus psané češtiny [SYN 2005: Genre-Balanced Corpus of Written Czech]. Praha, Slovakia: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK Retrieved October 12, 2017, from http://www.korpus.cz
  9. Cvrček, V., Čermáková, A., & Křen, M. (2016). Nová koncepce synchronních korpusů psané češtiny [New Conception of the Synchronic Corpora of Written Czech]. Slovo a slovesnost, 77(2), 83–101.Google Scholar
  10. Dankovičová, J. (1999). Czech. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet (pp. 70–74). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goldsmith, J. (1976). Autosegmental phonology. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Hnátková, M., Křen, M., Procházka, P., & Skoumalová, H. (2014). The SYN-series corpora of written Czech. Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC”14), 160–164.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson, D. C. (1980). Regular disharmony in Kirghiz. In R. M. Vago (Ed.), Issues in vowel harmony (pp. 89–100). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Křen, M., Cvrček, V., Čapka, T., Čermáková, A., Hnátková, M., Chlumská, L., Jelínek, T., Kováříková, D., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Skoumalová, H., Škrabal, M., Truneček, P., Vondřička, P., & Zasina, A. (2016). SYN2015: Representative corpus of contemporary written Czech. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC”16), 2522–2528.Google Scholar
  15. Křen, M., Bartoň, T., Cvrček, V., Hnátková, M.,Jelínek, T., Kocek, J., Novotná, R., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Schmiedtová, V., & Skoumalová, H. (2010). SYN2010: žánrově vyvážený korpus psané češtiny [SYN 2010: Genre-Balanced Corpus of Written Czech]. Praha, Slovakia: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from http://www.korpus.cz
  16. Křen, M., Cvrček, V., Čapka, T., Čermáková, A., Hnátková, M., Chlumská, L., Jelínek, T., Kováříková, D., Petkevič, V., Procházka, P., Skoumalová, H., Škrabal, M., Truneček, P., Vondřička, P., & Zasina, A. J. (2015). SYN2015: reprezentativní korpus psané češtiny [SYN 2015: Representative Corpus of Written Czech]. Praha, Slovakia: Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from http://www.korpus.cz
  17. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Leben, W. R. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. MacKay, D. J. C. (2003). Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. McCarthy, J. J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(2), 207–263.Google Scholar
  21. Menzerath, P. (1928). Über einige phonetische Probleme. In Actes du premier Congres International de Linguistes. Leiden, Netherlands: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
  22. Milička, J. (2016). Teorie komunikace jakožto explanatorní princip přirozené víceúrovňové segmentace textů [The Theory of Communication as an Explanatory Principle for Natural Multilevel Text Segmentation]. Ph.D. thesis, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from https://is.cuni.cz/webapps/zzp/detail/104810
  23. Nguyen, N., & Fagyal, Z. (2008). Acoustic aspects of vowel harmony in French. Journal of Phonetics, 36(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohala, J. J. (1994). Towards a universal, phonetically-based, theory of vowel harmony. Third international conference on spoken language processing, 491–494.Google Scholar
  25. Oravecz, C., Váradi, T., & Sass, B. (2014). The Hungarian Gigaword Corpus. In: Proceedings of LREC 2014. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/681_Paper.pdf
  26. Palková, Z. (1994). Fonetika a fonologie češtiny [Phonetics and Phonology of Czech]. Praha, Slovakia: Karolinum.Google Scholar
  27. Petkevič, V. (2014). Problémy automatické morfologické disambiguace češtiny [Problems of Automated Disambiguation of Czech Morphology]. Naše řeč, 97, 194–207.Google Scholar
  28. Poldauf, I. (1969). Máme v češtině harmonii samohlásek? [Do We Have Vowel Harmony in Czech?]. Naše řeč, 52, 201–209.Google Scholar
  29. Ringen, C. O., & Kontra, M. (1989). Hungarian neutral vowels. Lingua, 78(2-3), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rounds, C. (2001). Hungarian: An essential grammar. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Suomi, K., McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Vowel harmony and speech segmentation in finnish. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(3), 422–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vago, R. M. (1976). Theoretical implications of Hungarian vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(2), 243–263.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiří Milička
    • 1
  • Hana Kalábová
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Comparative Linguistics, Faculty of ArtsCharles UniversityPraha 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations