Vowel harmony in Manchu: a critical overview

25 Pages·6.158 MB·Manchu-English

by  Ard Josh.

(cid:57)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:43)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:48)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:88)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:50)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:90)
(cid:36)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:11)(cid:86)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:45)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:75)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:85)(cid:71)
(cid:54)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:45)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:47)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:88)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:86)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:57)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:48)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:27)(cid:19)
(cid:51)(cid:88)(cid:69)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:92)(cid:29)(cid:3)Cambridge University Press
(cid:54)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:56)(cid:53)(cid:47)(cid:29)(cid:3)http://www.jstor.org/stable/4175719 .
(cid:36)(cid:70)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:29)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:24)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:20)
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Linguistics.
http://www.jstor.org
J. Linguistics 20 (I984) 57-80. Printed in Great Britain
Vowel harmony in Manchu: a critical overview
JOSH ARD
University of Michigan
(Received9 August I983)
ABSTRACT
The history of generativea ccountso f vowel harmonyi n ClassicalM anchu
is discouragingT. he earlyt reatments( Vago, I973; Odden,1 978; Finer,1 979)
assumedt he wrongt ypeo f vowelh armony( frontv s. backr athert hanr elative
height harmony).H ayata (I980) proposedt he correctt ype, but was unable
to justifyi t adequatelyw ithint he generativef rameworkT. heses hortcomings
are due to deficienciesi n the practice of generative phonologists. To
demonstratet he correctt ypeo f vowelh armonyi n ClassicalM anchur equires
considerationso f (i) the actual surfacer epresentationa nd/or (2) facts in
relatedd ialectsa nd languages.N eithert ype of evidencei s frequentlyu sed in
the practiceo f generativep honologists,a lthought he formeri s almosta lways
valuedi n theory.A n implicationi s that attemptst o improvep honologym ust
weigh practicea s well as theory.
One of the majorb attlegroundsb etweenp roponentso f abstractp honology
and proponentso f concretep honology has been the descriptiono f vowel
harmony in Classical Manchu. Proponents of abstract phonology have
claimedt hat vowel harmonyw as a livingp rocessi n this (now dead)l anguage
which requiresa bstractr epresentationtso capturet he true generalizations.
Proponentso f concrete phonology, on the other hand, have denied that
abstractr epresentationas re neededt o describeM anchu,w ith some, but not
all, denyingt hat vowel harmonyi s productivei n ClassicalM anchu.
There is nothing particularlyn ovel in the argumentst hat have been
presentedw ith regardt o abstractnessin Manchu.T he same types of claims
and counter-claimtsh at have beenm adei n otherd isputesa bout abstractness
have been made in this case as well. The purposeo f this paperi s not to join
the fray of this battle, but rathert o providem eta-commentaroyn the entire
dispute.W hati s interestinga boutt he controversya, t leastu p untilA rd (I979)
and Hayata (I980), is that proponents of both abstract phonology and
concretep honologya ssumedt he wrongt ype of vowel harmonyf or Manchu
(or at least pre-Manchui f the process had ceased to be productivei n the
classical variety of the language). Vago (I973), Odden (I978), and Finer
(1979) all assumedt hat vowel harmonyw as of the front vs. back variety,a s
is found in Turkish. Ard (I979) and Hayata (I980) point out that the correct
type of vowel harmonyi n (pre-)Manchuw as high vs. low.
57
JOSH ARD
As will be demonstratedin detail below, there is overwhelminge vidence
that the type of vowel harmonyi n (pre-)Manchuw as in fact high vs. low.
However,t he purposeo f this paperg oes well beyond this into questionso f
phonologicalp racticea nd phonologicalm ethodology.T he evidencet hat is
crucialf or decidingt he questioni s of typest hat are not generallyc onsidered
in generativep honologicalp ractice.F urthermoret,h e types of evidencet hat
areg enerallyc onsideredin generativep honologicalp racticea ren ot conclusive
in pointingt o one type of vowel harmonyr athert han the other.
The evidencet hat is crucialf or decidingt his questioni s of two primary
types. One type involvese videnceZ wicky( I975) categorizesa s 'additional
evidence', evidencet hat not all generativep honologistsc onsiderr elevant.
Here,f acts fromc loselyr elatedl anguagesa nd anotherd ialecto f Manchua re
paramount.H ere one could arguet hat these facts are 'external't o Manchu.
For example,a speakero f Manchuw ith no knowledgeo f theseo therd ialects
or relatedl anguagesw ould have no access to these facts.
The other type of evidencei s clearlyi nternalt o Manchu;i t concernst he
actual surface (systematic)p honetic representationo f Classical Manchu
words.I n theory,t he surfacer epresentationis crucialf or phonologicalt heory,
sincee veryp honologyc ontainst he surfacea s one level of representationI.n
this regard, Zwicky (1975: 154) suggests that all generativep honologists
consider the 'variant shapes of morphemes't o be among 'the data to be
comprehendedb y a phonologicala nalysis'.N evertheless,i n practiceg ener-
ative phonologistsh ave not dedicatedm uch effortt o discovert he natureo f
the phoneticso f the surfaces hape of morphemes.
If we considert he actualp racticeo f generativep honologists,w e noticet hat
Schane hardly goes beyond an ordinary phonemic notation and that
McCawleyi n his descriptiono f Japaneseo nly includesp honologicalr ules,
not featurei nterpretationru les.C homskya nd Halle. .. on the whole... do
not go any furthert han an ordinaryp honemicl evel (Fischer-J0rgensen
1975: 217).
Indeed,g enerativep honologistsh ave often taken existingp honemicd es-
criptionso f languagesa nd deriveda generativea nalysiso nly by considering
alternationsi n the phonemicr epresentationos f allomorphs.T his has been
especiallyc ommoni n generativer eanalyseso f AmericanI ndianp honologies.
Even though evidence about actual pronunciationsi s internal to the
language,i t is externalt o the data which modernp honologistsm ust use in
describingM anchu, namely written texts. The informationi n the written
texts, chieflyo rthographicfa cts and facts about morphologicarl elationships
whichc an be abstractedi,s insufficientto determinet he actualp ronunciation.
The modernr esearchemr ustr elyo n additionale videncea nd/or assumptions
to postulatea pronunciationf or a Manchuw ord.
Hence, the terms internala nd external are confusing. To any native speaker
of Manchu,i ncludinga speakero f a homogeneouss peechc ommunity,t he
VOWEL HARMONY IN MANCHU
actualp ronunciationis an internalf act: it is a part of Manchua nd is learned
along with the attainmento f competencei n the language. To a modern
phonologista nalysingM anchut hroughw rittent exts, the actualp ronuncia-
tion must also be internalt o the language,b ut the phonologistsc annotl earn
what the pronunciationw as without relyingo n informatione xternalt o the
texts themselves.I n other words, to the modern phonologist, the actual
pronunciationc ould be said to be ontologicallyi nternalt o Manchu, but
epistemologicallye xternal.
Externale videncef romr elatedl anguagesa nd a relatedd ialecta nd internal
evidenceb ased on the actual sounds in Manchu both supportt he high vs.
low analysis.A s will be discussedi n more detail below, therei s no evidence
whatsoeverin favouro f frontv s. backv owelh armony.H encet he formert ype
of vowel harmonyi s demonstrablyp resenti n (pre-)ManchuH. owever,t he
type of evidenceg enerallyf ound in the practiceo f generativep honologists,
morphologicala lternationsa nd the nature of phonologicalr ules, does not
provide compellinge videncei n favour of either type of harmony.H ayata
(I980) suggestst hat these latter types of data do in fact argue for high vs.
low harmony but, as will be discussed below, these argumentsa re not
convincing.
The ascriptiono f the wrong type of vowel harmonyt o a languagew ould
certainly have to be considereda grievous error. Yet the methods most
commonlyu sed in the practiceo f generativep honologistsh ave been proven
to be ineffectivea t preventingt his sort of error from arising.T he types of
data usuallyc onsidereda re inconclusivew, hilet he conclusives ortsa re of the
type frequentlyu ndervalueda nd under-used.
I. ClassicalM anchur eferst o the languageo f the Manchuc ourt, the rulers
of the Chingd ynasty,w hichc ontrolledC hina from the late sixteentht o the
early twentiethc entury.M ore specificallyt, he languagei n particularr efers
to documents written in the seventeentha nd eighteenthc enturies.T hus
ClassicalM anchub y its veryd efinitioni s a writtenl anguage,a nd this creates
many problems for a phonological analysis. For example, it is not clear
exactly how much dialect mixture and standardisationis involved in the
writtenf orm.
Even though there are a numbero f people of Manchua ncestryi n China
(Sunik (I966) notes that officialC hinesef iguresl ist 2.5 million),a pparently
all those who are descendantso f clans that formed the original Manchu
confederationn ow speak only Chinese.T herei s a group of speakersc alled
the Sibe (or Sibo), who still speaka languagev eryc lose to ClassicalM anchu,
but the Sibe were not a part of the originalc onfederations, o theirl anguage
cannot be considereda descendanto f ClassicalM anchu. Scholarsd isagree
on how to classifyS ibe vis-a-visC lassicalM anchu.N orman( I974) calls it a
Manchu dialect, while Menges (I97I) refers to it simply as 'gesprochenes
Man'u'.
59
JOSH ARD
Manchu is a Tungusl anguage,r elatedm ost closely to languagess poken
primarilyi n Siberia. The Tungus languagesf orm one branch of the still
controversiaAl ltaic family.T he conservativeo pinion is that Altaic consists
of Turkic,M ongoliana nd Tungusl anguages.S ome scholarsd eny that these
three groupings are geneticallyr elated, suggesting that areal factors are
responsiblef or the resemblancesO. ther scholarss upport a more inclusive
Altaic family,i ncludingK oreana nd, for many, Japanese.
2. Therei s cleare videncef or residueso f vowelh armonyi n ClassicalM anchu
orthographyF. or example,o ne collectives uffixh as the variants- sa/ -sel -so,
another- ta/ te:
(i) sakdar-sa' old person' da-ta 'chief'
gege-se' older sister' eme-te 'mother' (data from Finer, 1979)
On the basis of these and other examples,v owels in ClassicalM anchuc an
be dividedi nto threeh armonicc lasses:
(2) ClassicalM anchuh armonyt ypes
I. e
II. aoo
III. (neutral)i u
In generalw ords with vowels of type I requirea ffixesw ith vowels of types
I or III, and wordsw ith vowelso f type II requirea ffixesw ith vowelso f types
II or III. The vowel harmony system is furtherc omplicatedb ecause, for
certain affixes, o is found instead of an expected a due to an additional
requiremenot f roundingh armony.T he detailso f the vowel requirementisn
affixesa re reportedi n great detail in Avrorin( 1976).
The vowel harmonyc lassesa re also requiredi n predictingt he distribution
of velar and uvularc onsonants.V elar consonants tend to occur in words
containingv owels of type I, while uvular consonantst end to be found in
wordsc ontainingv owelso f typeI I. Considert he adjectivizear ffixes- re/ -Na/
-NO and -xun/ -Zon.
(3) batUNa' brave' wasixon 'vile'
zoroNo 'powerful' wesixun' precious'
gexurje' brilliant' (Odden, 1978: 150, I54)
Therefore,i f we know that a word contains vowels of types I or II we can
predict( i) vowelsi n affixesa nd( ii) the presenceo f velarv s. uvularc onsonants.
However,n o predictionc an be madef or wordsc ontainingo nly neutralv owels
(i and u):
(4) biluNa' calm'
mujirje' having a heart'
6o
VOWEL HARMONY IN MANCHU
3. Therei s littled oubtt hatv owelh armonyw aso ncea productivep honological
process in Manchu. Unfortunately, however, the facts that have been
presenteda bove are insufficientf or uniquelyd eterminingth e preciset ype of
harmony.
Ultan (1973) presentst he results of a cross-linguistict ypology of vowel
systems.V owel harmonys ystemsc an be complicatedd ue to variousf actors
such as differencesb etweenh armonyi n roots and affixes,s kewingo f vowel
patterns,t he presenceo f neutralv owels,e tc. NeverthelessU, ltan was able to
discover three primary types of vowel harmony patterns based on the
particularp arametert hat predictst he kind of vowels found in each of the
harmonicc lasses.H e found that languagesd istinguishedv owelsb asedo n the
parameterso f (i) frontness, (ii) tenseness, and (iii) height. Consider the
followinge xamples.
(5) Major types of vowel harmony
A. Front-back
Kirghiz( Turkic)
I. (a) i (b) ul II. (a) i (b) u
e o a o
(Kirghiza lso has roundingh armony:v owels must not only all
be from I or II, but also must all be from (a) or (b).)
B. Tense-lax( a type of horizontalh armony)
Nzema (EasternA kan)
I.i u II.i o
e 0 3a
a a
(Carefulp honetics tudieso f the parametersin volvedi n this type
of harmonyh ave been conductedb y Lindau( I975) and Jacobson
(1978).)
C. High-low( a type of horizontalh armony)
Nanai (Tungus)
I. i u II.i 0
a
Based only on the symbols in the Manchu words given above it is
impossiblet o determinet he preciset ype of vowel harmonyt hat is witnessed
in Manchup honology.T he symbolst hemselvesa re basedo n transliterations
from the Manchu orthographics ystem, which itself was developed from
Mongolians cript.E vent his transliterationis controversials, incet he Manchu
scripti s repletew iths ymbolsa ndd iacriticsw hicha llowm ored istinctionst han
any phonologisth as been willingt o recognizea s distinctive( see Ligeti
(I953)
and Melles Whilet he transliterationit selfi s not crucial,t he phonetic
(I975)).
values of the sounds are. Depending on the exact pronunciationso f the
sounds, any of the three types of vowel harmonyc ould be motivatedf or
Manchu.F or example,i f the complexs ymbolo representsa front or central
JOSH ARD
vowel, then it will be difficultt o arguet hat the type of vowel harmonyf ound
in Manchuw as of the front-backv ariety,s ince o is groupedw ith the back
vowel o. Moreover,i t is importantt o determinei f the other symbols (i, e,
a, o, u) representv owels reasonablyc lose to IPA cardinalv owel values. If
one or more of them does not, then this could be crucialf or determiningth e
correct type of vowel harmony which categorizedC lassical Manchu (or
perhapsp re-ClassicaMl anchu).
4. Even though the facts of ClassicalM anchuo rthographyu nderdetermine
thet ypeo f vowelh armonyin (pre-)Manchut,h e originalg enerativetr eatments
all assumedt hat the type of vowel harmonyf ound in the languagew as of
the front vs. back variety. Since Odden (1978) presents a more detailed
descriptiono f the actual rules postulatedf or Manchu, his analysis( which
differsi n some detailsf rom Vago's but not in detailsr elevantf or this paper)
will be presented.
Oddenp roposess evenu nderlyingv owels: four high vowels i uii and u, of
which the first two are front and the last two are back; and three non-high
vowelse , a and o, of whicho nly the firsti s front.V owelh armonyi s accounted
for by the followingr ule:
(6) [ + syll] -. [aback]/ + syllI CO-
[zbackJ
The feature[ aback]i s also used to accountf or the presenceo f uvulars,v ia
a rule of velar lowering:
(7) + cons1 [-high]/-[+ syll 1
L+b ack L+ backJ
Since the abstractv owels i and iud o not appearo n the phonetics urface,a
rule of absoluten eutralizationis requiredt o eliminatet hem:
(8) [+ syll
+ high [aback]
cxround
Finally, a palatalizationr ule which appliest o consonantso ccurringb efore
surfacei (phonetically[ i]) is required:
(9) [ +cons] -+high r + syll
L-backJ / +high
L- back]
Extrinsico rderingi s requiredf or these rulest o operatec orrectly.O bviously,
the abstractv owelsm ustb e presentf or the vowelh armonya nd velarl owering
rules to operate. Similarly,i must be eliminatedf or the palatalizationr ule
to have the desirede ffect.
Odden( 1978) offersn o argumentw hatsoevert hat frontv s. backi s the type
62
VOWEL HARMONY IN MANCHU
of vowel harmonyf ound in Manchu. In the first paragrapho f his analysis
sectionh e states 'a ruleo f Vowel Harmonym ust accountf or the alternation
ale in suffix vowels'. He presents no argument that a is back and e is front,
but this assumptioni s necessitatedb y the rules he offers. Presumablyt he
implicita ssumptioni s that what is transliteratede is a front vowel, because
that is what e representsi n most languages. However, there are several
languagesw here e representsa central vowel. This is especiallyt rue for
languagess poken in the vicinity of Manchu,e .g. Middle Korean (Hayata,
I975), Buryat (Bertagaev, I968), and Nanai (Avrorin, I968). Hence, this
implicita rgumentb ears little force.
Vago (1973) does present some explicit argumentsf or front vs. back
harmonya nd suggestsy et other implicit ones, but none of these contains
muchf orce,e ither.T het wo explicita rgumentas reb asedo n (i) theo rthography
and (ii) the practiceo f earlierg rammariansB. oth are incorrect.
Vago asserts( 1973: 584) that the vowels transcribedb y the vowels i, e, a,
o and u 'have the usual continentals ound values'. This could be true if the
continenth e had in mind was northeasternA sia, but it is definitelyf alse if
he means that Manchu e resemblest he cardinalv owel [e]. Vago gave no
evidencew hatsoevert hat this remarkw as correct.M odernM anchus cholars
are almostu nanimousi n theiro piniont hat the vowel was central.L ie (I972:
48) states that the vowel transliteratede is phonetically[ a],a nalogoust o the
a found in other Tungus languages,t he languagesm ost closely relatedt o
Manchu. Schmidt (1932: 557) describest he Manchu sound as 'aehnlich
dem englischenV okal in but, blood,d oes'. Ligeti (1953: 247) agrees,c alling
it 'high, mid-out,b ack-wide[ i.e. central-J.A.], cette voyelle plus ou moins
labialisee'.H e furthers tates (Ligeti, I953: 280) that the vowel has much the
samev alue as the a in otherT ungusl anguagesa s describedb y Cincius( I949:
78): 'mixed ("central") of mid height'. Paskov (I963: i6) seconds this
comparison,a dding that the acoustic value is similar to unstressedb I in
Russian,a vowel that is centralt o back in its pronunciationA. vrorin( 1976:
13) also classifiese as a centralv owel. Virtuallyt he only grammarst hat give
a frontv aluef or the vowel are the verye arlyo nes (for example,A dam (I873:
I5) stated that 'e a la valeurd e notre e ouvert'). These early grammarso, f
course,c ould not be based on nearlya s much researcha nd data.
Thus, the consensusa mong scholarsi s that the vowel transliteratede did
not have the value given to it by Vago. Vago's doctrinairep ronouncement
that it was a front vowel is even more surprisingin that one of the studies
whichd iscussedt he value of e veryc arefully,L igeti( 1952), is cited in Vago's
article.
Vago is also concernedw ith the phoneticc orrelateo f the vowel translit-
eratedo . He assumest hat it was identicali n pronunciationw ith u at the time
the classicalt extsw erec omposed,b ut that it did have a differents oundv alue
at an earlierp eriod,a conclusions haredb y most Manchus cholars.H e offers
his view of the originals ound value of o as furthere videncef or his analysis:
63
JOSH ARD
It is perhapsw orthn oting how the conservativeo rthographics ystemm ay
give clues to the descriptive linguist. Recall that. .. phonetic [u] is
representedb y two differentg raphs,n amelyu and 6. This can be viewed
as evidencet hat,a t one time,t heset wo symbolsh add istinctr epresentations,
being later mergedb y a diachronicA N rule. Thus orthographicu could
have been phonetic[ ii]a nd orthographico phonetic[ u].( Vago, 1973: 588).
Vago was ratherc arelessi n his considerationo f the classicala nd pre-classical
phoneticv alue of 6: he states, 'Ligeti assumest hat o is realizeda s a long o'
(1973: 584). Presumablyth is comes from a misreadingo f a passagei n which
Ligetid iscussese arlierv iews of the sound value of o:
On a interprete o long (= 6), u long (= ii), u ouvert, ii, une voyelle entre
o et u, o d'un timbre special, sans songer 'ac e qu'elle representait en realite:
une simplev arianted u signe u employea presq , y, X (Ligeti I952: 251).
As will be discussedb elow, the best evidencei ndicatest hat o did not have
a more back articulationt han u.
Vago's second argumenti s based on the practiceo f earlierg rammarians:
'Accordingt o the traditionalg rammarse, is classifieda s front, o o a as back,
and i u as neutral.' Vago does not enlighten us as to which traditional
grammarsh e has in mind, althougha followingf ootnote referst o Gabelentz
(I832) and Budenz( I886), again both very earlys tudiest hat could not have
benefitedf rom an extensiver esearcht radition.W ithing rammarsI have had
access to, the vowels are classifieda s follows:
weak (i e u) vs. strong( a o 6) (Harlez, I884: 13):
weak (e) vs. strong( a o 6) vs. neutral( i u) (Adam, I873: I 5);
hard (a o 6) vs. soft (i u) vs. (e) (Paskov, I963: I6);
hard (a o 6) vs. weak (e) vs. neutral( i u) (Lie, 1972: 47);
hard (a o 6) vs. weak (e, i, u) (Haenisch,I 96I: 33).
None of theseg rammarcs lassifiest he vowelsa ccordingt o the labelso f' front'
and 'back'. Therefore, one cannot accept Vago's assertion that this
classificationi s typical of traditionalg rammars.T hus, the terminologyo f
traditionalg rammarsc annot be used to supportV ago's analysis.
The most importanta rgumentf or frontv s. backh armonyi n Vago'sa rticle
is an implicito ne. The title of the articlei s 'Abstractv owel harmonys ystems
in Uralic and Altaic'. The unmentioneda ssumptioni s that (i) since therei s
evidence for some sort of vowel harmonyi n Manchu, and that (ii) since
Manchu is an Altaic language, it should have the same type of vowel
harmonya s otherA ltaic( andU ralic)l anguages.C lause( ii) containsa hidden
assumptiont hat is false: not all Altaic languagest hat have vowel harmony
have harmonyo f the front vs. back type. All of the other Tungusl anguages
have vowel harmonyo f the high vs. low or relativeh eightv ariety.T his type
of harmonyw as also found in MiddleK orean( Hayata, I975). In fact, pure
64
VOWEL HARMONY IN MANCHU
front vs. back vowel harmony is clearly justified only for the Turkic
languages.I n manyo f the Mongolianl anguagest he vowelst hat shouldc ount
as front (e.g. e o) are in fact central vowels (Sanzeev, 1953). Hence, the
allegedlyA ltaic patterni s more properlya Turkicp attern.
It is not surprisingt hat the Turkicp atternh as been takena s the basic one
by WesternE uropeana nd Americans cholars,s ince they generallya re much
more familiarw ith Turkic languagest han with other brancheso f Altaic.
Moreover,m any scholarsb esidesV ago have made the same assertion.F or
example,i n an articleo n Koreanv owelh armony,K im notes that the patterns
he gives for Koreand o not correspondt o the Turkict ype:
ALL OF THE OTHER LANGUAGES IN THE ALTAIC FAMILY to which Korean is
supposedt o belongp ossessf airlyr egularp alatal( vertical)[ frontv s. back]
vowel harmony.I f the palatalv owel harmonyi s assumedt o be a common
Altaic feature,s houldn'tK oreanh ave had the same in an earlierp eriod?
(1978: 227 - emphasis added).
Baitchura (I980: I6) even accuses Novikova (I960) of mislabelling X-ray
photographso f vowelsi n the Tungusl anguageE venb ecauset he articulation
disagrees with what he would expect from his familiarityw ith Turkic
languages (the photographs, however, do correspond to her textual
description).
Therei s nothing wrong in using knowledgeo f relatedl anguagest o infer
the nature of a language (the caveats in section 5 below must be noted,
however).O n the otherh and, the morec losely relatedt he languagesa re, the
more helpfult his type of informationi s likely to be. One would expectt hat
the situationi n Tungusl anguagesc loselyr elatedt o Manchuw ould resemble
the phenomenao f Manchu more closely than would facts of much more
distantlyr elatedT urkicl anguages( recallt hat some scholarsd eny that the
Turkica nd Tungusl anguagesa re relateda t all).
In short, none of the implicito r explicita rgumentsi n favour of front vs.
back harmonyi n Manchu supportst he case. In fact, a closer examination
of the evidencem ilitatesa gainstf ront vs. back harmony.
It should be noted that the primaryp urposeo f Vago (I973) and Odden
(1978) was not to arguef or the TYPE of vowel harmony,b ut rathert o argue
that abstracta nalysesa re requiredt o capturet he true generalizationsT. hey
totallyi gnoret hep ossibilityt hata differentt ypeo f vowelh armonyc ouldh ave
been involved,i ndicatingp resumablyth at this did not occurt o them.H ence,
they said nothingt o convincer eaderst hat sucha n alternativew as erroneous.
Thereforei, f the argumentsf or front vs. back vowel harmonya s opposedt o
highv s. low vowelh armonyw erec onsideredin a legalc ontext,t he proponents
of the formerw ould have entereda de facto 'nolo contendere'p lea. In other
words,t hey have presentedn o case at all that front vs. back vowel harmony
is the type that is required.
3 65 LIN 20