Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:39:56.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - The ingenerate motivation of sound change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Gregory K. Iverson
Affiliation:
Professor of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Joseph C. Salmons
Affiliation:
Professor of Linguistics University of Wisconsin-Madison
Raymond Hickey
Affiliation:
Universität-Gesamthochschule-Essen
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter investigates the interplay between phonetic (coarticulatory) and phonological (structural) factors surrounding two of the best-studied and most complex changes in Germanic, umlaut and the High German Consonant Shift. These well-studied data sets form the springboard for our primary thesis that the boundary between phonetics and phonology is largely porous, in the specific sense that the phenomena of the latter find motivation in the particulars of the former. The idea that phonetics is not entirely separate from phonology stands in notable contrast to the classic view encoded in lexical phonology's principle of structure preservation (Kiparsky 1985) and to the separatist position taken in some current theorising in phonetics itself (Cohn and Tsuchida 1999). At the other extreme, our porosity thesis stands apart from the tenet of especially ‘functional’ optimality theory (Kirchner 1997), which holds that even gradient phonetic properties should be accessible within the realm of contrastive phonology. Rather than raise up impermeable barriers between phonetics and phonology or erase extant distinctions between the two domains, however, this chapter charts the development of two celebrated, nominally unrelated sound changes from their phonetic inception in coarticulation to their emergence as overt constructs of the phonology. This is our general interpretation of the familiar life-cycle of sound change, in fact: the forces of coarticulation work to shape structure, whereas structure eventually comes to override the inherently coarticulatory grounding, or ingeneracy, of phonetic naturalness.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

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.)

References

Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1969. ‘Zur Umlautfeindlichkeit des Oberdeutschen’, Zeitschrift für Dialektologie and Linguistik 36: 201–7Google Scholar
Avery, Peter and Rice, Keren. 1989. ‘Segment structure and coronal underspecification’, Phonology 6: 179–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bladon, Anthony and Al-Bamerni, Ameen. 1976. ‘Coarticulation resistance in English /l/’, Journal of Phonetics 4: 137–50Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1874. ‘Zur Kenntnis des Fränkischen und zur hochdeutschen Lautverschiebung’, PBB (Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur) 1: 1–56Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1987. Althochdeutsche Grammatik, 14th edition, ed. Hans Eggers. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Britain, David. 1997. ‘Dialect contact and phonological reallocation: “Canadian Raising” in the English Fens’, Language in Society 26: 15–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buccini, Anthony F. 1992. ‘The development of umlaut and the dialectal position of Dutch in Germanic’, doctoral dissertation, Cornell University
Butcher, Andrew and Weiher, Eckart. 1976. ‘An electropalatographic investigation of coarticulation in VCV sequences’, Journal of Phonetics 4: 59–74Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail and Ayako Tsuchida. 1999. ‘Sonorant devoicing and the phonetic realization of [spread glottis] in English’, paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles
Davis, Garry W. and Iverson, Gregory K.. 1995. ‘The High German Consonant Shift as feature spreading’, American Journal of Germanic Linguistics 7: 111–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Garry W., Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1999. ‘Peripherality in the spread of the High German consonant shift’, PBB (Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur) 118.1: 69–86Google Scholar
Farnetani, Edda. 1997. ‘Coarticulation and connected speech processes’, in William J. Hardcastle and John Laver (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 371–404
Forner, Monica, Jeanette K. Gundel, Kathleen Houlihan and Gerald Sanders. 1992. ‘On the historical development of marked forms’, in G. Davis and G. Iverson (eds.), Explanation in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 77–93
Franz, W. 1883. ‘Die lateinisch-romanischen Elemente im Althochdeutschen’, PhD dissertation, Straßburg
Hasenclever, Max. 1905. Der Dialekt der Gemeinde Wermelskirchen. Marburg: Elwert
Houlihan, Kathleen and Gregory K. Iverson. 1979. ‘Functionally constrained phonology’, in D. Dinnsen (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 50–73
Howell, Robert B. 1991. Old English breaking and its Germanic analogues. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer
Howell, Robert B. and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1997. ‘Umlautless residues in Germanic’, American Journal of Germanic Linguistics 9: 83–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1996. ‘The primacy of primary umlaut’, PBB (Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur) 118: 69–86Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. 1999. ‘Umlaut as regular sound change: the phonetic basis of “ingenerate umlaut”’, in Edgar C. Polomé and Carol Justus (ed.), Festschrift for W. P. Lehmann. 207–24
Iverson, Gregory K. and Kim, Kee-Ho. 1987. ‘Underspecification and hierarchical feature representation in Korean consonantal phonology’, Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 23: 182–98Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Joseph C. Salmons. 2000. ‘Zur historischen Phonetik und Phonologie des Umlauts im Deutschen’, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachforschung Papers in Linguistics 15. Humboldt Universität, Berlin, 68–76
Iverson, Gregory K., Davis, Garry W. and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1994. ‘Umlaut blocking environments in Old High German’, Folia Linguistica Historica 15: 131–48Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1988. ‘Underspecification in phonetics’, Phonology 5: 275–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Rudi E. 1978. The German language. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: The Humanities Press
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
King, Robert D. 1969. Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Kiparsky, Paul 1971. ‘Historical linguistics’, in W. O. Dingwall (ed.), A survey of linguistic science. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program, 576–649
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. ‘Some consequences of Lexical Phonology’, Phonology Yearbook 2: 85–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1997. ‘Contrastiveness and faithfulness’, Phonology 14: 83–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, Dennis H. 1991. ‘Voice onset time, frication, and aspiration in word-initial consonant clusters’, R. J. Baken and R. G. Daniloff (eds.), Readings in clinical spectrography of speech. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, 226–46
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press
Lerchner, Gotthard. 1971. Zur II. Lautverschiebung im Rheinisch-Westmitteldeutschen. Mitteldeutsche Studien 30. Halle: Niemeyer
Lüssy, Heinrich. 1974. Umlautprobleme im Schweizerdeutschen. Beiträge zur schweizerdeutschen Mundartforschung 20. Frauenfeld: Huber and Co
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sound. Cambridge University Press
Magen, Harriet Sue. 1989. ‘An acoustic study of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in English’, PhD dissertation: Yale University
Ohala, John J. 1993. ‘Coarticulation and phonology’, Language and Speech 36: 155–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Öhman, S. 1966. ‘Coarticulation in VCV utterances: spectrographic measurements’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39: 151–268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, Hermann, P. Wiehl and S. Grosse. 1989. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 23rd edition. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer
Penzl, Herbert. 1949. ‘Umlaut and secondary umlaut in Old High German’, Language 25: 223–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1994. ‘Historiographie und Sprachgeschichte: zur Beschreibung des althochdeutschen i-Umlauts’, American Journal of Germanic Linguistics 6: 51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1917. ‘Die deutsche Lautverschiebung und die Völkerwanderung’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 16: 1–26Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1938. A comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America
Recasens, Daniel. 1984. ‘V-to-C coarticulation in Catalan VCV sequences: an articulatory and acoustical study’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 91: 2911–25Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1994. ‘Peripheral in consonants’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 39: 191–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1996. ‘Default variability: the coronal–velar relationship’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14: 493–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russ, Charles V. J. 1977. ‘Die Entwicklung des Umlauts im Deutschen im Spiegel verschiedener linguistischer Theorien’, PBB (Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprach und Literatur) 99: 213–41Google Scholar
Schirmunski, Viktor M. 1962. Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin: Akademie Verlag
Sonderegger, Stefan. 1974. Althochdeutsche Sprache und Literatur. Berlin: de Gruyter
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1938. ‘A note on OHG umlaut’, Monatshefte 30: 177–81Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1985. ‘The bifurcation theory of the Germanic and German consonant shifts: synopsis and some further thoughts’, in Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 527–47
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×