Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:25:55.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More on English vowel shift: the back vowel question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

H.Samuel Wang  and
Bruce L. Derwing
H.Samuel Wang
Affiliation:
University of Alberta*
Bruce L. Derwing
Affiliation:
University of Alberta*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the pivotal claims of the generative approach to English phonology is that a rule essentially duplicating the historical changes of the English Great Vowel Shift is a part of the phonological competence of contemporary speakers of the language (Chomsky & Halle 1968). Though experiments designed to test this claim have shown that some of the alternations predicted by such a rule (VSR) are at least marginally productive for speakers, a counter-claim has also been proposed (Moskowitz 1973; Jaeger 1980) that this limited productivity is the result of knowledge of the familiar spelling rule (SR) that relates the ‘long’ vs. ‘short’ pronunciations of the five English vowel letters.

A comparison between the phonological and orthographic theories shows that certain back vowel alternations are crucial for distinguishing between them, and that certain others critically distinguish the Chomsky & Halle version of the VSR from the more recent reformulations of Halle (1977) and Halle & Mohanan (1985). A concept formation experiment was therefore conducted to determine which of these back vowel alternations were included in the vowel shift set. The results showed that all of the predictions of the SR were confirmed, whereas all three versions of the VSR were falsified on at least one count. Moreover, data from English spelling–sound regularities also proved to be highly predictive of the gradation of the responses found in this study, lending rather conclusive support to the view that the SR is responsible for all that has been found to be productive about the vowel shift phenomenon.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 3 , May 1986 , pp. 99 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Footnotes

*

H. S. Wang is currently affiliated to the National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan, ROC.

References

Armbruster, T. E. (1978). The psychological reality of the vowel shift and laxing rules. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Baker, W. J. & Derwing, B. L. (1982). Response coincidence analysis as evidence for language acquisition strategies. Applied Psycholinguistics 3. 193–221.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–177.Google Scholar
Cena, R. M. (1976). An experimental investigation of vowel alternation in English. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Cena, R. M. (1978). When is a phonological generalization psychologically real? Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. L. & Baker, W. J. (1980). Rule learning and the English inflections (with special emphasis on the plural). In Prideaux, G. D.Derwing, B. L. & Baker, W. J. (eds.) Experimental linguistics: integration of theories and applications. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. 247–272.Google Scholar
Fidelholtz, J. L. & Browne, E. W. (1974). Oy, oy, oy! In Shuy, R. W. & Bailey, C.-J. N. (eds.) Towards tomorrow's linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 159–184.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1977). Tenseness, vowel shift, and the phonology of the back vowels in Modern English. LI 8. 611–625.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Mohanan, K. P. (1985). Segmental phonology of modern English. LI 16. 57–116.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Vergnaud, J.-R. (1980). Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 83–105.Google Scholar
Hanna, P. R.Hanna, J. S.Hodges, R. E. & Rudolf, E. H. Jr. (1966). Phoneme –grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, H.van der & Smith, N. (1982). An overview of autosegmental and metrical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N. (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Vol. I. Dordrecht: Foris. 2–45.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1980). Categorization in phonology: an experimental approach. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1984). Assessing the psychological status of the Vowel Shift Rule. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13. 13–36.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1973). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Krohn, R. (1972a). Underlying vowels in Modern English. Glossa 6. 203–224. Reprinted in Goyvaerts, D. L. & Pullum, G. E. (eds.) (1975). Essays on The sound pattern of English. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia. 395–412.Google Scholar
Krohn, R. (1972b). The vowel shift rule and its productivity. Language Sciences 20. 16–18.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1971). An alternative set of vowel shift rules. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 17. 25–28.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1979). Psychological reality in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1979). Remarks on Cena's vowel shift experiment. In Clyne, P.Hanks, W. & Hofbauer, C. (eds.) The elements: parasession on linguistic units and levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 110–118.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, B. A. (1973). On the status of vowel shift in English. In Moore, T. E. (ed.) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press. 223–260.Google Scholar
Myerson, R. F. (1976). A study of children's knowledge of certain word formation rules and the relationship of this knowledge to various forms of reading achievement. EdD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1974). Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.) Historical Linguistics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 353–389.Google Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1974) How abstract is abstract? In Bruck, A.Fox, R. A. & Galy, M. W. La (eds.) Papers from the parasession on natural phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 297–317.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. D. & Krohn, R. K. (1975). The psychological reality of Chomsky and Halle's vowel shift rule. In Koerner, E. F. K. (ed.) The transformational-generative paradigm and modern linguistic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 233–259.Google Scholar
Templeton, S. (1979). Spelling first, sound later; the relationship between orthography and higher order phonological knowledge in older students. Research in the Teaching of English 13. 255–264.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1981). Concreteness in generative phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wang, H. S. (1985). On the productivity of vowel shift alternations in English: an experimental study. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Wang, M. (1974). Productivity in generative phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1968). Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg 44. 695–708.Google Scholar