Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T06:29:57.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Type frequency influences phonological generalizations: Eliminating stressed open syllables with short vowels in West Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2015

Robert Mailhammer ,
William W. Kruger  and
Alexander Makiyama
Robert Mailhammer*
Affiliation:
University of Western Sydney
William W. Kruger*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Alexander Makiyama*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
*
School of Humanities and Communication Arts/The MARCS Institute, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia [r.mailhammer@uws.edu.au]
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. BOX 876505, Tempe, AZ 85287-6505, Mail Code: 0302, USA, [william.kruger@asu.edu]
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, 4904 E Bellerive Dr. Chandler, AZ 85249, USA, [amakiyam@asu.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A pivotal process in the loss of phonological quantity in West Germanic languages is what is traditionally known as Open Syllable Lengthening. Existing accounts have found no explanation for why languages such as English apply this change in less than 50% of the relevant cases. This paper presents the results of a corpus investigation of four West Germanic languages showing that whether Open Syllable Lengthening occurs in more than 50% of predicted cases correlates with the ratio of closed syllables with short vowels to open syllables with long vowels. We interpret this as the result of frequency effects that have markedly shaped the application of Open Syllable Lengthening in West Germanic. This has implications for phonological change in general, as well as for the relationship between stress and syllable structure in West Germanic languages.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 205 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Becker, Thomas. 1998. Das Vokalsystem der deutschen Standardsprache. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 2002. Zur neuhochdeutschen Dehnung in offener Tonsilbe. Restle & Zaefferer 2002, 35–58.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 2012. Einführung in die Phonetik und Phonologie des Deutschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Bremmer, Rolf H.. 2009. Introduction to Old Frisian: History, grammar, reader, glossary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2012. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula, Dresher, B. Elan, & Lahiri, Aditi. 2006. Prosodic preferences: From Old English to Early Modern English. Handbook of the History of English, ed. by van Kemenade, Ans & Los, Bettelou, 125–150Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gallé, Johan Hendrik. 1993. Altsächsische Grammatik. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebda, Anna. 2002. Open syllable lengthening before /t/ and /k/ in the language of Cursor Mundi—the evidence from rhyme vowels. Studia Anglica Posnansiensia 38. 229–237.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Dietrich. 1989. Die spätgermanische Silbenquantitätsverschiebung und die Doppelschreibung alter kurzer Konsonanten in den altwestfriesischen Quellen. Gesammelte Schriften. II. Studien zur friesischen und niederdeutschen Philologie, 206–214. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Hoole, Phil, Mooshammer, Christine, & Tillmann, Hans G.. 1994. Kinematic analysis of vowel production in German. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, vol. 1, 53–56. Available at http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/interspeech/icslp1994.html.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1912. Elementarbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Jordan, Richard. 1934. Handbuch der mittelenglischen Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard. 2000. Altsächsisches Wörterbuch. 3rd edn. Available at http://www.koeblergerhard.de/aswbhinw.html.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard. 2003a. Altenglisches Wörterbuch. 2nd edn. Available at http://www.koeblergerhard.de/afrieswbhinw.html.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard. 2003b. Altfriesisches Wörterbuch. 2nd edn. Available at http://www.koeblergerhard.de/aewbhinw.html.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Available at http://www.koeblergerhard.de/germanistischewoerterbuecher/mittelhochdeutscheswoerterbuch/mhdwbhin.html.Google Scholar
Kroos, Christian. 1996. Eingipflige und zweigipflige Vokale des Deutschen? Kinematische Analyse der Gespanntheitsopposition im Standarddeutschen. Munich, Germany: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität MA thesis.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, cognitive and cultural factors. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1980. On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lasch, Agathe. 1914. Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. Halle a. d. Saale: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Luick, Karl. 1914/1940. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Stuttgart: Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Lutz, Angelika. 1986. The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts. English Studies 67. 193–210.Google Scholar
Mailhammer, Robert. 2007. On syllable cut in the Orrmulum. Studies in the history of the English language III. Managing chaos: Strategies for identifying change in English, ed. by Cain, Christopher M. & Russom, Geoffrey, 37–61. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mailhammer, Robert. 2009. Thoughts on the genesis and the development of syllable cut in English. Anglia 127. 261–282.Google Scholar
Mailhammer, Robert. 2013. Review of Maria-Josep Solé & Daniel Recasens, The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 135. 599–608.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W.. 2000. Syllable cut prosody in Early Middle English. Language 76. 617–654.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W.. 2002. Accents and a medieval English phonologist. Restle & Zaefferer 2002 91–120.Google Scholar
B. Richard, Page. 1999. The Germanic Verschärfung and prosodic change. Diachronica 16. 297–334.Google Scholar
Page, B. Richard. 2007. On the irregularity of open syllable lengthening in German. Historical linguistics 2005: Selected papers from the Seventeenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics (Current Issues in Linguistics Theory 284), ed. by Salmons, Joseph & Dubenion-Smith, Shannon, 337–350. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1974. Lauttheorie und Lautgeschichte. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Restle, David. 2003. Silbenschnitt—Quantität—Kopplung: Zur Geschichte, Charakterisierung und Typologie der Anschlußprosodie. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Restle, David, & Zaefferer, Dietmar (eds.). 2002. Sounds and systems: Studies in structure and change. A Festschrift for Theo Vennemann. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Oskar, & Vennemann, Theo. 1985. Die niederdeutschen Grundlagen des neuhochdeutschen Lautsystems. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 107. 1–20, 157–173.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard. 1901. Grundzüge der Phonetik: Zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. 5th edn. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Haertel.Google Scholar
Sjölin, Bo. 1969. Einfuührung in das Friesische. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlersche.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolaj. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Reprecht.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change: With special reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1991. Syllable structure and syllable cut prosodies in Modern Standard German. Certamen Philologicum 2, ed. by Bertinetto, Pier Marco, Kenstowicz, Michael, & Loporcaro, Michele, 211–243. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1995. Der Zusammenbruch der Quantität im Spätmittelalter und sein Einfluß auf die Metrik. Quantitätsproblematik und Metrik (Amsterdamer Beiträge zur Älteren Germanistik 42), ed. by Fix, Hans, 185–223. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 2000. From quantity to syllable cuts: On so-called lengthening in the Germanic Languages. Italian Journal of Linguistics 12. 251–282.Google Scholar
Von Kienle, Richard. 1969. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Winteler, Jost. 1876. Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar