Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T11:48:46.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Toward concreteness in the description of Early Modern English vowel alternations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Harald Tzeutschler
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut

Extract

In the dialects of Early Modern English (ENE) described by John Hart (c.1550) and John Wallis (c.1680), as in contemporary American and British English, a number of vowel nuclei alternate in quality and segmental composition, depending on the specification for the feature [+tense]. These alternations have motivated analyses in Chomsky and Halle 1968 (SPE) in which the abstractness of underlying representations, the arbitrariness of diacritically used feature specifications, and the limited scope of some rules, motivate a search for analyses which are preferable in terms of applicable evaluation criteria such as the simplicity metric and the Weak Alternation Condition. Furthermore, the SPE analysis of Hart's system accounts for a version of the phonetic facts which in some respects are inconsistent with Hart's descriptions. In §§ 3 and 4, we will see that, by proceeding from the phonetic facts and not, as did Chomsky and Halle, from an assumption about the underlying representations, we may indeed propose phonological subcomponents which, as § 6 concludes, are more highly valued than their SPE counterparts, described in § 5. In § 7 it will be seen that the present interpretation of the phonetic facts described by John Hart is a more faithful version of that description, and it will be concluded that this fact adds support to the present analysis of Hart's vowel alternations. Historical claims made by Chomsky and Halle will be examined in § 8.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1965). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part 1. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
King, R. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). How abstract is phonology? Indiana Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1971). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, W. O. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science. University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Malsch, D. & Fuicher, R. (1975). Tensing and syllabification in Middle English. Lg 51. 303314.Google Scholar
Moore, J. (1964). Historical outline of English sounds and inflections. Ann Arbor: George Wahr.Google Scholar
Mosse, F. (1952). A handbook of Middle English. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1968). Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg. 44.695708.Google Scholar
Wolfe, P. (1972). Linguistic change and the Great Vowel Shift. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar