Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:04:51.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Another Look at Open Syllable Lengthening in Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Johan Seynnaeve
Johan Seynnaeve
Affiliation:
West Virginia UniversityDepartment of Foreign LanguagesP.O. Box 6298Morgantown, WV 26506 [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article takes as its point of departure two complicating factors in a well-known sound change in Dutch: when vowels lengthened in open syllables, (i) a long mid vowel emerged for each of the high vowels; and (ii) the high and mid vowels in the front series merged when lengthened. As with many other sound changes, the traditional formulation of open syllable lengthening states only the terminal points of a development; it says nothing about the intermediate stages. This article visualizes at least three intermediate steps—diphthongization, prominence shift, and monophthongization—which offer a rationale for the lowering of the high vowels and the merger in the front series.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Spring 1996 , pp. 19 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1996

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

Andersen, Henning. 1972. Diphthongization. Language 48.11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baader, Theodor. 1944. Accentwisseling in de diphthongen. Bijdragen en Mededeelingen der Dialecten-Commissie van de Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam 5.1–8.Google Scholar
Cohen, Antonie, Ebeling, Carl, Fokkema, Klaas, and van Hoik, André. 1971. Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries. 's-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Cowan, H. K. J. 1957. Opmerkingen over oudnederfrankische structurele grammatica. TNTL 75.161–80.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei. 1983. The Middle English lengthening in open syllables and the interlanguage hypothesis. University of Sofia English Papers 3.59–81.Google Scholar
Danchev, Andrei. 1986. Interlanguage simplification in Middle English vowel phonology? Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries. Volume 1: Linguistic theory and historical linguistics, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter and Szwedek, Aleksander, 239–52. Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goossens, Jan. 1974. Historische Phonologie des Niederländischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, Jan. 1980. Middelnederlandse vocaalsystemen. Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 161–251.Google Scholar
Grundt, Alice Wyland. 1973. Open syllable lengthening in English: A study in compensatory phonological processes. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Grundt, Alice Wyland. 1976. Compensation in phonology: Open syllable lengthening. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gysseling, Maurice. 1975. Hoofdlijnen in de evolutie van het Nederlandse vocalensysteem. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Commissie voor Toponymie and Dialectologie 49.25–59.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20.253–306.Google Scholar
Heeroma, Klaas. 1961. De Oostnederlandse langevocalensystemen. Structuurgeografie, ed. by Heeroma, Klaas and Fokkema, Klaas, 1–26. Amsterdam: Dialectencommissie der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Kyes, Robert. 1989. German vowel lengthening. AJGLL 1.153–76.Google Scholar
Lasch, Agathe. 1914. “Tonlange” Vocale im Mittelniederdeutschen. PBB 39.116–34.Google Scholar
Leben, William. 1977. Length and syllable structure in Hausa. Studies in African Linguistics. Supplement 7.137–43.Google Scholar
Leys, Odo. 1975. Die Dehnung von Vokalen im Niederländischen und im Deutschen. Leuvense Bijdragen 64.421–49.Google Scholar
Liberman, Anatoly. 1992. A bird's-eye view of open syllable lengthening in English and in the other Germanic languages. NOWELE 20.67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luick, Karl. 1899. Über die Entwicklung von ae. u-, i- und die Dehnung in offener Silbe überhaupt. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 102.43–84.Google Scholar
Luick, Karl. 1964. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Stuttgart: Tauschnitz.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 1982. The environment for open syllable lengthening in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 3.29–58.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1962. The vowels of Dutch. Lingua 11. 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulton, William G. 1967. Review of Rudolf Hotzenköcherle, et al., Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz. Band II. Lautgeographie: Vokalquantität, Konsonantismus. JEGP 66.294–301.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Sarrazin, Gregor. 1898. Mittelenglische Vokaldehnung in offener Silbe und Streitbergs Dehnungsgesetz. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 101.65–86.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Deborah. 1992. Compensatory lengthening in a segmental moraic theory of representation. Linguistics 30.513–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seelmann, Erich. 1908. Die Mundart von Prenden (Kreis Niederbarnim). Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 34.1–39.Google Scholar
Shetter, William. 1958. Phonemics of the Zwolle dialect: Synchronic and diachronic. Language 34.40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1961. The Middle English “long close” and “long open” mid vowels. Texas Studies in Literature and Language 2.529–38.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. 1985. Assessment of alternative explanations of the Middle English phenomenon of high vowel lowering when lengthened in the open syllable. Papers from the Fourth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, ed. by Eaton, Rogert, Fischer, Olga, Koopman, Willem, and van der Leek, Frederike, 303–18. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. and Barritt, C. Westbrook. 1951. Some Old English graphemic-phonemic correspondences– æ, ea, and a. (Studies in Linguistics: Occasional Papers, 4.) Washington, DC: Studies in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1938. Die phonologischen Grundlagen der sogenannten “Quantität” in den verschiedenen Sprachen. Scritti in onore di Alfredo Trombetti, 155–74. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli editore.Google Scholar
van Bakel, Jan. 1976. Fonologie van het Nederlands: Synchroon en diachroon. Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar
van Bree, Cor. 1977. Leerboek voor de historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
van Loey, Adolphe. 1970. Schönfelds Historische grammatica van het Nederlands. Zutphen: W. J. Thieme.Google Scholar
van Loey, Adolphe. 1980. Middelnederlandse Spraakkunst. II: Klankleer. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
van Loon, Jozef. 1986. Historische Fonologie van het Nederlands. Leuven and Amersfoort: Acco.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A. A. 1968. Het schema van de klankwetten. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A. A. 1991. Vergelijkende klankleer van de Nederlandse dialecten. 's-Gravenhage: SDU Uitgeverij.Google Scholar