Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:53:32.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Apparent exceptions to final devoicing in High Prussian: A metrical analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2019

Björn Köhnlein
Björn Köhnlein*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics, Oxley Hall, 1712 Neil Ave, Columbus OH 43210, USA [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

High Prussian, a variety of East Central German, has a segmentally opaque process of final devoicing: Only some forms with underlyingly voiced obstruents devoice at the end of a word. This phenomenon can also be observed in some morphological alternations where simplex forms show final devoicing but complex ones do not. This paper provides a metrical analysis of final devoicing and two related phenomena: spirantization, and an interaction of vowel length in high vowels and obstruent voicing. It is claimed that nondevoicing items contain disyllabic foot templates and that word-final consonants are then syllabified as onsets of empty-headed word-final syllables. The analysis demonstrates how evidence from West Germanic dialects can contribute to our understanding of the phonology of laryngeal features and to the role that metrical structure can play in shaping phonological alternations.*

Keywords

final devoicingcontrastive metrical structuremorphology-phonology interfacemetrical templates
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 371 - 412
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2018 

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

*

For helpful comments and discussion, I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, the editor Tracy A. Hall, Becca Morley, and the participants of MidPhon 21.

References

REFERENCES

Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, Jessica A. 2005. Sonority effects in the production of consonant clusters by Spanish-speaking children. Selected proceedings from the Sixth Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, ed. by Eddington, David, 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1999. Positional faithfulness: An optimality theoretic treatment of phonological asymmetries. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour in exponence. The morphology and phonology of exponence (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 41), ed. by Trommer, Jochen, 8–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botma, Bert, & Noske, Roland (eds.). 2012. Phonological explorations: Empirical, theoretical and diachronic issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botma, Bert, & van Oostendorp, Marc. 2012. A propos of the Dutch vowel system 21 years on, 22 years on. Botma & Noske 2012, 1–16.Google Scholar
Carvalho, Joaquim Brandão de, Scheer, Tobias, & Ségéral, Philippe (eds.). 2008. Lenition and fortition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2011. Final consonants. van Oostendorp et al. 2011, vol. II, 848–872.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2009. Vowel duration, syllable quantity, and stress in Dutch. The nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon, 181–198. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hannahs, Stephen J. 2013 The phonology of Welsh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John, & Gussmann, Edmund. 2002. Word-final onsets. Unpublished manuscript, University College London. Available at http://roa.rutgers.edu/%20files/575-0203/575-0203-HARRIS-0-0.PDF, accessed on April 18, 2016.Google Scholar
Hermans, Ben. 2012. The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents. Botma & Noske 2012, 227–244.Google Scholar
Holsinger, Dave J. 2008. Germanic prosody and consonantal strength. de Carvalho et al. 2008, 273–300.Google Scholar
Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf. 1962. Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Grundzüge des Neuhochdeutschen. Wirkendes Wort 12. 321–331.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1994. The consequences of optimization for underspecification. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley. Available at https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/41847/PDF/1/, accessed on May 21, 2016.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study of dominance effects. Yearbook of Morphology 1997. 121–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iosad, Pavel. 2015. Pitch accent and prosodic structure in Scottish Gaelic: Reassessing the role of contact. New trends in Nordic and general linguistics, ed. by Hilpert, Martin, Duke, Janet, Mertzlufft, Christine, Östman, Jan-Ola, & Rießler, Michael, 28–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iosad, Pavel. 2016. Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features: Short-vowel stød in Danish. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19. 221–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K., & Salmons, Joseph C.. 2011. Final devoicing and final laryngeal neutralization. van Oostendorp et al. 2011, vol. III, 1622–1643.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1913. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig/Berlin: BG Teubner.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonah. 2016. Lenition, perception and neutralisation. Phonology 33. 43–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang. 2017. There’s no tone in Cologne: Against tone segment interactions in Franconian. Kehrein et al. 2017, 147–194.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang, Köhnlein, Björn, Boersma, Paul, & van Oostendorp, Marc (eds.). 2017. Segmental structure and tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, Kenstowicz, & Kisseberth, Charles. 1979. Generative phonology: Description and theory. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Björn, Köhnlein. 2011. Rule reversal revisited: Synchrony and diachrony of tone and prosodic structure in the Franconian dialect of Arzbach. Utrecht: Lot Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn. 2015. The complex durational relationship of contour tones and level tones. Diachronica 32. 231–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn. 2016. Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone accent dialects. Phonology 33. 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhnlein, Björn. 2017. Synchronic alternations between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian: A metrical approach. Kehrein et al. 2017, 211–235.Google Scholar
Kuck, Walther. 1925. Die nordöstliche Sprachgrenze des Ermlandes. Teuthonista 2. 91–106.Google Scholar
Kuck, Walther, & Wiesinger, Peter. 1965. Die nordöstliche Sprachgrenze des Ermlandes. Deutsche Dialektgeographie 56. 107–171.Google Scholar
Laver, John. 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1995. Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman Revisited. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Rutgers Optimality Archive 110. Available at http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/110-0000/110-0000-MCCARTHY-0-0.PDF, accessed on April 12, 2016.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2000. The prosody of phase in Rotuman. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 147–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J., & Prince, Alan. 1995: Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill, Urbanczyk, Suzanne, and Dickey, Laura Walsh, 249–384. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, GLSA.Google Scholar
Miglio, Viola G. 1999. Interactions between markedness and faithfulness constraints in vowel systems. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College Park dissertation.Google Scholar
Miglio, Viola G. 2005. Markedness and faithfulness in vowel systems. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 1999. Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: A unified theory of weight. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College Park dissertation.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 2001. Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: A unified theory of weight. New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
Morén-Duolljá, Bruce. 2013. The prosody of Swedish underived nouns: No lexical tones required. Nordlyd 40. 196–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 1995. Vowel quality and phonological projection. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2006. A theory of morphosyntactic colours. Unpublished manuscript, Meertens Institute, Amsterdam. Available at http://egg.auf.net/06/%20docs/Hdt%20Oostendorp%20coulours.pdf, accessed on March 13, 2016.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2015. Final devoicing in French. Representing structure in phonology and syntax, ed. by Riemsdijk, Henk van & Oostendorp, Marc van 239–254. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van. 2017. Tone, final devoicing and assimilation in Moresnet. Kehrein et al. 2017, 237–252.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth, & Rice, Keren (eds.). 2011. The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgun, Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology: With special attention to Optimality Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkley, dissertation.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1990. Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, ed. by Deaton, Karen, Noske, Manuela, & Ziolkowski, Michael, 355–398. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Published 2004, Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Riemann, Erhard, Goltz, Reinhard, & Tolksdorf, Ulrich (eds.). 1974–2005. Preußisches Wörterbuch. Deutsche Mundarten Ost- und Westpreußens, 6 vols. Neumünster: Karl-Wachholtz Verlag.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2008. Markedness, faithfulness, positions, and contexts: Lenition and fortition in Optimality Theory. de Carvalho et al. 2008, 519–560.Google Scholar
Stuhrmann, Johann. 1895–1898. Das Mitteldeutsche in Ostpreussen, vol. 1–3. Garms: Deutsch-Krone.Google Scholar
Teßmann, Wilhelm. 1969. Kurze Laut- und Formenlehre des Hochpreußischen (des Oberländischen und des Breslauschen). Jahrbuch d. Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg/Preußen 19. 115–171.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 2011. Phonological aspects of Western Nilotic mutation morphology. Leipzig, Germany: University of Leipzig Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen, & Zimmermann, Eva. 2014. Generalised mora affixation and quantity-manipulating morphology. Phonology 31. 463–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaysman, Olga. 2009. Segmental alternations and metrical theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1990. Syllabification and allophony. Studies in the pronunciation of English. A commemorative volume in honour of A. C. Gimson, ed. by Ramsaran, Susan, 76–86. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996a. Phonological versus morphological rules: On German umlaut and ablaut. Journal of Linguistics 32. 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996b. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter. 1983. Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte. Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, vol. II, ed. by Besch, Werner, Knoop, Ulrich, Putschke, Wolfgang, & Wiegand, Herbert E., 807–900. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, Briony. 1983. Stress in modern Welsh. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1995. Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12. 85–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar