Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:11:16.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Segment Organization in the High German Consonant Shift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Garry W. Davis  and
Gregory K. Iverson
Garry W. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of GermanUniversity of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201–0413 [[email protected]]
Gregory K. Iverson
Affiliation:
Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201–0413 [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In consequence of the familiar High German consonant shift, the voiceless stops /p t k/ became the affricates /pf ts kx/, simplifying later to the geminate fricatives /ff ss (‘ƷƷ’) xx/ in certain environments. It has long been assumed that the affricates developed only from aspirated allophones of /p t k/, thus accounting for the retention of plain stops in /s/-clusters and a few other positions, but it is not obvious why particularly aspiration, ensuing from a laryngeal gesture of spread glottis, should have resulted in the oral property of affrication. Neither is it clear how etymologically simplex segments, upon deaffrication in certain environments, might have resulted in geminates without further stipulation. Proceeding from essentially traditional assumptions, and at the same time addressing important questions about Germanic phonetics raised by Vennemann (1984), the present paper attributes the triggering of the affrication event to an early factoring out, or segmentalization, of the feature for aspiration, i.e., pre-OHG [ph th kh] → [ph th kh]. Explanations are then proposed for the development of affricates out of these now disegmental sequences via place assimilation from the stops, and of the affricates into geminate fricatives (postvocalically and in some postconsonantal environments) via assimilatory weakening.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Fall 1995 , pp. 111 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1995

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

Braune, Wilhelm. 1874. Zur Kenntnis des Fränkischen und zur hochdeutschen Lautverschiebung. PBB 1.1–56.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1987. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 14th edn. by Eggers, Hans. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte, A./5.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1987. Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. Papers from the Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology, ed. by Bosch, A. et al. , 29–50. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Fourquet, Jacques. 1954. Die Nachwirkungen der ersten und zweiten Lautverschiebungen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundartforschung 32.1–33.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Louis. 1990. On articulatory binding: Comments on Kingston's paper. Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, J. and Beckman, M., 445–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasenclever, Max. 1905. Der Dialekt der Gemeinde Wermelskirchen. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1986. Inalterability in CV phonology. Language 62.321–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. 1983. Korean s. Journal of Phonetics 11.191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. 1993. (Post) Lexical rule application. Studies in lexical phonology, ed. by Kaisse, E. and Hargus, S. (Phonetics and phonology, Vol. 4.), 255–75. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Kim-Renaud, Young-Key. 1994. Phonological incorporation of the Korean glottal approximant. Paper presented at the Ninth International Conference of Korean Linguistics,London.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kim-Renaud, Young-Key. 1986. Palatalization in Korean. Chapter 6 in Studies in Korean linguistics, 91–102. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kingston, John and Diehl, Randy L.. 1994. Phonetic knowledge. Language 70.419–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. 1913. Historische Grammatik der französischen Sprache, vol. 1: Laut- und Flektionslehre. 2nd & 3rd edns.Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. and Vennemann, Theo. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59.514–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. The generality of articulatory binding: Comments on Kingston's paper. Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, J. and Beckman, M., 435–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1955. Deutsche Grammatik. 3rd edn., vol. 2. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1964. Die Phasen der althochdeutschen Lautverschiebung. Taylor Starck Festschrift, ed. by Betz, Werner, Coleman, Evelyn S., and Northcott, Kenneth, 27–41. Mouton: The Hague.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert. 1975. Vom Urgermanischen zum Neuhochdeutschen: Eine historische Phonologie. (Grundlagen der Germanistik, 16.) Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1938. A comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph C. 1993. The glottalic theory: Survey and synthesis. (Journal of Indo-European Studies monograph series, 10.) McLean, VA: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Schulz, Hans. 1947. Abriß der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd edn. by Stroh, Friedrich. (Trübners Philologische Bibliothek, 1.) Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1984. Hochgermanisch und Niedergermanisch: Die Verzweigungstheorie der germanisch-deutschen Lautverschiebung. PBB 106.1–45.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1985. The bifurcation theory of the Germanic and German consonant shifts: Synopsis and some further thoughts. Papers from the Sixth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Fisiak, J., 527–547. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.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
Voyles, Joseph B. 1992. Early Germanic grammar: Pre-, Proto-, and Post-Germanic languages. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Norbert Richard. 1981. Althochdeutsch—Mittelhochdeutsch. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar