Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:04:58.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

G-Spirantization and Lateral Ambivalence in Northern German Dialects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2011

Justin Glover
Justin Glover*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
Indiana University, Ballantine Hall 644, 1020 Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405-7103, USA, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the Kiel German regional variety (KG), /ɡ/ undergoes spirantization after vowels and /ʀ/ but not after /l/. KG contrasts with data provided by Wiese (1996) for a dialect that he calls Northern Colloquial Speech (NCS), in which /ɡ/ spirantizes not only after vowels and /ʀ/, but also after /l/. I argue that G-Spirantization in both regional varieties is an example of an assimilation which spreads [+continuant] from a vowel or /ʀ/ in KG (and /l/ in NCS) to a following coda /ɡ/. The difference between the /…lɡ/ environment in the two dialects can be explained by lateral ambivalence, as described in detail by Mielke (2005).*

Type
DISCUSSION NOTE
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , 06 May 2011 , pp. 183 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2011

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

Hall, Tracy Alan. 1989. Lexical phonology and the distribution of German [ç] and [x]. Phonology 6. 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan. 1992. Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, & Clements, George N.. 1983. Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1989. Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress. Journal of Linguistics 25. 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko, & Mester, Armin. 2001. Structure preservation and stratal opacity in German. Segmental phonology in optimality theory, ed. by Lombardi, Linda, 261–295. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko, & Mester, Armin. 2003. On the sources of opacity in OT. The syllable in optimality theory, ed. by Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben, 271–303. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory, & Salmons, Joseph C.. 1999. Glottal spreading bias in Germanic. Linguistische Berichte 178. 131–151.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael, & Ringen, Catherine. 2002. Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19. 189–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloeke, W. U. S. Lessen van. 1982. Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie: Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2005. Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22. 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Orrin. 2001. Whose German? The ach/ich alternation and related phenomena in ±standard” and “colloquial.± Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ulrich. 1980. Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur. Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik, ed. by Heidolph, Karl Erich, Flämig, Walter, & Motsch, Wolfgang, 898–1003. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar