Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:21:27.635Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syllabification and Word Division in Gothic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2004

Tomas Riad
Tomas Riad
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses methodological aspects of using Gothic orthography for the purposes of deducing phonological properties of the language. The vowel/glide alternation known as Sievers' law is used as an example. In order for scholars to propose an analysis of this alternation they must form a view of how syllable structure works in Gothic, and in order to do that they must interpret the orthography and determine to what extent it reflects phonology. It is primarily consonant clusters and word divisions that serve as orthographic sources for syllabification, beside alternation of i/j and u/w in related forms. A closer methodological look at some of the arguments that have been brought to bear on the issue of orthography and syllabification reveals that the strongest position that word division consistently reflects phonological syllabification cannot be upheld. Furthermore, it is shown that word division has little bearing on which word-initial clusters are possible in Gothic.I would like to thank Jonas Carlkvist, Rune Palm, Santeri Palviainen, Marc Pierce, and Rudolf Rydstedt for their help and willingness to discuss different aspects of this article. I am also very much indebted to the three anonymous JGL reviewers, whose comments have been of considerable help. All errors are mine.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 173 - 202
Copyright
© 2004 Society for Germanic Linguistics

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

Barrack Charles. 1998. Sievers' law in Germanic. New York: Peter Lang.
Blevins Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by John Goldsmith, 206– 244. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Calabrese Andrea. 1994. Sievers' law in Gothic: A synchronic analysis with some notes on its diachronic development. The Linguistic Review 11. 149– 194.Google Scholar
D'Alquen Richard. 1974. Gothic AI and AU: A possible solution. (Janua linguarum, series practica, 151.) The Hague: Mouton.
Dresher Elan, and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 251– 286.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven Carlos. 1986. English plosive allophones and ambisyllabicity. Gramma 10. 119– 141.Google Scholar
Hechtenberg Collitz Klara. 1906. Syllabication in Gothic. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 6. 72– 91.Google Scholar
Hellberg Staffan. 1974. Graphonomic rules in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg.
Jensen John. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17. 187– 225.Google Scholar
Kager René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kahn Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. (Published 1980 by Garland Press, New York.)
Kim Yookang. 2001. Prosody and i/j alternation in Gothic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13. 97– 130.Google Scholar
Kiparsky Paul. 1998. Sievers law as prosodic optimization. Mír Curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, ed. by Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Olivier, 345– 360. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft..
Kiparsky Paul. 2000. Analogy as optimization: “Exceptions” to Sievers' law in Gothic. Analogy, levelling, markedness, ed. by Aditi Lahiri, 15– 46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lahiri Aditi. 1982. Theoretical implications of analogical change: Evidence from Germanic languages. Doctoral dissertation, Brown University.
Lahiri Aditi, and Harry van der Hulst. 1988. On foot typology. North East Linguistic Society Proceedings 18, ed. by J. Blevins and J. Carter, 286– 299. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Lutz Angelika. 1986. The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts. English Studies 67. 193– 210.Google Scholar
McCarthy John, and Alan Prince. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts–Amherst and Rutgers University.
Moulton William. 1948. The phonemes of Gothic. Language 24. 76– 86.Google Scholar
Murray Robert, and Theo Vennemann. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59. 514– 528.Google Scholar
Myers Scott. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 485– 518.Google Scholar
Osthoff Hermann. 1884. Zur Geschichte des Perfects im Indogermanischen mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Griechisch und Lateinisch. Strassburg: Karl Trübner.
Palviainen Santeri. 2001. Sievers' law in Gothic: A synchronic and diachronic analysis. Master's thesis, University of Helsinki.
Parkes M. B. 1992. Pause and effect: An introduction to the history of punctuation in the West. Aldershot: Scolar Press.
Pierce Marc. 2001. Syllable structure and Sievers' law in Gothic and Old Norse. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Prokosch Eduard. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.
Riad Tomas. 1992. Structures in Germanic prosody. A diachronic study with special reference to the Nordic languages. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Scandinavian Languages, Stockholm University.
Riad Tomas. 1995. The Germanic quantity shift. A typology. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 42. 159– 184.Google Scholar
Schulze Wilhelm. 1908. Wortbrechung in den gotischen Handschriften. Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-his. Klasse, 610– 624.Google Scholar
Seebold Elmar. 1972. Das System der indogermanischen Halbvokale. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Sievers E. 1878. Zur Accent- und Lautlehre der germanischen Sprachen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 5. 63– 163.Google Scholar
Sievers E. 1892. Zur westgermanischen Gemination. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 16. 262– 265.Google Scholar
Streitberg Wilhelm. 1908. Die gotische Bibel. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Vennemann Theo. 1971. The phonology of Gothic vowels. Language 47. 90– 132.Google Scholar
Vennemann Theo. 1985. Phonologically conditioned morphological change. Exceptions to Sievers' law in Gothic. Phono-morphology: Studies in the interaction of phonology and morphology, ed. by Edmund Gussmann, 193– 219. Lublin: Catholic University of Lublin.
Vennemann Theo. 1987. Muta cum liquida: Worttrennung und Syllabierung im Gotischen. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 116. 165– 204.Google Scholar
Vennemann Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wright Joseph. 1954. Grammar of the Gothic language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Glossary pp. 302–358 available at: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/germanic/goth_wright_glossary.html).