Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:51:43.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2007

Gregory K. Iverson  and
Joseph C. Salmons
Gregory K. Iverson
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Joseph C. Salmons
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laryngeal realism (Honeybone 2005) holds that thoroughly voiced stops in a language like Dutch will be represented phonologically with the feature [voice], leaving the voiceless unaspirated stops laryngeally neutral, whereas the typically aspirated stops of a language like German are marked with the feature [spread glottis], rendering the passively voiced stops in this language neutral. These two languages also merge laryngeal oppositions in final environments, Dutch undergoing final devoicing but German final fortition. We apply the findings of Evolutionary Phonology (Blevins 2004, 2006b) to these distinctions in final laryngeal neutralisation, underscoring that the evolutionary approach to phonological alternation allows for non-assimilatory feature addition as well as loss. We examine in particular the known history of final fortition in German and find that the reference standard form of the language has evolved an alignment condition to the effect that a fortified syllable edge must match up with the morpheme edge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , May 2007 , pp. 121 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Ahn, Sang-Cheol (2006). Laryngeal specification in Germanic: a cyclic OT account. Paper presented at the 12th Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Ewen, Colin J. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, Peter & Idsardi, William J. (2001). Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement. In Alan Hall, T. (ed.) Distinctive feature theory. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 41–70.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. (1972). How do languages get crazy rules? In Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S. (eds.) Linguistic change and generative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1–21.Google Scholar
Bannert, Robert (1976). Mittelbairische Phonologie auf akustischer und perzeptorischer Grundlage. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Michael, Jessen & Ringen, Catherine (2006). German fricatives: positional faithfulness or coda devoicing? Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (1993). Klamath laryngeal phonology. IJAL 59. 237–279.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2006a). New perspectives on English sound patterns: ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ in evolutionary phonology. Journal of English Linguistics 34. 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2006b). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 117–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm (1987). Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 14th edn, edited by Hans Eggers. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brockhaus, Wiebke (1995). Final devoicing in the phonology of German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brown, J. C. (2004). Eliminating the segmental tier: evidence from speech errors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33. 97–101.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea & Halle, Morris (1998). Grimm's and Verner's Laws: a new perspective. In Jasanoff, Jay, Craig Melchert, H. & Oliver, Lisi (eds.) Mir curad: studies in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, University of Innsbruck. 47–62.Google Scholar
Drosdowski, Günther, Grebe, Paul, Köster, Rudolf & Müller, Wolfgang (1974). Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache. 2nd edn. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter, Reichmann, Oskar, Solms, Hans-Joachim & Wegera, Klaus-Peter (1993). Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Freiling, Paul (1914). Studien zur Dialektgeographie des hessischen Odenwaldes (Teildruck). Marburg: R. Friedrich's Universitätsbuchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Susanne & Perrier, Pascal (2003). An EMMA/EPG study of voicing contrast correlates in German. In Solé, et al. (2003). 1057–1060.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992). Onset maximisation in German: the case against resyllabification rules. In Eisenberg, Peter, Heinz Ramers, Karl & Vater, Heinz (eds.) Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. 134–171.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Götze, Alfred (1967). Frühneuhochdeutsches Glossar. 7th edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob & Grimm, Wilhelm (1984). Deutsches Wörterbuch. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Originally published 1854, Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jacobs, Haike (2005). Understanding phonology. 2nd edn. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan (2005). Paradigm uniformity effects in German phonology. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17. 225–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Stevens, Kenneth N. (1971). A note on laryngeal features. MIT Quarterly Progress Report 101. 198–212.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur (2003). Laryngeal licensing and laryngeal neutralization in Faroese and Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26. 45–79.Google Scholar
Harris, John (1994). English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). JL 42. 25–70.Google Scholar
Heusler, Andreas (1888). Der alemanische Consonantismus in der Mundart von Baselstadt. Strasbourg: Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heusler, Andreas (1893). Review of Wilkens (1891). Archiv für deutsches Altertum und Literatur 19. 38–44.Google Scholar
Hinskens, Frans & van de Weijer, Jeroen (2003). Patterns of segmental modification in consonant inventories: a cross-linguistic study. Linguistics 41. 1041–1084.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich (1999). Finality, prosody, and change. In Fujimura, Osamu, Joseph, Brian D. & Palek, Bohumil (eds.) Proceedings of LP '98: item order in language and speech. Vol. 1. Prague: Karolinum. 15–30.Google Scholar
Holsinger, David J. (forthcoming). Germanic prosody and consonantal strength. In Brandão de Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias & Ségéral, Philippe (eds.) Lenition and fortition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick (2005). Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: the case of laryngeal specifications. In van Oostendorp, Marc & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.) The internal organization of phonological segments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 319–354.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick (forthcoming). Theoretical historical phonology: lenition, laryngeal realism, and Germanic obstruent shifts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. (2006a). A simple proof that Optimality Theory is computationally intractable. LI 37. 271–275.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. (2006b). Misplaced optimism. Available as ROA-840 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (2003). On the sources of opacity in OT: coda processes in German. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.) The syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 271–303.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. (1989). On the category Supralaryngeal. Phonology 6. 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. (1997). Review of Brockhaus (1995). American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 9. 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. (2004). Deriving the Derived Environment Constraint in non-derivational phonology. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 11. 1–23.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Kim, Kee-Ho (1987). Underspecification and hierarchical feature representation in Korean consonantal phonology. CLS 23:2. 182–198.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Lee, Ahrong (2006). Perception of contrast in Korean loanword adaptation. Korean Linguistics 13. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (1995). Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic. Phonology 12. 369–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (1999). Glottal spreading bias in Germanic. Linguistische Berichte 178. 135–151.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2003a). Laryngeal enhancement in early Germanic. Phonology 20. 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2003b). Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 1–26.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2006). On the typology of final laryngeal neutralization: Evolutionary Phonology and laryngeal realism. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 205–216.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael (1998). Phonetics and phonology of tense and lax obstruents in German. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine (2002). Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19. 189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René, van der Feest, Suzanne, Fikkert, Paula, Kerkhoff, Annemarie & Zamuner, Tania S. (forthcoming). Representations of [voice]: evidence from acquisition. In Weijer, Jeroen & Torre, Erik (eds.) Voicing in Dutch. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang & Golston, Chris (2004). A prosodic theory of laryngeal contrasts. Phonology 21. 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Chin-Wu (1970). A theory of aspiration. Phonetica 21. 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Chin-Wu (1979). Neutralization in Korean revisited. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 9. 147–155.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1971). Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, William (ed.) A survey of linguistic science. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program. 576–642.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC. 57–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2000). Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17. 351–365.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2006). The Amphichronic Program vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Klaus J. (1984). Phonetic explanation in phonology: the feature fortis/lenis. Phonetica 41. 150–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
König, Werner (1989). Atlas zur Aussprache des Schriftdeutschen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 2 vols. Ismaning: Hueber.Google Scholar
Kornai, András (2006a). Is OT NP-hard? Available as ROA-838 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Kornai, András (2006b). Guarded optimalism. Available as ROA-841 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Lisker, Leigh & Abramson, Arthur S. (1964). A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: acoustical measurements. Word 20. 384–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112. 243–280.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1993). Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mihm, Arend (2004). Zur Geschichte der Auslautverhärtung und ihrer Erforschung. Sprachwissenschaft 29. 133–206.Google Scholar
Muthmann, Gustav (1996). Phonologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert (1970). Lautsystem und Lautwandel in den althochdeutschen Dialekten. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon (2005). A psycholinguistic theory of loanword adaptations. BLS 30. 341–352.Google Scholar
Piroth, Hans Georg (2003). Final devoicing and syllabification in German consonant clusters: a phonetic investigation. In Solé, et al. . (2003). 2749–2752.Google Scholar
Piroth, Hans Georg & Janker, Peter M. (2004). Speaker-dependent differences in voicing and devoicing of German obstruents. JPh 32. 81–109.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pycha, Anne, Nowak, Pawel, Shin, Eurie & Shosted, Ryan (2003). Phonological rule-learning and its implications for a theory of vowel harmony. WCCFL 22. 423–435.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (1994). Peripheral in consonants. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 39. 191–216.Google Scholar
Robinson, Orrin W. (2001). Whose German? The ach/ich alternation and related phenomena in ‘standard’ and ‘colloquial’. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1990). Final devoicing and cyclic syllabification in German. LI 21. 79–94.Google Scholar
Schatz, Joseph (1897). Die Mundart von Imst. Laut- und Flexionslehre. Strasbourg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Schild, Peter (1891). Brienzer Mundart. Vol. 1: Die allgemeinen Lautgesetze und Vokalismus. Basle: Sallmann & Bonacker.Google Scholar
Seidl, Amanda & Buckley, Eugene (2005). On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development 1. 289–316.Google Scholar
Siebs, Theodor (1944). Deutsche Bühnenaussprache Hochsprache. New York: Frederick Ungar. American edition by Robert Lohan.Google Scholar
Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds.) (2003). Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew (1996). Phonology: theory and description. Oxford & Cambridge,: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stampe, David (1973). A dissertation on Natural Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Published 1979, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert & Samuels, Bridget (2005). Laryngeal markedness and aspiration. Phonology 22. 395–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18. 1–18.Google Scholar
Wilkens, Friedrich (1891). Zum hochalemannischen Konsonantismus der althochdeutschen Zeit. Beiträge zur Lautlehre und Orthographie des ältesten Hochalemannischen, auf Grundlage der deutschen Eigennamen in den Sanct Galler Urkunden (bis zum Jahre 825). Leipzig: Fock.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (2004). Explaining final obstruent voicing in Lezgian: phonetics and history. Lg 80. 73–97.Google Scholar