-
Sound Change and Phonologization
Paul KiparskyStanford University
1 Sound change: some questions that a theory should
answerWeinreich, Herzog, and Labov 1968 formulated five defining
problems for the theory of lan-
guage change.
(1) a. The constraints problem: What are the general constraints
on change, if any, that de-termine possible and impossible changes
and directions of change?
b. The transition problem: By what route does language change?c.
The embedding problem: How is a given language change embedded in
the surround-
ing system of linguistic and social relations? How does a change
in one part of thegrammar affect or get constrained by other parts
of the grammar?
d. The evaluation problem: How do members of a speech community
evaluate a givenchange, and what is the effect of this evaluation
on the change?
e. The actuation problem: Why did a given linguistic change
occur at the particular timeand place that it did? How and why do
changes begin and proceed?
Every approach to historical linguistics must address them, but
their theoretical interpretation, andthe range of possible answers
to them, are highly theory-dependent. For example, the
constraintsproblem in its modern sense arose only with structural
linguistics, when it was conceived as thequestion how synchronic
universals of linguistic structure and general constraints on
phonologi-cal and analogical processes determine the class of
possible changes. The transition problem inphonological change came
into focus with the structuralist thesis that sound change is
gradual,but its effect on the phonological system proceeds through
abrupt structural reanalyses. The em-bedding problem spawned much
research seeking to show that the phonological system channelssound
change into effecting symmetry and economy of phonemic systems and
dispersion (maxi-mum distinctiveness) of phoneme realization. The
actuation problem, meanwhile, was held to beintractable and all but
ignored in theory and practice.
These answers naturally raised new questions, and were
themselves in turn challenged, partlyin response to new theoretical
approaches in general linguistics. Structuralists generally did
notquestion the neogrammarian thesis that sound change is
exceptionless. In fact, it provided themwith the key argument for
the autonomous phonemic level that they posited, which in turn
wasthe principle on they relied in explaining how new phonemes
arise from allophones in so-calledsecondary split.
1
-
Empirical study of ongoing sound change complicated the picture
by uncovering cases of ap-parent word-by-word spread of sound
changes (lexical diffusion), a process which had alreadybeen
championed by Schuchardt in his anti-neogrammarian polemics.
Another troubling featureof such changes was that they seemed to be
governed by word frequency, a factor which had noplace in the
neogrammarian/structuralist scheme of things. And some linguists
turned the rela-tion of typology and universals on its head: rather
than relying on linguistic universals to explainsound change, they
assumed that sound change itself explains typological tendencies
and univer-sals. Recent work based on information theory suggests
that the actuation problem might not be ashopeless as had been
thought (Cohen Priva 2012).
How, then, does sound change happen? How does it change the
linguistic system? How is itconstrained by the system? Let us
pursue these questions and the answers to them, as they evolvehand
in hand with linguistic theory from Saussure through Stratal
Optimality Theory.
2 Phonologization in structuralist phonology2.1 The
phonologization and non-phonologization problems
If there is a phonemic level of representation, the question
arises how and why phonemes origi-nate and are lost. This is the
problem of PHONOLOGIZATION and MERGER. The structuralists heldthat
allophones are phonologized, i.e. become phonemic, when their
conditioning environment ofis eliminated by sound change. The idea
was introduced by V. Kiparsky (1932) and Twaddell(1938),1 who both
illustrated it with the phonologization of the front rounded umlaut
vowels and in German, they argued that the umlaut vowels became
distinctive when the i or j that condi-tioned them was reduced or
deleted, at which point lexical representations were restructured
withthe former allophonic variants as phonemes.
(2) a. Old High German (OHG): Nom.Pl. /huot-i/ heti hats,
helmets Dat.Sg. /huot-e/ huote
b. Middle High German: Sound change: heti > hete
Restructuring: /huot-i/ > /het-e/
This mechanism, called SECONDARY SPLIT (Hoenigswald 1965), has
been standardly assumedto account for phonologization. However, it
leaves two questions unanswered. First, when theconditioning
environment goes away (as here by reduction of the full vowels to
-e or to -@), whydo its effects remain? Why did the front vowels
not become back again, why did the frontnessstay, once the
influence of /i j/ was removed? (Liberman 1991: 126). Secondly, why
does theloss of a conditioning environment not always cause
phonologization? Why do the conditionedallophones sometimes just go
away?2 Lets call them the PHONOLOGIZATION PROBLEM and
theNON-PHONOLOGIZATION PROBLEM, respectively.
1Kiparskys article is an introduction to synchronic and
historical structural phonology, written after his stay inPrague
where the new theory was just then taking shape. It correctly
avoids Twaddells assumption that OHG orthog-raphy was phonemic.
2Why do allophones sometimes remain and other times revert?
(King 1971: 4).
2
-
Both problems are deep ones, and reach the foundations of
phonological theory. The phonol-ogization problem has been at the
core of phonological theorizing, but has no generally agreed
onsolution. The non-phonologization problem has barely begun to be
discussed. I begin by reviewingthe two main proposed solutions to
the phonologization problem, and suggest a new one based onLexical
Phonology and more particularly its OT version (Stratal OT), which
I argue also resolvesthe non-phonologization problem.
The best-known proposal for resolving the phonologization
problem is due to Saussure andBloomfield. It depends on a
paradoxical marriage of synchronic structuralism to diachronic
neogram-marianism. The key idea is that a sound change is located
outside of the linguistic system that itwill transform.
An alternative that is increasingly beginning to be explored is
to enrich the phonology withphonetic information, abandoning the
concept of a phoneme as a contrastive entity, and positingthat
phonemes-to-be get in some sense phonologized before they become
contrastive through theloss of the conditioning factor. This
entails a break with structuralism, where contrast is the
centralconcept, but turns out to fit well into the generative view
of language as a computational system.
After reviewing these solutions in turn, I will argue for a
version which combines aspects ofboth, implemented in the Stratal
OT framework.
2.2 Saussures FirewallFor Saussure, the basic fact about
language is the ARBITRARINESS OF THE SIGN. Among its
consequences are a sharp divide between synchrony and diachrony.
This division is not merelymethodological, or practical, or based
on conventional boundaries between academic subdisci-plines. It is
a conceptually necessary consequence of arbitrariness.
Linguistics must be separated in two. There is an irreconcilable
duality, created bythe very nature of things [. . . ] in systems of
values. (C3:104, cf. C:79:80).
A historical event such as a sound change qua phonetic mutation,
and the restructuring of thephonological system it may cause, are
totally different things: a sound change can bring aboutradical
discontinuities, or it could have no effect on the system
whatever.
There is no inner bond between the initial fact [the phonetic
change] and the ef-fect that it may subsequently produce on the
whole system [phonology or grammar].(C:87)
The sharp segregation of historical change from synchronic
structure (call it SAUSSURESFIREWALL) implies that, although
everything in grammar is interrelated as a system, sound changehas
no access to that system. Blindly and structure-independently, it
alters merely the materialimplementation of speech.3 The abstract
synchronic system, characterized by networks of rela-tions and
systems of constraints, is affected only indirectly by those
alterations. For Saussure,the synchronic constraints in the mind of
the speaker and the historical processes that modify the
3A modern version of this idea is eloquently stated in Hale
2007.
3
-
articulation of speech are not only ontologically, but also
formally distinct. Constraints are GEN-ERAL (transparent, or
inviolable, in current terminology), whereas processes are
ACCIDENTAL andPARTICULAR. Constraints are PRECARIOUS (they could be
overturned by the next change), whileprocesses are IMPERATIVE
(sound change is exceptionless).
Back to the example of umlaut: the phonetic mutations of umlaut
and reduction/syncope bothaltered the physical aspect of speech,
but they had very different effects on the system. The struc-tural
reflex of umlaut was purely phonetic: it introduced the constraint
no back vowels before i.This is an allophonic distribution and has
no bearing on the phonological system. Vowel reductionand
subsequent syncope had no phonetic repercussions on the umlaut
vowels, but an all the moredrastic impact on their phonological
status: it caused them to be reanalyzed as distinct phonemes.The
new phonetic givens lead to a restructured phonological system with
new phonemes //, //and a new constraint no unstressed full vowels.
The site of phonemic contrast has shifted onesyllable to the
left.
This is a consistent theory of sound change. But the dualist
ontology of Saussures Firewall is aheavy price to pay. It
essentially makes the constraints problem insoluble, at least for
sound change,by excluding all structural explanations of the sort
pioneered by Jakobson and since pursued indifferent ways by
Martinet, Labov and others, and, still differently, in generative
and OT work.In particular, it makes inexplicable the central fact
that sound change never subverts phonologicaluniversals including
implicational universals and that sound changes are
overwhelminglynatural processes.
Another objection to this theory is that it offers no solution
to the non-phonologization problem.Why does the predicted secondary
split sometimes not happen, and the conditioned allophonesjust
disappear? For example, English has a front and back allophones of
/k/ and /g/ dependingon whether they are tautosyllabic with a back
vowel or a front vowel. So we would expect vowelfronting in various
dialects of English (e.g. in calf, goat, cough), and vowel backing
(girl, dialec-tally in kit), to produce contrasts between front and
back k. The mystery is why this happens sorarely (an exception is
the Jamaican English contrast cat [kyat] vs. cot [kat] or [k6t],
Wells 1982:569), and why that fact was rarely regarded as a problem
for structuralist doctrine. On the contrary,when a linguist
proposed that umlaut vowels disappeared in Scandinavian when the
triggering frontvowels were syncopated, Benediktssons (1982: 9)
objected to it on principle: The principle thatphonetic variants,
in consequence of the conditioning factors, may revert to the
neutral starting-point [. . . ], though perhaps consistent with
generative theory, seems hardly compatible with thoseof structural
phonology; at any rate, if it is accepted, the principle of
phonemicization is then re-duced to an ad-hoc postulate, of little
or no explanatory value. Since this issue falls under theheading of
the actuation problem, which was assumed to be insoluble anyway,
the failure to ad-dress it was not considered a weakness.
Finally, Saussures Firewall is also a hindrance to resolving the
embedding problem, specif-ically that part of it which concerns how
sound change is constrained by the linguistic system.A general
instance is the PRIMING phenomenon, that languages tend to have
stable phonologicaltypologies (e.g. the prosodic system of the
Germanic languages, and the tonal systems of Sino-Tibetan languages
are enduring characteristics of the families as a whole).
4
-
Here belongs also another type of rule insertion, also
problematic for the structuralist accountof secondary split4 where
a sound change interacts with, and is constrained by, existing
phonolog-ical processes and constraints in the language. An example
is Old English syncope and voicingassimilation. In Old English,
obstruents were obligatorily devoiced next to voiceless
obstruents.This process was postlexical since it applied across
word boundaries (Moulton 2003): compoundssund + corn suntcorn, med
+ sceatt metsceatt. Assimilation across words in a sentenceis not
written but is inferred from indirect evidence (Luick 1921-1940).
During the Old Englishperiod, the language undergoes syncope of
unstressed vowels in word-final syllables. Syncopenever produces
adjacent obstruents of unlike voicing (Campbell 299, Moulton 2003).
Such clus-ters are assimilated as part of the sound change, e.g.
bidest (> *bidst) > bitst you bide, ky:est*ky:st ky:Tst you
inform, kyss-ide *kyssde kyste kissed. Saussures Firewall,
however,predicts that syncope should extend the voicing opposition
to what was until then a neutralizingassimilation environment,
creating a contrast between previously existing assimilated
clusters suchas -ts- and new clusters from syncope such as *-ds-.
This is certainly a conceivable outcome, butit is not what happened
in Old English; there is no reason to believe that clusters such as
*-ds-ever existed, even immediately after syncope, as King 1973
noted. Syncope FEEDS the previouslyexisting voicing assimilation
rule, so that the outcome is bintst, bitst.
The same difficulty arises with sound changes that are BLOCKED
by existing synchronic con-straints. For example, syncope can fail
to apply just in those cases where it would create a prohib-ited
stress configuration (e.g. a lapse or clash), or a prohibited
syllable structure or foot structure.In English, the variable
pre-sonorant syncope in words like generative is inapplicable
before astressed syllable, as in generate (*genrate), where it
would produce back-to-back stresses, whichare disfavored in
English. Technically, such conditions on sound changes can be
specified as con-ditioning factors, but only at the cost of a loss
of the generalization that the conditioning factorsare
manifestations of active phonological constraints of the
language.
The first two types of problematic cases are the historical
analogs of the two types of transparentrule interaction in
synchronic phonology: vowel backing in calf BLEEDS k-fronting, and
syncopein bidest FEEDS voicing assimilation. The third type of
problematic case also involves transparentinteraction, in the sense
that sound change avoids creating surface exceptions to a
constraint that isoperative in the language.
In short, sound changes can interact transparently with existing
processes. Such transparentinteractions can involve feeding or
bleeding by the sound change, or blocking of the sound changeby a
constraint. Alongside such transparent interactions, sound change
can also result in opacity,which in terms of change means
phonologization and the creation of new contrasts.
Structuralisthistorical phonology has privileged the latter
scenario to the point of all but ignoring the well-documented
possibility of transparent interaction.
Classical generative grammar was able to unify these cases by
generalizing the processualapproach and modeling sound change as
the addition of rules, treating such cases descriptivelyas rule
insertion. Addition of rules at the end of the phonological
component correspondedto neogrammarian sound change; stipulating
that they must be added at the end replicates Saus-sures Firewall,
and allowing them to be added before the end accounted for the
cases where soundchanges interact with existing rules, albeit in a
purely descriptive way. It was recognized that rules
4As well as for the theory espoused by Blevins 2004, see
Kiparsky 2006.
5
-
cannot be added anywhere, but saying that they are added to the
end of the grammar is arbitrary,and in any case fails to do justice
to the cases of rule insertion. But once rule insertion is
recog-nized, we have lost the only theoretical understanding of
phonologization by secondary split. Post-structuralist theories
which relate historical and synchronic phonology have been unable
either toreplicate Saussures Firewall without some extrinsic
stipulation, or to derive the generalization thatit is intended to
capture in some other way.
3 Constraint-based phonology: Optimality theoryThe interaction
of sound changes with existing phonological constraints can be
dealt with read-
ily by Optimality Theory (Prince, Smolensky, MCarthy). In this
theory, underlying forms aremapped into phonetic forms not by
step-by-stem conversion but by filtering the possible
outputsthrough a ranked set of constraints and selecting the best
fit.
(3)
The principles of the theory are summarized in (4).
(4) a. Constraints are VIOLABLE, but violation is MINIMAL.b.
There is a UNIVERSAL inventory of constraints (and possibly also
language-specific
constraints). A is preferred to B by a constraint C if A
contains fewer violations of Cthan B does.
c. Constraints are RANKED on a language-specific basis. Output A
is more OPTIMALthan output B if A is preferred to B by a constraint
C and there is no higher-rankingconstraint that prefers B to A.
d. PARALLELISM: There are no rules and no stepwise derivation.
All possible outputs arecandidates for simultaneous evaluation.
Sound changes can then be regarded as the promotion of
markedness constraints. This solvessome of the above problems
straightforwardly. First, constraints can both trigger and
blockprocesses. Very schematically:
(5) a process P Q is triggered in the context X___ Y if *XPY *Q,
a process P Q is blocked in the context X___ Y if *XQY *P.
6
-
(6) The theory predicts that sound changes can interact with
existing processes in two ways.a. They can feedexisting processes
(provide inputs to them) just in case they are active
in the postlexical phonology.b. They can be blocked by
postlexically active constraints (but not by lexical
constraints).
(7) A famous problem in Germanic phonologyGermanic OHG Old
Icel.
a. Light root: *wariom werita vara I protectedb. Heavy root:
*warmiom warmta verma I warmed
(8) a. The North Germanic distribution is surprising. Why would
light syllables not undergoumlaut?
b. Kock (1888) posits two periods of syncope and two periods of
umlaut, with the weightrestriction applying at the first round of
syncope, at which point only deleting vowelstrigger umlaut.
1. Unstressed i is syncopated after a heavy syllable, but
triggers umlaut.2. Then unstressed i is syncopated after a light
syllable, and doesnt trigger umlaut.3. Remaining is are not
syncopated, and trigger umlaut.
The two umlaut periods would have to be interrupted by a period
where umlaut wasturned off, so that there could be no historical
connection between them.
(9) Word minimality governs syncope.a. Germanic feet must have
at least two moras, and words must contain at least a foot, so
words must have at least two moras.b. Hence there are no [C V]
words.c. Because final consonants are weightless, there are no [C
VC] words either.d. Therefore, In all early Germanic languages,
word-final syncope is restricted to heavy
and polysyllabic stems (Riad 1992). Deletion after a light
syllable would lead to asubminimal foot.
(10) a. FOOTBIN: A foot must contain at least two moras.b.
NONFINALITY: A word-final consonant is weightless.
(11) Effect of two-mora foot minimum (parentheses mark final
weightless consonants)a. No final syncope: [CV.CV] 6 [CV(C)].b.
Final syncope OK: [CVV.CV] [CVV(C)].c. Final syncope OK: [CV.CV.CV]
[CV.CV(C)].
7
-
(12) Old Norse (but not West Germanic) prohibits superheavy
(3-mora) syllables.*: A syllable rhyme is maximally binary.
(13) a. Syncope OK: [CV.CV.CV] [CVC.CV], [CV.CVC] [CVC(C)]b. No
syncope: [CVV.CV.CV] 6 [CVVC.CV], [CVV.CVC] 6 [CVVC(C)]
Because final -C is weightless, word-final codas can then be
longer than medial ones byexactly one consonant, with final vowel
deletion applying to that extent more freely thanmedial vowel
deletion.
(14) runic Old Norseasugsalas Asgsls (compound PN)wanaraas
Vandras (compound PN)
(15) a. Heavy stems: *hir.joo > NGmc *hir.o (ON hira)b. Light
stems: *ni.joo > NGmc *ni.jo (ON nija).
(16) a. *ltl-er > litler littler (cf. ltell little)b. *mn-r
> minn mine (Nom.Sg.Masc.), cf. Fem. mn (remember that final -C
does not
count)
(17) a. Kragehul Asugisalas (< *-gs.las).b. Tune worahto
(< *worh.to); cf. Tjurk wurte, By orte, Slvesborg urti, where
the same
constraint is implemented by deletion, as in literary Old
Norse.c. Istaby wulafR, Stentoften wolafR (wulfR would have a
three-mora syllable, since -R is
weightless).
(18) a. West Germanic *[tal.jan] > *[tell.jan] (OHG zellen)b.
North Germanic *[tal.jan] > *[tel.jan] (ON telja)
(19) Our theory suggests that looking for the environment of
syncope is barking up the wrong tree.The right question is: how was
syncope constrained by syllable and foot structure onstraints*,
FOOTBIN, and NONFINALITY? This way of asking the question
immediately solvesthe classical problem.
(20) STAGE 0 (550 A.D.): no syncope.a. Medial syllables:
Wiwila [wwila] (Veblungsnes, ca. 550, KJ 126; or ca. 500, K
172), aluko (?) (Frde,550?, KJ 109), raisido-kA I raised
(Ellestad).
8
-
b. Final syllables: WidugastiR (Sunde, ca. 500, KJ 198),
SaligastiR, aliR (Berga, ca. 500,KJ 193), haukouR hawker (hawkeye)
(Vanga, ca. 500, KJ 147), erilaR priest (?),wilagaR cunning
(Lindholm, early 6th c., KJ 69), Asugisalas, erilaR (Kragehul,
early6th c., KJ 64), Harabana, erila, waritu [wartu] I write
(Jrsberg, 500-550, KJ 156),irilar, Wiwila [wwila] (Veblungsnes, ca.
550, KJ 126; or ca. 500, K 172), laiigaR(Mgedal, 500-550, KJ 195),
hiwiga, -winaR (Arstad, ca. 550, KJ 130), SigimaraR[-mara]
(Ellestad).
(21) STAGE 1, 550-600: syncope where * and FOOTBIN permit; final
-C weightless.a. Syncope in medial syllables: two-mora maximum
allows - V, -VC, but not - VC or
-VCC*satido > sate [satte] (Gummarp, ca. 600, KJ 205; B 141),
Nom.Sg. *hrorijaR (>*hrorjaR) > HroreR (By, 550-600, KJ 158;
ca. 500, B 176, 3.Sg.Opt. *wtije (>*watje) > wate [wate] wet!
(Strm, ca. 600, KJ 110), *wiwijon > wiwjo (Eikeland,ca. 600, KJ
47; ca. 550 on archeological grounds according to B 84), *hawiu
> hau[hau] mowing (Strm, ca. 600, KJ 110; 550-600, B 176),
*wulfijaR (> *wulfjaR) >*wulafjaR > -wulafiR (Istaby, ca.
625, KJ 218; ca. 590, B 142).
b. Syncope in final syllables: two-mora maximum plus weightless
final -C. Allows fi-nal - V, - V(C), -VC(C), disallows - VC(C) or
-VCC(C), *laou > lao invitation(Acc.Sg) (Halskov, date?, Krause
1971: 149), 1.Sg.Pres. *fahi(j)u > fahi [fahi] I de-pict
(Noleby, late 6th c., KJ 148, B 176; sum, 550-600, KJ 267), *wiwaR
> wir[wr] (Eikeland, ca. 600, KJ 47; ca. 550 on archeological
grounds according to B 84),*wulfaR (> *wulf R) > -wolafR
(Stentoften, older part of the inscription, ca. 600?, KJ209; ca.
590, B 142), *wulfaR (> *wulf R) -wulafR (Istaby, ca. 625, KJ
218, ca. 590, B142), *ftiR (> *ftR) > AfatR after
(Istaby).
c. The bimoraic foot minimum blocks syncope in C VCV words
(including as parts ofcompounds).alu (Kinneve, late 6th c., KJ 114,
Krlin, late 6th c., KJ 105), -ekA I (Ellestad) Hari-,Hau. . .
(Istaby, Stentoften).
d. Where glide deletion and epenthesis are inapplicable, the
bimoraic syllable maximumblocks medial syncope after heavy
syllables.HroraR (By, 550-600, KJ 158), fahide [fahide] depicted
(Halskov).
(22) STAGE 2, 600-800: syncope no longer subject to *, but
remains subject to FOOTBINand weightlessness of -C.
a. First instances of new extended syncope, producing final -
VC(C) and -VCC(C) (tri-moraic syllables, plus weightless
-C).*habukaR > *haukaR > -haukR hawk, second part of compound
name (Vallentuna,before 650; perhaps ca. 600, B 91), *hrou-waldaR
> RhoaltR (Vatn, 700 or earlier, KJ152, B 176), *taitaR >
TaitR (Tveito, 7th c. or later, KJ 202, B 176), *brytir >
bArutR[brytR] breaks, *lausaR > -lausR loose, *haidiR > haidR
brightness (Bjrketorp,
9
-
ca. 675, KJ 217; ca. 590, B 142), *fiskaR > fiskR fish,
*mennaR > manR [mennR]men (Eggja, ca. 700, KJ 227; ca. 650, B
114), *uddaR > UdR [udd], (Roes, ca.750, KJ 235), *woinaR >
Uin [uinn], *unninR > unin [unninn] (Ribe, before 750,B 313; ca.
720, Grnvik 1999), *wulfas > -wulfs wolfs (Rvsal, ca. 750, KJ
184;B 334 however dates it to the 9th century, in which case it
would belong in the nextgroup, Stage 3 below).
b. Still no syncope in C VCV words (including as parts of
compounds).sunu son (Dat.) (Slvesborg, 750-800, N 100; Helns, Rk,
800-850; cf. B 222, 345,291), alu (Setre, 7th c.. KJ 114), kuumut
[guumund] (Helns, B 345).
(23) STAGE 3, after 800: full syncope, unconstrained by or
FOOTBIN.ut:sta:ni (compound, Acc.Sg.) [ni] offspring, [sta]
settlement (Gimsy, early 9th c.,B 324), sun son (Acc.Sg.) (Rnninge,
Tryggevlde, ca. 900, Nielsen 2000: 98; Mejlby,Haddeby, 10th c.),
ver man (Acc.Sg.) (Tryggevlde, Glavendrup, ca. 900).
(24)The lexical phonology
Input Output AGR(BACK) * * IDENT(Back)tal-i-a tal-i-a * ***
tel-i-a *** * tal-a **
tel-a ** *dom-i-a dom-i-a * ***
dm-i-a *** *dom-a * **dm-a * ** *
At first, the postlexical phonology has the same constraint
ranking as the lexical phonology.
(25) IDENT(Back) is promoted, causing umlaut to stop applying
postlexically; at this point backvowels are restored in postlexical
configurations such as (35), and the umlaut vowels , become
quasi-phonemes, potentially but not yet actually contrastive within
lexical words.
The postlexical phonology: second phaseInput Output IDENT(Back)
AGR(BACK) * *tala talia * ***
telia * *** tala **
tela * **dmia domia * * ***
dmia ***doma * * **dma * **
10
-
(26) Overt contrasts between umlauted and nonumlauted vowels are
created. This happens at thelatest at Stage 2 of syncope, when
syncope is generalized by promotion of * over * inthe postlexical
phonology (its relative ranking with respect to IDENT(Back) and
UMLAUT isimmaterial). From now on it applies even when three-mora
syllables result, as in dma.
The postlexical phonology: third phaseInput Output * IDENT(Back)
AGR(BACK) *tala talia *** *
telia *** * tala **
tela ** *dmia domia *** * *
dmia ***doma ** * *
dma ** *
Secondly, constraints are universal and constitute a theory of
linguistic typology. Therefore,in so far as the constraint set is
empirically correct, it is predicted that sound changes must
benatural processes. The exceptionlessness of sound changes also
follows if we assume that lexicalrepresentations remain invariant
under the actual sound change (though they may be restructuredlater
as a result of the change).5
However, if we move from structural levels or generative rules
to OT constraints, we have lostthe solution to the phonologization
problem: we no longer have any theoretical understanding ofhow
secondary split is possible.
King (1971) argued that sound changes interact transparently
only with phonetic rules thetrivial case of rule insertion, as he
called it. His observation has held up well; the non-trivialcases
have been fairly convincingly explained away (see most recently
Jasanoff 2003). It is fair toassume that the phonetic rules of
Kings generalization are a languages postlexical rules. If so,we
can rephrase his generalization like this:
(27) a. SECONDARY SPLIT: Sound changes render lexical processes
opaque.b. BLOCKING AND RULE INSERTION: Sound changes interact
transparently with postlex-
ical processes.
The second, less well explored approach to the phonologization
problem assumes that prospec-tive phonemes are already phonologized
by the time they become contrastive (Ebeling 1960, Ko-rhonen 1969,
Liberman 1991). For example, if the umlaut vowels are already
phonemes (or QUASI-PHONEMES, as Korhonen calls them) before the -i-
that conditions them is lost, then they wouldnaturally remain
unaffected by the latter sound change.
5Labovs recent results confirm the view of sound change as a
phonetically driven process that affects all wordsin a
phonologically defined set. The close study of them reveals tham to
be just as Paul, Leskien, Osthoff, Brugmann,Sauusure and Bloomfield
described them. The tantalizing glimpses of lexical peculiarities
in the data seem to bestatistical accidents (Labov 2010:285.
11
-
This approach to phonologization requires a way of specifying
when and why non-contrastivefeatures become assigned in the lexical
phonology why allophones become quasi-phonemes independently of the
post hoc information that they are phonologized when another sound
changeoccurs. It has been suggested that features tend to be
phonologized if they belong to a feature classwhich is already
distinctive (Kiparsky 1988). Though generally consonant with
observations aboutpriming effects in sound change, this idea is not
precise enough to make predictions about whenphonologization will
take place. Another suggestion, made by Janda (2003: 413) in a
vigorousplea for early phonologization, is that allophones become
quasi-phonemes for reasons having todo with phonetic distance,
though he does not say how much distance, and on what dimension,
orcite evidence that distance matters at all.
A starting point for a more substantive theory of
phonologization might be Jakobsons obser-vation that allophonic
properties can become perceptually more salient than the phonemic
onesthat condition them (Jakobson, Fant, and Halle 1952). Russian
[1] and [i] are allophones of /i/ afterrespectively back and front
consonants, yet the allophonic vowel distinction is a more salient
cue tothe contrast than the phonemic consonantal one (especially in
the case of sibilants because of theirhigh-frequency noise, e.g.
/si/ [s1] and /si/ [si]). Related to this perceptual saliency of
the vowels,as Jakobson pointed out, is the fact that [1] and [i]
are perceived as categorically distinct elements,and even reified
in the metalinguistic terms [1kat] to pronounce [1] and [ikat] to
pronounce [i]).The vowels [1] and [i] are like two phonemes in that
any unrounded high vowel token is assigned toone or the other type;
perceptually they are two distinct categories. Other Russian vowels
are alsostrongly affected by palatalization: e.g. /a/ is fronted
towards [] to varying degree before, after,and most of all between
palatalized consonants, but the allophones are apparently not
categoricallyperceived as belonging to two types; correspondingly
there is no *[kat] to pronounce [].
A plausible hypothesis is that allophones become quasi-phonemes
when they become governedby categorical rather than gradient
constraints (Flemming 2001), and acquire greater perceptualsalience
than their conditioning environments. How are these two properties
related to each other,and how we can build a theory of
phonologization on them? In structuralist phonology, categorial-ity
and saliency is attributed to phonemic representations. Feature
specifications at the phonemiclevel are understood as categorical,
while allophonic/postlexical feature specifications may be
gra-dient. And phonemic representations specify all invariant
distinctive features of the language. Butquasi-phonemes are not
allowed at the phonemic level because of the rather fundamental
propertythat it excludes redundant, predictable feature values from
lexical representations.
4 Stratal OT4.1 Secondary split the Stratal OT solution
How are these issues addressed in constraint-based theories such
as OT, which eliminate pro-cesses in favor of constraints, and
model sound change as the promotion of markedness con-straints?
Here it is important to distinguish parallel and stratal versions
of OT. As we shall see,the generalizations in (28) are predicted by
Stratal OT. According to this theory, constraints in-teract
transparently within a level. Promotion of a postlexical constraint
will therefore lead tonon-phonologization (blocking and rule
insertion) effects. Blocking arises when the promotedpostlexical
constraint is dominated within the postlexical phonology by an
antagonistic constraint(e.g. syncope by a restriction on syllable
structure). Rule insertion (a misnomer in this frame-
12
-
work, of course) arises when the promoted postlexical constraint
winnows away candidates thatwould otherwise emerge as winners by
the lower-ranking postlexical constraints.
Phonologization (secondary split), on the other hand, takes
place because constraints do notinteract transparently with
constraints at earlier levels. It is the masking of a lexical
process bya postlexical one, that is, by the sound change qua
promoted markedness constraint. From theperspective of Stratal OT,
then, the reason why the umlaut vowels became phonologized when
thetriggering context was lost is that they were introduced in the
lexical phonology.
Two predictions immediately follow: the masked process (the
source of the future phoneme)must be lexical, therefore restricted
to the word domain, and interacting transparently with all lex-ical
constraints, and the masking process (the trigger of the
phonemicization) must be postlexical,therefore applicable across
words, and and interacting transparently with all postlexical
constraints.
Before going into the details, let us emphasize that this
solution is not available in parallel OT.As far as I can see,
parallel OT actually has no coherent characterization of secondary
split, forreasons which are homologous to its failure to deal with
opacity. To see why, consider a bare-bonesOT constraint system for
the pre- and post-phonologization stage of umlaut.
(28) a. AGREE(FRONT): no back vowels before i, j (the constraint
that enforces umlaut).b. IDENT(Hi): underlying high vowels are
realized as high.c. *, *: rounded vowels are back.d. REDUCE: no
full (unreduced) unstressed vowels.
(29)Stage 1: allophonic umlaut
Input Output AGREE(FRONT) IDENT(Hi) *, * REDUCEuCi uCi * *
Ci * *uCe *Ce * *
uCe uCi * * *Ci * * *
uCeCe *
Ce uCi * * *Ci * * *
uCeCe *
Vowel reduction results from promoting REDUCE over IDENT(Hi).
But on any ranking, this undoesumlaut:
13
-
(30)Stage 2: promotion of REDUCE (wrong!)
Input Output REDUCE AGREE(FRONT) IDENT(Hi) *, uCi uCi * * *
Ci * * uCe *
Ce * *
The bottom line is that Saussures Firewall has no place in
constraint-based theories such asOT. This is arguably an advantage
because, as noted above, it is stipulative, deprives us of
goodanswers to the constrants problem, and runs into several
empirical problems.
Stratal OT phonology provides a more articulated theory than
parallel OT in that it incorpo-rates Lexical Phonologys stratal
organization (level-ordering) to OTs parallelism of
constraintinteraction (Booij 1996, 1997, Orgun 1996, Kiparsky 2000;
for diachronic phonology, see espe-cially Bermdez-Otero 1999,
2006a, 2006b, Bermdez-Otero and Hogg 2003). Stratal OT doesnot in
principle banish predictable feature values from lexical
representations. Rather, it claims thatlexical representations are
determined by best satisfaction of the lexical phonological
constraints.They will include such redundant feature values as
those lexical constraints may assign. For thisreason they can
accommodate quasi-phonemes.
For Stratal OT, the grammar is a hierarchy of serially related
modules, each of which is aparallel constraint system of the
classical OT type.
(31) Stem phonology
Word phonology
Postlexical Phonology
As in Lexical Phonology and Morphology, the Stratal OT levels
are morphological as well asphonological subsystems, which form a
hierarchy of domains: stems, words, phrases. A constraintsystem of
level n+1 may differ in ranking from a constraint system of level n
by promotion ofconstraints to undominated status. Each is governed
by a (parallel) constraint system, but theyinterface serially. The
interaction of constraints is determined by the intrinsic relation
of the levels.A constraint at level n is visible to a constraint at
level m iff n m. Opacity reduces to con-straint masking, and cyclic
effects reduce to ordinary faithfulness: bigger constructions
inheritthe phonological properties from the smaller constructions
they contain, in so far as compatiblewith the applicable
constraints.
Postlexical processes may be restricted to certain prosodic
domains, of which the smallest isthe CLITIC GROUP, and the larger
ones are the PROSODIC PHRASE, the INTONATION GROUP, and
14
-
perhaps others (Inkelas & Zec 1990). Lexical processes apply
to stems (level 1) and prosodicwords (level 2).
If we reconstruct quasi-phonemes in Stratal OT as lexically
specified but distributionally pre-dictable phonological segment
types, we get an interesting additional prediction. In Stratal
OT,lexical representations are specified by the word-level
constraint system. This entails that quasi-phonemes are elements
whose distribution is governed by or relevant to at least one
lexical con-straint, therefore within the domain of a prosodic
word. The same elements may of course alsofigure in postlexical
constraints.6
That leads directly to a solution for the phonologization
problem. Processes become phonolo-gized when they become applicable
to the lexical phonology formally, when the constraints thatdrive
them are promoted over the antagonistic faithfulness constraints in
the lexical constraint sys-tem. At that point their outputs become
quasi-phonemes, understood as lexical allophones. Theeffect of this
promotion is that they assign categorical feature values, that
their distribution is deter-mined by constraint that operate within
the word domain, and that in virtue of these very facts theyare
perceptually salient in the sense stated above. Other than the fact
that real phonemes have anat least partly unpredictable
distribution, there is no basic difference between quasi-phonemes
andordinary phonemes, on this view.
The promotion of constraint rankings from the postlexical
phonology into the lexical phonol-ogy does not mean that those
rankings necessarily cease to apply postlexically. The process is,
infact, the generalization of new constraint rankings from the
postlexical phonology, where they arefirst introduced as sound
changes, into the lexical (word-level and unltimately stem-level)
phonol-ogy. The cause of this spread of constraint rankings, I
conjecture, is a preference of learners forassigning structure as
early as possible. That is, there is a bias in acquisition in favor
of locatinginformation in the lexicon.
Although the phonologization of a process in this sense is
compatible with its continued postlex-ical operation, the next step
is typically disappearance of its postlexical reflexes formally, by
thepromotion of antagonistic faithfulness constraints in the
postlexical phonology. Once this happens,there is unambiguous
evidence for the phonologization, in that the process ceases to
apply acrossword boundaries, its output is strictly categorical,
and it is perceptually salient.
In the final act of this phonologization scenario, the potential
contrasting quasi-phonemes be-comes overtly manifested. This can
happen either when a sound change (the promotion of a con-straint
in the postlexical phonology) renders their conditioning
environment opaque (this is so-called secondary split), or when new
lexical entries from borrowing or other sources exploit them.On
this understanding, the rise of phonological contrasts is analogous
to the rise of phonologicalopacity by constraint masking.
Returning to umlaut, we can now offer an analysis of the
phonemicization of front roundedvowels. As a sound change, umlaut
is the acquisition of the constraint ranking (33) in the
postlex-ical phonology. The vowels , (and , if that is the output
of umlaut at this point) are in comple-mentary distribution with u,
o, a.
6For example, in Russian [i] and [1] play a role in the lexical
phonology, but [i] becomes [1] after a velar consonantacross a word
boundary within a clitic group or phonological phrase. See Rubach
2000, Blumenfeld 2001, Padgett2003 for discussion of this
interesting case.
15
-
(32)The sound change: postlexical umlaut
Input Output AGREE(FRONT) IDENT(Hi) *, * IDENT(Back)uCi uCi
*
Ci * *uCe *Ce * * *
uCe uCi * *Ci * * *
uCeCe * *
Ce uCi * * *Ci * *
uCe *Ce *
In the second phase of the change, the ranking (33) enters the
word phonology. At that point, theumlaut vowels become
quasi-phonemes, present in lexical representations and constituting
inputsto the postlexical phonology. Since lexical umlaut at first
applies in a subset of the contexts inwhich postlexical umlaut
applies, this is initially a covert change. It becomes overtly
detectable atthe latest in the next phase, when back vowels are
restored before clitics with -i- in configurationslike (35), while
umlaut continues to apply within the phonological word. Formally,
this means thatIDENT(Back) is promoted in the postlexical phonology
but remains dominated by umlaut in thelexical phonology. The umlaut
vowels are not yet overtly contrastive.
In the third phase, another sound change affects the
umlaut-triggering i, j in such a way as tocauses the conditioning
of umlaut to become opaque. Let us continue to assume that this
happensthrough the promotion of REDUCE in the postlexical
phonology. Lexical umlaut vowels are unaf-fected, both phonetically
and phonologically. The change in the postlexical phonology that
masksthe context of umlaut does, however, cause them change from
covertly contrastive to overtly con-trastive elements at this
point. In principle, they might also become overtly contrastive
through theacquisition of any lexical item with an umlaut vowel in
a non-umlauting context, whether throughborrowing, onomatopoeia, or
word-formation, along the lines of the Russian example cited
above).
In Old High German, this final phase of the change is reached
when postlexical vowel reduction(by promoted REDUCE), applying to
the output of (33), produces contrasts between uCe and Ce:
16
-
(33)Overt phonologization: postlexical Vowel Reduction
Input Output REDUCE IDENT(Back) UMLAUT IDENT(Hi) *, *Ci uCi * *
*
Ci * *uCe * *
Ce * *uCe uCi * * *
Ci * * * * uCe
Ce * *Ce uCi * * * *
Ci * * *uCe *
Ce *
Although the postlexical promotion of REDUCE renders the
conditioning of umlaut opaque, thelexical umlaut vowels themselves
are retained. They just become overtly contrastive elements atthis
point.
Whereas Saussures Firewall prises apart sound change and
phonology and fences them offinto separate worlds assigned to
distinct fields of inquiry, this alternative explains
phonologizationthrough the internal stratification of phonology
into a lexical and a postlexical component. And thatstratal
organization is independently motivated by rich evidence, including
cyclic (paradigmatic)effects and phonological opacity. In fact,
secondary split is just the historical counterpart of opacity,and
Stratal OT provides the same solution to both.
This theory predicts that any phonologization process will
proceed in three overt stages. Allof them can be documented for
umlaut in Old High German. In the earliest stage, after the
soundchange enters the language, umlaut was postlexical, and hence
crossed lexical word boundaries,applying within clitic groups.
(34) a. /mag iz/ meg iz may itb. /drank ih/ drenc ih I drankc.
/gab ima/ geb ima gave himd. /girah inan/ gireh inan avenged
them
In early OHG, umlaut became a lexical process, and ceased to
apply across word boundaries, butwas still transparently
conditioned within the lexical word. The umlaut vowels were now
quasi-phonemes. In the third stage, they became overtly contrastive
as a result of sound changes thatrendered their conditioning
environments opaque.
The theory also predicts that our three criteria for
quasi-phonemes should be satisfied at thesecond stage. As far as it
is possible to tell, this is the case. The first criterion is
certainly satisfied,for umlaut at that stage became restricted to
applying inside lexical words. The second criterion
17
-
is also satisfied: umlaut vowels must have been more salient
exponents of vowel frontness thantheir triggers, at least in the
normal cases where the umlaut vowels are stressed and the context
isunstressed. The third, categoriality, is hardest to verify. The
vowels , began to be written onlylate, because the Latin alphabet
had no letters for them, but the umlaut of a was written e
alreadyat the second stage, that is, well before the reduction of
-i to -e that (on the structuralist view)caused it to become
phonemic. This could be taken as an indication that they were
perceived ascategorically distinct from a at stage 2, i.e. prior to
the point at which the structuralist theory ofphonologization
claims that they became phonemic.
Crucially, Stratal OT departs from Lexical Phonology by giving
up structure-preservation(Strata, yes, structure-preservation, no,
as the slogan of Roca 2005 has it). To put it anotherway, Stratal
OT severs the structuralist link between CONTRASTIVENESS
(unpredictable distribu-tion), a structural notion, and
DISTINCTIVENESS, a perceptual notion.7 Phonemes are contrastiveand
distinctive, allophones are non-contrastive and non-distinctive.
The other two combinationsare the surprising ones. Quasi-phonemes
are non-contrastive but distinctive that is, they are pre-dictable
but perceptually salient. The fourth logically possible case,
contrastive but nondistinctiveelements, exists as well. These are
NEAR-MERGERS (Labov 1994, Ch. 12), as when a speakerreliably
produces near-merged sounds slightly differently, but cannot
distinguish between them, inthe speech of other such speakers or in
her own speech, e.g. source and sauce in New York. Thefour cases
are shown in (36).
(35)contrastive non-contrastive
distinctive phonemes quasi-phonemesnon-distinctive near-mergers
allophones
The upshot is that while delinking contrastiveness and
distinctiveness in a sense preserves thephoneme as a theoretical
construct, it does so only by negating the founding intuition
behind it.
4.2 The embedding problem the Stratal OT solutionStratal OT also
offers a solution to the empirical problems for Saussures Firewall
that we iden-
tified above. It predicts that sound changes will relate
transparently to other postlexical processes.This has the three
consequences that we cited above as difficulties for Saussures
Firewall.
First, when conditioned allophones are created in the
postlexical constraint system, they willjust disappear when their
conditioning environments are lost, and no secondary split will
occur.In other words, sound changes can bleed existing postlexical
processes. That is, they can elim-inate some of their former
inputs. English velar to palatal assimilation is postlexical, since
it isdetermined by the context across word boundaries (e.g. sock it
vs. sock us). Stratal OT predictsthat under these circumstances it
cannot become phonemic by secondary split. Therefore, vowelfronting
and backing sound changes do not result in a contrast between front
and back k. Whilequasi-phonemes survive the loss of their
conditioning environment, postlexical allophones disap-pear.
7This link was axiomatic at least in post-Bloomfieldian Americal
structuralism. Bloomfield himself allowed dis-tinctive sounds to be
non-contrastive, for example if they were morphologically
predictable, a practice later condemnedas mixing levels. The Prague
school distinction between phonetic and allophonic processes might
also be seen asimplying the separation of distinctiveness from
contrastiveness.
18
-
The second consequence is that a sound change can feed other
existing postlexical processes,i.e. add new inputs to them.
Consider a language that has obligatory voicing assimilation of
ob-struents within some postlexical domain, such as the
phonological phrase or the phonological word(the clitic group). The
prediction is that when sound change creates sequences of
obstruents in sucha language, voicing assimilation will
automatically eliminate them, as in the previously mentionedOld
English example bidest (> *bidst) > bitst. The parenthesized
intermediate form is a virtualstage which is not pronounced but
forms part of the sound change itself.
Third, sound changes can be blocked just in case their output
does not conform to a constraintthat holds at the postlexical
level.
(36) Quasi-phonemes can condition the distribution of real
phonemesA new kind of secondary split: second-order
quasi-phonemes.
Dark and light /l/ and the goat split in British and Australian
(Simpson 1979, Wells 1982:312,Borowsky 2001).
(37) a. goat [g2t] (or [g2Ut])b. goal [gOU]
(38) Distribution of [2], [2U] before light [l]:a. [OU] before
word-level vocalic endings: goalie, holey, wholly, roller, tolling,
control-
lable, controlism, Warholiteb. [2] before stem-level vocalic
endings: polar, Mongolian, molar, condolencec. [2] in monomorphemic
words: holyd. [2] before -l endings: lowly, slowly
(39) a. Stem level: *l] * 2 OU IDENT(Back)b. Word level: *l] *
IDENT(Back) 2 OU
(40) The goat split (some British and Australian dialects)
a. goat [g2t] (or [g2Ut])b. goal [gOU]
(41) Distribution of [2] and [OU] before light [l]:a. Word-level
vocalic endings: goalie [gOUli:], holey, wholly, roller, tolling,
controllable,
controlism, Warholiteb. Stem-level vocalic endings: polar [p2l],
Mongolian, molar, condolencec. Monomorphemic: holy [h2li:]
19
-
d. Consonantal endings: lowly [l2li:], slowly
(42) a. Stem level: *l] * 2 OU IDENT-I/O(Back)b. Word level: *l]
* IDENT-I/O(Back) 2 OU
(43)Stem level *l] * *2 *OU IDENT-I/O(Back)Input: goal /gOUl/
(or /gOU/, /g2/, /g2l/)1a. [gOU] * *1b. [gOUl] * *1c. [g2] * * *1d.
[g2l] * *Input: goat /gOUt/ (or /g2t/)2a. [gOUt] *2b. [g2t] *
(44)Word level *l] * IDENT-I/O(Back) *2 *OUInput: [gOU] (from
stem level)1a. [gOU] * *1b. [gOUl] * *1c. [g2] * * *1d. [g2l] *
*Input: [gOU]i:2a. [gOUi:] * *2b. [gOUli:] *2c. [g2i:] * * *2d.
[g2li:] *
(45) The base can be bound
a. Disyllabic, front [l]: [stOU.ln"], [swOU.ln
"] (normal pronunciation)
b. Monosyllabic, back []: [stOUn], [swOUn] (marginal option)
4.3 Theoretical consequences(46) Quasi-phonemes vs.
allophones
a. Processes restricted to the stem and word domains are stem
and word level processes,respectively, i.e. they belong to the
lexical phonology. (Corollary: no structure-preservation.)
b. The output of lexical phonology bears categorical feature
specifications.
20
-
c. Quasi-phonemes are lexical allophones (non-distinctive
segments introduced in the lex-ical phonology).
d. In sound change, quasi-phonemes survive the loss of their
conditioning environment,while postlexical allophones
disappear.
(47) More predictions Intrinsically lexical processes (such as
assignment of word accent) must become opaque
if sound change masks their conditioning. Hence, segmental
changes cant affect suchprosodic structure directly.
Sound changes cant be conditioned by word boundaries (Hock
1999). Secondary split should be controlled by the postlexical
phonology. E.g. deletion of
C in V.CV will result in disyllabic V.V iff postlexical hiatus
is OK (i.e. if *ONSET isdominated by faithfulness in the
postlexical phonology).
Quasi-phonemes (unlike allophones) should interact with lexical
constraints. Features which fit into the system are more easily
lexicalized, e.g. tones in systems
which are already tonal..
(48) Structuralist doctrine Allophones: structurally
predictable, functionally non-distinctive, Phonemes: structurally
unpredictable (contrastive), functionally distinctive.
(49) Our conclusion: two kinds of allophones distinct
phonological objects (quasi-phonemes): [ i ] and [i], English [l]
and [], bid and
bit, bead and beat one phonological object, different phonetic
realizations: front and back versions of /k/,
e.g. look in, look out
(50) Two kinds of allomorphs distinct morphological objects: go
and went one morphological object, different phonological
realizations: -s, -z, - i z
(51) Quasi-phonemes (lexical allophones) undermine the
structuralist program because theyshow that predictable elements
can be distinctive.
Structuralism was wrong in categorizing processes on the basis
of contrastiveness andconditioning. The important criteria seem to
be their domain and formal properties(e.g. locality).
(52) Near-mergers The fourth logically possible case,
unpredictable but nondistinctive elements,are NEAR-MERGERS (Labov
1994, Ch. 12). A speaker reliably produces near-mergedsounds
slightly differently, but cannot distinguish between them, in the
speech of other suchspeakers or in her own speech. E.g. source and
sauce in NYC.
21
-
4.4 The life-cycle of phonological processesIn order to account
for secondary split and neogrammarian exceptionlessness, we do not
have
to stipulate that the promotion of constraints is limited to the
postlexical stratum. Constraints canbe reranked at any stratum.
Reranking at the word and stem levels simply amounts to another
typeof change, namely analogy (including LEXICAL DIFFUSION, the
extension of a lexical rule to newitems, Kiparsky 1995).
This can be illustrated with the more recent development of
umlaut in German. It has split intoa stem-level and a word-level
process. The word-level process applies to word-based
formationsmade with inflectional suffixes and some productive
derivational suffixes, illustrated here by thecomparative suffix
-er. Historically, it is the result of an analogical streamlining
of the synchronicumlaut process. It only triggers vowel fronting,
and only in a syllable adjacent to the trigger-ing suffix.
Stem-level umlaut, on the other hand, preserves the inherited
umlaut process with itshistorically accreted complexities. It
generates, in addition to vowel fronting, the
synchronicallyarbitrary rounding switch of au to oi (spelled u), as
in (54b), it applies non-locally across a syl-labic sonorant, as in
(54c,d), and it is often blocked in compounds, as in (54e).
(53) Stem Level Word Level (Word+Suffix)a. arm poor rmlich
impoverished rmer poorerb. blau blue blulich bluish blauer bluerc.
sauber clean subern to clean sauberer cleanerd. schwanger pregnant
beschwngern to impregnate schwangerer more pregnante. nah near
nchste nearest hautnahste nearest to the skinf. kalt cold klter
colder eiskalter more ice-cold
This unifies what superficially look like two distinct umlaut
processes in the synchronic phonology.German Umlaut never crosses a
syllable. This locality restriction is common to both the
word-level and stem-level versions of the process (e.g. Bubi
Bubi-lein, not *Bbi-lein little Bubi).Because r is not syllabified
at the stem level (as can be shown on independent grounds), umlaut
incases like beschwngern actually does not cross a syllable. Final
r after -C becomes syllabic at theword level, blocking umlaut in
word-based formationa like like schwang[r
"]-r.
BibliographyBERMDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO 1999. Constraint interaction
in language change: quantity in En-
glish and Germanic. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Manchester.BERMDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO, AND RICHARD M. HOGG. 2003. The
actuation problem in Op-
timality Theory: Phonologisation, rule inversion, and rule loss.
In D. Eric Holt (ed.), Opti-mality Theory and language change.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
BERMDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO 2006a. Diachronic phonology. In Paul de
Lacy (ed.), The Cam-bridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge:
CUP.http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bermudez/handbook.pdf
BERMDEZ-OTERO, RICARDO 2006b. Phonological change in Optimality
Theory. In KeithBrown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and
linguistics, 2nd edn., vol. 9, 497-505. Oxford:Elsevier.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bermudez/encyclopedia.pdf
22
-
BLEVINS, JULIETTE. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge:
CUP.BLUMENFELD, LEV. 2001. Russian palatalization in Stratal OT.
MS, Stanford University.BOOIJ, GEERT. 1996. Lexical Phonology and
the derivational residue. In Durand, Jacques &
Bernard Laks (eds.) Current Trends in Phonology: Models and
Methods. European StudiesResearch Institute and University of
Salford.
BOOIJ, GEERT. 1997. Non-derivational phonology meets Lexical
Phonology. In Iggy Roca (ed.)Derivations and constraints in the
lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
FLEMMING, EDWARD. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a
unified model of phoneticsand phonology. Phonology 18: 7-44.
HALE, MARK. 2007. Historical Linguistics: Theory and
Method.HOENIGSWALD, H. 1965. Language change and linguistic
reconstruction. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.HOGG, RICHARD. 1992. A grammar of Old English.
Oxford: Blackwell.INKELAS, SHARON, & DRAGA ZEC. (1990). The
Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.IVERSON, GREGORY K., AND JOSEPH C.
SALMONS. MS. Naturalness and the life cycle of lan-
guage change.JAKOBSON, ROMAN, GUNNAR FANT, AND MORRIS HALLE.
1952. Preliminaries to speech anal-
ysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.JANDA, RICHARD D. 2003.
Phonologization as the start of dephoneticization or, on sound
change and its aftermath: of extension, lexicalization, and
morphologization. In Joseph,Brian D. and Richard D, Janda (eds.),
The handbook of historical linguistics, p. 401-422.Oxford:
Blackwell.
JASANOFF, JAY. 2003. Plus a change. . . Lachmanns Law in Latin.
Harvard Working Papers inLinguistics 8.
KING, ROBERT D. 1973. Rule insertion. Language 49:
551-578.KIPARSKY, PAUL. 1984. On the Lexical Phonology of
Icelandic, in C.-C. Elert, I. Johnson, and
Eva Stangert (eds.), Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: Almquist
& Wiksell.KIPARSKY, PAUL. 1988. Phonological Change. In F.
Newmeyer (ed.), The Cambridge Survey of
Linguistics, Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP.KIPARSKY, PAUL. 1998.
Sievers Law as prosodic optimization. In Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig
Melchert,
and Lisi Oliver (edd.), Mr Curad: Studies in honor of Calvert
Watkins. Innsbruck: Inns-brucker Beitrge zur
Sprachwissenschaft.
KIPARSKY, PAUL. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic
Review 17:351-367, 2000.KIPARSKY, PAUL. 2006. Amphichronic
linguistics vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Lin-
guistics, 32: 217-236.KIPARSKY, PAUL. To appear.
Grammaticalization as optimization. In Diane Jonas (ed.),
Proceed-
ings of the 8th Diachronic Generative Syntax
Conference.KIPARSKY, VALENTIN. 1932. Johdatusta fonologiaan.
Virittj 36: 230-250.
23
-
LIBERMAN, ANATOLY. 1991. Phonologization in Germanic: Umlaut and
vowel shifts. In ElmerH. Antonsen and Hans Hock (eds.) Stfcrft.
Studies in Germanic linguistics: Select papersfrom the 1st and 2nd
symposium on Germanic linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
PADGETT, JAYE. 2003. Contrast and post-velar fronting in
Russian. Natural Language & Lin-guistic Theory 21: 39-87.
ROCA, IGGY. 2005. Strata, yes, structure-preservation, no. In
Geerts, Twan, Ivo van Ginneken,and Haike Jacobs (eds.) Romance
languages and linguistic theory 2003. Amsterdam: Ben-jamins.
RUBACH, JERZY. 2000. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17,
39-64.SCHULTE, MICHAEL. 1998. Grundfragen der Umlautphonemisierung.
Berlin: de Gruyter.TWADDELL, W. FREEMAN. 1938. A note on OHG
umlaut. Monatshefte fr deutschen Unterricht
30.177-181.
24