EGGSchool,BanjaLukaJuly/August2018

An Introduction to Historical Phonology 2

PatrickHoneyboneUniversityofEdinburgh

patrick.honeybone@ed.ac.uk

Thecontentsofthesession

1.TheFOOT-STRUTsplitonelasttime:patterningandexplanation2.Differenttypesofchange:underlyingandsurfacechange

3.Addingrulesandreanalysis

4.Phonologisationandphonemicisation5.Rulesandwords:analogy

TheFOOT-STRUTsplitonelasttime:patterningandexplanation

TopursuetheFOOT-STRUTsplitonelasttime...

• whatwasitsprecisepatterning?

• canwegetanywaytowardsansweringwhyithappened?Canwegetanywaytowardsansweringwhyithappened?=question13

• theveryexistenceofadialectalsplit(withsomedialectschanging,andsomenot)showsthatwecan’tfullyexplainit

• toexplainachange=tobeabletopredictthatitwasgoingtohappeninmid-17thcenturysouthernEngland

o wecouldn’thopetodothat,butcanwegetanywaytowards‘explanation’?o therearedifferentanswerstothisquestion–someclaimwecangetsomewayinthisdirection

Forexample...

...inthetimerunninguptotheinnovationoftheFOOT-STRUTsplit,Lass(1999,87)

describesagradualloweringofaspectsoftheEnglishshort/lax/checkedvowelsystem:

Thereisorthoepic‘earlyphonetic’workfromthemiddleofthe17thcenturywhichdescribesthevowels,and:

• theTRAPvowelseemsbestanalysedasfrontandlowish,below[ɛ]• theLOTvowelhas“themostopenandfullsoundofall”,sowassomethinglike[ɒ]

TheFOOT-STRUTsplitoccurredaroundwhereLassleavesoffhere

• therelevantsegmentalsystemintowhichitwasinnovatedwassomethinglikethis:

ɪ ʊ

ɛ æ ɒ

when these vowels lengthened, they merged with the lower ME /ε", ɔ"/rather than with higher /e", o"/: meat /mε"t / < OE mete, nose /nɔ"zə/ <nosu. These mergers would be expected if the inputs were lower rather thanhigher. On the other hand, the short vowels could still have been highermid, with lower allophones in this context: neither argument is conclusive.

The frequent identification of the output of ME /ε"/ with French /ε"/,and of ME /e/ as its short congener, suggests lowering by the 1550s. Theevidence for /o/ is less clear; some writers seem to show closer values intothe seventeenth century, and [e, o] and [ε, ɔ] may have coexisted. By the1650s ME /o/ had lowered further: for Wallis it is the openest ‘guttural’(! back) vowel (3.4.2.2). Cooper (1687: 8) calls it ‘o guttural’; it is made ‘bythe root of the Tongue moved to the inner part of the Pallat, while themiddle . . . is depressed, which causes the greatest space between the forepart of the Tongue and Pallat’. It ‘hath the most open and full sound of all’.Such descriptions clearly suggest [ɒ]. So lowering began no later than the1650s, and was established by the end of the century.

Given the story of ME /a/ (3.4.1.1) and the lowering of /e/ and twolowerings of /o/, the short vowel system has so far shown the followingtransformations from c. 1400–1650 (further developments in the nextsection):

(25) 1400 1550 1650High i u i u i uHigh-mid e o ↓

Low-mid ε ε↓

Low a a & ɒ

ME /o/ has an alternative development, producing frequent early doubletswith /a/, later /&/. Suggestive spellings occur from around the 1420s (StEditha: starme ‘storm’, crass ‘cross’). From the sixteenth century suchspellings and rhymes become frequent: Queen Elizabeth writes stap ‘stop’,Spenser (The Faerie Queene VI.8.47) rhymes armes, harmes with stormes,Shakespeare (The Rape of Lucretia 554–6) rhymes dally with folly. Gil (1619)condemns this pronunciation as affected; his Mopseys (see 3.4.2.1) sayskalerz for scholars. Unrounded ME /o/ is also a well-known foppish stereo-type in restoration and later drama (Wyld 1936: 240ff).

3.4.1.3 ME /i/ (bit), /u/ (put, cut), and shortened /o"/ (blood, good)

The handbook consensus is that ME /i, u/ had become [I, υ] by earlyMiddle English, if not even Old English times. When (rarely) this position

Phonology and morphology

87Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008

Downloaded from Cambridge Histories Online by IP 129.215.17.188 on Fri Feb 06 11:28:37 GMT 2015.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521264761.004

Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2015

OnewayofperceivingoftheFOOT-STRUTsplitisthatit‘fillsthegap’inthevowelsystem:

ɪ ʊ

ɛ ʌ

æ ɒ

Couldthisbethe‘cause’ofthechange?tofillthegapandproducesymmetry?

• structuralisthistoricalphonologywouldsayso

• it’sanappealingproposal–thereseemstobenootherobviousreasonwhythechangeshouldhappenandit’snotaverycommontypeofchange

o butit’sastrangekindof‘cause’–it’snotnecessary–northerndialectsgotonperfectlywellwithoutthechange,andwiththegap

Couldweeverfindasolutiontotheactuationproblem?whichwouldallowustosay

wecan‘explain’changes

• inordertobeabletofullyexplainwhychangesoccurinparticularplacesandtimes,weneedtobeabletopredictpreciselywhenparticularchangeswilloccur

• historicalphonologycannotdothis,butitcanengageinsomesortofprediction

• Lass(1980)hasmadequitesomethingofallthis:“explanationsofsoundchangesinthestrictsensedonotexist”(1980,42);hederivesthisclaimfromtheassumption,

whichhehimselfhassincedescribedas“abigoted,coarselypositivistassault”

(Lass1997,332),thatonlyonekindofexplanationis‘realexplanation’–

deductive-nomologicalexplanation(Lass1980,9):

o “The‘best’explanationis‘X,becauseitcouldn’thavebeenotherwise(becauseY)’...Theexplanationtypethatseemstocomeclosestisthe...‘Hempel-Oppenheim’or

‘Deductive-Nomological’schema,whichcharacterisesthephysicalsciences.Itis

basedondeductiveinferenceand,asitsnameimplies,‘laws’,andis‘ideal’inthesensethatawell-formedexplanationhastheformofadeduction,andisin

principleequivalenttoaprediction.”

TherehavebeenmanyresponsestoLassaboutthis...

• Inoneoftheseresponses,Aitchison(1987,12)commentsthato “...theexactrelationshipbetweenpredictionandexplanationisobscure,partlybecauseofthevaguenessoftheterms‘predict’and‘explain’.Eachofthemisused

tocoverseveraldifferentlevels.Predictioncaninvolveweakprediction(somethingislikelytohappen),strongprediction(somethingwillhappen,though

exactlywhenandwhereisunclear)andabsoluteprediction(somethingwill

happen,andthetimeandplacecanbespecifiedinadvance).”o Aitchison’spointsaresharedbyOhala(1987),whoproposesthatexplanationinhistoricalphonologyshouldbedeductive-probabilistic,ie,abletoaccountforwhat

islikely,notwhatisnecessary

Historicalphonologyoftenmakepredictionsaboutwhatislikelytohappenintermsofchangeinanyparticularphonologicalsystem

• butisthisallitcando?that’snottestable!

• manywouldclaimthathistoricalphonologyshouldalsoaimtopredictwhatcannotoccur:

o givenaparticularphonologicalsystem,onlychangesoftypexshouldbepossible

o inthatsystem,certaintypesofchangesshouldbeimpossible,creatingin-principletestablehypotheses

TheFOOT-STRUTsplitreallyonelasttime:patterning

Whatwasthepatterningofthechange?

=question5(and(10))

Asthechangeisasplit,wewouldexpectsomephonologicalconditioning

PDYorkshire PDRPlung [lʊŋ] [lʌŋ]

blush [blʊʃ] [blʌʃ]

cup [khʊp] [khʌp]

gulf [ɡʊɫf] [ɡʌɫf]love [lʊv] [lʌv]

bush [bʊʃ] [bʊʃ]put [phʊt] [phʊt]

full [fʊɫ] [fʊɫ]

wolf [wʊɫf] [wʊɫf]

pull [phʊɫ] [phʊɫ]

Atsomepointinthe17thcentury,theinnovationʊ>ʌoccurred

• atthatpoint,therewassomethinglikecomplementarydistribution,sothechangeinvolvedtheadditionofʊ®ʌ/[COR,DOR]__ {[¬LAB]__,¬U__}

• itcouldbeinhibitedwhenthe/ʊ/wasdirectlyadjacenttocertainconsonants

• forexample:labialconsonantslike/p,b,f,w/

• forthemostpart,wheneverthechangedidnotoccur,/ʊ/followedalabial

Thismakessenseif‘sharing’subsegmentalmaterialmakesasegmentstronger,and

thusabletoresisttheinnovationofaprocess

put full

Butthechangeisnowasplit–thisinfactentailsthattwochangesareinvolved• thereisatleastoneminimalpairnow:

put putt [pʊt] [pʌt]

• severalwordsnowhave[ʌ]followingalabial:

fudge [fʌdy ʒ] putt [phʌt] but [bʌt]

PATRICK HONEYBONE

190

(19) ! .............. " f .............. " x x x x • • • •

|occlusion| |frication| |u | |u |

While a fuller picture of this process would also consider other inhibitory segmental combinations, the sharing of |u |/|labiality| is indisputably the prime inhibiting factor in those words where /"/ is retained. The ‘English "#change’ thus seems to provide us with a case where the sharing of elements between adjacent consonants and vowels serves to inhibit the innovation of a phono-logical process through melodic means. It also reinforces the identity of |labiality| and |u |. 5.2.2 Spanish $-elision. The final case of process inhibition considered here further illustrates the inhibitory effect of element sharing in consonant–vowel sequences. It also allows us to further follow the path of returning to reconsider the nature of the ‘spelled-out’ element names which were adopted in §2.2. The process in question is an aspect of what we can refer to, following Harris-Northall (1990), as the ‘second Spanish consonant shift’. This was a quite general process, which was in part responsible for the introduction of the synchronic lenition processes discussed in §5.1.3. It also involved, among other things, the elision of some of the set of already existing %&#'#$(, which had themselves been introduced by spirantisation in the ‘first Spanish consonant shift’. To save space and avoid confusion, I focus here on the fate of the seg-ment %$( in (20), and only on melodic effects in the inhibition of this process. (20) 0 1

# $# →# Ø The phonological conditioning here is somewhat coarse, as it was in §5.2.1, but %$( was mostly lost (hence Vulgar Latin forms such as digitu “finger”, legale “loyal”, magistru “teacher”, which at the time of the shift all had %$(, correspond with the Modern Spanish forms dedo, leal, maestro).9 It is the environments where the elision of %$( is inhibited that are interesting for our purposes here, and Harris-Northall explains that “%$( is maintained before a back vowel … though the low vowel offered less resistance” (Harris-Northall

9 All data in the discussion of the second Spanish consonant shift is taken from Harris-Northall.

HowcanweunderstandthechangesinvolvedintheFOOT-STRUTsplit?

Wehavedescribedthefoot-strutsplitas:

• ʊ>ʊ:ʌ•

• ʊ®ʌ/[COR,DOR]__

Howdoesthisfitinwithwhatweknowaboutphonology...?

feet feel feeling UR /fiːt/ /fiːl/ /fiːl+ɪŋ/

syllabification .fiːt. .fiːl. .fiː.lɪŋ.

l-velarisation — fiːɫ — HVB — fɪəɫ —

SR [fiːt] [fɪəɫ] [fiːlɪŋ]

2

Tosaythatthesetwolectsarecloselyrelatedmeansthattheydivergednotallthatlongago–theywerethesamerelativelyrecently• astheyarenowdifferentintheirvowelphonologyachangemusthaveoccurred• elsewhywouldtherebethesamecorrespondenceinthefirstwholesetofwords?

Thedatainthetwosetsofwordsaboveisthusevidenceforhistoricalphonology• someofthemostcrucialevidenceforpaststatesoflanguages–someofthebestevidencefor

phonologicalchange–comesfromthecomparisonofcontemporarysystemswhicharerelatedo thisiscomparativeevidence

Whatkindofchangegaverisetothedata• fromthisdata,thereseemtobetwooptionso changesaretypicallyshownusingthediachronic‘shaftlessarrow’

ʊ>ʌin(thehistoryof)RP(andrelateddialects)orʌ>ʊin(thehistoryof)Yorkshire(andrelateddialects)

• thischangeismoreinterestingthanthat,though:o itinvolvesdifferentnumbersofcontrastso inPDRP,/ʊ:ʌ/–thisisawayofshowingthat[ʊ]contrastswith[ʌ](asinputvsputt)o inPDYorkshire,thereisnosuchcontrast:/ʌ/doesnotexist–thismeansthateveryword

witheither[ʌ]or[ʊ]inRPhas[ʊ]inYorkshire,soputandputtsoundexactlythesame

• thismeansthattherewaseitherasplitinonesetofvarieties(includingRP)...

ʊ ʊ>ʊ:ʌ =acontrastdevelopedʊ ʌ

• ...oramergerintheothersetofvarieties(includingYorkshire)

ʊ ʊ:ʌ>ʊ =acontrastwaslost ʊ ʌ

WehaveawiderangeofevidenceforEnglishwhichputsbeyonddoubtwhichchangeactuallyoccurred• wecancomparethedatawithlinguisticsystemsthataremoredistantlyrelatedo eg,lunghasthefollowingcognateinPDGerman:Lunge/lʊŋə/o eg,bushhasthefollowingcognateinPDGerman:Busch/bʊʃ/o wordsinbothsetshave/ʊ/inmoredistantlyrelatedsystemssoitseemslikelythatthe

olderEnglishstate(fromwhichbothPDRPandPDYorkshirearederived)hadonly/ʊ/

Theothermainsourceofevidenceforpastphonologicalstatesinmanylanguages(includingEnglish)comesfromwriting• inearlystagesofmoredistantlyrelatedlanguages,bothsetsofwordsarespeltwith‹u›o OldFrisianlungeno OldNorsebuskr• thisindicatesthattheylikelyhadabackhighroundedvowel(like[ʊ],butnotlike[ʌ])

Englishitselfhaswrittenrecordswhichgobackforaroundamillenniumandahalf• inearlierstagesofEnglish,bothsetsofwordsarealsospeltwith‹u›o OldEnglishlungen‘lung’o MiddleEnglishputhe‘put’

• indeed,thefactthatwenowspellmanywordsinbothsetswith‹u›inPDEnglishspellingisevidenceforourpurposes,too,becauseinthiscasethespellingsystemreflectsearlierstagesofthephonologyofalanguage(becausethephonologyhaschangedbutthespellinghasnot)

Awiderangeofevidenceshowsthatthischangewasasplitin(thehistoryof)varietieslikeRPo itisoftencalledthe‘FOOT/STRUTsplit’inworkonEnglish

Immediatelypre-change,thephonologyisstraightforward:

bush lungUR /bʊʃ/ /lʊŋ/

SR [bʊʃ] [lʊŋ]

Immediatelypost-change,wecanunderstandthesituationlikethis:

• thisinvolvestheadditionofaruletothephonologyofthedialectsinquestion

bush lungUR /bʊʃ/ /lʊŋ/

F-Ssplit — lʌŋ ʊ®ʌ/[COR,DOR]__

SR [bʊʃ] [lʌŋ] =predictabledistributionof[ʌ]

Thesecondstageofthechangegivesas‘post-change2’situation:

• thisinvolvesareanalysisofURsandthelossoftherule–thisinthesegmentalsplit

bush lungUR /bʊʃ/ /lʌŋ/

SR [bʊʃ] [lʌŋ] =unpredictabledistribution–nothingcontrols[ʌ]

Thisallowsustounderstanddatalikethis:

• thereisatleastoneminimalpairnow:

put putt [pʊt] [pʌt]

• severalwordsnowhave[ʌ]followingalabial:

fudge [fʌdy ʒ] putt [phʌt] but [bʌt]

Howcanthisdataoccuriftherewasarulealongthelinesofʊ®ʌ/[COR,DOR]__?

• howcanweaccountforwhatseemlikeexceptions?

• fudgeiseasilytickedoff...

o itwasfirstattestedwithcertaintyin1770(possiblyearlierbutthisdoesnotseemsureorcommon,accordingtotheOxfordEnglishDictionary)

o thismeansthattheword,andthephonologicalform[fʌdy ʒ]wasinvented(andhenceenteredthelanguage)‘afterthechangewasfinished’

o =afterthereanalysisofʌintoURs=afterthesecondstageofthechangeo atthispoint,[ʌ]wasfreetooccurafteranykindofconsonant

• puttalsohasastraightforwardexplanation

o putt‘trytohitagolfballintotheholebystrikingitgentlysothatitrollsacrossthegreen’

o golfisaScottishinvention

o thehistoricalphonologyofScotsisnotthesameasthatofEnglish

• puttwasborrowedinEnglishfromScots‘afterthechangewasfinished’

o itsfirstpossibleattestationinEnglishis1690,thesecondis1754

WhathappenedinScots?

• ScotsunderwentachangewhichlooksabitliketheFOOT-STRUTsplit,butwasactuallyentirelyunrelated

o theFOOT-STRUTsplitstoppedattheisoglosshalfwayupEngland

• Maguire(2012)setsouttherelevantchangeinthehistoryofScots:So,allwordswhichkept[ʊ]inEnglishhave

[ʌ]

• thereisno[ʊ]inScots

• but–grammaticalvocabulary...

- whydoesthismatter...?- session3

Thischangeaffectedtwovowels:

• /ʊ/and/ɪ/

Thechangewasunconditioned

• allwordswereaffected• thereisnowno/ʊ/inScots• allwordsthathad[ʊ]nowhave[ʌ]o bush [bʌʃ]

o woman [wʌmən]o put [pʌt]

Scotsput[pʌt]wasborrowedintoEnglishasputtafterthereanalysisofʌintoURs=afterthesecondstageofthechange

8

The Northern (Scots) GVS revisited

ii > ei (> i) white

uu about

ee > ii sheep

oo > øø (> various) boot

> ee (> ii) wheat

> oo foal

aa > (> ee) spade

i u

e o

a

i

a a

e o

The GVS - revision

Some other vowel shifts in the history of English and Scots

• The Scots short vowel shifts

• The New Zealand short vowel shift

• The Northern Cities shift

• Northumberland fronting

The Scots Short Vowel Shifts

• In many varieties of Broad Scots, short vowels underwent a number of changes which appear to involve chain shifting

• High short vowels lowered (shared by almost all varieties)

– e.g. [ ] in bit, in, milk, [ ] in butter, cup, hut

The low and mid short vowels

• The mid and low short vowels developed differently in different areas

• Three patterns are evident:

– the Counter-clockwise Shift (the southeast and the Borders)

– the Clockwise Shift (Shetland and Orkney Scots)

– the Mixed Shift (northeast Scotland)

The Counter-clockwise Shift

> /æ/ (or even /a/), /a/ > / > /o/ (e.g. Berwickshire bed [bad], black [bl k], broth [broθ]; Wettstein 1942)

o

ɔæ

a

• butislessstraightforward...

o thiswordhas‘always’beeninEnglish(OEbutan)

o thereisno‘borrowing’explanationtoaccountforit

o itisgrammatical/functionalword,nota‘lexical’wordlikefull,putt,wool,love

–couldfunctionwordsbehavedifferently?

–couldtherebeaphonologicalsubgeneralisationthataccountsforit?

Whydoesthismatter...?

• wewillseeinlatersessionsthatthisisarguablyveryimportanto isphonologicalchangeexceptionless?

Change at different phonological levels = different ‘types’ of change

Wehaveseenthatthediachronicarrow>hasaproblem:

• itdoesnotbydifferentiatebetweensegmentsofdifferentphonologicalstatuses

o whataboutthedistinctionbetweenunderlying(‘phonemic’,contrastive)phonologyandsurface(‘allophonic’,predictable)phonology?

o canchangeoccuratbothlevels?

o wecouldexplorethisonthebasisoftheFOOT-STRUTsplit,butlet’smoveon...Let’sreturntothischange:

• muːsi>...>maɪs‘mice’

o thisdataisratherfamousinhistoricalphonology,andhasbeendiscussedmanytimes

o thechangesinvolvedwillallowustoconsiderchangeatmultiplelevels,andthenotionofphonologisation

Aswehaveseen,multiplestageswereinvolvedinthischange,includingatleast:

muːsi > myːs > miːs > maɪs

• wewillonlyconsiderthefirstofthese–andwewillseethatevenmorewasinvolved

Oneofthemainchangesinvolvedinthisdataisoftencalledi-umlaut• thisisamajorchangethataffectedanumberofvowelsinthetransitionfromWestGermanictoOldEnglish,approximatelybetweenthesecondandfifthcenturyCE

• weonlyconsiderWGmc/u,uː/–othervowelswerealsoaffectedinthechange• crucially,asjustdescribed,thischangeaffectedsegments,notwordso theancestorofmicewasonlyaffectedbecauseithad/uː/

Pr-Gmc OE(spellingandtranscription) trumjan trymman [trymːan] ‘strengthen’ kuni cynn [kynː] ‘race,geneation’

muːsiz mys [myːs] ‘mice’

Thechangeaffectedvowelslikethebackhighvowels

• thesevowelsharmonisedwithafollowing[i]or[j]

• thelongandshortvowelchangesarereallypartofthesamechange

o u(ː)>y(ː) /__(C)i,j

–thiscanbeunderstoodas:[+back,+high]>[–back] /__(C)[–back,+high]

AswhenweconsideredtheintroductionoftheFOOT-STRUTsplit,wecanunderstand

thisastheinnovationofarule

• u(ː)®y(ː)/__(C)i,j

Wheni-umlautwasfirstinnovated,thedistributionof[u]and[y]waspredictable

• [y]occurredwhenan/i/or/j/followed;[u]occurredelsewhere

• thephonesarephonetically/featurallysimilar

o thereisthuseveryreasontoassumethati-umlautwasinnovatedasaphonologicalrule

• however,the/i,j/werelaterlostduetoseparatechanges

o withthis,thei-umlautrulecouldnolongerbesynchronicallyactive,andtherewouldbeareanalysiswhichcreatedofnewunderlyingsegments,like/y,yː/

o therewerethusnewcontrasts:/u:y/and/uː:yː/

! 6!

Taking!phonological!theory!seriously!in!understanding!phonological!change!If!we!take!phonology!seriously!when!we!consider!historical!phonology!a!range!of!other!options!open!up,!extending!the!ways!in!which!we!can!consider!the!interaction!of!changes!and!of!the!phonological!objects!involved!in!changes!beyond!those!that!were/are!considered!in!traditional!historical!phonology.!!

It!is!standard!in!phonological!theory!to!distinguish!between!two!main!levels!of!representation!in!the!description!of!synchronic!phonological!knowledge;!some!theories!argue!for!more!than!two!levels,!too:!!

‘phonemic’!=!underlying!=!lexical!representation!=!UR!!

!‘phonetic!‘!=!!surface!!=!!derived!!representation!=!SR!!

One!traditional!way!to!map!the!UR!onto!the!SR!in!generative!phonology!was!(and!for!many!phonologists!still!is)!through!the!use!of!the!phonological!rule!and!the!units!that!exist!at!distinct!phonological!levels!are!thought!to!be!made!up!of!complex!representations!(using!features,!syllabic!constituents!etc)!• the!mapping!from!the!UR!to!the!SR!is!known!as!a!derivation!• there!has!been!considerable!disagreement!as!to!how!different!the!UR!and!SR!can!be!due!to!

a!derivation:!how!abstract!is!phonology?!• current!work!in!Optimality!Theory!works!with!a!different!way!of!mapping!UR!to!SR,!but!

the!two!levels!remain,!if!in!a!somewhat!reinterpreted!way!!

One!problem!with!the!way!that!the!‘>’!convention!is!often!used!in!historical!phonology!is!that!it!does!not!by!itself!differentiate!between!segments!of!different!phonological!statuses!• if!there’s!a!distinction!between!an!underlying!(‘phonemic’)!and!surface!(‘allophonic’)!level,!

we!need!to!consider!whether!change!can!occur!at!either!level;!and!it!can...!!

Surface!change!without!underlying!change:!• in!the!recent!history!of!Southern!English!English:!

!

/r/!→![ɹ]! >! /r/!→![ʋ]!!

o this!could!be!described!as![ɹ]!>![ʋ]!o there!is!no!change!in!the!contrasts!(the!underlying!segments)!involved!!

Underlying!change!without!surface!change:!• the!development!of!iNumlaut!in!the!history!of!English!is!relevant!here:!o originally,!there!were!front!rounded!vowels!derived!by!rule,!as!we!have!seen!o eg,!!u!→!y!/!__!(C)!i,!j!!

When!iNumlaut!was!first!innovated,!the!distribution!of![u]!and![y]!was!predictable!• [y]!occurred!when!an!/i/!or!/j/!followed;![u]!occurred!elsewhere!• the!phones!are!phonetically/featurally!similar!o there!is!every!reason!to!assume!that!iNumlaut!was!originally!innovated!as!a!phonological!rule!

(a!case!of!‘allophony’)!• however,!once!the!/i,!j/!were!lost!(due!to!separate!changes),!the!rules!ceased!to!be!

synchronically!active,!due!to!a!reanalysis!which!created!of!new!underlying!segments,!like!/y/!o there!were!thus!new0contrasts!o eg,!/u!:!y/!! ! ‘mouse’! ! ‘mice’!(i) !!PGmc! ! /muːs/!→![muːs]! ! /muːs+iz/!→![muːsiz]!(ii) !!introduction!of!umlaut!(+!loss!of!Nz)! /muːs/!→![muːs]! ! /muːs+i/!→![myːsi]!(iii) !loss!of!Ni!+!reanalysis!=!contrast!0 /muːs/!→![muːs]! ! /myːs/!→![myːs]!!

Let’sgothroughthisslowly...

• stage(i)=Proto-Germanic=nothingtosay...

UR /muːs/ /muːs+iz/

SR [muːs] [muːsiz]

• stage(ii)=theintroductionofthei-umlautrule(plusunrelatedlossof[-z])o NB:thisinvolvessurfacechangewithnounderlyingchangeo thedistributionof[uː]and[yː]ispredictable

UR /muːs/ /muːs+i/

i-umlaut — myːsi u(ː)®y(ː)/__(C)i,j

SR [muːs] [myːsi]

• stage(iii)=lossof[-i],reanalysisandlossofthei-umlautruleo NB:thisinvolvesunderlyingchangewithnosurfacechangeo thedistributionof[uː]and[yː]isnolongerpredictable,somustbeunderlyingo thisintroducesa‘phonemicsplit’intothelanguage:/uː/>/uː:yː/

UR /muːs/ /myːs/

SR [muːs] [myːs]

Let’sfocusonstages(ii)and(iii)

• stage(ii)=theintroductionofthei-umlautrule(plusunrelatedlossof[-z])o thedistributionof[uː]and[yː]ispredictable

UR /muːs/ /muːs+i/

i-umlaut — myːsi u(ː)®y(ː)/__(C)i,j

SR [muːs] [myːsi]

• stage(iii)=lossof[-i],reanalysisandlossofthei-umlautruleo thedistributionof[uː]and[yː]isnolongerpredictable,somustbeunderlying

UR /muːs/ /myːs/

SR [muːs] [myːs]

Thedifferencebetween(ii)and(iii)issometimesknownasphonologisation

• itisbetter,though,tocallitphonemicisationbecausephonologisationimpliesthatsomethingcomeunderphonologicalcontrol,andthatdoesnotneedtoinvolvethe

‘phonemic’orunderlyinglevel–isn’tstage(ii)phonological,too?

Phonologisationandphonemicisation

Kiparsky(2015)pointsoutsomeproblemswiththenotionofphonologisation

(=phonemicisation,‘underlyingification’):

Ashenotes,theseproblemshavelongbeenrecognised:

Whydidthelossofconditioningenvironmentnotleadtothelossof[yː]?

UR /muːs/ /muːs+i/ UR /muːs/ /muːs/

i-umlaut — myːsi > SR [muːs] [muːs]

SR [muːs] [myːsi]

• didyːbecomeunderlyingwhileitwasstillpredictable...?

Paul Kiparsky

This mechanism, called secondary split

conditioning environment goes away (as here by reduction of the full vowels to -e or to -ۑ -ronment not always

5 phonologization problem and the non-phonologization problem, respectively.

Both problems are deep ones, and reach the foundations of phonological theory. The phonologization problem has been at the core of phonological theorizing, but has no generally agreed solution. The non-phonologization problem has barely begun to be dis-cussed. I begin by reviewing the two main proposed solutions to the phonologization

--

The best-known proposal for resolving the phonologization problem is due to -

turalism to diachronic neogrammarianism. The key idea is that a sound change is -

ingly popular alternative proposal is to enrich the phonology with phonetic informa-tion, abandoning the concept of a phoneme as a contrastive entity, and positing that phonemes-to-be somehow get phonologized before they become contrastive through the loss of the conditioning factor.

its consequences are a sharp divide between synchrony and diachrony. This division is not merely a methodological one, still less a practical one or one based on conventional boundaries between academic subdisciplines. It is a conceptually necessary conse-quence of arbitrariness.

the very nature of things [ … ] in systems of values.

-

5

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Wed Oct 14 2015, NEWGEN

__10.4.1.57_Acad_US_UK_Acad_UK_Honeybone190214OUK_MANUSCRIPT_17_Revised_proof_Revises_III_Production_Appln_Book.indb 564 10/19/2015 10:22:53 PM

Paul Kiparsky

This mechanism, called secondary split

conditioning environment goes away (as here by reduction of the full vowels to -e or to -ۑ -ronment not always

5 phonologization problem and the non-phonologization problem, respectively.

Both problems are deep ones, and reach the foundations of phonological theory. The phonologization problem has been at the core of phonological theorizing, but has no generally agreed solution. The non-phonologization problem has barely begun to be dis-cussed. I begin by reviewing the two main proposed solutions to the phonologization

--

The best-known proposal for resolving the phonologization problem is due to -

turalism to diachronic neogrammarianism. The key idea is that a sound change is -

ingly popular alternative proposal is to enrich the phonology with phonetic informa-tion, abandoning the concept of a phoneme as a contrastive entity, and positing that phonemes-to-be somehow get phonologized before they become contrastive through the loss of the conditioning factor.

its consequences are a sharp divide between synchrony and diachrony. This division is not merely a methodological one, still less a practical one or one based on conventional boundaries between academic subdisciplines. It is a conceptually necessary conse-quence of arbitrariness.

the very nature of things [ … ] in systems of values.

-

5

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Wed Oct 14 2015, NEWGEN

__10.4.1.57_Acad_US_UK_Acad_UK_Honeybone190214OUK_MANUSCRIPT_17_Revised_proof_Revises_III_Production_Appln_Book.indb 564 10/19/2015 10:22:53 PM

AsKiparsky(2015)underlines,phonologisationofthistypedoesnotalwaysoccur

• hereisaslightlytruncatedexampleo velarpalatalisationisalong-standing,semi-universalprocess:k,ɡ®c,ɟ/__i,ɪ,e,ɛ

o atastageofMiddleEnglish,thiswouldhavegivenderivationslikethefollowing

gull girl

UR /ɡul/ /ɡirl/

velarpalatalisation — ɟirl =predictabledistributionof[ɟ]

SR [ɡul] [ɟirl]

• inEarlyModernEnglish,pre-rvowelscentralised,thisincludedir>ɜː

o thisremovedtheenvironmentforvelarpalatalisationtoapply,likethelossof-iremovedtheenvironmentfori-umlaut

o thisdidnotleadtothephonologisation/phonemicisationof/ɡ:ɟ/(*/ɡul,ɟɜːl/)

o =theNON-PHONOLOGISATIONPROBLEM

o whydidthelossofconditioningenvironmentleadtothelossof[ɟ]?

• ɟclearlydidnotbecomeunderlyingwhileitwasstillpredictable...?

Wewillleavethisasacliff-hanger:

• ifthisisright,phonologisation/phonemicisationcanoccur,butdoesnothavetooccur

Rules and words: analogy

Let’sreturntosomeofthefirstdatathatwesaw:

[koren] > [t ʃoːsen] English ‘chosen’

[hilpθ] > [hɛlps] English ‘helps’ Onecrucialpointisthattheabovediachroniccorrespondencesareofafundamentallydifferentkindtothefollowing:

[muːsi] > [maɪs] English ‘mice’

[pund] > [pfund] HighGerman ‘pound’

[ɡʷénh2-] > [ben] Irish ‘woman’

[keture] > [tʃwetiri] B/C/M/S~SerBo-Croat ‘four’

Aswenotedwhenwefirstsawthem,allofthesediachronicequationsaretrue,butmostofthemaremissingthepoint

• becausethechangesinvolveddidn’tjustaffectindividualwords

InOldEnglish,thepastparticipleof‘choose’was(ge)coren[koren]

• inPresent-DayEnglish,itischosen[t ʃoːsen]

• isthis(inpart)duetoachangeofthistype?r>z/V_V

o thiswouldbeveryodd–whataboutalltheexceptions:

narrow OEnearo

weary OEwerig

etc,etc...

• isthisachangethatonlyoccurredinoneword?

o yes!butitisachangeofadifferenttypetothosethatwehavebeenconsidering

o itdoesnotinvolvetheadditionofarule

Thechangeisduetoanalogicallevelling

• inordertounderstandthis,weneedtoconsidertheparadigmthatthewordwaspartofwhenthechangeoccurred

o insomeformsoftheverbthatisnowchoosethenon-initialconsonantwas/r/inOE

o itisnow/z/becauseofanalogicalparadigmlevelling

o =becauseoftheinfluenceofotherformsofthesamemorpheme:

OE ModEinfinitive ceosan choose1st-personsingularpast ceas chose2nd-personsingularpast cure chose the/r/inOEisactuallyduetoan

3rd-personsingularpast ceas chose ancientchangewhichincludedpluralpast curon chose s>r/V__V

presentparticiple ceosende choosingpastparticiple (ge)coren chosen

• therewasasibilantinmostforms(includingthemostcommonforms)soasibilantwasassumedtobethe‘rightconsonanttouse’inpastforms,too

o thesibilantwasanalogisedintothepastparticipleinordertoregularisetheparadigm

o thisisthusnota‘soundchange’–itisnotaregularphonologicalchange

Thisisnotaregularchange–ithasnothappenedinallverbsthatusedtohavean

alternationbetween/r/and/z/• formsoftheverbthatisnowbehadthesamealternationinOE,butthisparadigmhasnotlevelled:

OE ModE

1st-personsingularpast wæs was2nd-personsingularpast wære were3rd-personsingularpast wæs waspluralpast wæron wereAnalogyisinherentlytiedtospecificwords(ormorphemes)

• weexpectanalogytooccurinoneword/morphemeandnotinallthathavethesamephonologicalenvironment

Whataboutthiscase...?

[hilpθ] > [hɛlps] English ‘helps’

Thesamekindofstoryholdhere:

• thisisnotduetoachangeofthetypei>ɛ

Tounderstandthis,weneedtoconsidertheparadigmoftheverbinOEWyatt(1926)

ThePresent-DayEnglishform

[hɛlps]owesisvoweltoparadigmlevelling

• themajorityofformsoftheverbhadamidvowel,so

thatwasassumedtobethe

‘rightvoweltouse’in2ndand3rdpersonforms,too

Analogycanleadtomanykindsofchanges

• somearedescribedunderthelabelfour-partanalogy

• insuchchanges,word-formscanbereplacedonthebasisofpatternsinalanguage

o forexample,anMiddleEnglishpluralfor‘cow’waskyn/kine[kiːn,kaɪn]

o inPresent-DayEnglish,itiscows[kaʊz]

• isthisdue(inpart)toachangelikethis?n>z/__#

o whataboutalltheexceptions:man,ten,etcetc?No!Thisisalsoduetoanalogy,asexemplifiedhere(fromHock2003)

Thisgivesusadistinctionbetween:

(i)purelyphonologicallyconditionedchange=‘normal’phonologicalchange=‘soundchange’

–suchchangeshavebeencalled‘N-changes’(‘neogrammarian’,‘natural’changes)

(ii) changeinphonologicalformswhichisnotphonologicallyconditioned:analogy,borrowing

–suchchangeshavebeencalled‘A-changes’(‘analogy’,‘allesandere’)

Onthiscourse,wewilllargelyfocusonN-changes,asdoesmosthistoricalphonology,

butsomediscussionofA-changeswillalsocropup,anditiscrucialtobearinmindas

ananalyticaloptionwhenworkingoutthepatterningofachange.

Osthoff&Brugmann(1878),foundingtheneogrammarianschoolofhistorical

linguistics,famouslyassumedthattherearethesetwofundamentaltypesofchange,

andthattheyhavedifferentcharacteristics

• ‘soundchange’is:

o absolutelyregularinthespeechofindividualsandspeechcommunities=exceptionless

o ‘mechanical’–‘automatic’insomesense

o aboutsoundonly,notmeaning

• thisisthenormal,basictypeofphonologicalchange:exceptionlessandconditionedonlybyphonetic-phonologicalfactors

• ‘analogy’is:

o idiosyncratic,sporadic

o notmechanicalorautomatic

o aboutformslinkedtomeanings(morphologicalorsyntactic)

o afundamentally‘psychological’process