Content uploaded by Johan Schalin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johan Schalin on Jan 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking: A metaphonic feature-based unified solution
Abstract
Note separate hand-out at adress https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317037200_The_notorious_cruxes_of_Common_Scandinavian_umlaut_and_breaking_A_metaphonic_feature-based_unified_solution // In the transition from Proto- to Old Scandinavian target vowels in an initial main stressed syllable were assimilated into triggering vowels in a following syllable by means of front umlaut, rounding umlaut and by certain forms of breaking, and this in a manner that they frequently ended up as new vowel phonemes. Some 200 years ago the rules of Germanic umlaut were framed and outlined by Rasmus Rask and Jakob Grimm. To date, some very fundamental problems remain unsolved, including the relative chronologies and the mechanism of transmission, as well as the question of how, or indeed whether, the genesis of new phonemes depended on the weakening of umlaut triggers or their deletion. Particularly in Scandinavian, the distribution of umlaut and breaking in the lexicon persistently defies a good explanation. In the presentation it is shown that by reconstructing one further preGermanic archaism and one chain shift in the Proto-Scandinavian vowel system, as well as a prominence system based on mora count, the most recalcitrant distribution of umlaut, namely when a trigger in a light syllable had followed a target in another light syllable, may be economically explained. Finnic loanwords do not by and large reflect sub-phonemic umlaut together with reflexes of an unreduced syllable structure. In the presentation three etymons which appear to originate from the umlaut era are discussed: *olut, *rohkeda and *kari.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
To date, no analysis has adequately accounted for the attested distribution of front umlaut in Old Scandinavian. In this study attention is paid to unexpected outcomes that defy the generally accepted rules. In particular, the complications posed by ir-umlaut are refined into an acid test against which existing hypotheses fail. A genuinely novel proposal is developed, based on the assumption that in prominent syllables contrast well into
the umlaut period was upheld between descendants of Pre-Germanic (PreGmc) */e/ and */i/ respectively, even upon the Pre-Scandinavian raising of *e. Upon such raising the descendants of PreGmc */e/ had in all oral contexts evolved into a markedly fronted coronal vowel, whereas in prominent syllables descendants of PreGmc */i/ had by default, with few exceptions, in a chain shift evolved into a non-umlauting dorsal vowel. Given the assumption that a light second syllable within a main stressed bisyllabic foot was prominent,
the two vowels, active and inert as triggers for front umlaut respectively, could both have occurred in this position. By explaining their distribution in the lexicon, the notoriously intricate cruxes of i-umlaut may be neatly accounted for.
With the application of the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory, the contrastive features of preliterary Scandinavian vowels are here inferred from the interaction between targets and triggers for metaphonic fronting, rounding and breaking. One Proto-Scandinavian feature hierarchy is reconstructed for prominent syllables and another for non-prominent ones. The former hierarchy sustained contrasts that differed from the latter, including contrast for rounding and a preserved distinction between Pre-Germanic */i/ and */e/. A prominence system is reconstructed that predicts both the outcome of syncope and the distribution of the two vowel systems between syllables. The analysis neatly accounts for many notorious cruxes of umlaut and breaking that correlate with the prosodic position of the trigger, including the frequent absence of i-umlaut in light syllables.
The problems concerning Nordic i-umlaut have been occupying the field longer than memory goes back. The descriptive facts being basically clear, the subject has been a much-favoured testing ground for new theories in phonological analysis and linguistic change. The record is not an entirely flattering one, for the real advances scarcely outnumber instances of collective disregard of words of reason and rallying around popular, but unfounded, idées fixes.
Inuit dialects that show palatalization all distinguish between 'strong i' and 'weak i'. This distinction descends from a contrast in the proto-language between */i/, which causes palatalization, and */ə/ (the 'fourth vowel'), which does not. All Inuit dialects that have completely lost the contrast between these vowels also lack palatalization. This raises the question, why are there no /i a u/ dialects in which all i trigger palatalization? We propose that this typological gap is not accidental. According to the Contrastivist Hypothesis, only contrastive features can be active in the phonology. Contrastive features are determined by a contrastive hierarchy. We propose that the Inuit contrastive hierarchy is (low) > (labial) > (coronal). It follows from these assumptions that i can trigger palatalization only if in contrast with a fourth vowel.
This paper examines how change in prosodic organization determined the course of segmental phonological change in early Germanic, with reference to the following three processes: (i) the development of Sievers' law in Gothic; (ii) i-umlaut in Old Norse; (iii) the shortening of unstressed long vowels in Old English. With the decline of the foot as a super syllabic mora-counting unit of prosodic organization in favor of a strictly syllable-based organization, Sievers' law extended the use of /ji/at the expense of /i:/in Gothic; Old Norse i-umlaut lost the original sensitivity to morale structure; Old English shortening of unstressed long syllables generalized to operate on those vowels that had originally served as a foot constituent.
Grapheme, and the 'Importance' of Distinctions. Functional Aspects of the Scandinavian Runic Reform
- J Rischel
- Phoneme
• Rischel 1966 Rischel, J. Phoneme, Grapheme, and the 'Importance' of Distinctions. Functional Aspects of the Scandinavian
Runic Reform. In Rischel J. 2009 Sound Structure in Language, 254-271.
Paradigm Resolution in the Life Cycle of Norse Umlaut
- E Dresher
• Dresher, E. 2008.. The Contrastive Hierarchy in …. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~dresher/papers/ADR%20Dresher.pdf
• Iverson, G. & J. Salmons 2012. Paradigm Resolution in the Life Cycle of Norse Umlaut. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24.2.