Peripherality and Markedness in the Spread of the High German Consonant Shift

Davis, Garry W.; Iverson, Gregory K.; Salmons, Joseph

doi:10.1515/bgsl.1999.121.2.177

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[15] Originalkilden, Hasenclever (1905) finnes ifølge søkegrensesnittet for norske fagbibliotek, Oria, ikke i Norge. Avgrensningen til etter kort vokal er også diskutert i Davis and Iverson (1995) og Davis et al (1999).…”

Section: [42] Opphavshypotesenunclassified

Lenisering etter kort vokal: relikt-fenomen eller opphav?

Kristoffersen

2021

OSLa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of the paper is a small group of Norwegian dialects where lenition of p, t, k into b, d, g in intervocalic and word-final position is limited to words characterized by a monomoraic, stressed syllable in Old Norse. These dialects are spoken in the easternmost local communities in Agder county, at the eastern margin of the South-Norwegian lenition areas where lenition hit all short oral stops irrespective of preceding vowel length. After the quantity shift had made all stressed vowels bimoraic, with rimes being either VV or VC, the distribution of the lenited plosives are after both long and short vowels (the main area) or after short vowels only (the eastern marginal area). Haslum (2004) argues that the limited distribution in the east ist the result of a reversal after long vowels only. While this cannot be refuted as a possibility, I argue below that it may also be the result of a two-stage process, whereby lenition after a short vowel has spread further than the generalized process.

show abstract

Section: [42] Opphavshypotesenunclassified

Lenisering etter kort vokal: relikt-fenomen eller opphav?

Kristoffersen

2021

OSLa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This was a process of affrico-spirantisation, which, once it was lexicalised into the language's lexical representations, left some of the key characteristic features of High German, such as the phonemic affricates /pf/ and /ts/, and correspondences such as those between reference English pepper, tide, water and make (which preserve the West Germanic segments in this regard), and reference High German Pfeffer [pfEf], Zeit [tsaIt], Wasser [vas] and machen [max«n]. Discussions of this process, often known as the 'High German Consonant Shift' (henceforth HGCS) abound both in histories of German, such as Braune (1891), Wilmanns (1911), Paul (1916) and Keller (1978), and in recent theoretical discussions, such as Vennemann (1984Vennemann ( , 1994, Davis & Iverson (1995) and Davis et al (1999). Little exemplification will be given here for the effects of the processes, as it is easily accessible in these other sources.…”

Section: Affrico-spirantisation In the High German Consonant Shiftmentioning

confidence: 99%

Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity

2005

Current Issues in Linguistic Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction This piece takes inspiration from two strands of phonological thought. One of these is the tradition of work which recognises that 'lenition' processes can be theoretically insight-offering and interesting, and the other is one of the main traditions that have been established in the analysis of the internal structure of phonological segments. Both can be traced back to work by John Anderson. In what follows I do not blindly follow that work, nor indeed any off-the-peg phonological framework, but the model of segmental structure that I assume connects with an Anderson-influenced tradition which has become one of the most influential in this area (especially in European research culture), and the types of processes discussed in this article all have clear characteristics in common with cases of lenition, so they fit in with an identifiable Anderson-Lass-Harrisian tradition of interest (see e.g. Lass &

show abstract

“…The brief discussion of articulatory motivation behind the High German Consonant Shift (p. 80), however, similarly misses any understanding of the events that comes from more comprehensive analysis (beyond a mere "erosion of stop closure integrity," the variable implementation of these intricate developments is rooted in the abstractions of Germanic prosody, particularly the drive toward bimoraicity among stressed syllables and in structured segmental markedness relations among the different places of articulation) (cf. Davis, Iverson, and Salmons 1999). The characterization of aspiration distributions in English (p. 89, under the rubric of Phonotactics) is equally condensed, albeit with much closer approximation to articulatory accuracy; still, the very interesting implications for the phonology overall of glottal spread being a basic rather than derivative property of voiceless obstruent representations in English are not explored (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviews: Phonology and Language Use. By Joan Bybee. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. xvii + 238. ISBN: 0-521-58374-8

Iverson

2003

Journal of English Linguistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chief goal of this book is to illustrate and establish that language use, particularly the effect of frequency, plays an important role in the determination of phonological form and representation. It might seem that there could be little question about this proposition inasmuch as language is indeed produced and used (exclusively) by human beings, who are subject to myriad social and pragmatic forces in addition to performance variations, but the practice of modern generative and even earlier structural phonology has been to look aside from these functional considerations and to focus instead on static patterns of distribution (structuralism) or dynamic operations of substitution (generative phonology). Bybee seeks to show that how language is used does matter to the phonology, as it does to other aspects of grammar, and I think the volume succeeds in calling attention to this understanding. But on the analytical level, a number of phonological babies get thrown out with the structuralist bathwater, though, as will be highlighted below, it is hardly necessary for a functionally informed phonology to lose its formal rigor or to abandon insights into the patterning of sounds.The book is organized into eight chapters. Chapter 1, "Language Use as Part of Linguistic Theory," lays out the background of recent usage-based theorizing about language and identifies many of the relevant studies carried out under models of connectionism, natural categorization, and emergent structure. The role of frequency, both token and type, in facilitating sound change is also underscored (more frequent tokens change first, more frequent types remain productive), but a point of view is also assumed in which language change, through language use, becomes the explanation, seemingly, for everything:Thus, functional constraints are manifested in specific languages through individual acts of language use. If there is a constraint comparable to the NO CODA constraint of Optimality Theory, it is a result of the phonetic tendency

show abstract

Peripherality and Markedness in the Spread of the High German Consonant Shift

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

Lenisering etter kort vokal: relikt-fenomen eller opphav?

Lenisering etter kort vokal: relikt-fenomen eller opphav?

Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity

Reviews: Phonology and Language Use. By Joan Bybee. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. xvii + 238. ISBN: 0-521-58374-8

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About