Umlautless Residues in Germanic

Abstract

Evidence suggests that Germanic languages resisted the spread of historical umlaut processes. We propose that examples of such superficially varied umlautless residues all yield to a single coherent phonological account. Specifically, these vocalic assimilations show strong preferences for reducing more extreme differences in place of articulation between trigger and target while failing to assimilate articulatorily closer vowels, so that triggering /i, j/ first and most consistently mutated /a/ and last and least consistently mutated /u(:)/. This vocalic cline interacts with the consonantal material intervening between trigger and target, so that obstruent clusters (especially velar or labial) are prone to inhibit umlaut. In both cases, the smaller the phonetic difference between target and trigger, the less likely umlaut is to occur. While umlaut failure has long been consigned to the margins of theories of umlaut, we argue that it is crucial, providing a snapshot of how umlaut unfolded across western and north Germanic.

The effect of prosodic weakening on the production and perception of trans-consonantal vowel coarticulation in German

“…But on the other hand the /Y/'s high F2 might be more easily shifted due to the combined F2-lowering effects of the labial consonant and of /o/'s low F2. These synchronic differences in which /Y/ is affected by V 2 to a greater extent than /U/ across an intervening labial consonant can be related diachronically to the greater resistance to umlaut when V 1 and the intervening consonant share several features: that is, there may be an association between the synchronically marginal V 2 ¼ /e, o/ influences on V 1 ¼ /U/ and the evidence discussed in Howell and Salmons (1997) that secondary umlaut in /u, i/ contexts is often blocked across intervening labial geminates (e.g., Standard German h€ upfen, "to jump," with umlaut, but Alemannic hupfe without).…”

“…The final issue to be considered is why V 2 -on-V 1 coarticulation should affect V 1 ¼ /Y/ but not V 1 ¼ /U/ and whether this finding can be related to the so-called secondary umlaut by which V 1 back vowels fronted diachronically in the context of a front V 2 in West Germanic (e.g., Old High German turi, wurfil, oli > Middle High German t€ ur, w€ urfel, € ol -see, e.g., Howell and Salmons, 1997;Iverson et al, 1994;Schulze, 2010). As far as the first of these is concerned, there is evidence (see, e.g., Cole et al, 2010) that transconsonantal vowel coarticulation can be masked by the place of articulation of the intervening consonant: thus the low F2 labial locus and the low F2 /U/-target might in combination be sufficient to oppose the potential fronting effect induced by the high F2 target in /e/.…”

17 Old English: Phonology

“…Below read "following" as "immediately following." In Old High German, for example, the intervening consonantal environment plays a significant role in facilitating or hindering umlaut, and in Old Norse there is a complex interaction between umlaut and other sound changes, especially i-syncope (Howell and Salmons 1997;Iverson and Salmons 2004). (For similar generalizations for Gothic, see Vennemann 1985.…”

The Conundrum of Old Norse Umlaut: Sound Change versus Crisis Analogy

“…A series of recent works (Iverson, Salmons, and Davis 1994;Iverson and Salmons 1996, 1999, 2003Holsinger and Salmons 1999;Howell and Salmons 1997; among others, all building on Buccini 1992) has provided a detailed challenge to that position. On the other hand, umlaut appeared last where it was least motivated, that is, where the distance across the vowel space was shortest (/uCi/) (Iverson and Salmons 1996, 1999Howell and Salmons 1997). This was in forms of the shape /aCi/; indeed, the fronting (and raising) effect on short /a/ is known widely as "primary umlaut" in West Germanic.…”