Advertisement

The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 213–248 | Cite as

Middle High German [rs] > [r Open image in new window ] as height dissimilation

  • T. A. HallEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The contrast between Middle High German (MHG) [s] and [ Open image in new window ] was consistently neutralized to the latter sound after [r] in many modern German dialects, e.g., MHG kirse > New High German Kirsche ‘cherry’. It will be argued that this sound change was a dissimilation of the distinctive feature [high] and that this dissimilation was triggered by an independently motivated OCP constraint banning adjacent consonants with the same value of [high]. Alternative analyses in which the shift from [rs] to [r Open image in new window ] is analyzed as a dissimilation of some other feature or as the assimilation of some property will be refuted. The present study also addressed the actuation problem: Why did [rs] shift to [r Open image in new window ] in this particular language at this particular time? It will be argued that the structural questions that arise in explaining the [rs] > [r Open image in new window ] shift (e.g., Why did [s] shift after [r] but not after other sounds?) as well as specific questions pertaining to the actuation problem derive straightforward answers by considering the phonological system of Middle High German. In particular, one needs to consider the features of Middle High German that were distinctive and which of those distinctive features were active phonologically.

Keywords

Actuation problem Dissimilation Distinctive features German dialects Middle High German OCP Sibilants Sound change Structure preservation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alber, B. (2001). Regional variation and edges: glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in standard and Southern varieties of German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 20, 3–41.Google Scholar
  2. Albrecht, K. (1881). Leipziger Mundart. Grammatik und Wörterbuch der Leipziger Volkssprache. Leipzig: Arnoldische Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  3. Alderete, J.D., & Frisch, S.A. (2007). Dissimilation in grammar and the lexicon. In P. de Lacy (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of phonology (pp. 379–398). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barba, K. (1982). Deutsche Dialekte in Rumänien. Die südfränkischen Mundarten der Banater deutschen Sprachinsel. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Benware, W. (1996). Processual change and phonetic analogy: Early New High German <s> > <sch>. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures, 8.2, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beranek, F.J. (1936). Die Mundart von Südmähren (Lautlehre). Reichenberg: Verlag der Anstalt für Sudetendeutsche Heimatforschung in Reichenberg.Google Scholar
  7. Bertrang, A. (1921). Grammatik der Areler Mundart. Bruxelles: M. Lamertin.Google Scholar
  8. Braune, W. (1987). Althochdeutsche Grammatik (14th ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, L. (1998). Historical linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cercignani, F. (1979). The consonants of German: synchrony and diachrony. Milan: Cisalpino.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  12. Clements, G.N. (1999). Affricates as noncontoured stops. In O. Fujimura, et al. (Ed.), Item, order in language and speech (pp. 271–299). Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clements, G.N. (2001). Representational economy in constraint-based phonology. In T. A. Hall (Ed.), Distinctive feature theory (pp. 71–146). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  14. Clements, G.N., & Hume, E.V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 245–306). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Cohn, A. (1992). The consequences of dissimilation in Sundanese. Phonology, 9, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dellit, O. (1913). Die Mundart von Kleinschmalkalden. Marburg: N. G. Elschwert’sche Verlags-buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  17. Dittmar, E. (1891). Die Blankenheimer Mundart. Eine lautliche Untersuchung. Darmstadt: G. Otto’s Hof-Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
  18. Esau, H. (1976). The medieval German sibilants /s/ and /z/. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 57, 188–197.Google Scholar
  19. Gabriel, E. (1978). Die Sibilanten in den oberddeutschen Mundarten. In R. Müller, E. Gabriel, & W. Kraemer (Eds.), Laut und Schrift in Dialekt und Standardsprache (pp. 55–91). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Greferath, T. (1922). Studien zu den Mundarten zwischen Köln, Jülich, M.-Gladbach u. Neuss. Marburg: N. G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, T.A. (1992). Syllable structure and syllable related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  22. Halle, M., & Clements, G.N. (1983). Problem book in phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hamann, S. 2003. The phonetics and phonology of retroflexes. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  24. Hartweg, F., & Wegera, K.-P. (2005). Frühneuhochdeutsch. Eine Einführung in die deutsche Sprache des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  25. Hock, H.H., & Joseph, B.D. (1996). Language history, language change and language relationship. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
  26. Holthausen, F. (1886). Die Soester Mundart. Laut- und Formenlehre. Norden and Leipzig: Dietrich Soltau.Google Scholar
  27. Howell, R. (1991). Old English breaking and its Germanic analogues. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  28. Hume, E. 1992. Front vowels, coronal consonants and their interaction in non-linear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. [Published 1994. New York: Garland].Google Scholar
  29. Hyman, L. (1988). Underspecification and vowel height transfer in Esimbi. Phonology, 5, 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jakobson, R. 1929. Remarques sur l’evolution phonologique du russe comparée à celle des autres langues slaves. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prag 2.Google Scholar
  31. Jakobson, R., G. Fant and M. Halle 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (sixth printing, 1965).Google Scholar
  32. Joos, M. (1952). The medieval sibilants. Language, 28, 222–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jutz, L. (1931). Die alemannischen Mundarten. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  34. Kehrein, W. (2002). Phonological representation and phonetic phrasing: affricates and laryngeals. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  35. Kiparsky, P. (1995). The phonological basis of sound change. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 640–670). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Kristoffersen, G. (2000). The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kürsten, O., & Bremer, O. (1910). Lautlehre der Mundart von Buttelstedt bei Weimar. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel.Google Scholar
  38. LaCharité, D. 1993. The internal structure of affricates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
  39. Lahiri, A., & Evers, V. (1991). Palatalization and coronality. In C. Paradis, & J.-F. Prunet (Eds.), The special status of coronals. Internal and external evidence (pp. 79–100). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  40. Lasch, A. (1914). Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  41. Leidolf, J. (1891). Die Naunheimer Mundart. Eine lautliche Untersuchung. Darmstadt: G. Otto’s Hof-Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
  42. Lessiak, P. (1933). Beträge zur Geschichte des deutschen Konsonantismus. Brünn: Rudolf M. Rohrer.Google Scholar
  43. Lexer, M. (1983). Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenwörterbuch. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
  44. Lieber, R. (1987). An integrated theory of autosegmental processes. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  45. Martin, R. (1922). Untersuchungen zur rhein-moselfränkischen Dialektgrenze. Marburg: N. G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  46. McCarthy, J. (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica, 43, 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meinhold, G., & Stock, E. (1982). Phonologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
  48. Mielke, J. (2005). Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology, 22, 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moser, V. (1951). Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Band III: Lautlehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  50. Münch, F. 1970. Grammatik der ripuarisch-fränkischen Mundart. Wiesbaden: Dr. Martin Ständig oHG. [Reprint of 2004 edition. Bonn: H. Bouvier.]Google Scholar
  51. Odden, D. (1991). Vowel geometry. Phonology, 8, 261–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ohala, J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In C. Jones (Ed.), Historical linguistics. Problems and perspectives (pp. 237–278). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  53. Palgen, H. (1931). Kurze Lautlehre der Mundart von Echternach. Luxemburg: Linden and Hansen.Google Scholar
  54. Penzl, H. (1968). Die mittelhochdeutschen Sibilanten und ihre Weiterentwicklung. Word, 24, 340–349.Google Scholar
  55. Robinson, O. (2001). Whose German? The ach/ich alternation and related phenomena in ‘standard’ and ‘colloquial’. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  56. Roloff, E. (1902). Der Konsonantismus des Niederdeutschen in der Magdeburger Börde. Halle an der Saale: C. A. Kaemmerer.Google Scholar
  57. Rubach, J. (1994). Affricates as strident stops in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 119–143.Google Scholar
  58. Russ, C.V.J. (1978). Historical German phonology and morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Russ, C.V.J. (1982). Studies in historical German phonology. A phonological comparison of MHG and NHG with reference to modern dialects. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  60. Sagey, E. 1986. The representations of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  61. Salzmann, J. (1888). Die Hersfelder Mundart. Marburg: Buchdruckerei Fr. Sömmering.Google Scholar
  62. Schachtschabel, O. (1910). Die Mundart von Kranichfeld in Thüringen. Strassburg: M. DuMont Schauberg.Google Scholar
  63. Schirmunski, V.M. (1962). Deutsche Mundartkunde. Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  64. Schmidt, W. (2000). Geschichte der deutschen Sprache (8th ed.). Stuttgart: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
  65. Schöller, G. (1939). Laute und Flexion der Mundart von Bavendorf (Kreis Ravensburg) und Umgebung. Tübingen: H. Laupp.Google Scholar
  66. Seelmann, E. (1908). Die Mundart von Prenden (Kreis Nieder-Barnim). Jahrbuch des Vereins für Niederdeutsche Sprachforschung, 34, 1–39.Google Scholar
  67. Shaw, P. (1991). Consonant harmony systems: the special status of coronal harmony. In C. Paradis, & J.-F. Prunet (Eds.), The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence (pp. 125–157). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  68. Siewert, M. (1912). Die Mundart von Neu-Golm. Jahrbuch des Vereins für Niederdeutsche Sprachforschung, 38, 105–147.Google Scholar
  69. Stucki, K. 1917. Die Mundart von Jaun im Kanton Freiburg. Lautlehre und Flexion. Frauenfeld: Huber and Co. [Beträge zur Schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 10].Google Scholar
  70. Sütterlin, L. (1924). Neuhochdeutsche Grammatik. München: Oskar Beck.Google Scholar
  71. Szulc, A. (1969). Abriss der diachronischen Deutschen Grammatik. Teil 1. Das Lautsystem. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  72. Szulc, A. (2002). Geschichte des standarddeutschen Lautsystems. Wien: Praesens.Google Scholar
  73. Tarral, N. (1903). Laut- und Formenlehre der Mundart des Kantons Falkenberg in Lothr. Strassburg: Heitz and Mündel.Google Scholar
  74. Vennemann, T. (1972). Sound change and markedness theory: On the history of the German consonant system. In R. Stockwell, & R. K. S. Kacaulay (Eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory (pp. 230–274). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Vetsch, J. 1910. Die Laute der Appenzeller Mundarten. Frauenfeld: Huber and Co. [Beträge zur Schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 1]Google Scholar
  76. von Kienle, R. (1960). Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  77. Voyles, J. (1972). The phonetic quality of OHG z. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 71, 47–55.Google Scholar
  78. Weinreich, U., Labov, W., & Herzog, M.I. (1968). Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In W. P. Lehmann, & Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. A symposium (pp. 95–188). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  79. Werner, O. (1961). Die Mundarten des Frankenwaldes (Eine Lautgeographische Untersuchung). Regensburg: Michael Lassleben.Google Scholar
  80. Wiese, R. (1991). Was ist extrasilbisch im Deutschen und warum? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 10.1, 112–133.Google Scholar
  81. Wiese, R. (1996). The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  82. Wilmanns, W. 1893. Deutsche Grammatik. Erste Abteilung: Lautlehre. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
  83. Wipf, E. 1910. Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Frauenfelder: Huber and Co [Beiträge zur Schweizerdeutschen Grammatik 2].Google Scholar
  84. Yip, M. (1988). The obligatory contour principle and phonological rules: a loss of identity. Linguistic Inquiry, 19.1, 65–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Germanic StudiesIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations