Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EGGSchool,BanjaLukaJuly/August2018
An Introduction to Historical Phonology 1
PatrickHoneybone
Thecontentsofthissession
1.Historicalphonology–what’sitallabout...?
2.Howdoweknowphonologyhaschanged?
3.Whatisphonology,anyway?
4.Aretheredifferent‘types’and‘parts’ofphonologicalchanges?
5.Historicalphonologyandphonologicalhistory
Historicalphonology–what’sitallabout...?
Really,‘historicalphonology’involvesanythingthatcombines‘phonology’and‘thepast’
• thismayseemobvious,butthetwocanbecombinedinanumberofways...o itinvolvesbothsynchronicanddiachronicstudy(NB!)o itinvolvesbothgeneralhistoricalphonologyandlanguage-specificphonologicalhistory
• wewanttounderstandthedetailsofspecificchangeso andwewanttoreconstructpaststagesoflanguages’phonologies
• wewanttounderstandhowandwhyphonologycanchangeinprincipleo andwewanttoknowhowwecanreconstructpastsynchronicstagesoflanguages
[NB:reconstructingpaststagesoflanguageswasthestartofscientificlinguistics...]
Thesearebigquestions;theyrequireanumberofthings:
• evidenceofwhatthepastwaslike• knowledgeofwhatphonologyislike• anunderstandingofhownewthingscanbeinnovatedandintegratedintoaphonology
“Wewillfirstlyconsidersomethingofthebroadcontextthathistoricalphonologyexists
in–allthekindsofthingthatwewouldneedtounderstandinordertofigureoutboth
whatthephonologyofparticularlanguageswasatvariousstagesinthepast,andwhat
kindsofchangeshaveoccurredbetweensuchstages.”
We’llseeifwecananswersomeofthesequestions:
• whatdoesitmeantosaythatphonologyhaschanged?• howcanweknowthatphonologyhaschanged?• whatkindsofchangeshaveoccurredinlanguages?
• aretheredifferent‘types’ofphonologicalchange?• aretheredifferent‘parts’ofaphonologicalchange?• aretheredifferentmotivationsforphonologicalchange?
• aretherecharacteristicsthatphonologicalchanges(orparticulartypesofchanges)alwaysshow?
• canwedistinguishbetweenpossibleandimpossiblephonologicalchanges?
• whatcanphonologicaltheorysayabouthowchangesareintegratedintoorlostfromagrammar?
It’snotcompletelystraightforwardtodefinepreciselywhatwemeanby‘phonologicalchange’
• aretheseexamples?• phonologicalchangesaretypicallyshownusingthediachronic‘shaftlessarrow’>o thisisNOTthesameasthesynchronic‘shaftedarrow’®
[muːsi] > [maɪs] English ‘mice’
[pund] > [pfund] HighGerman ‘pound’
[ɡʷénh2-] > [ben] Irish ‘woman’
[keture] > [tʃwetiri] B/C/M/S~SerBo-Croat ‘four’
[koren] > [t ʃoːsen] English ‘chosen’
[hilpθ] > [hɛlps] English ‘helps’
NB:allofthesediachronicequationsaretrue,butmostofthemaremissingthepoint
• becausethechangesinvolveddidn’tjustaffectindividualwords
Here’soneattempttodefinephonologicalchange:
• Φ=aphonologicalentity• x¹y• P=person,population,place,phonology• T=time• i=thesame• >=indiachroniccorrespondence
NB:Φdoesnotjustrefertotranscriptionsofwords([muːsi],[maɪs])
• itcanalsobearealizationofasegmentand/oraphonological‘rule’o aphonologicalgeneralisation
NB:thediachronicarrow‘>’isambiguous:
• doesitrelatethedirectlypre-changeandpost-changestates?o orwereintermediatestages–weremorethanonequantainvolved?
• doesachangeneedtooccurwithinalanguageordialect?orcanitcreatenewones• ordoeschangeoccurwithinaspeaker?oragrammar?• somearguethat,strictlyspeaking,there’snosuchthingasphonologicalchangeWeneedtotalkaboutplaceaswellastime?Oneattempttodefine‘phonologicalchange’isasfollows Φx > Φy Pi,T1 Pi,T>1• Φ=aphonologicalformorgeneralisation• y¹x• P=place,person,phonology?population• T=time• i=thesame
changesaretypicallyshownusingthediachronic‘shaftlessarrow’‘>’• thisisNOTthesynchronicshaftedu®y
Joseph&Janda(2003)proposethatweshoulduse‘>...>’forcorrespondencesthat
involveseveralquantaandreserve‘>’todescribesingle-stepinnovations
• withtheseconventions,wecouldsaythatEnglishchangeinvolves:
o muːsi>...>maɪs
Thisisbecauseweasurethataseriesofchangesareinvolvedinthiscorrespondence:
muːsi > myːs > miːs > maɪs
NB:thediachronicarrow>hasafurtherproblem:
• itdoesnotbydifferentiatebetweensegmentsofdifferentphonologicalstatuses
o whataboutthedistinctionbetweenunderlying(‘phonemic’,contrastive)phonologyandsurface(‘allophonic’,predictable)phonology?
o canchangeoccuratbothlevels?
Weneedknowledgeofwhatphonologyislike
Thisisanintrocourse,butI’massumingyouknowsomethingaboutsymbols...
• ð,β,ŋ,ʃ,ʌ,ʊ,ə,æ,ø
...andthatyouknowsomethingaboutfeatures...
10
Elements in English vowels Harris (1994, 115) uses the GP set of elements to come up with the following set of representations for English lax vowels; he uses a quite ‘American’ set of symbols for these, and makes certain analytical assumptions that differ from those of Giegerich (1992), for example...
He also gives representations for tense vowels, accounting for a wide range of varieties, and assuming a very dialectal model of phonology (unlike Giegerich 1992’s partially panlectal approach) • read Harris (1994) discussion of segmental phonology for the full picture...
Elements in Consonants Harris (1994) also sets out a full set of representations for consonants. These in fact require 3 other elements which can straightforwardly occur in vowels (H, L, N), and 3 other elements (R, ?, h), but, importantly, do make some considerable use of the ‘vocalic’ elements in consonantal representations • more recent developments have sought to remove (R, ?, h, N) from the set of elements by reusing
the elements that can occur in vowels to represent all consonantal properties
The full set of elements in Harris (1994) - that is, in ‘classical’ Government Phonology (following Kaye, Lowenstamm & Vergnaud) is...
Element Gloss Independent manifestation A lowness a I palatality i/j U round/labiality u/w @ velarity ´ H stiff vocal cords high tone = ‘voiceless’ L slack vocal cords low tone = ‘voiced’ R coronality R ? occlusion / h noise h N nasality ???
These are used to give such representations as the following for English (where headedness is represented by underlining only where necessary)...
p b t k g s T n m R h /
x x x x x x x x x x x x | | | | | | | | | | | | U U R @ @ R R R U R h ?
| | | | | | | | | ? ? ? ? ?
h h ? ?
| | | | | | |
h h h h h N N | | | H H H
...andthatyouknowsomethingaboutphonologicalprocesses...
• itisstandardinphonologytodistinguishatleasttwomainlevelsofrepresentationinsynchronicphonologicalknowledge
So...formanyaccentsofEnglish(includingRP)thisdataisrepresentative:
[l] [ɫ]
light pillblame kiltpillar pulpitfeeling feel NB!
Inaccentslikethis
• [l]occursinanonset� NB:[l]and[ɫ]donotcontrast
• [ɫ]occursinarhyme� Arulecandescribeallthis:
l-velarisation=
13
4.TakingphonologicaltheoryseriouslyinunderstandingphonologicalchangeTheaboveassumesasimplistic(concrete)modelofphonology...• ifwetakephonologyseriouslywhenweconsiderhistoricalphonologyarangeofother
optionsopenup,extendingthewaysinwhichwecanconsidertheinteractionofchangesandofthephonologicalobjectsinvolvedinchangesbeyondthosethatwere/areconsideredintraditionalhistoricalphonology
Itisstandardinphonologytodistinguishbetweentwomainlevelsofrepresentationinthedescriptionofsynchronicphonologicalknowledge;sometheoriesargueformorethantwolevels,too:
‘phonemic’=underlying=lexicalrepresentation=UR
‘phonetic‘=surface=derivedrepresentation=SR
OnetraditionalwaytomaptheURontotheSRingenerativephonologywas(andformanyphonologistsstillis)usingphonologicalrules,andtheunitsthatexistatphonologicallevelsarethoughttobemadeupofcomplexrepresentations(usingfeatures,syllabicconstituentsetc)• themappingfromtheURtotheSRisknownasaderivation• therehasbeenconsiderabledisagreementastohowdifferenttheURandSRcanbedueto
aderivation:howabstractisphonology?• currentworkinOptimalityTheoryworkswithadifferentwayofmappingURtoSR,but
thetwolevelsremain,ifinasomewhatreinterpretedway
Oneproblemwiththewaythatthe‘>’conventionisoftenusedinhistoricalphonologyisthatitdoesnotbyitselfdifferentiatebetweensegmentsofdifferentphonologicalstatuses• ifthere’sadistinctionbetweenanunderlying(‘phonemic’)andsurface(‘allophonic’)level,
weneedtoconsiderwhetherchangecanoccurateitherlevel;anditcan...
Underlyingchangeandsurfacechange• thedevelopmentofi-umlautinthehistoryofEnglishisrelevanthere:o originally,therewerefrontroundedvowels–ifwethinkaboutitinthelightofphonological
theory,we’dsaythattheFRVsarederivedbyrule,o eg,u®y/__(C)i,j(thelengthofthevowelsinvolvedisirrelevant)
Wheni-umlautwasfirstinnovated,thedistributionof[u]and[y]waspredictable• [y]occurredwhenan/i/or/j/followed;[u]occurredelsewhere• thephonesarephonetically/featurallysimilaro thereiseveryreasontoassumethati-umlautwasoriginallyinnovatedasaphonologicalrule
(acaseof‘allophony’)• however,oncethe/i,j/werelost(duetoseparatechanges),therulesceasedtobe
synchronicallyactive,duetoareanalysiswhichcreatedofnewunderlyingsegments,like/y/o therewerethusnewcontrastso eg,/u:y/and/uː:yː/ ‘mouse’ ‘mice’(i) PGmc /muːs/®[muːs] /muːs+iz/®[muːsiz](ii) introductionofumlaut(+lossof-z) /muːs/®[muːs] /muːs+i/®[myːsi](iii) lossof-i+reanalysis=contrast! /muːs/®[muːs] /myːs/®[myːs]
• stage(ii)=theintroductionoftheumlautrule(=surfacechange)• stage(iii)issometimesknownasphonologisationo itisbetter,though,tocallitphonemicisationbecausephonologisationimpliesthatsomething
comeunderphonologicalcontrol,andthatdoesnotneedtoinvolvethe‘phonemic’orunderlyinglevel–isn’tstage(ii)phonological,too?
• inthestressedvowelinwordslikemice,thereisunderlyingchangewithoutsurfacechangeo thiscouldbedescribedas/uː/>/yː/o thisintroducesa‘phonemicsplit’intothelanguage
R /l/ ® [ɫ] __
Butthere’smore...
Thefollowingdataisrepresentativeofmyaccent,atleast:
feet [fiːt] feel [fiəɫ] feeling [fiːlɪŋ]
deep [diːp] deal [fiəɫ] helix [hiːlɪks]
seem [siːm] sealed [siəɫd] sealant [siːlənt]
Inaccentslikethis
• [iː]occursbefore[l]
• [iə]occursbefore[ɫ]
Thisissometimesdescribedas‘HighVowelBreaking’or‘schwainsertion’
• HVBcanbeformalisedasaphonologicalrule:
iː®iə/__ɫ
Thereisacrucialinteractionbetweenthetworules:
feet feel feeling UR /fiːt/ /fiːl/ /fiːl+ɪŋ/
syllabification .fiːt. .fiːl. .fiː.lɪŋ.
l-velarisation — fiːɫ —
HVB — fɪəɫ —
SR [fiːt] [fɪəɫ] [fiːlɪŋ]
InRule-BasedPhonology,onerulecanapplytotheoutputofanotherrule
• thisshowsruleordering:itisacaseoffeedingordero infeeding,rule1createsanenvironmentwhichallowsrule2tooccur:LVfeedsHVB
ThemappingfromtheURtotheSRisknownasaderivation• therehasbeenconsiderabledisagreementastohowdifferenttheURandSRcanbeduetoaderivation:howabstractisphonology?
• currentworkinOptimalityTheoryworkswithadifferentwayofmappingURtoSR,butthetwolevelsremain,ifinasomewhatreinterpretedway
• currentworkinrepresentationalmodels,suchasGovernmentPhonology,typicallyassumestwolevels,whetherthisismadeexplicitornot
Ruleorderingcangetmorefun...
Whataboutthesetranscriptions,whichrepresentsomevarietiesofAmEng:
set sent [sɛt] [sɛt]
cat can’t
[kʰat] [kʰat]
• arethereunderlyinglynasalvowelsinEnglish?• wedonotneedtosaythisifweallowforruleordering(orsomeanalogousmechanism)
Wesimplyneedtoassumetwoorderedrules:
set sent UR /sɛt/ /sɛnt/
V®VÑ /__[nasal]. — sɛnt
n®Ø/__C. — sɛt
SR [sɛt] [sɛt]
Thisinvolvesopacity
• ‘counter-bleeding’=alaterruleremovesthecontextthatallowsanearlierruletoapply
Whyisallthisrelevanthere...?
Thiswasanattempttodefinephonologicalchange:
NB:Φdoesnotjustrefertotranscriptionsofwords([muːsi],[maɪs])
• itcanalsobearealizationofasegmentand/oraphonological‘rule’o aphonologicalgeneralisation
So...
• Φcanbearule?• Φcanbearuleordering?• ΦcanbeanUR-SRmapping?
• doesachangeneedtooccurwithinalanguageordialect?orcanitcreatenewones• ordoeschangeoccurwithinaspeaker?oragrammar?• somearguethat,strictlyspeaking,there’snosuchthingasphonologicalchangeWeneedtotalkaboutplaceaswellastime?Oneattempttodefine‘phonologicalchange’isasfollows Φx > Φy Pi,T1 Pi,T>1• Φ=aphonologicalformorgeneralisation• y¹x• P=place,person,phonology?population• T=time• i=thesame
changesaretypicallyshownusingthediachronic‘shaftlessarrow’‘>’• thisisNOTthesynchronicshaftedu®y
Let’sgetdowntobusiness–let’sconsidersomedatarelevanttohistoricalphonology...
thereisaregularsegmentalcorrespondencebetween(i)northernaccentsinEngland
(suchasPresent-DaytraditionaldialectYorkshire)and(ii)southernaccents(suchas
Present-DayRP,whichhassouthernroots)intermsoftheirlaxvowelphonology:
o everyoccurrenceof[ʌ]inPDRPcorrespondsto[ʊ]inPDYorkshire,asinthefollowingsetofwords:
PDYorkshire PDRPlung [lʊŋ] [lʌŋ]
blush [blʊʃ] [blʌʃ]
cup [khʊp] [khʌp]
gulf [ɡʊɫf] [ɡʌɫf]
love [lʊv] [lʌv]
• thisisn’talwaysthecase,however:someoccurrencesofYorkshire[ʊ]correspondtoRP[ʊ],asinthefollowingsecondsetofwords:
PDYorkshire PDRPbush [bʊʃ] [bʊʃ]
put [phʊt] [phʊt]
full [fʊɫ] [fʊɫ]
wolf [wʊɫf] [wʊɫf]
pull [phʊɫ] [phʊɫ]
Whyistherethissituation?Weknow
thattheselinguisticsystemsareclosely
relatedbecauseeverythingelseaboutall
thesewordsisthesameinbothvarieties.
Tosaythatthesetwolectsarecloselyrelatedmeansthattheydivergednotallthat
longago–theywerethesamerelativelyrecently
• astheyarenowdifferentinvowelphonologysomekindofchangemusthaveoccurred• elsewhywouldtherebethesamecorrespondenceinthefirstwholesetofwords?
Thedatainthetwosetsofwordsaboveisthusevidenceforhistoricalphonology
• someofthemostcrucialevidenceforpaststatesoflanguages–someofthebestevidenceforphonologicalchange–comesfromthecomparisonofcontemporarysystemswhicharerelated
o thisiscomparativeevidence
[Weneedevidenceofwhatthepastwaslike]
Whatkindofchangegaverisetothedata?
• fromthisdata,thereseemtobetwooptions
ʊ>ʌin(thehistoryofvarietieslike)RPorʌ>ʊin(thehistoryofvarietieslike)Yorkshire
Thischangeismoreinterestingthanthat,though:
• itinvolvesdifferentnumbersofcontrastso inPDRP,/ʊ:ʌ/–thisisawayofshowingthat[ʊ]contrastswith[ʌ](asinputvsputt)o inPDYorkshire,thereisnosuchcontrast:/ʌ/doesnotexist–everywordwitheither[ʌ]or[ʊ]inRPhas[ʊ]inYorkshire,soputandputtsoundexactlythesame
• thismeansthattherewaseitherasplitinonesetofvarieties(includingRP)...
ʊ>ʊ:ʌ =acontrastdeveloped
• ...oramergerintheothersetofvarieties(includingYorkshire)
ʊ:ʌ>ʊ =acontrastwaslost
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
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
Wehavearangeofevidencewhichputsbeyonddoubtwhichchangeactuallyoccurred
• wecancomparethedatawithlinguisticsystemsthataremoredistantlyrelated
o eg,lung(/ʊ:ʌ/)hasthefollowingcognateinPDGerman: /lʊŋə/Lunge
o eg,bush(/ʊ/)hasthefollowingcognateinPDGerman: /bʊʃ/Busch
o wordsinbothsetshave/ʊ/inmoredistantlyrelatedsystemssoitseemslikelythattheolderEnglishstate(fromwhichbothPDRPandPDYorkshirederive)hadonly/ʊ/
Anotherkeysourceofevidenceforpastphonologicalstatesinmanylanguagescomes
fromwriting,especiallyisalanguageiswrittenusinganalphabet
• inearlystagesofmoredistantlyrelatedlanguages,bothsetsofwordsarespeltwith‹u›
o lung(/ʊ:ʌ/) OldFrisian lungen
o bush(/ʊ/) OldNorse buskr
• thisindicatesthattheylikelyhadabackhighroundedvowel(like[ʊ],butnotlike[ʌ])
• iftheyhaddifferentvowels,wewouldexpectthistoberepresentedinearlierwritingusingdifferentletters
o thebasicalphabeticprincipleisprettymuchthephonemicprinciple
o whenalanguageisfirstwritteninanalphabet,atypeofphonemicanalysisisinvolved
Englishitselfhaswrittenrecordswhichgobackforaroundamillenniumandahalf
• inearlierstagesofEnglish,bothsetsofwordsarealsospeltwith‹u›
o lung(/ʊ:ʌ/) OldEnglish lungen
o bush(/ʊ/) MiddleEnglish busche
• indeed,thefactthatmanywordsinbothsetsarespeltwith‹u›inPDEnglishspellingisevidence,too,becauseinthiscasethespellingsystemreflectsanearlierstageof
thephonologyofalanguage(thephonologyhaschangedbutspellinghasnot)
Awiderangeofevidenceshowsthatthiswasasegmentalsplitin(thehistoryof)
varietieslikeRP
• itisoftencalledthe‘FOOT/STRUTsplit’inworkonEnglish
o theFOOTvowel =thevowelthatadialecthasinthewordfootandothers
o theSTRUTvowel =thevowelthatadialecthasinthewordstrutandothers
Thisstillleavesalotofquestionsaboutthischange,forexample:whendidithappen?
AlthoughEnglishspellingdoesnotreflectthischange,writtenrecordscanstillhelp
withourdatingofit–here’soneway:
• WilliamShakespearelived1564-1616;hewrotetowardstheendofthe16thandstartofthe17thcentury,includinglineslikethefollowing;hewaswritingforaLondon
audience,soitislikelythatthisrepresentsthepronunciationofthatplaceandtime:
I have been closely shrouded in this bush, And marked you both, and for you both did blush.
Love’s Labour’s Lost iv, 3, 137-8
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf Witches’ mummy, maw and gulf...
Macbeth iv, 2, 22-3
o theserhymesnowonlyworkinNorthernEnglishaccents;buttheyalsoworkedattheturnofthe17thcenturyinSouthernEnglishaccents(whichformedthebasisofPDRP)
o theserecordshelpustodatethechange–itmusthavehappenedafterShakespeare• or,toputitmoreprecisely:thisevidenceshowsthatpronunciationswith[ʊ]werestillnormal/unexceptionalinLondonspeechinbothsetsofwordsintheearly1600s
o thisisindirectwrittenevidence:inindirectwrittenevidence,wecaninterpretawrittensourceinsomeunintendedwaytogiveevidenceofthephonologythatitrepresented
Therecanalsobedirectwrittenevidencefromthepast,whichinvolvesexplicit
commentsonpronunciationfromearlyphonetician-phonologists,spellingreformers,
writersofdictionariesandlanguage-learningguidesetc
• thereisquitearangeofdirectevidenceforlanguageslikeEnglishfromsomeperiods
• Dobson(1968)hasinterpretedawiderangeofit,andsaysthat“Hodges,Wilkins,Coles,andCooperfailtodistinguishMEŭinfreepositionfromstressedandunstressed[ə]...thisisonlypossibleifMEŭis[ʌ]”(1968,586)
o theauthorsthatDobsonmentionsexplicitlydiscussedthesoundsinsetsofwords,andstatethatthevowelinwordslikelungandblushiscomparableto[ə],whichweknowisarticulatorilyverysimilarto[ʌ]
o HodgesistheearliestoftheauthorsthatDobsonmentions;hepublishedanumberofworksinthe1640sinwhichhe“...suggest[s]waysinwhichthetraditional
orthographymaybeimprovedandmademoreconsistent,and...invent[s]asystem
ofdiacriticsbywhichreadingandpronunciationmaybetaughtfromtheordinary
orthography”(Dobson1968,165)
Allthisevidencegivesusaremarkablypreciseindicationofthedatingofthechange:
• itmusthavebecome‘normal’inLondonspeechinthemid-decadesofthe17thcentury
Wehavethusbeguntoconsiderwhatkindsofevidencewecanusetodiscoverthe
subjectmatterofhistoricalphonology:
• comparativeevidencefromrelatedbutdistinctforms• evidencefromwrittenrecords
Wehavealsodonesomereconstructionofapastsynchronicphonologicalstate:
• 15thcenturyEnglishdidnothave/ʌ/(ie,itdidnothavethe/ʊ:ʌ/contrast)
Thisstillleavesuswithalotofquestionsthatwecouldaskaboutthechange,including
thefollowing:
• wheredidithappen?onlyinLondon...?• howdidithappen?howdoesasplitenterthephonologyofalanguage?• whatconditionedthesplit?whydiditoccurinsomewords(eg,blush)butnotothers(eg,bush)?
• isthisthekindofthingthatnormallyhappensinphonologicalchange?• whydidithappen?whatkindoffactorsleadtophonologicalchange?o toanswerthesekindsofquestions,wewillneedtoconsidersomefurtherfundamentalissuesinhistoricalphonology...
Innovationvspropagationofchange(the‘parts’ofachange)Indiscussingthechangementionedabove,wehaveaskedquestionsabouttwo
distinctaspectsofthechange
• theinnovationinvolved=thealterationinphonologicalsegmentsorstructureso =thestructuralaspectofthechangeo eg:isthisthekindofthingthatnormallyhappensinphonologicalchange?
• thepropagationinvolved=thewayinwhichaninnovationistakenupbyspeakerso =thesocialaspectofthechangeo eg:wheredidithappen?onlyinLondon...?
Innovationandpropagationareconceptuallyseparable,buttherearenoeasily
identifiablediachroniceventsunlessbothoccur
• aparticularinnovationmustbepossibleinaparticularphonologicalsystemandmustoccurinthespeechofoneorseveralspeakers,andmustthen‘catchon’and
bepropagatedthroughaspeechcommunitybyitsspeakers
• somechangespropagatethroughallspeakersofalanguage• somechangespropagatethroughthespeakersinacommunitywhichtakesuponlyonepartoftheareawherealanguageisspoken
o thismayinvolvethechangespreadingthroughonlyoneorseveraldialectsofalanguageo orsometimessucheventsarearguedtoleadtothecreationofnewdialects(orlanguages)
Anychangeinvolvesadiachronicdifferenceinsomeaspectoflinguisticstructure,and
forthatdifferencetobecomepartofthephonologicalhistoryofalanguage(andsoto
becomesubjectmatterforhistoricalphonology),‘social’propagationisessential
• the‘social’aspectofachange(broadlyconstrued)involvesboththesociologicalcategoriesthatspeakersfitintoandthegeographyofwheretheyexist
• wewillneedtoconsidersomeaspectsofthepropagationofchangeinthiscourse,inordertounderstandthefulldetailsofindividualchangesthathaveoccurredinlanguages
o however,wedoneedtofocus:theemphasisinthiscourseisonthestructuralaspectofchange–oninnovations
Tosaysomethingaboutpropagation,onewell-knownobservationisthat:whenachangedoesnotspreadthroughallareasofaspeechcommunity,anisoglossresults
• inchangesthatoccurredinthemediumordistantpast,wecantrackthegeographicaspectoftheirpropagationthroughthemethodsofdialectology
• theʊ>ʌchange(theFOOT/STRUTsplit)wasinnovatedinSouthernpartsofthe‘Englishspeechcommunity’,butdidnotpropagatetoNorthernparts;anisogloss
indicatestheextentofthepropagationofthechange
Thisisamapwithinformationfromthe
SurveyofEnglishDialects• lowerunbrokenline=FOOT/STRUTo (upperdashedline=BATH)
EachdotwasasamplinglocalityintheSED• thoseabovethelowerisoglosshadonly/ʊ/• thosebelowtheisoglosshadboth/ʊ/and/ʌ/
Thisflagsuptheinteractionbetweenhistorical
phonologyanddialectology
• toanextenttheyarestudyingthesamethings• dialectologyfocusesonpropagation
Ifanumberofisoglossescoincide(thiscanbe
duetopoliticalreasons),differentdialectsor
languagescanemerge.
Vowels in British Isles accents 7
Figure 3 Median and interquartile range for the 11 monophthongs produced by six male speakers of sse.
A complete description of each and every vowel for all 13 accents would indeed beextremely tedious. Instead, we will focus on a restricted set – varying from one dialect to thenext – of the most notable phenomena.
3 Results
3.1 Standard Southern English (sse)The accent sse serves as a reference against which the remaining accents are compared. Ithas been described in detail in many publications (Nolan 1998, Jones 2003, Upton 2004,Hawkins & Midgley 2005, Wells 2008, etc.). As figure 3 shows, the vowels of who’d andhood (which are supposed to instantiate the GOOSE and FOOT sets, respectively) are morefront than recent pronunciation dictionaries suggest (Jones 2003, Wells 2008). This finding ishowever in accordance with up-to-date acoustic–phonetic descriptions (Hawkins & Midgley2005, McDougall & Nolan 2007).
As far as closing diphthongs are concerned, figure 4 shows that the vowel of PRICE has arather back starting element while that of MOUTH is rather front, the difference being audiblyperceptible. In earlier descriptions, O’Connor (1973) and Gimson (1980) used the symbols/a/ and /ɑ/ for the starting element of PRICE and MOUTH, respectively. Nowadays, althoughJones (2003) and Wells (2008) use a single symbol for the first vowel of PRICE and MOUTH,the vowel plots provided in these dictionaries (Jones 2003: viii; Wells 2008: xxiii) explicitlyshow that the authors keep considering that the first element in MOUTH is slightly moreback than that of PRICE. In contrast to the latter, other recent publications have symbols forPRICE and MOUTH that are much more in line with our findings. Upton (2004) records twovariants for PRICE: [aI] in traditional RP and [ØI] in contemporary RP. He, however, notesjust one possibility for MOUTH: [aυ]. Olausson & Sangster (2006) also use [ØI] (PRICE) and[aυ] (MOUTH). In a review of vowel symbols in dictionaries, Windsor Lewis (2003: 147)comments on the use of [ØI] instead of [aI]: according to the author, ‘[t]he apparent Uptonsuggestion that /aI/ and /aυ/ have now reversed their relative starting positions in mainstreamusage is not supported by my observations and I know of no-one else of such an opinion’.Windsor Lewis goes so far as to claim that the symbols [aI] and [ɑυ] (for PRICE and MOUTH)
Inchangesthatarehappeningnow–thatis,inchangesinprogress–wecantrackthe
narrowlysocialaspectoftheirpropagationbyinvestigatingthevariationthatexists
(intermsoftherealisationofthephonologicalcategoriesinvolvedinthechange)in
differentsocialgroups,followingLabov’sideas(eg,Labov2001)
• theFOOT-STRUTsplitisn’tinprogress,solet’sconsideranotherchangewhichis:GOOSE-fronting(thatis,uː>ʉː),whichhasrecentlybeenreportedinanumberof
areas/dialectsofEnglish(eg,theSEofEngland,Birmingham,Nottingham,Manchester)
o thiscanbeseenintheplaceofwho’donthisF1-F2plotforRP-typespeakersfromLondon(takenfromFerragne&Pellegrino2010)
Inareaswherethischangeiscurrentlypropagating,suchasCarlisle,thereis
variationbetweensocialgroupsofspeakersintermsofwhethertheGOOSEvowelis
frontornot,asshowninthesetwoF1-F2plotsmadefromrecordingscollectedin
2007/2008(takenfromJansen2017)
• the60-year-oldmalehasabackrealisationoftheGOOSEvowel(around[u]),sodoesnothaveGOOSE-fronting–heisnottakingpartinthepropagationofthechange
• the23-year-oldfemalehasafront/centralrealisationoftheGOOSEvowel(around[ʉ]),sodoeshaveGOOSE-fronting–sheisnottakingpartinthepropagationofthechange
o [bothspeakersarejudgedtobemiddleclass]
Onthisevidence,thechangehaspropagatedtoCarlisle,buthasnot(yet?)
propagatedthroughoutthewholespeechcommunityinCarlisle
• itiscommoninsuchsituationstoconsiderthetypesofvariationinvolvedbetweengroupsasshowingevidenceforchangeinapparenttime
• ifolderspeakershaveonevariantandyoungerspeakersadifferentvariant,thiscanbeevidencethatchangeisinprogress,withthevariantusedbyyoungerspeakers
replacingthatusedbytheolderspeakers
o Jansen(2017)showsthisclearlytobethecaseinCarlisleGOOSE-fronting
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Old Middle−aged YoungAge Group
Norm
alise
d F2
Wewillnotfocusinthiscourseonthesocialmechanismsthroughwhichachange
progressesthroughaspeechcommunityoronthegeographyofchanges(although
bothofthesearepartoftheoverallfieldofhistoricalphonology)
• muchofwhatwewilldiscusswillfocusoninnovation,askingquestionslike:
o whatkindsofinnovationarepossible?
o (aspartofthiswewillneedtoconsiderwhatkindsofinnovationhavehappened–thusfarweknowthatʊ>ʌ,uː>ʉː,andiː>aɪarepossible...)
o howcaninnovationsbeintegratedintoaphonologicalsystem?
Innovationscanbeendogenousorexogenous(themotivationsofchange)
Anotherfundamentalquestionis:wheredoinnovationscomefrom?
Wecanrecogniseafundamentaldistinctionbetweensourcesofinnovation;therecanbe:
• exogenouschange(‘internal’change)o theseareduetoinnovationsthatareimposedonaphonologicalsystemfromwithout
• endogenouschange(‘external’change)o theseareduetoinnovationsthatarearisewithinaphonologicalsystem
Exogenyinvolvessomesortoflinguisticcontact;however,notallcontactleadsto
change–languagescanborrowindividualwordswithoutanyrealchangeif:
• thewordsfitwiththephonologyoftheborrowinglanguageo eg,tax/taks/(fromtaxer)andsoufflé/sufle/fromFrench• orifawordisadaptedtotheborrowinglanguage’sphonologyo eg,muesli/mysli/>/mjuzli/(German),gherkin/xʏrkɪn/>/ɡɜ(r)kɪn/(Dutchgurkkijn)
However,languagescangainspecificfeaturesorevenwholesegmentsthrough
borrowing‘loanwords’–orothertypesofcontact
• eg,theEnglishvowel/ɔɪ/wasintroducedthroughborrowings(eg,choice,employ,join,buoy)
• eg,theexistenceoftoneinsomelanguagesisthoughttobeduetotheexistenceoftoneinneighbouring,butunrelatedlanguages
Endogenouschangedoesnotinvolvecontact;itcanbeduetosuchthingsas:
• system-internalpressures(eg,tomaintaincontrasts)• therealisationofpathwaysallowedbyconstraintsonphonologicalrepresentations• thephonologisationofphoneticbiases
Toreturntothemainchangeconsideredsofar,thereisnoevidencethatcontactwas
involvedintheʊ>ʌchange,soitmustbeakindofchangethatisendogenously
possibleinhistoricalphonology
• oneimportantquestionforhistoricalphonologyis:whatkindsofchangearepossible?
Muchofwhatwewilldiscussonthiscoursewillfocusonendogeny,becausethisis
wherephonologicalstructureislikelytoshowitsimpact
• it’simportanttobearexogenyinmind,however,inordertobesurethatachangeisendogenous
Adistinctionofapproach:historicalphonologyandphonologicalhistoryInordertofullyunderstandaspecificphonologicalchange,wewouldneedtoanswerawholerangeofquestions:
1.whendidithappen?
2.wheredidithappen?howfardiditspread?
3.whatwasitssocialpatterningasitpropagated?
4.howwasitinnovated:endogenouslyorexogenously?–whichfactorsgaveriseto
theinnovation?
5.whatwasitsprecisephonologicalpatterning?wasitconditionedphonologically?
6.howdiditaffectthephonologicalsystem?diditaffectthesetofcontrasts?
phonotactics?stress?diditinvolvechanginganalreadyexistingrule/processor
wasitentirelynew?
7.diditaffectonlyanumberofwords,ordiditaffecteverythingintherelevant
phonologicalenvironment?
8.inwhatwaydiditgetintothephonologicalsystem?howwasitphonologised?
9.isitacommontypeofchange?orisitsurprising?
10.couldithavepatterneddifferently?dochangesofthattypenormallypatterninthatway?
11.whichgroupofspeaker-listenersinnovatedit?children?adults?speakers?listeners?
12.howdoweknowthatthechangehappened?what’stheevidenceforthechange?
13.whydidithappenatpreciselythattimeandthatplace?
Therearedifferentkindsofquestionsinthelistabove,implyingdifferentkindsoffocus–itcanbehelpfulinthisconnectiontodistinguishbetweentwosubfieldsof
‘historicalphonology’
• phonologicalhistory=partofthestudyofspecificlanguages(sometimescalled‘philology’)o =questions1–7,withaninterestin8,andinteractingwith12
• generalhistoricalphonology=partofthestudyofgenerallinguisticso =questions9-11,withaninterestingeneralisingover3-8
• differentkindsofevidenceandargumentationarerelevanttodifferentquestions
Thesedifferencesoffocusare,however,intimatelylinked:
• inordertounderstandanyindividualchangeinthephonologicalhistoryofalanguage,weneedtounderstandhowlanguagescanchangeingeneral
• inordertounderstandhowlanguagescanchangeingeneral,weneedtoknowaboutlotsofindividualchangesinlotsoflanguages
• buttheapproachesareoftenpursueddistinctly:
o someworkfocusesonthephonologicalhistoryofx(x=English,French,Russian,Swahili,etc)
o otherworkisongeneralhistoricalphonology,aimingtoworkoutprinciplesofchange
9.isitacommontypeofchange?orisitsurprising?
• thisinvitesfurtherquestions:o whatare‘commonchanges’inthehistoryoflanguages?o whatkindsofthingsdoweexpecttofindinphonologicalchange?o arethere‘possible’changesand‘impossible’changes?–sometimesseenasthecrucialquestiono isthereasetofpossiblechangeswhichlanguagescaninnovate?• thesearetypologicalquestionso thestudyofdiachronictypologyisoneaspectofhistoricalphonologyo synchronicphonologicaltypologycanalsoactasacontrolonwhatweshouldreconstruct
13.whydidithappenatpreciselythattimeandthatplace?• thisis,infact,likelyunanswerable–canweeverhopetopredictwhenchangeswilloccur?o Weinreich,Labov&Herzog(1968)callthistheactuationproblem:o “Whatfactorscanaccountfortheactuationofchanges?Whydochangesinastructuralfeaturetakeplaceinaparticularlanguageatagiventime,butnotin
otherlanguageswiththesamefeature,orinthesamelanguageatothertimes?This
actuationproblemcanberegardedastheveryheartofthematter.”
o itisoftenarguedthatwecan’thopetobeabletopredictexactlywhenparticularchangeswilloccur
o rather,however,wecanhopetounderstandtheprinciplesthatgoverntheintroductionofchangeswhentheyoccur:whatcouldhappenandwhatcouldnot