This article reconstructs the archaic Germanic rhotic by examining a natural class pattern common to Gothic and Old High German (OHG). Specifically, I argue that the sounds represented by the graphemes <r> and <h> patterned as [high] segments. Due to the Obligatory Contour Principle, those [high] consonants triggered dissimilatory lowering of high vowels in Gothic. On account of the No-Crossing Constraint, the same (i.e. etymologically related) consonants blocked the OHG process known as Primary Umlaut. That is, <r> and <h> inhibited the height features of [i] and [j] from spreading regressively onto a preceding low vowel. These novel analyses not only offer insight into patterns which have been poorly understood for the better part of two centuries, but also add clarity to our understanding of the phonological and phonetic properties of Early Germanic rhotics.
Owing to their significant phonetic diversity, rhotic sounds are difficult to characterize phonologically (see
Due to Gothic Lowering, all instances of Gothic [e] and [o] were regular reflexes of Proto-Germanic (PGmc) *[i] and *[u], respectively, before the graphemes <r> (a rhotic < PGmc *r) and <h> (a dorsal fricative < PGmc *x
In Old High German (OHG), <r> and <h> were consonants that blocked Primary Umlaut, which was a regular process of distance assimilation that involved the spreading of the feature [high]. Due to that spreading, PGmc *[a] shifted to OHG [e] before a high front vowel or glide in the following syllable, e.g. OHG
These analyses have several significant implications. For example, previous work consistently regards Gothic Lowering as an assimilatory process. The analysis here suggests that that centuries-old idea is a mischaracterization and that one of the central pillars of Gothic phonology has been misunderstood. Additionally, the analysis of the blocking of Primary Umlaut in OHG has never accorded with the analysis of the triggers of Gothic Lowering. Since <r> and <h> in Gothic, as well as OHG, can both be regular reflexes of the PGmc rhotic and dorsal fricative, respectively, the coherence of these two analyses offers new insight into reconstructed PGmc phonology.
Coherence of phonological properties within a language family is indicative of phonological characteristics that are learned consistently, notwithstanding temporally and geographically dissimilar contexts.
The article is organized as follows. Gothic Lowering is discussed and analyzed in section 2. Section 3 follows with a treatment of Primary Umlaut in OHG. It is concluded that <r> and <h> in Gothic and OHG represented sounds that were marked with the feature [high]. In section 4, I address some of the implications that the analysis has for the phonetics and phonology of early Germanic languages. I also review some of the previous accounts of the Gothic and OHG data. Conclusions are stated in section 5.
Gothic Lowering has received scholarly attention since the earlier part of the 19th century, e.g. Grimm (
Gothic Lowering refers to the shift of the East Germanic (EGmc) short high vowels *[i] and *[u] to the corresponding Gothic mid vowels, [e] and [o],
(1a) | |||
*w[i]r- | w[e] |
‘man’ | |
*b[i]ran- | b[e] |
‘to bear’ | |
*b[i]rht- | b[e] |
‘bright’ | |
*g[i]rn- | g[e] |
‘desire’ | |
*f[i]rn- | f[e] |
‘previous’ | |
*g[i]rd- | g[e] |
‘belt’ | |
*h[i]rd- | h[e] |
‘herd’ | |
*h[i]rt- | h[e] |
‘heart’ | |
*st[i]rn- | st[e] |
‘star’ | |
*þ[i]rhw- | þ[e] |
‘through’ | |
*w[i]rpan- | w[e] |
‘throw’ | |
*w[i]rþ- | w[e] |
‘worth’ |
(1b) | |||
*d[u]r- | d[o] |
‘door, gate’ | |
*b[u]rg- | b[o] |
‘castle’ | |
*f[u]rht- | f[o] |
‘fearful’ | |
*h[u]rn- | h[o] |
‘horn’ | |
*k[u]rn- | k[o] |
‘grain, wheat’ | |
*m[u]rgin- | m[o] |
‘morning’ | |
*s[u]rg- | s[o] |
‘to be worried’ | |
*þ[u]rn- | þ[o] |
‘thorn’ | |
*w[u]rd- | w[o] |
‘word’ | |
*w[u]rm- | w[o] |
‘snake’ | |
*w[u]rt- | w[o] |
‘root’ |
The examples of Gothic Lowering in (2) show the graphemes <h> and <ƕ> as additional conditioners of the change. The data in (2a) illustrate the shift from EGmc *[i] to Gothic [e] in this context; the examples in (2b) demonstrate the lowering of EGmc *[u] to Gothic [o].
(2a) | |||
*sl[i]ht | sl[e] |
‘smooth’ | |
*f[i]h- | f[e] |
‘money’ | |
*fr[i]hnan- | fr[e] |
‘ask’ | |
*r[i]ht- | r[e] |
‘straight’ | |
*s[i]h- | s[e] |
‘six’ | |
*s[i]hst- | s[e] |
‘sixth’ | |
*sw[i]hur- | sw[e] |
‘father-in-law’ | |
*t[i]hund- | t[e] |
‘tenth’ | |
*t[i]hsw- | t[e] |
‘right’ | |
*t[i]hun | t[e] |
‘ten’ | |
*w[i]ht- | w[e] |
‘thing’ | |
*s[i]hwan- | s[e] |
‘see’ |
(2b) | |||
*dr[u]ht- | dr[o] |
‘campaign’ | |
*d[u]ht- | d[o] |
‘daughter’ | |
*d[u]ht- | d[o] |
‘feast’ | |
*f[u]h- | f[o] |
‘she-fox’ | |
*l[u]hatjan- | l[o] |
‘to flash’ | |
*s[u]ht- | s[o] |
‘sickness’ | |
*t[u]ht- | us-t[o] |
‘completion’ | |
*[u]hwn- | [o] |
‘oven’ | |
*[u]hs- | [o] |
‘ox’ |
In all other contexts, EGmc high vowels were inherited as such into Gothic. The forms in (3a) exemplify the retention of a high front vowel; the ones in (3b) reflect the faithful transmission of EGmc *[u] into Gothic. See Heidermanns & Braune (
(3a) | |||
*l[i]b- | l[i] |
‘live’ | |
*l[i]þ- | l[i] |
‘limb’ | |
*f[i]sk- | f[i] |
‘fish’ | |
*[i]s | [i] |
‘he’ | |
*l[i]st- | l[i] |
‘cunning’ | |
*m[i]ss- | m[i] |
‘mutually’ | |
*m[i]zd- | m[i] |
‘reward’ | |
*l[i]t- | l[i] |
‘hypocrisy’ | |
*m[i]n- | m[i] |
‘less’ |
(3b) | |||
*h[u]p- | h[u] |
‘hip’ | |
*br[u]st- | br[u] |
‘breast’ | |
*br[u]k- | ga-br[u] |
‘crumb’ | |
*f[u]gl- | f[u] |
‘bird’ | |
*h[u]g- | h[u] |
‘mind’ | |
*fr[u]m- | fr[u] |
‘first’ | |
*g[u]m- | g[u] |
‘man’ | |
*d[u]lg- | d[u] |
‘debt’ | |
*g[u]lþ- | g[u] |
‘gold’ |
While Gothic Lowering is an excellent example of a neogrammarian regular sound change, its interpretation, despite that regularity, is not at all clear. In the section below, two contradicting analyses are presented, followed by a discussion on how to disambiguate those analytical treatments.
Because Gothic Lowering involves a shift of high vowels to mid vowels, an analysis of the process depends crucially on representations of vocalic height. High Vowels like [i] and [u] can be represented, more or less uncontroversially, as in (4).
(4) |
The representation in (4) shows that high vowels are marked with an autosegmental feature [high]. For the purpose of this article, it is not crucial whether that autosegment is thought of as a binary feature ‘[+high]’, a unary feature ‘[high]’, or as an abbreviation for elements like ‘|i| and |u|’. What is important – and unanimous in feature theories – is that all high vowels are marked with an
It is unclear, however, if mid vowels are also marked with active features, due to an age-old debate. On the one hand, Chomsky & Halle (
(5a) |
(5b) |
These two representations for mid vowels mean that there are two interpretations for the lowering of a high vowel to a mid vowel. These are stated in (6).
(6) | Interpretations of High Vowel Lowering: | |
a. | ||
b. |
As I elaborate in section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 below, both interpretations of Gothic Lowering – absent further data – are possible and depend crucially on the features ascribed to <r> and <h>. For this reason, sound changes that involve <r> and <h> as a natural class are significant because they offer a way to disambiguate the interpretations in (6), whereby deeper insight into the phonology of early Germanic languages becomes discoverable. If <r> and <h> are marked with the feature [high], as pursued in section 2.2.1, then Gothic Lowering is consistent with the interpretation in (6a). If, however, <r> and <h> are marked with the feature [low], then Gothic Lowering is consistent with (6b). After these two possibilities are presented, I pursue independent arguments from OHG that favor the analysis of <r> and <h> as [high] segments and thus support the analysis of the Gothic development as an instance of subtractive lowering (i.e. (6a)). Additional arguments are presented in section 4.2.
Because the sounds represented by <r> and <h> condition Gothic Lowering, these segments must be marked with a feature that can interact with high vowels and trigger the lowering of those high vowels to corresponding mid vowels. In this section, I propose that the sounds represented by <r> and <h> are marked with the feature [high], as in (7):
(7) |
As a result of the feature marking in (7), forms like EGmc *
(8) |
To resolve the OCP violation, Gothic deleted the feature [high] from the EGmc high vowel (as in (9a)). Due to the deleted feature, a vowel obtained that was unmarked for height features, as shown in (9b). That new vowel was an ‘SPE-like’ mid vowel, consistent with the representation in (5a).
(9a) |
(9b) |
If Gothic <r> and <h> represent sounds marked with the feature [high], an apparent shortcoming of the analysis in (9) is that Gothic has many forms containing the sequences <ri>, <ru>, <hi>, and <hu>, e.g. Gothic
In sum, <r> and <h> are marked with the feature [high]. Thus, Gothic Lowering emerges as a dissimilatory process of subtractive lowering: in order to resolve the OCP violation that emerges from contiguous [high] segments, the feature [high] is deleted, and a mid vowel is produced by virtue of that deletion. The implication of this analysis is that Gothic mid vowels are SPE-like, as in (5a) and that <r> and <h> were [high] sounds.
It is possible that the graphemes represented by <r> and <h> were not marked with the feature [high], but rather the feature [low], as in (10).
(10) |
As a result of this feature marking, forms like EGmc *
(11) |
Gothic Lowering occurs when the feature [low] spreads regressively from a consonant onto a preceding high vowel, as shown in (12a). As a result of that spreading, a new vowel is created, which is simultaneously marked with the features [high] and [low], as in (12b). That new vowel is an ‘ET-like’ mid vowel, consistent with the representation in (5b).
(12a) |
(12b) |
If the sounds represented by the graphemes <r> and <h> are marked with the feature [low], Gothic Lowering falls out from a process of feature spreading. Accordingly, it is an assimilatory process of additive lowering. For this to be the case, not only do <r> and <h> need to be marked with the feature [low], but Gothic mid vowels must also be ‘ET-like’.
As the analyses in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 suggest, the rhotic and dorsal fricative sounds of Gothic can be taken as [high] (as in (7)) or [low] (as in (10)). What is needed, then, is a way to disambiguate these specifications. Because there appear to be no other Gothic processes which point to one analysis or the other, the only additional information that can be used comes from related languages. For this reason, I turn to OHG.
There are three main reasons why OHG is a good language to consider for gaining insight into Gothic. Firstly, OHG is genetically related to Gothic. As the (simplified) family tree in (13a) makes clear, both languages descend from PGmc. Secondly, the sounds represented by <r> and <h> are inherited from the PGmc rhotic and dorsal fricative, respectively, as indicated in (13b).
(13a) |
(13b) |
(13c) |
The third and most important reason why OHG can shed light on Gothic phonology is that, like Gothic, <r> and <h> pattern together as a natural class (elaborated in the next section). When these facts are taken together, there is a fairly strong syllogism that emerges: if the rhotic and dorsal fricative of Gothic pattern as a natural class and are inherited from PGmc and if the rhotic and dorsal fricative of OHG pattern as a natural class and are inherited from PGmc, then it is highly probable that Gothic <r> and <h> are phonologically the same as OHG <r> and <h>.
While it is clear that the comparison of these sounds is less convincing as more and more time elapses – and to be sure, Gothic and OHG have a great deal of temporal and geographic separation – the natural class patterning is very difficult to explain unless these later stages perpetuate some phonological attribute of the earliest common stage.
In this section, I argue that <r> and <h> in OHG pattern as a natural class of [high] segments because they inhibit the process known as Primary Umlaut. Primary Umlaut is discussed and analyzed in section 3.1. Section 3.2 follows with a discussion and analysis of the blocking effect that <r> and <h> exact on Primary Umlaut. Because OHG <r> and <h> pattern as [high] sounds, the Gothic analysis in section 2.2.1, as dissimilatory lowering, is most consistent with the emerging picture of early Germanic phonology.
OHG Primary Umlaut is a sound change that refers to the raising and fronting of short [a] to a short, tense [e] when an [i] or [j] (i.e. an umlaut trigger) followed in an adjacent syllable. Some examples are presented in (14). The first column presents PGmc reconstructions from Orel (
(14) | |||
*[a]rƀ[j]an | [e]rb[i] | ‘inheritance’ | |
*ƀ[a]đ[j]an | b[e]tt[i] | ‘bed’ | |
*p[a]nn[i]ǥaz | pf[e]nn[i]ng | ‘penny’ | |
*m[a]nn[i]skaz | m[e]nn[i]sc | ‘human’ | |
*[a]t[j]anan | [e]zzen | ‘to eat’ | |
*h[a]ft[j]anan | h[e]ften | ‘to bind’ | |
*h[a]lđ[i]þi | h[e]lt[i]t | ‘s/he holds’ | |
*w[a]hs[i]þi | w[e]hs[i]t | ‘s/he grows’ | |
*f[a]r[i]si | f[e]r[i]s | ‘you travel’ | |
*ǥ[a]st[ī]z | g[e]st[i] | ‘guests’ | |
*l[a]mƀ[i]z | l[e]mb[i]r | ‘lambs’ | |
*st[a]rk[i]staz | st[e]rk[i]ste | ‘strongest’ |
While the examples in (14) are diachronic in nature, Primary Umlaut also produced synchronic alternations in the language. Some examples are given in (15). OHG forms with non-umlauted stems are shown in the first column. Umlauted forms are presented in the second column. The latter forms are umlauted because their inflectional endings begin with an umlaut trigger, namely, [i]. Stem allomorphy among compositionally related verb forms is exemplified in (15a). The data in (15b) and (15c) show stem allomorphy in nouns and adjectives, respectively.
(15) | OHG Stems | OHG Allomorphs | ||||
a. | h[a]ltan | . |
h[e]lt[i]t | .3. |
‘to hold’ | |
w[a]hsan | . |
w[e]hs[i]t | .3. |
‘to grow’ | ||
f[a]ran | . |
f[e]r[i]s | .3. |
‘to travel’ | ||
b. | g[a]st | . |
g[e]st[i] | . |
‘guest’ | |
l[a]mb | . |
l[e]mb[i]r | . |
‘lamb’ | ||
c. | st[a]rk | . |
st[e]rk[i]ste | . |
‘strong’ |
Umlaut processes (in Germanic languages and elsewhere) are unequivocal examples of distance assimilation. All versions of Autosegmental Phonology model such processes as the result of feature spreading. Adopting privative features, there is only one possible height-based analysis:
(16a) |
(16b) |
In (16a), the active height feature spreads regressively from the umlaut trigger ([i]) onto the target ([a]). In consequence, a new mid vowel forms, as shown in (16b), which has two active height features. In other words, the resulting mid vowel is an ‘ET-like’ mid vowel, which is simultaneously [high] and [low].
Given that the feature [high] is the only active feature which can trigger the process of Primary Umlaut (see also fn. 12), we stand to learn about the phonology of the OHG rhotic (<r>) and dorsal fricative (<h>), since these segments can inhibit Primary Umlaut. Examples are presented and analyzed in section 3.2.
OHG Primary Umlaut was blocked in certain dialects. This point is demonstrated in (17). The first column presents PGmc reconstructions that are expected to serve as inputs to Primary Umlaut in OHG. The second and third columns are representative of the two kinds of OHG dialects. ‘Blocking’ dialects are exemplified by the forms in the second column. Here we see that PGmc *[a] unexpectedly corresponds to OHG [a], despite the presence of an umlaut trigger in the following syllable.
(17a) | ||||
*[a]rƀ[j]an | [a] |
[e]rbi | ‘inheritance’ | |
*st[a]rk[i]staz | st[a] |
st[e]rchi | ‘strength’ | |
*w[a]rm[j]anan | w[a] |
w[e]rmen | ‘to warm’ |
(17b) | *w[a]hs[i]þi | w[a] |
w[e]hsit | ‘s/he grows’ |
*n[a]ht[i]z | n[a] |
n[e]hti | ‘nights’ | |
*m[a]ht[ī]z | m[a] |
m[e]hti | ‘powers’ | |
*[a]h[ī]z | [a] |
[e]hir | ‘ear (grain)’ | |
*sl[a]h[i]þi | sl[a] |
sl[e]hit | ‘s/he hits’ |
(17c) | *h[a]lđ[i]þi | h[a] |
h[e]ltit | ‘s/he holds’ |
*w[a]lđ[i]si | w[a] |
w[e]ltis | ‘you rule’ | |
*[a]lđ[i]zō | [a] |
[e]ltiro | ‘older’ |
For ease of comparison to Gothic <r> and <h>, the analysis below will focus only on the blocking effect imposed by OHG <r> and <h>. The fact that <l> in OHG is a blocking consonant, but <l> in Gothic does not trigger lowering,
I argue that OHG <r> and <h> in ‘Blocking’ dialects must have had a vocalic feature that prevented the spreading of the feature [high]. If <r> and <h> are [high] – as they were in Gothic – then the blocking effect falls out predictably from the No-Crossing Constraint (
(18a) |
(18b) |
The diagram in (18a) shows that the dorsal fricative (<h>) and the umlaut trigger ([i]) are both marked with the feature [high]. When the umlaut trigger spreads its height feature regressively towards the umlaut target ([a]), it encounters another [high] autosegment from the intervening blocking consonant (<h>). Since that feature is on the same autosegmental tier as the height feature of the umlaut trigger, the spreading process is blocked due to the No-Crossing Constraint. As a result, non-blocking forms remain unshifted, as in (18b).
Because OHG forms with blocking are older than the ones which exhibit Primary Umlaut, accounting for ‘Non-Blocking’ dialects involves a phonological shift that affected <h> and <r>. This change is presented in (19).
(19) |
The change in (19) indicates that <r> and <h> lost their height feature in ‘Non-Blocking’ dialects. As a result, Primary Umlaut could proceed unobstructed, as it did in (16). This point is made explicit in (20), which shows the feature [high] spreading from the trigger onto the target in (20a) to create the ‘ET-like’ mid vowel in (20b).
(20a) |
(20b) |
In sum, the analysis of Primary Umlaut indicates that the process falls out from spreading of the feature [high] and that OHG [e] is an ‘ET-like’ mid vowel. In this account, <r> and <h> in ‘Blocking’ dialects are also marked with the feature [high]. Consequently, those sounds inhibit umlaut as predicted by the No-Crossing Constraint.
Because <r> and <h> pattern as a natural class in Gothic and in OHG, the best analysis of both languages is the one that can treat the natural-class pattern in a consistent way. In OHG, <r> and <h> were [high]. If the etymological connection is to be maintained, and if these sounds are assumed to pattern together for the same reasons, it follows that the best analysis of Gothic Lowering is the one that sees that change as a process of dissimilatory lowering, as in section 2.2.1.
In this section, I discuss some selected points pertaining to the analyses presented above. Section 4.1 considers possible phonetic implications of the feature [high] for the sounds represented by <r> and <h>. Section 4.2 finds further support for the “rhotics-are-high” analysis by looking to instances where rhotics trigger postalveolarization. In section 4.3, I discuss some of the phonological implications that the analysis has for segments like velar stops, laterals, and mid vowels. Previous accounts of Gothic Lowering and OHG Primary Umlaut are addressed in section 4.4.
In phonological theory of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, features were thought to be universal. The two most important reasons for assuming universality were that (1) features could be defined with respect to articulation (and to a lesser extent also acoustics), and (2) groups of sounds with a common feature patterned in natural classes, which turned up again and again in the synchronic and diachronic processes of diverse languages and language families.
More recent work on features and feature theories, most explicitly Mielke (
Nevertheless, the general facts about producing (and perceiving) a sound like [i] or [u] are similar from language to language. Thus, Emergent Feature Theory predicts that acquirers of a language will have a fairly high probability of encoding such sounds with consistent phonological features (e.g. [high]). In this way, ‘universal features’ and ‘emergent features’ can and should make the same predictions most of the time. Indeed, Mielke (
The Chomsky & Halle (
(21) | “High sounds are produced by raising the body of the tongue above the level that it occupies in the neutral position; |
Applying the findings of this article to the definition in (21), we can make stronger hypotheses about the phonetic nature of <r> and <h>, as summarized in (22).
(22) |
The chart in (22) shows the IPA symbols for rhotics and fricatives with reference to the Chomsky & Halle (
From an articulatory perspective, the IPA symbol [ɹ] refers to a collection of different rhotic sounds that are produced along an exceptionally broad range of places. For this reason, it is set apart from the other rhotic symbols in (22), which are more precise articulatorily. Quoting phrases from Ladefoged & Maddieson (
From the perspective of Germanic linguistics, *[ɹ] – in its diverse forms – is the most likely [high] rhotic, insofar as postalveolar [r] and [ɾ] are exotic
There are a number of independent reasons to reconstruct PGmc *[ɹ]. Firstly, [ɹ] is found throughout the Germanic languages into the present day. In American English and Faroese, [ɹ] occurs in all environments. Árnason (
(23) |
It can be seen from the map that, in the mid 1930s, the German of far eastern dialects employed a retroflex rhotic or alveolar approximant [ɽ]/[ɹ].
In sum, the collection of sounds captured by the symbol [ɹ] may best represent a ‘[high] rhotic’. Since such [ɹ]-sounds are found in North Germanic (e.g. Faroese) and West Germanic (e.g. English, Frisian, Dutch, and German), the analyses from section 2 and section 3 suggest that the [high] rhotics of Gothic and OHG were similar to the [ɹ]-sounds of North and West Germanic languages. One area for future research might consider whether the diverse articulations characteristic of [ɹ] can shed light on the rhotic diversity of present-day Germanic languages.
Another important direction for future research will be in rhotic allophony. The rhotic sound of many Germanic languages stands in complementary distribution. In Walker’s (
The range of IPA fricatives that are [high], which could have been represented by the grapheme <h> are more restricted. Almost all instances of Gothic <h> derive from Centum *k (< PIE *k, *k̂, etc.), which, owing to Grimm’s Law, spirantized to PGmc *[x]. Many instances of OHG <h> derive from that same origin. For example, <h> in Gothic
There are two additional pieces of evidence supporting that <h> was [x] and not some other fricative. The first is that conservative Bavarian and Alemannic dialects preserve the velar articulation. For example, Russ (
The second piece of evidence that <h> was [x] is that, before [s], the sound represented by <h> dissimilated its continuancy feature and shifted back to [k]. For example, OHG
The present section examines instances of rhotic-conditioned postalveolarization as further support for the “rhotics-are-high” analysis. Section 4.2.1 discusses postalveolarization in Germanic language history, and section 4.2.2 considers how [high] rhotics may also advance our understanding of so-called ‘ruki-rules’ outside of Germanic languages.
Early New High German (ENHG) Postalveolarization is exemplified by the forms in (24). In the first column, Middle High German (MHG) examples are provided. Each form contains a rhotic followed by [s]. ENHG reflexes of the MHG examples are presented in the second column. From these examples it can be observed that MHG post-rhotic [s] corresponds to [ʃ] in the ENHG, thus exhibiting the regular shift of MHG <r>+[s] > ENHG <r>+[ʃ].
(24) | |||
hir[s] | hir[ʃ] | ‘deer’ | |
kir[s]e | kir[ʃ]e | ‘cherry’ | |
hēr[s]en | herr[ʃ]en | ‘to rule’ | |
bar[s] | bar[ʃ] | ‘perch’ | |
mür[s]- | mor[ʃ] | ‘rotten’ |
If the rhotic of MHG and ENHG, as in OHG, was [high], the development in (24) can be analyzed as an example of progressive height assimilation. This change is presented in (25).
(25a) |
(25b) |
In (25a), the feature [high] spreads progressively from the rhotic sound onto the following alveolar sibilant. As a result of that spreading, [s] (which is alveolar and therefore non-[high]) shifts to [ʃ] (which is postalveolar and [high]), as illustrated in (25b).
The characterization of [ʃ] as a [high] sound is not controversial. Beyond the fact that a ‘high’ [ʃ] is consistent with the definition presented in (21), there is overwhelming cross-linguistic evidence to support the claim. For example, there are
In contrast to high vowels, Kochetov (
In sum, the ‘rhotics-are-high’ analysis captures high vowels, postalveolar consonants, and the rhotic of early Germanic languages as a natural class. That natural class pattern, unlike any other proposals that I am aware of, points to the feature [high] as a common phonological structure involved in Gothic Lowering, Primary Umlaut Blocking, and ENHG Postalveolarization. As I discuss in the next section, it is precisely this group of sounds that are also involved in so-called ‘ruki-rules’.
An example of a ruki-rule is observed in the Avestan reflexes of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) *[s]. In Avestan, PIE *[s] is reflected as a post-alveolar [ʃ] following the segments [r, u, k, i]. Some examples of the change from Hall (
(26) | Postalveolarization in Avestan | ||
|
|||
*[s] | pā[ʃ]na (< *par[ʃ]na) | ‘heal’ | |
ar[ʃ]ti | ‘spear’ | ||
*[s] | hu[ʃ]ka | ‘dry’ | |
zu[ʃ]ta | ‘enjoyed’ | ||
ratu[ʃ] | ‘span, time’ | ||
tanu[ʃ] | ‘body’ | ||
*[s] | da[ʃ]ina (< *dak[ʃ]ina) | ‘right hand’ | |
vax[ʃ] (<x> = [k]) | ‘grow’ | ||
*[s] | vi[ʃ]a | ‘poison’ |
Following the Chomsky & Halle (
(27) | ruki-Postalveolarization |
The analytical sketch in (27), which is not intended to be a detailed account, may be helpful to better understand data that have not been easy to capture in phonological terms. Blevins (
This section aims to address some of the questions left open by the analyses in sections 2 and 3. In section 4.3.1, the status of non-continuant velars is considered. Implications for the structure of mid vowels are addressed in section 4.3.2.
The definition of the feature [high] in (21) includes velar stops (oral and nasal). Both Gothic and Old High German had the sounds [k], [g], and [ŋ]. The examples in (28a) indicate that these velar segments did not trigger Gothic Lowering. The examples in (28b) show that velar stops also did not block the application of Primary Umlaut in OHG.
(28a) | |||
*[i] | f[i] |
‘finger’ | |
*[i] | r[i] |
‘rain’ | |
*[i] | br[i] |
‘to break’ | |
*[u] | ga-br[u] |
‘crumb’ | |
*[u] | f[u] |
‘bird’ | |
*[u] | h[u] |
‘mind’ |
(28b) | |||
*[a] | l[e] |
‘longest’ | |
*[a] | sk[e] |
‘to give to drink’ | |
*[a] | r[e] |
‘to reach’ | |
*[a] | d[e] |
‘to cover’ | |
*[a] | l[e] |
‘to lay’ | |
*[a] | w[e] |
‘to move’ |
The examples in (28) are not problematic for the analyses presented above because [k], [g], and [ŋ] constitute a natural class of velar stops. There are different ways to account for this regularity. In the logic of Contrastive Feature Hierarchies (
Lateral segments are also germain to the discussion of velar stops. On the one hand, this is because laterals in Germanic languages are both ‘clear’ (non-velarized) and ‘dark’ (velarized). Only the latter variant is predicted to be specified with the feature [high] according to the definition in (21). On the other hand, the status of laterals with respect to their continuancy is debated. By SPE convention, lateral sounds are [-continuant]. However, Mielke’s (
A tentative conclusion regarding the OHG <l> which blocked Primary Umlaut is that it represented an [ɫ], which like [x], had a velar place and a continuant manner of articulation.
One of the conclusions from the analysis above is that Gothic and OHG had different mid vowel structures. I argued above that Gothic mid vowels were SPE-like (non-[high] and non-[low]), while [e] and [o] in OHG were ET-like ([high] and [low]). This conclusion would be problematic if Gothic [e,o] < EGmc *[e,o] < PGmc *[e,o]
(29a) |
(29b) |
The historical sketch in (29b) is counterfactual. Owing to two context-free sound changes, there are no etymological ties between the Gothic mid vowels and the ones in OHG. The first change, labeled as ‘I’ in (30c), is that all instances of PIE *[o] shifted to PGmc *[a]. As a result, *[o] did not occur in PGmc at all. The new PGmc *[a] was generally retained in EGmc and WGmc. Thus, cognate words from corresponding daughter languages, like Go
(30a) |
(30b) |
(30c) |
Both Gothic and OHG developed new mid back vowels that were reflexes of PGmc *[u]. However, these new back vowels developed at different times and in different contexts. That is, Gothic [o] and OHG [o] are never of common origin. The new mid back vowel in Gothic is always the result of Gothic Lowering. In OHG, most of the new instances of [o] are inherited from Northwest Germanic (NWGmc): due to the sound change known as a-mutation or a-umlaut, PGmc *[u] shifted to NWGmc *[o] when a non-high vowel followed in the immediately adjacent syllable. Because of Gothic Lowering, Gothic [o] corresponds to OHG [u] in words like Gothic
The important point to be drawn from the discussion above is that the mid vowels of Gothic and OHG
In the earliest accounts of Gothic Lowering (e.g.
Concerning Primary Umlaut, Braune (
More formal accounts of Gothic Lowering and Primary Umlaut Blocking have continued to be unable to capture the <r> and <h> pattern as a conspiracy. I use the term ‘conspiracy’ to refer to a linguistic commonality, which turns up in temporally and geographically disparate contexts.
A formal treatment of OHG Primary Umlaut is proposed by Iverson et al. (
As discussed above, however, there is no evidence that <h> ever debuccalized in words like OHG
The additional problem with the account by Iverson et al. (
One of the difficulties in individually analyzing archaic phenomena like Gothic Lowering and OHG Primary Umlaut Blocking is that the assortment of possible theoretical representations (e.g. the representation of rhotics, dorsal fricatives, and mid vowels) corresponds to an array of plausible analytical treatments of the phenomena in question.
I have argued that the graphemes <r> and <h> in Gothic and OHG have in common that they are [high] sounds. With that representation, both the analysis of Gothic lowering and the analysis of OHG Primary Umlaut Blocking fall out in a straightforward way. In Gothic, the height feature of <r> and <h> triggered dissimilatory lowering of preceding high vowels due to an OCP violation. In OHG, that height feature blocked the application of OHG Primary Umlaut due to the No-Crossing Constraint. Further evidence for a [high] rhotic in Germanic language history was observed in the rhotic-conditioned postalveolarization of MHG [s].
Because the rhotic and dorsal fricative sounds of Gothic and OHG are reflexes of PGmc *r and *x, their patterning as [high] segments in Gothic and OHG implies that they also patterned as [high] sounds in PGmc. In this way, the approach here aggregates insights from Gothic and OHG into a broader characteristic of early Germanic phonology.
Insofar as feature representations generally correlate to phonetic implementations, the collection of articulations subsumed under the IPA symbol [ɹ] represents the most prototypical kind of [high] rhotic. That is the case because they can be produced anywhere from the postalveolar ridge to the soft palate – precisely the range of places that, according to Chomsky & Halle (
3.
For reference, the following abbreviations are used throughout this article: Proto-Germanic
I use *r and *x to indicate a reconstructed rhotic and dorsal fricative, respectively, which are of uncertain phonetic quality. I reserve bracketed reconstructions like *[r] and *[x] for reconstructions that are intended to express a specific phonetic articulation.
The extant Gothic corpus is associated with Germanic settlements north of the Black Sea during the 4th century BCE. The OHG language is associated with Germanic settlements in central Europe, between the 8th and 11th centuries.
It is well-understood that the Gothic mid vowels [e] and [o] were represented with the digraphs <ai> and <au>, respectively (see
The EGmc forms are based on PGmc reconstructions from Orel (
Unlike Gothic, where virtually all instances of <r> and <h> are old and descend from PGmc *r and *x, OHG has both old and new instance of <r> and <h>. The new cases of <r> emerge from the rhoticism of PGmc *z (compare Gothic
In a privative approach, minus-features, like [–low], are redundant (and thus analytically superfluous). It has been frequently pointed out in the literature on Element Theory, Dependency Phonology, and related frameworks (e.g.
The difference between the mid vowel representation for OHG and the one for Gothic is discussed in section 4.3.2.
Or former presence of an umlaut trigger, as in OHG
The blocked forms in (17) are clearly the upshot of phonology and not morphology: a form like
For example, lowering is not observed in Gothic forms like
It might be possible to imagine an approach to Primary Umlaut blocking that sees <r> and <h> as [+low] segments. Such an approach might argue that Primary Umlaut is actually the spreading of [–low] and that the [a] and <r> in a word like
Substance-free phonology (
Chomsky & Halle (
I assume that retroflex sounds can also be interpreted as [high] sounds. While this assumption is partly inconsistent with definitions in SPE, the purpose of the discussion to follow is to establish a list of
Shahin (
The symbols [r] and [ɾ], while generally alveolar (and therefore non-[high]), may have articulations in the postalveolar region, which would be associated with the feature [high]. However, such postalveolar trills are extremely rare from a cross-linguistic perspective (cf.
I interpret the cooccurrence with [ɹ] as an indication that these dialects had a rhotic like the one in American English, which can be articulated with retroflexion but may also lack retroflexion.
The map is based on recordings of about 1200 speakers taken in 1936 from 300 places. It is not clear if any socioeconomic factors were taken into account. There is also no indication of the phonological environment of these rhotic sounds.
Hall (
WGmc *[k] is rendered in OHG orthography as <k> and <c>, where it is retained, but as <h>, where it has shifted to a fricative. If <hs> sequences entered into OHG from an earlier *[ks] sequence, as a reviewer suggests, that [k]-sound would be the only orthographic instance of an inherited [k] that was represented by <h>. Additional facts in other Germanic languages make clear that the <h> in OHG <hs> sequences was a frequent reflex of PGmc/WGmc *[x], (which was a frequent reflex of Centum *[k]).
The change occurred
For space, I am setting aside two details about the development of OHG [s] > MHG/ENHG [ʃ]. First, is that OHG [sk] sequences coalesced into [ʃ] (usually assumed to occur over the intermediate stage [sx]), e.g. MHG [ʃ]if ‘ship’ < OHG [sk]if. For an analysis of this development that is compatible with the approach taken in (25), see Hall (2007: 217–219) and Kostakis (
Gothic <gg> is the orthographic representation for [ŋg]. In OHG, <gg> is a geminate [gː].
The same restriction is not true of languages with ruki-postalveolarization. That stops in these languages may be marked by the feature [high] would indicate a differently structured hierarchy of contrastive features.
While this formal explanation is novel, the idea that ‘dark’ [ɫ] had something to do with the blocking of Primary Umlaut is already suggested by Braune (
Attested in the compound
If there are two kinds of mid vowels, future research will need to examine if there are other historical examples of a mid vowel shifting from one type of specification to another. An additional question is if both types of mid vowels can coexist in the same language.
Grimm believed that this change occurred via an intermediate stage of diphthongization; see fn. 4.
“On account of their difficult pronunciation” [AEK].
An uncontroversial example of a linguistic commonality would be a palatalization rule like [k] > [tʃ]/_[i], which as Blevins (
I use curly brackets to distinguish the relative feature {low} from the absolute feature [low].
It is unclear if Vennemann’s notion of feature relativity holds up to closer scrutiny. In its original conception, Vennemann’s (
This is equally true for phonetic research. Because rhotics, for example, can interact with vowels in an assortment of ways, it is essential to examine rhotic effects that are embedded within a larger natural-class pattern. Future research that aims to retrofit the phonetic properties of sounds in modern languages to archaic developments (as in
I would like to extend my gratitude to Adèle Jatteau and Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho for inviting me to the Universitè Paris’ workshop on rhotics ‘
The author has no competing interests to declare.