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],4 before the sounds represented by the graphemes <r>, <h>, and its labialized counterpart <ƕ> (pronounced ‘hwair’). Some examples are presented in (1). EGmc reconstructions are presented in the first column; attested Gothic forms are presented in the second one.5 A comparison of the EGmc forms with the Gothic reconstructions in (1a) indicates that EGmc *[i] lowers to Gothic [e] before the sound represented by the grapheme <r>, which is shown with bold-facing for emphasis. The data in (1b) exemplify lowering of the high back vowel in a pre-rhotic context.

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].

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 (2004: 27ff) for further details.

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).

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 active feature.

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 (1968) argue that mid vowels are marked by inactive features. In privative approaches, e.g. Lahiri & Reetz (2010), that has been interpreted such that mid vowels are unmarked for height features. That is, mid vowels are non-high and non-low, as in (5a). On the other hand, Element Theory (Backley 2011) and the related frameworks of Dependency Phonology (Anderson & Ewen 1987) and Government Phonology (Kaye et al. 1985; 1990; Harris 1994) have long argued that mid vowels are combinations of elements. That is, they are marked with two active features, as in (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).

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.

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 (2003), using reconstructed inflections from Ringe (2006). Each of these forms has a short [a] followed by an umlaut trigger. The OHG forms in the second column are the reflexes of the PGmc forms. In each example, OHG [e] in the initial syllable corresponds to PGmc [a]. For space, the additional sound changes that separate the OHG forms from PGmc are not discussed.

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.

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:7 the umlaut trigger, which is specified with the feature [high], spreads that feature onto the target stem vowel, as in (16).

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].8

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.9 In contrast to the ‘Blocking’ dialects, ‘Non-Blocking’ dialects are characterized by the expected pattern of umlaut, as in the third column. Refer to Reiffenstein & Braune (2004: 29–31) for more detailed information about the dialect regions where blocking does and does not occur. There are three segments which block the application of Primary Umlaut: coda rhotics, as in (17a), dorsal fricatives (represented by <h>), as in (17b), and coda laterals, as in (17c).10

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,11 is suggestive of a sound change which makes Gothic <l> and OHG <l> (at least in codas of OHG ‘Blocking’ dialects) phonologically distinct. This point is further discussed in section 4.3.1.

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 (Goldsmith 1976), as in (18).

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).

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).

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.12

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 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 (2008), argues that features are not truly universal (in the sense of Universal Grammar), but rather emergent. An emergent feature system is newly constructed by every first language learner based on everything from non-language-specific categorizing of sounds to social factors. An important piece of supporting evidence for emergent theories is that unnatural classes are quite common. Since Emergent Feature Theory maintains that a learner can ascribe any feature onto any sound – so long as there is evidence for that feature assignment somewhere in the phonology, or even the linguistic community – any group of sounds can potentially enter into a natural class relationship.13

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 (2008: 118) finds that the SPE feature system is able to capture phonologically active natural classes in 70.97% of the 6,077 cases investigated. Put differently, features correlate to articulation with some degree of success. Even if articulation does not cause feature structure, the correlation between articulation and feature structure suggests that analyses like the one in section 2 and section 3 likely reveal characteristics of pronunciation.

The Chomsky & Halle (1968: 304) definition of [high] is presented in (21).

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).

The chart in (22) shows the IPA symbols for rhotics and fricatives with reference to the Chomsky & Halle (1968) definition of the feature [high]. Beyond the high vowels, all consonants at postalveolar, retroflex,15 palatal, and velar places of articulation are also marked with the feature [high]. Alveolar and uvular consonants, by contrast, do not involve tongue raising above the neutral position. Thus, they are non-high sounds.

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 (1996: 234), [ɹ] can be “alveolar or postalveolar.” It can be “more or less retroflex.” If bunched, [ɹ] will have constrictions “at the center of the palate” (and in the lower pharynx16). Zhou et al. (2008: 4466) further clarify that “the locations of constrictions, and the degrees and lengths of constriction significantly differ, especially along the palate.” Since the center of the palate is the dividing point for palatal and velar sounds, it follows that bunched [ɹ] could be palatal or velar. In sum, [ɹ] is a rhotic symbol for numerous rhotic articulations that overlap entirely with the places of articulation corresponding to the feature [high]. Thus, if there is a rhotic sound (with all its phonetic diversity) that may be prototypical of a [high] rhotic, [ɹ] is clearly a persuasive candidate.

From the perspective of Germanic linguistics, *[ɹ] – in its diverse forms – is the most likely [high] rhotic, insofar as postalveolar [r] and [ɾ] are exotic17 and the ‘true’ retroflex sounds that are found in the Nordic languages are unequivocally recent developments. Accordingly, the [high] rhotic of early Germanic languages was very likely some realization of the [ɹ]-sound.

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 (2011: 115) describes the Faroese rhotic as “typically (post-) alveolar or retroflex, and most of the time…more like an approximant than a trill.” Additionally, [ɹ] is frequent in Dutch (e.g. Goeman & Van de Velde 2001; Sebregts 2014). It is found in Frisian (cf. the transcription in Walker 1990: 27). It is also a feature of German (which has declined significantly in recent decades). Consider, however, the map of German rhotic pronunciations in (23) from Göschel (1971).

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].18 This is observed also by Bellmann (1961: 21–23). In addition to the larger regions of [ɽ]/[ɹ], the map uses dots to indicate further locations where [ɽ]/[ɹ] was in use throughout Low and Central German dialects.19

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 (1990: 27) transcription of Mooring Frisian, for example, [r] appears in onset position and [ɹ] appears in a syllable coda. Such observations lead to a prospectus of further inquiry, which, for space, is briefly summarized with a list of research questions: How old is rhotic allophony in Germanic languages? Was rhotic allophony characteristic of PGmc? If so, does a phonologically mono-rhotic language like Icelandic, which only has [r], come about because of an *[ɹ]-allophone that neutralized to [r]? Does a mono-rhotic language like American English, which only has [ɹ], come about because of an *[r]-allophone that neutralized to [ɹ]? In languages with r-vocalization, does the [ɹ]-variant diachronically feed the vocalized alternant of present-day dialects of languages like English and German? Is the [r]-variant more likely to license a diachronic shift to uvular [ʀ]? Once a rhotic shifts phonetically, can its original feature specification be retained? If so, for how long?20

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 ganah ‘it suffices’ and OHG ginah ‘it suffices’ both descend from Centum *[k]. Because of the OHG consonant shift, additional instances of OHG <h> derive from WGmc *[k]. The significant generalization, then, is that the grapheme represented by <h> always goes back to a velar consonant. For this reason, when <h> patterns as a [high] sound – in the Chomsky & Halle (1968) sense – it is most likely the orthographic expression of [x].

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 (2002: 77) notes that [x] is pronounced in the Alemannic dialect of Bosco Gurin. Berroth (2001) transcribes Middle Swabian (Alemannic) words with a velar fricative. Bachmann (2000) offers a particularly detailed phonetic description of the Bavarian dialect spoken in Eslarn. According to Bachmann, an advanced velar fricative [x̟] is even found after back vowels.

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 ahsa ‘axis’, flahs ‘flax’, fuhs ‘fox’, lahs ‘salmon, lox’, sehs ‘six’ > Modern German Achse [aksə], Flachs [flaks], Fuchs [fuks], Lachs [laks], sechs [zɛks].21 If OHG <h> in fact represented anything other than [x], we would expect this pre-sibilant shift to produce a non-velar sound.22 Accordingly, the analysis presented above, in addition to evidence from conservative dialects and the development of the <h>-sound before [s] makes any reconstructed sound other than [x] untenable. This finding is significant because it is frequently assumed that PGmc *[x] retracted to [χ] in early Germanic languages (see discussion in Barrack 1987 and Hall 2009). Some researchers even argue for early debuccalization, whereby <h> represented [h] (Howell 1991; Iverson et al. 1994; Howell & Somers Wicka 2007). Counter to these claims, the evidence above indicates that <h> in Gothic and OHG represented [x].

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.

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.

In the earliest accounts of Gothic Lowering (e.g. Grimm 1822: 44; Braune 1880: 6–7; Le Marchant Douse 1886: 20–21; Brugmann 1888: 58; Prokosch 1939: 114; Hill 1936: 18, inter alios) <r> and <h> are understood as triggers of the change. In Hill’s (1936: 18) words, for example, Gothic Lowering was “obviously phonetically controlled.” However, any reason for that control received no comment. Only Grimm (1822: 44) speculates that <r> and <h> cause high vowels to shift to mid vowels29 “ihrer schwierigen aussprache wegen.”30 Later work on Gothic Lowering, e.g. Beade (1971: 40ff), Bennett (1980: 89ff), and Binnig (1999: 50–53), offers no further insight into Gothic <r> and <h> and why those sounds trigger the lowering of high vowels.

Concerning Primary Umlaut, Braune (1877: 552) first noted that <r> and <h> (and <l>) blocked the sound change from occurring when they were situated between the trigger and target of Primary Umlaut. In Braune’s opinion, <r> and <h> (in words like OHG arbi ‘inheritance’ and mahti ‘powers’) were ‘dark’ sounds, meaning that they were closer in articulation to back vowels. As such, they counteracted the umlauting effect of [i]. Beyond that initial speculation, later work did not supply much insight into the inhibitory nature of <r> and <h>. For instance, Voyles (1992: 212) simply notes that various consonants “such as [h, x] can inhibit the application of the [Primary Umlaut] rule.”

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.31 Vennemann (1972) argues that Gothic Lowering is a kind of ‘relative’ assimilation. From this perspective, <r> and <h> have a relative feature {low}32 since, relative to the high vowels [i] and [u], the tongue posturing of <r> and <h> is claimed to be lower. In a similar manner, the mid vowels [e] and [o], relative to [i] and [u], are also marked with the relative feature {low}. In this way, Vennemann (1972) can formalize Gothic Lowering as a kind of relative assimilation: Gothic high vowels shift to {low} mid vowels owing to the influence of the {low} consonants <r> and <h>.33 Relative features are clearly language specific. For example, in OHG, Vennemann argues that all dental consonants are {low} with respect to the high back vowel [u]. If Gothic were similar to OHG, dental consonants in Gothic in words like brust ‘breast’ and gulþ ‘gold’ should be {low} and, as such, trigger Gothic Lowering. In the end, it is unclear how the relative feature responsible for Gothic Lowering might account for the blocking of Primary Umlaut in OHG.

A formal treatment of OHG Primary Umlaut is proposed by Iverson et al. (1994). In their approach, <r> and <h> are vowel-like. That vocalic quality is responsible for blocking Primary Umlaut (for space, the specific formal reasons are not discussed here in detail). Evidence for the vocalic character of <r> is rhotic vocalization in modern dialects. The authors follow Howell (1991) in that they believe <h> represents [h]. Since [h] can be understood as a voiceless vowel, <r> and <h> can pattern together as a natural class.

As discussed above, however, there is no evidence that <h> ever debuccalized in words like OHG mahti ‘powers’, which retain a dorsal fricative into the present day. Additionally, the pronunciation of <h> as [k] before [s] strongly indicates that <h> had a velar articulation, not a glottal one.

The additional problem with the account by Iverson et al. (1994) is that there is no attempt to explain why <r> and <h> in Gothic also pattern together as a natural class. Vocalized forms of <r> and <h> are clearly not conditioners of Gothic Lowering (especially since onset and coda consonants serve as triggers). Thus, their account of OHG Primary Umlaut leaves us to conclude that this historical conspiracy is coincidental; two separate accounts would be needed to analyze the OHG facts and Gothic facts. If each historical change were to require a unique account, there is little hope of aggregating insight into broader characteristics of early Germanic phonology.