Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T05:57:05.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boundaries as obstruents: Old English voicing assimilation and universal strength hierarchies1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Roger Lass
Roger Lass
Affiliation:
Department of English Language, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I. The facts about the behaviour of fricatives in Old English in relation to surrounding segments are well known; but these facts (and some others) illustrate some interesting general principles that seem not to have been thoroughly discussed. A classic formulation of the data is that of Sweet (1953: 3):

… f and s, in addition to their modern values, could represent respectively the sounds of v and z, letters which were not normally used in O.E. These three letters, f, s, p, had the sounds of f, s, and th in thin (‘breathed’ or ‘voiceless’) initially and finally in accented words; next to ‘voiceless’ consonants (such as p, t); and when double; … They had the sounds of v, z, and th in then (‘voiced’) when single between vowels, or between a vowel and another ‘voiced’ sound (such as l, r, m, n)….

To generalize this, we might say that in Old English fricatives were voiced between sonorants, and voiceless if geminate or contiguous to a major boundary, or in clusters with voiceless obstruents (of which as we will see geminates are a special case). One way of capturing these facts would be a rule which states simply that fricatives are voiced between sonorants, and voiceless elsewhere.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 15 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bach, Emmon (1968). Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology. Glossa 2. 128–149.Google Scholar
Bird, Charles (1969). Initial consonant change in Southwestern Mande. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York:Harper.Google Scholar
Foley, James (1969). Morphophonological investigations, II. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lanigesetze. Uppsala:Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
King, Robert D. (1969). Historical linguistics and generative grammar. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968). Linguistic universels and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (forthcoming). Palatals and umlaut in Old English. To appear in Acta Linguistica Hafniensia.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (1969). On the derivative status of phonological rules: the role of metarules in sound change. Mimeographed: Indiana University Linguistic Circle.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger (in preparation). Markedness, sound change, and ‘family universals’.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger and Anderson, John (in preparation). Studies in Old English phonology: the centrai non-cycle rules.Google Scholar
Moulton, William G. (1962). The sounds of German and English. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard (1938). A comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore:Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry (1885). The oldest English texts. London:Oxford University Press (Early English Text Society, OS 83).Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry (1953). Anglo-Saxon primer, rev. Norman Davis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wrenn, C. L. (1933). The vaue of spelling as evidence. Transactions of the Philological Society.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold (1969). Notes on a phonological hierarchy in English. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar