english obstruent inventory

7/30/2019 English Obstruent Inventory

1/24

- 1 -

The Development of English Obstruent Inventory: An

Optimality-Theoretic Account

Chang Yong Sohn

(Seoul National University)

Chang Yong Sohn. 2010. The Development of English Obstruent Inventory: An

Optimality-Theoretic Account. Studies in Modern Grammar XX, XXX-XXX.

The historical origin of obstruent phonemes in English traces back to the

Indo-European system. This paper attempts to account for two important

developments (Grimm's Law and Middle English phonemicization) within the

framework of Optimality Theory. The proposal is crucially based on the

rejection of a serial interpretation of Grimm's Law and the substitution of the

Maintain Contrast constraint with the interactions between symmetry in the

system and the minimality of phonological change. In addition symmetry is

claimed to function as a guiding principle whose manifestation can be extended

to Middle English phonemicization. It is also shown that the application of

nonsystemic faithfulness constraints to the systemic domain enables us to state

a formal definition of the types of phonemic change.

Key words: Grimm's Law, symmetry, phonemicization, chain shift, phoneme

inventory

1. Introduction

The systemic change in the phoneme inventory tends to be marginalized in

mainstream Optimality Theory (McCarthy 2002, 2008, Prince and

Smolensky 2004). As pointed out in McCarthy (2002: 226), there existfundamental differences between evaluating systems or grammars and

evaluating linguistic forms. System evaluation involves systemwide

generalizations of a set of forms whereas form evaluation is restricted to

specific forms. As a model for incorporating phonemic contrast at the


2/24

- 2 -

system level, Flemming (2002) proposes a systemic approach to synchronic

inventory structure, building upon the dispersion theory. Recently, Grimm's

Law, which denotes the change in the obstruent phoneme inventory from

Indo-European (IE) to Germanic, has also been analyzed in terms of a

constraint that controls the contrast between the input and the output

(Petrova 2000, Ahn 2004, Lee 2007).

Another systemic principle in the phoneme inventory is symmetry

between phonemes. A more balanced system with a symmetrical distribution

of phonemes within an inventory is preferred to an imbalanced or

asymmetrical system and sound change is often driven by or tends toward a

symmetrical system (Saussure 1959, Bynon 1977, Hock 1991, McMahon

1994, Campbell 1999, Sohn 2009). In the present paper, we propose an

account within the framework of Optimality Theory (OT) of the changes in

the English obstruent inventory in which the notion of symmetry is directly

encoded.

2. Obstruent Inventories

This section introduces the obstruent phoneme inventories from IE to

Middle English (ME) and brings to the fore two important transitions

between inventories which serve as the focus of our analysis.

2.1 Phoneme Inventories from Indo-European to Middle English1)

(1) IE Obstruent Inventory2)

1) The major sources for the inventories are Scargill (1951), Voyles (1992) and

Ringe (2006) for IE and Germanic and Campbell (1959), Brunner (1963), Pylesand Algeo (1993) and Millward (1996) for OE and ME.

2) The glottalic theory proposed by a group of scholars (e.g., Emonds 1972,

Hopper 1973, Kortlandt 1985) contrasts with the traditional view adopted here in

that it denies the existence of voiced aspirates, with the IE obstruent series being

reconstructed as voiced stops, voiceless stops and voiceless glottals (D, T, T').

The controversy regarding the reconstruction of the IE consonant inventory has


3/24

- 3 -

Manner Place labial alveolar Palatal velar

Stopsvoiceless p t k

voiced b d g

Fricativesvoiceless s

voiced

Aspiratesvoiceless

voiced bh dh gh

(2) Germanic

Manner Place labialInterdental

/ alveolarPalatal velar


voiced b d g

Fricativesvoiceless f /s h

voiced

(3) Old English (OE)

not been definitively resolved in favor of either view. However, Vennemann

(2006) provides evidence supporting the traditional view based on the

phonological adaptation of Semitic loanwords in Germanic. Calabrese and Halle

(1998) also defend the traditional view on the grounds that the rarity of voiced

aspirates without voiceless counterparts alone is not a sufficient reason for

rejecting it. In fact, as Garret (1991) observes, the glottalic system entails highly

unnatural developments in various daughter languages.


4/24

- 4 -




voiced b d g


voiced

Affricatesvoiceless

voiced

(4) Middle English (ME)




voiced b d g


voiced v /z

Affricates voiceless

voiced

A cursory glance at the inventories reveals two general characteristics that

hold throughout the developments. First, except for the change from IE to

Germanic, the number of phonemes constantly increases with each stage. In

addition, the phoneme inventory tends towards a more "balanced" system.

Thus, as time passes, gaps in the inventory are filled and the distribution of

the filled gaps shows a consistent pattern.

Note that the phoneme inventories given in (1~4) presuppose the

hypothetical and nonlinguistic demarcation of the periods. In fact, the actual

phoneme inventories may vary depending on the specific period (e.g., early

or late OE) under consideration. Moreover, the time depth from IE to ME

exceeds 5,000 years. Thus, a substantial generalization is likely inevitable to


5/24

- 5 -

elicit an inventory for each period.

Among the changes in the phoneme inventories of English obstruents, we

will focus on two transitions: one from IE to Germanic and the other from

OE to ME. We limit ourselves to these two transitions because they

represent the typical changes attested in phoneme inventories, that is, a

chain shift and a phoneme split. In addition, to explore how a chain shift

and a phoneme split (or merger), which are not amenable to formalization

in traditional theories, can be interpreted in Optimality Theory is by itself of

theoretical significance.

2.2 Grimm's Law and ME phonemicization

The shift from IE in (1) to Germanic in (2) is better known as Grimm's

Law (or The First Consonant Shift) and the shift from OE in (3) to ME (4)

is known as the ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives. These two shifts

differ in several respects even though both of them result in a change in the

phoneme inventory.

First, as shown in 2.1, Grimm's Law (GL) incurs no change in thenumber of total phonemes, whereas with the ME phonemicization of voiced

fricatives (MEP) the number of phonemes increases. GL involves a chain

shift in which a series of changes are interleaved with each other and MEP

is a phoneme split in which conditioned allophones become contrastive. In

other words, while GL is a sound change by itself, MEP is the result of a

group of phonological processes.

Second, the triggering elements of GL are quite different from those of

MEP. Aside from language-internal causes (as discussed here), the

language-external or "ultimate" causes of GL range from highly

psychological to ethnological explanations, most of which are purely

stipulative and, thus, easily reputable (Prokosch 1939, Hock and Joseph

1996, Campbell 1999). On the other hand, MEP is often claimed to be

triggered by a variety of language-internal sound changes that occurred

during the time span from the late OE to the early ME (Millward 1996,


6/24

- 6 -

Laker 2009).3)

3. Review of Previous Analyses

3.1 Previous OT accounts of Grimm's Law

Grimm's Law, as a whole, refers to the three changes depicted in (5) and

(6).

(5) IE Germanic

a. b, d, g p, t, k

b. p, t, k f, , h4)

c. bh, dh, g b, d, g

s s

(6) a. Devoicing: b, d, g p, t, k

b. Spirantization: p, t, k f, , h

c. Deaspiration: bh, dh, gh b, d, g

Several analyses have been conducted within the framework of OT to

account for GL (Petrova 2000, Ahn 2003, and Lee 2007). Despite the

different assumptions on the trigger and the intermediate stages of GL, they

have much in common with respect to having a perception-based constraint

at the core of their analysis. Building on the functional constraints proposed

by Flemming (1996, 2002, 2005), which in turn draws on the adaptive

dispersion theory, they employ a constraint that forces the contrast in the

3)

French loans, dialect mixtures with Kentish, final vowel deletion, weakening infunction words (Millward 1996) and Celtic influence (Laker 2009) all lead to the

neutralization of conditioning environments and, as a result, voiced fricatives

become contrastive. Teedle (2006) offers an OT account of MEP in terms of

misperception in the transmission from speaker to listener.

4) As is customary in most accounts, minor changes in the place of articulation

(labials to bilabials and alveolars to interdentals) are disregarded.


7/24

- 7 -

input to be preserved in the output. The definition of the constraint is given

in (7).5)

(7) Maintain Contrast (Ahn 2003: 52)

The phonemic contrast of the input should be maintained in the

output.

When applied to GL, the constraint in (7) prohibits neutralization among

phonemes. At the same time, it prevents phoneme splits. Without a merger

or a split in the phoneme inventory, the number of phonemes is maintained

and the phonemic contrast of the input remains intact.

Another property that all previous OT analyses have in common is that

they view GL as a set of intermediate stages, each of which is activated

stepwise by the constraint banning the loss of contrast. Although they all

interpret GL as a series of steps, these analyses radically differ in terms of

the order and content of each step. The stages assumed in each account are

summarized in (8).6)

(8) Intermediate Stages of Grimm's Law

5) A more concrete constraint (3-way VOT CONTR) which prefers the 3-way

contrast in stops in Petrova (2000) and PreserveContrast in Lee (2007) play a

role similar to that in (7).

6) There are other versions of intermediate stages (e.g., Prokosch 1939, Cser

1994), which makes any attempts to derive a unified serial account more unlikely.


8/24

- 8 -

Stages Petrova (2000) Ahn (2004) Lee (2007)

1b, d, g

p, t, k

bh, dh, gh

b, d, g

bh, dh, gh

, ,

2p, t, k

ph, th, kh

b, d, g

p, t, k

p, t, k

f, , x

3ph, th, kh

f, , h

p, t, k

ph, th, kh

b, d, g

p, t, k

4 b

h

, d

h

, g

h

b, d, gp

h

, t

h

, k

h

f, , h

, ,

b, d, g

The differences in the posed stages in (8) appear to result from their

assumptions pertaining to two issues with regard to GL. One issue centers

on the trigger of GL, whereas the other assesses whether or not the notion

of Germanic enhancement (aspiration) as proposed by Iverson and Salmons

(2003) is relevant to GL. In Petrova's account, GL is initiated by marked

(word-initial) voiced stops and in Ahn and Lee, it is triggered by marked

voiced aspirates. As argued in Ahn, Petrova's treatment of word-initialvoiced stops as the initiator of GL faces a serious problem when we

consider the fact that relatively more marked voiced aspirates (bh, dh, gh)

are deaspirated at a later stage. In the other two accounts, the markedness

of voiced aspirates functions as a trigger of GL.7)

The inclusion of Germanic enhancement as a viable intermediate stage, as

in Petrova and Ahn, appears to lack any substantive evidence. If we assume

Germanic enhancement as one stage of GL, a conflict arises with the end

result of GL in which aspirated obstruents, voiced or voiceless, disappear

from the subsequent inventories.

To summarize, the intermediate stages posited in previous accounts are

too varied for any convergence to be possible. In addition, as regards a

7) Kim (2004) also argues that Grimm's Law begins with the deaspiration of

marked voiced aspirates and that successive changes should be regarded as a

push-chain rather than a pull-chain.


9/24

- 9 -

change in two prehistoric languages (IE and Germanic), finding convincing

evidence that supports the existence of intermediate stages independent of

language-internal and ad-hoc arguments is challenging. The dubious status of

detailed stages of GL can be highlighted by the following excerpt:

(9) Hock and Joseph (1996: 135)

For Grimm's Law, for instance, it is possible to cook up three

or four different scenarios, all of them chain shifts. (Some of

them may be more likely than others, but which of them

actually took place remains anybody's guess.)

Viewing GL as a series of stages also raises a theoretical problem as to

how it can fit into the OT framework. Ahn (2004) assumes the same

ranking between identical sets of constraints throughout all stages, with each

stage having as its input the output of the previous stage. Lee's (2007)

account, on the other hand, uses reranking as well as a different input for

each stage.8) Under the basic principles and architecture of OT, reranking

and lexicon optimization are legitimate formal mechanisms of sound changes

(Holt 2003). Thus, in any version of a multiple-stage model of GL, the

interactions between reranking and lexicon optimization should be spelled

out. However, neither Ahn nor Lee provides testable and precise

assumptions regarding this point.

3.2 Maintain Contrast

The theoretical importance of the constraint Maintain Contrast (MC) (or

PreserveContrast in Lee (2007)) as defined and employed to account for GL

is linked to its abstractness. First, it does not specify particular features of

individual phonemes, for instance, [asp] or the noise frequency. As long as

the number of the input contrasts is preserved, the output inventory satisfies

8) Petrova (2000) does not offer constraint interactions for stages other than the

first stage of Grimm's Law.


10/24

- 10 -

the constraint. As Flemming (2005: 71) observes, this very nature of

Maintain Contrast complements the fundamental restriction on faithfulness

constraints which only block but cannot motivate change. In the case of GL,

the deaspiration of marked voiced aspirates (bh, dh, gh) yields voiced stops

(b, d, g), which are already present in the phoneme inventory. Without the

Maintain Contrast constraint which prohibits mergers between phonemes, no

further changes are necessary. And the actual changes are governed by the

interactions between the markedness and faithfulness constraints.

On the other hand, this abstractness may allow a massive change from

the set (b, d, g, p, t, k, bh, dh, gh) to the set (, , , f, , h, b, d, g) in

the phoneme inventory. Moreover, if we interpret the Maintain Contrast

constraint as sensitive to more specific levels such as the content of the

contrasts, then GL cannot be regarded as a chain shift in which the

phonemic contrast of the input is preserved in the output. In IE the

phonemes contrast with each other in a four-way fashion: voiced aspirates

(bh, dh, gh), voiced stops (b, d, g), voiceless stops (p, t, k) and a voiceless

fricative (s). In Germanic, however, to which GL applies, there is actually a

three-way distinction: voiced stops (b, d, g), voiceless stops (p, t, k), and

voiceless fricatives (f, , s, h). Thus, in order for the Maintain Contrast

constraint to work properly, we should assume that the maintenance of the

contrasts is equivalent to the maintenance of the number of phonemes.

The MC constraint as defined in (7) differs from that originally proposed

by (Flemming 1996) in two important aspects. First, in most cases,

Flemming's MC does not regulate the relationship between the input and the

output. In particular, MC with respect to the phoneme inventory is restricted

to the output evaluation. Second, according to Flemming's theory, the MC

constraint is simply a formal implementation of the functional goal tomaximize the number of contrasts and it never functions as an active

constraint that evaluates the faithfulness between the input and the output.

(10) a. Functional goal (Flemming 2005: 4)


11/24

- 11 -

Maximize the number of contrasts

b. Formal implementation (Flemming 1996: 89)

Maintain 1 contrast >> Maintain 2 contrasts >> ...

>> Maintain n contrasts

Thus, given its rather restricted interpretation and somewhat deviant

application, we find the MC constraint as in (7) to be marginally relevant at

best to the account of GL.

3.3 ME Phonemicization of Voiced Fricatives

Sohn (2009) proposes the following set of constraints (11) and the ranking

(12) for the ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives.

(11) Constraints9)

a. Symmetry (SM)

Obstruents should be symmetric with regard to voice.

b. DEPOutput phonemes must have input correspondents.

c. MAX

Input phonemes must have output correspondents.

d. *Voiced/Velar-Fricative (*V/VF)

Velar fricatives must not be voiced.

(12) a. OE ranking

DEP, MAX, *V/VF SM

9) Apparently, applying the concept of correspondence reserved for segments in

OT (Kager 1999, McCarthy 2002, 2008) to phonemes in an inventory is a

novelty. In particular, the formal significance of the related constraints such as

LINEARITY or CONTIGUITY is difficult to determine in this domain. However,

it is obvious that the input phonemes are not wholly independent of the output

phonemes and that some version of faithfulness constraints should be invoked to

express the relationship between them.


12/24

- 12 -

b. ME ranking

MAX, *V/VF SM DEP

The change as a result of the ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives can

be described in (13) and (14), in which the interactions between the

markedness constraints (SM and *V/VF) and the faithfulness constraints

(MAX and DEP) are shown.

(13) OE phoneme inventory (fricatives)

f, /s, , h DEP MAX *V/VF SM

a. f, /s, , h *****

b. f, /s, , h

v, /z, , *!**** *

c. f, /s, , h

v, /z, *!*** *

d. f *!*** *

e. fv

*! ****

f. f, /s,

v, /z, *!*** *

(14) ME phoneme inventory (fricatives)


13/24

- 13 -

f, /s, , h MAX *V/VF SM DEP

a. f, /s, , h *!****

b. f, /s, , h

v, /z, , *! *****

c. f, /s, , h

v, /z, * ****

d. f *!*** *

e. f

v*!*** *

f. f, /s,

v, /z, *! ****

The crucial constraint in this approach is SM, which evaluates an

obstruent set with voiceless and voiced obstruents as more harmonic than

those without either voiceless or voiced obstruents. In addition, DEP and

MAX regulate the insertion of a phoneme (split) and the deletion of a

phoneme (merger).

4. Symmetry and Minimality

4.1 Grimm's Law

A new account of GL builds on two assumptions. First, to circumvent the

problem of unsubstantiated intermediate stages, we interpret GL as a single

change. This type of parallel interpretation has been well documented in

numerous works (King 1969, Hock 1991, Hock and Joseph 1996, Calabrese

and Halle 1998, Noske 2009).10) Second, the Maintain Contrast constraint,

whose definition and implementation are not firmly grounded, must be

substituted by more justifiable constraints.

10) Unlike other accounts, Noske (2009) adopts the glottalic theory and proposes

an analysis which combines Grimm's Law with Verner's Law.


14/24

- 14 -

To capture the nature of a chain shift, we assume the following

constraints in addition to DEP and MAX and the ranking between them.

(15) Constraints

a. *ASP11)

Aspiration must not be allowed

b. IDENT(F)

The feature (F) of the output segments must be identical

with that of the input correspondents.

(16) *ASP >> MAX, DEP >> IDENT(F)

The ranking in (16) guarantees that the voiced aspirates of IE become

something else while the number of phonemes remains the same. Thus, any

candidate with a merger or with aspirated phonemes involves more

violations than a candidate with no merger and no aspirated phonemes. This

is shown in (17).

(17)

11) Since Lass and Anderson (1975) the idea that *ASP is the trigger of Grimm's

Law has been prevalent in the literature (Calabrese and Halle 1998, Ahn 2004,

Lee 2007, among others).


15/24

- 15 -

b, d, g

p, t, k

bh, dh, gh

s

*ASP MAX DEPIDENT

(F)

a.No

Change*!**

b. DA *!** ***

c. DV *!** *** ***

d. SP *!** ***

e. GL******

***

For the sake of exposition, the candidates in (17) are named after the

process involved. The actual candidates are given below.

(18) a. No Change

b, d, gp, t, k

bh, dh, gh

s

b. Deaspiration (DA) only

change: bh, dh, gh b, d, g

phoneme inventory: b, d, g

p, t, k

s

c. Devoicing (DV) only

change: b, d, g p, t, k

phoneme inventory: p, t, k

bh, dh, gh

sd. Spirantization (SP) only


16/24

- 16 -

change: p, t, k f, , h

phoneme inventory: b, d, g

f, , h

bh, dh, gh

s

e. Grimm's Law (DA, DV, SP all applied in one sweep)

change: bh, dh, gh b, d, g / b, d, g p, t, k /

p, t, k f, , h

phoneme inventory: p, t, k

f, , h

b, d, g

s

The ranking in (16) triggers the elimination of voiced aspirates from the IE

inventory but maintains the number of phonemes.

At this stage, we have to deal with how voiced aspirates turn into voiced

stops and nothing else and how other phonemes are changed into the

desired outputs. In order to account for the actual changes, we propose the

two additional constraints given in (19).

(19) a. MINIMALITY (MN)12)

More than one feature cannot be affected.

b. SYMMETRY (SM)

SM(stops) >> SM(fricatives)

(19a) assigns a violation mark if the change involves more than one feature

of the input. As pointed out by Picard (1999), the insight behind the MNconstraint is that any sound change should be gradual, affecting one feature

12) Admittedly, the constraint as it stands in (18) does not fit well into the usual

formation of OT constraints despite the fact that its motivation is well justified.

In the current OT, there is no formal mechanism established to measure the

degree of deviation from the identity between the input and the output.


17/24

- 17 -

at a time. Bynon (1999) offers a remark on the general principle motivating

the MN constraint.

(20) Bynon (1977: 86, recited from Picard 1999)

The first of these requirements, namely that changes in the

realization of particular sounds must be small enough for

speakers using both the old and new realizations still to be

able to recognize lexical items, is self-evident. This is why it is

usual for change to proceed in small steps which involve the

alteration of only one feature at a time, ...

(19b) is a subset of the SM constraint of (11a). It requires that the

symmetry of voice be enforced differently depending on the categories of

the obstruents. The symmetry of stops are preferable to the symmetry of

fricatives.13)

(21) MN, SM(stops) >> SM(fricatives)14)

13) For expository reasons, candidates violating *ASP >> MAX, DEP >>

IDENT(F) and with [s] are not included in the tableau.

14) The phonemes that undergo a change are marked with shading in (21).


18/24

- 18 -

b, d, g

p, t, k

bh, dh, gh

MNSM

(stops)

SM

(fricatives)

a.

p, t, k

f, , h

b, d, g

***

b.

b, d, g

p, t, k

, ,

*!** ***

c.

b, d, g

p, t, k

f, , h

*!** ***

d.

f, , h

b, d, g

p, t, k

*!***** ***

e.

p, t, k

, ,

b, d, g

*!** ***

f.

, ,

f, , h

b, d, g

*!**

All of the candidates in (21) satisfy *ASP, MAX and DEP, which indicates

that there are no aspirated phonemes, with the number of phonemes

remaining intact. Candidate (a) is selected as the optimal candidate because

it incurs no violations of the superordinate constraints MN and SM(stops).

Candidates (b) and (c) differ from (a) as regards the manner in which

voiced aspirated banned by *ASP are eliminated. In (b), the voiced aspirates

become voiced fricatives and two features [asp] and [cont] are affected. In

(c) the voiced aspirates turn into voiceless fricatives affecting three features

[asp], [voice] and [cont]. (d) and (e) are candidates in which the MN

constraint is violated either in IE voiced stops or in IE voiceless stops. In


19/24

- 19 -

both cases, more than one feature are affected, resulting in violations of the

MN constraint. Candidate (f) is crucial for motivating the reduction of the

SM constraints and the ranking between the SM(stops) and the

SM(fricatives) constraints. As a series of changes (spirantization of voiced

and voiceless stops and deaspiration of voiced aspirates) involve only one

feature ([cont] for spirantization and [asp] for deaspiration), it incurs the

same number of violations with regard to the MN constraint. However,

satisfaction of the MN constraint is achieved by creating a symmetric

fricative set instead of a symmetric stop set. In contrast, candidate (a), the

output of GL, satisfies the superordinate SM(stops) constraint with all stops

having voiced and voiceless pairs.

4.2 Grimm's Law and ME Phonemicization

Depending on their nature, the constraints proposed thus far can be

classified into two groups.

(22) a. Faithfulness constraintsDEP, MAX, IDENT(F)

b. Markedness constraints

SYMMETRY, *ASP, MINIMALITY

With the constraints in (22) GL can be accounted for by the reranking (or

promotion) of the markedness constraints *ASP, SM(stops) and MN over

the faithfulness constraints DEP and MAX.

(23) a. IE Obstruent Inventory

DEP, MAX >> *ASP, SM, MN

b. Germanic Obstruent Inventory

*ASP, SM(stops), MN >> DEP, MAX, SM(fricatives)

>> IDENT(F)


20/24

- 20 -

MEP is a typical case of a phoneme split in which the phonemicization

of voiced fricatives (except for the velar //) leads to a symmetric fricative

set. The change in the obstruent phoneme inventory from OE to ME can be

viewed as the result of reranking the SM(fricatives) over the faithfulness

constraint DEP as in (24).15)

(24) a. OE Obstruent Inventory

DEP, MAX, *V/VF SM(fricatives)

b. ME Obstruent Inventory

MAX, *V/VF SM(fricatives) DEP

The faithfulness constraints MAX, DEP and the other markedness

constraints on symmetry along with the MN constraint play a crucial role in

our account of GL and MEP.

An additional benefit of introducing MAX and DEP to the domain of the

phoneme inventory is that we can now derive a formal definition of the

types of change in the phoneme inventory.

(25) Types of Phoneme Change

a. Chain Shift (Grimm's Law)

markedness constraints >> MAX, DEP >> ...

b. Phoneme Split (ME phonemicization)

MAX, markedness constraints >> DEP ...

c. Phoneme Merger

DEP, markedness constraints >> MAX ...

5. Conclusion

The present paper argues that Grimm's Law, the systemic change in the

15) For other minor changes from OE to ME (symmetry in palatal fricatives and

affricates), refer to Sohn (2009).


21/24

- 21 -

phoneme inventory from IE to Germanic need not resort to the Maintain

Contrast constraint whose definition and implementation in previous

accounts are not well motivated. Instead the notion of symmetry in

inventory in conjunction with minimality of change are employed. It is also

demonstrated that a serial approach to Grimm's Law should be replaced by

a parallel analysis which obviates the postulation of stipulative intermediate

stages. By adopting symmetry as a viable constraint, we can integrate

Grimm's Law with the later ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives. In

addition, a formal description of the types of phonemic changes at the

system level is made possible. The replacement of the Maintain Contrast

constraint by symmetry presupposes the extension of the faithfulness

constraints reserved for segments in the current version of Optimality

Theory to the systemic domains of phoneme inventory, though this requires

further research.

References

Ahn, Sang-Cheol. 2004. Towards an Optimal Account of Diachronic Chain

Shifts. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 10-1, 43-67.

Brunner, Karl. 1963. An Outline of Middle English Grammar. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.

Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Calabrese, Andrea and Morris Halle. 1998. Grimm's and Verner's Laws: A

New Perspective. Jasnoff J., C. Melchert and L. Olivier (eds.), Mir

Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, 47-62. Innsbruck:

University of Innsbruck.

Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: The Clarendon

Press.

Campbell, Lyle. 1999. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: The MIT Press.


22/24

- 22 -

Cser, Andrs. 1994. Constraints Operating on Germanic Geminates. Vienna

English Working Papers 3, 62-74.

Emonds, Joseph. 1972. A Reformulation of Grimm's Law. Brame, M. (ed.)

Contributions to Generative Phonology, 108-122. Austin: University of

Texas Press.

Flemming, Edward. 1996. Evidence for Constraints on Contrast: The

Dispersion Theory of Contrast. ULCA Working Papers in Phonology 1,

86-106.

Flemming, Edward. 2002. Auditory Representations in Phonology. New Yorkand London: Routledge.

Flemming, Edawrd. 2005. Speech Perception and Phonological Contrast.

Pisoni, D. and R. Remez (eds.) The Handbook of Speech Perception,

156-181. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Garrett, Andrew. 1991. Ind-European Reconstruction and Historical

Methodologies. Language 67.4, 790-804.

Hock, Hans H. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Hock, Hans H. and Brian D. Joseph. 1996. Language History, Language

Change, and Language Relationship. Berlin, New York: Mouton deGruyter.

Holt, Eric. 2003. Remarks on Optimality Theory and Language Change. Holt,

E. (ed.) Optimality Theory and Language Change, 1-30, Dordrecht:

Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hopper, Paul. 1973. Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European.

Glossa 7, 141-166.

Iverson, Gregory and Joseph Salmons. 2003. Laryngeal Enhancement in

Early Germanic. Phonology 20, 43-74.

Kager, Ren. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Kim, Kee-Ho. 2004. Grimm's Law: Push or Drag Chain Revisited. English

Language and Linguistics 18, 1-24.

King, Robert. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar.

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.


23/24

- 23 -

Kortlandt, Frederik. 1985. Proto-Indo-European Glottalic Stops: The

Comparative Evidence. Folia Linguistica Historica 6, 183-201.

Laker, Stephen. 2009. An Explanation for the Early Phonemicisation of a

Voice Contrast in English Fricatives. English Language and Linguistics

13.2, 213-226.

Lass, Roger and John. M. Anderson. 1975. Old English Phonology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, Sechang. 2007. First Consonant Shift in the Germanic Obstruent

System. Korean Journal of Linguistics 32.3, 539-555.McCarthy, John. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, John. 2008. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Millward, Celia. 1996. A Biography of the English Language. Fort Worth:

Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Noske, Roland. 2009. Verner's Law, Phonetic Substance and Form of

Historical Phonological Description. Proceedings of JEL'2009(dis)continu, 6th Nantes Linguistic Meeting, 33-42.

Petrova, Olga. 2000. Grimm's Law in Optimality Theory. Journal of

Indoeuropean Studies Monograph Series 35, 45-68.

Picard, Marc. 1999. On Spirantization and the Minimality of Phonological

Change. Folia Linguistica Historica 20.1-2, 63-78.

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint

Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Philadelphia:

Linguistic Society of America.

Pyles, Thomas and John Algeo. 1993. The Origins and Development of the

English Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Ringe, Donald. 2006. From Proto-Ino-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York:


24/24

- 24 -

McGraw-Hill.

Scargill, Matthew. 1951. Notes on the Development of the Principal Sounds

of Indo-European through Proto-Germanic and West Germanic into

Old English. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

Sohn, Chang Yong. 2009. Reranking and Sound Change. Studies in Modern

Grammar 57, 1-14.

Teedle, David. 2006. Phoneme Split in OT. ms. University of California,

Santa Cruz.

Vennemann, Theo. 2006. Grimm's Law and Loanwords. Transactions of thePhilological Society 104.2, 129-166.

Voyles, Joseph. 1992. Early Germanic Grammar: Pre-, Proto-, and

Post-Germanic Languages. San Diego: Academic Press.

Department of English Language and Literature

Seoul National University

599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu

Seoul 151-742, Korea

(02) 880-6093, [email protected]

Received:

Revised version:

Accepted:

english obstruent inventory

Documents