See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317037267

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking: A metaphonic feature-based unified solution

Presentation · May 2017

CITATIONS READS 0 59

1 author:

Johan Schalin University of Helsinki

29 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Common Norse sound change - doctoral dissertation on Proto- and Ancient Scandinavian phonology, umlaut and loanword substitutions in Finnic. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan Schalin on 09 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE NOTORIOUS CRUXES OF COMMON SCANDINAVIAN UMLAUT AND BREAKING: A metaphonic feature-based unified solution

Note 8-page digital hand-out in separate file

Johan Schalin, 16 May 2017 (corr 11 June) Contextualizing Historical Lexicology 1

Front Umlaut in Germanic: Examples

Paleo-Germanic English German Old Norse Old Swedish m. nom. sg. *fōtz foot fuß fótr fōtẹr m. nom. pl. *fōtez feet füße fœtr føtẹr̄ m. nom. sg. *fullaz full voll fullr fullẹr 3.. pers. sg. *fulljeþi fills (filleth) füllt fyllir fyller m. nom.sg. *langaz long lang langr langẹr f. nom.sg. *langeþō length (länge) lengd længd f. nom.sg. *langizȭ (longer) länger lengra længra

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 2 Umlaut and Breaking in Scandinavian

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 3 RASMUS RASK and JACOB GRIMM • “Over 200 years have passed since the rule of Germanic umlaut was formulated at the first time. We know incomparably more about this change than [Rasmus] Rask and [Jacob] Grimm did, but we are still unable to answer some basic questions” (Anatoly Liberman 2007: 13)

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 4 Rasmussen about Research on Norse Front Umlaut Jens Elmegård Rasmussen (2000: 143): • “The descriptive facts being basically clear, the subject has been a much-favoured testing ground for new theories in phonological analysis and linguistic change. The record is not an entirely flattering one, for the real advances scarcely outnumber instances of collective disregard of words of reason and rallying around popular, but unfounded, idées fixes”.

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-Nov-2016 5 The Nature of Umlaut and Breaking? Some Basic Questions: 1 • Is it metaphony? • Transmitted by a phonological generalisation or rule from weakening triggers to improve perception? or, • Is it coarticulation? • Transmitted by a phonetic tendency in anticipation of clearly articulated triggers to ease the articulatiory effort? • Does it jump over consonants? and if it does, why? • Is ”rounding umlaut” or even ”breaking” part of the same? • Was umlaut for long positionally predictable, i.e. ”allophonic”?

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 6

Internally reconstructed periods

• Main dialects of western and eastern Scandinavian developed through the ”Common” Scandinavian umlaut era in parallel. • Viewed through umlaut, Gutnish and Övdalian in Sweden are more remote relatives.

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 7 THE PROBLEM OF ANOMALIES

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 8 Umlaut, Breaking and Syllable Weight

Short trigger after heavy syllable Short trigger after light syllable

*gas‖ti >ON gest ‘guest’ (acc.) *sta.ði >ON stað- ‘place’ (acc.) i-umlaut *dō.mi‖ðō >OSw dø̄ mda ‘I deemed’ *fra.mi‖ðō >ON framda ‘I carried out’ *lan‖g-i.þu >ON lęngd ‘length’ *fra.m-i‖þu >ON fręmd ‘furtherance’ iʀ (or iz) gastiz >ON gestr ‘guest’ (nom.) *sta.ði-z >ON staðr ‘place’ (nom.) -umlaut *mū‖s-i͡z >ON myss ‘mice’ (pl.) *hnu.t-͡iz >OSw nytẹr ‘nuts’ (pl.)

Breaking *sel‖ƀaz >OSw siælfẹr ‘self’ *fe.ta- >ON fet- (but OSw fiæt-) ‘step’ u/w-umlaut *feþ‖ru >OSw fiæþẹr ‘feather’ *me.luk- >OSw miolk- ‘milk’

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 9 The Nature of Umlaut and Breaking? Some Basic Questions: 2 • Whence do the unexpected outcomes or anomalies originate? • Is the umlaut mechanism conditioned on prosody? • Is the chronology of trigger reduction conditioned on prosody? (the trigger disappears before it becomes active) • Was umlaut for long positionally predictable ”allophonic”? • Are the outcomes mixed up by morphological generalisations? • In this research plain and simply: Focus on the contrastive features of targets and triggers.

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 10

Distribution of Front Umlaut: Classic Problem Configuration

1. Heavy first syllable, 2. Light syllable 3. Light syllable and front umlaut and deleted trigger, remaining trigger, accomplished no front umlaut umlaut accomplished

1. class of weak verbs *doo.miðoo > dœmda *ta.li.ðoo > talða ‘I deemed/sentenced’ ‘I counted/told’ 1. 1. pers. sg. pret. pers. sg. pret. masculine i-stems gas.tiz/*gas.ti > *sta.ðiz/*sta.ði > gestr/gest ‘guest’ staðr / stað ‘place’ nom. sg. / acc. sg. nom. sg. / acc. sg. instrumental suffix *-il- *ban.dilooz > bendlar *ka.ti.looz > katlar *ka.ti.laz > ketill ‘bands’ nom. pl. ‘kettles’ nom. pl. ‘kettle’ nom. sing.

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 11 Umlaut Reversion: Iverson G. & J. Salmons (2012)

1. post-phonological fronting /dōmiðō/ /staði/ /taliðō/ in all environments ~> {dȫmiðō} ~> {stäði} ~> {täliðō} /dōmiðō/ 2. lexification upon loss of a /staði/ /taliðō/ ~> {dȫmiðō} trigger after a heavy syllable ~> {stäði} ~> {täliðō} ═► /dœmðō/ 3. trigger loss by suffix /staði/ {täliðō} /dœmðō/ analogy ~> {stäði} ≈► /tal+ðō/

Loss of vitality of fronting rule by parasitic rule loss

4. syncope after light /staði/ /dœmðō/ /talða/ syllable ≈► /stað/

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-Nov-2016 12 ”A Light Target Syllable Does Not Carry Enough Accent to Mutate” • Paul Bibire (1975: 206): ”it may therefore be suggested that long syllables show more extensive mutation than short syllables, because they were more strongly accented than short syllables.” • Thomas Riad (1988: 17) ”I-umlaut, then, is sensitive to stress. When stress gets concentrated to the initial syllable, in heavy syllables earlier than in light ones, the initial syllable becomes open to change by the succeding i.”

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-Nov-2016 13 But..., it is not about target syllable weight!

Light first syllable, with unexpected front umlaut

Long *glaðī- > gleði ‘joy’ (fem. nom. sg.) triggers Remote *aðulija > eðli, øðli ‘character’ n. nom./acc. sg. umlaut iʀ-umlaut *hnut-i͡z > (OSw) nytẹr ‘nuts’ (f. nom./acc. pl.)

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 14 The Trigger Stands ”Too Close to the Target” • Seichi Suzuki 1995: “The crucial point is that umlaut in its initial stage did not materialise when the target vowel and the inducing vowel belonged to the same supersyllabic constituent, the foot; accordingly short stems failed to be affected by the process: e.g., staþr, talþa”. • Anatoly Liberman (2001: 87): “When i belonged to the initially indivisible group, it did not cause umlaut, or, to put it differently, umlaut needed an agent external to the prosodic structure in which it occurred...”. • (Ibid.): “....It remains to explain why this rule existed, which is not easier to do than for a mouse to bell a cat”.

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 15 The Mechanism Depends on Mora Count or Stress: 1

• Eva Ejerhed Braroe (1979): In addition to main stress, every even numbered mora from the left is assigned with stress and only non-stressed triggers transmit umlaut:

•stá1.ðí2 versus gä́1ś2‖tì3

•tá1.lí2‖ðò3ó4 versus dö́ 1ö́ 2‖mì3.ðó4ò5

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 16 The Mechanism Depends on Mora Count or Stress: 2

• Jörgen Rischel (2008): following the first mora (main stress), every odd numbered mora from the left is assigned with stress and only prominent moras transmit umlaut:

•stá1.ðì2 versus gä́1s̀2‖tí3

•tá1.lì2‖ðó3ò4 versus dö́ 1ö̀ 2‖mí3.ðò4ó5

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 17 The Deletion of the Trigger may Preempt Fronting due to Syllable Structure • Paul Kiparsky (2009): Deletion of the trigger after heavy syllable was delayed because the main stressed foot would have become trimoraic (*μμμ):

• *sta1ð2z (OK) & *ta1l2‖ðoo (OK)

• +ga1s2t3z or +do1o2m3‖ðoo NOT OK! • ► *gas‖tiz > *gäs‖tiz > *gästz > gestr

• ► *doo‖mi.ðoo > *döö‖mi.ðoo > *dööm‖ðoo > dœmda

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-Nov-2016 18 An Acid Test for Prosodic Solutions

Hardly any difference in structure => it must be the trigger !

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 19 Sub-Minimal Pairs

1. Regular dorso-palatal 2. Descendant of PlGmc 3. Etymologically regular descendant of PlGmc† */i/; no */i/ >*ȋ in laminalising descendant of PlGmc */e/ > *ȋ front umlaut environment *skut-ilaz >*skʋ̊ tïlaz >skutill *matiðaz >*matȋðaz *glað-elaz >*glaðȇlaz ‘shuttle’ (with instrumental suffix) >mettr ‘satisfied’ (past. >*glaðȋlaz >gleðill ‘fun, good *mati(-z) >*matï(-z) >mat(-r) part. m. nom. sg.) cheer’ (with diminutive suffix) ‘food’ *batizȭ >*batȋzō >betra *hnutez >*hnʋ̊ tȋz > OSw nytẹr ‘nuts’ (pl.) ~ODa nytær *batistaz >*batïstaz >baztr ‘best’ ‘the better’ (f. nom. sg.) *dug-eþō >*dʋ̊ gȋþʋ >dygð *lag-i-ðȭ >*lagïðō >lagða ‘I put’ ‘virtue’ *fram-i-ðȭ >*framïðō >framda ‘I *framizȭ >*framȋzō *frameþō >*framȋþʋ >fremd promoted’ >fremra ‘the anterior’ (f. ‘furtherance’ *spur-i-ðȭ >*spʋ̊ rïðō >spurða ‘I nom. sg.) *fareðɪ̑ >*farȋð →ferr ‘departs’ asked’ *furizȭ >*fʋ̊ rȋzō >fyrra (3.pers sg.; cf. analogical OSw *mari(-z) >*marï(-z) >marr ‘sea’ ‘the former’ (f. nom. sg.) far) *haw-i-ðȭ >*hawïðō >háða ‘I *fawizȭ >*fawȋzō >færra *faweþō >*fawȋþʋ >fæð implemented’ ‘the fewer’ (f. nom. sg.) ‘fewness’

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 20 The Main Logical Alternatives to Explain iʀ-umlaut Segmentally: *hnu.t-͡iz > nytẹr ‘nuts’ *fra.m-͡iz > fremr ‘further’ 1. /z/ changed preceding /i/ in the pertinent environment well before syncope into becoming an active fronting trigger /ȋ/.

2. /i/ changed /z/ beforej syncope into becoming a fronting trigger /z /, activated after accomplished syncopation of the intermediate vowel. 3. /z/ in itself was a non-local fronting trigger but all vowels except /i/ blocked the mechanism from reaching the main stressed syllable.

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 21 THE SOLUTION

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 22 The Contrastive Hierarchy Theory

• Contrastive features come in a binary feature hierarchy (Dresher 2008) allowing for underspecification and feature enhancement. • Examples of Contrastive feature hierarchies (CFHs) for 4-vowel systems a) western and eastern Algonquian (Dresher 2015a: 165-171; Oxford 2015: 336-350), and b) Proto-Eskimo (Compton & Dresher 2011:221).

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 23 Illustr. exmpl. Post-Umlaut CFH Rischel 1966: [Low] > [Round] > [Close] > [Back] / Schalin 2017b: [Low] > [ATR] > [Round] > [Back] > [high]

/æ/ = [low, close, front] /ɛ̈ / = [low, ATR, non-round]

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 24 Prominent and Non- Prominent Triggers (western Post-PSc; Schalin 2017a)

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 25 THE CONTRASTIVIST HYPOTHESIS • The Contrastivist Hypothesis (Hall 2007: 20f): “The phonological component of a language L operates only on those features which are necessary to distinguish the phonemes of L from one another.” • From this hypothesis it follows that, if a feature is phonologically active, then it must be contrastive. • Example – rounding in PSc: f. acc. sg. ‘linden’ lind <*lȋndʋ

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 26 Inalterability of Proper Features Constraint

Fully specified dorsal target vowel, descendant of */i/ f. nom./acc. sg. nið- <*nïðʊ̊- <*nið(w)ō ‘new moon’ m. nom./acc. sg. sið- <*sïðʊ̊- <*siðu- ‘custom’ Underspecified coronal target vowel, descendant of */e/ adj. ‘thick’ þjokk-/ þykk- <þjukk- <*þȇk(k)ẘ- <*þek(w)u- ‘slingshot’ OSw sliunga <*slȋngẘō <*slengwȭ Fin.~Est.~Liv. linko ←*slȋngẘō

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 27 Primary and Secondary Rounding Umlaut; A Chronology

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 28 Loanword Evidence 1

• Finnic *rohkeda ← PPSc *{wrɒ̊ skwaz} > TSc *wrɒ̊ skʋz > .. ON rǫskr ‘vigorous, brave, doughty’. • Finnish rohkea ‘brave; diligent; tall etc.’ • Estonian rohke ‘abundant, ample, etc.’ • Finnic *olut ← PPSc *{ɒ̊ lʊ̊ þ-} > TSc *ɒ̊ lʊ̊ þ- > .. ON ǫl ‘beer, ale’. • Finnish olut ‘beer, ale’ • Estonian õlu ‘beer, ale’

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 29 The Front Umlaut: 1

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 30 The Front Umlaut: 2

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 31 Loanword Evidence 2

• Finnic *kari ← PPSc *skɑrȋ (< PSc n. *skarja), or ← eastern ETSc *skɑ̈ rȋ > LTSc * skæ̑ rȋ > .. sker ‘skerry’. • Finnish kari ‘skerry’ • Estonian kari ‘skerry’ • Finnic *hëtal-eh/*hëtila/*hëtula ← PSc*fɑtïla- > fetill ‘band’. • Finnish hetale/hetula ‘shred, rag’ • Estonian (h)õdilad ‘shreds, rags’ • South Estonian hõdil ‘hanging round jewel’

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 32 THANK YOU !

HTTPS://HELSINKI.ACADEMIA.EDU/JOHANSCHALIN

HTTPS:/ /WWW.RESEARCHGATE.NET/PROFILE/JOHAN_SCHALIN

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 33 BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Bibire, P. 1975 Some Notes on Old Icelandic Front Mutations. ANF 90.183-212. • Braroe, E.Ejerhed. 1979. Exceptions to Old Icelandic i-Umlaut. Studia Linguistica 33/1.43-56. • Compton, R. & B.E.Dresher. 2011. Palatalization and “Strong i” across Inuit Dialects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique 56(2): 203–228. http://idiom.ucsd.edu/~bakovic/underapp/readings/Compton-Dresher-2011.pdf • Dresher, E. 2008.. The Contrastive Hierarchy in …. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~dresher/papers/ADR%20Dresher.pdf • Iverson, G. & J. Salmons 2012. Paradigm Resolution in the Life Cycle of Norse Umlaut. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24.2. • Kiparsky, P. 2009. Syncope, Umlaut, and Prosodic.... http://web.stanford.edu/~kiparsky/Papers/weakpreterite.2006b.pdf • Liberman, A. 2001: Review of M. Schulte (1998). http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~alvismal/10michae.pdf • Liberman, A. 2007. Palatalized and Velarized Consonants in English against their Germanic Background with Special Reference to i-Umlaut. C.M.Cain & G.Russom (eds.) Studies in the History of the English Language III…… 5-36 • Rasmussen, J. Elmegård. 2000.. The Growth of i-Umlaut in Norse and West Germanic: Thoughts on a Recent Book. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 32(1).143-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2000.10412306 • Riad, T. 1988 Tracing the Foot. A Metrical Analysis of Change in Nordic Languages. ANF 103,. 1–34. • Rischel 1966 Rischel, J. Phoneme, Grapheme, and the ‘Importance’ of Distinctions. Functional Aspects of the Scandinavian Runic Reform. In Rischel J. 2009 Sound Structure in Language, 254-271. • Rischel, J. 2008. A Unified Theory of Nordic i-Umlaut, Syncope and Stød. NOWELE 54/55.191-235. • Schalin, J. 2017a. Scandinavian Front Umlaut Revisited and Revised. To appear in ANF 132. • Schalin, J. 2017b. Scandinavian Umlaut and Contrastive Feature Hierarchies. To appear in NOWELE 70.2 p.171-254. • Suzuki S. 1995. The Decline of the Foot as a Supersyllabic Mora-Counting Unit in Early Germanic. Transactions of The Philological Society 93(2).227-272.

The notorious cruxes of Common Scandinavian umlaut and breaking / Johan Schalin 16-May-2017 34 View publication stats