In: Folia Linguistica Historica (5.2), 1984, 279-303
Remarks on assimilation in Old English
Raymond Hickey University of Bonn
Both throughout the course of Old English and in the transition from Old to Middle English a large number of changes in the phonological structure of both morphologically simple and morphologically complex word forms had far reaching consequences for the development of English in the areas of inflectional and derivational morphology often having the effect in the latter area of opacifying the derivational process with subsequent lexicalization of originally compounded forms. The changes I am referring to here are known collectively as assimilation. The basic justification for this term is that dissimilar segments become, through the operation of this process, more alike in one of several aspects. These respects can be identified and classified. I would like however in this treatment to subsume not only assimilation under the title of this paper but also dissimilation. There are cogent reasons for this. Firstly assimilation and dissimilation are really two sides of the one coin, the principles governing assimilation also govern dissimilation, or at least their converse do. Secondly many changes in phonological structure in Old English are in fact both assimilation and dissimilation in combination. For example the shift /l2/ to /ld/ is assimilation in terms of place of articulation and voice and dissimilation in terms of place of the continuancy of both segments. Just as one can, for example, use the term ‘voice’ to talk of segments which are either voiced or voiceless, I will use the term ‘assimilation’ in a general sense to cover both assimilation and dissimilation and a combination of the two. To start with let me make the normal distinction between assimilation of place and manner of articulation. Both of these must be further subdivided immediately. The former has a fourfold division.
(1) a labial b dental c alveolar d velar
I have not posited a palatal articulation in Old English for while this by all means existed (with the obstruents /t$/, /dg/, /$/, /j/) assimilations which take place to them are alveolar, if the assimilated segment is anterior to the assimilating one, compare
(2) of3rect /of2re$t/ ‘oppresses’ ( < of3re¨ + (i)p )
Assimilations to palatals of elements which are posterior to them, i.e. velars, are unknown as palatals themselves are the result of an assimilation process and if the determining palatal environment becomes velar (as in vowel alternation) then they revert to a velar articulation. Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 2 of 19
For ease of presentation and because it is without theoretical significance for the matter at hand I use simple place of articulation labels (with the upper passive articulator as the point of reference) rather than the canonical set of the four features [anterior], [coronal], [high] and [back] which normally would in appropriate combinations be used to characterize the positions in (1). In addition there are substantial arguments in favour of a series of features directly referring to points on the upper articulator for general phonological analysis, for a discussion of these see Hickey (1984a) and Ladefoged (1971: 36-45). For a treatment of assimilation of manner the various categories of segments which differ in manner, e.g. nasals, liquids, stops, affricates, fricatives do not have to be considered in the way just listed but only three features of various manner types are necessary for an analysis, as assimilation can only involve these three maximally. They are
(3) a [continuant] b [voice] c [sonorant]
On assimilation segments may change one or more of these features. My concern below will be to determine what is the motivation for the assimilations recorded, how regular they are in terms of the entire phonology of Old English and describing exactly the factors which are responsible for the form which the assimilations take. A basic principle which I subscribe to is that assimilation is determined by the phonotactics of Old English. By phonotactics I understand the principles which govern the ordering of phonological segments. These can be divided into basic types.
(4) (i) principles concerning syllable structures (ii) principles concerning the ordering of phonological segments which are not exhaustively covered by (i).
This definition of phonotactics may seem somewhat clumsy at first so let me expand on what is intended by it. First of all for Old English just as for any language there are principles which determine how syllables are to be structured in terms of the relative consonantal or vocalic character of segments which are in the onset, nucleus or coda of a syllable. This means that assuming a vocalic core for the nucleus the structure of the onset and the coda will be determined by the consonantal quality of segments. The term consonantal strength can be used here assuming voiceless stops to be most consonantal and sonorants, glides and of course vowels to be least consonantal. Put in reverse terms there is a resonance strength scale which decreases the more one moves away from the nucleus of a syllable. Such general statements can be held to be true of any language in fact. They can be summarized as
(5) Principle of increasing resonance Resonance of segments increases towards the nucleus of a syllable
There are at least three difficulties with this. The first is not usually treated as a difficulty by phonologists although phoneticians have devoted an inordinate amount of energy to it, namely how can one define a syllable, and hence determine its nucleus? Despite the many attempts of phoneticians one can regard this question as still unsolved. Nonetheless phonologists and indeed linguistically native speakers have a Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 3 of 19 notion of how many syllables exist in a word and the degree of dissent on syllable number judgment is astonishingly low. For phonological analysis syllables need to be recognizable if only an intuitive and unarticulated basis. To leave the matter at this is not so much to deliberately avoid defining a parameter which one makes use of as to exploit the consensus which exists on the recognition of this parameter. The second difficulty with the principle in (5) is one which concerns phonetics also. How can one reach a definition of resonance which can be phonetically determined and be successfully applied to a given segment in determining it in terms of resonance? The answer is simply that one cannot but one can establish values of relative resonance for certain segments which on comparison allow one to label a given segment as more or less resonant than another segment. This is a phonological procedure, as can already be seen from the use f the phonetically fictious term ‘segment’. Values of relative resonance are reached by considering the values which segments have fro the three features given in (3). A consequence of this is that assimilation is a change in resonance value. Resonance increases from (3)a to (3)c. Thus /f/ is more resonant than /p/. The phonetic correlate of this is the length of /f/, whose nature is that of an uninterrupted articulation, whereas /p/ is phonetically silence with the ensuing format bending (Sanders 1977: 35ff.) or just the aspiration (in final position after a sonorant, say) which is characteristic of labials. /z/ is more resonant than /s/ also. Phonetically the correlation here is the double articulation, /s/ has alveolar constriction, /z/ has alveolar constriction and glottal articulation (vocal fold vibration). Although I have not given a definition of resonance in phonetically absolute terms I have at least given two phonetic correlates of relative phonological resonance, uninterrupted articulation and vocal fold vibration. A phonetic correlate of the difference between voiced (non-sonorant) segments and sonorants also exists. It is the absence of noise (in the acoustic-phonetic sense, see Fry 1979: 88ff.) and the presence of an identifiable formant structure for sonorants and the reverse of these features for voiced non-sonorant segments. Obviously the term sonorant, as a cover term for these two phonetic features cannot be used for all segments which may phonologically be sonorants. Thus in Irish palatal /r"/ is frequently a post-alveolar apical fricative [z] and so phonetically non-sonorant but phonologically (because of is morphonemic alternation with /r/) it is still [+sonorant]. For Old English, the discussion is purely phonological as phonetic details are obviously indeterminable. The third difficulty with (5) is a phonological one. Given the phonetic correlates of relative resonance it should be a mechanical procedure to assign each phonological segment a relative resonance value. But in fact the placement of certain segments relative to each other on a resonance scale is disputable. It would seem that place on the relative resonance scale varies from language to language and within a given language. For Icelandic Murray and Vennemann (1983: 83) give a scale where /r/ is nearer to vowels like /l/ as does Hooper for (American) Spanish (1976: 208) and for Pāli (1976:205) in the discussion of assimilation from Hankramer and Aissen (1974) (on the latter see Murray (1981:176) as well). For Irish all sonorants seem to be equal in the modern language as they interchange allophonically after stops (e.g. the word for ‘knitting’ is either /kn"ita:l"/ or /kl"ita:l"/ or /kr"ita:l"/). On the other hand /r/ tends to drop the essential distinction among consonants in Irish between palatal and non-palatal articulation when it is in an initial position whereas /l/ does not, cf. /l"abq/ [l"@:bq] ‘bed’ but /r"aur/ [raur]. In this respect it is less consonantal and so nearer vowels on a resonance scale. It is important to make a distinction here however. In Irish depalatalization is a phonetic phenomenon. In terms of systematic Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 4 of 19 phonological processes it acts like all the other sonorants, for example sonorants (including /r/) do not undergo the synchronic process of lenition and nasalization (Hickey, forthcoming a:I.4). This means that the scale where /r/ is more resonant than /l/ exists only phonetically in present-day Irish. Now the usual justification given for /r/ after /l/ on resonance scales comes from diachronic evidence such as loss of /r/ but retention of /l/, assimilation of clusters to /l/ but not to /r/, etc. These processes are, seen diachronically, phonetically motivated. What remains to be decided is whether for any synchronic state of a language /r/ is hived off from other sonorants in the operation of a phonological process. The second question which arises in connection with placement on a resonance scale concerns stops and fricatives. In a number of resonance scales (Vennemann, 1982: 284; Murray and Vennemann, 1983: 519) voiced stops and voiceless fricatives are given a single position flanked on both sides by voiced fricatives and voiceless stops respectively. If relative resonance determines the structure of syllable onsets and codas (Hooper, 1976: 196) then one would expect a gradual increase of resonance in the onset and a tapering off in the coda. But with the scales just mentioned initial sequences of /sp/, /st/, /sk/ violate the principle of resonance increase in syllable onsets. This violation can be use to explain certain developments such as initial /e/ epenthesis in Spanish which according to Vennemann (1982: 297) occurred to resyllabify earlier Latin phonological forms such as /sko$la/ to give /es$kue$la/. The principle of syllable structure can be retained if the violation of it can be seen as with this example, to have led to greater correction. If is by no means an exception for languages to have initial structures of the type, fricative+stop+vowel. These clash with the principle of syllable structure in any structure in any realization, be it as voiceless clusters (in Spanish just considered, in Germanic) or voiced clusters (in Russian, Italian (with initial voiced alveolar fricative)). On solution to this would be to treat voiced fricative and voiced stops as one position and voiceless fricative and voiceless stops as one position and voiceless stops as another. The advantage of this would be that initial pre-vocalic fricative and stop sequences would not involve a decrease of resonance to the stop and an increase again to the following vowel but rather equal resonance for two segments and an increase between these and the subsequent vowel. Now if the resonance scales are supposed to be universal as Hooper maintains (1976 : 206), then a scale such as that just proposed runs into difficulties of its own. To mention one of these take the example of epenthesis in (Modern) Irish which breaks up syllable codas by inserting a neutral vowel between two segments and causing resyllabification. The triggering factor with epenthesis is a difference in relative resonance value of the two segments between which the epenthetic vowel appears. In fact the entire process is governed by the relative resonance scale; it is found in clusters of a sonorant and a further element which can range between a sonorant and a voiceless fricative on the relative resonance scale but notably not between clusters of a sonorant and a voiceless stop. Thus one has /lf$/ F [lqf] but /lk$/ F [lqk]. As epenthesis is triggered by the resonance value of the second element of two segment clusters voiceless fricatives and voiceless stops must be ordered sequentially on a relative resonance scale cannot account for syllable onsets and syllable codas without treating either the one or the other as an exception. It may now be considered after the examination of what was specified in (4) (i) that (4) (ii) is an empty set, that it is that resonance scale values and syllable structure will account Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 5 of 19 exhaustively for all sequences of segments in Old English. But consider the case of a language which has the following two restrictions
(6) (i) sequences of stops are impermissible (ii) sequences of two fricatives are impermissible
These prohibitions cannot be described in terms of relative resonance values as each element has the same value. At least in terms of what I have been considering so far. The hierarchy examined above is one which refers to manner of articulation. The question arises as to whether there is also a hierarchy for place of articulation. If there were then a language might have restrictions of the kind: labials do not occur before velars, dentals to not occur before velars, etc. But the restrictions in (6) are absolute and not graded according to place of articulation. Only if a language does not have a restriction of the types given in (6) can a grading of sequential possibilities be given. Now due to the number of classical loan words which have become firmly established throughout the history of English sequences such as /pt/ (apt) or /kt/ (act) have become common. Modern English also shows the grading of place of articulation just mentioned. In fact the hypothetical cases of restrictions on sequences of stops given above are true of modern English, i.e. */pk/ and */tk/. When one reflects on this one sees that (4) (ii) and (4) (i) are not unrelated for the principle which can possibly fall under (4) (iii) and of which (6) (i) and (ii) are concrete examples are also dependent on syllable structure inasmuch as all principles which can possibly fall under (4) (ii) have the syllable as their domain. Thus the impermissible sequences of modern English */pk/, */tk/ are not allowed when the segments they contain are tautosyllabic. With a syllable boundary between them they occur widely (topcoat, flatcar). Looking at Old English one notices that at least (6) (i) appears to hold good. Consider the following Latin loan words (Campbell, 1959: 211) which have been later replaced by forms with the phonotactic sequences of the donor language.
(7) a craft ‘crypt’ b traht ‘text’
The above forms show the resolution of double stop sequences, they are resolved into a fricative and stop sequence.There is no deletion of segments here although with alveolar fricatives the situation is different. (6) (ii) would also appear to hold for Old English as can be seen by examining morphologically complex forms.
(8) tweolfta ‘twelfth’ ( < tweolf + þ + a)
Here the fricative /2/ would seem to have been changed to a stop as a result of (6) (ii) operating. This does not hold entirely as not all the sequences of two stops change to that of a fricative and a stop. Notably with verbs usage varies. While one has forms like
(9) cyst ‘(he) kisses’ ( < cys + »þ) there are clear cases without manner dissimilation, e.g. dr»fþ, ‘(he) drives’. This is a true exception and the resolution of /f/ to /p/ was not possible either for at least two reasons. One is that with manner dissimilation inflectional endings undergo change Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 6 of 19 only. In morphologically simple forms a change may take place however as in the late West Saxon form
(10) w@fs F w@ps ‘wasp’
The second reason is that paradigm pressure operates to retain the minimally altered form of the stem which is inflected. This renders the retention of /f/ in dr»fþ more likely. Manner dissimilation is favoured when the sequence to undergo it contains homorganic segments. For this particular instance the double fricative restriction would appear to have been operative very early, in fact in pre-Old English, as it seems to be responsible for the encliticizing of the second person singular pronoun
(11) beres + þu F berestu F berest ‘(you) carry’ and also for the metathesis which was frequent in certain word internal clusters. Consider those cases where metathesized forms existed for original ones.
(12) axe ~ æsce ‘ashes’ waxan ~ wascan ‘wash’
Assuming that the sc clusters originally represented [sx] then the x grapheme must have stood for the metathesized sequence of these consonants (WeÓna, 1978: 30; Campbell, 1959: 170). But the latter development of words with [xs] such as
(13) wahsan F wax /wæks/
Shows that the double fricative sequence was resolved to a stop and fricative sequence, while the non-metathesized original fricative sequence developed into [Ú]. Resolution to a single segment is seen in Old English where the second fricative of a cluster is alveolar.Here a single fricative results with attending opacification of the derivational process.
(14) a bl»þs F bliss ‘bliss’ b l»þs F liss ‘favour; peace’
To accurately describe the changes in phonotactics which are attested during the Old English period the restriction in (6) (ii) must be elaborated. In fact it needs to be expressed more accurately and in terms which will show that (6) (i) and (6) (ii) complement each other.
(15) Sequences of two segments which are either [+continuant] or [-continuant] are impermissible
The advantage of this formulation apart from coupling the two separate restrictions in (6) is that the segments which it applies to includes not only stops and fricatives but Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 7 of 19 sonorants as well. This appears to be a gain in generalization when one considers forms such as
(16) a botl ‘building’ (< bo3l) b setl ‘seat’ (< se3l)
In late West Saxon (Campbell, 1959: 172) cases of the fortition of /2/ are recorded before /m/ also.
(17) a f¤dm ‘embrace’ (< f@3m) b m£dm ‘treasure’ (< m@3m)
All of these examples involve syllable final clusters. There are however examples for the shift of initial /2/. These lie much further back in time and are common to North and West Germanic. The changes can be shown by comparison with forms in Gothic (Campbell, 1959: 169; Braune and Ebbinghaus, 1973: 53; Luick, 1964: 833).
(18) OE flēon ‘flee’ (cf. Gothic þliuhan)
Although this change lies outside the narrow area of Old English and although it is not supported by many forms I think it is if significance for the matter at hand. Consider Campbell’s statement (loc. cit.) that medially and finally /l2/ becomes /ld/. Medially and finally here refers to words and translated into terms of syllable structure the two changes are
(19) a /2l/ F /fl/ / ___ b /l2/ F /ld/ / ___
The change of /2l/ to /tl/ (or /dl/ syllable initially is not possible because /tl/ is not a possible initial cluster in Old English (or Old Norse or Old High German for that matter). This fact neatly illustrates the interaction of considerations of place and manner of articulation. From the point of view of relative resonance value a voiceless stop followed by a sonorant is inkeeping with the principle in (5) and should so be a permissible phonotactics sequence. But when the two segments are homorganic the sequence is disallowed, thus one has /kn/, /pl/, /kl/ in Old English but not /tl/. There is however a plausible phonetic explanation for this. If a sonorant is preceded by a homorganic stop the latter cannot be perceived unless there is oral release with the sonorant following immediately (this is the position with languages which have phonemic sequences such as /tl/ (Irish), /dl/ (Russian), etc.). This option of phonetic realization appears not to have existed for Old English. The situation with /r/ is different. The release of the stop (as in /tr/, /kr/) into the following /r/ gives enough acoustic information (formant bending) for the stop to be easily recognized. Bearing this in mind one can understand why initial sequences such as /pm/, /tn/, /tl/, etc are not found in Old English. Equally one can grasp the explanation for the existence of /sm/, /sn/, /sl/. Fricatives do not depend on a release stage of their articulation to be recognized as they are continuant. Phonetically they do not require a certain segment Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 8 of 19
(such as /r/ or a vowel) in order to be recognized. The existence of clusters of /s/ and a sonorant and of /f/ and /l/ is however in obvious contrast with the restriction worked out above (see (15)). But on reflection one finds that (15) only applies to syllable final sequences. All other cases of possible clusters of two continuant segments initially can be seen to be one of the combinations of a fricative and a sonorant just mentioned. The shift in (19)b if /l2/ to /ld/ syllable finally is in keeping with the condition in (15) and also represents an assimilation in terms of voice. To account for this change one must appeal to another factor which plays a role here. While there are no differences in resonance within classes of segments which occupy individual positions on the resonance scale, for example /k/ is not more resonant than /t/, there would seem to be a hierarchy in places of articulation, not in terms of their sequential occurrence but in terms of their strength in the well-known sense of Foley (1977: 28ff. where this is expressed as his r variable), Lass (1971:17), Lass and Anderson (1975: 148-187). Lass assumes that for Germanic the strength hierarchy is dental-labial-velar (loc. Cit.) as opposed to the hierarchy labial-dental-velar which Foley regards as being more general (1977: 31f.). By strength both authors mean the ability of these segments to maintain themselves through diachronic phonological changes. On this interpretation one can regard the strength hierarchy as being parallel to the much criticized notion of markedness (Chomsky and Halle, 1968: 402ff.). And if as Lass himself notes in another place (Lass, 1975) markedness is equivalent to instability over time then for the present discussion of places of articulation strong segments are unmarked and weak segments marked. Accepting Foley’s hierarchy for the moment would mean that the shift of /2l/ F /fl/ is a shift of marked (dental) to unmarked (labio-dental). Certainly if one sees markedness as corresponding to low frequency of occurrence in the world’s languages then the North Germanic shift is from a marked to an unmarked element. But a consideration of more forms shows that for Old English the strength hierarchy favoured by Lass is indeed correct. The shift of /2l/ to /fl/ does not stand in contradiction to this as it took place on a different level. While strength is a phonological term the change being considered here is phonetic. The shift from /2/ to /f/ is favoured by the acoustic-auditory similarity of both segments27 (Catford, 1974: 24). The energy distribution for /f/ and /2/ is very similar and both are clearly distinguished from /s/ whose lowest frequency dies not extend below 3.5 kHz whereas those of /ß/ and /f/ start between 1.5 and 2 kHz (Strevens, 1976 [1960]: 141f.). These latter phonetic facts do not explain the shift of /2/ but they do account for the shift being to /f/ and not to /s/. Given this explanation one can retain the dental-labial-velar hierarchy for (phonological) consonant strength. This hierarchy is supported not only by the retention of dentals while labials and velars weaken in an environment which stimulates lenition (Lass and Anderson, 1975: 183) but also by the interaction of labial and velar segments in (West) Germanic in general (German/Dutch achter ~ English after) and within Old English hlāhhan F Modern English /la:f/. For these shifts the Jacobsonian specification of [grave] in undoubtedly to be preferred against the unrelated specifications of velars and labials in the Chomsky and Halle system (see Lass and Anderson (1975: 187) on this point). Certainly labials and velars pair off against dentals as regards exchange (consider the unknown shift /p/ F Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 9 of 19
/t/ in English or the unknown (one step) shift /k/ F /t/). This applies far beyond the reaches of Old English; in Old Irish for example Latin loan words show a velar to labial shift among stops (/k/ F /p/) on their borrowing into Irish (Hickey, 1984b, 1985; Thurneysen, 1946: 570f.) while the interchange of the two articulatory positions continues into the present-day language (Hickey, forthcoming a). Here one must distinguish between the interchange of articulatory positions and strength hierarchies. Labials and velars pair as a class in terms of interchange but in a possible strength hierarchy there are cases within Germanic where they cannot be treated as a single group, for example in the fortition of the post-sonorant /w/ to /b/ between Middle High German and Modern High German (as in MHG varwe F ModHG Farbe, ‘colour’ Russ, 1978: 77ff.), something which did not effect the dental and velar articulations of the time (there is no corresponding fortition of /s/ or /x/). In the following section I now offer a detailed examination of forms of assimilation. They have been divided according to the features involved in assimilation as specified in (3) above. The examples given all differ along the three parameters of origin, date and frequency. They come from various dialects of Old English (though in the main from West Saxon), from different periods stretching from the earliest glosses to classical late West Saxon and lastly they differ in frequency, some assimilations being very common others almost confined to a single word. This may be due to three factors, the rarity of the clusters showing assimilation, the lack of attested forms or the phonologically peripheral nature of the assimilation involved. The last factor is by far the most grievious. Those forms which I suspect of having occurred for this reason have been excluded. A case in point is the assimilation of /r/ to /s/ in clusters like /sr/ (F /ss/). Although this does occur with words such as l¤ssa28 ‘less’ and wiersa (cf. OHG wirsiro) ‘worse’ which are very common the assimilation is peripheral as all other assimilations imply a general tendency for fricatives to assimilate to sonorants. Allowing for the undifferentiation of the three parameters just mentioned I hope that the classification and analysis nonetheless has validity in abstracting generalizations and regularities from the manifestations of assimilation.
(20) Sonorant assimilation a /mm/ < /mn hremmas < hrem+nas ‘ravens’ b /mm/ < /mb/ ācuma < ācumba ‘oakum’ (with geminate simplification) c /mm/ < /fm/ wimman < wīfmonn ‘woman’ d /mn/ < /fn/ emn < efn ‘even’ e /mn/ < /pn/ w¤mn < w¤pn ‘weapon’ (with voice assimilation) f /mb/ < /nb/ elmboga < elnboga ‘elbow’ g /nn/ < /nd/ benne < bende ‘ fetters’ h /nn/ < /sn/ þionne < þiosne ‘this’ (accusative) Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 10 of 19
i /nn/ < /hn/ heannes < neahnes ‘highness’ j /ll/ < /lr/ sella < selra ‘better’ k /ll/ < /lr/ ellefan < enleofan ‘eleven’ l /ll/ < dl/ f¤mnhālicum < hādlicum ‘virginal’ (dative singular neuter) (with geminate simplification) m /ll/ < /sl/ þulliċ < þusliċ ‘such’ n /rr/ < /lr/ Ae3erred < Ae3elred proper name o /rr/ < /nr/ Cyrred < Cynred proper name p /rr/ < /r2/ lāreow < lārþēow ‘teacher’ (with geminate simplification) q /rr/ < /hr/ nearra < neahra ‘nearer’
A general characteristic of the assimilations in (20) is that they do not involve a change in place of articulation if there is already a sonorant homorganic to the obstruent which assimilates. Thus there is a shift of /h/ to /n/ and /h/ to /r/ in (20) i and q respectively because no homorganic sonorant for /h/ exists. The obstruent which assimilates to a sonorant can be one or two steps away from this on the relative resonance scale (both /p/ and /f/ assimilate in one step to /m/). Furthermore the resulting sonorant does not seem to change its place of articulation to the (alveolar) sonorant which gave rise to it in the first place, so one has /fn/ → /mn/ but not /mn/ → /n(n)/ with the same form although /mn/ → /mm/ is attested for others, see (20) a. Note that a sonorant normally only changes its place of articulation if it assimilates to another sonorant, this accounts for the shift in (20) a. On the other hand there are a few exceptions to this. Consider
(21) by3m ~ bytme ~ bytne ‘ keel’ (Holthausen, 31974: 42)
The fortition of /2/ is quite a normal (late West Saxon) development (Campbell, 1959: 172). The third form in (21) shows the assimilation of a sonorant to a stop. Usually this is not possible (within a syllable, see below) given the position of both these types of segments on the relative resonance scale. But considered from the point of view of place of articulation strength, it is inkeeping with the value of alveolars (within Old English) that labials shold assimilate to them. Corroborating evidence for this view can be found in the fact that alveolar to labial assimilation among post-sonorant stops in unkown.
(22) ¤mtiġ –/F ¤mpig29 ‘empty’ Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 11 of 19
Nor is alveolar to labial shift found when a fricative changes to a stop.
(23) boþm F botm ‘bottom’ –/F bopm
These remarks have taken two factors into account, relative resonance calue and consonantal strength. Cut it would appear that that is insufficient to account for all the cases of assimilation involving sonorants. Consider the following cases
(24) a stefn F stemn ‘voice, etc.’ b ginfæst F gimf¤st ‘huge’ c elnboga F elmboga ‘elbow’
The first of these is the same as that in (20)d and shows the shift from fricative to sonorant. But if the two factors just listed to account for assimilation were the only ones operative then the remaining forms in (24) should give *ginmæst and *elnnoga. What appears to be at work here is a principle which can can be formulated as
(25) Syllable initial assimilation When a syllable boundary runs through a cluster the coda-final segment ssimilates to the onset-initial segment if this is possible
This then accounts for (24)b and c leaving (24)a as the normal instance of tautosyllabic assimilation. The proviso at the end of the above principle is necessary for there seem to be cases which contradict (25).
(26) nosþryl F nostryl ‘nostril’
There is no stop homorganic with /2/ in Old English (i.e. */t/ so the assimilation in (26) involves the fortition the fortition of /2/ to /t/ which is homorganic to /s/. Note that this account suffices in dealing with instances like (26). There was obviously additional motivation in the great frequency of /st/ clusters in Old English anyway. The number of attested forms involving assimilation of /r/ and /l/ are too few to be able to use the Old English evidence to support a contention, one way or the other, on the relative resonance value of /r/ and /l/. The forms in (20)j and n are not sufficient to draw any conclusions from. The entire process of assimilation as sketched above is governed by a further consideration which operates as a restraining influence. Assimilation is checked if it leads to morphological opacity, particularly with inflectional morphology. This principle of morphological transparency does not however give rise to different kinds of assimilation but merely attests its application in certain instances where it would be likely to occur. Such cases involve adjectival and verbal inflection (Campbell, 1959: 195).
(27) a gl@dne –/F gl@nne ‘glad’ (accusative masculine) b leofra –/F leorra ‘dear’ (comparative) c wēnde –/F wēnne ‘imagined’ d hiērde –/F hiērre ‘heard’ Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 12 of 19
This factor is in fact the fourth which determines the frequency of assimilated forms. It is also responsible for overriding the principle governing sequences of continuant segments in (15) as sequences of two fricatives are found in verbal forms where an inflectional ending consisting of an initial fricative is added to a fricative final stem. Note that voice assimilation nonetheless takes place.
(28) a stīgan /sti:Jәn/ ‘to rise’ b stīhst /sti:xst/ ‘(you) rise’ c lēogan /le:әJәn/ ‘to lie’ d līehþ /li:x2/ ‘(he) lies’
It should be emphasized that the morphological transparency principle is not one of the phonological conditioning factors on the forms of assimilation and as these alone are the subject of the present paper this factor cam be registered as having existed but not be integrated into the analysis.
(29) Voice assimilation a /tt/ < /td/ mette < met+de ‘(he) met’ b /st/ < /sd/ cyste < cys+de ‘(he) kissed’
I have only given two examples here which show assimilation of an inflection to stems. Within the present discussion voice assimilation does not deed to be further dealt with. For a full treatment of voice assimilation within Old English see Lass (1971).
(30) Continuity assimilation a /tt/ < /t2/ itt < it+þ ‘he eats’ b /dd/ < /3d/ cydde Continuancy assimilation is, like voice assimilation, unproblematic. It occurs chiefly with verbal endings. Note in this context that when a stop follows a fricative (as in the weak verb past suffix –de) dental fricatives change to alveolar stops ((30)b) while alveolar fricatives show no continuancy assimilation ((29)b), probably as /sd/ F /ss/ would opacify the inflection and /sd/ F /dd/ the stem. Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 13 of 19 Lastly one should note that assimilation is not the only phonological process in Old English which is governed by the relative resonance values of the segments involved in it. Syncope30 operates according to relative resonance values as well. It is triggered by inflection which affects syllabification. Consider (31) a wuldor /wul$dәr$/ ‘glory’ b wuldrian /wul$driәn$/ ‘to glorify’ While /r/ forms the syllable coda in (31)a in (31)b, it belongs to the onset. Without the vowel in the first form the coda of the first (and then only) syllable would be /-ldr/ which is not a permissible tautosyllabic sequence in Old English. On inflection the second vowel of the first form is lost because /dr/ can act as an onset to the syllable formed by the inflection /-iәn/. What one has is the coda of a syllable joining its tautosyllabic onset to form a new onset for a further syllable which was suffixed to this coda31. Not all unstressed syllable codas can contract with all tautosyllabic onsets. The structural description of the syncope rule in Old English is determined by the relative resonance value of the unstressed syllable. Take the forms in (32)32. (32) a tæse : tæsliċ ‘convenient’ : ‘convenient’ b lãtel : lãtlian ‘little’ : ‘to diminish’ c ãfel : ãflian ‘evil’ : ‘to inflict evil’ d open : openian ‘open’ : ‘to open’ Assuming that the relative resonance values stretch from sonorant through fricatives to stops one can maintain that syncope occurs for the entire resonance scale if one takes (32)a and b as one’s basis. But (32)c and d show that, when combined with the features, homorganic/heteroganic syncope can only occur on the resonance scale down to voiceless fricatives (see(32c); voiceless heteroganic stops are excluded from syncope ((32)d). Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 14 of 19 Notes 1 Assimilation is not dealt with equally in all of the standard works on Old English. Sievers/Brunner (1965), Quirk and Wrenn (1955), Pilch (1970) have no section devoted to it. Lehnert (1978: 67) and Pinsker full treatment. But by far the most extensive handling of assimilation is offered by Luick (1964: 854–860 and in other places) from which the greater portion of the data offered here is taken. 2 By alveolar I mean the point of articulation of the stops /t/ and /d/, the sonorants /l/, /n/, /r/ and possibly the fricative /s/. Dental refers to the fricative /2/. 3 Though the distinction between dental and alveolar cannot be captured as both sounds are [+anterior] and [+coronal]. The problem arises with the fricative /2/ and /s/. They could be separated by the use of the distinctive feature [strident] in Old English, though in other cases this causes additional difficulties see Hickey (1984a). 4 See Hooper (1976:195ff) for a treatment of syllable structure and consonant type. The optimal structure of onsets and codas is given on p. 196. 5 As can be deduced from these remarks, I take it (for Old English at least) that consonantal strength and relative resonance are inversely proportional to each other. 6 See the articles by Kohler (1966a, b), Fudge (1969), Bell (1975). The negative position of Kohler of contested in Anderson (1969), where Anderson rightly notes that the fact that syllable boundaries cannot always be determined (in Modern English) by comparing a form to the phonotactics of initial sequences is not a valid objections to the notion of the syllable. 7 Example for this are given in Ladefoged (1978:57) for relevant remarks as well. 8 The point being made here is that while resonance in phonetic terms is not definable, comparative resonance can be established for given segments. Compare this situation with the undefinability of the syllable and the recognition and classification of the syllable as a phonological unit. 9 If resonance were simply determined by two closures, then ejectives would be more resonant than plain stops, as would clicks, and simultaneous stop articulations such as /kp/, /gb/. But investigation of the role of relative resonance values in syllable structure has not been done with languages which have phonemic units of these types. 10 I prefer to use these phonetic features as correlates of phonological sonorants rather than Chomsky and Halle`s specification of the possibility of spontaneous voicing for sonorants (Chomsky and Halle 1968:302). For while voice can be produced with obstruents (by increasing subglottal pressure and/or lowering the larynx and thus increasing the supra-glottal tract volume which slows down the equalization of supra- and sub-glottal pressure thus arresting voicing) noise cannot be extracted from fricatives nor can a clear formant structure be imposed on them (nor obviously on stops) so that the phonetic correlates of sonorance which I have chosen here cannot be found with them. 11 These two authors and Hooper also call their scales consonantal strength hierarchies, which, as noted above, give my relative resonance scales when reversed. Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 15 of 19 12 Vennemann (1982: 298) treats initial /$/, /s/ + stop clusters in German, with references to Sievers, as containing ‘Nebensilben’ (secondary syllables) and gives them his own term ‘Suppendix’, to which there is also an ‘Appendix’ which characterizes /s/ after a stop in a coda; both are seen in the word Stups ‘nudge’ which Vennemann uses as an illustration. 13 Occasionally examples of this with native words are found. The following are two instances, one inflectional and the other derivational. īecan ‘to increase, enlarge’ has the regular preterite īecte which it is found as īehte in late West Saxon, for which Luick (1964: 924) offers the explanation that it was an analogical form on the basis of words like bōhte ‘bought’, etc. But this is a different case. Bycgan has [dg] after a palatal vowel which derives from /g/. After a back vowel the velar fricative realization [J] is found, this being devoiced before the voiceless stop of the preterite ending. The compound lēactūn has the final plosive of the first element fricativized before the plosive initial second element in lēahtūn ‘kitchen-garden’ (Clark-Hall/ Merritt, 1962, 1962: 213). 14 When a dental fricative assimilates to an alveolar fricative (see (14) below) the result is a geminate which in phonological terms is not deletion as geminates are phonologically clusters of two segments. With later geminate simplification the clusters were reduced to single segments. 15 Some of the traditional grammars seem to have realized the nature of this prohibition. Luick in particular (1964: 891) gives an account of the /f2/ to /ft/ shift which is quite acceptable. He points out that the explanation for the shift lies in the difficulty in articulation of the two fricatives in immediate sequence, and that the fortition of the second fricative gives the (phonetically optimal sequence fricative + stop. It is a well-recognized fact in phonetics that similar sequences of sounds are difficult to articulate particularly in allegro style and particularly with fricatives, just consider any tongue twister) and so on dissimilation improves the accuracy of articulation. Note that the outcome of applying both (6) (i) and (6) (ii) is normally the same, that is, the phonetically optimal sequence fricative and stop. 16 This refers to the vast majority of instances of this form. On a very few occasions drīft is found (Luick, 1964: 891). 17 There are very occasional exceptions to this, one of which is given in (30)b below. 18 The metathesis evident in the modern form can be explained as having occurred to optimize syllable structure. Assuming that (5) held good, the change of /-ps$/ to /-sp$/ meant that an even decrease in resonance took place in the coda. This also strengthens the view that /s/ is more resonant than voiceless stops. For a further account of metathesis which is determined by considerations of syllable structure see the treatment of Irish in Hickey (1984c). 19 This vas [v] intervocalically. As voicing was contextually determined for fricative uses in Old English, one could equally just speak here of a labio-dental fricative leaving the feature [voice] unspecified. 20 Lehnert (91978: 70) and WeÓna (1978: 54) assume that sc /sk/ developed to /$/ in English via /sX/. I take it that by /X/ they mean a velar fricative (IPA /x/). The most plausible development phonetically is that with /sk/ the /k/ was not simply deleted but that it was palatalized and fricativized sp that one had /sk/ F /sx/ F /sç/ and that the Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 16 of 19 last stage involved the coalescence of the alveolar and palatal fricative in the alveolo-palatal /$/; see Flasdieck (1958) for a detailed treatment of the origin of /$/. 21 This holds true for German also, cf. Old High German dahs Modern High German Dachs /daks/ ‘badger’ and schön with /$#:n/ from an earlier /sk#:n/. 22 This is not in fact absolutely true. A few non-alveolar forms have cluster simplification (actually voice assimilation) with later simplification as in nēahgebūr F nēahhebūr F nēhebūr ‘neighbour’. (/xj/ F /xx/ F /x/ (F /h/)). 23 On the assumption that sonorants are [+continuant]. In Chomsky and Halle (1968: 317f.) nasals are regarded as [-continuant] and liquids of nasals. But the evidence from such forms as those in (17) above suggests treating all sonorants in Old English as [+continuant]. Modern English would appear to offer support for this stance. Consider strong and strength. There is no stop after the velar nasal when this is word-final but always where it is followed by the abstract noun morpheme /2/ (cf. length). The retention of the homorganic stop can be explained as a hiatus in the continuancy sequence /n2/. The resulting cluster /nk2/ is in keeping with the principle in (15) above. 24 Not all instances of /l2/ show this shift. Modern English words like filth and health prove this. Where syncope operated to give a /l2/ sequence in Old English there was no shift of /2/. Thus the reconstructed forms for the two words just given are *fūliþō and *hāiliþō (Pinsker, 1959: 88, Luick, 1964: 833f.). With certain attested forms such as ēþel ~ ēþles (*ēdles) ‘country’ the lack of shift could be explained by syllable structure. With ēþles the syllable boundary runs between the dental fricative and the lateral (/e:2$les/) but in view of many assimilations across syllable boundaries (see (20), (29) and (30) below), the account which postulates syncope as the blocking factor would seem more probable. 25 The only other fricatives which could occur initially before sonorants would be /x/ in /xn/ and /f/ in /fm/. The former can be left out of the present discussion as in Old English (n) was followed by /g/ and the sequence /ng/ was impossible initially as was /mp/ abd /nd/. The non-existence of the cluster /fm/ is not as easy to account for. Two reasons may be given. One is that they are not in fact homorganic (/f/ would be the corresponding homorganic cluster) and another is that /s/ is the more common of the two fricatives and as such most likely to turn up with sonorants in intial clusters. 26 In fact Foley (1977: 50f.) uses German dialectal evidence to show the strength of dentals for German, while maintaining the more general position of strength to be labial (see his references to developments in Romance, 1977: 30). 27 This would appear to account for the same shift which occurs in present-day Cockney, e.g. three /fri:/, see Gimson (1980: 184). 28 Luick (1964: 859) doubts that l¤ssa derived from the reconstructed *l¤sra as the voicing of /s/ intervocalically had occurred before the later syncope so that the attested form could not have /-ss-/ if the reconstructed form is accepted. The disagreement on this form and the lack of attested forms with /sr/ for either of the two words given here serves to underline the peripherality of the assimilation. Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 17 of 19 29 This must be carefully distinguished from the late West Saxon form ¤mptig (Campbell 1959: 92) which has an epenthetic /p/ but the /t/ retained. 30 Syncope is dealt with, for example, in Sievers/Brunner (31965: 131ff.), but for a stage which is not my concern here. In the pre-historic period quite a deal of syncope must have taken place (as is suggested by comparative evidence) but as it can only be dealt with by using reconstructed forms it is excluded from the present treatment which is confined to attested forms in Old English. References Anderson, J. 1969 ‘Syllablic or non-syllabic phonology’, Journal of Linguistics 5: 136-142. Anderson, S. 1976 ‘Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments’, Language 52: 326-344. Bell, A. 1975 ‘If speakers can’t count syllables, what can they do?’ (Bloomington: Indiana University Linuistics Club). Braune, W./E. Ebbinghaus 1973 Gotische Grammatik [18th. Edition] (Tübingen: Niemeyer). Campbell, A. 1959 An Old English grammar (Oxford: Oxford University Press. Catford, J. 1974 ‘`Natural´sound-change: some questions of directionality in diachronic processes’, Papers from the parassesion on natural phonology edited by A. Bruck at al. (Chicago: Chicago University Press), 21-29. Clark-Hall, J./ H. Merritt 1962 A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Flasdieck, H. 1958 ‘Die Entstehung des englischen Phonemes [$]’, Anglia 76: 339-410. Foley, J. 1977 Foundations of theoretical phonology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Fry, D. 1979 The physics of speech (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Fudge, E. 1969 ‘Syllables’, Journal of Linguistics 5 : 253-286. Gimson, A. 1980 An introduction to the pronunciation o English [3rd edition] (London: Edward Arnold). Hickey, R. 1984a ‘Coronal segments in Irish English’ Journal of Linguistics 20: 233-250. 1984b On the nature of labial velar shift, Journal of Phonetics 12: 345-354. Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 18 of 19 1984c ‘Syllable structure and sonority hierarchies in Irish’ (Paper held at the 5th International Phonology Meeting, Vienna) 123-127. 1985 ‘Velar segments in Old Irish and Old English’, Papers from the 6th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, edited by J. Fisiak, (Amsterdam and Pona 1986 ‘On syncope in Old English‘, Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries. In honour of Jacek Fisiak on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday, edited by D. Kastovsky and A. Szwedeck (Berlin: Mouton). Hockett, Ch. 1958 A course in modern linguistics (new York: Macmillan). Holthausen, F. 1972 ‘The syllable in phonological theory’, Language 48: 525-540. 1976 An introduction o natural generative phonology (New York: academic Press). Kohler, K. 1966a ‘Is the syllable a phonological universal?’, Journal of Linguistics 2: 207-208. 1966b ‘Towards a phonological theory’, Lingua 16. 337-351. Ladefoged, P. 1971 Preliminaries to linguistics phonetics (New Yor: hatcourt, Brace, Jovanovich). Lass, R. 1971 ‘Boundaries as obstruents: Old English voicing assimilation and universal strength hierarchies’, Journal of Linguistics 7: 15-30. 1975 [1972] ‘How intrinsic is content? Markedness, sound change and “family universals”’, Essays on the sound pattern of English, edited by D. Govaerts and G. Pullum (Ghent: Story Scientia). Lass, R. and J. Anderson 1975 Old English phonology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Lehnert, M. 1978 Altenglische Elemtarbuch [9th. Edition] (Berlin: de Gryter). Luick, K. 1964 [1940] Historische grammatik der englische Sprache (Stuttgart: Tauchnitz). Murray, R. 1982 ‘Consonants cluster developments in Plāli’, Folia Linguistica Historica 3: 163-184. Murray, R. and Th. Vennemann 1983 ‘Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology’, Language 59:514-528. Pinsker, H.-E. 1959 Historische englische Grammatik (München: Hueber). Pilch, H. 1970 Altenglische Grammatik (München: Hueber). Quirk, R. And C. Wrenn. 1955 An Old Enlglish grammar (London: Methuen). Russ, Ch. Raymond Hickey Remarks on assimilation in Old English Page 19 of 19 1978 Historical German phonology and morphology (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Sanders, D. 1977 Historical German phonology and morphology (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Sievers, E. and K. Brunner 1965 Altenglische Grammatik [3rd. edition] (Tübingen: Niemeyer). Strevens, P. 1976 [1960] ‘Spectra of fricative noise in human speech‘, Acoustic phonetics, edited by D. Fry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 132-150. Taylor, S., C. Sloat and J. Hoard 1978 Introduction to pkonology (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall). Thurneysen, R. 1946 A grammar of Old Irish (Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies). Vennemann, Th. 1982 ‘Zur Silbenstruktur der deutschen Standardsprache’, Silben, Segmente, Akzente, edited by Th. Vennemann (Tübingen: Niemeyer), 261-305. WeÓna, J. 1978 A diachronic grammar of English. Part one: phonology (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe).