A Formal Theory of Exceptions in Generative Phonology [Reprint 2010 ed.] 9783110859911, 9783110131482

Citation preview

Studies in Generative Grammar Editors' introduction The goal of Studies in Generative Grammar is to publish those texts that are representative of recent advances in the theory of formal grammar. Too many studies do not reach the public they deserve because of the depth and detail that make them unsuitable for publications in article form. We hope that the present series will make these studies available to a wider audience than has been hitherto possible.

Jan Koster Henk van Riemsdijk

This book has been originally published by the Peter de Ridder Press.

FORIS PUBLICATIONS DORDRECHT-HOLLAND

A FORMAL THEORY OF EXCEPTIONS IN GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY

© Copyright reserved No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the author. ISBN 90 316 016140 Printed in The Netherlands

WIM ZONNEVELD

A FORMAL THEORY OF EXCEPTIONS IN GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY

LISSE THE PETER DE RIDDER PRESS 1978

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

i

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. Footnotes CHAPTER 2: 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.3.1. 2.3.2. 2.4. 2.4.1. 2.4.1.1. 2.4.1.2. 2.4.1.3. 2.4.2. 2.4.3. 2.4.4. 2.4.4.1. 2.4.4.2. 2.5. 2.5.1. 2.5.2. Footnotes

Background Abstract Framework Modern Standard (Western) Dutch to Chapter 1 INTERVOCALIC D IN DUTCH PHONOLOGY Introduction Earlier Work Informal Analysis Retention of Syllable Structure Syllable-loss Formal Analysis Weakening Weakening: lefthand environment Weakening: d and structural change Weakening: righthand environment Homorganic Glide Insertion Contraction The Independence of Weakening and Contraction Arguments for the "Two Rules"-Analysis Consequences of the "Two Rules"-Analysis On the Status and Form of Contraction The Status of Contraction The Form of Contraction to Chapter 2

1 3 6 7 8 9 14 22 22 35 37 38 38 48 52 64 73 76 78 86 100 101 105 115

CHAPTER 3:

3.1. 3.2.

THE EXCEPTION THEORY OP GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY

Introduction 120 The Exception Theory of The Sound Pattern of_ English 126 3.2.1. Rule Features 127 3.2.2. Morphological Features 131 3.2.3. Alphabet Features 132 3.2.3.1. Stress Retraction 133 3.2.3.2. Vowel Shift 135 3.2.3.3. Fricative Devoicing 137 3.2.3.4. Jer Deletion 137 3.2.4. Readjustment Rules 139 3.3. Modifications of and Additions to the SPETheory 142 3.3.1. The Distinction between Major Rules and Minor Rules 143 3.3.1.1. Lakoff (1970) 143 3.3.1.2. Further Proposals on Minor Rules in Generative Phonology 154 3.3.2. Structural Description Features 164 3.3.2.1. Harms (1968) 164 3.3.2.2. Further Proposals on Overapplication in Generative Phonology 167 3.3>2.2.1. Kenstowicz (1970) 168 3.3.2.2.2. Schane (I973b-c) 174 3.3.2.2.3. Postal (1968) and Wurzel (1970) 178 3.3.3. Rule Environment Features 181 3.3.3.1. Kisseberth (1970) and Coats (1970) on Rule Environment Features 181 3.3.3.2. Further Evidence for Rule Environment Features in Generative Phonology 190 3.4. The Failure of Rule Environment Features 194

3.4.1·

The Failure of Iverson and Ringen (1977) on Rule Environment Features 3.4.2. Rule Environment Features reconsidered 3.4.3. A Theory of Exceptions in Generative Phonology 3.5. Weakening in Dutch revisited 3.5.1. The ONE FEATURE HYPOTHESIS 3.5.2. Schane (I973b-c) revisited 3.5.3. Palauan (Flora, 1974) and Dutch Diminutives Footnotes to Chapter 3

195 201 206 215 215 223 228

CHAPTER 4: ON THE ROLE OF HYPERCORRECTION IN PHONOLOGICAL CHANGE

4.1. Introduction 4.2. Competing Changes 4.3. Rule Conversion 4.4. Competing Changes and Rule Conversion combined Footnotes to Chapter 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY INDEX Summary in Dutch Curriculum Vitae

241 242 251 261 278 283 303 310 312

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would have been finished much earlier, and to its detriment, if not for the beneficial intervention of the following people. First and foremost I should like to express my gratitude to the supervisor of this thesis, Professor Henk Schultink. If there is such a person as the ideal dissertation supervisor, he approaches him alsmost to perfection. Not only did he work his way through the masses of paperwork delivered to him in the form of interim, prefinal, final, and revised versions with constant enthusiasm, but at the same time he provided me in our frequent talks, whether informal or formal, brief or long, with a sense of purpose and direction. Perhaps I am indebted to him most for those instances where he allowed me the opportunity to follow my sometimes wandering intuitions, did not blame me when they reached a dead end, and shared my elation on those occasions when the result turned out to throw light on previously dark areas. Special thanks also go to the two other members of my dissertation committee, Prof. Dr. B. van den Berg, and Dr. I. Bordelois, for the time they spent in discussing this thesis with me. Three co-confessionists of the past few years deserve special mention. Mieke Trommelen for being my partnerin-crime in Indian and other matters of phonological analysis; her skepticism was a most helpful virtue, and this thesis owes a debt to it; Hans Gilijamse, for showing what generative grammar, and generative phonology in particular, was about at the right place and the right time (dragging me away from Walt Whitman), and the hours spent since in discussing, evaluating, surveying, and agreeing and disagreeing upon phonological issues and non-issues; and Mike Brame, for telling

-iime, when I complained of the paucity of previous work in the generative phonology of Dutch, to do something about it, then. Furthermore, I should like to thank several people for help with, and comments on specific portions of this thesis. I am grateful to Wus van Lessen Kloeke for sharing with me his interest in the history of Dutch phonology. Thanks go to Jaap van Marie and Daan Wissing for elaborate comments on Chapter 2, and for encouraging me to formulate the ideas expressed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 has benefited from comments by Richard Hogg, Prank Jansen, Ans van Kemenade, D. Terence Langendoen, Johan Taeldeman, Corriejanne Timmers (cf. her 1977 paper in the bibliography) , and Daan Wissing. I am indebted to Henny Corver for general improvements of presentation and style; and to the 'innates* of Biltstraat 200: Marianne Elsakkers, Arnold Evers, Ger de Haan, Riny Huybregts, Geert Koefoed, Steven Krauwer, Ed Melis, Anneke Neyt, and Louis des Tombe, for being the persons they are. The analysis of part of the phonology of Dutch presented in Chapter 2 below was developed during 1975 and the first half of 1976. Interim reports were published in Spektators 4 and 6, and were read at the Annual Meeting of the Algemene Vereniging voor Taalwetenschap, January 24, 1976, in Amsterdam; and at a meeting of the Language Section of the Faculty of Letters, May 7, 1976, in Utrecht. Chapter 3 was worked out in a preliminary form in the second half of 1976, and completed in the Fall of 1977. Chapter 4 was written in the Spring of 1977» A condensed version was read at the Annual Morphology Meeting, April 20, 1977, in Amsterdam. Occasional parts of the manuscript were revised in the first few months of 1978.

Zonneveld Utrecht, May, 1978.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.

1.1. BACKGROUND.

It will be clear to anyone working on the phonology of Dutch in the present decade and with an interest in the history of the field, even without overviews such as Uhlenbeck (1960, 1966), Vachek (1968), Schultink (1971, 1974), and Shetter (1972), that scholars such as A.W. de Groot, N. van Wijk, Jac. van Ginneken, and H.J. Pos were among the leaders of early * structural1 ('functional') phonology, as this view of the sound structure of language developed in the late twenties and early thirties of this century under the impetus of the Prague Linguistic Circle. To wit: all four attended the famous 1928 First International Congress of Linguists at The Hague, Van Ginneken and Van Wijk being members of the organizing committee. Van Ginneken and De Groot participated in the "very exclusive" (Vachek, 1968: 5) International Phonological Meeting, Prague, December 1930. De Groot contributed a paper to the proceedings of this meeting (Travaux 4, 1931)» and all four again contributed to the Trubetzkoy Memorial Issue of the Travaux (8, 1939). In 1939, Van Wijk published his monograph Phonologic, een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap, a work judged by some on a par with (Uhlenbeck, 1966: 12), and by others valued even more highly than Trubetzkoy 1 s Grundzüge (Van Ginneken, 1939a: 187; FischerJ^rgensen, 1941: 61-2). Pos being primarily a 'philosophical' linguist, the other three scholars developed the ideas of the Prague group (not, of course, without adding personal touches) in sequences of articles in the periodicals Onze Taaltuin and De Nieuwe Taalgids, where various analyses of the Dutch underlying phonemic system were proposed, and implications for phonological 2 theory discussed. The outstanding position of Dutch scholars in international phonology did not survive World War II. N. van V/ijk and Jac. van Ginneken died in the early forties. Leading man De Groot turned

- 2-

his attention to syntax, and Dutch phonological analysis took a course decidedly labeled "word-phonology" by Uhlenbeck (1966: 12). While the latter speaks elsewhere (1960: 63)-* of the "lukewarmness about keeping abreast with what is going on in linguistic studies outside the Netherlands", Schultink (1971: 331) characterizes the Dutch structuralists 1 attitude in the forties and fifties as plainly "eclectic". In fact, slowly but surely Dutch post-war structural phonology lost touch with the prevailing international trends, which were of course in effect American trends. The two principal works to appear within this current of Dutch phonological research are doubtlessly Van den Berg's Foniek van het Nederlands (1958), and Cohen _et al.' s Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries (1959). Both are real classics of Dutch phonology, and have been reprinted several times. Yet one does not do these works an injustice by observing that their appearance was of less than moderate impact viewed internationally. It is according to Shetter (1972: 1397) precisely the "vigorous native linguistic tradition" of word-phonology just referred to which also "seems to have prevented generative grammar from making any very strong impact". Although Shetter in fact wrote these words in 1968, it is significant that even to the present day work on the generative phonology of Dutch has for the very major part been executed either by foreigners, or by Dutch scholars working abroad. As members of the former category one may mention Daniel Brink (cf. his 1970 University of Wisconsin Ph.D. dissertation Problems in Phonological Theory; a Generative Phonology of Dutch; and Brink, 1974, 1976); William Pulte (cf. his 1971 University of Texas at Austin Ph.D. dissertation An Outline of the Development of Dutch Phonology); Norval S.H. Smith, of the University of Amsterdam, some of whose work on Dutch will be discussed below; and portions of work by Bach (1968), Guile (1972), and Robinson (1972, 1975). As members of the latter category one may mention Rudolf de Rijk (cf. De Rijk, 1967), and Jacob Mey (cf. Mey, 1968, 1973).

- 3-

Although it is naturally not my intention to make undue and belittling remarks on the state of current phonological research in this country, and although I am likewise not sure whether this section is anything more than an early apology for what will be said below, it is against this briefly sketched (and naturally oversimplified) background and tradition that the present monograph ons some particular aspects of the phonology of Dutch, and some consequences for the universal theory of generative phonology, will have to be viewed. 1.2. ABSTRACT.

My concern in the present study will be to provide a description of what may be called the intervocalic d phenomena in Modern Standard (Western) Dutch (a notion to be made more precise below) within the framework of so-called generative phonology (another notion to be made more precise below) and, furthermore, to explore some of the consequences of the description for this framework, in particular (i) as regards its subtheory of exceptions, and (ii) as regards some of its diachronic claims. Arguably a runner-up only to the study of the diachronic aspects of diphthongization and the synchronic analysis of diphthongs as regards single topics of Dutch phonology, the phenomena treated here under the heading intervocallc a have enjoyed ample attention of Dutch grammarians (in both synchronic and diachronic analyses), dialectologists, toponymists, and phonologists within the past hundred years. A survey of writings on the subject will be presented in section 2.2. below, where the earliest reference will be dated 1884, and the most recent 1976, with hardly a decade in between left unrepresented. The description of the relevant portion of Dutch phonology will be the concern of the main body of Chapter 2. In section 2.1. I will provide a brief introduction into the initially relevant data. The subsequent survey of the literature (section 2.2.) will be followed by two analytical sections. Section 2.3.

- 4contains a first informal approximation to a description of the facts. This informal approximation will be made explicit in section 2.4·, where the two rules of WEAKENING (for cases such as goede > goeie), and CONTRACTION (for cases such as lade > la), central to my analysis of the intervocalic d phenomena, will be formalized. Superficially unrelated topics, such as the proper formal representation of Dutch long vowels, diphthongs, and socalled 'glides', and the underlying representation of the verbal inflection suffixes, will also feature in the exposition. The attention paid in this thesis to explicitness and formalization of the proposals is not accidental. It has been part of my linguistic training (cf. e.g., Brame, 1975), and in general I find it easily defended, not in the last place for its illustrative and clarifying value, not only for the reader, but perhaps even more so for the (present) author. In spite of this, I hope to succeed, firstly, in making it clear that my claims go beyond the area of 'illustrative1 formalization and are in fact meant to be 'generative' (for a useful discussion of these notions cf. Mey, 1972), while secondly and at the same time I will use "formalism" here in a very "informal" and loose sense. That is to say, I will stop short of the 'σ,ϊϊ ,£ '-type of explicitness as provided, e.g., in the appendix to Chapter 8 of Chomsky and Halle (1968). Illustratively such a degree of formalism is clearly useless, while to my mind a satisfactory degree of "generativity" is obtained with the help of the usual semi-formalism. This "working-degree" of formalism is what I content myself with here. The analysis of intervocalic d. phenomena outlined in Chapter 2 will/be tested, especially as regards its central rules of WEAKENING and CONTRACTION, against the universal theory of phonology in the second part of this thesis. This part itself will consist of two chapters. In Chapter 3 I will be occupied with the theory of irregularity as contained within the current theory of generative phonology. As a single topic, this theory of irregularity is one of the smaller, though clearly acknowledged

- 5-

current issues (cf. Lass and Anderson, 1975: 1, fn.1). In this chapter, my interest will not be in generally accepted mechanisms for reducing irregularity (rule ordering constraints are a striking example), but rather in the machinery devised on purpose to cope with situations where all explanation fails, such as rule-features, morphological features, alphabet features, readjustment rules, minor rules, mini- and maxi-rules, structural description features, context-features, and so forth. The task I set myself in this chapter will be threefold. Firstly (sections 3·1 and 3·2), I will give a detailed survey of, and at the same time will attempt to restore some order to, the rather chaotic and highly implicit state of the present theory of phonological irregularity. This in itself seems a useful undertaking. Secondly (sections 3.3 and 3.4), I will attempt to show that, in spite of many recent proposals and additions, the original (and comparatively simple) theory of irregularity contained in Chomsky and Halle (1968) (henceforth SPE) approaches rather closely the necessary and sufficient theory of exceptionality in generative phonology. Finally, having sketched the latter theory, I will return to the intervocalic d phenomena of Chapter 2, in an attempt to capture the behaviour of some forms irregular vis-avis the rule of WEAKENING. Languages considered in this chapter will be, naturally, Dutch, and furthermore English, Finnish, French, German, Lithuanian, Palauan, Piro (Arawakan), Russian, and Turkish. In Chapter 4, continuing to focus on exception-phenomena, but approaching them from a different angle, I will be concerned with the so-called regularity hypothesis in diachronic phonology, in brief the claim that "sound changes operate without exceptions" (Wang, 1969: 9). More specifically, I will combine in this chapter two independent notions of current diachronic phonology, in an attempt to explain some facets of the complex and puzzling diachronic data of the Dutch intervocalic A phenomena, in essence exceptional in relation to the regularity hypothesis. These notions are Wang's 'competing changes', combined with 1

- 6-

so-called »rule-conversion», and within the latter cover-notion more properly DeCamp's 'rule symmetry' rather than Vennemann's much more well-known »rule inversion'. In the exposition a central role will be reserved for the notion »hypercorrection». This notion will be treated as coherently and explicitly as (my) current understanding allows, and its apparent range and limitations will be indicated. Besides Dutch, examples in this chapter will be taken from Chinese, English, Latin, Old Icelandic, Swedish, and Welsh. 1.3.

FRAMEWORK.

This study has been written against the theoretical background of generative phonology. As an almost stale, though inevitable codicil, this background can be defined more precisely as the 'standard» theory of generative phonology as developed by Chomsky and Halle in SPE« This commitment should be interpreted as follows. Some of the recent issues of generative phonology, such as the proper representation of long vowels and diphthongs (section 2 . 4 ) , the subtheory of irregularity (Chapter 3), and the regularity hypothesis of diachronic phonology (Chapter 4), will be natural parts of this thesis. My views on these matters will therefore become clear as the exposition develops. However, some major and many minor controversies will be left untouched here, or will be touched upon only very superficially. I am not convinced that anything would be gained by my introducing the reader of this thesis into my views on each of these separate issues. This even more so since I naturally do not have views on all of them, and I am not certain that I would be able to articulate original and relevant ideas on all of those issues on which I have views. Therefore, the wisest course to take appears to be to refer for the general framework of this study to the coherent theory of SPE as far as it does

- 7-

not conflict with ideas explicitly expressed as the exposition proceeds. Useful introductions to the SPE-theory of phonology may be found in Schane (1973a), and Hyman (1975). 1.4.

MODERN STANDARD (WESTERN) DUTCH.

The language analysed in this study is essentially a variant of what may be called 'Modern Standard (Western) Dutch». In Dutch itself this particular »dialect 1 is often referred to as Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands, a phrase which may be rendered as "Commonly Cultured Dutch" (Kloeke, 1958: 69)· The contents of this notion, and its nomenclature per se have until recently been the subject of an extensive, though in my mind somewhat dull, discussion, which also included treatises on the (indeed wide) gap between the spoken and the written language, and a vehement spelling debate (for a representative publication, with the character of a survey, cf. Kloeke, 1951)· I will not go into these matters here. Rather, for the purposes of the present work Modern Standard (V/estern) Dutch should be taken in the sense of Kruisinga (1949: vi-vii), who described it as "the dialect of Holland ... but freed from its local peculiarities [and] spoken by all educated people, whether of Prankish, Saxon, or Frisian descent...". The particular variant of this dialect described here, in fact that of the author, is »Modern Standard V/estern Dutch» with the local peculiarities of the province of SouthHolland, more precisely those of the area of Rotterdam. Inevitably these peculiarities are bound to shine through in some places belc For the general rules of pronunciation and spelling of Moderi Dutch, the unacquainted reader is referred to Kruisinga's Grammar o_f Modern Dutch, or to Shetter's (1961) Introduction t£ Dutch. In ambiguous or crucial cases pronunciation of sounds is given in broad phonetic transcription within the usual square brackets.

- 8FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER 1. (Page reference at the end of each note) (1) Of. De Boer at al., 1928. For complete references of works mentioned in this chapter see the bibliography at the end of this thesis. (1) (2) Cf., for instance, De Groot (I931a), Van Ginneken (1934a, 1938), Van Wijk (1930, 1932, 1939a). (1) (3) Translation adopted from Schultink (1974: 24). (2) (4) Below I will use as references only the 7th 1974 edition of Foniek, and the 2nd 1961 edition of Fonologie. (2) (5) Thus, to make an observation on the anecdotal level, the first sentence of Cohen jet al«, Chapter 2: "De relevante eigenschappen van de Nederlandse fonemen" [The relevant properties of the Dutch phonemes] reads ( 1 1 ) : leder woord in een taal is, wat zijn klankvorm betreft, onderscheiden van andere woorden, echter niet van alle andere woorden, getuige het optreden van homonymie. [Each word in a language is distinguished from other words as regards its sound structure, however not so from all other words, as shown by the existence of homonymy.] This single sentence already contains the word woord three times. The first paragraph of the chapter consists of three sentences, in which woord occurs eight times in sum. For a brief exposition on Dutch "word-phonology", cf. the two Uhlenbeck articles (1960, 1966). (2) (6) I intend to elaborate upon this brief sketch in a forthcoming study, tentatively entitled "On the (Non-)Role of Dutch in Recent Phonological Issues", to appear in W. Zonneveld, F. van Coetsem, and 0. Robinson ( e d s . ) : Studies in Dutch Phonology. Peter de Ridder has informed me that the subject of early Dutch structuralism is also dealt with in forthcoming work by E.M. Uhlenbeck (in a volume dedicated to Roman Jakobson) and by H. Parret and R. van de Velde.

- 9-

CHAPTER 2:

2.1.

INTERVOCALIC D IN DUTCH PHONOLOGY.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will be concerned with the voiced dental plosive d in the phonology of Dutch, viz. with what is defined in the familiar feature notation of SPE (176-7; 301ff.; 353-5) by + + + + -

(D

consonantal syllabic sonorant nasal coronal anterior back voice continuant strident

(see also, for instance, Kraak, 1971: 14). I will concentrate almost exclusively on this consonant in only a portion of its distribution, that is, only on d in between a full vowel and a reduced vowel as in forms such as those displayed in ( 2 ) . (2)

breder goede kruiden oude rijden rode

'wider' 'good, attr.' 'herbs' Old, attr.' 'to drive' 'red, attr. 1

bodem buidel heide koude leder moeder

'bottom' 'pouch' •heath' 'cold, noun' 'leather' 'mother'

More precisely, my aim in this chapter will be to provide a detailed and explicit account of the synchronic relation between forms such as those exemplified in ( 2 ) , and forms such as those in (3) below.

- 10 -

(3)

bree'ör goeie kruien ouwe rijen rooie

'wider 1 'good, attr.' 'herbs' Old, attr.' 'to drive' 'red, attr.'

plat-boomd buil hei kou leer mo er

'flat-bottomed* ' lump' 'heath' 'cold, noun' 'leather' 'mother (derog.); screw'

These data, or rather their analysis, have in the course of time excited to various degrees the imagination of Dutch grammarians. Merely as illustrations of this, consider for instance the quotes in ( 4 ) , ( 5 ) , and (6) below. (4)

It was recognized long ago that we find here a struggle between more refined, civilized, and dignified forms, or: forms under the influence of the written language - and truly popular words. That struggle has not yet been decided, In contemporary Dutch some words without d. pass current .... At the opposite are words which are anything but civilized without _d, pronounced by every civilized Dutchman with d.... [Men heeft allang ingezien dat het hier een strijd is tussen nettere, beschaafdere, en deftiger vormen, ofwel: vormen die onder invloed van de schrifttaal staan - en echte volkswoorden. Die strijd is nog niet beslecht. In het tegenwoordige Nederlands zijn sommige woorden die de d niet meer hebben, algemeen gangbaar .... Aan het andere uiterste liggen woorden, die zonder d bepaald niet beschaafd zijn, die ieder beschaafd Nederlander me" t _d spreekt...] (Van Haeringen, 1926: 108)

- 11 -

(5)

Intervocalic ~d-, no matter of what origin, behaves in Dutch in an erratic way, which baffles the learning of the linguistic diagnosticians. Initial a- causes no trouble. In that position it is stable. Nor is there anything puzzling about the -d^ at the end of words. There it shares the fate of all voiced consonants: it loses its voice. But placed between vowels it is evidently ill at ease. It tries to escape from their midst or disguises itself as a semi-vowel. And when careful speakers, whose enunciation is controlled by orthography, insist on its reappearance, it turns their attempt into a farce by intruding also in places where it has no historical right to be. (Barnouw, 1942: 82)

(6)

The process is not an unfinished symphony, but has remained an unfinished performance, interrupted at the stage of chaos. A process in the spoken language is stopped, its complete development inhibited by the written language. The outcome is the current picture of confusion. [Het proces is, niet een onvoltooide symfonie, maar een onvoltooide en in wanorde afgebroken uitvoering gebleven. Een proces in de uitgesproken taal is gestuit, de integral« afwikkeling ervan verhinderd, door het niet meewillen van de geschreven taal. De uitslag is geweest, het door het Nederlands van nu opgeleverde beeld van verwarring.] (Leenen, 1953: 58)

As has been observed frequently in the literature, the processes relating the various forms in (2) and (3) are in a sense optional where optional!ty lumps together informal notions such as "influence of the written language", "style", "dialect mixture" "homonym prevention", "frequency", "effects of tabu", and what have you. The first of these was mentioned several times in (4)-(6). Most of the others we find reflected in for instance the

- 12 -

following two passages from Van Haeringen (1963: 6). (7)

Over and above the general tendency towards orthographic conservatism, there is another circumstance favouring the retention of d, being that the deletion or modification has not taken place to the same degree throughout the language area. [Behalve die algemene neiging tot orthografisch conservatisme is er bij de intervocalische _d in het Nederlands een andere omstandigheid die het veelal behouden van de £ sterk heeft bevorderd. Dat is deze dat het vervallen of veranderen daarvan niet over het gehele taalgebied in dezelfde mate heeft plaatsgehad.]

(8)

The authority of the written language can easily mark the corresponding spoken form as the more careful and refined one, and can under certain circumstances suppress the other form, which may with some or even much reservation be labeled as the "lawful" one, to a level of commonness which, given certain circumstances and relations, is liable to descend to slovenliness and coarseness. In this way a difference in style comes to exist for which every native speaker of uutch has a sharply developed feeling. [Het grote gezag dat van de schrifttaal uitgaat, stempelt licht de daarmee overeenstemmende spreekvorm tot de meer verzorgde, de keurige, en kan onder omstandigheden de andere, die met enig voorbehoud, met veel voorbehoud zelfs, als de "klankwettige" kan worden aangemerkt, neerdrukken tot een peil van gemeenzaaoheid, dat in bepaalde sfeer en bepaald verband tot slordigheid of ruwheid kan afzakken. Zo ontstaat een stijlverschil waarvoor iedere Nederlander die zijn taal kent, een scherp ontwikkeld gevoel heeft.]

- 13 -

As regards the influence of homonym prevention on language change, an extensive study with a large section on the intervocalic d pair adel 'nobility1/aal 'manure' has been undertaken by Kieft (1938). 15y analysis of the synchronic relation between the forms in (2) and (3) will be executed in two subsequent sections, the former informal, the latter much more formal and explicit. This subdivision has been introduced for expository purposes. Section 2.3.: "Informal Analysis" will itself be subdivided into two subsections, corresponding to the respective left- and righthand columns of (2) and (3). In subsection 2.3.1.: "Retention of syllable-structure", I will discuss the relation between forms such as breder and bree'dr, and subsection 2.3.2.: "Syllable-loss'1 will be occupied with the relation between bodem and boom, and similar forms. These subsections will be mutually independent, cross-references vail as yet be omitted. Again, this subdivision has been introduced for expository purposes. Both subsections will result, inter alia, in the establishment of an informal, verbal rule referring to intervocalic d.: a rule of WEAKENING ( 2 . 3 . 1 . ) , and a rule of CONTRACTION ( 2 . 3 . 2 . ) . The provisional findings of section 2.3. will be made explicit in section 2.4.: "Formal Analysis", v/hich will initially maintain the same ignorant subdivision in a formalization of the rules of WEAKENING and CONTRACTION. In doing so, I will explore seemingly unrelated parts of Dutch phonology, such as the proper underlying representation of long vowels and diphthongs, the status of the so-called "glides", and the underlying representation of the inflection system for verbs. The larger part of this section, however, will then be occupied with a demonstration of how our original ignorance can be substantiated with flesh-and-blood arguments: in accounting for the facts of intervocalic d. in Dutch we seem to be forced to posit our original, independently developed pair of rules, although they share almost identical structural analyses. Earlier

- 14 -

One rule' descriptions, in particular recent generative ones by Brink (1970), and Smith (1973, 1975) will be shown to be inferior to the »two rules* analysis proposed here, which has, among its traditional, i.e, pre-generative, ancestors most in common with the account of Van Haeringen (1926). One smaller section (2,5·) will wind up this chapter. There, I will comment briefly on the synchronic status of the rule of CONTRACTION. These comments will be speculative in nature, and clearly motivate further research. Furthermore, I will deal in this section with some loose classes of forms which have featured in previous accounts of intervocalic d. The small class of forms mentioned here containing doublets such as poeder/ poeier 'powder* will reoccur in Chapter 3 of this monograph. Before embarking upon my analysis, however, let me present a brief survey of the more important earlier writings on the subject of intervocalic d in Dutch.

2.2. EARLIER WORK.

The phenomena which will be my main occupation in sections 2.3· - 2.5. below have enjoyed considerable attention within the frameworks of both traditional and, recently, generative grammar in the course of broadly speaking the past hundred years. Most of the historical grammars and introductions which emerged in roughly the five decades around the turn of the century contain a section on intervocalic d. Of the more familiar works, see for instance: Pranck (1910: 101-2); Van Helten (1887: 152-3); Van der Meer (1927: 103, 129); Verdam (1923: 248ff.); Te Winkel (1901: 93-4); and, most impressively, Te Winkel (1884: 194-209). The observations made by these historical grammarians were more or less coordinated at the end of this epoch by Schönfeld in his famous Historische Grammatica van het Nederlands, the first edition of which appeared in 1920. As is also clear from

- 15 -

reviews (Kluyver, 1921; Van Haeringen, 1925), its treatment of intervocalic a was unsatisfactory. Especially Kluyver·s review contained some very useful suggestions for improvement, many of which were incorporated into the relevant sections of later editions of the Grammatica. Similarly, Mansion (1935) commented lengthily on the intervocalic d section of the third edition, and Pauwels (1949) on that of the fourth. The edition used here is the eighth (1970), adapted by Van Loey, himself the author of two articles on intervocalic d (see below). Taking all this into account, then, I think one is allowed to call some stretches of text of the 1970 Grammatica, such as that in (9), rather thin, at least when judged by contemporary standards (Schönfeld, 1970: 32): (9)

The question of the syncope of a is very complicated. This sound .... was sometimes retained, but was syncopated in other cases, as a result of weak articulation after stressed long vowels (or diphthongs) and before weakly stressed vowels; or j[ replaced d. Which circumstances decided matters is hard to say in each individual case; no doubt the surrounding sounds were important. [Het vraagstuk van de syncope van £ is zeer ingewikkeld. Deze klank .... bleef soms bewaard, maar werd in andere gevallen tengevolge van slappe articulatie na betoonde lange vocaal (ook na diftong) en voor zwakbetoonde vocaal gesyncopeerd; of er kwam een j^ in pleats van de d. Welke omstandigheden de doorslag gaven, is in ieder afzonderlijk geval moeili;jk te zeggen; een belangrijke factor vormden in elk geval de omgevende klanken.]

And further on, influenced no doubt by the passage from Van Haeringen (1926) quoted in (4) (Schönfeld, 1970: 37):

- 16 -

(10)

Phonetic causes and dialect differences created different forms; the struggle between these, however, has not yet "been decided in many cases, and it depends on various factors which form will conquer preliminarily or definitely. [Door fonetische oorzaken en dialectische verschillen ontstonden dus verschillende vormen; de strijd hiertussen is echter in menig geval nog niet volstreden, en daarbij hangt het van verschillende factoren af, welke vorm voorlopig of definitief de overwinning behaalt.]

The first independent article on the subject of intervocalic d is Van Haeringen*s 1926 "Intervocaliese D in het Nederlands", followed by a second article a year later. In the former paper Van Haeringen seeks to settle an ongoing dispute as to the status of phonetic j_ from a after back vowels, represented by ± in spelling in alternations such as goede/goeie and rode/rooie in (2) and (3)· Two views as to the source of this j_ each had their defenders. It was considered either an "assimilation" ("weakening", "reduction") of a to its vocalic surroundings (for instance by Van Wijk (1907: 20); and Fijn van Draat (1923: 2 5 2 f f , ) ) , or as a plug into the hiatus after syncope of j3 (Schrijnen (1920: 57ff.); Te Winkel (1901); Schönfeld (1920)). Van Haeringen argues rather elaborately in favour of the weakening hypothesis, mainly on grounds of phonetic plausibility, but also by providing cross-linguistic support. It may be useful to review these arguments briefly here. As regards phonetic plausibility, Van Haeringen observes that forms which have lost their £ but retained their syllablestructure all develop a »transitional glide 1 in lieu erf £ (that is, on the break of the two syllables), which is not always reflected in writing. The nature of this glide is predictable to a very high degree. It is w after the velar diphthong, as in ouwe (cf. ( 3 ) ) , which is the only environment where spelling

- 17 -

always represents it. It is j_ after palatal diphthongs and palatal vowels, thus: r i j f j l e n , krui[j]en, and breefjler from (3). But, as Van Haeringen points out, the predictability of this glide goes beyond cases with etymological d; thus vrouwen »women 1 , drief 3]en »threes», and zeef j]en, where historically no intervocalic d is involved. On the other hand, ^ after back vowels is different (Van Haeringen, 1926: 113): (11)

Can it be considered a transitional sound, a 'glide· which has developed into an independent sound? This can be imagined after a palatal vowel .... After velar vowels, however, this j_ as transitional sound is awkward It is hard to see, why between a and ^ of raden after syncope of d_ the tongue should take the position of j., which is not between a or £, but on the contrary require: a completely different and deviant movement of the front part of the tongue. Which transition should be expected between a and ^ is not easy to say a priori. The tongue is in its rest position for a, and the articulation of g_ is too imprecise for the glide between them to become distinct. Things are different, however, for the o_ of, e.g., geboden and the