English Historical Phonology

Citation preview

HHCTHTYTOB H < t> A K y /lb T E T O B M H O C T P A H H b lX P S b IK O B

i5]

A . K ) . C T e n o H a B M W K )c

McTopuHecKan (jJOHO/lOrklfl aHr/iMPicKoro flSbl Ka Pßn^imnQ MHHHcrepcreoM sbiouero h ^Myv^ero erte^aîiw oro o^wosaHi«« CCCP

B Kaeflpoft fl-p 4>HJïoJi. HayK iq)o4>. Jl.n. ^faxoHH) ; j5-p 4>HnoH. HayK npo4>- M.B. PaescKH» (MFV nhf. M.B. JloMOHocosa)

C 79

CTenoHaBHUoc A.ïO. McTopH^ecKaH (Jxjhojiofhh aHniHHCKoro ASbiKa: Yneö, riocoÖHe Wia HH-TOB H 4>aK. HHOCTp. S3. —M.: Bwciu. lUK., 1987. 208 c. —Ha aHTJi. h3. nocoöHe CTaBHT CBoeü saflaqeË flau. cryfleHiaM nocneflOBaxejiBHoe h b flocTaxo’iHOË Mepe noflHoe HSflOXceHHe HcropHH sByKOBoro crpoH aHniHftcKoro aawKa. HsfloaceHHe crporo aacreMHo h ocHOBaHo Ha opraHHBHOM coaeTaHHH flocroaceiBïft KflaccHuecKoix) H coBpeMeHHoro asHKOSHaHHa. OaioHMecKHË MaxepHan xmaxejiBHo nofloöpaH h BbœepeH no naMHXHHKaM nHCbMCHHocxH.

46020i(KMM)-242

-

BBK 81.2 A H rn -9 2 3

CMM(Ol)- 87

y’ieÖHoe uadaHue Ajib&prac i0o3GBM*i CrenoiiasHwe MCTOPMMECKAH HO/IOrMfl AHrjlMfïCKOrO flSblKA

(Ha aHrjiHMCKoiMnsbiKe) ■. 3 æ . pe#^KUHeË / f .3 . BoJiKoea. Pe/WKTop77./f, Kpaeqoea. M/I8AUJMË peflaK Topf.r. Haaapoea. Xyao>khmk B.M. KasaKoea. Xyflo>KecTseHHbiË pejaaKTop B.H. floHOMapenKo. TexHMHecKMM peaaKTop HJ.A. Xopm a. Cxepume KoppeKxopbi E.B. KoMapoea, 3 . 0 . fOpecKyn. Onepaxop O.M. Kyatmuna HB N“ 5536

Hsfl. JPA-925. CflOHo B Haöop 11,10.86. Ilonn. b ne*ïaxb 05.02.87, OopMai 60x84^16ByM. o4>c. N92. PapHHxypa IIpecc-PoMaH. neuaTB o^JcexHaa. OöbeM 12,09 yen. neu. n ., 12,32 ycfl. Kp.-oxT. 13,12 y«i. H3fl. n. Tnpaxe 5000 3K3. 3ok .N®1123 UeHa45Kon. MaflarenbCTBo "Bweman uiKona", 101430, MocKsa, rcn-4, HernuHnas yn., a>29/14.

HaöpaEO Ha HaóopHo-rmmyuiHX MaiUHHax HSflaien&CïBa. OxneMaxaao b Mockobckoë xHnoipa^JHH N®9 ”CoK»3noflHrpa4>npoMa” npH FocyaapexBeHHOM KOMHxexe CCCP noflenaMHsaaxenbcxB, nojBirpa^HH^ h khhxchoë xoproBJm, 109033, MocKBa, BononaeBCKaa, 40. ©

HaflaxeflbcxBO ”Bwcmaa iiiKoaa”, 1987

PREFACE

The aims o f the present handbook are twofold; firstly, to provide a. full theory of sound change, and secondly, to present a structural interpretation o f the historical devel­ opm ent o f the English sound system, beginning with the Proto-Germanic and IndoEuropean background and ending with a description o f the modem situation. The theoretiçal approach to problems o f sound change may be characterized as structural according to the trend which is called “functional linguistics”, the leading trend of contemporary European linguistics, represented first and foremost by the Prague, Lenin­ grad and Moscov/ schools. In the description o f the historical development o f the English sound system, great care is taken to provide the fullest documentation possible for recon­ structions o f earlier stages. This accounts for the rather extensive description of the earliest English w itings from which the data have been taken. Concrete sound changes of English are described fully with consideration and conscious demonstration of all the dialectical complexities o f every change. That is why great care is taken to present as many points o f view as possible, especially the most conflicting ones, and to show why the propounded solution to the problem seems most logical and realistic. This handbook is intended first o f all for undergraduate students of English at universities and pedagogical institutes. Its themes and presentation are in full accord with the standard syllabubs of the history of the Engli^ language. Every problem, no matter how complicated it might be, is described in language as simple as possible. Students can read this handbook selectively, however, as a kind o f supplement to the standard histories o f English, such as those by B.A. Ilyish [1973] , I.P. Ivanova and L.P. Caxojan [1976] , or T.A. Rastorguyeva [1983] . This handbook is also intended for postgraduates and all those interested in general and English historical phonology at a higher linguistic level. Many problems presented here may serve as a starting point for further original investi- ' gâtions. I am most deeply indebted to the late Professor M.I. Steblin-Kamenskij of Leningrad University for my conception o f sound change, and I feel most happy and fortunate to have had Professor I.P. Ivanova as my teacher o f the history of English during my postgra­ duate course in Leningrad University in 1960-1963. 1 wish also to thank Professor Jerome J. Oetgen, Fulbright scholar from Seton Hill College, Greensburg, Pennsylvania, who was at Vilnius University in 1984, and Profes­ sor Bill J. Darden, Fulbright scholar from the University o f Chicago, who was in Vilnius University in 1986, for a most careful reading o f the manuscript and for all their discrete and appropriate suggestions for improving its style and language. Last but not least, I offer my special thanks to Professor I.P. Ivanova of Leningrad University, Professor M.V. Rajevskij o f Moscow University, and Assistant Professor E.I. Miacinskaja o f Leningrad University, who reviewed the typescript and made many valuable suggestions. A.S.

CONTENTS

Abbreviations................................................................................ Sym bols................................

6 7

Part I. General survey Chapter one. Foundations of diachronic phonology...................................................... 8 The object and aims o f diachronic linguistics and diachronk phono­ logy (§ 1) ....................................................................................... 8 Constituent parts o f diachronic phonology ( § 2 ) ....................................... 8 The main breakthroughs in the history o f diachronic lingi4stics (§ § 3 -1 0 ).......................................... .. .................................; ....................... 9 Some basic concepts o f the sound system (§ § 1 1 - 1 3 ) ........................... 17 Trubetzkoy’s system o f phonological oppositions ( § § 1 4 -1 7 )............... 19 The distinctive features o f Jakobson, Fant and Halle (§ § 1 8 -2 0 ) . . . . 20 The distinctive features o f Chomsky and Halle (§ § 2 1 - 2 4 ) .................. 23 A modified system o f distinctive features ( § § 2 5 - 3 1 ) ........................... 28 Types o f sound change (§ § 3 2 - 3 9 ) ............ .. ............................................. 34 The mechanism o f sound change ( § § 4 0 - 5 8 ) .......................................... 37 Methods of reconstruction { § § 5 9 - 6 1 ) ..................... .. ............................. 48 Chapter two. The early writings o f the English language.................................... , . . . 51 The Northumbrian (Northern) dialect {§ § 6 2 - 7 4 ) ................................. 52 The Mercian (MMland) dialect ( § § 7 5 - 8 6 ) ................................................ 57 The West Saxon (Southwestern) dialect (§ § 8 7 - 9 3 ) ................................. 63 The Kentish (Southeastern) dialect ( § § 94- 102) ................................. .. 66 faxt IL Old English phonology Chapter three. The structure o f OM Englidi phonology................................................ OU English writing (§ § 1 0 3 -1 0 5 ).................................................................. y pn: forward tliree criteria for-ciESsifying phonological oppositions: (1) their relatioiisîiip w itlitlie other oppositions of the same system, (2) the relationship between members of the same oppositioa, ( 3) the extent of tîieJi distinctive force in different posh tions, respectively distinguisliing (1) bilateral and multilateral, proportional and isolated oppositions, (2) privative, gradual/and equipoJlent oppositions, (3) constant and nentralizabie oppositions. ReistionsMps are to be expressed here, naturally, in terms of DFs, though Trubetzkoy Mmself was not quite consistent m tliis. Though lie insisted on talcing into consideration only '‘es­ sential” ( i e. distinctive) features when defining the character o f phonological oppositions,' he was ready, liowêVer, to allow that separate “non-essential” (1. e. non-distiîictive) features may be considered as well. Trubetzkoy pointed out that any opposition presupposes not only difference in features, but also identity of some features ( “tlie basis o f coniparisoii”). § 15. Bilateral and muîtilateral o|3positions are distinguished according to the basis of comparison. In bilateral oppcisitioiis, tîie sism of the UPs com­ mon to both members o f the opposition is common to these two members only. Thus, according to Trubetzkoy, the English /p/ and /b/ stand in a bila­ teral opposition in thai they share the features oral {nonnasal), labkd, stop, and there are no other consonants hi English wMch come under the heading oral labial stops; /m / does not belong to the same dass because it is nasal, and /f/, /v/ and /w/ because they are not stops. In muitiïatsral oppositions, the sum of the distinctive features common to botli members of the opposi­ tion is shared by at least one more phoneme of the system. The Eaglish /f/ and /b/ may serve as an example o f a niiiitllateral opposition in that they are labial obstruents, Just like /p/ and /v/ are. In distingiMshing proportional and isolated oppositions the mato. thing is to define whether the reJationsliip (contrast) between the members of an opposition is identical or not with the relationship (contrast) between the members o f another opposition or several other oppositions o f the sime system. Proportional oppositions are characterized by identical relationships, and isolated oppositions,a.ccordiagiy, by noa-Meiitlcal relationships. In Esglisli, the opposition between /p/ aocl /b/ is proportional, because the relation be­ tween its members is identical with the, relation between /t/ and /d / and between /k/ and /g/, as 'weli, as between It! and /dz/, Wiietlier an opposition is bilateral or multilateral, proportional or isolated . depends on the language and, we may add . on the system of the DFs used. For example, the opposition between the English /!/ and /r/ may be analysed 19

as lateral vs. monlateral and, consequently, as isolated, since the relation o f no other segments in English can be expressed' in these features. On.the other hand, if the opposition of the same phonemes is expressed in terms of the features alveolar vs. postalveolar, it has to be classified as proportional, since the relation between /s/ and /§/ and between (zf and /z/ is the same. It follows from the definitions themselves that in any language the multilateral and isolated oppositions considerably outnumber the bilaterai and proportional oppositions. §, lé . The logical relation between members of an opposition and t,he opposition itself is defined by Trubetzkoy as privative when one member of the opposition carries a phonetic “mark” (e. g. voiced, nasal, rounded, etc.) which the other member lacks. In the opposition /b/ —/p/, /b/ is charac­ terized by the presence of voicing, while /p/ lacks it. The opposition member which is characterized by the presence o f a feature is termed “marked”, while the member which is characterized by the absence of this feature is termed “un­ marked” . The notion of privafiveness, as well as that of markedness closely connected with it, is v/idely made use of in phonological works. Oppositions are termed “gradual” when their members are characterked by different degrees or gradations o f the same sound property. Vowel-height presents the most typical example o f gradual oppositions, since contrasts of the type /i — e — æ /, /u — o — a/ may be said to rest on different degrees of the same property (tongue height). The relation between members of an opposition and opposition itself is termed “equipollent” when the members are considered to be “logically equivalent” , being neither gradations of the same sound property nor the presence or absence of some sound property. Trubetzkoy mentions the cont­ rasts /p / — /t/. If/ - /k/ in German as examples of equipollent oppositions; naturally, the same applies to the English /p/ —/t/, /f/ - /k/. § § 17, As mentioned above, Trubetzkoy’s final classification into constant and neutralizable oppositions is made according to the extent of the distin­ ctiveness o f oppositions, i. e. their ability to remain distinct in all or only some positions. A classic example of neutralizable oppositions is provided by voiced and voiceless obstruents in such languages as Standard German, Russian, or Lithuanian. At the end of a word (as well as in some other positions) these languages neutralize the contrast between voiced and voiceless obstruents in that only the voiceless can be found here; thus, in German both Rat ‘advice’ and Rad ‘wheel’ is pronounced [ r a :t] , in Russian both kot ‘cat’ and Kod ‘code’ is pronounced [k o t]. THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF JAKOBSON, FANT AND HALLE

§ 18. R. Jakobson, G. Fant and M. Halle differentiate two types of distinctive features, the prosodic features of tone, force and quantity, on the one 20

hand, and the so-called “inherent features” o f sonority and tonality, on the other. The inherent distinctive features, as distinguished by Jakobson and Halle [1957; 1962], amount to 12 oppositions: Sonority features 1. Vocalic —nonvocalic 2. Consonantal —nonconsonantal 3. Compact —diffuse 4. Tense —lax 5. Voiced —voiceless 6. Nasal (nasalized) —oral (nonnasahzed) 7. Discontinuous —continuant 8. Strident —mellow 9. Checked —unchecked Tonality features 10. Grave —acute 11. Flat —plain (nonflat) 12. Sharp —plain (nonsharp) § 19. As has been indicated by Jakobson and Halle themselves, some distinctive features of this system are traditional Such are the features voicedvoiceless, nasal - oral, and also checked - unchecked, equivalent to the tradi­ tional glottalized - nonglottalized, and sharp - plain, equivalent to the tradi­ tional palatalized - nonpalatalized. The other features and oppositions present rather radical innovations in phonological analysis and need more detailed comments. The features vocalic - nonvocalic and consonantal - nonconsonantal may be said to be primary in that they are set up to classify the four major classes of sounds, consonants, vowels, glides (semivowels), and liquids. By the features vocalic - nonvocalic, vowels and liquids (such as / ! / and /r/) are opposed to true consonants and glides (such as /w/ and /j/), and by the features consonan­ tal - nonconsonantal, true consonants and liquids are opposed to vowels and glides. Thus: V + L : C + G = /+ voc/ : / - voc/ C + L : V + G ~ 1+ con/ : / - con/ In other words, vowels are defined as vocalic and nonconsonantal, true consonants, as consonantal and nonvocalic, liquids, as vocalic and consonantal, and glides, as nonvocalic and nonconsonantal, thus: CONSONANT [ + con] —vocj e.g. /pi

VOWEL [ - coni + voc] e.g. /a/

LIQUID + coni + voc] e.g. 11/

[

GLIDE ~ con - voc e.g./j/ 21

The features compact ~ diffuse specify both Yowels and consonants. With reference to vowels, the new acoustic feature diffuse corresponds to the traditioiiai articukiory feature high, and the new acoustic feature compact corresponds to the traditional feature low. As vowels are most often of three degrees of tongue height, the" single pair of features, diffuse - compact, is ficÜt into two •nairs, diffuse nomJiffuse, m d co^npact - noneompact. Thus, high vowels aie specified as diffuse and noneompact, low vowels, as compact and îiondlffuse, and mid vowels, as nondifiiise and nonconipactl With reference to comomnts, the feature diffuse (or. mmeompaef) specîfieslabiaî aad dental, or alveolar, consonants (for example, /b p f v rn t d 0 3 b z 1' nl), whereas the feature compact (or nondiffyse) specifies post-alveolar, palatal and velar’ consonants (for example, /ß dz s z k g; r v/ j h/). The new ternis tense - lax cover not only tlie traditional vocalic features tense ~ lax (as applied to a vov/ei, teme in its traditional sense suggests greater tension on the muscles of the articulator, for example, /e/. as opposed to /£ / ) , but also the conmnmtül f&âtmm aspirated - nonaspirated, Jong (gfmi­ nâte) - short, aad fortis - lenis. The features discontinuous - continuant, and strident ~ meUovt define the oppositions between stops, affricates, and fricatives. The stops and affri­ cates differ from the fricatives ia that they are discontinuons, whereas the latter are contimiant, and the affricates differ from the stops in that they are strident (^'aoisy”), mdieieas ths latter are rnelow. Fricatives are mainiy strident, though mellow fricatives are also to be found. For example, in English the mellow fricatives 3/ contrast with the strident fricatives/s z/. Vowels are iir/ariably coiitinuaat and mellow. 'Tiiiis, The contrasts between discon­ tinuous and continuant, and strident and. m.eöow are limited to consonants. The features grave - acute (nongrave) distinguish between back vowels, ' which are grave, and front vowels, which are acute, as well as between labial and back (i.e. velar and pharyngeal) consonants, which are grave, and dental (or alveolar) and palatal consonants, which are acute. The feature f k t o f the dichotomy flat - plain defines labialized, velarked, pharyngealized, an.d retroflex consonants, as well as rounded vowels.§ § 20, To sum up, Jakobson, Fant and Halle’s system of DFs represents innovations in the tohowing respects. Firstly, the features were designed only to capture the phonological oppositions, but not necessarily to capture the differeni phonetic realizations of these oppositions. Secondly, the system was declared to be universal, .i.e. listing all the possible oppositions foaiic! is îanguages. Thirdly, the features are ail binary in nature. Fourthly, the features are defined priirtarily i,ii acoustic terms. .Fiftbiji, both vowels and coasonants are specified hi terms of t.lie sa.me features. Meveitlieless, from the practic-aî point of msm it miglit be convciiiieat to list separately the DFs of voweis and those of consonants. The correlations between these features and the vowels are as M the fbiiowiiig chart: 22

Diffuse Nondiffiise Compact Noncompact Grave Acute Flat Noiîflat (pkäö)

: high vo wels : mid and low vowels : low vowels : high and mid vowels : back vowels : front vowels : rounded vowels : nonroundeci vowels

Tlie correlations between the features and the cotisonants are the foliov/ing: Diffuse Nondiffuse (compact) Grave Acute Voiced Voiceless Discontinuous Continuant Strident

: labial and-(lentai/alveolar consonants : post-alveolar, palatal and velar consonants

: labial and back (velar and pharyngeal) consonants : deiital/alveolar and palatal consonants : voiced consonants : voiceless consonants ; stops and affricates : fricatives, liquids, glides : affricates, noisy fricatives (labio-dental, alveolar, alveopalatal) Mellow : stops, less noisy fricatives (interdental, as well as palatal and velar), liquids, glides Nasal : nasal consonants Oral (nonnasal) : oral consonants THE d i s t in c t i v e FEATURES OF CHOMSKY AND HALLE

§ 21. The binary system o f DFß has been constantly undergoing modifi­ cations in that terminology is changed, new articulatory and acoustic corre­ lates of DFs are chosen, new hierarchies of oppositions are established, and so on. One of the best-known modifications of this type is to be found in The sound pattern o f English by N. Chomsky and M. Halle [ 1968; 298-329]. The main principles of analysis in this book are derived from Preliminaries to speech analysis by Jakobson, Fant and Halle [1952] and Fundamentals o f language by Jakobson and Halle [1956]. The inventory of inherent DFs as presented by Chomsky and Halle is the following; Major class features Sonorant —nonsonorant (obstruent) Vocalic - mmocQlic (Syllabic —nonsyliabic) Consonantal - nonconsonantai 23

Cavity^ features . Coronal -- noncoronal Anterior —nonanterior High —nonhigh Low —nonîow Back —nonback Rounded —nonrounded Distributed ~ nondistributed Covered —noncovered Glottal - nongloital Nasal —nonnasal Lateral —nonlateral Manner o f articulation features Continuant - noncontinuant (stop) Instantaneous release —delayed release Tense —nontense (lax) Source features Voiced —nonvoiced (voiceless) Strident —nonstrident Heightened subgiottal pressure - without heightened subglottal, pressure § 22. Some terms of this system are already familiar to us. Such are the' terms vocalic, consonantal, nasal, tense, voiced, continuant, and strident. In ail the other cases the terms have been changed. This is connected with the addition of new oppositions to the universal inventory of features, reinter­ pretation o f old oppositions, and, last but not least, the abandonment of earlier acoustic terminology in favour of an articulatory one. There are explicitly distinguished three pairs of primary DFs. In addition to the primary oppositions vocalic - nonvocalic and consonantal - nonconsonantal, defining the four major classes of phonemes, viz., consonants, vowels, liquids and glides, the primary opposition sonorant - nonsonorant defines two more major classes of phonemes, those o f sonorants, comprising vowels, liquids,, glides and nasals, and those of obstruents, comprising stops, affricates and fricatives. The relative degrees o f the opening/narrowing of the air passage in the vocal tract provide the articulate .correlates for all the major class fea­ tures. The features are defined by Chomsky and Halle [1968: 302] as fol­ lows: “Vocalic sounds are produced with an oral cavity in which the most radical constriction does not exceed that found in the high vowels [i] and [u] and with vocal cords that are positioned so as to allow spontaneous voicing; in producing nonvocalic sounds one or both of these conditions are not satisfied. 24

Vocalic sounds, therefore, are the voiced vowels and liquids, whereas glides, nasal consonants, and obstruents, as well as voiceless vowels and liquids, are nonvocalic.” “Consonantal sounds are produced with a radical obstruction in the midsagittal region of the vocal tract; nonconsonantal sounds are produced without such an obstruction. It is essential to note that the obstruction must be at least as narrow as that found in the fricative consonants and must, moreover, be located in the midsagittal region of the cavity. This feature, therefore, distinguishes liquids and consonants, both nasal and nonnasal, from glides and vowels.” Sonorants are defined by Chomsky and Halle [1968: 302] as sounds with a relatively free air passage either through the mouth or through the nose where constrictions are not more radical than those found in the glides 0 ] and [w] : “Hence sounds formed with more radical constrictions than the glides, i.e. stops, fricatives, and affricates, are nonsonorant, whereas vowels, glides, nasal consonants, and liquids are sonorant.” Further on Chomsky and Hale [1968; 353-355] propose that the feature syllabic replace the feature vocalic. Syllabic segments are those constituting a syllabic peak, i.e., vowels, syllabic liquids, and syllabic nasals; all remaining segments are specified as nonsyUabic. As a matter of fact, an additional pair of features is thus introduced, since the classes of vocalic and syllabic pho­ nemes differ in the criteria according to which they are distinguished (the distinc­ tive mark of vocalic sounds is said to be spontaneous voicing and a definite degree o f the opening o f the air passage in the vocal tract, whereas the distinc­ tive mark of syllabicity is the syUable-building function of a segment) and in their phonemic composition (liquids, which are invariably classified among vocalic, may be both syllabic and nonsyUabic; nasal consonants, which are invariably classified among nonvocalic, may also be both syllabic and nonsyllabic; glides alone are both nonvocalic and nonsyUabic; all vowels are syUabic, but only those vowels are classified among vocalic, which are not voiceless). § 23, The coronal/noncoronal and anterior/nonanterior sounds are defined by Chomsky and Halle [1968: 304] as follows: “Coronal sounds are produced with the blade of the tongue raised from its neutral position; noncoronal sounds are produced with the blade o f the tongue in the neutral position.” “Anterior sounds are produced with an obstruction that is located in front of the palato-alveolar region of the mouth; nonanterior sounds are produced without such an obstruction. The palato-alveolar region is that where the ordinary EngUsh [s] is produced.” 25

Thus coronal soun.ds indude dental, alveolar, aiveopalatal and retroflex cor).soriaiits, as well as retroflex vowels. All tlie other consonants (and vowels) are noocoronai. As a consonantal, feature, coronal corresponds to the Jakobrjoiiiari feature nongrave, with the exception only that “true palatals” (for example, /x/1 /j/) are noncoroG?!, though earlier they were specified as non­ grave, 1'he diat.iîictlGiï ?n3trnv:;.phicuiani'...i-io: is •'.pphed exclusively ic .cciisonants, fdrtce aîi vowels are nonaiiterior. Thus apte.dor souifls include labial, dental, and alveolar consorr-fdr, where.-w ;\-t.rf"ex, aalatpl, velar, nwriar. Oi‘ pliaiyngeai eon.so/:aî5ts are üoripntericT. The new terra «»/e/ior corresponds T.0 the old tcGu'.:;;r. =crm dfffare as dur!- ■■■-•'; ir'plk'd to consdnanrs. The featii;-::: /;:■>/?, hw , •uid bjed l.■r‘^r^oi":ïize hiep-la/.nmcpJ; of the body of tiie tongue witii resrect lo ir.s iieL'haî positic-n“ [Chomsky and Halle,

i,968: 301-305]: “îügli sounds are produced by ,ra.is,ing the body of the tongue above the level that it occupies in the neutral position; nonJiigh sounds are produced without sijch a raising of the tongue body.” “Ix3w sounds are produced by lowering the body o f the tongue below' the level that it occupies in the neutral position,; iionlow sounds are produced without such a io¥/eriîig of the body of the tongue.” “Back r/Jimds are produced, by retracting the body of the tongue from the neutral position; nonback sounds are produced without such a retraction from the iieiitral, position.” The features of the placement of the body of the tongue apply to both vowels and consonants. The feature high specifies all high vowels, palatal (and paiataEzed), velar (and velarized) consonants, as well as the glides /j/ (/y/), /w/. The feature low specifies low vov/els, pharyngeal (and. pharyngealized) and laryngeal consonants. The segments that are specified as noiiliigh and nonlow include mid vowels and uvular consonants. Tl.ie feature back specifies back vowels, as well as velar (a.iid velarized), uvular, phatyngeal (and pliaryngealized) consonants. Thus the terms high, low, and back serve as the meansof expressing not only the basic contrasts of vowels according to the placement of the tongue, but also the mutual contrasts o f palatal, velar, uvular, and pharyngeal consonants; palatals are characterized as nonback and high, velars, as back and high, uvulars, as back, nonliigh and nonlow, pharyngeals, as back and low. As has already been indicated, the same terms express the secondary consonantal articulations of palatalization, velarization, and pharyiigealization. ^ Tlie neutra! position o f the body of the tongue is assumed to be raised and fronted approximating the coptfigiu-ation found in the vov/el [e | in English bed fChornsky and H ale, 1968; 3 0 0 ,3 0 4 ]. ' . 26

Chomsky and Halle [1968: 309] introduce the feature rounded to specify rounded vowels and labialized corisoiiants: “Rounded sounds £ffe produced with a narrowing of the lip orifice; nonrounded sounds are produced without such a narrowij-^.”

In consonants rounding is considered to be a secondary aiticiilation combining with velai’S, palatals, tieatals, aîveopalatals and even ialtials (for example, /p / —/p^'/ in Nupe, a language of Nigeria), The last pair of features which need special comment is instantaneous release ~ delayed release, which Chomsky and Halle [1968: 3 IS] define as follows: “There are basically trvo ways in which a closure i a the vocal tract may be released, either instantaneously as in the plosives or with a delay as in the , affricates. During the delayed release, turbulence is generated in the vocai tract so that the release phase of affricates is acoustically quite similar to the cognate fricative. The mstantaiieoiis release is nomafly accompanied by much less or ßo turbulence.” Thus Chomsky and KaEe introduce tiiese featares foi discriminating between stops and affricates. As it turned out, tire contrast between stops a,nd affricates cannot be expressed io terms o f tiie features strident — '-nonstrident (mellow}, for ii has been discovered that affricates themselves can contrast as strident and i noiistridejii (McCawJey fi972: 523J, referring to Li 11946: 398] ^ has pointed out that the Amerindian Chippewa language contrasts /t^/ — ( f / , as well as the fricatives /6'/ - /s/j. § 24. Such features of Chomsky and Halle as glottal - nonglottal, nasal — nonnasal, lateral — nonlateral, continuant —noncontmuent, tense — nontense, voiced - nonvoiced, strident -- nonstndent may be left without comment as quite traditional or known already from Jakoösorf’s system. Still others are of exceptiomlly rare occurrence c^r suggested oni/ tentatively. For example, Chomsky and Haile [1968; 312-314]^ quite tentâtiveiy postiiiate the feature distributed: “Distributed sounds are produced with a constriction tliat extends for a considerable distance along the direction o f the air flow; aondistribiited’ sounds are produced with a' constriction that extends only for a short distance in tMs direction.” The feature distributed is introduced to specify the letroflsx (ir contradistinction to nonretroflex), iaminal (in coiiiradssanciioii to -ipicei) or labial (m contradist-iiicxioii to labiodental) afticulcïïotic of cc-asoia.iis, Chomsliy and Halle assume that the difference betwee:: aT;.iJi;lat‘.on viT ihd '.ciiyue tip curled up toward the hard palate and articuLxvyo 'vh.io'.ri such a cjJiiig, between articulation with the blade of the toryruc vi J Iwr, wr*h the tjp of the

27

tongue, as well as between bilabial and labiodental articulations is nöt' so ' relevant as the difference in the extent of the constriction along the direction of the air flow. A MODIFIED SYSTEM OF DISTINCTIVE FEATURES

§ 25, The sound feature theory must provide a means for describing both phoneme’s (when sound features serve exclusively as DFs, or, alternatively, phonemic features) and their phonetic realizations (when sound features serve as both distinctive and non-distinctive features, or, alternatively, phonetic features). Among the problems which continue to demand special attention one may point out the need r8tatio,n of stops, fricat,i¥es and affricates below). When describing par­ ticular languages, for the sake of economy of linguistic description, separate pairs of universal DFs be reduced to a ong.le pair of features. § 26. Before proceeding with the inventory o f DFs we should touch upon another matter of importance, namely, the choice between articulatory and acoustic correlates of DFs. Trubetzkoy worked mainly in tenus o f arti­ culatory features. Though he seeois to liave been under the impression that 3 ,coui;tic terminology, as compared with an articulatory terminology is less ambiguous, he did not thirLk that it mattered niucli for phonological analysis which one is made use o f and gave preference to articulatory terminology because of its traditionally familip' chai’acter [cf. Trubetzkoy. 1960: 101102]. Later on, Jakobson, Halle aiicl Fant worked out a detailed system of acoustic correlates of features, parallelled with articuiatoiy? correlates. Theii* works introduced a Mud of fasMon for acoustic features, much less followed .ill countries with strong trac!ition,s of functional linguistics, such as the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia. In the last decades, as evidenced, already by Chomsky and Halle [1968], the shift has been towards articulât eery terms again. The articulatory terms, much more transparent arid imeqiiivocaî than, their acoustic counterparts, have proved to be more operative botîi in sy,nciiroriic and diachronic analysis, (especially in tlie latter). Of course, nobody can deny the importance of acoustics as a subsidiary means of phonological description, especially for the purpose of speech synthesis.§ § 27.' Tne main distinction of universai (or, possibly,'^near-universal) character i§ that between consoiiaiîts an,d vowels, with both liquids and glides ' classified as (sonorant) consonants. This urdversaliy primary distinction is expressed by means of two pahs of features, consonantal vs. noncomomnîal, and vocalic vs. nomocoMc, in view of tlie possible presence in some languages of items "to be specified as /— con, — voc/, or as /+ con, -f- voc/. Practically, however, .in the case of the overwheiïning majority of languages these two pairs of universal features are reduc.ibîe to a single pair, consonantal vs. vocalic. Tile main articulatory correlate of coiisoRaiital soimds is a definite focus of obstruction at least as narrow as that found in the afticulation o f the sonorant consonants /] w/. At separate phases or points of the articulation of /Î r/. the narrowing in the vocal tract may be less than that in /j w/, yet l-sounds are characterized by a radical iaterai constriction, and r-sounds, by a very tight 30

'

’

■

narrowing or even a kind o f occlusion at separate moments of the vibratioii of the tip of the tongue or the imtla [see Zinder, 1979: §§ 142-143J , The main articulatory correlate of vocalic sounds is an oral cavity m which the most radical constriction does not exceed that found in the high vowels /i 11/ [cf. Chomsky and TIalle, 1S^68: 302]. Tiiere is no reason to deny the glides the status of consonants and to specify iiqiiids as vocalic (in addition to the feature /+ con/), as both types of sounds fully match the patterns of consonantal phonemes. § 28, Traditionally there are distinguished two types of coasoeantal features, modal and local. With regard to modal consonantal features, primary .importance shoold be attached to the .features obstmeni vs. nonobsîmenî, and sonorant vs. nonsonoram. In the majority of languages these two pairs of featu-res may be reduced to the single pair obstruent vs. songmnt {nonobstrueM}. The additional features /— obstr/ and / — son/ are .iacl.ispe.nsable, Jiov/ever, in. the case of the presence of such phonemes as the Czech /f/, or the Chippewa jél dl dl7, which are to be specified as /•f* son, + obstr/, m contradistinctiofi to /+ son, — obstr/ (e.g. /r/), and / t obstr, — son/ (e.g. /§/). The aiiiciilatoiy correlate o f obstruent sounds is constriction more radical than, that foimd in the glides /j w/. The next pair of modal features which must be classified, among tlis priinaiy and universal ones are stop vs. nonstop, and fricative vs. nonfricative, with stops proper specified as j~>- stop, — ffic/, fricatives proper specified as /+ fric, — stop/, and affricates specified as /i- sto.p, + feic/.'Wiieii affricates are lacking, it suffices to have a s.ingle pair of t:.lie features in question (stop vs. fricative, or stop vs. nonstop, or fricative vs. nonfricative). Stop sounds are produced by blocking the air flow tli.rciUgh the .mouth at the j;)ca.o.t o f the primary constriction; i.ri t.he prodiiciiton of the fricative, sounds, tl.12 primary constriction in the vocal tract is not riaiiowed to the point v/here the m flow past the coTistrictio.n is blocked. The consonantal distiect.ioii nasel vs. rtcmmsal th.oiig.b. language iüii¥örsa.L is secondary from the point of view o f particular languages in that it is usually relevanl; only in the subsystem of so;o.o.raiits. Hie features msal vs. ncmmsai may also be distinctive for vowels. Tlie articulatoty correlate of nasal sounds is the nasal cavity acting as a resonator. All t.he other modal features of consona.nts a,re more language specific, £tnd their presence or absence, as well as thek primary or secondary status depends upon the concrete type of the language under «..aaiysis. Such are the features voiced vs. voiceless, fortis vs. ienis, aspirated vs. nonaspirated, and long vs. short Voiced sounds are produced with periodic vibration of the vocal cords, and voiceless sounds, without vibratioü. Voiced vs. voiceless are .mainly corisonantal DFs, as voice in vowels, when these are invariably voiced, is non-

distinctive. Yet languages have been known to have voiceless vowels as well (much like those in murmured speech), and in such languages vowels must also be specified as /+ voiced/ and /—voiced/. The consonant features fortis vs. lenis are closely related to the features of voice in that the fortis consonants are voiceless and the lenis consonants are predominantly voiced. The articulatory correlate of these features is the energy of articulation; the fortis consonants are pronounced with relatively more muscular energy and stronger breath force than the lenis ones [Gimsdn, 1966: 32, 146,174]. The features aspirated vs. nonaspirated specify stops. Aspiration may be defined as a voiceless interval consisting of strongly expelled breath between the release of the stop and the onset of a following vowel; cf. the ModE pin [p^in], tin [t^ in ], kin [k^in], in which, however, aspiration is non-distinctive [Gimson, 1966: 146] . The features long vs. short are based upon relative duration of sounds. Length may be distinctive both in consonants and vowels. § 29. In distinguishing the consonantal features according to the place of articulation and in determining the degree of their .universality, a sharp distinction should be made between the so-called active and pasave organs of speech, viz., the lips and the tongue, on the one hand, and points in the stationary part of thç vocal tract (teeth, alveole, palate, velum, uvula, pharynx and larynx), on the other. The term “passive” does not necessarily imply the inertness of the organs of speech (cf. the performance of such organs of speech as the velum or the uvula in pronouncing separate consonants). The difference between the active and the passive organs of speech is actually the difference between the more active and the less active articulators, by means of which major and subsidiary local classes of consonant phonemes may be discriminated [seeZinder, 1979: §§ 129-130]. According to the participation o f the active organs of speech the follo­ wing three natural classes of phonemes may be distinguished: labial, apical, and dorsal. The contrasts between these classes are specified by means of the following universal (or near-universal) DFs: apical vs. nonapical, labial vs. nonlabial, and dorsal vs. nondorsal. Apicals are produced with the tip or the front part of the tongue, labials are produced with one or both Ups, and dorsals are formed by the back of the tongue. The actual utilization of these features and especially their hierarchical ordering may be rather language specific, however. The presence of apicals in all the known languages indicates that from the point of view of language universals the distinction apical vs. nonapical- h of a liigher hierarchical ordering than the other two oppositions, i.e. consonants must be contrasted first of ail as apicals and nonapicals, unless there are reasons to do otherwise [see Trubetzkoy, 1960: 142]. On the other hand, there are languages in which consonants contrast according to the point of articulation first of aU as labial vs. nonlabial, and nonlabials 32

may be further subdivided accordiog to the features apical vs. nompical (dorsal) (cf. the analysis of the OE consonants, § 115). Further local specifications of consonants according to the points in the stationary part of the vocal tract, viz., teeth, alveole, palate, velum, uvula, pharynx and larynx, are provided by the features dental vs. nondental, xilveolar vs. nonalveolar, palatal vs. nonpalatal, velar vs. nonvelar, uvular vs. nonuvular, pharyngeal vs. nonpharyngeal, and laryngeal vs. nonlaryngeal; additional specifications of much the same type are also provided by lip-rounding and, correspondingly, the features rounded vs. nonrounded. AH these features are highly language specific. The most common and important of such dis­ tinctions are palatal vs. nonpalatal, and velar vs. nonvelar, relevant for both consonants and vowels. With reference to consonants, the two pairs may normally be reduced to the single pair palatal vs. velar. It should also be noted that with reference lo vowels the more usual terms are front instead of palatal, and back instead of velar. The features rounded vs. nonrounded may also be distinctive both for consonants and vowels, yet in the system of vowels they play a much greater role. § 30, The vocalic contrasts of aperture may be expressed by means o f the features high vs. nonhigh, low vs. nonlow, and mid vs. nonmid. The vocalic features of aperture are universal in that all the known languages have at least two vowel heights, the most regular type being three heights. At least in the majority o f cases the choice of the binary features of aperture depends ex­ clusively upon the number of vowel heights. Contrasts o f two vowel heights may be specified as high vs. nonhigh (low). Vowels of three degrees of aperture, such as /i u/ vs. /e o/ vs. /a/, may be contrasted by means of two pairs of features, high vs. nonhigh (/i u/ vs. /e o a/), and low vs. nonlow (/a/ vs. /e o i u/). These features enable us to describe /i u/ as /+ high, —low/, /a/, as /+ low, — high/, and /e o/, as / — high, — low/. Vowels o f four degrees of aperture, such as /i u/ vs. /e o/ vs. /e s / vs. /aea/, can also be contrasted only by two pairs of features, high vs. nonhigh (low) (/i u e o/ vs. je o æ a/), and mid vs. nonmid (/e o e 0 / vs. /i u æ a/). These features enable us to describe /i u/ in such cases as /+ high, - mid/, /e o/, as /+ high, + mid/, / e o /, as / - high, + mid/, and /ae a/, as /—high, —mid/. These features are well-founded in that they reflect quite exactly the actual relationships of phonemes: the vowels of the highest and the lowest degree of raising are delimited by the level of the mid vowels alone, and if there are mid vowels o f two heights, they are distinguished as high and low.§ § 31. Primary importance should be attached to the vocalic features of timbre, front (palatal) vs. nonfront (nonpalatal), back (velar) vs. nonback (nonvelar), and rounded vs. nonrounded, known already from the description of consonants. The utilization of these vocalic features is language specific, and on their basis separate typologies may be established, depending on wheth33

er tongue retraction, or lip rounding, or both are distinctive. The first two pairs of features may most often be reduced to a single pair: front (palatal, nonback, nonvelar) vs. back (velar, nonfront, nonpalatal} (potentially both frontness and backness may be marked). The discrimination of the pairs front vs. nonfront, and back vs. nonback in the universal inventory of features' is essential, however, in view of the presence of monophonemic diphthongs and the so-called free vowels, combining both front and back articulations. The description of phonological systems with central vowels, especially cen­ tering diphthongs and free vowels, may be much simpler when utilizang the features central vs. noncentral, though it is also possible to specify central vowels as / — front, — back/. Ail this also suggests that the distinctions gliding ■ (diphthong) vs. nongliding (monophthong), and checked vs. free go to the making of the universal inventory of distinctive features. Diphthongs are usually defined as vowel sounds made by gliding continuously from the posi­ tion for one vowel to that for another. It is also very important to define the types of diphthongs and the procedure of their description. In addition to the falling and rising types of diphthongs, distinguished on the basis of prosodic criteria (a diphthong is termed falling when its stronger element precedes the weaker one, and rising when the stronger element follows the weaker one), the main phonematic structural types of diphthongs are ( 1 ) monoserial diph­ thongs (when the elements of a diphthong are realized in the same series) and diserial diphthongs (when the elements are realized in different series), and (2) level diphthongs, on the one hand, and closing m d opening diph­ thongs, on the other; in level diphthongs the degree o f aperture for both elements is the same, in closing diphthongs the second element is higher than the first, and in opening diphthongs, oh the contrary, the second element is lower. No additional features are necessary for the mutual contrasts of such diphthongs; just like monophthongs, diphthongs may be specified by means of the features front vs. nonfront, back vs. nonback, central vs. non­ central, rounded vs. nonrounded, and the features of aperture. Checked vowels, the marked members of the correlation checked vs. free, are sounds with abrupt recede, and free vowels, with slow, or free, recede [cf. Trubetzkoy, I960; 218; Plotkin, 1976: 67-68]. The free vowels are realized phonetically as diphthongs or long vowels. TYPES OF SOUND CHANGE

§ 32. Since the beginnings of structural linguistics the requirement to treat any sound change from the point of view of the whole sound system and even from the viewpoint of the general framework of language has become the main dictum of diachronic phonology. First and foremost, every sound change must be evaluated from the point of view of its effects on the structure o f the language under change. The reliability o f reconstructions and the plausi­ bility of assumptions about the role of systemic factors in language change 34

depend directly on our competence to classify changes with regard to their effect on language structures. Hence there is an urgent need for a consistent and detailed classification of this kind. § 33. In 1930 Roman Jakobson [1962; 202-220] proposed the classi­ fication of sound changes into phonological, which affect the language system, and extra-phonological, which do not. He exemplified changes of the second type by citing cases o f the appearance and disappearance of definite combina­ tory realizations of phonemes, and also by presenting an example which may be interpreted as a change in the general realization of phonemes. Jakobson distinguished three types of phonological -change: ( 1 ) dephonemization, or phonemic merger, eliminating a phonological opposition; ( 2) phonemization, or phonemic split, adding a phonological opposition; and (3) rephonemization, or phoiiemic shift, changing a phonological opposition from one type into another. In addition to qiianges in the system, or, as he put it, in the inventory of phonemes, Jakobson also spoke of changes in phoneme combinations and changes in the frequency of phonemes. Special mention was made o f ( 1 ) the split of one phoneme into a group o f phonemes, and ( 2 ) the merger of a group of phonemes into one phoneme. § 34, Jakobson’s classification was subsequently followed with greater or lesser modifications by other diachronists. Such linguists as E.D. Polivanov [1968: 62-74], A.W. de Groot [1948], L.R. Zinder and T.V. Strojeva [1965; §§ 1,3; Zinder, 1979: § 244] lay special emphasis on; the distinction between phonological changes in words and changes in the system of phonemes, which was not clearly defined by Jakobson himself. An original classification of sound change was proposed by M.I. Steblin-Kamenskij [1966: 8-16], who distinguished first of all between allophonic (or subphonemic) and phonemic change, subdividing the latter into syntagmatic and paradigmatic change,§ § 35. We have to acknowledge, however, that the current classifications, perpetuating the tradition o f functional linguistics, are too general and not free from inconsistencies. Thus very often no due distinction is made between sound change as a process and sound change as a result. Here an attempt will be made to present a more detailed, consistently structural classification of sound change. In accordance' with the distinction of paradigmatics and syntagmatics, ail sound changes fall, naturally, into two main types: paradigmatic change and syntagmatic change. Either type may be further subdivided according to the phonetic and phonological levels of abstraction, thus distinguishing phone­ tic and phonoiogicai paradigmatic changes, and phonetic and phonological syntagmatic changes. Besides this, a distinction should be made between segmental and prosodic changes. 35

§ 36. Phonetic paradigmatic changes actually consist of changes in the phonetic realization of phonemes. As has been indicated (§ 13), phonetic realizations of phonemes need not be identified only with speech sounds. They may also be presented as sound patterns peculiar to a given language. Despite all possible variations (individual, territorial, social, stylistic and especially positional), phonetic realizations of phonemes in language may be regarded as discrete. They may be described as an aggregate of physically and psychologically discrete features, both distinctive and non-distinctive, expressed in articulatory or acoustic terms. Consequently, changes in the. phonetic realization of phonemes can also be described in terms of such features, viz., as addition, loss, or substitution (replacement) of phonetic features. The Middle English change [a:| > [o:] may be specified as roun­ ding, i.e. as addition of the feature [+ round] (§ 181). By the First Con­ sonant Shift the Mdo-EtTropean voiced aspirated stops lost their aspiration (IE [b^ d“ g“ > PrGmc [b/v d/d d y g ^ly ^] ), and the Indo-European voiced stops lost their voice (IE |l 5 d g g^] > PrGmc [p t k k ^] ); the IndoEuropean voiceless stops became voiceless fricatives in Proto-Germanic (IE [p t k k^] > PrGmc [f 0 h h'''] ), i.e. plosion was replaced by friction. Special mention should be made of such phonetic paradigmatic changes as rise and loss of allophones. Allophones are to be defined as positional realizations of phonemes differentiated by means of non-distinctive binary features (cf, the voiced and voiceless allophones of Old English fricatives, [f] — [v ], [fl]-[8].(s)-[z],M -[T ],§114).§ § 37. Phonological paradigmatic changes, as defined by M.I. SteblinKamenskij [1966: 14], concern DFs of phonemes. There may be a rise of new DFs, or a loss of old oneâ, or a substitution (replacement) of DFs, or a rise and a loss of definite combinations of DFs. Changes in DFs are interre­ lated with changes of oppositions and phonemes. There may be a rise of new oppositions or a loss o f old ones, or, as a special case, substitution (replace­ ment) of oppositions. Loss of phonemes parallels loss of oppositions. Rise and substitution of phonemes is connected with rise and substitution of oppositions and, to some extent, with loss of oppositions. For example, when the English /ii(:) ö(:)/ were replaced by /i(:) e(:)/, the latter phonemes changed as well; earlier they were specified by the features /—back, —round/, and now of these features only the feature /— back/ remained distinctive for /i(:) e(;)/, by which they were opposed to /u(:) o(;)/. Through changes in oppositions and phonemes, changes in DFs are inter­ related with changes in correlations. There may be a rise, a loss, or a substi­ tution (replacement) of correlations, as well as their extension or reduction. ' For example, with the rise of the oppositions between the voiced and voiceless fricatives in Middle English (/f/ - /v/, /#/ — /?/, /s/ — /z/), the consonantal correlation according to the features of voice {voiced vs. voiceless), earlier relevant only for stops and stop fricatives (affricates), was extended. On the 36

other hand, the loss of the Old English opposition/æ / - /a/ meant reduction of the vocalic correlation according to the features of tongue retraction (hacÄ: vs. nonback) (§181). § 38. Phonetic syntagmatic changes actually consist of changes in the sound composition of morphemes and words (the term “sound” is used i n , this case in its purely phonetic sense). In the case of phonetic syntagmatic changes one may distinguish addition of sounds (epenthesis), loss of sounds (elision), substitution (replacement) of sounds, and metathesis of sounds. Addition may be illustrated by the appearance o f the prothetic sound [w] in the Middle English form on, oon ‘one’: [o:n] > [wo:n] ; cf. the Modern English one [ w a n ] . In Middle English the loss of the sound [h] occurred in the initial clusters hn-, hl-, hr-: OE hnutu ‘nut’ > MidE nuîe\ OE hlUd ‘loud’ > MidE loud [lu:d] ; OE bring ‘ring’ > MidE ring. The Middle English [g] was lost after [g] in such forms as ring ( [rigg] > [riq ], § 200). With the unrounding of front rounded vowels in English, [Ü] was replaced by [i] or [ e ] , as in the OE gylt ‘gùilt’ > MidE gilt, gelt (§ 180). Metathesis may be illustrated by the Old English changes dridda ‘third’ > dirda, hros ‘horse’ > horf. § 39. Phonological syntagmatic changes consist of changes in the phono­ logical structure of morphemes and words. Among phonological syntagmatic changes we distinguish first of all changes in the distribution of phonemes in morphemes and words. Here addition, loss, substitution (replacement), and metathesis of phonemes may be distinguished. The addition of the phoneme /w/ occurred in the Middle English form on, oon: /o;n/ > /wo:n/. The loss of the phoneme /h/ occurred in such forms as OE Mud /hlu:d/ > MidE loud /lu:d/, OE bring /bring/ > MidE ring /rig/. In the latter form the phonemic cluster /ng/ was replaced by the new phoneme /g/. Metathesis of the phonemes /r/ and jij occurred in the Old English dridda > dirda. Of especially great interest are different distributive phonotactic changes, viz., syntagmatic chan­ ges in the rules of phoneme distribution, neutralization and syllable building. We define neutralization as positional redundancy of DFs (cf, the redundancy of such features as /+ fric/ or /— voiced/ for the English /s/ in spin), and we keep to the linguistic and phonotactic definition of the syllable as the smallest unit of recurrent phonemic sequences, which is characteristic o f such linguists as E. Haugen, E. Pulgram, H. Weinrich, H. Kudera [see Pulgram, 1970: 20, 41] . Finally, a separate type of phonological syntagmatic change is represented by changes in the frequency o f phonemes and phonemic clusters. THE MECHANISM OF SOUND CHANGE

§ 40. Sound change may be investigated not only from the point o f view o f its final results, but also from the point o f view of its dynamics, or mecha37

lîism. ■The analysis of the mechanism of sound change is related, firstly, to causation (“why sound change takes place”) and, secondly, to transition (“how sound change takes place”). Pastors of somnd cliange § 41. In -analysing causation, a distinction is made bet¥/een internai condi­ tioning and external conditioning (both o f which may be the reason not only for change but also for stability in sound systems). External factors of sound change are mainly of a social type, such as contacts between different languages o r different dialects o f the Same language, standardization and codification of languages, the influence of the social order and culture of a society upon its language, etc. internal conditioning may be subdivided into intralevel and interlevel types; in the first case change or stability of the sound level is conditioned by the structural peculiarities o f this level, and in the second case, change or stability of the sound level is conditioned by the relationships o f this level with some other level (grammar or lexis) of the language. Only after defining all the possible factors of sound change and language change in general, viz., the general conditions o f change, can we find satis­ factory explanations for concrete changes in the history of particular langua­ ges. Tlie knowledge of the whole complex o f possible causes may help us, moreover, in understanding the logical problem of language change, namely, why languages cannot remain without change. The general changeability of language may be accounted for by the fact that language is a self-governed functioning system.§ § 42. Intralevel conditioning of sound change comprises paradigmatic and syntagmatic, phonological and phonetic, segmental and prosodic factors. Among paradigmatic factors the role of phonological paradigmatics has been explored in the most detailed way. As has been discovered, both stability and change o f sound systems depends first and foremost on phonological correlations. The action of phonological correlations in sound change manifests itself most clearly in the tendency of correlations to undergo extension (as in the case of filing gaps in the pattern, or extending DFs from one subsystem to another) or in the identical development of all the phonemes of the same series of a correlation. A case o f filling a gap in the pattern is provided by the rise o f the phoneme /z/ in English (§ 203). In all the cases of filing gaps no new DFs are involved; it is only a rise o f new clusters of old DFs. In addition, in some cases quite adequate explanations of sound changes may be ;provided by references to the centre and the periphery of phonological systems; the centre is on the whole more stable, whereas peripheral elements and subsys­ tems are more exposed to change. As we maintain, the centre and the periph­ ery are to be defined exclusively in terms of correlations: the centre consists 38

of phonemes of major correlations, and the periphery consists of phonemes of minor correlations and of phonemes outside correlations. The role of DFs in sound change consists in their greater stability, whereas non*distinctive features are more liable to change. § 43, It is very important to properly assess the role of phonetic para­ digmatics in sound change. To begin with, the phonetic realization of pho­ nemes itself, which is, an aggregate of both distinctive and non-distinctive fea­ tures, is a prerequisite for phonological change in general. In the history of languages one can observe how non-distinctive features become distinctive and, vice versa, distinctive features become non-distinctive. Non-distinctive features are prerequisite for the replacement of oppositions and the rise of new oppositions through phonemization of allophones (§ 51). The phonetic realizations o f phonemes determine the efficiency of phonological opposi­ tions and at the same time the stability o f phonemes, oppositions and cor­ relations. Much depends upon the phonetic nature o f DFs, and thus it is possible to distinguish more stable and less stable DFs and their combinations. Thus, in the series /b d g/, /d/ is more changeable than /b/, and /g/ is more changeable than /b d/ [Foley, 1972; 96]. In the history of the English lan­ guage the dorsals must have been the most dynamic part of obstruents (cf. !g : / > /dz/; [y] > £j] ; [ 7] > [w] ; / k '/ > / 6/, the syntagmatic loss of /k/, /g/, /h/ [h X x '] (§ § 168, 183, 186, 200-203). Alternatively, it might be said that among the local features of consonants the apical articulation is weaker than the labial, and the dorsal is the weakest. The consonantal features of palatalization, velarization, uvularization and pharyngealization must equally be characterized as weak. The low vowels .are regularly weaker than the high ones. In disclosing the role of the phonetic realizations of plionemes in sound change one finds useful the concepts of the so-called “phonological space”, introduced and worked out by André Martinet and his followers, viz., the areas of variation, margins of tolerance, empty spaces, or gaps, in the pattern (Fr. cases vides\ the principle o f symmetry and maximum distance [Martinet, 1960; 70-71, 88, 110]. The phonological space need not be conceived as a mere scheme o f phonological oppositions (for example, the oppositions of vowels as high vs. nonhigh, low vs. nonlow, front vs. hack, rounded vs. nonrounded, etc.). The given concepts characterize first of all the physical mani­ festation o f phonological units and their relationships and are more related to phonetics than to phonology. The area of variation may be defined as the space in which the realizations of a phoneme may fluctuate in all directions; it reckons with all possible variation in the realizations of phonemes, to wit, positional (combinatory), dialectal, stylistic and even occasional realizations. The areas of variation are limited by margins o f tolerance, the outer boundaries of the areas of variation between phonemes, and thus the concept o f the margin of tolerance expresses the degree of distinction between two contiguous phonemes in the system. According to the principle of symmetry and maximum 39

distance, the phonemes tend to take up position at an equal distance from one another. Phonemes become more changeable both when margins of tole­ rance are too small and when they are too large. Thus, vowel systems with three degrees of tongue height are more stable, whereas those with two or four have been observed to be more changeable. Besides, phonetic realizations of phonemes bear much upon push-chains and drag-chains in sound change. Push-chains and drag-chains are labels for mutually related sound shifts; they may consist of changes in the phonetic realizations of phonemes, or of changes in DFs which lead to replacement of oppositions but not to their loss. No matter what initial impulses for such shifts may be" further on, phonemes undergo phonetic or phonological changes at the push of the phonetic reali­ zations of neighbouring phonemes, or drift in the direction which is free from the phonetic realizations of neighbouring phonemes. A classic example of a drag-chain (or a push-chain) is provided by the Great Vowel Shift which occurred in Early Modern English. It has been called so by Otto Jespersen and presented as a chain of changes at which the diphthongization of the high vowels /i:/ and /u:/ entailed the narrowing of the other long vowels (e; > i : ,o : > u ; ,s : > e : , o: > o:, a: > £ ;, see Jespersen, 1928: 232). § 44. The role of phonological syntagmatic factors in sound change is also very important and manifold. Changes in the phonemic composition of morphemes and words, in initial, final and medial phonemes and phoneme dusters, changes in syllables, as well as prosodic changes in words, proceed under the pressure of the most productive phonological syntagmatic patterns. For example, the appearance of the initial consonantal clusters wjth /j/ in English (spj-, stj-, skj-, smj-, pj-, tj-, kj-, bj-, dj-, gj-, fl-, ÖJ-, hj-,sj-,yj-,zj-,mj-, iîj-, Ij*) may be accounted for by the presence of the analogous clusters with the other sonorants, especially with /w/ (dew-, tw-, kw-, dw-, sw-, 0w-, § 191). § 45. A very important role in the evolution of the sound system of a language is played by phonetic syntagmatics, as a result of interaction of sounds in the speech chain. The interaction of sounds in the speech chain consists, first of all, of processes o f assimilation. Assimilation may be defined as a phonetic process whereby features o f one sound are transferred to another sound. It may lead not only to changes in the phonetic realization o f phone­ mes, when only non-distinctive features are affected, but also to syntagmatic replacements and dosses of phonemes, to changes in phonotactic rules, and even to the rise of new phonemes (cf. the ModE assimilations /ng/ [gg] > > /g/, /zj/ > lil, § § 200, 203). If the two interacting sounds are adjacent as in the Latin *sopnos > somnus ‘dream’, we have contiguous assimilation; if they are not adjacent, as in the Latin *pibo > bibo ‘I drink’, or the Gmc *fuUjan > OE fyllan ‘fill’, we have distant assimilation. Types of assimilation may also be distinguished according to whether the preceding sound, or the following sound, or both are assimilatory. When the assimilatory sound pre40

cedes the assimilated sound, the assimilation is progressive (OE *bitf) > bitt ‘he bites’, ein > elï). When the assimilatory sound follows the assimilated sounds, the assimilation is regressive (Gmc *fulljan > OE fyllan ‘fill’, OE wifman > wimman ‘woman’). When both sounds affect each other, the assi­ milation is reciprocal (OE *bidp > bitt ‘he waits’). Moreover, the interaction of sounds in the speech chain may consist of processes of dissimilation, which lead to phonemic replacements (cf. OE peofp > ModE theft). Similar interac­ tions may be grounds for metathesis, redistribution of phonemes in word boundaries (cf. an ewt > a newt; a naddere > an adder; a napron > an apron), the compensatory lengthening o f vowels accompanying the loss of coni^nants (cf. the lengthening of the vowel in such English words as night, fight, right when [x'J was lost in them), addition o f phonemes in such English words as thimble (< OE pymel, pymle), thunder (< OE punor, punrian), empty ( [vizjan] > [v ijn ]. One would rather regard /oi/ as an imported phoneme, which occurs in words of French and Dutch origin and was imported with French words in the Middle English period. Yet it is not quite certain that /oi/ was already then monophonemic. Besides, later on /oi/ changed to /ai/ arid only in the 18th c. was -restored as a “letter pronunciation” [Vachek, 1962: 439-443]. Phonemes are usually imported only when there are empty places for them in the system, and v/hen their phonetic features are compatible with the system o f DFs of the borrowing language. When borrowed, phonemes usually enter a system of oppositions rather different from that in the original language, so that their DFs must undergo reinterpretation. Strictly speaking, it is simply phonetic features, both, distinctive and non-distinctive, that undergo reinterpretation, so that phonemes in the borrowing language can never be fully identical with the phonemes in the source language. So far, contacts between different languages have been disçussed. But it is also possible to speak of borrowing, v/hen different dialects of the same language, or a national language and its dialects are in contact. Here the mech­ anism of borrowing is the same, but thanks to systemic similarity and regu­ larity of systemic correspondences, the process of phonemic importation may become particularly intensive, especially when, under definite social and political circumstances, separate dialects acquire higher prestige. 4Ô

§ 55. In explaining problems of structural reinterpretatioiis-mucii depends upon a proper understanding of the relationships between language and speech in language change. Contemporary diachronic linguistics proceeds from 'the assumption that change is realized in language, not speech. NeYertheless, speech plays a ?ery important role in language change in that language is constructed and reconstructed on the basis of speech, which happens mainly when childreii learn their native language [cf._ Chomsky and Halle, 249-252; King, 1969; 79-80]. When there are variants in speech, or when speech forms do not reflect exactly the respective language forms, re structur­ ing in language may occur. For example, one may assume that in the case of i-umlaut,the Proto-English word /fulljan/ [füîîjan] ‘fiB’ began to be pro­ nounced in speech not only as ffülljanj, but also as [föflan]. On the basis of such forms as [füUan] ‘fiU’ and [full] ‘full’ language learners could easily reinterpret the alophonic distinction [u] — [ü] as the phonemic distinction /u/ - /ü/. § 56. Contemporary linguistics does not deny the mentaiism o f sound change, as the construction of language in the process of language acquisition may be thought of only as a conscious activity. True, much depends upon the type of change. Changes in the sound and phonemic composition o f words, or changes in the phonetic realization of phonemes are more liable to conscious control than other types of change. § 57. When gradiialness and abruptness of sound change are defined as minimal and sharp changes, respectively, both phonetic and phonological paradigmatic changes should be characterized as gradual. Phonetic paradig­ matic changes are gradual in that they present minimal shifts in the phonetic realizations of phonemes, which, however, are discrete and can be described in terms of sound features, both distinctive and non-distinctive. Phonological paradigmatic changes are gradual in that v/ith respect to a separate opposition only a single DF is changed at a time. From the point o f view of the whole complex of DFs, more than one DF may change at a time. For example, a vowel, changing in tongue height, may simultaneously change its features o f tongue retraction or rounding [cf. Anttila, 1972: 76]. The majority of syntagmatic changes, both phonetic and phonological, are abrupt. These are; meta­ theses, losses, and additions of sounds and phonemes, and the many syntagmatic replacements o f sounds and phonemes, which are not connected with paradigmatic replacements.§ § 58. The problem of regularity consists in‘defining limitations (context, conditions) of sound change. Sound changes may be limited phonologically and /or grammatically-lexically. By “phonological limitation” both paradigma­ tic and syntagmatic conditions may be meant. Paradigmatic changes can be limited only paradigmatically. It may be said that the more widely the system 47

is affected by a paradigmatic change and the more similar are the changes of separate elements, the more regular is a paradigmatic change (cf. the First Consonant Shift, at which all the stops within separate series were affected in an identical way, § 164). Therefore, in this sense one speaks of the regula­ rity of the paradigmatic changes of phonemes functioning in correlations. Syntagmatic' changes may be defined in terms of both paradigmatic and syntagmatic conditions. When phonemes undergo identical changes in all forms and in aU positions, the conditions of such changes may be said to be defined exclusively in paradigmatic terms, and such changes may be called the most regular. Most often, however, syntagmatic changes are limited paradigmatically and /or syntagmatically. In addition, they may be limited grammatically and lexically. For example, the addition of /t/ occurred in the English prepositions amongst < MidE amonges, against < MidE againes, amidst < MidE amiddes, whilst < MidE whiles. Such changes may be said to be less regular than the changes which are limited phonologically. METHODS OF RECONSTRUCTION

§ 59. The principle methods of reconstruction are: the method of compa­ rative reconstruction, based upon comparison of genetically related elements from cognate languages and dialects of the same language; the method of internal reconstruction, based upon comparison of genetically and structurally related elements from the same language and the same dialect; the method of graphic reconstruction, based on graphic data; and the method of external reconstruction, based on language contacts, to wit, borrowing [see Lehmann, 1962: 63-106, where a clear and proficient exposition of these methods is to be found; cf. also Penzl, 1957]. As defined above, comparative reconstruc­ tion concerns facts of different dialects of the same language or different languages within the same branch or within the same language family, and internal reconstruction concerns facts of the same dialect and the same • lan­ guage. Still, a contrastive treatment of evidence from earlier and later stages of the same language should be considered as belonging to the method of comparative reconstruction, as such evidence is drawn actually from different linguistic systems. The comparative method is of especial importance in pre­ historic reconstructions, for example, in reconstructing the First Consonant Shift, or i-umlaut. The method of internal reconstruction is important in that taking no outside language into account it helps reconstruct earlier sound patterns (prehistoric ones as well) together with most important data concer­ ning the distribution of sound elements. This method takes into account first of all morphophonemic alternations, such as was ~ were (/z/ ~ /r/), frost ~ frozen (/s/ ~ /z/), break ~ breach (/k/ ~ /Ô/), long ~ longer (/p/ ~ /i|g/), without regard to morphological classes. The method, however, may be restric­ ted in its application and finally made altogether inapplicable by successive changes of sounds and morphemes, and, naturally, complete mergers of mor48

phemesof originally varying shapes. The method o f internal reconstruction may also be based upon the principle of the symmetrical structure of the phonemic pattern, which, in its turn, predetermines the parallelism of some sound chan­ ges, for example, changes of-short vowels may parallel changes of the respective long vowels, and vice versa. § 60. The method o f graphic reconstruction consists in establishing the relationship between the graphs and the sounds, between the graphemes and the phonemes, of the language of the texts under analysis. Graphic reconstruc­ tion in our case is limited to the evidence of alphabetic writing (logographic and syllabic writings, where symbols represent whole words and syllables, respectively, are not relevant in the case of the history of English), Alphabetic writing provides the most valuable evidence for the sound and phonemic inventory o f a language, as the invention and employment of writing o f this type already presupposes a certain “phonemic” analysis. Graphic evidence, moreover, helps in reconstructing both paradigmatic and syntagmatic changes. Orthography often indicates the rise of oppositions and phonemes by the creation of new graphs, or a contrastive use o f two available graphs. The rise of the opposition /kV (> /Ô/) — /k/ through the phonemization o f the palatal and velar allophones o f the former phoneme /k/ was expressed by a contrastive use o f the two available graphs < k> and in some manuscripts, as in the Rushworth glosses to the gospel of St. Matthew: kining, did; since 1200 by the graphs and , respectively: king, child (§ 168). The rise of the Old English phoneme /!/ from the cluster /sk/ is unambiguously indicated in Middle English by the spellings . In many cases, however, spelling may indicate only a syntagmatic replacement of phonemes; whether it involves or does not involve the rise of new phonemes has to be determined by other methods of reconstruction. For example, the Early Middle English change of /a:/ to an o-sound is clearly rendered by the replace­ ment o f by the graph < b> in such forms as OE ban > MidE bone,QE gin > MidE go(n), but that it was the new open mid long phoneme / o:j, distinct from the old closed mid long phoneme /o:/, may be inferred only from its subsequent development: subsequently it changed to /ou/, whereas /o :/ changed to /uu/ (§ 194). Orthography indicates the loss o f oppositions and phonemes by indiscriminate use of formerly contrasting graphs, or by the use of one symbol instead of several initial ones. Reverse or inverse spel­ lings provide especially clear evidence of the loss of former oppositions. Besides, the choice of symbols in such cases indicates the character of replace­ ments. For example, the process o f the monophthongization o f the West Saxon diphthongs /ie(:)/ is unambiguously attested by the parallel use in early West Saxon writings of the graph (e.g, hierde ‘shepherd’, wiersa ‘worse’), on the one hand, and the graphs , < y > Qiirde, wyrsa), on the other. The latter spellings may testify only to a monophthongal pronunciation. The reverse spellings for the etymological /ie(:)/ seem to be indicating 49

the same, for example, briengm for bringan ‘bring’, tiema for fîma ‘time’, etc. (§ 158), Orthography usually reflects purely syntagmatic changes. Thus, the Middle English loss of the initial /h/ in the dusters hn-, M~, lir- is indicated by spellings without (§ 186). Yet it is necessary to bear in mind that writing with its inherent conservativism reflects sound changes somewhat belatedly. Besides, some changes are not reflected by spelling at all. For . exam­ ple, the change from the cluster /ng/ to the new phoneme /i)/ has remained unexpressed by English orthography as the digraph has remained unchan­ ged. In a similar manner the syntagmatic replacement /sj/ > /§/ in Early Mo­ dern English did not entail changes in orthography. Yet even in such cases occasional spellings may occur, indicating sound change of one type or another. For example, the replacement of /g / by /§/ is shown by such 15th-17th cc. occasional spellings as conschens ‘conscience’, ishu ‘issue’, condishon ‘condi­ tion’, pashens ‘patience’ [Wyld, 1953: 69, 293]. Finally, as well known, not every change in spelling implies a change in pronunciation; cf. the Middle English use of for /u:/. § 61. Diachronic phonology has the task of making the fullest possible reconstruction of the elements and structures of the sound system: paradig­ matic and syntagmatic, phonetic and phonological, segmental and prosodic, in making these reconstructions, a complete taxonomy of the types of sound change, and the identification o f the possible sources of new phonemes, by means o f which one can describe in unequivocal terms the state before and after a change, is of special importance. In both phonetic and phonological paradigmatic reconstractions the principle of gradualness of change has to be observed.

CHAPTER

TWO

THE EA RLY WRITINGS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

§ 62. The literary period in the history of the English language begins with the 8th c. By the “early wTitiEgs’*m this case both Old and Middle English texts are designated. The most distinctive trait of' these early written texts is their dialectal character. Beginning with the fundamental works of Henry Sweet [1871-1872; 1875-1876; 1885; 1888], there are traditionally distin­ guished in English historical dialectology four dialects of earlier English.; the Northumbrian, Mercian, West Saxon and Kentish dialects of Old English, and the Northern, Midland (Central), Southm^estern and Southeastern (Ken­ tish) dialects of Middle English (see Armalyte, 1975).* The four areas mentioned cannot have been dialectaly homogeneous. The available texts suggest ^ the subdivision of Northumbrian at least into & uth Northumbrian and North Northumbrian; and Mercian (Midland dialect) falls clearly into West Mer­ cian (West Midland) and East Mercian (East Midland). On the other hand, Northumbrian and Mercian have some features in common and may colectively be referred to as Anglian. Linguists have to admit, however, that the boundaries of Old and Middle English dialects cannot be drawn precisely. With reference to Old English, one may say, approximately, that Northumbrian covered the dialects spoken north of the river Humber; Mercian was spoken in the vast territory between the Humber , and the Thames; West Saxo.n v/as spoken south o f the Thames in ancient Wessejc; and Kentish was spoken in the Southeast over an area, extending somewhat more widely than the modern county of Kent. The boundaries o f Middle English dialects, owing to a larger number o f writings, may be drawn with greater accuracy. The linguistic boundary between the Northern and the Midland dialects is rather northerly in that a good deal of Yorkshire falls within the North Midland dialect area. The West Midland area extends from Herefordshire to Lancashire. The Southeastern includes Kent and the eastern part of Surrey; the dialect of Essex may be considered as a subdivision o f Southeastern. The Southwes­ tern may be regarded as continuing the West Saxon dialect of Old English. Though the Middle English dialects may be regarded as ^descendants o f the respective Old English dialects, there is clear evidence that in the course of time the boundaries of some dialects had changed. Thus, the early London dialect was clearly East Saxon, yet in the course o f the 14th c. the language of London underwent a change o f dialects, becoming mainly East Midland. The surviving texts, unfortunately, represent separate dialects at separate stages of their development disproportionately and discontinuously. This is connected first of all with extrdinguistic factors, such as the political supre51

macy of one or-another Anglo-Saxon, kingdom in... earlier or later periods of fnstory, or the effects of Viking raids and the Norman conquest upon the Engliéi cultural heritage and the English language itself. Thus, in the 6th and 7th cc., during the reign o f Ethelbert (Aethelberht, c, 560-616, b. 522), Kent dominated, both politically and culturally, the other kingdoms of Eng­ land, especially Essex and East Anglia. In the 7th and 8th cc., cultural and political supremacy passed from Kent to Northumbria, and then to Mercia. As a result. Early Old English is represented mainly by Kentish, Northumbrian and Mercian texts. At the end of the Old English period it was Wessex which enjoyed political and cultural supremacy, and, consequently, the majority of later Old English texts are written in the West Saxon dialect. The present survey is actually limited to a mere enumeration of the most important early English writings, without any more detailed analysis. What is really important here is the provenance and the dating of the writings. Without such a survey the quotation of forms from different written monu­ ments could sometimes be awkward. THE NORTHUMBRIAN (NORTHERN) DIALECT

§63. In the history of Northumbria the 7th and the 8th cc. stand out as the period of consolidation and expansion of her power and cultural prog­ ress. Northumbria arose by way of uniting Bernicia (modem Northumberland) and Deira (modem Yorkshire) under the rule o f King Ethelfrith (Aethelfrith, 593-616). The boundaries of th& united kingdom continued to expand under the rule of Edwin (Eadwine, 617-633, b. 585), Oswald (633-642, b.c. 604), and Oswig (641-670); by 640 the whole of Eastern Scotland south of the Firth of Forth was under Northumbrian rule. The culture of Northumbria developed under the direct influence of Celtic culture. King Aldfrith (685-704), who ascended the throne after the death of his brother Egfrith (670-685), was educated in Ireland and spoke fluent Irish. Still earlier, King Oswald, who during the rule of Edwin was persecuted, sought refuge in Scotland and was christened there. After be­ coming king he invited Scottish monks, to Northumbria. The Christianization of Northumbria, as well as o f the whole of England, actually proceeded from two sources, Roman Christianity and Celtic Christianity. Christianization on a nation-wide scale began when in 597 a group of forty Roman missionaries under Augustine arrived in Kent, the nearest English land to the Continent, which at the time was the leading kingdom in the country. The Roman mis­ sionaries, after having converted Kent to Christianity, extended thejr activi­ ties in the early 7th c, as far north as Northumbria, but had to discontinue their efforts after the defeat in 634 of the Northumbrians by the forces of the Mercian king. Thereafter, Christianization in the North was carried on by Celtic missionaries from Iona, an important religious centre off the West coast of Scotland. Thence came the Irish missionary Aidan and his followers. 52

In 635 they settled on the island of Lindisfarne and made it an important centre o f Christianity and learning. Owing to the political supremacy o f Nor­ thumbria over much of England during this period, Celtic-Northumbrian Christianity played an important role even in the conversion o f the southern kingdoms.This influence came to an end, however, with the decision in favour of Rome at the Synod of Whitby in 663 or 664. By 700 England had been almost entirely converted to Christianity and formed a single ecclesiastical province with fourteen bishoprics, all of which acknowledged the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 735 York was made a second archbish­ opric. Acceptance of Christianity in Northumbria, as well as in the other parts of England, meant acceptance of Latin learning and culture. With the buil­ ding of cathedrals and the foundation of monasteries and convents, important cultural centres were established on Northumbrian soil, such as Wearmouth, Jarrow, York, Ripon, Hexham, Whitby, Lindisfarne. The most outstanding representative of Northumbrian culture is Bede, or, as he is usually called, the Venerable Bede (c. 673-735), the author of the world-famous Ecclesias­ tical History o f the English people {Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglomm, 731), which is one of the most important sources o f our knowledge cf AngloSaxon history. The Venerable Bede was born hear Wearmouth in Durham, but lived for most of his life at Jarrow, where he died in 735. Several manus­ cripts of the original Latin text of the History and its translation into the West Saxon dialect of Old English have been preserved. Northumbria lost its political and military influence over southern England before the end of the 8th c. and was superseded by Mercia. Very soon Viking raids began. The Vikings conquered York in 867. The Viking leaders Ingwar and Ubbe made Deira a Danish kingdom. North o f the Tyne the Danes were not so successful and the country remained under the English rule longer. Yet ultimately the whole o f Northumbria fell under the Danish rule, and culture in the North went into decline. There are very few Northern texts belonging to the early Middle English period. In the 14th and 15th cc., how­ ever, the number of writings in the Northern dialect is quite considerable. Proper names in Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica G entis Angtorum

§ 64. There is no Northumbrian translation o f Bede’s History, yet some Latin manuscripts have preserved personal names and place names in their original Northumbrian form, thus providing very important material for the study of the early history of the dialect. The Cambridge University Library MS Kk.5.16, or the so-called Moore MS (M) is the oldest. It is dated 737 [Sweet, 1885: 131; Ström, 1939: XXVI]. Sweet calls the forms of the manuscript pure Northumbrian. The Leningrad Public Library MS Lat.Q.v.I.18 (L) is dated. 746 and is considered to be closely related ter the Moore MS [Anderson,-194 Î: 4-5]. 53

The Naimir MS .Fond de la ville II (N) in Belgiiini is dated the 8th. or 9th c. Hus is evidently a continental transcript of an English manus­ cript which must have been contemporaneous with M [Sweet, 1885: 1 3 1 |. For a short description see Ström, 1939; XXVII-XX¥III. The British Museum MS Cotton Tiberius A. XIV (B) is of 9th c. provenance ['Sweet,' 1885: 131]. Ström [1939: XXX] regards the forms of English names as Northumbrian and very archaic. The transcriber may have been not a Northuro.brian, but the copy was made evidently from a Northumb­ rian text. For a short description see Ström, 1939: XXX-XXXI. Mention should be made of the British Museum MS Cotton Tiberius C.II (C) composed in the late 8th c. This mamiscript comes from the South, possibly Winchester; the 'original transcriptions of names had been radically modified there, but the forms of this manuscript aie often prmted alongside the forms of the above-mentioned m.aiiuscripts. For a short de­ scription see Ström, 1939: XXVIIÏ-XXX. In the late 9th or the early iOth c. the manuscript was supplied with EiigliA glosses, which are usually regarded as Kentish (see Bede's glosses, § 97). The proper names from the manuscripts M, M, B, and C may be found In the footnotes of Plummer's [1896J edition, as well, as in Sweet’s [1885: 132-147]. The latter has p.dnted, liowe¥e,r, but a smal portion of the material. For the text of the Moore MS see Blair, 1959. The proper names of tMs manus­ cript are in Ström, 1939. The proper names of the .Leningrad MS are in Anrierson, 1941. Caedïiîoii's Hymn ■§ 65. Caedmon ’s Hymn is an alliterative poem of nine lines. In Book IV of the Historia Ecclesiastica Bede tells the story of the poet Caedmon. Caed­ mon was an ordinary herdsman and lay brother in the abbey of Whitby in the 7th c, who was miraculously endowed with the gift of composing verse. Caedmon’s Hymn, which Bede quotes as the first manifestation of Caedmon’s divine inspiration, is preserved in its Northumbrian form in three main Latin manuscripts, M, L, and N.^ For the text see: Dobbie, 1937: 13,17; Sweet, 1885: 149; Smith, 1968: 38; Anderson, 1941: 58-59. Bede's Death Song

§ 66. Bede’s Death Song, a fragment of five lines of verse, is preserved in the St Gall MS Codex 254, in Switzerland. The manuscript is of the 9th c.,

^ Smith [1968: 2] in addition mentions the following manuscripts, m. which Caed­ mon’s Hymn has been preserved in its Northumbrian form: D (= Dijon, 547, 12th c.) a n d P (= P a ris, Cod. Lat. 5237, early 15tb c.), but he doesnotm eiition-N . 54

one of the earliest specimens of English vernacular writing. The text was published by Sweet [1885; 149], Dobbie [1937: 51], Smith [1968: 42] ; reproduced in facsimile by Brotanek [1913: 150]. The Leiden Riddle

§ 67. The Leiden Riddle is a poem o f fourteen lines, preserved in a 9th c. manuscript (MS Codex Voss 106), which is now at Leiden, in the Netherlands. This is evidently a continental transcript of a Northumbrian text. Printed by Sweet [1885: 150-151] and Smith [1968: 44], There is also a later West Saxon version of the same riddle from the Exeter Book [see Smith, 1968: 45-47; Sweet, 1885: 151]. For a short description see Smith, 1968; 7-10,17-19, 23-26. The Ruthweli Cross

§ 68, The Ruthwell Cross, a bulky stone monument from RuthweU, a village in Dumfriesshire, bears an early ( 8th c.) Northumbrian inscription in runes of some 20 lines of the Old English religious poem the Dream o f the Rood, which is preserved in a later, West Saxon, version in the socalled Vercelli Book [see Krapp, 1932; Dickins and Ross, 1963]. For the text o f the Ruthwell Cross inscription see Sweet, 1885: 125-126. Liber Vitae §69, Liber Vitae Dunelmensis (MS Cotton Dorn. A VIII) is probably of the first half of the 9th c. [Sweet, 1885: 153]. It consists of a list of benefactors to the Durham Church. Edited in Sweet, 1885: 154-166. Genealogies

§ 70. This text is a collection o f lists o f bishops and genealogies o f kings (MS Cotton Vespasian B VI). The document was compiled c 812, probably at Lichfield. For the text see Sweet, 1885: 167-171. The Durham Ritual

§71. The manuscript of the Durham Ritual, dated c 950, is in the Cathed­ ral Library at Durham (MS Durham Cathedral Library A IV), and consists of a Latin service-bo6k with a Northumbrian gloss. I ^ t e d by: Thompson and lindelof, 1927; Brown, 1970. There is also a glossary o f the Ritual, compiled by Lindelof [1 9 0 1 a|. See also Lindelof, 1890.

The Lindisfarne Gospeîs

§ 72. The Lindisfarne Gospels, otherwise caUed the Durham Book, are preserved in a beautiful manuscript (MS Cotton Nero D IV) in the British Museum. The text is Latin, with a continuous interlinear gloss in the Nor­ thumbrian dialect. According to an inscription by the scribe of the gloss, the text was written by Edfrith (EadfriS), bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721), and glossed in English by ‘Aldred presbyter’. Therefore, the Latin text must have been written on the island of Lindisfarne at the end of the 7th c. or the begin­ ning of the 8th c. The Northumbrian interlinear gloss, written by a priest called Aldred, must have been made in the second half of the 10th c. at Chester-le-Street, near Durham, where the manuscript was taken to save it from the Vikings. The manuscript had remained there for several centuries (hence the name, the Durham Book). Printed by Skeat [1871-1887]. The gloss to Matthew ( 6 ^®'^'*) published also by Chadwick, Judge and Ross [1934]. A detailed description o f the manuscript is to be found in Millar, 1923. The Rushworth Gospels

§ 73, The Rushworth Gospels are so called because they are preserved in a manuscript which was presented c. 1681 to the Bodleian Library in Oxford by John Rushworth, deputy clerk to the House o f Commons during the Long Parliament. The text of the Rushworth Gospels, just Hke that of the Durham Ritual and the Lindisfarne Gospels, is in Latin, with a continuous gloss in Old English. The Latin text was written in the 8th c., and the Old English gloss was written by two scribes, Farmon and Owun, in the 10th c. Farmon wrote the gloss to the whole of Matthew and a small part of Mark (1-2^®) and John (18^‘^), and Owun wrote the rest. The two scribes wrote in different dialects. Farmon’s gloss is regarded as Mercian, and is briefly referred to as Rushworth^, or even R u ^ . One of the two colophons^ ® in the manuscript notes that Farmon was priest “ aet harawuda” , which has been identified with Harewood near Leeds, or with Harewood near Ross-on-Wye. In accordance with this, Rushworth^ is regarded as North Mercian [cf. Ângst? röm, 1937: 28; Huchon, 1923: 184]. Some other authors, however, regard Rushworth^ as East Mercian [cf. Luick, 1964: § 24; Sievers and Bruimer, 1951: § 2, note 4; Flasdieck, 1923: 365]. The gloss written by Owun is briefly referred to as Rushworth^, or R u ^ , and is regarded as (South) Nor­ thumbrian. Rushworth^ and the gloss in the Lindisfarne Gospels may have had a common source; sometimes it is even suggested that the Rushworth^' ^^ A colophon is a note about the details of the manufacture of a book or a manu­ script.

56

gloss was copied from the Lindisfame Gospels, The Rushworth Gospels were printed by Skeat [1871-1887]. For a short description see Ker, 1957< 352. Cursor Mundi

§ 74. The Cursor Mundi is a religious poem, 29555 lines long, treating the spiritual history of man, from the Creation to the Day of Judgement; preserved in several manuscripts of the late 13th c. [see Hulpe, 1886]. It is considered to be especially important for its rhymes, on the basis o f which one can judge about the quality of the Middle English reflexes of Old English vowels [see Strandberg, 1919]. The poem was published by Morris [1874-1893]. THE MERCIAN (MIDLAND) DIALECT

§ 75. The history of Mercia resembles in many respects the history of Northumbria. At the time when Bemicia and Deira were united into a common state, Penda (b. c 577) ascended the throne of Mercia, ruling from c 632 til 655 and unifying South and North Mercia. In 633 he joined with Cadwaila (Ceadwalla), king of North Wales, and defeated the Northumbrians at Hat­ field. The greatest Mercian king was Offa (757-796); his power extended to Essex, East Anglia and London. The 8th century is sometimes called “the palmy days” of Mercia. In 825 Mercia was defeated by Wessex at the battle of Allington and subjected to it. In 877 Mercia fell under Danish rule. One of the first cultural and political centres of Mercia was Lichfield. The See of Lichfield was its first bishopric; there lived and was buried the first bishop of Mercia, Chad (669-672). In 679, fifteen years after the adoption of Christianity, the See o f Worcester was founded, and Worcester turned very soon into the most important political and cultural centre o f Mercia. For centuries Worcester played a leading part in the history of early English lite­ rature, successfully withstanding the pressure of the Norman-French language and culture. A written norm based on the local spoken dialect must have developed here. As evidenced by the data of writings, Mercia was not a homogeneous dialectal area [cf. Flasdieck, 1924; 381] : there are distinguished West Mer­ cian and East Mercian dialects. These two dialectal areas, moreover, are rep­ resented by written monuments very disproportionately. Though the localiza­ tion of Old and Middle English writings always remains problematic, the majority of early Mercian (Midland) writings are clearly of West Mercian provenance; East Mercian (Midland) is actually represented only by Middle English writings. This may be accounted for by political and cultural circums­ tances: historically Mercia was confined to the valley of the mid and lower Trent and its tributaries, thus consisting of the greater part of Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and North Yorkshire. And only in the 7th and 57

8th cc. did Mercia expand its territory into Cheshire, Herefordshire, Shrop­ shire, south-west Warwickshire, Gloucestershire east of the Severn, and Wor­ cestershire. Mercia conquered the formerly West &ixon territory in Berkshire, detached London and Middlesex from Essex, made the kingdom of Lindsey into a Mercian dependency (finally annexing it), and gained authority over East Anglia, Essex and Surrey. Thus towards the 9th c. Mercia came to include a vast territory from the mouth of the River Humber to the Thames, and from Wales to East Anglia. But even then West Mercia remained the political and cultural centre of the kingdom. In Middle English parallel linguistic changes in the West Midland and South-western dialects are evident. This again may be accounted for b y social factors: when Mercia became subject to Wessex, Wejt Midland' was m ore clo sely related to West Saxon i: to Easl The earliest Mercian glossaries § 76. The four glossaries, known as Corpus,. Epinal, Erfurt and Leiden, consist of Latin words and phrases, arranged alphabetically and explained usually b y means o f Latin definitions and synonyms, but sometimes by means of Old English equivalents. The glossaries have been named according to the present location of the manuscripts: Corpus Christi College in Cambridge, Épinal in the department of Vosges in France, Erfurt in the GDR, and Leiden in the Netherlands. The glossaries have stored up only an insignificant part of the Old English vocabulary, but it is the most extensive that we have from the earliest historical period of English and its importance for diachronic studies is very great. All the four glossaries are transcripts of earlier manus­ cripts. The relationships of the fust three glossaries {Corpus, Épinal, and Erfurt) to the earlier hypothetical manuscripts. Archetype I (c 700 or earlier) and Archetype II (early 8th c.), are presented by Kulm [1970: 18] in the form of the followiiig table: Arch. I (c 700 or earlier) Arch. II (early 8th I cent.) , I Epinal

Erfurt

Corpus

The Epinal Glossary (Bibliothèque Municipale, Épinal, MS 72) is dated in the 8th c. Though it is considered to be a transcript of Archetype II, by its archaic spellings it stands close to Archetype I. There are over 3000 entries, but only 951 English entries. As may be judged by the Erfurt Glossa­ ry, originally there must have been some 4000 entries, yet part of the manus58

cript lias been löst: a large part of the ö-section, a little o f u—v, all o f d, e, x, y, and z; there may have been lost some 149 English entries. For a sliort des­ cription of the Épinal Glossary see Ker, 1957:151*152, The Corpus Glossary (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 144) is also of the 8th c. It contains about 2176 English entries, half of which are not paralleled in the other glossaries and are clear iimoYations, evidently introduced at the time when Corpus v/as compiled. On the whole, there are many innovations in the Corpus Glossary, especially in the spellings which are frequently modernized. For a sliort description of Corpus see Ker, 1957: , 49-50. The Erfurt Glossary (Amploiiian Library, Erfurt, MS 42) is an early. 9th c. German copy of an English exemplar, presumably Archetype ■ II. The copy bears the stamp of the scribe’s Old High German: Old High German words are at times substituted for the Old English; hybrid forms which are basically Old English but contain one or more Old High German, graphs are used, hi those cases, however, when the Old English gloss-did not suggest any Old High German equivalent, the scribe copied the archaic forms o f the exemplar very exactly. There are approximately 1186 English entries but about 186 o f them are in supplementary sections not paralleled in either Epinaî or Corpus. For a short description of Erfurt see Ker, 1957: 476-477. The Leiden Glossary (Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden, MS Vossianus Lat 4‘’69) is in a manuscript of the late 8th c. This is a transcript of an English exemplar, of a presumably earher date than Archetype I [Sweet, 1885: 12, 33; Kuhn, 1938: 11]. About 255 o f the entries are in Old English or in mixed forms of Old English and Old High German. For a detailed analysis see Hessels, ' 1906: IX-XLII; a short description is to be found in Ker, 1957: 478-479. By way of comparing the forms of the» glossaries, both archetype forms and innovations may be established. Thus, any form in which Corpus, Épinal and Erfurt agree, or are in substantial agreement, may be assumed to go back to Archetype I. A form in which only Épinal and Erfurt agree may be an inno­ vation in Archetype II, but one in which Corpus agrees with either o f the other two is also likely to have descended from Archetype I [Kuhn, 1970: 17-18]. There are about 900 Old English words representing Archetype I. The forms of the earliest Mercian glossaries are usually quoted from Sweet, 1885: 35-117, though there are also available more recent editions: Lindsay, 1921a, idem 1921b. The Vespasian Psalter and Hypins

§ 77. The British Museum manuscript Cotton Vespasian A I contains a Latin text of 150 psabus and 13 hymns (actually hymns and canticles), dated in the 8th c., to which an interlinear continuous gloss of the first half o f the 9th c. is added. The gloss is evidently a copy, though some linguists consider it to be original [cf. Kuhn, 1959: 176; idem, 1965: V I]. In any 59

case, the lan g u ie o f the gloss is dialectaliy homogeneous, and its orthography is exceptionally consistent. Therefore some linguists regard the language of the Vespasian Psalter and Hymns as the literary standard of Mercia [cf. Kuhn, 1938; 8; idem, 1965: VI; B^gholm, 1938: 28]. There are several editions of a high scientific standard: the earlier edition by Sweet [1885: 188-420] and the contemporary editions by Kuhn [1965 (referred to in this book)] and Wright [1967] ; see also Mertens-Fonck [1960]. Charters

§ 78, The word “charter” denotes private documents of the most varied kind: royal grants, private agreements, wills, letters of enfranchisement, etc. [for general characteristics of charters see Chadwick, 1941: 13; Campbell, 1962: §§ 8-9; Campbell, 1938]. The earliest charters are written in Latin, therefore, only English personal names and place names in them are of linguistic interest. The later charters are predominantly English. Charters became con­ veniently available to linguistic studies with Sweet’s [1885: 426-460] edition. Sweet made a strict selection o f charters relevant for linguistic studies, dated with the greatest possible accuracy'the manuscripts the charters are preserved in, and determined their dialectal provenance. Sweet selected 59 such charters. Alongside West Saxon charters (Ch. 1-3, 20), Kentish charters (Ch. 4-8, 33-44), Mercian charters (Ch. 9-16, 46-48) and one charter of the Surrey dialect (Ch. 45), a number of charters are marked by Sweet as Mercian-Kentish (Ch. 17-19, 49-59) or West Saxon-Kentish (Ch. 21-32). We shall take into account only “pure” charters. The strictly Mercian charters are marked and dated by Sweet [1885: 429432, 453-454] as follows; Ch. 9: (A.D.) 736. Æ.9elbald. Cott. Aug, II. 3. Worcester arch.; Ch. 10: 759. Eanberht. Add. Ch, 19,789. Worcester arch.; Ch. 11: 767. Offa^. Cott. Aug, II. 26. Cant, arch,; Ch. 12: 799-802. Pilheard’s Endorsement. Cott. Aug. II, 27, Cant, arch.; Ch. 13: 770. Uhtred. Worcester arch.; Ch. 14: 779. Offa^. Cott. Aug. II. 4; Ch. 15: 791-796. Offa^. Worcester arch,; Ch. 16: 793-796. Offa®. Add. Ch. 19,-790. Worcester arch.; Ch. 46; 803. Ädelheard^, Cott. Aug. II. 61. Cant, arch.; Ch. 47: 836. Wiglaf^. Cott. Aug. II. 19; Ch. 48: 840. Berhtwulf. Cant. arch. c. 1280. It must be noted that only Ch, 48 and the greater part of Ch. 47 are in English; the rest are in Latin, Rushworth^ § 79. A Mercian record of the 10th c, whose dialect may be further defined as East Mercian. For a more detailed description see § 73.

60

Lorica Glosses and Lorica Prayer

§ 8Ö. Lorica Glosses are contained in a Cambridge manuscript (University Library, MS LI. I. 10), dated partly in the 9th c. and partly in the 10th c.,^ ^ and coming possibly from Lichfield [Page, 1962: 487]. These are interlinear glosses to the prayer entitled Harte luricam loding cantauit ter; hence the title Lorica. Published by Sweet [1885; 172-174] andKuypers [1902: 85]. Royal Glosses

§ 81. The brief Royal Glosses have survived in a British Museum manus­ cript (Royal 2 A 20), which is usually dated at the end of the 9th c. or the beginning o f the 10th c. and defined as of West Mercian provenance, possibly from Worcester [Page, 1962: 487]. Published by Zupitza [1889]. The Life of St Chad

§ 82. The Life o f S t Chad is preserved in a copy of ân Old English original, a fragment o f Bede’s History. It comes from Worcester and is assigned to the 12th c. The manuscript is in the Bodleian Library in Oxford (MS Hatton 116). First published by Napier [1888] ; a contemporary edition with a glossary and linguistic comments by Vleeskruyer [1953]. The Katherine Group, Ancrene Riwie, and Ancrene Wisse

§ 83, This group o f texts, very close in content and language, represents the West Midland dialect of the 13th c. The Katherine Group consists o f three lives o f saints (St Katherine, St Juliana, and St Margaret) and two homilies and is preserved in three manusc­ ripts of the early 13th c.: (1) the Oxford MS Bodley 34 (B); (2) the British Museum MSS Royal 17A XXVII (R); (3) Cotton Titus D XVIII (T). All the texts of the Katherine Group are to be found in B. The Life o f S t Katherine and the homily Sawles Warde are to be found also in the other two manusc­ ripts. The Life o f St Juliana and the Life o f St Margaret are also found in R; the homily Hali Meidhad is also found in T. The Life o f St Katherine is available only in Einenkel’s [ 1884] edition, which is not, however, quite exact and consistent; this edition is based on R, though the variants from B and T are also cited. This edition is well supplemented by Logan’s [1973] investigation. The forms o f the Life o f S t Katherine are cited by the lines of Einenkel’s edition, The Life o f S t Juliana Was published in d ’Ardenne’s 11 In the 10th c, glosses were written. to the Latin words, which were left without translation by the 9th c. gloss writer.

61

[1936] edition. Ih e Life-'Of St ßdargaret, was published in M ad 2iid printing 1958] edition. § 84. Ancrene Riwle has been preserfed in several manuscripts, including T and Cotton Nero A XIV. It is a raaiiijil, specially composed for the guidance of three sisters 6f noble birth who had become recluses. For this class of religious seclusion there was.no codified rule ( “Riwle”), and such religious people differed further from monks and num in being for the most part committed to a solitary life, and from herniiti? in being literally “enclosed”, since they were sefe,moriiaiy immurtjd in their anchorages and were not free to leave them. The Ancrm e Riwle is available in the contemporary editions b}' Mack [1963], Wilsoa [1954], and Baugh [1956]. A detailed phonological is’.-estfgatiori o f the Ancrene Riwie is to be found in Zettersten |1 965]. The Ancrene Wisse is a variant of the Ancrene Riwle, and is preserved in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 402. Published by Shepherd [1959] (parts six and seven), and Tolkien [1962]. Layamon's Brut § 85. Layamon’s Historia Brutonum, or Brut, is a verse pseudohistory of Britain, 32 241 lines long. All we know o f -Layamon is contained in the earlier version of Ms Mstory. He was a priest at King’s Areley in Worcestershire, on the northern border of the county, who applied himself to books and decided to write a history of the English people; to do tMs he acquired “the English book that St Bede made” , a Latin book by “St Albin and the fair Austin” , and a book by “a French clerk” , called Wace. To him we owe the first telling o f the Arthurian story, as well as the Lear story, in English. The two extant British Museum manuscripts, Cotton Caligula A IX and Otho C XIII, belong to the 13th c. The more important of the two. Cotton, is dated at the first quarter of the 13th c. and is usually assigned to the West Midland dialect, though sometimes it is assigned to the Southwestern dialect [Sundby, 1963; 3 ]. Published by Brook and Leslie [1963]. Orrmylum § 86. The Orrmulum is one o f the earliest texts of the East Midland dialect, preserved in an autograph manuscript (20 000 lines long) of the late 12th c. (MS Junius 1 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford). It is a collection of metrical sermons based on biblical subject-matter, composed and writ­ ten by a priest named Orm, Orm is a Scandinavian name found in the old Danelaw area as far west as Staffordshire. The name of the book is probably modelled on Speculum (“Mirror”), a form o f title that came into vogue in the 12th c. Orm’s writing is special in that he uses double consonant letters, normally following short vowels. Published by Holt [1878].

THE WESTSAXON (SOUTHWESTERN) DIALECT

§ 87. Wessex, with its capital in Winchester, became the dominant king­ dom in the 9th c. King Egbert (Ecgbryht, 802-839, b. c 7 7 5 ) , exiled by Offa, took refuge with Charles the Great. In 825, howeYer, he defeated the Mercians at AUington, Wessex annexed Mercia and received the submission o f Northumbria; its influence extended to East Anglia, and King Egbert was, by general admission, a sovereign of Kent, Sussex, Surrey, and Essex. Thus Egbert may be called the first king of the whole of England. Vikings began their raids on Wessex in 871. Special mention should be made also o f such well-known historical events as King Alfred’s (871-899, b. 849) successful struggle against the Danes, which resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Wedmore (878), the unification of England with Denmark into a common state (1016-1042), and the Norman Conquest (1066). The West Saxon dialect is poorly attested by written texts until the literary activities of Alfred, Later the dialect is richly recorded. On the basis of the writings o f Alfredian times, especially the Cura Pastoralis, the Lauder­ dale manuscript of Orosius and the first part of the Parker Chronicle (till 891), Henry Sweet has created a special, “normalized” . Early West Saxon language, to which Old English handbooks and dictionaries used to be orien­ tated. Late West Saxon is the name for the language as it is reflected first of all in Aelfric’s (c. 1000) works. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle § 88. Tlie Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a history o f the country in the form of annals till the Norman Conquest; in one o f the manuscripts the history is continued tip till annal 1154. The Chronicle is o f paramount importance for the study of the history of England, as well as for linguistic studies, espe­ cially the development of English prose writing. It has been preserved in seven Old English manuscripts, which are usually marked with the capitals A, B, C, D, E, F, G [see Sprokei, 1965: XVII]. A and E are the most important. The edition o f the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle by Earle and Plummer [ 1892-1899] is considered to be classical; the editors investigate the extant manuscripts and determine how the chronicles were initiated and kept. A, otherwise called the Parker Chronicle, is found in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 173. It is the oldest of all the manuscripts o f the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The annals in this manuscript are continued down to 1 0 7 0 ; the part up to 891, written in the same hand c 900, is the most important. Sprokei [1965: XIX] suggests that this part was compiled somev/here in the Southwest, close to the Mercian border. The manuscript is not the original, but probably a transcript of a transcript. For a short description 'see Ker, 1957: 57-59. The most extensive investigation of the Parker Chronicle is the tv/o-volume work by Sprokei [1965; 1973], based on the facsimile edition by Flower and Smith [1941]. ■ 63

B is in the British Museum, MS Cotton Tiberius A VI. This manuscript is in a 10th c. hand and ends in 977. Sproke! [1965: XXII] conjunctures that it was written at Winchester. C is in the British Museum, MS Cotton Tiberius B I. It is in 11th c. hands and was kept up tül 1066. The manuscript must have been written at Winchester. B is in the British Museum, MS Cotton Tiberius B VI. It is in 11th and early 12th cc. hands and is continued down to 1079. D was probably written at Winchester. E is in Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Lauderdale 636, It was written in one hand down to 1121, and then kept up till 1154 at Peterborough. There­ fore manuscript E is called the Peterborough Chronicle though the work itself bears no such title. The entry from 1132 to the end was apparently made all at one time. From the annal 1080 onwards the Peterborough Chronicle is the sole remaining record in English. Contemporary editions by Clark [1958] and Whitelock [1954]. F is in the British Museum, MS Cotton Domitian A VIII, and presents a bilingual epitome (summary) of E, in Old English and Latin, made at Canter­ bury (c 1100 ). G is in the British Museum, MS Cotton Otho B VI; it is a copy of A, before A was transferred to Canterbury. Of this manuscript only three leaves survived the fire of the Cottonian Library of 1731, Fortunately, a 16th c. copy by Laurence Nowell, dean of Lichfield, is now in the possession of the British Museum. Cura Pastoraiis

§ 89. The Cura Pastoraiis is a translation of the Regula Pastoraiis by Pope Gregory I (590-604), with King Alfred’s introduction. It has been preserved in six manuscripts, the most important o f which are the following: H: Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Hatton 20, A.D. 890-897 ; T: Trinity College, Cambridge, MS R .5.22,10th- 1 1 th cc.; D: Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 12, the second half o f the 10th c.; U: University Library, Cambridge, MS I i. 2.4, the third quarter o f the 11th c., written almost certainly in Exeter. The Old English text of the Cura Pastoraiis from H and British Museum manuscripts Cotton Tiberius B XI (actually its seventeenth-century copy, . MS Junius 53, in the Bodleian Library, Oxford) and Cotton Otho B II, together with a Modern English translation, was published by Sweet [1871-1872]. The forms of the Cura Pastoraiis are cited by indicating pages and lines from this edition. For a short description see Ker, 1957: 27-28, 4142, 132-133, 384-386. 64

Orosilis

§ 90. The world history of the Spanish nionk Paulus Orosius Historiamm adversus paganos tibri septem (History against the Pagans in Seven Books), written in the second decade of the 5ih c., was freely translated into English under the auspices of King Alfred. A description of the Northeast of Europe was interpolated in the English translation by King Alfred from two original oral accounts, one describing the travels of OMhere to Scandinavia and the other describing the travels of Wulfstan to the mouth of the Vistula, the re­ gion inhabited at the time by Balts {Este, identical with Aestiomm gentes in Tacitus, and Aesîî in Jordanus). The translation has been preserved io two manuscripts: the Lauderdale MS (Helmingham Hall, Suffolk), of the late 9th c,, and the Cotton Tiberius B I MS in the British Miiseum, of the mideleventh century; the latter manuscript is sometimes considered to be a transc­ ript of the Lauderdale manuscript. The Old English text from the main, Lauderdale, manuscript, with additions from the Cottoniaii manuscript, together with the Latin text, was pubiished by Sweet [1883]. The forms are cited by indicating the pages and lines of this edition. Newly pub­ lished by Bately^ [1980]. For a short description see Angstrom, 1937: 33-35. Boethius § 91. The translation of the pliflosophical work De Consolatione Philosophiae (The Consolation o f Philosophy) by Boethius (c. 480-524) has been preserved in manuscripts which are not of much linguistic value. The only manuscript which, though damaged, may be found useful is Cotton Otho A VI in the British Museum, of the mid-tenth century. It contains a prose translation of the prose parts o f Boethius, and a verse translation of the verses. In the fire of 1731 the manuscript was badly damaged. Ten leaves were lost altogether, some leaves were badly damaged, and on almost all the other leaves words were lost. The still legible portions were printed by Sedgefield [1899: 11-149, 156-204] ; the verse was printed by Krapp [1932: 158-203]. When the manuscript was still complete, the Dutchman Franciscus Junius made a copy o f it (MS Junius 12 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford). For a short description of Boethius see Ker, 1957: 217-218, 358-359,411-412. The Biickting Homilies

§ 92. The manuscript of the Bückling Homilies is of the late 10th or early 1 1 th c. and contains eighteen homilies for Sundays and Saints’ days, arranged mainly in the order o f the Church year. Until 1932 the manuscript was part of the library at Bückling Hall, Norfolk, the private home of Lord Lothian. Then it was sold to America and now is in the Scheide Library in Princeton, New Jersey. First pubÜshed by Morris [1874-1880] ; the forms 65

are cited by indicating pages and lines of this edition. For a short description see Ker, 1957: 451455. Psiyclironison § SB. Polychronicon is a Mstoiy covering the i^eriod from the biblical Creation to the middle o f the 14th c. The Mstor}'' was written in Latin by Râîwlpli lügdeîL. a monk of St Werbiirgh's at Chester^ who died m 1364. it was translated into English by Jolm of Trevisa, a Cornish monk who died in Î4Q2. Writing m c 1327. Rannlpii Higdea drew attention to a division' of Bngiigh into three varieties^ Northern, Midland, and Southern. Tlie Soiithwestern traits of the work are the most marked in the mamiscript of 1387, the earliest o f all the extant manuscripts. THE KEWnSH fSOyTHEASTERP'jl DIALECT

§ 94. The period o f the political supremacy o f Kent falls into the 6th'7th cc. when the Kentish kingdom dominated the other kingdoms soutli the Slver Humber, especially Essex and East Anglia. Towards 765 Kent had falen luider Mercia's power, and in 825, after tlie battle at Affington (EL laEdiiii) Kent 'became part o f the kingdom of Wessex. The rise of Kent as an important cultural centre of England was connected with tlie arrival of Christianity. The, conversion of Kent (and England at the same time) to Christianity began during the reign of Ethelbert (AsthelberM, c.. 560-6Î 6). hi 597 Roman missionaries under Augustine landed in Kent, and King Ethelbeit v/as baptized. Kent was chilstiaoizecj in just seven years. The first bishop­ ric was established at Canierbiiry, which very soon turned into ana,rchbisiiopric, ' and in 604 the second bishopric, the See of Rochester, was founded. After contesting with. Celtic Christianity, Roman Christianity from Kent would v/in over Northumbria in 663. By 700 England may be said to have been diristlanised, and thus Kent may be caled the cradle and the stronghold of Christisaity in England, As the position o f the Church in Kent was very strong from the begimring, it is not by chance that the Kentisli literature that has reached us is mostly o f a moralizing and religious character.^ Some iiiiguists speak of a southeastern written koine [c l Caiipbell, 1962: §211. The Kentish written records are not too numerous aad extensive, yet they gwe rather consisteat evidence coacemiiig tlie dialect. Charters § 95. Charters are the oldest written records of the Kentisli dialect. There are five Keatisii charters o f the 8th c., wMoli are marked mid dated by Sweet [1885: 427-429] as fofiows: 65

Cà. 4; 679, HioSlisre. Cott. Ang, Î I 2. Cast, arcli. ; Cil. 5: 700-715. Wiitred. Cott. Âug. I I 88; Stowe î ;

Cil. 6: 732. Â2deîberhtC€ott, Âiig, ÎI 9L Caiit. arch.; 1° /fcoeiberîit^. Cott.,-4üg. II l û î . Caflt. ai'cii,; Cil. 8: 770, Ëaîxlmiîf, Stowe 3' . i !i 8 9th c. Kentish charters are as follows [Swest; Î885: 441-4-51J » Gi. 33 803. Æ-delliearô. Cant, arch, c.1 ; Ch. 34 805. Ciiÿred. StO¥/e 7: Cott. Aug. H îOO; Ch. 35 Si 1. Wülfîsd^. Cott. Aiig. ÎI 47; Gant, arcli. Ch„ 36 «24. Wülfred^, Cott. Aug. I! 72; Ch. 37 S05-83L Oswiilf. Cott, Aeg, ïl 79. Caat. srch.; Ch. 38 531, Eadwaid. Cott. Aug. H 19. Cast, arch.; Cil. 39 831, Eaîhbtirg. Cott. A.ug. îï 52, Cant, arch.; Chi.4ö 532. Lufu. Cott. Âug. ïï 92. Cant, arch.; '. Ch. 41 835. Abba.Cott. Aug, Il 64. Cant, arch.;, Ciî. 42 837. Badanod. Cott. Aug. I I 42. Cant, arch.; Ch. 43 859. Plegred. Cott. Aiug. I I 16; Ch. 44 888. Ceoiwiilf A Cott. Âug. If 17. Charters 4-8, 33, 35, 36, 43 are L ^in texts, and the rest are English. Tli'ö Kentish Hymn, Psalm L, airf fifessee to tlie

of Solomon

§ 96. Tile British Museum MS Cotton Vpspasiaii D VÎ, aM ia the naiî.1 , contains three v/ritiogs of especial anportance'; far the studies • oî If® Kentish dialect. The Kentish Hymn and Psalrm L are verse paraphrases of s West'Sa?iO!i exemplum. Dietricli fl854: IV-V] dated the manuscript hi Km early 9th c. Zupitza at first accepted Dietrich’s dating [see Eupitss, l8 7 7 b r 1 |, but later dated the manuscript only at the end o f the lOth [see Zupitza, 1878: 226]. The latter date now seems to be more prohabis. Ail the three writings bear traces of West Saxon influence, which is, however, .less marked in the Glosses. .For editions see: Zupitza, 1877b: Î-59, Main, 1878; 223-226 (Gfosses); Kkge, 1897: 57-66.(Glosses), 115-119 {Hymn Fsalm); Dobbie, 1942: 87-94 {Hymn and Psalm, the forms of which are citea in the present karidbook from this edition). Bodefs Glosses § 97. Such is the name of the glosses o f the late 9th or the early 10th cc. m Md riottoii liberius G II in the British Museum. Theii* dialectal provenance ' -12

ÂS ,indica

f

S

I

t

ü

1 6

i

f ii

X

9

10

f

N

1

w

' k

n

T l

12

i i

/,

13

14

4

. f t

k

j

ec

p

CO

'0

a \ X il

4

CC

d

c

f c

. o

r 4

J

The foiîOwiri,g mrioriioaic oarfiei of tlo /'DgiO“b?ûiCiî rio^s arç diioDoi: 6.

i, fcch CEttlcd ; C C ’ Cisoo ; 'C p a p Tliorad sb 5e -godh 5. 'Pd Tiding''; ce.0 '"tordr;, 7, gpf':. ge(o}fn ‘'gCih 8, wppïr.’ >oyh- cr id a Cepep 9. IG, aêd deed''; i l . 15 Icsg ;C.. $e(ßp 'yazf; 13„ Ti CIp :C7 fi;.v^^iiceh

" ‘'■"’-'S 3^(51 - i r f c4

rc i-J

gir i 7.4-c '5'1 ' ‘Î ■' T

"o -r

k

i ’ 3 e f O

a a.f.- 4 '

'Z‘

.(i:s ïixe.ï sis isc 7Xfs. 70

■

■

'

'4'- 4 7 0. .rc . " -> -Sfv.o’ seis ' '> * -i.- ~ c„

14. peorè ^^chesB-msn {?)’; 15. eoîhx (= eoices"!} ^elk’s'"; 16, ®the suri’; 17. ti, tiw- ‘'tlie god Tiw’; 18. èec-rc'‘bircli-tree’; 19. e(Q)h Xw-ar) horse’; 20. mann ‘man’; 21. kgu ‘water’; 22. ing Tlie god lag’; 23. dæg ‘day’; 24. oëM , ë9ei ‘country, native laad’; 25. âc ‘oak’; 26. msc ‘ash-tree’; 2 7 . J)> ‘bow (?); 28, êm‘ ‘eaîtîi’; 29. Tor ‘a liver-fisli’; 31.. ca t; 32. stan ‘stone’; 33. gar ‘spear’, Ruaes consist o f veitical and diagonal strokes, and they were not veiy siîimbîe for coatiniioiis writing. They ?/ere iisiiaHy scratched upon' or coloured into stone, or hard r;'/ood, or metal. Hie precise origin o f the mnic alphabet is not knov/n, but it shows a Miiship with tlie Latin and the Greek alphabets. Runes may have been developed in Denmark, as the earliest ran k iascriptions date from Dernnark (c 300 A.D.). Thereafter rimes apparently spread south .to the Goths, who occupied the territory of present-day Hungary, and west to northwestern Europe. The original meanijig o f “mne” (OE m n) is ‘secret, mystaiy, secret disciissiorf. Writing in rones indeed was looked upon as a magic arl;. Rimes were used as magic symbols on articles o f handiwork, espeeiaËy v/eapons, as orna­ ments, and also for s%nat«res, Mscriptioas, and messages, Afl^r tiie coiwsrsion of England to Cliristianit;/ rimes v/ere also used for religious inscriptions (cf, the inscription on the Ruthw-dl Cross}. Eimes were in use in Bagîand for about five seatiiries. § Î94. After the ■assumption o f Cliiistiaiilty the Anglo-Saxons came to use Latin letters, and writfog in L atii letters finaHy superseded mnic writing. English scribes took over the Irish form o f the Latin alphabet and developed a characteristic variety o f it wMch is known as lEsaîar Script. Tlis forms of the Old Eagîish Insular Script may fee illustrated as follows:

hcd

a d. a

æ

0 0

t)

c

p ‘p

d

V r

êTj

h

e

T s

t

I

i

f

g ■

h

'P I

Ö ”

11..

i

1

m

.m

'r u

'The letters of lasuîar Script ■were round, but they were not oorm linked together, insular Script had especiaJiy characteristic forms for and . in'm odern prlatings of OM Engîisli texts the letters of the modern Roman type are used, tîioagîi the letter < :|> is often preserved, 71

The Old English Insular Script was also peculiar in that it used the runic symbols f , called wynn, and p , called thorn. In the later 8th c. a third new symbol was added to the Old English Insular Script by crossing the upper part of the insular < d > so as to form 0 > , called eth [ed] (OE ed). The letter wynn replaced the Latin letter < u > used originally for the Old English sound [w] ; in modern printings of Old English texts the letter < w > is used instead. The letters thorn and eth were used together with the digraph < th > , later ousting it, to represent the sounds [0 3] . Of the vowel letters a special mention may be made of the ligature (ae), called ash (OE sesc): As a variant o f < æ > there was used in Old English manuscripts the symbolcf, that is a ligature with the loop which represents the reduced insular < a > . Henry Sweet modified this symbol to < |> .O n the basis of the qualifications stated above, the most common letters of Old English may be presented as follows: a,-æ, e, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, 1, m, n, o, p, r, s, t,

3, u, w, x, y.

As we shall see later on, combinations of two letters (digraphs) and even three letters are widely made use of to represent separate sounds. Sometimes, especially in the earliest writings, double letters are found: < aa> , , < ii^ , etc. Only the letters < y > , were not doubled. In the later manusc­ ripts in analogical cases vowel letters with a diacritic are found: â ‘always’, mm ‘my’, etc.§ § 105. Most Old English manuscripts have free punctuation. The point and the comma are both used, and some manuscripts have both. The ends of paragraphs are marked by various more elaborate stops. In the late lOth and 1 1 th c. there also developed a different system of punctuation in which the semi-colon < ;> is the strongest stop, and the point the weakest, while the inverted semi-colon < î > is usually stronger than the point, but also can be equal to it. The question mark has the form . Word-division is not consistent in Old English manuscripts, as proclitics (e.g. determinatives and prepositions) are frequently drawn nearer and even joined to the following word, whereas the components of compounds, on the other hand, are frequent­ ly spelled separately (e.g. Hrop gar). Old English poetry is written out conti­ nuously, Just like prose, but the ends of the half-lines are indicated by some scribes by means of stops. OLD ENGLISH VOWEL SOUNDS AND GRAPHS

§ 106. Basing our assumptions on the possible readings of Latin letters in contemporary Latin texts, on cognates of Old English forms and on the prehistory as well as later development o f these forms, we can reconstruct what is considered to be the likely pronunciation of Old English vowels and consonants. 72

The Old English vowels, together v/ith their regular spellings and illustra­ tive words, may be presented as follows. [a]

< a> , a low back no mounded vowel, as in faran ‘go’, habban ‘have’. [e] < e> , a mid front nonrounded vowel, as in bedd ‘bed’, helpan ‘help’. [i] < i> , a high front nonrounded vowel, as in him ‘him’, mist ‘mist’. [oj < o > , a mid back rounded vowel, as in hors ‘horse’, offrian ‘offer’., [uj < u > , a high back rounded vowel, as in sunu ‘son’, full ‘full’. |æ] ae § > , a low front noriioEnded vowel, as in bær, baer, ber ‘hare’ and w^ter, waeter, wçter ‘water’, |ü ] < y > , a high front rounded vowel, as in hyll 'h M \fy lIm ‘fill’. m < o e> , a mid front rounded vowel, as in doehter, dat. sg. of dohtor ‘daughter’, oexen ‘oxen’. [æ a] < ea> , a diphthong in which gliding nomiaUy began with a low front nonrounded vowel and continued in the direction o f a low back nonrounded vowel, as in earm ‘poor’, eald ‘old’. [eoj ^ or [öo] < eo > , a diphthong in which gliding normally began with a mid front rounded or nonrounded vowel and continued in the direction of a mid back rounded vowel, as in heorte ‘heart’, feorr&éj. ‘far’. [io] < io > , a diphthong in which gliding normally began with a high front nonrounded vowel and continued in the direction of a mid or high back rounded vowel, as in Morde ‘shepherd’, liornian ‘learn’. [ie] or [io] < ie> , a diphthong in which gliding normally began with a high front nonrounded vowel and continued in the direction o f a mid rounded or nonrounded vowel, as in WS hierde ‘shep­ herd’ and ierre ‘angry’; in historic times this diphthong is exclu­ sively a West Saxon peculiarity. The monophthongs and diphthongs given above are usually called short vowels. In addition to the short vowels there was also approximately the spue number of long vowels. With the exception of quantity all the other phonetic features of short and long vowels may be considered identical. Because of this phonetic similarity long and short vowels were normally spelt identically, though sometimes length was indicated by doubling letters or writing the diacritic 5 as in bmd ‘broad’, ham liomeb j as in m M ‘reiz/ard’, her ‘here’. < i> , as Iß r 4 f ‘woman’, rJdan ‘ride’. , as ill flod ‘streaab god ‘good’, < ü > , as in kMs ‘honse’, mus ‘moused < æ I I |> „ as in sSi ‘sea’, sUwan ‘sleep’. < y > 5 as In lyîeî ‘little’, mys ‘mice’. < 5 e> , as in goes ‘gesseb m o e t ‘sweet’. 5 as ia sù’ëam. ^{lowmg\ këah liiglid < eo > , as in diop-‘deep’, sëon ‘seed , as Ie Uoht adj. ‘I gM d hePMoh ‘betwesnd or pd:] < îo > , as in WS M em «‘hear’, ‘friendd OLD ENGLISH CONSONANT SOUNDS AND GRAPHS

§ 107. In Old EngEsli speMiiig practices tlie representatioa of consonaiits IS more complicated than that o f vowels: widely differing symbols may be Hsad for the same sound and, what is even more complicated, tlie same symbol laay re-present quite different sounds. Ia some cases, fiowevei, tlie relation­ ships betwsse consonant sounds and graphs are quite straightforward. Just like vowels, the Old English consonants were both short and long. Long conso­ nants (geminates) w^ere normally represented by double letters. 1'he Old English short and long consonants may be reconstructed and ifiustiated as fblows: ‘< b> , a voiced bilabial stop, as in heran ‘bear’, bmd ‘broad’, camb ‘co'iiibd [b:| ■, as in kabhan liave’ and, possibly, webb hveb’ (see § 114). m < d > , a voiced deatai apical stop, as in (m l ‘part’, medu baead’, read ‘red’. [d:] < d d >5 as ia biddm ‘entreat’, bedd ‘bed’. hi < P > , a voiceless bflabM stop, as In p y tt ‘pit’, sSpan ‘sleep’, deop bleep’. [P»] as hi cuppe ‘cup’, stoppa ‘bucket’, copp ‘cup, vessel’. |t] < t> , a '-/oicetess dental apical stop, as-in twa ‘tw'o’, etan ‘éaf, hü ‘if. [t:] < tt> , as in sUtan ‘sif, setîan k e f ‘f a f . M , < m > , a nasal, feiabial, soiiora.at, as ia mann ‘man’, mmen ‘take’, m m ‘took’. [m :| , as in simmimn ‘swirnh swamm ‘swam’, [a] < a > , a nasal alveolar apical soiioraat, as in rm ‘now’, bindan ‘bijid'V , a.s in w m m n ‘to labour, straggle’, ongimtan ‘begin’, gewinn labour’, syrm k iif . 74

'i:g3

[w| fï] p:j lïj

< ii> . a Easa! dorssl sosoaaat, as is singm dèag" aad drincæz 'drialc'; fb«Eö exdiiai^efy befbrs /g !c/ and h&Bm is emsplemeiE tarj/ distribütioa wixïi |n j , , 5 s bilabial doïsal soEaraiiig as m vMBter "watsrg ttiow biewb s s latera! ' adeoisr apical mamaiû, as in Mn ,"lkymd gakn *sii:gb Mil "Efbolcb ■, as in ssilm "gi?eb e s i dflb , a trüeci lateral posttpfeofci apical scnorant. as io mû ^fldiBgb bei'im dsarb 551 a Ijareb iii Old Englisb^ -^did if as iiewr sîEte. < rr > 3 as In stemru tdaib wierrast M o isf.fea rr 'fkrb

Tbe presentalioa of Old Eagîlsfi Mcatices is more complicated in tîiat' there are reconstructed botli Toices ana voiceless shoit fricatives, but tliese are fbuad i2i complementarj^’ distribotio^ï and are spelt identlcallgp so taat plicaetic recoEStructioa is based in tMs case 3io-£ so modi os spcîiirig evideace as r ; 3Of e octane. of preMstory and latsr devetopmeat of forms. The voice» less ■rcalv-.-'L, \.r ''r lie ezseptios of 111) w ep Ibiisc! is pod-and m afim aim ü p o s i u d n . • demie a voiceless coasonast: aad tlie voiced in.other medM _ ■oely the role of distrfbntioa may be formulated as foliows; d '1' Î ulcatdes 'V/ere always voiced after stressed vowels M word mec'ifJ oofttlom. cuigle or M the dusters ''fricative plus voiced stop or sonoraa! b o: ’dOiicm-' pins fficative'b siid. voiedess hi a l the ether posftions. [f1 [ft j [vj Ißl

[te|

, a voiceless iabftiiestaï ificativs, as in f i f 'fivet, bsfbran ftefbreh SSfter ftfterb < ff>, as is offrian ‘effery miofft hiaiiseay ftufF. < f> , a voiced labiodental fticativs, as hï drifsii terivey k s s ß s liacty Jwßn ftaveßb wnîfas ftwîvss’n * s a voiceless dentm spicaî fricative; as âe éSf Mii ‘îhoub dêM, dead 'deathft blips, èlias ftlfesb ' ’ ' w. rirs'b whhôft wippe Porâe

A s e.sfjd v o 5ï.ymî.stiv‘: i ;T;.e?nis w o n A w P e ib 'lû ittiU e te e aesoad eleiiieîiï o f î- 'lapOunÇy O.C ù rh :? i afie i ,s yiorpd; prc'-jinctai’P :t:ccX.s ‘"vord-fâist, teï3-i.î-iirî tiw flcst el'x;:-?r_t o f a coaip o 'rad ’, c:i' irvr-’ecreisr:/ yreecd :::-y r f cróerac-rnt. siifliny s f A e e s s A l l 'a P fc i y e w o cho pw / I p f l j A k ' Corp. J 951, ori“.'.: ( = w f t r ) 'cLefer' C w p. die-, Maure (--w iofel P v P z k ' Corp. tô t? .. Tfcs rp e!H n g < b > ib;-: [f w bcc-ni'.e w -e if te r rf'o 3P. c„, brif it trim s i x occsMcwlPy t i ftlî M erdWi csiâ A e n îîA d im ic-r, :a u s:!y v'-sî-l Beuoü teais, te vy-° HortliiiiHoiici?. gios? f tPe IJedisparue G oapde te, te.'.o /rrw h te, and in iiis yioss o f tlie tecdnPrw lotete?.ftlhe spelling < i î > for p 'j tecr.n?.e ayev îcrsz 'litef: PîîieJe EnyLish lioiss, Inil it appears o ecasicn afiy in rateoos tentîj •■Jiio??,ghoBt fee Clà. Eagiish period [ICohri., 19'70; 2 9 'j. 75

m[s] [s:] [Z] m [h]

[x l

[X -] [X]

[x:]

M

DI-

< |i d>, a voiced dental apical fricative, as in bapian, bàSian ‘bathe’, fs&pm, fm dm ‘embrace’, e o r ^ e / o Ä ‘earth’.^ , a ' voiceless alveolar apical fricative (sibilant), as in sunu ‘son’, pisîel ‘thistle’, hûs ‘house’; < x > represented [s] in the cluster [ks], as in oxa ‘ox’, fo x ‘fox’. , as in blissian ‘rejoice’, assan ‘asses’, sess ‘seat, bench’. < s> , a voiced alveolar apical fricative (sibilant), as in risan ‘rise’, hæsl ‘hazel’, bosm ‘bosom’, and hromsa ‘garlic’. < sc> , a voiceless postalveolar apical fricative (sibilant), as in scip ‘ship’, scUr ‘shower’, disc ‘dish’. < h > , a voiceless glottal (or laryngeal) fricative, or simply breath, found in post-junctural (word-initial) position, as in he ‘he’, hrëaw ‘raw’, hläd lo u d ’. < h > , a voiceless palatal dorsal fricative, found after a front vowel, or a diphthong whose stressed element was also front (see § 106), in pre-junctural (word-final) position when single or in the clusters [lx’] and [rx’] , and in pre-junctural (wordfinal) and medial positions in clusters with a voiceless consonant, especially in [x’t ] , as in hëh ‘high’, sêah ‘saw’, elh ‘elk’, fæ rh ‘hog’, niht ‘night’, and mihte ‘might’. < h h > , as in hliehhan ‘laugli’, teohhian ‘suppose’. < h g>, a- voiceless velar dorsal fricative, found after a back vowel in pre-junctural (word-final) position when single or in the clus­ ters [lx] and [rx] and in pre-junotural and medial positions in clusters with a voiceless consonant, especially in [x t], as in äh ‘I possess’, dag, dâh ‘dough’, hîôh, hlôg ‘laughed’, horh ‘filth’, sohte ‘sought’. < h h > , as in pohha ‘pouch, bag’. < g > , a voiced dorsal fricative found medially in the neighbour­ hood of back vowels,“ as well as medially and finally after /r/ and /!/, as in dragan ‘draw’, folgian ‘follow’, sorgißn ‘to sorrow’, sweîgan ‘swallow’, borg ‘security, pledge’, mearg ‘marrow’ , a dorsal sonorant, corresponding, firstly, to the Germanic /j/, as in gear, gêr ‘year’, geoc ‘yoke’, iesen ‘entrails’

The other spellings for [6 &] are < th d>. As suggested by Kuhn [1970; 30], < th d > were the most popular spellings around 700, though even at the time the runic < h > may have been in use as well. Early manuscripts, especially the Moore MS o f Bede, use mainly initially, and < d > medially and finally. The use of for both [d] and P 0] must have been troublesome to the English scribes, and a solution was found by adding a short distinguishing stroke through the upright part of the < ii> a n d usin^ the resulting 0 > for [0 d] . During the 8th and 9th cc. < 3 > became increasingly popular in Mercian and Northumbrian texts in all positions. 76

[g]

[g;] [d2]

m

[k: ] [Ö]

Corp. 798; (gu)gu^e, iugude ‘youth’ W s., herige, berge ‘berry’, swerian ‘swear’, swergu ‘I swear’ VPs., hergan (= herian) ‘praise’ CH, and, secondly, to the Germanic /g/ when found in postjunctural (initial) position before front vowels (with the excep­ tion of those which had resulted from i-umlaut, § 142) and diphthongs, whose first element was also front, medially and in pre-junctural (final) position after front vowels, as in geat ‘gate’, gs&t ‘gate’ Corp. 1538, egsan ‘fear’ LR, faegen ‘glad’ Corp. 543, grëèg ‘grey’, grei Corp. 981, greig Corp. 850. < g > , a voiced dorsal stop, found initially before consonants, back vowels and before front vowels which had resulted from i-umlaut of back vowels, medially and in pre-junctural (final) position after /n/, as in g l^ d ‘glad’, galan ‘sing’, goes, gés (< *gösi) ‘geese’, bringan ‘bring’, bring ‘ring’. , as in docga ‘dog’, frogga, frocga ‘frog’, earwicga ‘earwig’ Corp. 240^ mega, sugga (some kind of small bird). , a voiced apical affricate, as in seegan ‘say’, leegan ‘lay’, ecg ‘edge’, brycg ‘bridge’, mygg ‘midge’ Corp. 1814, spryng ‘ulcer’ Corp. 351, feng ‘grasp, capture’, f < c k x > , a voiceless dorsal stop, found word-initially before consonants, as in climban ‘climb’, cneo ‘knee’, cræ ft ‘skill’, before back vowels as in cam ‘care’, cu ‘cow’, col ‘cool’, comb ‘comb’, and before front vowels which had resulted from Iumlaut of back vowels (§ 142) as in cyning ‘king’, cemban ‘comb’, kylle ‘wine skin’ Corp. 231; word-finally and wordmedially after back vowels and diphthongs whose second element was back, single or in the clusters [n k ], [Ik], [rk ], as in boc ‘book’, 3c ‘oak’, seoc ‘sick’, eac ‘also’, dranc ‘drank’, lücan ‘lock’, aces gen. sg. ‘oak’, seoce nom.pl. ‘sick’, folces gen. sg. ‘people’, as well as after front vowels in such words as blsec ‘black’, ewie, cwice ‘alive’, sincan ‘sink’, brecan ‘break’. The graph < x > repre­ sented [k] in the cluster [ks], as in oxa ‘ox’, fo x ‘fox’. , as in loccas ‘locks of hair’. < c cc>, a voiceless apical affricate, found word-initially before front vowels (with the exception o f those which had resulted from i-umlaut of back vowels) and diphthongs whose first ele­ ment was also front, as in ciest, cest ‘chest’, case ‘cheese’, did ‘child’, ceald ‘cold’; in many words in final and medial position, single or in the clusters [né], [Ic], [rc5], after front vowels, as in ic ‘I’, hwelc ‘which’, swelc. ‘such’, bee ‘books’, cryce ‘crutch’, drencan ‘give to drink’, strecc'an ‘stretch’.

OLD EO GüSL ”HÖMHMSS

§ 16g,. Tîioogii szLLt oi'Diomciâtico o: Old üogüsii csmot De rgcoastroG.':jl , ' V ■ ^ ~^ 6 ‘d f Z .-

[. o,

- -e

. S : 1

e-

o. .

roiicii grectei Locoracy. TMs la maiïdy because m tfee case of pboaemec many feature of speedi &&d îaagiiage sou ads aio cGiiadered plioaemictiiy irrels“ ?aat. Paoîieoies are tc be cisnaeo as soled ^aorieis soîiica can oe oeserioeQ as ciosterSs or buadleSj of distbictivo Ibotares (see §g ll-ib /. i-O'S make paoEeijiLS iades'erde:'!- oafo of the paiadigmatic cysteaJ; io, pfeoEesieo are distim goMied ■odsoasiiy by toed BFs, Bsôh StmciLSflIy irompendecl iialt:y pkcae'“ I ' ' " "s of ;:.hicaemc3 maairests sack mofo ciea.iL^ odea osdlmai p airs'" are con^ared, Tiissfs omy the pojCôiXisrc oï cGnipai'iiig laoiEiiOiL parrs is Wicr&iy ■-«‘OO .s.ii OLÎ o d id i distinctioas are pliosemiGj aad 'obidi are act. ^ _

O

jG

,

, ,

-

-

,

,

,

j

^

G

I

l,

q hSfo ?.Lc iGiCrhoal aaar/rs.G c f Cf.d BEglisii iisiisliy reacrals contrasts between ( i) long and shoid oowds; (6) dlpktiioags aod moaopfrtftOEgs; (3) back ood ihcat ooveed; (d) rcosoed ?og EoaroiiEded ooweîs; (5) voweis^ot ifirc.e dif.ferefit toiigoe lisigiits. /dt&iiiativeîy It iiiigM be saM that the foiioodirp vocaiio rsari’res w'."e cosiorrrtO''- ?j. t)iG Eiîg.iis>iô^ giy long vs. shoitj frifd’ng Ys, oong'idtiigi (3) lloó os. p e n t; (4) wuiided os. nomounded; (5) high or. noithlgo ; (6) to y os. ncncev. The coTProi P :p -’Z. riïQïï h i p be iiiiistmtsd by the fbüowiag pairs: , vdhoo hrbamw ~vj;P;i ‘koo.o' mêtoi hweed —mok.o 'msa;Ov....L f p r tiasger'' —tw r moy" ß B c e daolp/'“ -foIMce ged p o é : - yod bgod'órwiE hrigbiSi'" - hdeva P P f The feaixiresghding vs. nongliding 'dûbp; CaÎoLL. ong.3 t',cm ■oicvo j 'rhC'hgsTTi iho pe^’lcci o-f hhe eaiaierô oehmo r-xoLor .^.hhdi.,1 red, ai kasî ■■ ïfcrothîGxh:r"d.a, ireLO osere lo.og; tmd .OlGW d prh.r.cogr c torse s’c-goe'^s toosoe height; ik ig } eo e&(‘)/h 'I 0 Bodo t.hs.si £00.0:1 7/htiügs tlom ,e e id’o'ht'iOi'g? SyTt < -3 > . Th(. s éiph'hiOEgS; Ikh d g ph,G2 eoiic?!h‘' liiirjt ce charaotehond „s oe i hf i dopThrong.:. o-L £ ps.i witii the rmiihhôât beo ' p -h us oie sgotom o' d;b.:l'.t!iC'iî,as hi ibaov' ;‘/e,d Phizii (i£.te biii s. ■' /' s m 'Cdoo/s: j\&;i • eef; ■,v£(* i< Miirki:':! ôS-O:. t.re T ïæ s di/fejing in one phonem e, îlee othe:: phorieraes be:feg L’eniica!; c.f. Mt h mé bh - bel bit - hid, etc. LîearoaLiiraal pairs s±e foim s p a r td idoriieó, vet chtffsniig in rnortohoru cn c p L in e a ie (see abo § At). 78

But bj'' tlie 10th c. /ie(:)/ had been moaoplitlioagjzed, and there remained oMy the diphthongs /eo(:) ea{:)/ (see § 158). It must be pointed out that the phonological aaelysis of diplitfioiigs is most problematic (see § 113). _ The contrast between diphthongs aad moaophtïiongs may be iilustrated by the foMowing pairs: reßd heef ' —ræ d "ad,¥ice' räd hiding'^ eûm ‘e&gle' — liouse" am h m ' heo hihe" —he 'he' eorl hieMeman’ —orl ‘gaoîienf llie contrast between back and front vowels^ i.e. /u(:) o(:) a(:)/ ¥s, /i(;) ü(:) e(:) ö(:) æ (:)/, may be lüustrsted by the following pairs: 5r ‘oar’ —mr ‘before’ fare ‘I travel’ —fm re gen.^ dat. sg. o f far ‘Journey’ gos ‘goose’ —goes, gës ‘geese’ Tlie correlation back vs. fi'ont is diaracceristic of all dialects during the whole Old English period. Dialects differed only in the iimnber o f correlating phonemes. Thus in the course of their development dialects differed by the presence, or the absence, o f the phonemes /ü(:)/. /ö(:)/. The Goatrast between roiiiided and nofirounded vowels, i.e. /ö(:) o(:)/ ¥s. /!(:) e(:) æ (:)/, may be illustrated, by the.fo'ilowmg pairs: v^ynn ‘j oy’ - wirm htiife" (geßmöede ‘agreemenf —med(e) ‘reward’ ÏE the Kentish dia.îect roundiag lost its reievance in the late 9th-J.0th cc. m the majority of the other dialects roimding .as a DF was preserved only in 'the phonemes /il(:)/, while /ö(:}/ had merged with /e(:)/. Tîierefcre fomis such as goes ‘geese’, oexen ‘oxen’ may be found only in the earnest writings; later onges, exen are/oiiad itistead. The low front /æ (:)/ had never had a rousded correlate. The phonetic feature rounded was also characteristic of the phonetic realization of the vowe.!s /u(:) o(:)/, but It was not phonemicaBy distinctive here. As there were no coîTesporidiiig back aoriroEiided vowels, the feature back distinguished /u(:) o(:}/ from both the front noarousded /i(:) e(:)/ and the front roLuided /ii(:) ö(:)/. Thus roiiadmg was a reduiiclan,t feature for /u(:)^c(:)/. The oppositions o f vowels of different tongue height (high /i(:) ü(;) vs. nonhigh /e{i} ö(;) o(:) æ (;) a(;)/, sad low lm (i) a(:)/ vs. nonlow /e(:) q(:) o(:) i(:) il(:) u(;)/) may be illustrated by the following pairs: 79

sittan ‘sit’ —settan ‘set’ burg ‘town’ —borg ‘pledge’ ber ‘bear’ im.p. —b Mt ‘bore’ pret. or ‘beginning’ —är ‘oar’ beorn ‘warrior’ —beam ‘child’ ■ The 0 ¥erali pattern of the Old Eriiiisii vowels § 1 10. Knowing what features were distinctiYe in the Old EngHsh vowel system, we can give an exhaustive description in terms of DFs for any vocalic phoneme (see table l)..Tlius, the phoneme /i:/ is to be defined as the long high nonlov/ front nonrounded nongliding vocalic phoneme; /o/ is the short noniiigh nonlow badk nongliding vocalic phoneme: /eo/ is the short nonhigh nonlow gliding vocalic phoneme, etc.; It/ + voc , + long —glide + high —low —back —round

hi

/eo/

/ea:/

+ voc -lo n g —glide -h ig h —low + back

+ voc - lo n g + glide

+ voc + long + glide -h ig h + low

- liigh —low

The best way to show the relationships of phonemes in terms of DFs is to arrange them into a scheme. Schemes containing all the basic phonemes of a language and showing their possible relationships are called overall patterns. From the point of view of the DFs enumerated above, the overall pattern of the Old English vowels may be presented as follows: (1) e(:) æ (:)

û(;) ö(:)

u(:) o(:) a(;)

io(:) eo(;) ea(:)

This scheme clearly shows contrasts between short and long vowels, monophthongs and diphthongs, front and back, rounded and nonrounded, high and nonhigh, low and nonlow vowels. Just like in any other linguistic system, it is possible to distinguish the centre and the periphery of the Old English vowel system. The centre is made up of phonemes belonging to major correlations, while the periphery consists of phonemes belonging to minor correlations. Peripheriai phonemes contain DFs irrelevant to the greater part of the system, or, on the other hand, DFs, relevant for the majority of phonemes, may be irrelevant for these phonemes (§ 42). In the given system such are the front rounded monophthongs /ü(;) ö(:)/. The insufficient integration of the front rounded vowels ensues from the 80

fact that rounding is relevant only for these vowels. In addition, the series o f front rounded vowels consisted of only the high monophthongs /h(:)/ and the mid (nonhigh nonlow) monophthongs /ö(:)/, and there were no corresponding low vowels. With the loss of /ô(:)/ the high /ii(:)/ became the only representa­ tives of the front rounded series. The diphthongs should also be placed in the periphery of the Old English vowel system. Although the diphthongs contras­ ted with the subsystem of the monophthongs as a whole, i.e. gliding and nongliding were DFs for all the vowel phonemes, stih the number of the marked members of the correlation, i.e. diphthongs, was twice or even three times less than the number of unmarked members, i.e. monophthongs. From the diachronic point o f view, the notions of the centre and the periphery are important in that core phonemes are more stable, while peripherical phonemes are more liable to undergo changes. The stability of phonemes depends greatly also upon the articulatory and acoustic congruity of their distinctive features. Thus more open articulation and lip-rounding do not match well, and, con­ sequently, /ö(:)/ are usually less stable than /ü(:)/. § 111. The overall pattern is a kind of general pattern. The patterns o f separate dialects at separate stages of their development may slightly differ from this overall pattern. Differences usually lie in the inventory of phonemes, though sometimes they concern even DFs. The West Saxon pattern o f the 8th ~ early 9th cc.^’ may have been as follows:

( 2)

i(:) e(:) æ (:)

ü (0

ö(:)

u( o( a(

ie(:) eo(:) ea(:)

The most striking peculiarity o f the West Saxon system is the presence of the diphthongs /ie(:)/. The phonological interpretation of these diphthongs and their reflexes is very problematic. Scheme (2) shows them as the h i ^ nonlow diphthongs. Phonetically they must have been something like [ie(:)], or, if we take into consideration their monophthongization to /ü(:)/ (see § 158), something like [iö (:)|. The Kentish pattern of the 8th-9th cc. must have been as follows: (3)

i(0 e (0

ü(:) ö(:)

u(;)

io(:)

0(0 a(:)

ea(:)

19

As is already known, the earliest West Saxon written.records that may be o f some literary and linguistic interest belong only to the late 9th and early 10th cc. So the 8th and the early 9th cc. are actually a pre-literary period in the history o f West Saxon (see § § 8 7 ff.). 81

As scheme (3) shows, the Kentish vowel system of the 8th-9th cc. differed from the overall pattern in the absence o f the front low vowels /æ (:)/ (see § 145). In addition, the opposition o f the diphthongs /io(:)/ and /eo(:)/ must have been lost in Kentish, and thus we find only the high diphthongs /io(:)/ and the low diphthongs /ea(:)/ here (see § 156). The Mercian pattern o f the 8th-9th (10th) cc.^ ®may have been as follows: (4) i Ü u i: Ü: u: e Ö o eo e: Ö: o: eo: s a æ: a: ea: æ a ea The most peculiar feature of the West Mercian system, as we interpret it, is the presence of the pair of the short vowels /s/ - }o / (for details see § 148). Tlie phoneme jo / goes back to the Proto-Germanic /a/ before nasals and was spelt in the Vespasian Psalter and Hymns < o > : monn ‘man’, noma ‘name’. The phoneme /a/ goes back to the earlier Old English /æ / and was spelt < e > : feder (< fæder) ‘father’, wes (< wafê) ‘was’, etc. In West Mercian, just as in Kentish, the merger o f the diphthongs /io(:)/ and /eo(:)/ had already taken place, but only in diphthongs with a wider first element (hence the symbol < e o > for the result o f the fusion of the diphthongs) and probably at a later date than in Kentish (see § 156). The Northumbrian pattern of the 8th-9th cc. may have still corresponded to the overall pattern. The West Saxon pattern of the late 9th-10th cc. must have been as follows: (5) i(:) ü(:) e(:) æ (:)

u(:) o(:) eo(;) a(:) ea(:)

In scheme (5) we find the diphthongs /ie(:)/ already monophthongized to /!(:)/ {hirde < hierde ‘shepherd’) or /ii(:)/ {vjyrsa < wiersa ‘worse’) (see § 158), and the mid front round vowels /ö(:)/ unrounded to /e(:)/ (gês

io(:)

e(0 o(:) a(:) o0

ea(:)

We take our evidence for the Mercian dialect of the 8th-9th cc. mainly from glosses (§ § 76-77), the most important of which are the Vespasian Psalter and Hymns. Though exact iocaJization of Mercian texts is difficult, the Vespasian Psalter and Hymns in all probability represent the western part of the Mercian dialect. So pattern (4) is actually the West Mercian pattern of the 8th-9th cc. 82

Kentish pattern (6) reflects tlie unrounding of both /o'(:)/ and /ii(:)/ to M O /(see §180), Seine eoiitro¥erslal problems of Old Eeglish vocalism s3©iitro¥®rsf met the opposition iSf —/a/ § 112. The aboYs-estabiished inventory of Oid English vowel phonemes, their phonetic realizations, BFs and patterns should be viewed as one of seYera.1 possible interpretations of Old Engliäi vocaîisni. Many questions of Old EngEsh vocaiisiri remain highly problematic and diametrically opposed solutions are very often, offered. Oae sucii question is the problem o f the opposition fmj — /a/. Though at the pressnt time the opposition /æ/ — /a/ is ^ahsost universaly accepted, earlier-it was disputed by some liBgiiists. Thus A. Eeszkiewicz [1953] analysed /æ/ a n d /a /a s variants of the same phoneme, considering them to be in piirely complementaiy' distribution;^^ cf, the forms of the OE GOUE d ^g 'day' wldch shov/ that /æ/ was found in closed syllables and in open syllables before front vowels, whereas /a/, in open syllables before back vowels: dæ g,d seges, d ^g e , dagas, daga, dagum. But A. S. C. Ross [1951] and S. Chatman [1958] have pointed out cases of their contrastive distribu­ tion (cf. maemn 'make’, fare ftraveF, etc. in which /a/ Is found before a front vov/el m the next syllable). An especialiy clear-cut contrast between / ^ / and /a/ is found between aouns of the a-stem, on the one hand, and nouns o f the ô-stem, or verbs of class 6, on the other: nssle, sg. dat. of sté l n,a 'place' gen., dat. sg. of stal f, ö 'tlieff fmre, dat. sg. o ff%r n.a ‘journey’ —fare ‘Î travqF, The originally complementary distribution of Ix j and /a/ was defrayed partly by the process of analogy (cf. the extension of /a/ from stalu ‘theft’ to stale gen., dat. sg.), partly by late Latin loanwords (cf. OE catt < Lat. cattus ‘cat’, OB caric < Lat. carica ‘dry fig’), and also by separate sound cha­ nges, the earliest of wliich must have been i-umiaut (cf. macian < *macejan < *macojan ‘make’). The presence of the phonological opposition /ae/ —/a/ is proved not only by cases of their complementary distribution, but also by some facts of their historical development which will be discussed later (§ 138). Coatrowrsy over dtphthai^s § 113. Hie most contioversial problem is the phonological description of diphthongs. First of all, the distribution of short diphthongs is rather limited: they occur toainly before < ji> [x j, [ l;j, < r r > [ n ] , as well as before 21 Later iie recognized tlis presence of this opposition, see Reszkiewlcz, 1973; 82. 83

[r] or [1] plus consonant or back vowels in the next syllable, and after [j], < c > [c] and < s c > [§|. Because o f such limited distribution some linguists are inclined to analyse /ea eo io ie/ not as separate phonemes, but only as positional variants of the monophthongs / æ e i/. According to this approach, the elements -a, -o of the digraphs < e a > , < e o > , < i o > are to be analysed as diacritics indicating the quality of the following consonant. For example, in the case of such forms as eald ‘old’, eofpe ‘earth’ the clusters < a l> , < o r > will be analysed as representing liquids, different from those found in slich forms as Angl. seldra ‘older’, deme ‘secret’. As early as in 1938 Marjorie Daunt [1939] tried to prove that, from the phonological 'point of view, the short diphthongs /ea/ and /eo/ were “contex­ tual variants” of the monophthongs /æ / and /e/. She conceded that the vowels represented by the digraphs < e a > and < e o > were phonetically diphthongs, but she thought it most unlikely that there could be two series of diphthongs differentiated phonologically as short and long. She explained the use of the digraphs as due to the Irish influence: in Old Irish orthography vowel letters were used to indicate the character of an adjacent consonant. Later this problem provoked a whole controversy, mainly between Stockwell and Barritt? on one .side, and Kuhn and Quirk, on the other. Here tire problem of the short diphthongs is solved from a broader perspective, taking into consideration the whole Old English vowel system and especially the system o f the long diphthongs.^ ^ StockweU and Barritt distinguish only eight simple vowels in Old English which, together with their spellings, are as follows [cf. StockweU, 1958: 13] : /i/ as in sittan ‘sit’ and iorre, ierre ‘angry’ (el as in settan ‘set’ and heorte ‘heart’ (sei as in saet ‘sat’ and beam ‘child’ fix/ as in fyllan ‘fill’ (0/ as in doehter, dat. sg. of dohtor ‘daughter’ /u / as in full ‘full’ (o( as in god ‘god’ (ol as in faran ‘go’ They analyse the short /ie io eo ea/ phonetically as monophthongs and phonologically as the aUophones of the respective phonemes (i e æ /, conside­ ring the distribution of /ie io eo ea/ and /i e æ/ to be complementary. Forms like 3s.m ‘house’ - earn ‘eagle’ are looked upon as accidental and traditional spellings. Just like M. Daunt, these authors hold that there can be no more than three types of vowel phonemes, whereas traditionaUy four types of Old English vowels have been distinguished, namely, short and long monophthongs, and short and long diphthongs; cf. m m ‘took’, m m ‘seizure’, nearu ‘narrow’. 22

84

For bibliography on the controversy one may refer toî Kuhn, 1961: 522.

and near ^nearer’. The long vowels, and the long diphthongs among them, are analysed as biphonemic syUabic nuclei [cf. Stockwell, 1958: 15] : /iy/ as in bitan ‘bite’ /uw/ as in hü ‘how’ /ûy/ as in cyja ‘kite’ ^ /aw/ as in strawu ‘straw’ /iw/ as in f t h ‘free’, ciese ‘cheese’ /eh/ as in grêne ‘green’ lew/ as in breost ‘breast’ /odi/ as in slæpan ‘sleep’ /asw/ as in beam ‘beam’ /oh/ as in god ‘good’ /oh/ as in ban ‘bone’ The first elements of these complex syllabic nuclei are considered to be phonologically identical with the simple nuclei / i e a e ü ö u o D /. The second elements are called off-glides, or simply glides, and classified as the semivowels /y w h]. The glide /y/ is fronting, the glide /w/, backing, and the glide /h/, centering. Thus Stockwell and Barritt deny the phonemic status not only o f the short diphthongs, but of the long diphthongs as well. A slightly different approach is attempted by C.F. Hockett. He does not deny the phonemic status of the vowels spelt ^ < e o > , < e a > in liomian ‘leam’, meokan ‘to milk’, heait ‘h alf, etc. He himself argues for it by analysing the distribution of the spellings < i> , < e > , < »> , < a > and the spellings < io > , < e o > , < e a > which prove to be contrastive. But he interprets the short diphthongs as the back nonrounded monophthongs /i a a/, stracturally on a par with the vowels /i/ < i> , /e/ < e > , /æ/ < æ > , /û/ < y > , /ö/ < o e > , /u/ , /o / < o > , jo / < a > . The long vowels are analysed as clusters of these phonemes with a lengthening glide which he writes as /*/.' /i*/ < î > , /*'/ < io > , /e*/ < e > , etc, [see Hockett, 1967: 375]. Kuhn and Quirk are among those linguists who assert the phonemic status and the diphthongal character of the short /ie io eo ea/. The phonemic status of the short diphthongs is quite unambiguously supported by their regular graphic representation. It is true that the distribu­ tion of the short diphthongs and the corresponding front nonrounded vowels had remained mainly complementary. Nevertheless, instances o f contrastive d^tributiqn are not lacking, and it is even possible to pick up a number o f minimal pairs based on the contrast between short diphthongs and short mo­ nophthongs, as shown above. Considering the regularity of spellings and the presence of the pairs like aem - earn, it is most unlikely that the digraphs represented the allophones of /i e æ /. It is equally unlikely that the second elements of the digraphs represented some DFs of the following consonants. Approaches Uke those of Stockwell, Barritt and Hockett cannot be considered cojivincing as long as they ignore the congruent phonetic and phonemic structures of the short and long diphthongs. This phonetic and phonemic congruity of the short and long diphthongs may be inferred first of all from their identical graphic representation. The diphthongs, moreover, were not spelt quite identically in all the dialects and during the whole Old English period. But the spellings of the short and the long diphthongs always 85

remained identical. Tliis is ignored not only by Stockwell and Barritt, but also by Hockett, who, though recognizing the phonemic status of the short. fio eo ea/, analyses them as monophthongs, while the long /io: eo: ea:/ are analysed as phonemic dusters. The presence of long and short diphthongs is most, likely, considering the wide extent of the correlation long versus short m Old Engish. The analogical phonetic and phonemic interpretation of the short and the long diphthongs is more In accordance with diachronic evidence. The phonemic similarity of The short and long diphthongs is very clearly attested by almost complete paraEelism in their phonological deve­ lopment. The diphthongal character of both the' short /io eo ea/ and the long /io: eo: ea:/ is unmistakably evidenced by cases of the transfer of stress from the first to the second element of the diphthongs, such as in Northum­ brian so9da < sîoïïdan ‘since’, solf < seolf ‘self, etc. A number of such forms have been found in place-name material. Old English consonant phonsmes and their disîlnctive features

§114, Phonological analysis of Late Old English reveals the distmctiveness of the following modal sound features: (1) long vs. short; (2) somrant vs. obstruent; (3) fricative vs. nonfiicative; (4) stop vs. nonstop; (5) voiced vs. voiceless; and (6) nasal vs. nonnasal The features of quantity {long vs. short) were distinctive for all conso­ nants, yet /Ö/, /dz/, I if, /w/ and III had no long correlates. The contrast long vs. short may be ihustrated by such pairs as: sellan ‘give’ ~ stelan ‘steal’ sittan ‘sit’ —witan ‘know’

sunna- ‘the sun’ —suna ‘sons’ copor ‘copper’ - cuppe ‘cup’

The distribution of long consonants was in a sense defective; they were fully establislied only in medial intervocalic positions, namely, between a fully stressed or a half-stressed short vowel and a following unstressed vowel, as in habban ‘have’, middel ‘middle’, docga ‘dog’, hoppian ‘hop’, settan ‘set’, bucca ‘buck’, offrian ‘sacrifice’, sii>pan ‘since’, missan ‘miss’, Miehhan (WS), hldshhan (Angl., Kent.) ‘laugh’, seilan ‘give’, steorra ‘star’, swimrnan ‘swim’, rinnan ‘nm’. In Old English long consonants were also found in final position, after short vowels in. stressed monosyllables, but here they were written vdthout any consistency: bedd, bed ‘bed’, cyhn, cjm ‘race’, eall, ea! ‘all’ (cf. inflected beddes, cynnes, ealle, etc.). From the interchange of double and single consonants wè may draw the inference that long and short consonants were in free variation in this position. Later (c 1000) the contrast long vs. short was completely neutralized in position, and only the short conso­ nants were found here, Gemdnates were also shortened mediaEy at tlie end of a syllable: eall ‘air ealre midd ‘mid’ —midne n ytt ‘use’ —nytne 86

It. is interesting to note that in West Saxon the replacement of long conso­ nants by the corresponding short consonants was more regular and more widespread than in Northumbrian [lindelof, 1901a, § 139]. The features sonorant vs. obstruent distinguished the sonorants /w 11: r r: j m m: n n:/ from the obstruents. The contrasts may be illustrated by the following pairs: wa ‘woe’ —bä ‘both’ ma ‘more’ - fâ ‘hostile’ mere ‘sea’ —mete ‘food’

är ‘oar’ —M ‘heap’ m m ‘took’ —tarn ‘tame’ sellan ‘give’ —settan ‘set’

In view of the presence of the affricates /dz c/, combining in their arti­ culation friction and plosion, the obstruents are to be described further in terms of the modal features fricative vs. nonfnmtive m é stop vs. nonstop (see § 28). The oppositions were as follows: fricative / f f: 0 0: s s: I h h: ô d z/ vs. nonfricative /b b: p p: d d: 1 1 : g g: k k:/, and stop /b b: p p: d d: 1 1 : g g: k k: d i 5/ vs. nonstop /f f: 0 0: s s: ^ h h:/. This enables us to describe / f f : 0 0: s s: I h h:/ as [+ Me, — stop], /b b: p p: d d: 1 1 : g g: k k:/ as [+ stóp, —fric],an d /d 2 ö/,as [+ stop, + fric]. The contrasts may be llustrated by the following pairs: f ^ c ‘space’ —bsec ‘back’ ^ misan ‘eat’ —mêtó« ‘find’ brycg [brüdf] ‘bridge’ —hryd ‘drawing out’ pic [piöj ‘pitch’ —pyt{t) ‘pit’ The features voiced vs. voiceless were distinctive for the stop nonfricative and the stop fricative obstruents: (/b b: d d: g g: dz/ vs. /p p: 1 1 : k k: c/). The contrasts are illustrated in the following list: beep ‘bath’ - p æ p ‘path’ dun ‘hill, down’ —tûn ‘enclosure, town’ hogga ‘of hogs’ —locca gen. pl./locks o f hair’ As has already been shown 107), Old English had voiced and voiceless short fricative nonstop obstruents as well, viz., [f] — [v ], [0] — [ d ] , [s] — [z], [h X x’j —[y j, yet their distribution was complementary and they should be analysed as voiceless and voiced alîophones o f tlie phonemes /f 0 s h/, respectively. It is interesting to note that medial voiceless fricatives of loanwords were replaced by geminates which were invariably voiceless, as in Orosius: Affrica (Lat. Africa), Sciddia (Lat. Scythia). The features msal vs. nonnasal were phdnemicaHy distinctive in the Old English sonorants, both short and long (msal fm m: n n:/ vs. nonnasal /w 11: r r: j7). The contrasts between nasal and nonnasal sonorants are illustrated in the following pairs: 87

■mü ‘more’ —wâ ‘woe’ m ‘no, not’ —Jä ‘oh!*

mca ‘boat’ —raca ‘rake’ winnan ‘toil’ —willan ‘will’

§ 115. Of the features distinguishing point of articulation the features labial vs. nonlabial were of primary importance for the Old English consonants. The labial series was represented by /p p: b b: f f: m m: w/; the rest were nonlabial. The contrasts tetween kbial and nonlabial consonants are illust­ rated in the following paire: panne ‘pan’ —canne ‘can, cup’ pinn ‘peg, pin’ —tinn ‘beam’

füs ‘ready’ —M s ‘house’ weard ‘ward, guard’ —geard ‘yard’

The Old English nonlabials may be further subdivided according to the features apical vs. nonapical (dorsal). The apical series consisted of the con­ sonants /t t: d d: Ô d2 0 0: s s: s 11: r r:/. The nonlabial phoneme /n/ was special in that it had both the apical allophone [n] and the nonapical (dorsal) allophone [g ], which proves the irrelevance of the features apical vs. nonapical (dorsal) for its phonemic specification. This very fact also suggests the analysis of the Old English contrasts hbw l vs. nonlabial as primary, and the cont­ rasts apical vs. nonapical as secondary. The contrast between apical and nonapical (dorsal) consonants may be illustrated by the following pairs: tu n. ‘two’ —CÜ ‘cow’ drepe ‘stroke’ —grêpe ‘trench’

'pü ‘thou’ —M ‘how’ sund ‘water’ —hund ‘dog’

The fricative nonstop obstruent apicals were further distinguished ac­ cording to the features dental vs. postdental (JB 6:1 vs. /s s: ${), the postden­ tals further subdividing according to the features alveolar vs. postalveolar (Js s:/ vs. ß l). The oppositions of the nonnasal apical sonorants /11:/ vs. /r r:/ may also be defined as alveolar vs. postalveolar. The contrasts may be illus­ trated by the following pairs: punor ‘thunder’ —sunor ‘a herd of swine’ pearfkn ‘to be in need’ —scearfkn ‘to scrape’ seam ‘devise’ - sceam ‘cutting’ hcu ‘lake’ —racu ‘rake’ The Old English consonants may be characterized in terms of the given DFs, both modal and local, as in Table 2. The overall pattern of the Old English consonants

§ 116. From the point of view of the DFs enumerated above, the overall pattern of the Old E n ^ sh consonants may be presented as follows:

88

p p: b

t t: d

k k: g

b:

d:

f[f]

B[d] [à] 6:

a

g:

df [V]

f:

m m: w

h [h x]

s [s] [Z] s: n n:

1 1:

h:

[r]

[5 ] r r:

j

The most dynamic parts o f the system were the local series of doßal (nonlabial nonapical) consonants and the modal series of the fricative nonstop obstruents. The dorsal series had been subject to several changes since Proto-Old English (see § 168). The further restructuring of this series was connected, firstly, with the allophonic and syntagmatic changes of /h/ (§§ 183, 186) and, secondly, with the phonemization o f the dorsal allophone [g] o f /n/ (§ 200). As has. already been indicated (§ 107), /h/ had voiced and voiceless, palatal and velar allophones. The voiced palatal allophone was lost th ro u ^ the replacement [7 *] > /j/ (§ 168), yet in later Old English a new distinction between the palatal and the velar allophones [7 *] — [7] may have developed (§ 168); the palatal [7 '] may have been found in palatal positions, viz., in the neighbourhood of front vowels, as in swelgend ‘whirlpool’. A wide range of allophonic variation of /h/ must have contributed greatly to its instability. The presence of the voiced and voiceless allophones of the fricative non­ stop consonants served as a necessary prerequisite for the phonemization of voice distinctions in this modal series as well. Finally, the correlation long vs. short in the system of consonants, as evidenced already by syntagmatic replacements of long consonants by short ones, was also unstable. Some controversial problems of Old English consonantism

§ 117. As has already been pointed out, the description of the Old English consonants is more difficult than that of the vowels. Both the inventory and the DFs of consonantal phonemes are difficult to establish. This is due mainly to the following two factors. Firstly, real phonemic distinctions were often ignored in the graphic representation of consonants, different consonan­ tal phonemes being spelt identically, whereas vocalic phonemes were more regularly discriminated in spelling. Secondly, in the graphic representation of consonant phonemes the variant graphs (allograph) were often widely differing symbols, whose interpretation is often less obvious than that o f the variant vocalic graphs. For example, /f/ could be spelt < f b u > : hälfe, halbe, hæalue ‘half, side^. On the other hand, the consonantal systeih itself and its 89

evolution were comparatively less intricate than the v o (^ c system and its evolution. And what is most important. Old EnglMi dialects practically did not differ in the paradigmatic systems of consonants, whereas dialect diffe­ rences in the voc^ic paradigmatic systems must have existed from the very beginning. In view of the above-mentioned facts it is quite understandable that the given consonantal DFs, as well as the inventory of the Old English consonant phonemes and the overall pattern of the Old English consonants are but one of the possible interpretations of Old English consonantism. Thus, the sound [h] is treated by some linguists not as the glottal allophone of the dorsal (velar) fricative phoneme, but as the glottal (or pharyngeal) phoneme /h/ [cf. Moulton, 1954: 22, 25-27, 39; Hockett, 1967: 376-3.77; Reszkiewicz, 1973: 23; Ivanova and Caxojan, 1976: 51; Wdna, 1978; 29]. We, much like Vachek [1964: 9-10; idem, 1965] and Kuhn [1970: 34-35], treat [h] as the glottal allophone of the nonlabial nonapical fricative phoneme, since the glottal [h] is in complementary distribution with the dorsal [x 7] . Such treatment is in fu l accord with the phonetic nature of the sounds as well; the glottal articulation is merely a pushing further back of the dorsal articu­ lation. Some linguists, moreover, treat the voiced dorsal fricative [y] ( [J] ) as an allophone of /g/, not /h/ (Jxf) [cf. Reszkiewicz, 1973; 22-23; Kuhn, 1970: 34-35]. We should not, however, ignore the fact that the treatment of [7 ] as the fricative allophone of /g/ is not supported by the presence of similar aUophones of the phonemes /b d/. On the other hand, giving /h/ the voiced allophone [y] and the voiceless allophone [h x] makes the subsystem o f the fricative nonstop obstruents more symmetrical, inasmuch as /f/, /$/ and /s/ had voiced and voiceless ailophones as weU, viz., [f] —[v], [6] — [&], and [s] —[z ], respectively. NOTES ON OLD ENGLISH SYNTAGMATIC SOUND STRUCTURE

The models of the Old English syllable § 118. A description of the Old English syllable structure is essential for the establishment of the phonotactic models of the Old English, word, its prosodic structure and even its morphology. A syllable (S) usually consists of a syMaMe peak (P), or a nucleus, a coda (Co), and an onset (O). Of these constituents, only P is obligatorily filled; 0 and Co may be zero: S-»(0)P(Co) The structure and functioning of the syllable are determined primarily by the character of P and Co; the combination of the latter (even when Co is zero) constitutes what is termed a rhyme (R), or a core. Thus the structure of the syllable may alternatively be written as 90

S -> ( 0 )R I i - ’P(Co) and its brancMng represented as

0'

X\ X X\ ^

Co

In establisfiittg tlie models of tlie syiable .one may most natiiraiîy proceed from the analysis of the patterns of phonemes in iiionosyllabics, since tt,|g fe the one place where syllable boimdaries quite iiaanibiguonsiy coincide wltf;, word boiMidaries. Thus estabfislied sySafele type,s may bs fiEtlier ¥e?ified eür| siipfieîneîiteé by relating them to disyllabics and poîysyllabics. For exenple the Old English syllables with rhymes consisting o f a single sfiort Yowel, siîcb as -ma-, are to be distmgnislied oîîly in disyMabics and polysyilabics wä-ma '■•noise, terror’). The mjîin types of the Old English syllables are the foîlov/iag [cf. Pflcli Î9 7 0 :§ 8 .Î ] : • ‘ 1. (C)¥ woma ‘aol.se, terror" 2. (C)VC fæ t ‘?essel, cup’ 3 . (C )V C I^ lt1 atV ■■ 4. (C)VCC m æ sî ‘mast (of 'beecli)’ 5. (C)V OTß‘more’ 6. ( C ) V C ‘plate’ 7. (C^VCj’S ß - ‘fat, fatted’ 8. (C)VCC m ^ s t ‘m usf Types 1 and 5 ai'C' called open syllables, and the rest represgat closed syîlabîes, viz., an open, syllable ends iß a ¥Owel, while a closed syiable is c.liecked by a consonant, or, o,îie may ssy, an open syllable lias a rhyme with, a zero coda, while a closed syllable has a rhyme v/ith a consonant coda. ÂS pointed out by Jakobson [J.962: 328-401], the mii¥ersal syllable type (the type found in ^ languages) consists of an initial consonant followed by a vowel: CV, or CV; this type may be termed “mimafked’! The other types are to be termed “marked” . The latter have zero onsets, or onsets consist­ ing o f a coasonaiît'cluster, or rhymes v/ith a coiisoiiaßt coda. Just like some other languages, Oid English permits tv/o-coiisonant onsets, first of all when the second consonant is a sonorant: CL-, CG-, CM-. In addition, the onset types gC- and sCiCa- are also permissible (C'2 in sCiC 2 * is L) [cf. Girdenis, 1981: § § 1 0 8 ff.].' • ' . . ' Syllabic peaks are constituted in Old.'English by short and long monoph91

thongs and diphthongs, and codas, when present, are constituted by shortand long single consonants or consonant clusters. Vowel length and consonant length are independent in Old English, and a vowel of any length may be followed by a consonant of any length; in a similar manner a vowel of any length may be followed by a consonant cluster. Depending oft the length of the rh>me constituents, syllables are classified into short, or light, and long, or heavy. A syllable is said to be short when its rhyme consists of a short vowel with a zero coda or a coda consisting of a short consonant (types 1 and 2). A syllable whose rhyme consists of a long vowel, or a short vowel with a coda consisting of a long consonant or a consonant cluster is said to be long (types 3, 4, 5, and 6). When a long vowel is followed by a long consonant or a consonant cluster the syllable is called overlong, or hypercharacterized (types 7 and 8). The two types of short and long syllables are of especial importance from the point of view of Old English morphology. Thus: (1) Neuter a-stem nouns with monosyllabic stems have the flection -u in the nom,, acc. pi. when the stem is a short syllable (A), and no flection when the stem is a long syllable (B): A B w lf ‘women’ fatu ‘vessels’ deor ‘animals’ hofu ‘dwellings’ word ‘words’ limu ‘limbs’ (2) Neuter a-stem disyllables syncopate the second vowel in oblique cases when the first syllable of the stem is long (B), and there is no syncopation when the first syllable is short (A): / A B

WcBter nom. sg. ‘water’, w^e teres gen. sg,, etc. werod ‘troop’, werodes, etc. ator nom. sg. ‘poison’ vs. atres gen. sg., etc, tungol nom, sg. ‘rtar’ vs. tungles gen. sg., etc. hm fod nom. sg. ‘head’ vs. heafdes gen. sg., etc.

(3) 5-stem, i-stem, and u-stem nouns with monosyllabic stems have inflec­ ted forms in the nom. sg. when the stem is a short syllable (A), and no flection when the stem is a long syllable (B): (a) faruî. 5 ‘journey’ lufu f. 5 ‘love*

(b) wine m . i ‘friend’ m erem .i ‘lake’^^

(c) mnu m, u ‘son’ wudu m. u ‘wood’ duru f. u ‘door’ There are very few short-syllable feminine i-stems. They appear to have joined tbe Ô-declension, and are distinguishable only by the tumlaut of the root vowel, e.g. derm ‘valley’, fremu ‘benefit’ [Campbell, 1962: § 6 0 6 ]. 92

(a) îâr î. ô ‘learning’ sorg f . ö ‘sorrow’

(b) glæm m. i ‘gleam’ flm sc n, i ‘flesh’ d æ d f. i ‘deed’

The dfetinction between short and long syllables is also essential for Old English verse, as well as Old Germanic verse in general, which is based on alliteration. The organizing principle of alliterating verse is the binding togeth­ er of two half-lines by two or more alliterating syllables, at least one in each half-line. The alliterating syllables must (a) be accented at word level, (b) generally belong to parts of speech that carry sentence or phrase stress (i.e, major parts of speech, primarily nominal), and (c) be long (heavy) [Lehmann, 1956: 64-123; Lass, 1983: 1611. § 119. Syllabification, or syllable division, consists of defining syllable boundaries, viz., the points at which pauses could conceivably be made. The main problem of syllabification is how to determine word-medial onsets and codas. When segmenting disyllabic and polysyllabic vv^rds into syllables one has to be guided by both universal and language specific principles o f syl­ labification and syllable-building. Attempts to provide universal principles of syllabification are represented by Pulgram [1970] and Hooper [1972]. The main guiding principle as suggested by Pulgram [1970: 43, 4546] is that a syllable can be bounded only by a phoneme or a group of phonemes that is phonotactically possible in word-initial or word-final position. Pulgram has introduced, moreover, three additional principles of syllable division, for in such languages as English there is no full coincidence between syllables and monosyllabic words and very often problems arise on how to dissolve medial consonant clusters (for example, are such words as the Modem English rooster ^ syllabified as rooster or as roos-terl), Pulgram [1970: 47] proposes ( 1 ) the principle of maximal open syllabicity, ( 2) the principle of minimal coda and maxinjal onset, and (3) the principle o f the irregular coda. By the first principle, a syllable boundary should be inserted after every vowel unless inadmissible sequences o f phonemes arise: rooster, feeding, etc. There are two kinds of circumstances when words must be resyUabified by the second principle. Firstly, “ If a syllable caimot be kept open because its vowel does not occur in word-final position, then as many consonants as necessary — but no more — to provide the syllable with a permissible coda, thereby removing the vowel from the syllable-final position, must be detached from the onset o f the next syllable and transferred to the preceding syllable” [ibid: 48]. For exam­ ple, such words as eSTah/M are syllabified estab-lish because the Modem Eng­ lish stressed checked vowels are not found in word-final position. Secpndly, “If the syllable cannot be kept open'because the consonant or- consonants that would form the onset of the next syllable do not occur in word-initial position, then as many consonants as necessary — but no more — to reduce the onset to a permissible word-initial shape must be detached from it and transferred to the preceding syllable as coda, thus closing the syllable” [ibid: 93

50]. For example, siïcI'î -words a.s employ, priestly big syîlabilled em.-ploy, prkst4y because l ie cliilters /mpl./, /stl/, er /tl/ do not occur word-MitiaJJy is Eaglisl'i. Flnaly, words rn^st be syllabified, by the tliird priacipfe under the following eircumstaiicss: “ïf the necessary transfer from syBable-iniüal to syllable-fiiial positson leads to an inadmissible s.y;Mabîe>finaî group o f consonants, then the burden’ o f irregularity must be borne by the coda rather than the foSowhig onset” [ibid: .51]. The validity of these general principles and rules o f sylable division is net to be doubted, as they are borne out by the data of many langiiagss. 'Ificy caoßot., however, always bô gpiiied v^lthout further spedl1,catioM and some reservatioEs. .Fiigt. m all, when dMémg' words feto fjySabks we should take all other pionotsctlc factors iato coxisideraüoE, lîius, oisyllabîes and polysyllables may &îiow syllaote types different from those di£tinguisb.ed on t.lie basis of moaosySables. For exarflple,. according to all. evidence (fiiit of ail .bistoricai, see § 182) such Old English v/ords as dum 'door', sife ‘seeveh fimm "go" wer® syllabified du-^u, si-fe, fa-rm% viz., as open sylabîes of the structuie C¥, tîioiîgli is fully stressed rnaricsyHables short vowels were always c.îîecked by consoaaats (whes not checked, they were automatically îengthenea). Besides, syîlsblficatioîi m sy be mfliieEced by morpîiological, syntac­ tical and lexical factors. For example, such a word as mcedrin with no mor­ pheme boundary syllabifies as [ek-ss-drinj, wMè such a word as bedroom v/ith aa internai. moipheme bouadary noriTially syMabifies as bed-room. In ad­ dition, we must alow that syJlaMe boundaries are sometimes mobile and flexible, as .it is actually observed in speech |cf. Kasevic, 1983: 107|.  speciaJ. case of this alowance is the. treatment of some ¥CV sequences in siicii a way that tlie iri.te.rvocalic consonant is assigned SMïiuîtaB.eousiy, at least, ill a purely phonetic sense, to both syllables, viz., the same consonant is considered tlie coda (or part, of ’the coda) of the preceding syiîabk and 'the onset (or part of the onset) of the folowing one, e.g. [jb e [ad] i-roomjs,. in any case, it should be borne in minci that one of the most important th ln ^ HI syflabiflcatioii :1s to define the type of the syllable, wMch can often be done even io. those cases when' syllable boundaries re:fi!aia ambiguous. This refers first of all to the short (îigh't;) a id th.e long (heavy) syllable types where co.aceî¥abl8 pauses seem to be of no releva.iice. These types_may be defined simply by the jii,xtapositio.s of phonemes, viz., aii'y V(C), VC, ¥CC sequence of pho,iieriies constitutes a long sylabie, as in deor "anima!* (C.VC), word "word* (CV’CC), wordes gea. sg. (CVCCVC), etc. The basic rules of d.istlnguishmg op=ea and dosed sylabies in disyllablss and po.lysylîaMes may be sketched out m follows.. Single short coasonants make the onset of the foliov/ing syl­ lable leaving the preceding r/Bable open, as is me-tan "measure*, fa-ran "go*, be-ran "bear*, su-nu ‘soe*, me~tan "nieety n~dan "lide*, etc. ,â geminate is always the coda of the & st syllaMs, th'us making this syliabîe dosed. Syllabification jxi 'li'iis case seems to be: sett-an "set*, fyll-an ‘fill*, nipp-as "men*, etc. Neveî> tliaiass, this is probiematic. In many of these words a, morpheme boimdai}''

seems to lie within gemmates, as in ( 1 ) acc, sg. m. of adjectives in -n, e.g. Sèm e ‘one’, (2) the comparative degree of adjectives in -r, e.g. m rre ‘earlier’, (3) the preterite of weak verbs in -t, -d, e.g., mette ‘met’, lædde ‘led’ [PMch, 1970: § 8.1J. Such evidence can suggest a possibility of double interpretation o f Old English geminates: alongside real monophonemic geminates there may have ex ited biphonemic “pseudo-geminates” in morpheme boundaries, and the words containing them may have been syllabified as ssn-ne, 3sr-re, met-te, l^d-de, etc., in contrast with niffp-as ‘men’, eall-e ‘all’, etc. Any wordmedial consonant clusters close the first syllable, as in æf-ter ‘after’, eal-dor ‘life, age’, gear-das ‘enclosures’, gan-gan ‘go’, etc. It would be appropriate to point out here one essential restriction in the distribution of long conso­ nants in word-medial and word-final positions, which results in morphonological. alternations between long and short consonants. Old English does not permit CC or CC sequences, and whenever in word-buSdidg dr form-building such sequences arise, long consonants are shortened, as in the preterite o f weak verbs of clam 1 , for example, sende ‘sent’ (instead o f Hend-de), fylde ‘felt’ (instead of *fyll-de\ or in 2 nd person sg. of preterite-present verbs, for example, scealt ‘ y o u must’ (instead of *scea!lf), âearst ‘ y o u dare’ ( in s t e a d of *deam t) [Pilch, 1970: § 8 3 ] . in it ia l

consonants of Old Engiish

§ Î20. In Old English the maximum number o f consonants in sequence the beginning of a word or syllable is three. But the most fréquent number of consonants word-initially is one or two. All the Old English short conso­ nants with the exception of /d i/ could be used initially. Thus there were 18 initial consonants there. The number of the initial two-member consonant clusters was 34: at

pr

tr

pi

__

kr kl kw kn -

tw —

_

dr

hi

fn

dw ge -—

—

~

—

-

-—

—

—

fr il

---

__ —

gr gl

__

— --

^

— _

br

di __

-

dw -

_

__

__

—

hr

~

si sw sn sm sp St sk

__

— — —

hi hw hn — — —

—

wr wl —

— __

--

—

The patterns of the sequences are (1) stop plus sonorant, (2) fricative plus sonorant, (3) sonorant (/w/) plus sonorant, and (4), fricative (sibilant Is/) plus voiceless stop. The three-member hptial consonant clusters were no more than four: spr, spl, str, skr. The pattern of the-sequence is “sibilant plus voiceless stop plus sonorant” . It is difficult to determine j u s t when fskf was replaced by the n e w phoneme 95

/§/ and /skr/ replaced, accordingly, by /ir/, or whether the replacement had been general (§ 168). In any case, in Old English both /sk/ and /skr/ were re­ stored with Scandinavian loanwords. The three-member clusters in /r/ were common, but the /spl/ cluster was rare and was limited to a few words bor­ rowed from Latin, such as splott ‘a plot of land, a spot’. Two-member consonant clusters may be viewed as extensions of single initial consonants, and three-member clusters, as further extensions of twomember clusters; there are in Old English extensions with the sonorants ji 1 w n m/, such as /pr/, /spr/, /tr/, /str/, /kr/,. /skr/, etc., and extensions of the sibilant /s/ with voiceless stops, viz., /sp/, /st/, /sk/. One can easily see that Old English initial consonants are regularly extended with phonemes of a lesser degree of consonantality, viz., of a lesser narrowing in the vocal tract. In addition to /sk/, /skr/, the most changeable patterns were clusters in /n/, as well as all the clusters of /h/ and the clusters of the sonorants /wr/, /wl/: /kn/ as in cnyttan Ç> ModE knit [nit] ) /gn/ SLSingnagan Ç> ModE gnaw [no;]) /fn/ as in fnesan (> ModE sneeze) /hn/ as in Ç> ModE wm?) /hr/ as in Ärö/ ‘ro o f Ç> ModE roof) /hi/ as in / i S / ‘loaf, bread’ P> ModE /oaf) /wr/ as in writon ‘write’ Ç> ModE write [rait] ) /wl/ as in wlwp adj. ‘lisping’ (cf. ModE lisp) Final consonants of Old English

§ 121. In Old English there are found word-finally from one to four consonants in sequence. In Late Old English the word-final and syllable-final consonants were as follows: (1) Single short and long consonants: p p:

t t:

k - d - Ô k: b: d: g:

d f f

6 f:

0:

s s:

s

h m n l r w j h: m: n: 1: r:

(2) Two-member consonant clusters: rp rt Ip It _ _ _ _ _ _ — nt mp — spsts _ ft 96

rk - rd Ik - Id _ _ wd _ j d nk — nd — mb — k — — - f d

— ng — — -

rö rf r0 1Ö If 10 — — — — - - nô ndz — n 0 — — — m0 — — — — - - - f 0

rs rs Is K — — - ns — ms — —— -

rh rm rn rl Ih Im In — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — - -

rj Ij — — -

— ht — — — -- Pt “ “

—

he p6 ps

ts ke -ks

at

(3) Three-member coeænant clusters, such as: rst rsk rks rlit rni 1st Iht nkt net ngi kst

ihd lh0

tst hst (4) Four-member consonant dusters; ntst, nôst, Ipst.

In Old English the basic principle o f constructing final consonant clusters seems to be the one according to which phonemes of lesser consonantality stand closer to the vowel (syllable peak) and phonemes of greater consonan­ tality are further removed from it. Final consonant clusters often mirror the order of initial consonant clusters; cf. /pr-/ and /-rp/, /tr-/ and /-rt/, /kr-/ and /-rk/, etc. The overwhelming majority of the final clusters begin with a sonorant and end in an obstruent. The most productive sonorants in the pattern “sonorant plus obstruent” are /r/ and /!/. On the other hand, the clusters /Jd/ as in gehygd -‘mind, thought’ and /wd/ in ëowd ‘sheepfold’ are isolated. The cluster /wd/ has been recorded only in the form given, and /jd/ disap­ peared in the course of Old English [Pilch, 1970: § 1 1 .4]. The pattern “sono­ rant plus sonorant” (/rm /, /rn/, /Im/) complies with this principle as far as the second element is, at least phonetically, a stop; otherwise the elements of the sequence “sonorant plus sonorant” are heterosyllabic (see § 122 ). The pattern “fricative plus stop” is also constructed according to the same principle. The members of the latter pattern coincide in voice distinctions, viz., both are voiceless. The first element, with the exception of /ft/ (as in gesceaft ‘creation’) and /ht/ (as in neaht ‘night’), is the sibilant /s/. It has to be noted, however, that in many words there are alternations /sp/ ~ /ps/, /sk/ ~ /ks/, as in wsesp ~ wmps ‘wasp’, frosc [frosk] frox [froks] ‘frog’. The pattern “affricate ( [+ fric, + stop] ) plus stop” is represented only by the cluster /(n)5t/, as in adrenct ‘drowned’, and the pattern “stop plus stop” is represented only by /pt/, as in beclypt part. 2 ‘embraced’; in addition, these patterns can be found only in Late West Saxon [Pilch, 1970: § 11.2]. § 122. There are in Old English final sequences of consonants ending in a sonorant. These are most often sequences of two phonemes: pi —

pn

tl tr tm -

dl fl dr fr - ■ -fn -

01 0r 0m -

si —

sm sn

hi — -

ml mr -

nl nr -

jl jr Jn

wl —

97

There are al«) three-member and four-member sequences of the same type/ such as /mpl/, /stl/> /ksl/, /m l/, /Istr/, /rhtm /. The final sonorants of these clusters are syllabic and constitute a separate type of rhymes in which peaks and codas cannot be distinguished. It is to be noted that in spelling syllabic sonorants vowel letters are often inserted; cf. tempi ~ tempel ‘temple’, bosm ~ bdsum ‘bosom’, hüsl '^husel ~ hïïsul ‘the house!’, etc. Word-stress in Old English

§ 123. In Old English a distinction is made between stressed and unstres­ sed syllables. Stress may be primary, < *> , and secondary, . Stress is free in the sense that it can fall on any syllable of an Old English word. Case flections, the derivational flections -a, -e (as in dëma ‘a judge’, webba ‘a weaver’, webbe ‘a female weaver’, etc.) and the prefixes ge-, be- and for- are, however, invariably unstressed. Simple words are stressed on the first syllable: dâgas ‘days’, grene ‘green’, iage ‘eye’, iagena gen. pi. of cage, sweotole ‘clearly’, hélpan ‘help’, etc. Words with derivational and form-building suffixes are also stressed on the first syllable, but some of these suffixes, especially in poetry, may receive a secondary stress: dyrsiig ‘daring’, bôdùng ‘message’, léomùnga dat. sg. ‘learning’, glsédÙce ‘gladly’, swetèst ‘sweetest’, bérènde ‘bearing’, etc. Compounds take primary stress on the first component and secondary stress on the second, as in rmnn-cynn ‘mankind’, ac-leaf ‘oakleaf, éfen-cùman ‘come together’, etc. In prefixed words, a distinction Should be made between substantive and verbal derivatives. Substantive ’derivatives (except those beginning with ge-, be-, and for-, which are unstressed) take primary stress on the first component and secondary on the second. Verbal derivatives are stressed on the root syllable, hence the prefix is weakly-stressed or unstressed. For example: ßrecweban ‘predict’ fôrpgângan ‘go forth’ ùnderfàn ‘receive’ oferhycgan ‘despise’ öfséttan *beset’ '%nmn ‘arise’ pùrhfâran ‘pass through’ wiperwinmn ‘oppose’ gebindan ‘bind’ begângan ‘go round’

fôrecwîde ‘prophecy’ fôrpgàng ‘a going forth, advance’ ûnderfèng ‘undertaking, taking in hand* óferhygd ‘pride’ ófsèttung ‘pressure’ érist ‘rising*, resurrection’ pùrhfsér ‘secret place’ wiperwinna ‘enemy’ gebind ‘a binding, fastening’ begàng ‘acourse’

From such substantive derivatives new verbs could be derived, and these retained the stress-pattern < ' “> : ândswàru ‘an answer’ 98

: àndswàrian ‘to answer’.

CHAPTER

FOUR

TH E EVO LU TIO N O F THE O LD EN G LISH PHONOLOGICAL SYSTEM

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE INDO-EUROPEAN AND PROTO-GERMAMiC VOCALIC SYSTEiWS

§ Î24. Hie deei3er the historical perspective the more reliable reconstruc« tion of later stages in language development may be construed. Therefore it is reasonable to trace the prehistoric evolution of Old English vowels as far back as Proto-Germanic and Indo-European. The Indo-European vowels are usually represented as triangular patterns of short and long monophthongs [cf. Guxman, 1962: 81,115] : (1) i

1

' u

e

Ô

a Besides these, there was the reduced vowel Id / (schwa indogermanicum, iedoeiiropeicum schwa), which, however, was early replaced by /a/ in the European area [Guxman, 1962: 90]. In addition to the correlation of quantity, the Indo-European vowels correlated and contrasted also according to the features of tongue advancement (back vs. front) and tongue height (high vs. nonhigh, and low vs. nonlow). In the traditional phonetic system, which has been worked out by Karl Brugmann, as well as in^ some systems of a phonolo­ gical kind, there are, in addition to monophthongs, diphthongs as well [cf. Milewski, 1967: 1363; Krahe, 1966: 49]. The monophonemic interpretation o f the Indo-European segments /ei oi ai eu ou au/ and especially the segments /eN oN aN/ (where N stands for jiaj, /n/, /!/, /r/) is just as arguable as the monophonemic interpretation of the analogous segments of Proto-Germanic (see below, §131). § 125. It is usually assumed that the Proto-Germanic vocalism diverged from the Indo-European vocalic system with the loss of the Indo-European oppositions /a/—/o/, /a:/—/o;/. In view of the fact that later Germanic has /a/ as the reflex of the Indo-European short /a/—/o /,jm d /o:/ as the reflex of the Indo-European long /a:/—/o :/, these changes are often viewed as inde­ pendent of each other or even directly opposite according to their results. This is, however, problematic. As à matter of fact, the phonological essence of both changes is the same and they must have resulted in the identical restructuring of the systems of the short and long vowels. The different ref­ lexes (ÏE /a/—/o/ > PrGmc /a/, IE /a;/—/o :/ > PrGmc /o :/) must be viewed 99

as resulting from, later restracturings of tlie Proto-Germanic vowels.- The loss. of the contrast between /a(:)/ and /o(:)/ indicates,.moreover, that at least in the Germanic area of Indo-European the Indo-European /a(;)/ and /o(:)/ were rea'iized phoneticaËy as back vowels [Boer, 1928: 41]. Therefore the Indo-European pattem of vowels may be presented as containing /a(:)/ in the back series, with a gap in the front series: (2) i

u o a

i: e: ■

u: o: a:

'Hie velar realization of /a(:)/ may be considered a phonetic prerequisite of the merger of the two phonemes in each pair. The phonological prerequisite on the one hand, and of the merger was the contrast between /i(:) /u(:) o(:) a(:)/, on the other, as fro n t vs. back. The short and the long vowels /o{:)/ could merge with the back vowels /a(:)/ much more easily, being phonologicaUy back, not rounded, phonemes. The reflexes of the Indo-European /a(:)/ and /o(:)/ in Froto-Geimanic must also be specified phonologically as back, though their phonetic realizations may have been with rounding (hence the symbol I for their transcription). Therefore the Proto-Germanic /i(:) e(:)/ and /u(:) o(:)/ must also have contrasted d.&fro n t vs. back. The loss of the oppositions /a(:)/—/o(:)/ in Proto-Gemianic may also be accounted for by a low functional yield of the Indo-European oppositions/a(:)/-/o(:)/, /a(:)/ —/e(:)/, as /a(:)/ were phonemes of a rare occurrence. On the other hand, the Indo-European oppositions /é(:)/—/o(:)/ had a high functional yield, as they were widely made use of in morphological alternations [Tops, 1973: 142]. The Proto-Germanic vowels immediately after the loss of the oppositions between /a(:)/ and /o(:)/ may be represented schematically as in the following pattern [cf. Benediktsson, 1967: 175-176; Tops, 1973: 143] : i: e:

(3) i

u: â:

Instead of a symmetrical quadrangular pattern, as early as 1934 N. van Wijk suggested the representation of Proto-Germanic vowels in the form of an asymmetrical triangular pattern [van Wijk, 1934: 8]. Similarly more recent works [cf. Coetsem, 1969: 44] may contain such schemes as: (4 )

.

u

u:

i: e: o:

or: (5)

u

K e:

100

Às has already been meationed, immediately after the loss of the opposi­ tions /a(:)/—/o(:)/ the systems of the Proto-Germanic, short and long vowels must have been identical; there is no rea»n to suppose that even the phonetic realizations of the reflexes of the Indo-European short /a/—/o/ and the long /a:/~/o:/ were different (naturally, with the exception of the difference in quantitjO- Schemes like pattern (5) may be postulated only for later Germanic, immediately before the rise of the phonemes /o/ and /ea^/, yet even in this case with the necessary specification that from the phonological point of view these schemes present vowels of only two degrees of tongue height, contrasted as front vs. back

§ Î26. The further development of the Proto-Germanic vowels is very problematic. Such questions as the history of the opposition /i/--/e/, or the rise of /e?,:/ are especialy worth investigatiiig. Namely, in this period vowels were widely affected by assimilatory processes. It is usually assumed that ftoto-Germanic vowels became more exposed to assirndatory influences of neighbouring sounds as a result of changes in prosody, viz,, in connection with the fact that stress and accents had become primarily dynamic. There were, however, prerequisites for a wide phonetic variation of vowels in the paradigmatic vocalic system itself: whenever there are^ only two degrees of tongue height, vowels vary rather freely in the direction of both more narrow and more open articulation (see § 43). Both short and long vowels must have been susceptible to assimilation, but in the case of short vowels assimilations had more radical and far-reaching effects [cf. van Coetsem, 1969: 50;Guxman, 1962: 72] § 127. When reconstructing the system of the short vowels intennediate between the one found after the loss of the opposition /a/—/o/ and that which is postulated for late Germanic, one has to deal first o f all with the rise of the opposition /u/—/o / and the new distribution of (if and /e/ in old Germanic languages, including Gothic. On the evidence of North and West Germanic forms which contain the reflexes of the Indo-European (if and /e/, the Germanic phonemes /i/ and (e( underwent redistribution, depending upon the following consonants and vowels:

Vowels could change under the assimilatory influence o f both following vowels and consonants. The regressive assimilation of vowels by vowels of the following syllables is called umlaut. The vowels /a o: / (< /!(:)/) made preceding vowels more open (a-umlaut), whereas /i/ and the semivowel /j/ narrowed and fronted them (i-umlaut). The vowel /u/ must have also exercised a narrowing influence (u-umlaut). The consonant group nasal plus another consolant narrowed preceding vowels, and the consonants /h r/ (as well as consonant groups with them) made them more open. Changes of vowels under the influence of such consonants as /h r/ are usually termed breaking. 101

/e/ was replaced by /i/ before nasal plus another consonant, before /i j/, and before /u/ (u-umlaut); on the other hand, /i/ was replaced by /e/ before /a/ and /o;/ (a-umlaut); cf, OE bindan ‘bind’, OHG bintan, ON binda, Lat. offendix ‘a knot’ (Gmc *bind- < *bend-; IE *b^end^; OE midd ‘mid, middle’, OFris: midde, OS middi, OHG mini, ON midr, Goth, midfis, Lat. médius (Gmc *midj- < *med]-; IÈ *med^j-); OE sidu ‘custom’, OFris,- side, OS sidu, OHG situ, ON mdr, Gr. éthos (Gmc *sidu-< *sedu-; IE *sed^u-)f ^ OE, OHG, OS wer ‘man’, ON verr, Lat. vir, Lith. vyras (Gmc *wera-; IE Specialists in Germanic studies differ in opinion whether there is enough evidence to prove that in Proto-Germanic at some stage of its development the opposition /i/—/e/ was lost. Some linguists hold that as a result of all these changes the distribution o f /i/ and /e/ had become fuUy complementary, viz., Jil before /j i u / and before nasal plus another consonant, and /e/ before open (nonhigh) vowels. Hence they infer that the opposition /i/—/e/ was lost, and /i/ and /e/ became allophones o f one and the same phoneme [cf. Mar­ chand,' 1967; van Coetsem, 1969: 5 0 - 5 2 ] There is, however, more evidence to prove that despite all these replacements the distribution of /i/ and /e/ was not completely complementary and that the opposition in question had been preserved [cf. Twaddell, 1948; Kuryfowicz, 1952]. It is possible that before /i j/ and before nasal plus another consonant /i/ alone was to be found. Nevertheless, both /i/ and /e/ must have occurred before /u/. When /i/ alone is reconstructed before /ii/, many West Germanic and numerous Old Norse forms which contain /e/ or its reflexes before the original /u/ are somehow neglected; cf. ON fjgrr (a kind of tree), OHG /ere/?, Lat; quercus ‘oak’, lliis has been duly pointed out by Beeler [1966]. And tliere is almost no doubt that in positions of a-umlaut both /e/ and /i/ can be reconstructed. Especially conspicuous from this point of view are cognates which have been recorded exclusively with the phoneme /i/: cf. OE fisc ‘fish’, OFris,, OS, OHG fisk, ON fiskr (Gmc *fiska-), Lat. piscis; OE, OS witan ‘know’, ON vita, OHG wizzan; OE, OFris. Mid ‘lid’, OHG lit, ON lid ‘opening, gate’ (Gmc *hUda-). The forms of part. 2 of the strong verbs of class 1 are the most revealing, as in ail the Germanic languages they contain only /i/ (or its reflexes); cf. OE geriden (from ndan ‘ride’), OHG geritan, ON ridinn [Uoyd, 1966: 738 ff.J, It may even be assumed that /e/ had never been found here and that the absence of the replacement /i/ > /e/ in these forms was determined grammati­ cally (cf, § 58), though in other forms in positions of a-umlaut /e/ must have widely and freely interchanged with jif; traces of this alternation may be seen in such variant forms as OE spic ~ spec ‘bacon’, OHG s k i / ‘ship’ (Gmc *skipa-), etc.

This etymology has been supported, among others, fay van Coetsem [1969; 5 1 ], though some other linguists argue against it [cf. Benediktsson, 1967; 187}. 102

§ 128. In the North and West Germanic languages the opposition ju j—joj arose through the phonemization of tlie narrow and wide aUophoneSs respec­ tively, o f the high back phoneme /u/. The distribution of these allophones must have been as follows: [o] was found in positions of a-umlaut, and M before “nasal plus another consonant” , as well as in the other possible positions. In the period immediately before the phonemization of the allo­ phones [u] — [ o j, the system of the short Vowels in tliis area may be presented as in the following pattern:

(6)

i e

[o] a

With the phonemization of the allophones [ u ] - [o], the preceding pattern was restructured as follows: (7)

Thus, alongside such forms as *mnuz ‘son’, preserving the earlier Germanic /u/, there appeared forms such as *godaz ‘god’ with the new /o/; cf. OE mnu, OFris., OS, OHG surm. Germ. Sohn, Sanskr. siïnü-, Lith. sünùs; OE, OFris., OS god, OHG got, ON god, gud, Goth. gup. § 129. The development of the Germanic system of short vowels cannot be comprehended without elucidating the development of the Gothic short vowels. In the language of the Gothic writings there are five short vowels which may be presented schematically as in pattern ( 8):

(8 )

1

u

S

0

a As a matter of fact, this pattern is identical with pattern (7). The phone­ mes of the pairs /u /—/ j / and /i/—/e/ are distributed mainly complementarily: the phoneme / j / (spelt < a u > ) and the phoneme lei (spelt < a i> ) are found be­ fore /h/, /h ^ / and /r/, asinfauho ‘fox’, taihun ‘ten’, saihran ‘see’, haurn ‘horn’, bairan ‘bear’, etc., and the phonemes /u/ and /i/ are found mainly in the other positions. There are, however, cases of contrastive distribution as well, so the phonological oppositions /u/—/ 0 / and /i/—/e/ cannot be disputed; cf. hiri interj. ‘come here!’, hirfats dual ‘come here, ye tw o!’, hfrjih pi. ‘come here!’, nih ‘and not’, nuh inter, particle ‘then’, -uh end. conj. ‘but, and’. On the other hand, the oppositions /u/-/-3/, /i/- /s / had obviously arisen through the phone­ mization of the narrow and wide allophones of the respective high phonemes. The Proto-Gothic system of short vowels must have consisted of three phone­ mes, /i u a/. The Gothic /i/ was the reflex of both Germanic /i/ and /e/; cf. 103

Goth., OE, OS b indan ‘bind’, Goth, hiipan ‘help’, OE, OS helpan. In the ProtoGothic area of Germanic the opposition /u/—/o / had. hardly ever existed. Only later on in Proto-Gothic there developed narrow and wide allophones of the high vowels /i/ and /u/, whose distribution must have been as follows; the wide allophones [e] and [ o ] were found in positions before /h h ^ r/, and the narrow allophones [i] and [u], in all the other positions. This may be shov/n schematically as follows;

(9)

i[i] P]

u[u] [O ]

When these allophones piionemized into the oppositions lij—jej, juj—jol, these phonemes had a distribution radically different from that of the respec­ tive phonemes in Indo-European, Proto-Germanic and the other old Germanic languages. § 130. The major restructurings of the Proto-Germanic system of the long vowels are connected with the rise of the phoneme /e^;/ and with the develop­ ment of the phonemic clusters /an/, /in/, /un/ before /h/, as well as before /f 6 sj. The problem of is very confusing. Even the sources of this phone­ me are still open to question, though most probably it goes back ultimately to the Indo-European /ei/ and /e;i/. Proponents of the laryngeal theory have suggested /ehi/ as its source (where /h] is a laryngeal consonant) [see van Coetsem, 1969; 59]. An attempt has been made to explain the development of 162’.I from /ei/ as due to prosodic factors. According to S. D. Kacnelson [1966b; 296], under conditions of an accent with its peak on the second element of the vocalic cluster /ei/, the change was to /i;/, and under condi­ tions of an accent with its peak on the first element, the change was ,to /e;/, i.e., to /ca ;/. There were prerequisites for the change of /ei/ to either /i;/ or 1^2-I in the paradigmatic system of short vowels itself. The segment /ei/, Just like the other vocalic clusters, was biphonemic. When the variation and redistribution of /i/ and /e/ under the influence of the following sounds began, the first segment /e/ under the influence of the second segment /i/ changed to Iil, thus the whole cluster changed to /i;/; cf. the infinitive of the strong verbs of class 1, such as OE ridan ‘ride’, OFris. nda, OHG ritan, ON rida (Gmc *rid~ < *reid~). But under the influence of following sounds the second element of the duster /ei/ could change to /e/, in which case the change of the cluster resulted in h j 'l - The new phoneme / e j ;/ differed from the old /e;/, traditionally denoted as /ei ;/, in a higher degree of tongue height. With the rise of the phoneme /ca ;/ the system of Proto-Germanic long vowels may be presented as in pattern ( 10 ); (10)

i;

63: ei 104

§ 131. There are distinguished no monophonemio diphthongs in either Indo-European or Proto-Germanic, as the biphonemic interpretation of the clusters “vowel plus /i/, /u/, or sonorant” seems to be well-grounded. The main arguments for the biphonemic interpretation of the so-called IndoEuropean and Proto-Germanic diphthongs are found in Bohumil Trnka’s [1936], A. I. Smirnickij’s [ 1946] and W. P. Lehmann’s [1952; 1953] works. To begin with, the functional independence of the segments manifests itself in the ability of the first segment to participate in morphological alternations just like vowels do before consonants [Lehmann, 1952: 12-13; idem, 1953: 144; Guxman, 1962: 77]. Secondly, the segments of the clusters may be separated by syllable boundaries [Smimickij, 1946: 81]. Finally, the develop­ ment of the segments parallels the development of the respective vowels outside these clusters (cf. the history of the Indo-European /a/, /o/, /ai/, /oi/, /au/, /ou/, the Germanic /ei/). From these systems the Old English system of vowels develops, though some of the immediately ensuing changes are rather to be termed Ingvaeonic or Anglo-Frisian. THE PREHISTORIC EVOLUTION OF THE OLD ENGLISH VOWELS

§ 132. Here vowel changes between two major linguistic stages, ProtoGermanic and Old English, will be discussed. Vowel development will be traced through an intermediate stage, Proto-Old English (PrOE). The vowels of late Proto-Germanic, or rather Common North-West Germanic, may be presented as follows: i:

62 :

u: o:

ei: As has already been mentioned, the so-called Proto-Germanic diphthongs, /iu eu au ai/, are analysed as biphonemic, i.e. as clusters of two short vocalic phonemes. The Proto-Old English vowels may be presented as in the following pat­ tern: i e æ

u 0 a

a"

io eo ea

i: e:

æ:

u: o: a:

a»:

io: eo: ea:

The major sound changes that contributed to the formation of the ProtoOld English vowel system are the following: ^ ® 26

Perhaps the greatest contributions to the reconstruction of the Proto-Old English vowel system and its formation have been made by J. B. Kxupatkm; in the description of the prehistoric development of the Old English vowels we often proceed from his works [see, first of all, Krupatkin, 1966: 5 ff.; idem, 1970]. jq5

( 1 ) the rise o f the nasal vowels /a^: u^:/ from the segments /a i u/ + + /m n/ + /h f 0 s/, the syntagmatic replacement of /ei ;/ by /a^:/ before nasal consonants, the rise of the opposition of the short vowels /a“/ —/a/ and further modifications of nasal vowels; ( 2 ) monophonemization o f the diphthongs /iu eu au/; (3) the rise o f the long /a:/ from /ai/ and the rise of the opposition of the short vowels /ae/—/a/ under the pressure of the opposition of the long vowels /æ :/-/a:/; (4) the diphthongization of the vowels /i(:) e(:) æ (:)/ before /h/, /h:/, /r :/,/rC /,/l:/,/lC /(“breaking”). The restructuring of the Proto-Old English system into the Old English system is due to i-umlaut. The development of nasal vowels

§ 133. The nasal vowels /a®: P : uP-i/ originated from the loss of the nasal /m n/ before the fricative /h f 0 s/, when the vowels /a i u/ were lengthened and nasalized [for details see Krupatkin, 1966; idem, 1970]. We find evidence for the loss of nasals before /h/ in all Germanic languages, for example: ( 1 ) OE lëoht, iJht ‘light, of light weight’, OFris. licht, OS liht, OHG lihti, Germ./e/cÄf, ON lettr, Goth, leihts, Lith. lengvas; (2) OE Uhta ‘dawn’, OS, OHG iïhta, ON ótta, Goth, Uhtwo, Lith. anksti; (3) OE pôht ‘thought’ (cf. pencan ‘think’), OFris. thochta, OS, OHG gi-thâcht, Icel. pótti, Goth, pühtus, Lat. tongëre ‘know’. The loss of nasals before /f 0 s/ may be inferred from the forms of Old English, as well as from the forms'of Old Frisian and Old Saxon, for example: (1) OE f l f ‘five’, OFris. fif. Fris. fyf, OS fîf, vif, OHG fim f, fm f. Germ. fünf, Icel, fimm, Goth, fim f, Lith. penki, iM .quinque; (2) OE ÛS ‘us’, OFris., OS us, OHG uns, Goth, uns; (3) OE oder ‘other’, OFris. other, OS odar, OHG dndar. Germ, ander, Icel. annarr. (< *andarr), Goth, anpar, Lith. antras ‘second, another’, Sanskr. antarai Some linguists hold that the loss of nasals before /h/, characteristic of all the Germanic languages, dates as far back as Proto-Germanic, whereas the loss of nasals before /f 0 s/, characteristic of the so-called Ingvaeonic languages (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old English), dates back to the common AngloFrisian-Saxon period. It is, however, equally possible and even more likely tliat the change took place in separate Germanic proto-languages, and that in Ingvaeonic the loss of nasals before /h/ occurred simultaneously with the loss before /f 0 s/. In the period of the oldest written records the Proto-Old English nasal vowels /a^: F : u^:/ are found already denasalized to /o: i: u:/^ respectively, yet the development of the low /a*^;/ must have differed greatly 106

fiQm the de¥eio|îmeiît of the Mgli [P-: li«:/. fc contrast to tlie short-iiYed /i"-: u*^:/, fdP-il proved to be more stable a n d -ïen to notable fortliei mocl.ilcations of the vowel system. One such mocimcatiGii Is the raplacemeö.t of / s i i l before nasals: the reflexes of the Froto-Germanl.c /e i:/ before nasais are not /asc/ (WS) or fe:/ (noti-WS), as usual, but /o:/,, which suggests the one-time presence of /a^'b/ in such forms. For example: OE m om ‘moon’, OFris. mdna, OS ?nmo, rmni, OHG mâno, ON mâni, Goth, mena (PrGmc ‘^mencm), lith . rnënuo ‘the moon, month’, Lat. rnemis ‘month’, Gr. m m e ‘moon’, men ‘month’. § 134. Under the pressure of the opposition /ej ;/—/a^:/ the opposition of the short /a/—/a^/ arose. The opposition /a/--/a^/ arose tlirough the phoneîoization of the nasal and noaiiasaî allophones of the 'ihort phoneme /a/ (the nasal aloplione . [a^^] ?/as found before nasal consonants, and the non­ nasal [a] in any position other than before nasal consonants). The opposition /a/—/a^/ was peculiar in that thess phonemes retained the complementary distiibiitioii of tiie former allophoiies [a| ™ Fa” j . Thus /a®/ was found exclu­ sively in such words as mann ‘mard, name, ‘name’, land land’, sang ‘sang, song’. Ifl the course of further development /a®/ was denasalized to f o j m West Mercian, where its reflexes are usually spelt < o > (mon, noma, iond, song), and to /a/ in the other diaiects, where its reflexes are spelt < s > {man, mma, land, sang), § 135. Here a quite different problem should be touched upon, namely, the Anglo-Frisian peculiarities of the distribution of the short /i/ and /u/ before nasal consonants. As is known, in Proto-Gènnanic only /i/ and /u/ were found before a nasal consonant followed by another consonant; cf. the following examples: (1) OE wind ‘rvind’, OFris., OS wind, OHG wint, îcel. vindr, Goth, winds, Lat. ventus, Lith. vèjas (PrGmc '^windaz, IE ^en tc~ y, (2) OE hand ‘hundred’, OFris., OS, ON, Goth, hand, OHG hunt, Germ. hundert (PrGmc *hundan, IE *kmtom). In Proto-Old English only /!/ and /u/ .must have been found before a single /m / as v/eJl, whereas the other West Gei*manic languages vary between /e/ and /i/, /o/ and (u(; cf., for example: (1) OE nirmn ‘take’, OFris. nima, nema, OS nirmn, OHG neman. Germ. m hm en,\cé..nem a,VsQ ^.m m an', (2) OE pXma ‘man’, OFris. goma, OS gumo, OHG goma, ONgumi, Gotli. guma, la t. homo. Proto-Old Esglisli may also have had only /u/ before a single /a/, v/hereas other West Germanic languages vary between /u/ and /©/ In such v/ords, For-example; ..

' ’

107

(1) OE punor 'thunder’, OFris. thuner, OHG donar, Germ. Donner, îceL porr; (2) OE hunig ‘honey’, OHG honang, Germ. Honig, Icel. hunang. „But before a single /n/ there is no evidence for the replacement of /e/ by I'll, cf., for example: OE cwene ‘woman’, OS, OHG quena, ON kona, Goth, qino, Russ. M em. Mcmophonemization of the Proto-C|ermanic diphthongs /iu eu au/

§ 136. In the earliest period o f,Proto-Old English the Germanic diphthongs /iu eu au/ may have remained biphonemic, but very soon they must have been reinterpreted as monophonemes whose distinctive feature was gliding. Monophonemic diphthongs should have a definite pattern of phonetic reali­ zation. With the Proto-Old English diphthongs gliding began at front vowels and continued in the direction of [-u], i.e, the diphthongs were diserial. This pattern was established according to the segments [iu e u ], which caused the change of [au] to [ æ u ]. As the subsequent development shows, these dif)hthongs were falling. Phonemically they may be represented by the symbols /io:/, /eo:/, /ea:/, since in the oldest written records they are regularly spelt < io > , < e o > , < e a > , respectively; phonemic notations may be more conven­ tional than phonetic transcription. The origin of /io: eo: ea: / may be illustrated by the following cognates: (1) OE liode, leode ‘people’, OFris. Mode, liude, OS liudi, OHG liuti. Germ. Leute, ON lyMr (PrGmc *liudh, IE *leud^-); cf. Russ, niodu, Lith. liaudis; (2) OE pêod ‘people’, OS thiod(a), OHG diot(a), ON pjod, Goth, piuda (PrGmc *peudo, IE *teuta); cf, Lith, tauta-, (3) OE read ‘red’, OFris. rod, OS rod, OHG rôt, ON raudr, Goth, raups, lith . raudorias ‘red’, rudas ‘brown’ (RrGmc *rauda-, IE *roud^ -). The development of the Proto-Old English oppositions /asL

§ 137. The opposition of the long / ae:/—/a:/ originated in the fusion of the Germanic diphthong /ai/ into /a:/.^ The origin of the (Proto-) Old English /a: / from the Proto-Germanic /ai/ may be illustrated by the following examples: (1) OE an ‘one’, OFris. an, en, OS en, OHG, Germ, ein, ON einn, Goth. aim, Lat. Unm (< *oinos), Pruss. aim (PrGmc *ainaz, IE *oinos); Henceforth the Old English reflex of PrGmc /e i: / will be phonemically tran­ scribed as /æ;/, or /æ j;/; for details of the phonological interpretation of the history o f the oppositions /ae(:)/—/a(;)/ see Krupatkin, 1966; idem, 1970. 108

(2) ÔE ham ‘home, house’, OFris. hâm, hêm, OS hêm, OHG, Germ, heim, ON heimr, Goth, haims ‘village’, Gr. kßme < *koime, Lith. kaimas ‘village’, kiemas ‘yard’ (PrGmc *haimaz, IE *koimos). Before the rise of the opposition /æ i:/--/a :/, the Proto-Old English /&i :/, though being the only low nonnasal long vowel phoneme, must have been realized phoneticaly as a front vowel. Firstly, in the earlier system of ftoto-Germanic, before the rise of /ca.*/, the phoneme /ei :/ could be nothing but a front vowel: m â^ Secondly, in the later system of Proto-Old English its reflex /æ^ :/ formed an opposition with /a:/ (< /a i/) as front vs. back: • i:

62: æ i:

u: 0: a:

It may be safely inferred . from this that in the interim system of early Proto-Old English /ei ;/ was also front; 1:

63: e i:

u: o:

,n.

§ 138. Because of the front phonetic realization of the long /ei ;/ in Proto-Old English, the corresponding short vowel, the low normasal /a/, could also change its phonetic realization from [a] to [ ae ] and join the series of the front vowels /i e/:

1 e æ After the rise of the opposition /æ i :/—/a:/ and under the paradigmatic pressure of this opposition the short /ae/ began to be realized phonetically in the front and back allophones [æ ] — [a ], which later, under the same paradigmatic pressure, phonemized into the opposition / æ / - / a / , retaining their original complementary -distribution. The distribution of /ae / is wider than that of its back counterpart /a/ (/ae/ was found both in closed syllables and in open syllables before front vowels, whereas /a/, mainly in open syllables before back vowels). Such distribution indicates that /æ / was the main allophone, which supports the fronting hypothesis of the low nonnasal short vowel in the previous system. The origin of the Proto-Old English / æ /—/a/ from the Proto-Germanic /a/ may be illustrated by the following cognates; 109

( î ) OE kw ßet;%vh2i.\ O Fm ,’ kwet, OS hwa.% OHG hwaz, Garni, was, ON hmtr, Goth, Iwa (FrGmc Lat. qm d, Lith.. Im (IE (2) OE mcer ‘acre’", C^Fris. ekker, OS, OHG acmr, ON akr, Gotli. akrs {EïGmc ‘^%kra-), Lat. ager, Gr. agrös TisW" (!£ '-‘qgro-); (3) OE sßgu ‘saw, sayingE OHG saga, Icei- sßga (PrGmc *sagö-), Litli. sakyti (ÎE '^soiv^a^. §133, TÎ1 S plioaeme /æ | :/ (< PrGmc was preserYed only in West Saxoo*^ ; in the non-West Saxon dialects it w as'replaced by /e:/. IM s may be Mrferred first of all from speMings. îri ?/est Saxon imtings the reflexes of /s3'i :/ are consistently spelt as e > , whereas the reflexes of /ea-/ are spelt < e > ; la non-West Saxon writings both the reflexes of /æ %:/ and /e-a :/i are speit < e > (for d6taii& see § 145.)., For example: (1) WS dæ d, Ângi., K. äM ‘deedb OFris. dêd, OS däd, OHG tâî, Germ, îhf, ON dé9, Gotli. gadëps (PrGmc *dëidh% Russ. ^den-O, Gr. tfthëmi ‘I placed, lith . dêti ‘to place’, dedu ‘I placed fiE ^d^'^eîh); (2) WS smd, Angi., K.^ sed ^'seedb OFris. sM, OS sad, OHG sat, G erm ., Saat, ONsicT, Goth, sëps (PrGmc *sëida~% Lat. semen; Liéi. sèti ‘sow’, sèkk ‘seed’, sèmenys ‘flax-seedb Russ, ceiim (iE tsê-). Breaking

§ 141). The front vowels /® (:) e(:) i(:)/ were diphthongized to /ea(:) eo(:) io(;)/, respectively, when nnmediately preceding the following conso­ nants or co'iî.soiiant groups: /h/, /h:/, /r:/, /rC/, /!:/, /IC/. For example: â ) /æ (:)/> /e a (:)/ (1) WS nëah ‘near, nigh’, near (< '^neahur < *nM ikur) hiearef, OFris. rtef, n l OS, OHG KÛk, Germ,, nah, nächst, ON nd- (in, compounds), nær, Goth. nêk(a) (FïGmc*nëi h ‘, I hur); (2) WS,, K. neahi ‘night’, OFris, nacht, SO, OHG m ht, Germ. Nacht, OEÎ nâtt, nóu, „Ice!, nótt, Goth, riahîs (PrGmc * m h t-\ La,t. m x , noctis (gen. sg.), Lith,«c.cNs, Pmss. mim, Saaskr. näkt(i-);

Proto-Germanic /« h / is reflected in Old High German and Old No.rse as /a;/, ^I'hereas PtotorGermaaic /e^:/ is reflected in these languages as /e:/. In Gothic both ProtoGermanic ( t \ ‘d and /e^ :/ a-e reflected as /e:/. It is aiso assumed that in addition to tlie West Saxon dialect, the phoneme / æ i : / had also been preserved in the area of Noifolk, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Bucking­ hamshire, Oxfordshire, Gîosterslîire, Worcesterslike and to tlie south o f these counties jMooie and Knott, 1942: § 229; Moore, 1960: § 27].

no

(3) OE heard ‘hard’, OFris. herd, OS hard, OHG hart, harti, herti. Germ. hart, ON harSr, Goth, hardus (PrGmc *harduz\ Gr. kratüs', (4) WS, K. eall ‘ah’, OFris., OS, OHG all, ON allr, Goth, alls (PrGmc *almz); (5) WS, K. ceald ‘cold’, OFris., OS kald, OHG kalt, ON kaldr, Goth, kalds (PrGmc *kaUa-\ Lat. gelidus ‘very cold, icy’. b ) /e (:)/> /e o (;)/ (1) Angl., K. neor ‘near’ (< *nëohur < *nêhur < i hur)-, (2) WS feohtan, OFris. fiuchta, OS, OEG fehtan, Germ, fechten (PrGmc *fehtan-). Lat. peetere ‘comb , p u ll, fight’, Lith. pesti(s) ‘pluck, fight’; (3) OE heorte ‘heart’, OFris. hirte, OS herta, OHG herza, Geml. Herz, Icel. hjarta, Goth. hairto [hsrto] (PrGmc *hertdn), Lat. çor, cordis, Lith. sirdis ‘heart’, serdis ‘core’; (4) WS, K. eolh ‘elk’, OHG elaho, Germ. Elch (PrGmc *elh-'). Lat. ekes, Russ, o/iem (IE *elk-). c ) /!(:)/> /io (:)/ (1) OE ïïoht ‘light, of light weight’, OFris. licht, OS ÏÏht, OHG lïhti, Goth. leihts (PrGmc *linht-\ Lat. levis, Lith. lengvas (IE *leng^^~); (2) OE liornian •‘learn’, OFris. lirriia, lernia, OS lïnon < *ÏÏznon, OHG lemen (PrGmc *lirnöjan from *liznojan by rhotacism). The long /æ : e: i:/ were diphthongized only before /h/, /h;/. The diphthongization of /e/ before /!/ occurs regularly only when /h/ follows. Before /Ik/, diphthongization of /e/ is regular only when /s/ precedes: aseolcan ‘be­ come languid’. So before /If/; non-WS seolf ‘selT, beside self, but always delfan ‘dig’. The breaking o f /æ / before /I:/, /IC/ has been recorded only sporadically in Anglian texts, and thus we find AngliaiT all ‘all’, aid ‘old’, beside West Saxon and Kentish eall, eald (probably due to absence o f the fronting [a] > [æ ] before /!:/ and /IC/ in Anglian dialects). No diphthongiza­ tion occurred before the cluster /rj/ as in the Proto-Old English *merjan (< *narjan < *nazjanj, later changed to nerian ‘^ve, rescue’, or before the /!:/ produced by the West Germanic consonant lengthening, as in the ProtoOld English *sælljan (< *saljan), later changed to sellan ‘give’. The breaking of short and long vowels need not be viewed as fully syn­ chronic processes. Diphthongization of short vowels must have begun after the fronting o f the Proto-Old English /a/, for breaking can hardly be regarded as anything but a change affecting front vowels; *hard- > *hærd- > heard ‘hard’, *slahan > *sl3ehan > *sleahan Ç> slêan ‘slay’). The development of ' slëan indicates, moreover, that breaking of short vowels preceded the ap­ pearance of the back allophone [a] in open syllables before back vowels. As may be inferred from such forms as Angl., K. nêoh « *neh < *ndëih ‘near’), diphthongization of long vowels took place after the rise of the allophones [æ ] —[a] and their phonemization into the opposition / as/—/a/. Ill

Paradigmatically, breaking is a rise o f new short phonemes, the short diphthongs /ea eo io/. Yet the breaking of the long vowels is only the syntagmatic replacement o f /æ : e: i;/ by the old phonemes /ea: eo: io:/, respec­ tively. Diphthongization after palatal consonants

§ 141. When a palatal consonant, /j/, /g'/ (> /j/), /k '/ O /ö/), /sk'/ (> /§/), immediately preceded /æ (:)/ or /e(:)/, these vowels developed into the diph­ thongs /ea(:)/ and /ie(:)/, respectively. This is a characteristically West Saxon change, as may be illustrated by the following forms: (1) WS gear, Angl., K. gër (< *gæ\r) ‘year’, OFris. ]ër, OS, OHG ßr, ON dr, Goth, jër (PrGmc *jêira-); cf. Pol. iary ‘spring-sown’, Russ, npoeoû, Lith. êriukas (?) ‘lamb’; (2) WS geat, Angl., K. gse't, get ‘gate’, OFris, gat, iet ‘hole’, OS, ON gat, OHG gaza. Germ. Gasse, Goth, gatwo (PrGmc *gatarh, *gatwôn-)\ cf. Lith. gatvè ‘street’, a Germanic loanword; (3) WSgfet, Angl., K.gêt ‘yet’, OFris. ieta, eta, Geàn. jetzt; (4) WS gietan, Angl., K. getan ‘get’, OFris. jeta, OS bi-getan, ON geta, Goth, bi-gitan, OHG bi-gezzan (PrGmc *get-\ Lat. prehendere ‘understand’, Russ. zadaTh (IE *^e(n)dan~\ Initially, /ie(:)/ must have been an allophone of /e(:)/, only later, after i-umlaut, did it become a separate gliding phoneme, the diphthong /ie(:)/ (see below, § 143, the i-umlaut of diphthongs). i-Umlaut

§ 142. The change known as i-umlaut, or palatal mutation, and shared in varying degrees by all Germanic languages except Gothic was caused by /i/ or /j/, operating on the vowel in an immediately preceding syllable. Phonet­ ically, the influence o f /i j/ consisted in the fronting of back vowels or the raising of front vowels, so that the following changes took place:

a) [û(:)l > [ü(:)l The high rounded back monophthongs [u(:)] were changed to the high rounded front monophthongs [ü(:)] ; cf., for example: ( 1 ) OE f f h n ‘to foul, defile’, fill ‘foul’, OFris., OS, OHG fill. Germ. faul, Goth, füls (PrGmc *fiïîjan, *fülaz), Lat. pütëre ‘stink’, Lith. püti ‘rot’, pÏÏliai ‘pus’; (2) OE fyllan ‘fill’, full ‘full’, OFris. fella, full, OS fullian, full, OHG Germ, füllen, voll, Goth, fulljan, fulls (PrGmc *fulljan-, *fullaz), Lith. pilnas, Russ, n o m u ù , Lat. plenus (IE *plno-); in

(3) OE cppan ‘make known’, cûp ‘known’, cunnan ‘know^’, OS kÏÏbian, küp, kunnan, Goth. kunpjan, kunps, kunnan (PrGrnc *kun6jan-, *kund-}. Such forais as cppan originally had the long nasal but by the time of i-umlaut it must have become /u:/. When [Ü] in its turn followed a vowel capable of undergoing i-umlaut, this vowel was mutated as well (the so-called double umlaut): gædeling ‘com­ panion’ (< *gaduling, cf. OS gaduling), sefest ‘envy’ (< *ab-unsti), lætemest ‘last’ (< *Iatumist), Sxtem dseg ‘Saturday’ (< L at. Saturni + OE dæg). b) [o(:)J > [ 0(:)] The mid rounded back monophthongs [o(:)] were changed to the mid rounded front monophthongs [ö(;)] ; cf., for example: (1) OE döêman Ç> dêman) ‘deem, judge’, dörrt ‘doom, judgement’, OFris dëma, dôm, OS dômian, dörrt, OHG tuomen, tuom, ON d0ma, dómr, Goth. dömjart, döms (PrGmc *dömjan~, *dömaz); cf. Lith. dêti ‘to place’, duoti ‘give’, Russ, d a n ‘give’, dam ‘tribute’, Gr, themis ‘law’, Sanskr. dhämart ‘law’ (IE * A - ) ; (2) OE cwöên Ç> cwën) ‘queen’, OS quart, ON kvdn, kvxrt, Goth, qens (PrGmc *ky^ei ni-). The short jo/ could be subject to i-umlaut only in loanwords, such as oele (< PrOE *oli < Lat. oleum ‘oÜ’), and only in those native words in whose forms the interchange between joj and /u / was found and ju j before /i j/ could be replaced by jo j analogically, as in doehter (< PrOE *dohtri < *duhtri), dat. sg. of dohtor ‘daughter’. Though the final results of i-umlaut both in döêman and cwöên are identical, what was mutated in cwöên may have been the nasal /a” :/, not /o:/, and the original result of i-umlaut may have been a front nasal vowel. c) [a( 0 ] > [æ ( 0 ] The low back monophthongs [a(:)J were changed to the low front mono­ phthongs [* (:)] ; cf., for example: OE hMhm ‘heal’, hal ‘whole’, OFris hela, hàl, hêl, OS hëlian, hël, OHG, Germ, heilen, heil, ON heila, heill Ç> ModE hail), Goth, hailjan, hails (PrGmc *hailfan, *hail-)\ cf. Russ. qejibiû ‘whole, unhurt, sound’. The i-umlaut of the short /a/ is rare, since PrGmc /a/ before /i j/ had been changed to /ae/. In some forms /a/ could be analogically placed before /i j/ of the following syllable, as in WS, North, fserjejs (< *faris), fser(eß (< *farid), 2nd and 3rd sg. pres, indie, o f faran s.v. 6 ‘go’. In Anglian the i-umlaut of /a/ was more common, inasmuch as /a/ was found before /!:/ or jij plus consonant even when /i j/ followed, as in xldra ( dépeling ‘prince’, *tögaduri> tögdsdere ‘together’. In such forms as mænn, menn (< *manni) ‘men’^ in which the 113

result of î-unilaut is at first spelt and later < e >s wiiat was mutated may feaYe been tîie nasal /a®/. d) |jæ| > [e] The low front aoaroimcled short monophthong f s | was changed to the mid front lioaroiiaded short nioaoplithosg |e | ; cf., for example;. ^ OE bead ^ ^ b ^ d d j a - ) Ijedcf, OFris. bedd, OS beddfi), OHG beiftßi ON bei% Goth, badi (WGmc '%sddla-, PrGmc '^badia-}. ^ Phonologicaly, the i-umlaut of /u(:) o(:)/ meant the appeamnce o f the iTont rounded series, the front miinderl piionemes /û(:) ö(:)/, tk'oijgk fh^. ,phonemizatiott of the front and back alophoaes: [ii(0]“ *[u(:)j, fö(:)|-”[o(:)| of the soiirce^ phonemes /ii(0 / ^aad /o(:)/, respectively. -The phonological essence of the km ilaut of /a(:)/ and /æ / is, however, more pe.ciiiar and dialectparticular. Before brealdng the Âagliaii /© t:/, as wdi as the K e n t i s l i :/, was replaced by /e:/ (§ 139), so that In the period immediately before I, M ia u t Anglian and Kentish dialects must lia\^ possessed oiily one low vowel /a:/, with the back and the-front aloplioaes [a:j •«( [ s j ] before/ij7)» consequently^ the i-iMiiaiit of the long jsii in Aaglian and Kentish means the phoiiemiiation of its alophones into the opposition /a;/--/g 3 :/,®® whereas the I-umiaiit of the short /a/ is but the,,.syatagmatic replacemeot of this phoneme, by limf. In West Saxos the i-uaiîaiii of both tlieiong and the short /a(:)/ consists ill the syntagmatic repîacenisîit of the back /a(:)/ by the front /æ (:)/ and involves ao paradigmatic chaiige, The I-iimlaiit of / $ / is also a purely syntagmatic change, the îepiaceînent of /æ / by /e/. § 143. Tlie diphthongs /ea(;) eo(:) io(:)/ were also subject to i-iimîaiit. ‘Current ■haiidbools in describiag the humlaut of diphthongs make a sharp distmction between West Sair.on and >i'oa-¥/sst Saxon dialects. The i-umlaut of /io(:) ea(:) eo(:)/ in tv/egt Saxon is described as resulting in /ie(:)/, whereas in Koa-West. Saxon the i-umlaiit of /io(r) 8c{:)/ is described as resuiting i n , /io(:)/ and ''the 1-umîaut of /ea(:)/ as /e(;)/. Mevertheiess, it may be assumed that the 'initial results of I-umlaiit v/ers iéer-iical 1e all dialects, and that dif­ ferences appeared only la the course o f late? deveiopmeat. At the time of i"imiîaut tile diphthongs /iG(;) eG(:) ea(:|/ were phcfleticdiy realized as pii(:) eu(:) ,^5ii(:)]. The foiiowrrig /i J/ had. tc modify them to (< |iu (:)j, |eu (:)j), leü(:)| (< These glides differed from [lu(:)eii(;) æiî(;)] in thek second elements, and the difference may be deflnscl plioaologically as front vs. bach

30 It is customary to denote the /æ :/ which is due to 114

i-um latit as /æ aT*

Back

Front

/io(:)/ [iii(:)| /ec AngL, K. /e(:)/, WS /ie(:)/ (1) Âsgî., K. heran, WS Memn liearb OFris. hëra, OS hêrmn, OHG koren. Germ, hören, OM keyra, Goth, (ga)hausjan (PrGmc '*kauzfm-}; (2) AngL, K. nëâ,- WS nled Vieed\ OFris. nëd, OS nod, OHG m t, Germ. Not, ON nau3(r}, Gotli, m ups (FrGinc (3) AngL,K. kerdmi, WS Merdan ^harden’ (cf. heard 'harcf), OFris. herd(a}, OS hard, herdim, OHG herti, herten, Germ, ksrt, härten, ON hardr, herïïa, Goth, fmrdus, mrdjan (?rOE Ntærd-, PrGmc *hard-}. b) /io(:)/, /eo(:)/ > Angl., K. /io(:)/, WS /ie(:)/ (!) AngL, K. dfore, WS diere *dearL 0 $ diuri, OHG tiuri. Germ, teuer, Ö N d jir;

(2) Asgi., K. Morde, WS Merde ^shepheidf, OS Mrdi, OHG Mrti, Gem. Ez¥t(e},^ OM hirdir, Goth. hmrdeis (PrGmc ^hirdfa-), Lith. (s)kerdzîus (lE (s/kerd^-). The î"Umiaiit of /eo(:)/ is purely iiypotlieticaî: in Proto-Gemiaiiic tiie diister of the short ¥ov/eis /eu/ before /i J/ was replaced by /in/, as Y/ell as the short /s/, ' which later, in Prpto-Oid Efiglisli, could be broken to jeof, was replaced in sacli positions by /i/. Consequently, /eo(r)/ could be subject to i'Umiaiit only in those forms in which fliese diphthongs were iatrocliiced into positions before /i j'/ on the analogy of cognate forms. For example, such fom s as ^wiorpis, *wiorpip, 2nd and 3rd sg. pres., could be at first changed to "hveorph, *weorpip, then adjusted to their cognate forms füûi as weorpm hhiowh and finally modified by i-iinilaut and further cliang&s to WB merps, wierpp.

§ 144. i-Umlaut was important primarily in that it led to the rise of ee\¥ phonemes, the front rounded monophthongs /li(:) ö(:)/. The phonemic status 'o f these vowels and their monophthongal character in the language of OM 115

^English writings cannot be doubted. Spelling evidence well attests this. As has already been mentioned (§§ 105-106), the phonemes /ü(:)/ are regularly spelt < y > , and the phonemes /ö(:)/ are regularly spelt < oe > . There are, how'ever, some other spellings occasionally used. In the earliest Old English texts /ü(:)/ are sometimes spelt < u > , as in hurnitu (= hyrnetu 'hornet) Corp. 603, scultheta (= scyldhâëta ‘bailiff) Corp. 799, ontUdri (= ontydre ‘weakened’) Corp. 723. In the oldest texts, especially Northumbrian, /ii(:)/ are quite often spelt < u i uy wi wy > ; cf. the personal name thruidred (pryff‘force, power’) in B ede’s History (Moore MS), gruitt (= grytt ‘meal’) Corp. 1619, buiris ‘chisel’ (Lat. scalpmm) Corp. 11; druige ‘dry’, fuilgendo ‘fol­ lowing’, geÏÏuild ‘patience’, mindrig ‘separate’ in the Lindisfarne Gospels. In the oldest texts, especially in the Northumbrian MSS of Bede ’s History, 10(1)1 are often spelt < o i> . For example, the Leningrad MS has coinred (côën- ‘brave’), oiddi (ôëdel ‘native land’) [Anderson, 1941: 82], and the Moore MS writes coinred (2x), coinredum (2x), coinmlch (3x), oidiluaM (7x), oiduald [Ström, 1939: 97] ; cf. also woidiberge (= wöêdeberge ‘hel­ lebore’) Corp. 1017. In the Vespasian Psalter lo ij is occasionally spelt < o > ; cf. domed ‘(he) Judges’ 95, 10; gedrofdes ‘disturbed’ 59, 2; gemotes ‘(you) find’ 36,10. Nevertheless, the rise of the subsystem of front rounded vowels is one of the most controversial problems of Old English phonology. The brunt of the problem lies in the interpretation of the immediate results of i-umlaut from /u(:) o(:)/ (and /a(:)/) and, concurrently,- the vowel system immediately before i-umlaut. When the i-umlaut of /u(:) o(:)/ is interpreted as resulting directly in front rounded monophthongs, it has to be assumed that at an earlier stage /u(:) o(:)/ were realized phonetically in the front allophones [ii(:) ö(:)] before ji j/ and in the back allophones [u(:) o(:)] in all other positions. Such allophones, in their turn, suggest that in the period before i-umlaut /u(;) o(:)/ were opposed to /i(;) e(:)/ as rounded vs. nonrounded. In other words, only the features rounded vs. npnrounded^wete distinctive for these phonemes before i-umlaut [see Twaddel, 1938; idem, 1948; SteblinKamenskiJ, 1966: 42; Krupatkin, 1962: .55]. On the other hand, V. J. Plotkin has advanced a radically different interpretation of i-umlaut [see Plotkin, 1967: 28 ff.; idem, 1982: 42]. He views the Proto-Old English correlation /u (:)o (:) a(:)/ vs. /i(:) e(:) æ(:)/ as based on the integral and indivisible features of tongue advancement and rounding, wheréas the results of iumlaut from /u(:) o(:) a(:)/ are viewed by him as diserial back-front diph­ thongs (“diphthongoids”): i(0 e(:) æ:

iu(:) eo(;) æô(:)

ui(:) u(:) oe(:) o(:) oæ(:) a(:)

What are the pros and cons in arguing the first and the second hypothesis? To begin with, Plotkin’s pattern of Old English vowels after i-umlaut is at116

tractive because of-its symmetry, where the front-back diphthongs are coun­ terbalanced by the hypothetical back-front diphthongs. Secondly, the recon­ structions of Indo-European and Proto-Germanic vowels reveal correlations according to the tongue advancement {back vs. front) rather than rounding (see § 125). Therefore, when we reconstruct the correlation of rounding {rounded vs. nonrounded) in the Proto-Old English vowel system immediately before i-umlaut, we have to assume simultaneously a replacement of the former correlation [cf. Krupatkin, 1962: 5 6 | . It must be acknowledged that this fact is also in favour of Plotkin’s hypothesis (the rise of back-front diph­ thongs may be assumed within the framework of both the correlation of the in t^ ral features of timbre and the correlation of the features of tongue ad­ vancement). Furthermore, the adherents of the traditional hypothesis should not ignore the difference in the results of the i-umlaut of /u(:) o(:)/, on the one hand, and the results of the i-umlaut of /a(:)/, on the other. The results o f the i-umlaut of /a(:)/, namely, the front nonrounded monophthongs /æ(:)/, suggest the interpretation of the Proto-Old English oppositions /a(:)/—/æ(:)/ as back vs, front. In other words, once under the palatal influence of /i j/ the phonological oppositions /a(;)/—/æ (:)/ were neutralised and /a(;)/ were re­ placed by /æ(:)/, the given opposition had to be based on the features o f tongue.advancement. The occurrence of /a(:)/ in velar positions points to the same. The short /a/ is regularly found in open syllables before back vowels, and in West Saxon the phoneme /æ i :/ was replaced by the phoneme /a:/ in such forms as magas, rrtSga, magum (from mæg ‘kinsman’), tälum (from tael ‘calumny’), slâpan ‘sleep’, läcnian ‘to cure’, lagon, pret. pi. of licgan lie ’, wagon, pret. pi. o f wegan ‘carry’, mwon, pret. pi. of sëon ‘see’ [Sievers and Brunner, 1951: § 6 3 ]. The velar influence was exerted on /æ / not only by dorsal consonants, but by back vowels as well (cf. tälum - tael, slâpan - slxp ‘sleep’, läcnian — /See ‘doctor’). Nevertheless, the traditional hypothesis should be given preference over the new interpretation. The traditional hypothesis is much more in conformity with spelling evidence. The rune ÿr, which is evidently a ligature of the runes ür and is, cannot be regarded as a proof of the diphthongal character of the phoneme /iil(0 /- We cannot deny the inventors of old writing the elementary ability to discern identical features of monophthongs, namely, the rounding of /ü(:)/, similar to the rounding of /u(:)/, and its palatalization, similar to the palatalization of /i(:)/, which could be expressed by using similar graphic symbols (the rune ÿr as a combination of the runes ûr and is). The rune ôê?eî, representing the results of i-umlaut from /o(:)/, formerly represented the monophthong /o(:)/. It is quite reasonable to infer from this that its later significance was alài monophthongal. The digraphs < u i oi o e > need not necessarily denote diphthongs' either, in a ^ u c h as the value of < a e > is monophthongal. Besides, the occasional 117

spelliiîgs < u > , < o > , as in hurnitu, dômeÏÏ, as well as tlie occasional spelling < e o > for /o(:)/, as m g e fe o m m gefoemm) dat, pL 'companions’ point to the monophthongaî pronunciation. The maiîî argument against V. J. Plotkin’s hypothesis is that it cannot account for the l-umlaut of the diphthongs /io(:) eo(:) ea(:)/. On the other hand, Piotkin’s argument that within the framework of ihe correlafios of rounding fij as a phbnologicaly nonrounded vowel could not cause the rise of the front aîîophones [ii(:) ö(:)1 with their subsequent phonemizatioa |g irrelevant. Assimilation need sot be evoked by distmctive features alone (cf. the velar effect of /r/ aad /!/ on front vowels in the process o f breaking^ ttioiigh the feature /+ back/ was not distinctive for ihess consonants in Proto. Old Engiish). In any case, /i/ was phonetically front and thus could palatalize the preceding vowels. Here we accept the traditionai h^/potliesis and interpret the i-umlaut; o f /u(:) o(:)/ as resulting directly in the fiont rounded monoph. tiioags /ii(:) wMcli, in its turn, Implies that immediately before i-umîaiit M O o(:)/ were opposed to /i (0 e( 0 / as rounded vs. nonrounded. The Proto-Old English opposition /a(:)/—/^ (O / is interpreted, however, as hack vs. front. It would be interesting to .note that in Anglian dialects the replacement o f /æ.*/ by /a:/ occurred only in positions before /w/, as in crawe (fC *cr^we) ‘crow’ (cf..,crsaMdeEp.,Erf.241,. craima Bp., Erf, 308, crame Corp. 401, 537, 950, crawe Corp. 538, lauuercae la rîr Ep,, Erf. 1012, îauricm Cbrp. 142, 1173, 2026). Therefore it may be asramed, that in Anglian in the period before, the replacement o f j ^ i i j by /e:/ at least the long low vowels began to be contrasted also as rounded vg. mnrounded. Yet before breaking, the Anglian and Kentish /æ p/ was replaced by /e:/, so that at the phonetic stage of l-umlaut these dialects possessed the single low long vowel with the front and back aiophones [æ:] — [a;], ’v/Mch later phonemized hito the new/ opposition /æ^ : /—/a: /. Here it may be noted that if we reàiterpret the Aiigiiaii and, possibly, the Kentish opposition 7a*7-"/®î •/ as rounded m.' nonrounded the loss of this opposition may be more easily explained. As is known, the contrast of open rounded vowels is rather difficult to retain, and thus the co n tra t hetween the nonrounded /æ i:/ and the rounded /a:/ could be emphasized by narrowii^ the phonetic realization of /æ j:/, which finally resulted in the replacement /aei :/ > /e:/. LATER EVOLUTiON OF THE OLD ENGLISH VOWELS

Further development of low vowels

§ 145. Not only the development of /æ s:/ (< PrGmc /e i:/), but also the developnieiit of /æ ^:/ ( , m d the oripna! /e(:)/are spelt < e > . On the other hand, in A n L n and Kentish wntmgs the reflexes of /æ f:/ and ^ K sn tj* writings also the reflexes of /æ?,:/ are no longer discriminated from the reflexes of the P ^ to . Old E ngli^ /e*/ ("^ PrGmc /eg :/), All of them may be spelt out with the graph < e > , or the graphs < ® > and < e > indiscrinimateiy.iaKentMiwritinas M is equally not discriminated from /e/. In West Mercian writinss the orinnal /» / < “ >> f ‘^ ia spelt < æ a i s > . with the excephon of the position before /I:/, flCj where the speUiaos < a î> and i a > are found, respectively. Such spellings as deg >4 ^ / , •days’) , / a l t o ‘faff, faslkn ‘to feh’ are m ost widely recorded to the fw l t t Psalter and Hymns, though they occur to the earUest Mercian glossaries as weË. The mdisciimmate ess of -iiie graphs < æ ae f > < e > , or the wholesale use of < e > iimead of < © > is iisedîy mterpreted as evidence o f a of /©(:)/. In a srniMar marmer the use of < æ > instead o f < a > is taken as qyI deace o f a cliatige whiclr iias öeea named by. Edimrd Sievers *tîie secopd fi'OEtiag” [Sieversand Bmniier, 1951: § 1G9, note a^Laick, 1 9 6 4 : § 1 7 9 | As may be expected, spehiog rfîAecîs the re s its of these chijges which may be, moreover, the resvJts of tiie combiaed operation of these and some other changes, such as breaöng, ium iaut, bads iirolaut. Therefore such questions as the relath/s diroaology of changes and, their phonological essence may be rather problematic. § 146. Tne cases of the raisfaig o f /®i. :/ and :/ ai'e, however, comoaratively simple. The raisii-^ of /æ ,:/ belongs actualy to the Proto~OM English period. As has d.ready been mentioned (§§ 139, 144), it was the iiamdigmatic loss of the phoneme /æ j:/, mvolvmg the loss o f the €>pposition/æi :/-/e :/, which was based on the features o f toagiie heiglit, and the opposition / s j : / /a:/, which was based on the features of tongue advancement (or roiiading). The identity of the Angltan and Kentish reflexes of the Proto-Germanic /ei :/ with the mid voweî /e:/ may be inferred from the result o f its breaking, viz., the mid diphthong /eo:/ [Luick, 1964; § 135], as in %êhwi- { < fn ^ h u r )> nêohur (> nëof) "nearef (cf. the recorded formsneorCh. 38, mor ( and < e > could not have: been abandoned; the graph could simply be reinterpreted as a ready symbol for the phoneme lef. The aïlograpMc status of the symbols < æ ae f > and < e > In Kentish is quite obvious from the cases of the so-caled reverse spelings, when the original /e/ is spelt < æ ae f > ; cf. gæfe (= gefé) T give" ; forecuaedem n, foremaede(ne), forecuçdenan (= WS forecweden) part. 2 ToretoMh îu æ jf (= WS twelf) ‘twelve’ in Ch. 37. Some linguists argue against the change /æ / > /e/ by pointing 'out that the 14th c, Kentish forms with the original /æ / have /a/ [cf. Luick, 1964: § 3 6 4 ]. This must be ascribed, however, rather to ’the leveHing of forms by analogy than to the change /£/ (< /æ /) > /a/. As a result of the second fronting these forms showed the interchange /e/ /a/, which was later eliminated in favour of /a/. In'addition, this could also be due to the influence of other dialects, first of all the London dialect, in which the respective interchange /as/ ~ /a/ had already been elimi­ nated as a result of the change /æ / > /a/. Both processes must have accelerated each other; under the influence of the neighbouring dialects, especially the literary language, /a/ was generalized in the whole paradigm; on the other hand, the presence of /a/ in some fomis of the paradigm itself facilitated the influ' ence of the other dialects. Under the influence of the literary language the phoneme /e/ could be replaced by /a/ even when /e/ was found throughout' the whole paradigm (in words of the type voder