Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:04:18.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosodic optimization: the Middle English length adjustment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero
Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero
Affiliation:
University of Manchester and Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During late Old and Middle English, the distribution of short and long vowels in stressed syllables was profoundly altered. The changes involved have traditionally been understood as conspiring to optimize syllable quantity according to the position of the syllable in the word. However, Minkova's reformulation of so-called Middle English Open Syllable Lengthening (MEOSL) as a purely compensatory process appears difficult to reconcile with the traditional approach, which has recently been further compromised by suggestions that Trisyllabic Shortening was not a genuine historical sound change. In this article, Minkova's analysis is supported with new evidence of phonological conditioning behind the irregular lengthening of unapocopated disyllabic stems (e.g. raven vs heaven, body, gannet). I propose solutions to Riad's ‘data problem’ and ‘analytical problem’. Optimality Theory allows Minkova's revised statement of MEOSL to be integrated into a broader, non-teleological account of late Old and Middle English quantitative developments, including coverage of processes of lexical change such as borrowing and diffusion.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1998 , pp. 169 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. & Britton, D. (1997). Double trouble: geminate versus simplex graphs in the Ormulum. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Studies in Middle English linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 23–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Árnason, K. (1980). Quantity in historical phonology: Icelandic and related cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (1997). Factorial typology and language change. Paper presented at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Watford, 5 September 1997.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (1998). Harmonic evaluation of lexical items: evidence from Middle English. Paper presented at the 6th Manchester Phonology Meeting, 23 May 1998.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (in preparation). Constraint interaction in language change: quantity in English and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester / Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. & McCully, C. B. (1997). Review of Ritt (1994). Journal of Linguistics 33: 620–5.Google Scholar
Bickmore, L. S. (1995). Accounting for compensatory lengthening in the CV and moraic frameworks. In Durand, J. & Katamba, F. (eds.), Frontiers of phonology: atoms, structures, derivations. London: Longman. 119–48.Google Scholar
Bliss, A.J. (1952/1953). Vowel quantity in Middle English borrowings from Anglo-Norman. Archivum Linguisticum 4: 121–47.Google Scholar
Bliss, A.J. (1952/1953). Vowel quantity in Middle English borrowings from Anglo-Norman. Archivum Linguisticum 5: 22–47.Google Scholar
Reprinted in Lass, R. (ed.) (1969). Approaches to English historical linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 164–207.Google Scholar
Bliss, A. J. (1955). Quantity in Old French and Middle English. Archivum Linguisticum 7: 71–86.Google Scholar
Boberg, V. (1896). Undersøgelser om de danske vokalers kvantitet. Archiv för nordisk filologi 12: 315–66.Google Scholar
Brunner, K. (1948). Abriss der mittelenglischen Grammatik, 2nd edn.Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Translated from the 5th edn by Johnston, G. (1970). An outline of Middle English grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1959). Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Chen, M. (1972). The time dimension: contribution toward a theory of sound change. Foundations of Language 8: 457–98. Reprinted in Wang, W. S.-Y. (ed.) (1977). The lexicon in phonological change. Mouton: The Hague. 197–265.Google Scholar
Dobson, E. J. (1962). Middle English lengthening in open syllables. Transactions of the Philological Society 1962. 124–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. & Lahiri, A. (1991). The Germanic foot: metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 251–86.Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. & Berent, I. (1997). The comparative optimality of Hebrew roots: an experimental approach to violable identity constraints. MS, ROA-235–1297, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html..Google Scholar
Fidelholtz, J. (1967). English vowel reduction. MS, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Fisiak, J. (1968). A short grammar of Middle English. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Fulk, R. D. (1992). A history of Old English meter. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Fulk, R. D. (1996). Consonant doubling and open syllable lengthening in the Ormulum. Anglia 114: 481–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hansen, A. (1962). Den lydlige udvikling i dansk, fra ca. 1300 til nutiden. l, vokalismen. Copenhagen: CEC Gads forlag.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 227–76.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical stress theory: principles and case studies. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (1986). Compensatory lengthening: in defense of the concept ‘mora’. Folia Linguistica Historica 20: 421–60.Google Scholar
Holt, R. (1878). The Ormulum, with the notes and glossary of Dr R. M. White. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hotzenköcherle, R. (1986). Aspekte und Probleme der Vokalquantität in Schweizerdeutschen. In Hotzenköcherle, R., Dialektstrukturen im Wandel: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Dialektologie der deutschen Schweiz und der Walsergebiete Oberitaliens, ed. Schläpfer, R. & Trüb, R.. Aarau: Verlag Sauerländer. 319–33.Google Scholar
Hutton, J. (1996). The Old English accent, giet ongean. MS, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Itô, J. (1988). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, R. A. (1992). Weak Layering and Word Binarity [Preliminary version]. LRC–92–09, Linguistics Research Center, Cowell College, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Itô, J., Mester, R. A. & Padgett, J (1995). Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 571–613. (ROA–38, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.)Google Scholar
Jordan, R. (1934). Handbuch der mittelenglischen Grammatik. I. Teil: Lautlehre. 2nd edn rev. Heidelberg. Translated and revised by Crook, J. (1974). Handbook of Middle English Grammar: phonology. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. (1990). ‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology 7: 301–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R. E. (1961). German dialects: phonology and morphology, with selected texts. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, M. (1993). On lengthening in the open syllables of Middle English. Lingua 91: 261–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1984). On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, C.-C., Johansson, I. & Strangert, E (eds.), Nordic prosody III: papers from a symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 135–64.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1995). The phonological basis of sound change. In Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA; Blackwell Publishers. 640–70.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. (1991). Stress and quantity in Middle Dutch and Middle English. Paper presented at Eurotyp, Salzburg, October 1991.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. (1995). Pervasion, simplification and optimization in language change. Paper presented at the XII International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester, 15 August 1995.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. (1972). Another look at drift. In Stockwell, R. P. & Macaulay, R. K. S. (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory: essays from the UCLA Conference on Historical Linguistics in the Perspective of Transformational Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 172–98.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1974). Linguistic orthogenesis? Scots vowel quantity and the English length conspiracy. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.), Historical linguistics: proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, 2–7 September 1973. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Vol.2: 311–52.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1980). On explaining language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1985). Minkova noch einmal: MEOSL and the resolved foot. Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 245–66.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1987). Language, speakers, history and drift. In Koopman, W. F., Lass, R., Fischer, O. & Eaton, R (eds.), Explanation and linguistic change. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 151–76.Google Scholar
Lass, R. (1992). Phonology and morphology. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, Vol.2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 23–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, R. (1997). Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehiste, I. (1970). Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luick, K. (1898). Beiträge zur englischen Grammatik, III: Die Quantitätsveränderungen im Laufe der englischen Sprachentwicklung. Anglia 20: 335–62.Google Scholar
Luick, K. (1964 [1914–1940]). Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Stuttgart: Bernhard Tauchnitz / Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1960). The categories and types of Present-day English word-formation: a synchronic-diachronic approach. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. & Prince, A (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. MS, University of Massachusetts / Rutgers University. (ROA-60, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.)Google Scholar
Mester, R. A. (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12: 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, D. (1982). The environment for Open Syllable Lengthening in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 3: 29–58.Google Scholar
Minkova, D. (1985). Of rhyme and reason: some foot-governed quantity changes in English. In Eaton, R. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 163–78.Google Scholar
Minkova, D. & Stockwell, R. P. (1996). The origins of long–short allomorphy in English. Paper presented at the IX International Conference on English Historical Linguistics,Poznań,26 August 1996.Google Scholar
Mossé, F. (1949). Manuel de l'anglais du moyen âge des origines au XIVe siècle. Vol. II: Moyen-Anglais. Paris: Editions Montaigne. Trans. Walker, J. A. (1952). A handbook of Middle English. Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, S. (1987). Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1989). Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Breivik, L. E. & Jahr, E. H. (eds.), Language change: contributions to the study of its causes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 173–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1992). What's cognitive, what's not, in sound change. In Kellermann, G. & Morrissey, M. D. (eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: language history and cognition. Papers from the International Symposium at the University of Duisburg, 26–28 March 1990. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 309–55.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, C. (ed.), Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London/New York: Longman. 237–78.Google Scholar
Parkes, M. B. (1983). On the presumed date of the manuscript of the Ormulum: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Junius 1. In Stanley, E. G. & Gray, D (eds.), Five hundred years of words and sounds: a festschrift for Eric Dobson. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. 115–27.Google Scholar
Pater, J. (1995). On the non-uniformity of weight-to-stress and stress preservation effects in English. MS, McGill University. (ROA-107, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.)Google Scholar
Pope, M. K. (1934). From Latin to Modern French with special consideration of Anglo-Norman. Phonology and morphology. (Revised edn 1952.) Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. Chicago Linguistics Society 26.2: 355–95.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. MS, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Technical Report no. 2.Google Scholar
Prokosch, E. (1938). A comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, D. (1997). Optimality Theory and features. In Archangeli, D. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds.), Optimality Theory: an overview. Oxford: Blackwell. 59–101.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, R. (1996). A constraint-based explanation of stability effects in historical phonology. Paper presented at the Fourth Phonology Meeting, Manchester, 17 May 1996.Google Scholar
Riad, T. (1992). Structures in Germanic prosody: a diachronic study with special reference to the Nordic languages. Stockholm: Department of Scandinavian languages, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Riad, T. (1995). The quantity shift in Germanic: a typology. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur alteren Germanistik 42: 159–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritt, N. (1994). Quantity adjustment: vowel lengthening and shortening in early Middle English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritt, N. (1997). Now you see it, now you don't: Middle English lengthening in closed syllables. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 32: 249–70.Google Scholar
Ritzert, A. (1898). Die Dehnung der mhd. kurzen Stammsilbenvokale in den Volksmundarten des hochdeutschen Sprachgebietes auf Grund der vorhandenen Dialektliteratur. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 23: 131–222.Google Scholar
Rubach, J. (1996). Shortening and ambisyllabicity in English. Phonology 13: 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Republished (1963) London: Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd.Google Scholar
Sarrazin, G. (1898). Mittelenglische Vokaldehnung in offener Silbe und Streitberts Dehnungsgesetz. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 101: 65–86.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spaelti, P. (1994). Weak edges and final geminates in Swiss German. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 24: 573–88. (ROA-18, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.)Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1980). How I spent my summer vacation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1888). A history of English sounds from the earliest period, with full word-lists. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1983). Causality in language change: theories of linguistic preferences as a basis for linguistic explanations. Folia Linguistic Historica 4: 5–26.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1988). Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change, with special reference to German, Germanic, Italian and Latin. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vincent, N. (1978). Is sound change teleological? In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Recent developments in historical phonology. Mouton: The Hague. 409–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1969). Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. C. (1990). Longman pronunciation dictionary. Harlow: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J. & Wright, E. M. (1923). An elementary Middle English grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar