Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:40:11.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Phonological Processes in Germanic Languages

from Part I - Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Tracy Alan Hall
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

The present contribution examines phonological processes attested in modern Germanic languages. Focus is placed on segmental changes belonging to one of the following types: assimilation, dissimilation, epenthesis, deletion, coalescence, vowel reduction, strengthening, and weakening. Although some reference is made to diachronic developments, the emphasis in the present article is on those processes that are active in the synchronic grammar.

Keywords

assimilationdissimilationepenthesisdeletioncoalescencevowel reductionstrengtheningweakening
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 11 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

References

TPTL: The Linguistics of Dutch, Frisian and Afrikaans Online (Taalportaal.org).

Alber, B. 2001. “Regional variation and edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in standard and Southern varieties of German,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20: 3–41.Google Scholar
Alderete, J. D. and Frisch, S. A. 2007. “Dissimilation in grammar and the lexicon.” In de Lacy, P. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press: 379–398.Google Scholar
Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, N. 2007. A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Palatalization. Ph.D. dissertation: University of California San Diego.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1995. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borowsky, T. 1990. Topics in the Lexical Phonology of English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Christen, H. 2001. “Ein Dialektmarker auf Erfolgskurs: Die /L/-Vokalisierung in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 68.1: 16–26.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1987. Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society 29–50.Google Scholar
Combrick, J. G. H. and de Stadler, L. G. 1987. Afrikaanse Fonologie. Johannesburg: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, K. 2001. Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
De Lacy, P. 2006. Markedness. Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, H. 1989. Syllable Structure and Lexical Derivation in German. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.Google Scholar
Glover, J. 2011. “G-spirantization and lateral ambivalence in Northern German dialects,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23: 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J. 2014. Liquid Vocalization and Underspecification in German Dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.Google Scholar
Haas, W. 1983. “Vokalisierung in den deutschen Dialekten.” In Besch, W. et al. (eds.), Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, Vol. II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 1111–1116.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 1993. “The phonology of German /ʀ/,” Phonology 10.1: 83–105.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 1997. The Phonology of Coronals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 2009. “Liquid dissimilation in Bavarian German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21.1: 1–36.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 2010. “On the status of [h]~[x] alternations in German dialects: The case for buccalization.” In Fuchs, S., Hoole, P, Mooshammer, C., and Zygis, M. (eds.), Between the Regular and the Particular in Speech and Language. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag: 29–56.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 2011. “Vowel prothesis in Walliser German,” Linguistics 49.5: 945–976.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. 2013. “How common is r-epenthesis?,” Folia Linguistica 47.1: 55–87.Google Scholar
Hamann, S. 2003. The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Holsinger, D. 2000. Lenition in Germanic: Prosodic templates in sound change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Holthausen, F. 1886. Die Soester Mundart. Norden und Leipzig: Diedrich Soltau’s Verlag.Google Scholar
Hommer, E. 1910. Studien zur Dialektgeographie des Westerwaldes. Marburg: R. Friedrich’s Universitäts-Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Jacobs, N. 2005. Yiddish. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, D. 1976. Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1984. “On the lexical phonology of Icelandic.” In Elert, C. et al. (eds.), Nordic Prosody, Vol III. Stockholm: Almkvist and Wiksell: 135–164.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoie, L. 2001. Consonant Strength. Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Mangold, M. 2005. Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache. Duden, Band 6 5. Auflage.Google Scholar
Noelliste, E. 2017. The Phonology of Sonorants in Bavarian German. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Noske, R. 1993. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation. With Studies on the Phonology of French, German, Tonkawa and Yawelmani. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, M. van 2000. Phonological Projection. A Theory of Content and Prosodic Structure. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. and Prunet, J.-F. (eds.) 1991. The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Riad, T. 2014. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, O. 2001. Whose German? The ach / ich Alternation and Related Phenomena in “Standard” and “Colloquial”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schatz, J. 1897. Die Mundart von Imst. Laut- und Flexionslehre. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, V. M. 1962. Deutsche Mundartkunde. Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. E. 1974. A Generative Phonology of Faroese Utilizing Unordered Rules. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. 1984. The Syllable in Dutch: With Special Reference to Diminutive Formation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Trommelen, M. 1989. Lettergreepstructuur en woordcategorie. De Nieuwe Tallgids 82, 64–77.Google Scholar
Tyroller, H. 2003. Grammatische Beschreibung des Zimbrischen von Lusern. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Uffmann, C. 2007. “Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants,” Language Sciences 29: 451–476.Google Scholar
Visser, W. 1997. The Syllable in Frisian. Amsterdam Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 2009. “The grammar and typology of plural noun inflection in varieties of German,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 137–173.Google Scholar
Wipf, E. 1910. Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Frauenfeld: Verlag von Huber and Co.Google Scholar

Online Reference

TPTL: The Linguistics of Dutch, Frisian and Afrikaans Online (Taalportaal.org).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×