Against Old English ‘short’ diphthongs
Helena Sobol
Kazimierz Wielki University in BydgoszczAbstract
Since the earliest grammars, Old English has been analysed as having a length contrast in diphthongs, containing both regular, bimoraic ones, side by side with cross-linguistically unique monomoraic ones. The supposedly monomoraic diphthongs [io eo æɑ] arose through back umlaut and breaking. Unsurprisingly, they have become the source of possibly the greatest controversy in OE phonology, which still remains unresolved. The present paper refutes the main arguments for a length contrast in OE diphthongs. Instead, it argues for a generative phonological analysis, where the diphthongs constitute monomoraic monophthongs in the underlying representation, and bimoraic diphthongs in the surface representation.Keywords:
Old English, short diphthongs, syllable weight, back umlaut, breakingReferences
Bosworth, Joseph and Thomas Northcote Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
Daunt, Marjorie. 1939. Old English sound changes reconsidered in relation to scribal tradition and practice. Transactions of the Philological Society 38. 108-137.
Dobbie, Elliott Van Kirk. 1953. Beowulf and Judith. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dresher, B. Elan and Aditi Lahiri. 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 251-286.
Fulk, Robert D. 2001. Old English versification. In: John C. Pope, Eight Old English Poems. 3rd ed., 129-158. New York/London: W.W. Norton.
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 253-306.
Hogg, Richard M. 1992. A Grammar of Old English. Vol. 1: Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kiparsky, Paul, 1998. Sievers’ Law as prosodic optimization. Manuscript. Stanford University.
Kuhn, Sherman M. and Randolph Quirk. 1953. Some recent interpretations of Old English digraph spellings. Language 29. 143-156.
Lass, Roger and John M. Anderson. 1975. Old English Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lass, Roger. 1983. Quantity, resolution, and syllable geometry. Folia Linguistica Historica 4. 151-180.
Lass, Roger. 1988. Vowel Shifts, great and otherwise: Remarks on Stockwell and Minkova. In: Dieter Kastovsky and Gero Bauer (eds.), Luick revisited. Papers read at the Luick-Symposium at Schloß Liechtenstein, 15-18.09.1985, 395-410. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Luick, Karl. 1921. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. 1. Bd. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz.
Luick, Karl. 1940. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. 2. Bd. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz.
Minkova, Donka. 2014. A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Sievers, Eduard. 1893. Altgermanische Metrik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Stockwell, Robert P. and Donka Minkova. 1988a. The English Vowel Shift: problems of coherence and explanation. In: Dieter Kastovsky and Gero Bauer (eds.), Luick Revisited. Papers Read at the Luick-Symposium at Schloß Liechtenstein, 15-18.09.1985, 355-394. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Stockwell, Robert P. and Donka Minkova. 1988b. A rejoinder to Lass. In: Dieter Kastovsky and Gero Bauer (eds.), Luick Revisited. Papers Read at the Luick-Symposium at Schloß Liechtenstein, 15-18.09.1985, 411-417. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Toller, Thomas Northcote. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Supplement. Oxford: Clarendon.
White, David L. 2004. Why we should not believe in short diphthongs. In: Anne Curzan and Kimberly Emmons (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language II. Unfolding Conversations, 57-84. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
