1. Today A. Sound Change, continued: Rotations, Mergers and Splits Understanding the Great Vowel Shift Bringing synchronic data to bear on past data (Milroy and Harris, Milroy and Milroy) B. Read for next time:’ Labov 15 [all], 16 [451-454]

2. 2. Schools of Thought: In search of principles B The Structuralists B -- Saussure (Swiss, early 20th c.); Bloomfield, Hockett (American); Jakobson, Trubetskoy (Prague School) -- believed synchrony, not diachrony, to be primary in importance to linguistics -- distinguished langue from parole within the human capacity for langage -- view resupposes contrast between elements and combination of elements into higher-order units (including the notion of a “phoneme”--minimal element of sound) -- Saussure’s notion of the Linguistic Sign -- attempted to explain the what and why of sound change. what: mergers and splits why: preserve symmetry; pairs of phonemes with a low functional load are likely to merge.

3. 2. Schools of Thought: In search of principles C The Generativists B -- Chomsky (American) -- infinite productivity of language (no closed set of forms); limiting factor is grammaticality -- phonemes don’t change; rules do. -- human languages share or may be distinguished by a set of grammatical components -- generative phonology retained notion of phoneme, holding that components of the grammar interact -- in sound change: Construct and compare rules and underlying forms for each stage Change may only occur in the form, ordering, or inventory of rules Rules may be added or lost at the end of an established rule system. No rule insertion.

4. 2. Schools of Thought: In search of principles C -- Summing up the approaches: “Universalistic” -- Neogrammarian sound change; Generative search for a “Universal Grammar” There are no exceptions to the application of grammatical rules “Historical and Evolutionary” -- Variationist There are no directions of sound change (i.e., shifting) that are impossible for humans. Instead, we find statistical tendencies that do admit exception.

5. 1. What constitute possible vowel system changes? A. The historical record provides compelling evidence for: 1. Shifts 2. Mergers 3. Rotations

6. 1. What constitute possible vowel system changes? A. The historical record provides compelling evidence for: 1. Shifts: Minimal Chain Shift: a change in the position of two phonemes, so that Phoneme A leaves an original position which B then assumes: /A --> B/ Extended Chain Shift: a change in the position of two phonemes, so that the entering value of one minimal chain replaces the leaving value of a second minimal chain: /A --> B --> C --> D/ 2. Mergers: a change in the position of two phonemes, so that Phoneme A leaves an original position and enters a new position occupied by another phoneme, B: /A/ --> /B/ 3. Rotations: equivalent to Extended Chain Shifts

7. 3. Principles of Vowel Shifting C 1. Connectedness of elements in a shift C Functional economy is honored in that vowels move together to avoid merger and preserve contrast in meaning. C 2. Phonological changes are largely free of functional motivation C 3. Phonological changes are socially systematic, but often (in cases of “change from below”) below the level of social awareness.

8. 3. Principles of Vowel Shifting C Principles governing chain shifting C Principle 1. In chain shifts, long vowels rise. C Principle 2. In chain shifts, short vowels fall. C 2a. The nuclei of upgliding diphthongs fall. C Principle 3. In chain shifts, back vowels move to the front. C Central concepts: C -- principles apply only to vowel shifts identified as chain shifts C -- applicable only where there is a phonological contrast between long and short vowels C -- principles have been combined into patterns, describing their attested application in the world’s languages (Labov, Table 5.1). -- subsystems in a vowel system refer to portions of the inventory that pattern similarly (respond in like manner to a similar conditioning environment, face the same restrictions--e.g., checked vs. free)

9. 3. Principles of Vowel Shifting C Patterns occurring in attested chain shifts C Pattern I: combines Principle I with diphthongization of previously monophthongal vocalic nuclei. (English Great Vowel Shift) C Pattern II: combines all three principles, I-III. (North Frisian) C Pattern III: combines Principles I, III. (North Frisian)

10. 3. Principles of Vowel Shifting C Examples: C Pattern I: combines Principle I with diphthongization of previously monophthongal vocalic nuclei. (English Great Vowel Shift) [iy]: upgliding [ I´ ]: downgliding

11. 3. Principles of Vowel Shifting C Examples: C Pattern II: combines all three principles, I-III [ Q ]>[ia]: breaking

12. 3. Principles of Vowel Shifting C Examples: C Pattern III: combines Principles I, III.

13. 2.The Great Vowel Shift in English  Affected the Middle English (ME) long vowel subsystem only Middle EnglishModern SpellingsExamples / i˘ / > [ai] i,y,iCe,iechild, fly, tide, pie / e˘ / > [ i˘ ] ee, ieseed, field / E˘ / > [ i˘ ] ea, ei, eCe heath, conceit, complete (but break, drain, great, steak, yea!) / a˘ / > [ e˘ ] aCemake, dame / ç˘ / > [o ˘ ] oa, oCeboat, hope / o˘ / > [u ˘ ] oofood, goose / u˘ / > [ aU ] ou, owhouse, how

14. 2.Principles of Vowel Shifting: perspective gained from synchronic variation C Insights from recent work:  operated systematically on the prestige dialect (West Saxon) in southwestern England 1500-1700.  did not proceed at the same rate in all regions  all social classes were not affected in the same way. ...symmetricality has been questioned.  Gains possible from a synchronic perspective §-- spread of a change through the speech community §-- spread of a change through a phonetic class vs. through the lexicon §-- time depth associated with the change

15. 3. The Belfast Study (Milroy and Harris, 1980) nQuestions: nAuthors refer to the present in Belfast to discuss MEAT/MATE/MEET merging in Early Modern English. Is this reasonable? nExplanations: nHow did the centring glide develop? nHow do we explain the apparent “leapfrogging” of word classes?

16. 3. The Belfast Study (Milroy and Milroy, 1978) 1. Purpose: Study the rise of an urban vernacular in Belfast 2. Approach: Observations were not conducted across social classes, but within one social class (working class) Status differences acknowledged 3. Variables: (a) bag, fat, man MC norm=[a], WC variants are [ Q A E ] Conditioned (√) (√) pull, took, look, would WC variants are [ √ ¨ ] Lexical, Gender-graded ( E ) bet, peck, slep WC variants are [ E´ Q ] Binary choice in some environments (_NT), gradual raising in others, Gender-graded