No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Comment on German
... After all, if the trigger for a change is said to be uvular, then one would expect this fact to be mentioned in the dialect descriptions. I concur with Howell's observation, but it is also interesting to note that the lack of specifics concerning the phonetics of the ach-Laut can be observed in the literature on MSG phonology Ð and strangely, phonetics Ð as pointed out by Kohler (1990). Anyone knowledgeable about MSG knows that orthographic ch in words like Bach ›stream‹ and machen ›do‹ is uvular and not velar, but there is nevertheless a peculiar tradition of analyzing the sound as velar and transcribing it as [x]. ...
... In MSG the ach-Laut has two phonetic realizations, namely velar [x] and uvular [ ](Kohler 1990, Wiese 1996; however, the two sounds do not contrast. [ ] occurs after back lax vowels [a a υ ɔ aυ] and [x] after back tense vowels [u o ]. ...
A common sound change involves the Debuccalization of a fricative such as [x] to a laryngeal like [h]. A controversial question is whether or not the reverse development is attested as well, i. e. the Buccalization of [h] to a sound with a supralaryngeal articulation like [x]. Vennemann (Language 48: 863–892, 1972) proposes an approach according to which [x] can debuccalize into [h], but the latter sound cannot buccalize into [x]. By contrast, Howell (Old English Breaking and its Germanic Analogues, Tübingen, 1991) advocates a model which allows for both Debuccalizations and Buccalizations.
The present article critically examines the status of Buccalizations which have been argued to have transpired in the history of Germanic with the intention of clarifying which approach is correct. It will be argued that the change from [h] to a sound like [x] is only attested under the following two conditions: (a) the change is analogical, or (b) the change involves the shift from one allophone of a phoneme to another allophone of the same phoneme. All examples in Howell (Old English Breaking and its Germanic Analogues, Tübingen, 1991) which cannot be attributed to (a) or (b) will be shown to have an independent explanation not requiring the sound change from [h] into [x].
... It is usually a velar fricative but in some speakers palatal variants can be observed after front vowels and uvular variants after low back vowels, as in Northern Standard German (cf. Kohler 1990). The glottal fricative /h/ is restricted to morpheme-initial prevocalic position. ...
Saterland Frisian (Sfrs. Seeltersk ) is the only living remnant of Old East Frisian. It is an endangered language, with an estimated number of 2250 speakers (Stellmacher 1998: 27) and is spoken in the municipality of the Saterland (Sfrs. Seelterlound ), which is located in the federal state of Lower Saxony in northwestern Germany.
... Lass 1984;Kohler 1995Kohler , 1999 for a phonemic status of [ŋ], see e.g. Vennemann 1970, Dressler 1981 for an abstract analysis of [ŋ]), the affricates (see Ungeheuer 1969, Kohler 1995 for a biphonematic analysis, Luschützky 1985, Dogil & Jessen 1989, Wiese 1996 for a monophonematic treatment; for an extensive discussion see Berns 2013), and the complementarily distributed palatal and velar fricatives (see Dressler 1977;Kohler 1990Kohler , 1995Wiese 1996). ...
The development of Standard Austrian German (SAG; de-AT) is closely linked to the development of Standard German German (SGG; de-DE) as spoken in Northern Germany. Traditionally, SAG is strongly geared towards SGG norms. The orientation towards SGG norms goes back to at least 1750, when Maria Theresia ordered the adoption of the Upper Saxonian norms in place at that time (Ebner 1969, Wiesinger 1989). Since then, SAG pronunciation is modelled on SGG and Austrian newsreaders are instructed according to the norms of Duden's (2005)
Aussprachewörterbuch
and Siebs (1958, with an addendum for Austria) (Wächter-Kollpacher 1995, Soukup & Moosmüller 2011). This procedure leads to an inconsistent usage of SGG features in Austrian broadcasting media (Wiesinger 2009, Soukup & Moosmüller 2011, Hildenbrandt & Moosmüller 2015). Therefore, from a methodological point of view, pronunciation used in the Austrian broadcasting media is unsuitable for defining SAG (Moosmüller 2015).
The introductory text in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet is an instruction manual, not an authoritative textbook in phonetics/phonology. That does not, however, exempt it from an obligation to be explicit and unambiguous. In that respect, the account of the distinction between phonetic and phonemic representations leaves something to be desired. Another issue is the ambiguous attitude to force of articulation (fortis and lenis) in obstruent consonants. Finally, the Handbook should be consistent in the notation of diphthongs and affricates.
The two notes in JIPA 20(2) by Kohler (1990) and Ladefoged (1990) concerning the phonemic status of present-day Standard German ç] and [x] are one of many pieces of evidence that distributional (‘taxonomic’) phonemics has happily survived the thirty-year war with Generative Phonology and its offspring. But it is common knowledge among linguists that even half a century after Bloch's (1948) classic paper there is still no fixed and exhaustive set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Such questions as partial overlapping or neutralization or—especially important—‘grammatical prerequisites’ (Pike 1947, 1952) are still open issues, and it is quite probable that, at least for the last-named problem, there is no single, universal solution. In fact, it may very well be that languages differ inherently in this respect, and that for some of them the decision cannot be made in categorial terms. In nonextreme cases there may be at least two different solutions, each valid within its respective framework, one based on the assumption of the analytical primacy of grammatical (or part-grammatical) analysis, and the other on the reverse assumption of pure phonetic distribution. But even with juşt one of these alternatives, one given phonetic-environmental description may lead to a number of different solutions, as exemplified with particular conspicuity by Łobacz (1973). Admitting the alternative of primacy of morphemic analysis vs. pure phonetic distribution, she demonstrated that 504 (sic) different phonemic interpretations of one kind of Standard Polish are possible.
The German uvular /R/ probably shows more surface variation than any other segment in the language. (1) illustrates that /R/ has a vocalic allophone [A], which can surface either as a glide or a vowel, a sonorant consonant allophone, which is pronounced as a uvular trill or approximant, and two obstruent allophones:
In the present study I focus on the rules producing the consonantal allophones of /R/ in both Standard German and in certain dialects of the Lower Rhineland (henceforth LRG).
Velar consonants are known to often show forward movement of thetongue during occlusion, resulting in elliptical trajectories in VCV sequences. To improve understanding of the influences underlying this pattern, lingual movement was analyzed by varying vowel context and manner of articulation. Therefore, two German subjects were recorded by means of Electromagnetic Articulography. The first part of the material consisted of /bV1gV2/ sequences with all combinations of the tense stressed vowels [i,u,a] in the second part, the intervocalic consonant was /k,g,η,x/, the initial vowels [i, u, a], and the final vowel the low schwa [∀].In vowel contexts exclusively involving back vowels the expected elliptical patterns were found; thus the tongue may well continue moving away from V2 even after the end of consonantal closure. Contexts involving [i] showed an asymmetry. With V1 = [i] elliptical movement was suppressed, with V2 = [i] it was enhanced. Regarding manner of articulation, the amount of forward movement ordered similarly to the amount of tongue raising for the consonant ([k]>[g]>[η]>[x]). In parallel with the vowel context effects, this manner of articulation effect was suppressed when V, was a high front vowel. These results indicate firstly that, for German, forward movement of the tongue is not connected with enhancing voicing in voiced stops, and secondly that it can be no more than partially due to air pressure. The present results are compared with those obtained for velar consonants in further systematically varied phonetic contexts employed both by ourselves and others. The overall conclusion is that elliptical trajectories are the robust effect of several fairly weak factors acting in combination. The required ingredients for a complete model of articulator movement are discussed.
The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use. Second edition. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Einfiihrung in die Phonetik des Deutschen The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
- D Kohler
References JONES, D. (1962). The Phoneme: Its Nature and Use. Second edition. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons. KOHLER, K. J. (1977). Einfiihrung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. KUHN, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. LEOPOLD, W. F. (1948). German ch. Language 24, 179-180.
Juncture in modern standard German
- W G Moulton
MOULTON, W. G. (1947). Juncture in modern standard German. Language 23, 212-226.