Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2022: Selected papers from the 25th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022
Edited by Holly Kennard, Emily Lindsay-Smith, Aditi Lahiri and Martin Maiden
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 369] 2025
► pp. 20–34

Diachronic phonology with Contrastive Hierarchy Theory

| University of Toronto
I argue that Contrastive Hierarchy Theory (CHT) makes it possible to implement Roman Jakobson’s 1931 program for diachronic phonology. CHT computes segmental contrasts by language-particular feature hierarchies and incorporates the Contrastivist Hypothesis, which holds that only contrastive feature specifications can be active in the phonology. This empirical hypothesis is susceptible to be falsified by the ‘Oops, I Need That’ Problem. I review two case studies: the evolution of the modern Manchu vowel systems from Classical Manchu, and changes in i-umlaut from early Germanic to Old English. Both cases adhere to the Contrastivist Hypothesis and show connections between diachronic change and synchronic analysis as proposed by Jakobson, and between contrast and activity as predicted by CHT.
Keywords: Contrastive Hierarchy Theory, diachronic phonology, Contrastivist Hypothesis, Manchu, West Germanic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The main tenets of Contrastive Hierarchy Theory (CHT)
  • 3.An empirical theory: The ‘Oops, I Need That’ Problem
  • 4.From the Classical Manchu vowel system to the modern Manchu languages
  • 5.From Proto-Germanic to Old English: The short vowels
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (45)
References
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1972. The Proto-Germanic syllabics (vowels). In Frans van Coetsem & Herbert L. Kufner (eds.), Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic, 117–40. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. 2001. Representational economy in constraint-based phonology. In T. Alan Hall, (ed.), Distinctive feature theory, 71–146. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Compton, Richard & B. Elan Dresher. 2011. Palatalization and ‘strong i’ across Inuit dialects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 56. 203–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth & Daniel Currie Hall. 2017. The rise of contrastive modality in English: A neoparametric account. Linguistic Variation 17(1). 68–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Scope variation in contrastive hierarchies of morphosyntactic features. In David W. Lightfoot & Jonathan Havenhill (eds.), Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition, 27–41. Washington: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 1985. Old English and the theory of phonology. New York: Garland Publishing. Reissued 2019 in Routledge Library Editions: Phonetics and Phonology, Volume 4. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1998. On contrast and redundancy. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Ottawa. Ms., University of Toronto.
. 2003. Contrast and asymmetries in inventories. In Anna-Maria di Sciullo (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, volume 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition, 239–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Contrast in phonology 1867–1967: History and development. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Contrastive feature hierarchies in Old English diachronic phonology. Transactions of the Philological Society 116(1). 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Daniel Currie Hall. 2021. The road not taken: The Sound Pattern of Russian and the history of contrast in phonology. Journal of Linguistics 57(2). 405–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, Christopher Harvey, & Will Oxford. 2018. Contrastive feature hierarchies as a new lens on typology. In Larry Hyman & Frans Plank (eds.), Phonological typology, 273–311. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, Glyne Piggott, & Keren Rice. 1994. Contrast in phonology: Overview. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13. iii–xvii.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Keren Rice. 2007. Markedness and the contrastive hierarchy in phonology. [URL]
Dresher, B. Elan & Xi Zhang. 2005. Contrast and phonological activity in Manchu vowel systems. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 50(1–4). 45–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyck, Carrie. 1995. Constraining the phonology–phonetics interface, with exemplification from Spanish and Italian dialects. Toronto: University of Toronto doctoral dissertation.
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. Toronto: University of Toronto doctoral dissertation.
. 2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28(1). 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1972 [1931]. Principles of historical phonology. In Allan R. Keiler (ed.), A reader in historical and comparative linguistics, 121–38. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. [English translation of Prinzipien der historischen Phonologie, Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 4. 247–67, 1931. Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog — og Kultur Forlag.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar, M. Fant, & Morris Halle. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis. MIT Acoustics Laboratory, Technical Report, No. 13. Reissued by MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., Eleventh Printing, 1976.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Kenneth N. Stevens. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 82(1). 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Suksan. 2001. Lexical Phonology and the fricative voicing rule. Journal of English Linguistics 29(2). 149–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2015. Phonologization. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The handbook of historical phonology, 563–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Valentin. 1932. Johdatusta fonologiaan. Virittäjä 36: 230–50.Google Scholar
Ko, Seongyeon. 2018. Tongue root harmony and vowel contrast in Northeast Asian languages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Korhonen, Mikko. 1969. Die Entwicklung der morphologischen Methode im Lappischen. Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 37: 203–62.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1994. Old English: A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, Sara. 2013. Laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in Aymara: Contrastive representations and constraint interaction. Phonology 30(2). 297–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2003. Deep allophones in the Old English laryngeal system. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 20. 157–73.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2015. Triumphs and limits of the contrastivity-only hypothesis. Linguistic Variation 15(1). 41–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purnell, Thomas & Eric Raimy. 2015. Distinctive features, levels of representation and historical phonology. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The handbook of historical phonology, 522–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Purnell, Thomas, Eric Raimy, & Joseph Salmons. 2019. Old English vowels: Diachrony, privativity, and phonological representations. Language 95(4). e447–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2003. Featural markedness in phonology: Variation. In Lisa Cheng & Rint Sybesma (eds.), The second Glot International state-of-the-article book: The latest in linguistics, 387–427. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Markedness in phonology. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 79–97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald. 2006. A history of English: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (A linguistic history of English, Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Scholarship Online. [URL]. DOI logo
Sandstedt, Jade. 2018. Feature specifications and contrast in vowel harmony: The orthography and phonology of Old Norwegian height harmony. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh doctoral dissertation.
Sapir, Edward. 1925. Sound patterns in language. Language 1(2). 37–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schalin, Johan. 2017. Scandinavian umlaut and contrastive feature hierarchies. NOWELE 70(2). 171–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Samuel Jay Keyser, & Haruko Kawasaki. 1986. Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In J. S. Perkell & D. H. Klatt (eds.), Invariance and variability in speech processes, 426–49. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
2001 [1936]. A theory of phonological oppositions. In Anatoly Liberman (ed.), Studies in general linguistics and language structure, 14–21. Translated by Marvin Taylor & Anatoly Liberman. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. [Essai d’une théorie des oppositions phonologiques. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 33 (1936). 5–18.]Google Scholar
Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1938. A note on OHG umlaut. Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 30. 177–181.Google Scholar
Voeltzel, Laurence. 2016. Morphophonologie des langues scandinaves: Hiérarchie segmentale et complexité syllabique. Nantes: University of Nantes doctoral dissertation.
Zhang, Xi. 1996. Vowel systems of the Manchu-Tungus languages of China. Toronto: University of Toronto doctoral dissertation.