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. 35–49

The life cycle of phonological patterns explains drift in sound change

| University of Edinburgh
This paper addresses a classic problem in historical linguistics — ‘drift’, i.e., identical or similar changes occurring in related languages after separation from their common ancestor — from the perspective of theoretical historical phonology. I endorse Joseph’s (2006) view of the basic mechanism of drift: it arises when synchronic variation, inherited from the proto- language, narrows in range to produce similar outcomes. This paper elaborates on this proposal by identifying the mechanism that ensures inherited variation is narrowed down in similar ways, framing it within the theory of the life cycle of phonological processes.
As proposed by Sapir (1921), ‘drift’ is often criticized for invoking the spectre of unexplained teleological factors (‘submerged form-feeling’) driving change. It is reasonable to ask whether parallel developments involved in ‘drift’ are ever distinct from ‘ordinary’ change. After all, change is subject not only to random contingencies but also to universal forces, which can conspire to produce parallel developments. This is especially pertinent for phonological change, widely agreed to be grounded in substantive biases related to the human articulatory and auditory systems (Blevins 2004).
If we wish to disentangle the mechanism that might account specifically for drift from such universal tendencies, it is particularly valuable to consider cases of drift with no ready universal explanation — those that involve typologically unusual phenomena. Here, I discuss the consonant gradation systems of the Uralic languages, with a particular focus on the Finnic and Sámi branches. I offer a reconstruction of its rise and development within the life-cycle framework. In doing so, I highlight both the explanatory power of the theory in accounting for Sapirean drift and its heuristic value in opening up new approaches to long-standing empirical controversies.
Keywords: drift, life cycle of phonological processes, consonant gradation, Finnic languages, Sámi languages
Article outline
  • 1.The problem of drift and the life cycle
    • 1.1Identifying drift
    • 1.2Drift and the life cycle of phonological processes
  • 2.Consonant gradation in Finnic and Sámi
    • 2.1Rhythmic and syllabic gradation
    • 2.2The segmental effects of consonant gradation
  • 3.The life cycle of consonant gradation and drift
    • 3.1Phonologization of consonant gradation
    • 3.2Stabilization: Fortition or lenition?
    • 3.3Rule scattering and repeated innovation
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (29)
References
Bergsland, Knut. 1945. L’alternance consonantique date-t-elle du lapon commun? Festskrift til Konrad Nielsen på 70-årsdagen, 28. august 1945, 1–53. Oslo: A. W. Brøggers boktrykkeri.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2015. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph C. Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 374–99. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Harry van der Hulst. 1998. Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology: Visibility and complexity. Phonology 15(3). 317–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 1997. A fortition-based approach to Balto-Fennic-Sámi consonant gradation. Folia Linguistica Historica 18(1–2). 49–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helimski, Eugene. 1996. Proto-Uralic gradation: Continuation and traces. In Heikki Leskinen (ed.), Congressus octavus internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum Jyväskylä 10.–15.8.1995. Vol. 1: Orationes plenariae et conspectus quinquennales, 17–51. Jyväskylä: Moderatores.Google Scholar
Howell, Robert B. 1991. Old English breaking and its Germanic analogues. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Erkki. 1946. Struktur und Entwicklung der ostlappischen Quantitätssysteme. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen seura.Google Scholar
Iva, Sulev. 2010. Grade alternation in Võro South Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 46(3). 161–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Steven A. 1985. Siberian Yupik and Central Yupik prosody. In Michael Krauss (ed.), Yupik Eskimo prosodic systems: Descriptive and comparative studies, 25–46. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2006. On projecting variation back into a proto-language, with particular attention to Germanic evidence and some thoughts on ‘drift’. In Thomas D. Cravens (ed.), Variation and reconstruction, 103–18. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kettunen, Lauri. 1939. Onko vepsässä ollut astevaihtelua? Virittäjä 39. 213–36.Google Scholar
Khyamyalyaĭnen, Matveĭ Mikhaĭlovich. 1954. K voprosu o cheredovanii stupeneĭ soglasnȳkh v proshlom vepsskogo yazȳka. Trudȳ Karelo-finskogo filiala Akademii nauk SSSR 1. 98–108.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 640–70. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2003. Finnish noun inflection. In Diane Nelson & Satu Manninen (eds.), Generative approaches to Finnic and Saami linguistics, 109–61. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi. 2002. Pertinacity in representation and change. Presentation at the Workshop on Pertinacity, Schloss Freudenthal.
Lehtinen, Tapani. 2007. Kielen vuosituhannet: Suomen kielen kehitys kantauralista varhaissuomeen. Helsinki: Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura.Google Scholar
Lehtonen, Jaakko. 1970. Aspects of quantity in Standard Finnish. Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Leppik, Merle. 1968. On the non-phonological character of consonant gradation in Proto — Fennic. Sovetskoe finno-ugrovedenie 4(1). 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte. 2022. Proto-Uralic. In Marianne Bakró-Nagy, Johanna Laakso & Elena Skribnik (eds.), The Oxford guide to the Uralic languages, 3–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, Elena. 2010. Primary and secondary geminates in Ingrian. Linguistica Uralica 46(1). 38–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markus, Elena & Fedor Rozhanskiĭ. 2017. Sovremennȳĭ vodskiĭ yazȳk: Tekstȳ i grammaticheskiĭ ocherk. 2nd ed. St Petersburg.Google Scholar
Ravila, Paavo. 1951. Astevaihtelun arvoitus. Virittäjä 55. 292–300.Google Scholar
. 1960. Probleme des Stufenwechsels im Lappischen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 33. 285–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sammallahti, Pekka. 1998. The Saami languages: An introduction. Kárášjohka: Davvi girji.Google Scholar
. 2012. On subglottal pulses. In Tiina Hyytiäinen, Lotta Jalava, Janne Saarikivi & Erika Sandman (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem: Iter polyphonicum multilingue, 359–74. Helsinki.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Suomi, Kari, Juhani Toivanen & Riikka Ylitalo. 2008. Finnish sound structure: Phonetics, phonology, phonotactics and prosody. Oulu: University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Zhivlov, Mikhail. 2023. Reconstruction of Proto-Uralic. In Daniel Abondolo & Riitta-Liisa Välijärvi (eds.), The Uralic languages, 117–175. 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar