Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 39:1 (2022) ► pp.39–87

Persistent innovations and historical conspiracies as reanalysis and extension

ORCID logo | Yale University

This article explores temporally extended innovations as a form of phonological reanalysis and extension. Polabian (West Slavic) exhibits multiple dissimilatory innovations that target the reflexes of Late Common Slavic (LCS) *v/w. In this paper, I propose that the outputs of syllable structure changes in early West Slavic were reinterpreted as restrictions on the distribution of [w], thus introducing dissimilation to the language. The new grammar was not able to stop other innovations from occurring (prophylaxis) and instead restructured intermediate outputs from subsequent innovations into an acceptable phonetic form (repair) thereby extending dissimilation to new items. I demonstrate that (a) outputs of an earlier onset epenthesis grammar conform to the surface-true generalizations enforced by the reanalyzed dissimilation grammar and (b) a single grammar can account for both the dissimilation which developed during the West Slavic period and subsequent extensions which occurred after Polabian was fully differentiated from its relatives.

Keywords: Polabian, Slavic, optimality theory, agreement by correspondence, dissimilation, historical conspiracy, prophylaxis, repair, reanalysis, extension
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Polabian segment inventory
    • 2.1The segments of Polabian
    • 2.2Feature representation
  • 3.The structure and timing of Polabian dissimilation
    • 3.1Comparative and internal evidence of dissimilation
    • 3.2The diachronic sequencing of Polabian dissimilation
    • 3.3Summary of dissimilation
  • 4.Labial dissimilation from a cross-linguistic perspective
    • 4.1Types of dissimilation
    • 4.2Does a process confine the analysis or does the analysis confine the process?
  • 5.Towards a unified account of Polabian dissimilation
    • 5.1Change in historical OT and phonological reanalysis and extension
    • 5.2Modeling dissimilation in agreement by correspondence
    • 5.3Polabian grammar models
    • 5.4Summary: The structure of West Slavic dissimilation
  • 6.Closing
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 11 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.19034.bur
References
Ball, Martin & Joan Rahilly
2011 The symbolization of central approximants in the IPA. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41(2). 231–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basbøll, Hans
2005 The phonology of Danish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, William
2013 Dissimilation, consonant harmony, and surface correspondence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation.Google Scholar
Bennett, William & Natalie DelBusso
2018 The typological effects of ABC constraint definitions. Phonology 35(1). 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette
2005 The role of phonological predictability in sound change: Privileged reduction in Oceanic reduplicated substrings. Oceanic Linguistics 44(2). 517–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Andrew Garrett
2004 The evolution of metathesis. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, & Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology, 117–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolla, Kálmán
1981 A conspectus of Russian speech sounds. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Joe Pater
2008 Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for harmonic grammar.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink
2019 Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (v.6.0.46). [URL]
Burns, Roslyn
2021 Modeling gradient processes in Polabian vowel chain shifting and blocking. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11(1).102–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2015 Articulatory processing and frequency of use in sound change. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 467–484. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik
2011 Dissimilation. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume, & Karen Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology volume III: Phonological processes, 1408–1433. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cahill, Michael
1999 Aspects of the phonology of labial-velar stops. Studies in African Linguistics 28(2).155–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlton, Terence R.
1990 Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1968 The ordering of phonological rules. International Journal of American Linguistics 43(2).115–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
1968 The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George
1985 The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 21. 225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, George & Elizabeth Hume
1995 The internal organization of speech sounds. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 245–306. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crist, Sean Jacob
2001 Conspiracies in historical phonology. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
DeJong, Kenneth & Samuel Gyasi Obeng
2000 Labio-palatalization in Twi: Contrastive, quantal, and organizational factors producing an uncommon sound. Language 76(3). 682–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Aditi Lahiri
2005 Main stress left in Early Middle English. International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL) 161. 75–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faytak, Matthew
2014 Dissimilation by surface correspondence in Aghem velarized diphthongs. Annual Meeting on Phonology (AMP) 1(6). 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldstein, Ronald F.
1980 The Polish vowel dispalatalization and its environment. Lingua 50(3). 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Mark
2007 Historical linguistics theory and method. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris
1962 Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18(1–3). 54–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar
2001 Theoretical and typological issues in consonant harmony. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce
2009 Introductory phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Colin Wilson
2008 A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39(3). 379–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, Petra & Jacolien van Rij
2011 Language acquisition and language change in bidirectional Optimality Theory. In Anton Benz & Jason Mattausch (eds.), Bidirectional optimality theory, 97–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond
2002 Ebb and flow: A cautionary tale of language change. International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL) 111. 105–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1991 Principles of historical linguistics. 2nd edition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holt, Eric
2003 Remarks on optimality theory and language change. In Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality theory and language change, 1–30. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick
2019 Phonotactics, prophylaxis, acquisitionism and change: *RIME-xxŋ and ash-tensing in the history of English. Papers in Historical Phonology 41. 83–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, Paul Stanley
2001 The phonological structure of the Kashubian word. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria dissertation.Google Scholar
Howson, Phil
2017 Upper Sorbian. Journal of the International Phonetic Alphabet 47(3). 359–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & Stephanie Shih
2014 Unstable surface correspondence as the source of local conspiracies. North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 44(1). 191–204Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1929 Remarques sur l’évolution phonologique du russe compare à celle des autres languages slaves. In Stephen Rudy & Jindřich Toman (eds.), Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 2. Reprint in Selected Writings. Volume 1: Phonological Studies 1962, 7–116. The Hauge: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jarosz, Gaja
2017 Defying the stimulus: Acquisition of complex onsets in Polish. Phonology 34(2). 269–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jatteau, Adèle & Michaela Hejná
2016 Dissimilation can be gradient: Evidence from Aberystwyth English. Papers in Historical Phonology 11. 359–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Gradient dissimilation in Mongolian: Implications for diachrony. Papers in Historical Phonology 31. 28–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kager, René
1999 Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, Hyeon-Seok
1996 The deletion of w in Seoul Korean and its implications. OSU Working Papers in Linguistics 481. 56–76.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya
1999 Voicing assimilation and the schizophrenic behavior of/v/ in Russian. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics (FASL) 71. 225–244.Google Scholar
2017 Some recent developments in Slavic phonology. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 25(5). 387–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
2003 The phonological basis of sound change. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 313–342. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles
1970 On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1(3). 291–306.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1994 Principles of linguistic change: Internal factors. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasch, Agathe
1914 Mittelniederdeutsche grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Litvin, Natallia
2014 An ultrasound investigation of secondary velarization in Russian. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria dissertation.Google Scholar
Martınez-Celdrán, Eugenio
2004 Problems in the classification of approximants. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34(2). 201–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazaudon, Martine
2007 A low glide in Marphali. In Roland Bielmeier and Felix Haller (eds), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 163–188. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzaro, Natalia
2010 Changing perceptions: The sociophonetic motivations of the labial velar alternation in Spanish. Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology (LASP) 41. 128–145.Google Scholar
McMahon, April
2000 Change, chance and optimality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003 On not explaining language change: Optimality Theory and the Great Vowel Shift. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for Language Change, 82–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Change for the better? Optimality theory vs history. In Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), The handbook of the history of English, 3–23. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Who’s afraid of the vowel shift rule? Language Sciences 239(2–3):341–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka
2014 A historical phonology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott
1991 Persistent rules. Linguistic Inquiry 22(2). 315–344.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf
1903 Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik. Halle: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J.
1981 The listener as the source of sound change. Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS) 171. 178–203.Google Scholar
1993 The phonetics of sound change. In Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 236–278. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Operstein, Natalie
2010 Consonant structure and prevocalization. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford, Will
2015 Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems. Language 91(2). 308–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye
2001 Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Elizabeth Hume & Keith Johnson (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 187–218. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2003 The emergence of contrastive palatalization in Russian. In Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality theory and language change, 307–335. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polański, Kazimierz
2002 Polabian. In Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 795–824. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polański, Kazimierz & James Allen Sehnert
1967 Polabian-English dictionary. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Purcell, Edward T.
1979 Formant frequency patterns in Russian VCV utterances. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66(6). 1691–1702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rensch, Calvin
1989 An etymological dictionary of the Chinantec languages. Dallas: SIL.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Rachel Walker
2004 A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80(3). 475–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy
2007 Feature geometry from the perspective of Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian. Linguistic Inquiry 38(1). 85–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaarschmidt, Gunter
2002 Upper Sorbian. Munich: Lincome Europa.Google Scholar
Schenker, Alexander
2002 Proto-Slavonic. Bernard Comrie & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), The Slavonic languages, 60–121. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1982 The syllable. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Vol. 21), 337–383. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Serbski institut:Sorbisches Institut
n.d. Deutsch-Niedersorbisches Wörterbuch. [URL]
Shevelov, George Y.
1965 A prehisotry of Slavic: The historical phonology of Common Slavic. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca
1982 Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Stieber, Zdzisław
1973 A historical phonology of the Polish language (Vol. 51). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Stone, Gerald
2003 Sorbian. In Bernard Comrie & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), The Slavonic languages 593–685. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Keiichiro
1998 A typological investigation of dissimilation. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
1995 Mechanisms and relative chronology of Polabian sound changes. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 351. 281–296.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, William Labov, & Marvin Herzog
1968 Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Winfred Lehman & Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics, 95–195. Austin, University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga
2007 The syllable. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 161–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zubritskaya, Katya
1997 Mechanism of sound change in optimality theory. Language Variation and Change 9(1). 121–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kei & Yu-An Lu
2009 Diverse repairs for multiple labial consonants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 271. 197–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar