Cover not available
Part of
Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 63–72

A unifying explanation of the Great Vowel Shift, Canadian Raising and Southern Monophthonging

| Radboud University Nijmegen

It is argued that three historical sound changes in English resulted from the enhancement of a duration cue involved in the signaling of phonological contrasts. In the case of the Great Vowel Shift (ca. 1600) the contrast involved was the opposition between long and short vowels, while in the case of Canadian Raising and Southern Monophthonging (ca. 1900) it is the laryngeal opposition in coda obstruents, whose most salient cue is a duration difference in sonorant rime portions preceding the coda obstruent. One of the two phonetic policies enhancing the duration distinctions is the raising of long vowels, which enhances their perceived longer duration by virtue of the illusion of a shorter time needed for the production of vowel targets, as occurred in the Great Vowel Shift. The second mechanism is the strengthening the second elements of closing diphthongs, which enhances their perceived shorter duration by virtue of an illusory conversion of the second elements into [w j], as happened in the case of Canadian Raising, and its counter-policy, the lengthening of the first element at the expense of the second, as happened in the case of Southern Monophthonging.

Keywords: enhancement, cue salience, phonological contrasts, sound change, English, compensatory listening, Great Vowel Shift, Canadian Raising, Southern Monophthonging, vowel shifts, sound change
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Vowel Raising and durational enhancement
  • 3.Off-glide Strengthening as an enhancement of duration differences
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 30 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.14.c4
References
Cajot, José
2006 Phonologisch bedingter Polytonieverlust; Eine tonlose Enklave südlich von Maastricht. In Michiel de Vaan (ed.), Germanic Tone Accents. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, 11–23. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Gimson, A.C
1962 An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos
2007 A vowel height split explained: Compensatory listening and speaker control. In Jennifer Cole & José I. Hualde (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology 9, 145–172. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harris, John
1989a Towards a lexical analysis of sound change in progress. Journal of Linguistics 25: 35–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989b Derived phonological contrasts. In Susan Ramsaran (ed.), Studies in the Pronunciation of English: A Commemorative Volume in Honour of A.C. Gimson, 87–105. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry
2013 Enlarging the scope of phonologization. In Alan C.L. Yu (ed.), Origins of Sound Change: Approaches to Phonologization, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1931 Principles of historical phonology. In Allan R. Keiler (ed.) (1972) A Reader in Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 121–138. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1909 A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. I: Sounds and Spelling. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kluender, Keith R., Randy S. Diehl & Beverly R. Wright
1988 Vowel-length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: An auditory explanation. Journal of Phonetics 16: 153–169.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1994 Principles of Linguistic Change: Volume 1: Internal Factors. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2001 Principles of Linguistic Change: Volume 2: Social Factors. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1976 English Phonology and Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luick, Karl
1898 Untersuchungen zur englischen Lautgeschichte. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
McDavid, Ronald J., Jr
1967 A checklist of significant features for discriminating social dialects. In E.L. Evertts (ed.), Dimensions of Dialects, 7–10. Champaign IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliot
2004 Realization of the English postvocalic [voice] contrast in F1 and F2. Journal of Phonetics 32: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet
1979 The perception of fundamental frequency declination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66: 363–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuels, M.L
1972 Linguistic Evolution, with Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim
1987 The Structure and Processing of Fundamental frequency Contours. PhD Dissertation. University of Cambridge.
Stevens, Kenneth N. & Samuel J. Keyser
1989 Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 65: 81–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trigo, Loren
1991 On pharynx-larynx interactions. Phonology 8: 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert
1996 The status of ATR in feature geometry. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 175–182.Google Scholar
Verstegen, V
1996 Bijdrage tot de tonologie van Oostlimburgse dialecten. In H. van de Wijngaard (ed.), Een eeuw Limburgse dialectologie, 229–234. Hasselt/Maastricht: VLDN/Vereniging Veldeke Limburg.Google Scholar
Wells, John C
1982 Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar