Cover not available
Article published In:
NOWELE
Vol. 77:2 (2024) ► pp.145–167

Contrastive feature hierarchies and Germanic phonology

Jørgen Rischel’s analysis of the Scandinavian runic transformation

ORCID logo | University of Toronto
I discuss an analysis of changes in the Scandinavian runic alphabet, or futhark, by Jørgen Rischel (1966). Rischel’s article accounts for some puzzling changes in the futhark by employing contrastive feature hierarchies represented as branching trees. Feature hierarchies can be traced back to the work of Roman Jakobson and his colleagues. They enjoyed a brief period of prominence in the 1950s and 1960s, but then disappeared from mainstream phonological theory. However, they were employed in a number of interesting studies of Germanic and other languages whose insights we can still profit from today. The goal of this paper is to bring attention to this largely forgotten approach to phonological analysis, and to spell out the principles that underlie it.
Keywords: Scandinavian, Germanic, runes, contrast, phonological theory, feature hierarchies, branching trees, futhark
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Origins and history of contrastive feature hierarchies, aka “branching trees”
  • 3.Rischel’s analysis of the transformation of the Scandinavian runes
    • 3.1Vowels: The older futhark
    • 3.2Transformation of the vowel runes: The younger futhark
    • 3.3Obstruents: The older futhark
    • 3.4Transformation of the obstruent runes: The younger futhark
    • 3.5Critiques of Rischel’s account of the runic transformation
  • 4.Towards a theory of contrastive feature hierarchies
    • 4.1Criteria for ordering features into a hierarchy
    • 4.2Contrastive Hierarchy Theory
    • 4.3The addition of noncontrastive features: Enhancement
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 December 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.00088.dre
References (69)
References
Antonsen, E. H. 1963. The Proto-Norse vowel system and the younger fuþark. Scandinavian Studies 35(3). 195–207.Google Scholar
1967. ‘Proto-Scandinavian’ and Common Nordic. Scandinavian Studies 391. 16–39.Google Scholar
1972. The Proto-Germanic syllabics (vowels). In F. van Coetsem & H. L. Kufner (eds.), Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic, 117–140. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M. P. 2004. Spirant denotation by younger fupark b . In A. van Nahl, L. Elmevik, & S. Brink (eds.), Namenwelten, 605–614. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Runes: A handbook. Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
Benediktsson, Hreinn. 1959. The vowel system of Icelandic: A survey of its history. Word 15(2). 282–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benediktsson, H. 1963. Some aspects of Nordic umlaut and breaking. Language 39(3). 409–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967. The Proto-Germanic vowel system. In To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 11 October 1966, Vol. 11, 174–196. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1972. The First Grammatical Treatise. Reykjavik: University of Iceland, Institute of Nordic Linguistics.Google Scholar
1974. The Common Nordic vowel system. Scandinavian Studies 46(2). 89–101.Google Scholar
Birkmann, T. 1995. Von Ågedal bis Malt. Die skandinavischen Runeninschriften vom Ende des 5. bis Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Cairns, C. E. 1988. Phonotactics, markedness and lexical representation. Phonology 5(2). 209–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherry, E. C., M. Halle, & R. Jakobson. 1953. Toward the logical description of languages in their phonemic aspect. Language 29(1). 34–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 2001. Representational economy in constraint-based phonology. In T. A. Hall (ed.), Distinctive feature theory, 71–146. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. The role of features in phonological inventories. In E. Raimy & C. Cairns (eds.), Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonological theory, 19–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diderichsen, P. 1945. Runer og runeforskning i nordisk belysning. Nordisk tidskrift för vetenskap, konst och industri 211. 319–334.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 1998. On contrast and redundancy. Presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, May 1998, Ottawa. Ms., University of Toronto.
2007. Variability in Trubetzkoy’s classification of phonological oppositions. The LACUS Forum 331. 133–142.Google Scholar
2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The motivation for contrastive feature hierarchies in phonology. Linguistic Variation 15(1). 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Contrast in phonology 1867–1967: History and development. Annual Review of Linguistics 21. 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
2019. Contrastive feature hierarchies in phonology: Variation and universality. In D. W. Lightfoot & J. Havenhill (eds.), Variable properties in language: Their nature and acquisition, 13–25. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2025. Diachronic phonology with Contrastive Hierarchy Theory. In H. Kennard, E. Lindsay-Smith, A. Lahiri, & M. Maiden (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2022. Selected papers from the 25th ICHL, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022, 20–34. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. & D. C. Hall. 2021. The road not taken: The Sound Pattern of Russian and the history of contrast in phonology. Journal of Linguistics 57(2). 405–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E., G. L. Piggott, & K. Rice. 1994. Contrast in phonology: Overview. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13(1). iii–xvii.Google Scholar
Dyck, C. 1995. Constraining the phonology — phonetics interface, with exemplification from Spanish and Italian dialects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Hall, D. C. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
2011. Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion. Phonology 28(1). 1–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian: A linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton. Second printing, 1971.Google Scholar
Harms, R. T. 1968. Introduction to phonological theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (ed.). 1950. First Grammatical Treatise: The earliest Germanic phonology . Language monograph 25. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America. Updated 1972, London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1969. On the parsimony of the younger futhark. In C. Gellinek (ed.), Festschrift für Konstantin Reichardt, 51–58. Bern, München: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze (Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets i Uppsala Förhandlingar). Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
(1962 [1931]). Phonemic notes on Standard Slovak. In Selected writings I. Phonological studies, 221–230. The Hague: Mouton. [Published in Czech in Slovenská miscellanea (Studies presented to Albert Pražak). Bratislava, 1931.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. & M. Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R., C. G. M. Fant, & M. 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, S. J. & K. N. Stevens. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 82(1). 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, S. 2010. A contrastivist view on the evolution of the Korean vowel system. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 6). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 611. 181–196.Google Scholar
2011. Vowel contrast and vowel harmony shift in the Mongolic languages. Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics (WAFL 7). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 621. 187–202.Google Scholar
2018. Tongue root harmony and vowel contrast in Northeast Asian languages. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krekoski, R. 2017. Contrast and complexity in Chinese tonal systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Liestøl, A. 1981a. The emergence of the Viking runes. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions. Michigan Germanic Studies 71. 107–118.Google Scholar
1981b. The Viking runes: The transition from the older to the younger fuþark . Saga-Book 201. 247–266.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, S. 2011. Contrast and the evaluation of similarity: Evidence from consonant harmony. Lingua 121(8). 1401–1423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Laryngeal co-occurrence restrictions in Aymara: Contrastive representations and constraint interaction. Phonology 30(2). 297–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moulton, W. G. 1954. The stops and spirants of Early Germanic. Language 30(1). 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Natvig, D. A. 2018. Contrast, variation, and change in Norwegian vowel systems. Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Oxford, W. 2015. Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems. Language 91(2). 308–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purnell, T. & E. Raimy. 2015. Distinctive features, levels of representation and historical phonology. In P. Honeybone & J. Salmons (eds.), The handbook of historical phonology, 522–544. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Purnell, T. C., E. Raimy, & J. Salmons. 2019. Old English vowels: Diachrony, privativity, and phonological representations. Language 95(4). e447–e473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rischel, J. 1966. Phoneme, grapheme, and the “importance” of distinctions: Functional aspects of the Scandinavian runic reform. Interim Report No. 1, Research Group for Quantitative Linguistics, Stockholm, 1–21. Reprinted in Rischel 2009: 254–271.Google Scholar
2009. Sound structure in language, edited and with an introduction by N. Grønnum, F. Gregersen, & H. Basbøll. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sandstedt, J. J. M. 2018. Feature specifications and contrast in vowel harmony: The orthography and phonology of Old Norwegian height harmony. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Schalin, J. 2017. Scandinavian umlaut and contrastive feature hierarchies. NOWELE 70(2). 171–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. Preliterary Scandinavian sound change viewed from the east: Umlaut remodelled and language contact revisited. Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki.
2021. Nordic umlaut, contrastive features and stratal phonology. Nordlyd 45(1). 7–37.Google Scholar
2024. North Germanic labiovelar breaking: Reconstructing the phonological conditions. Presented at Fonologi i Norden, Feb. 2024. Stockholm. DOI logo
Schulte, M. 2006. The transformation of the older fuþark: Number magic, runographic, or linguistic principles? Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 1211. 41–74.Google Scholar
2009. The Scandinavian runic reform: A sound notion or a research dogma? NOWELE 56/571. 107–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spahr, C. 2014. A contrastive hierarchical account of positional neutralization. The Linguistic Review 31(3–4). 551–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K. N., S. J. Keyser, & H. 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, 426–449. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sullivan, W. J. 1998. Underspecification and feature geometry: Theorems of a reticular theory of language. LACUS Forum 241. 53–65.Google Scholar
Trnka, B. 1939. Phonological remarks concerning the Scandinavian runic writing. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 81. 292–296.Google Scholar
Voeltzel, L. 2016. Morphophonologie des langues scandinaves: Hiérarchie segmentale et complexité syllabique. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nantes.
Zhang, X. 1996. Vowel systems of the Manchu-Tungus languages of China. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.