Cover not available
Article published In:
NOWELE
Vol. 70:2 (2017) ► pp.171–254

Scandinavian umlaut and contrastive feature hierarchies

| University of Helsinki
With the application of the Contrastive Hierarchy Theory, the contrastive features of preliterary Scandinavian vowels are here inferred from the interaction between targets and triggers for metaphonic fronting, rounding and breaking. One Proto-Scandinavian feature hierarchy is reconstructed for prominent syllables and another for non-prominent ones. The former hierarchy sustained contrasts that differed from the latter, including contrast for rounding and a preserved distinction between Pre-Germanic */i/ and */e/. A prominence system is reconstructed that predicts both the outcome of syncope and the distribution of the two vowel systems between syllables. The analysis neatly accounts for many notorious cruxes of umlaut and breaking that correlate with the prosodic position of the trigger, including the frequent absence of i-umlaut in light syllables.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1On aims, data and source languages and their periodisation
    • 1.2Conventions of presentation
    • 1.3The main stressed foot and the contrastive hierarchy theory
    • 1.4Progression of presentation
  • 2.Main findings
  • 3.On diachronic methodology, prosodic theory and the chronology of syncope
    • 3.1Metrics, syllabification and prosodic constraints
    • 3.2On the Inalterability of Proper Features Constraint (IPFC) and issues of phonologisation
    • 3.3Periodisation of TSc and ASc, sonority of vowels and the sequencing of their syncopation
  • 4.Rounding umlaut and breaking
    • 4.1The alterability of descendants of PlGmc */ɛ/ by rounding umlaut
      • 4.1.1Main theses
      • 4.1.2Data and discussion
        • 4.1.2.1The chronology of u-umlaut
        • 4.1.2.2The chronology of w-umlaut
    • 4.2The alterability of *ȇ by primary and secondary rounding umlaut
      • 4.2.1Main theses
      • 4.2.2On jo-breaking and ja-breaking
      • 4.2.3On segmentation
      • 4.2.4The metrical position of the trigger vowel
    • 4.3Rounding umlaut combined with breaking of PSc *ȋ
      • 4.3.1Main thesis
      • 4.3.2Data and discussion
    • 4.4Breaking by back umlaut and its conditional segmentation
      • 4.4.1The feature of the target for back umlaut
        • 4.4.1.1Main theses
        • 4.4.1.2Data and discussion
      • 4.4.2Geographical variation in breaking triggered from within the main foot
    • 4.5The inalterability of descendants of PlGmc */i/ by umlaut
      • 4.5.1Main theses
      • 4.5.2Data and discussion
    • 4.6Interim conclusions and predictions
  • 5.Front umlaut
    • 5.1Introduction to the problem
    • 5.2Probing the first prediction from subsection 4.6
      • 5.2.1Main theses
      • 5.2.2Data and discussion
  • 6.From Proto-Scandinavian to Old Scandinavian
    • 6.1Theoretical interlude on metrical parsing and prominence assignment
    • 6.2From Proto-Scandinavian to Post-Proto-Scandinavian
      • 6.2.1Chronological statements
      • 6.2.2On irregularities in a-breaking
      • 6.2.3Trigger change due to reassignment of prominence
      • 6.2.4On r-breaking
    • 6.3From Post-Proto-Scandinavian to Early Transitional Scandinavian
      • 6.3.1Chronological statements
      • 6.3.2First phonologisation caused by syncope
    • 6.4From Early Transitional Scandinavian to Late Transitional Scandinavian
      • 6.4.1Chronological statements
      • 6.4.2On relayed remote double umlaut
      • 6.4.3Phonologisation of front umlaut
    • 6.5From Late Transitional Scandinavian to Late Ancient Scandinavian
      • 6.5.1Chronological statements
      • 6.5.2The genesis of Ancient Scandinavian
    • 6.6Overtures beyond Ancient Scandinavian
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • Acronyms and abbreviations
  • Other references
Published online: 28 September 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nowele.70.2.03sch
References (85)
Acronyms and abbreviations
For abbreviations of Germanic (Gmc) and Scandinavian (Sc) language stages see Table 6.
AEW = J. de Vries. 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (2nd rev. ed.) Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
ANF = Arkiv för nordisk filologi
CFH = “Contrastive feature hierarchy”
CHT = “Contrastive Hierarchy Theory”
DEO = N. Å. Nielsen. 1985 (1966). Dansk etymologisk ordbog: ordenes historie. (4. oplag). København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
EDPG = G. Kroonen. 2013. Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
IPFC = “Inalterability of Proper Features Constraint” (see subsection 3.2 )
LägLoS = A. D. Kylstra, S. -L. Hahmo, T. Hofstra & O. Nikkilä. Lexikon der älteren germanischen Lehnwörter in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen I-III1 (I:A-J 1991,; II:K-O 1996; III:P-Ö 2012). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
PEO = J. Katlev. 2000. Politikens Etymologiske Ordbog: Danske Ords Historie. København: Politikens Forlag.Google Scholar
PIE = “Proto-Indo-European”
SEO = E. Hellqvist. 1980 [1922]. Svensk etymologisk ordbok (3:e uppl.). Lund.Google Scholar
VAOE = H. Bjorvand & F. O. Lindeman. 2007 [2000]. Våre arveord. Etymologisk ordbok. (2. utg.). Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning, Novus.Google Scholar
Other references
Antonsen, E. H. 1972. The Proto-Germanic Syllabics (Vowels). In F. van Coetsem and H. L. Kufner (eds.), Toward a Grammar of Proto-Germanic, 117–140. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benediktsson, Hreinn. 1963. Some Aspects of Nordic Umlaut and Breaking. Language 391.409–431. 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. Volume I1, 174–196. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1974. The Common Nordic Vowel System. Scandinavian Studies 461.89–101.Google Scholar
. 1982. Nordic Umlaut and Breaking: Thirty Years of Research (1951–1980). Nordic Journal of Linguistics 51.1–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002 [1970]. Aspects of Historical Phonology. In Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir et al. (eds.), Linguistic Studies, Historical and Comparative. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics, 190–213.Google Scholar
Bibire, P. 1975. Some Notes on Old Icelandic Front Mutations. ANF 901.183–212.Google Scholar
Birkmann, T. 1995. Von Ågedal bis Malt. Die skandinavischen Runeninschriften vom Ende des 5. bis Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braroe, E. Ejerhed. 1979. Exceptions to Old Icelandic i-Umlaut. Studia Linguistica (A Journal of General Linguistics) 33/1.43–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calabrese, A. 1998. Metaphony Revisited. In J. I. Hualde, Metaphony and Vowel Harmony in Romance and Beyond. Special Issue of the Rivista di Linguistica 101, 7–68.Google Scholar
2005. Markedness and Economy in a Derivational Model of Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Compton, R. & B. E. Dresher. 2011. Palatalization and “Strong i” across Inuit Dialects. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 56(2). 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. E. 2008. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. In P. Avery, B. E. Dresher & K. Rice (eds.), Contrast in Phonology: Theory, Perception, Acquisition, 11–33. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge, New York etc: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015a. Contrastive Hierarchy Theory: An Overview. The combined slides presented at talks in the Linguistics Colloquium Series, University of Connecticut, February 2015, and the Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, September 2015. Part 1 & Part 2. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
2015b. Contrastive Feature Hierarchies in Diachronic Phonology. Presentation of slides for the Annual General Meeting of the Philological Society, Jesus College, University of Cambridge, June 2015. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
Dyvik, H. J. J. 1978. Breaking in Old Norse and Related Languages: A Reassessment of the Phonetic Conditions. ANF 931.1–37.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. 2003. The Relationship between Coronal Place and Vowel Backness. Phonology 20(3).335–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grønvik, O. 1998. Untersuchungen zur älteren nordischen und germanischen Sprachgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main etc: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hall, D. C. 2007. The Role and Representation of Contrast in Phonological Theory. Ph.D. dissertation. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics. Toronto: University of Toronto. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
2011. Phonological Contrast and its Phonetic Enhancement: Dispersedness without Dispersion. Phonology 28(1).1–54 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harding, E. 1952. Något om omljud och brytning i nordiskan. ANF 671.198–211.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1969. Phonemic Indeterminacy and Scandinavian Umlaut. Folia Linguistica 3(1–2).107–119.Google Scholar
1982. Scandinavian Language Structures: A Comparative Historical Survey. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hesselman, B. 1945. Omljud och brytning i de nordiska språken. Förstudier till en nordisk språkhistoria. Stockholm: H. Geber & Köpenhamn: E. Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Hofstra, T. 1985. Ostseefinnisch und Germanisch: Frühe Lehnbeziehungen im nördlichen Ostseeraum im Lichte der Forschung seit 1961. Ph.D. dissertation. Groningen: van Denderen.Google Scholar
Hreinn Benediktsson. See Benediktsson, Hreinn.
Hulst, H. van der. 1999. Word Accent. In H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, 3–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iverson, G. K. & J. C. Salmons. 2012. Paradigm Resolution in the Life Cycle of Norse Umlaut. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24(2).101–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. & M. Halle. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.Google Scholar
Johnsen, S. Stausland. 2003. Ljodsamhøvet i AM 315 f fol. ANF 1181.47–75.Google Scholar
. 2005. The Germanic (i)jō-stem Declension: Origin and development. M. Phil. dissertation. University of Oslo. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
Kallio, P. 1998. "Kalja". Sananjalka 401.87–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 2009a. Syncope, Umlaut, and Prosodic Structure in Early Germanic. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
2009b. The Germanic Weak Preterite. In P. O. Steinkrüger and M. Krifka (eds.), On Inflection. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
2015. Phonologization. P. Honeybone & J. Salmons (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Phonology, 563–582. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
Ko, S. 2012. Tongue Root Harmony and Vowel Contrast in Northeast Asian languages. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kock, A. 1911–16. Umlaut und Brechung im Altschwedischen: Eine Übersicht. Lund: Gleerup & Leipzig: Harrassovitz.Google Scholar
Koivulehto, J. 1993. Zur Etymologie von Fi. susi, tosi – und kesi: eine Entgegnung. Linguistica Uralica 291.21–37.Google Scholar
Kroonen, G. 2008. The Origin of Gothic izwis. NOWELE 531.3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, A., T. Riad & H. Jacobs. 1999. Diachronic Prosody. In H. van der Hulst (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe, 335–422. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
Lass, R. 1994. Old English: A Historical Linguistic Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, A. 2001. Review of M. Schulte (1998). Alvíssmál 10/2001.85–87. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
2007. Palatalized and Velarized Consonants in English against their Germanic Background with Special Reference to i-Umlaut. In C. M. Cain & G. Russom (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language III. Managing Chaos: Strategies for Identifying Change in English, 5–36. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myrvoll, K. J. 2012. Framvoksteren av sterkt hokyn frå urnordisk til norrønt. In J. O. Askedal, T. Schmidt & R. Theil (eds.), Germansk filologi og norske ord. Festskrift til Harald Bjorvand på 70-årsdagen den 30. juli 2012, 16–32. Oslo: Novus Forlag. Available at <2.4.2017>Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. F.. 2000. The Early Runic Language of Scandinavia: Studies in Germanic Dialect Geography. Indogermanische Bibliothek, Reihe 1. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Noreen, A. 1904. Altnordische Grammatik II:Altschwedische Grammatik. Mit Einschluss des Altgutnischen. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1923 (1884). Altnordische Grammatik I: Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. (4. vollständig umgearbeitete auflage). Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Oxford, Will. 2015. Patterns of contrast in Phonological Change: Evidence from Algonquian Vowel Systems. Language 91.2: 308–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panieri, L. 2013. Überlegungen zur nordischen Entwicklung von germ.*/ē1/ in Endsilbe. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 701.25–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J. Elmegård. 2000. The Growth of i-Umlaut in Norse and West Germanic: Thoughts on a Recent Book. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics 32(1).143–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riad, T. 1992. Structures in Germanic prosody. A diachronic study with special reference to the Nordic languages. Ph.D. dissertation. Stockholm: Dept. of Scandinavian languages, Stockholm University. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
2000. Föreställningen om den germanska betoningen. In L.-E. Edlund (ed.), Studier i svensk språkhistoria 5. Förhandlingar vid Femte sammankomsten för svenska språkets historia Umeå 20–22 november 1997, 380–401. Umeå: Umeå universitet.Google Scholar
Ringe, D. 2006. From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. A Linguistic History of English Volume I1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rischel, J. 2008. A Unified Theory of Nordic i-Umlaut, Syncope and Stød. NOWELE 54/55.191–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 [1966]. Phoneme, Grapheme, and the ‘Importance’ of Distinctions. Functional Aspects of the Scandinavian Runic Reform. In Rischel, J. Sound Structure in Language, 254–271. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sandstedt, J. J. 2014. Old Norwegian Vowel Harmony: A Quantitative Graphemic-Phonological Analysis. M. A. dissertation, University of Oslo. Available at [URL] <2.4.2017>
Schalin, J. 2016. Östskandinavisk utveckling av den urnordiska ɑi-diftongen och palatalt r i ljuset av finska ljudsubstitutioner. In D. Andersson, L. -E. Edlund, S. Haugen & A. Westum (ed.), Studier i svensk språkhistoria 13. Historia och språkhistoria (Nordsvenska 25.). Umeå: Umeå universitet, Institutionen för språkstudier.Google Scholar
2017 (to appear). Scandinavian Front Umlaut Revisited and Revised. Proofed for publication in ANF 1321.Google Scholar
(forthcoming). Preliterary Scandinavian Sound Change Viewed from the East – Umlaut Remodelled and Language Contact Revisited. Summary chapter of a doctoral dissertation, which synthesises i.a. the present paper and Schalin 2017.
Schulte, M. 1998. Grundfragen der Umlautphonemisierung. Eine strukturelle Analyse des nordgermanischen i/j-Umlauts unter Berücksichtigung der älteren Runeninschriften. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skomedal, T. 1980. Syncope, omlyd og brytning i nordisk. In E. Hovdhaugen (ed.), The Nordic languages and modern linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics in Oslo 1980, 120–139. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Steblin-Kamenskij, M. I. 1957. Scandinavian Breaking from a Phonemic Point of View. Studia Linguistica 11(1–2).84–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stiles, P. 2012. Older Runic Evidence for North-West Germanic a-umlaut of u (and ‘the converse of Polivanov’s Law’) In P. Probert & A. Willi (eds.), Laws and Rules in Indo-European, 43–60. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thiberg J. Thalbitzer. 2011. Nordiske u-stammer – fra indoeuropæisk til dansk. Dissertation presented at the University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Voyles, J. B. 1982. Old Norse i-Umlaut. Linguistics 20 (3–4).267–286.Google Scholar
1992. Early Germanic grammar: pre-, proto-, and post-Germanic languages. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2005. The “Conundrum” of Old Norse i-Umlaut: A Reply to Iverson and Salmons. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17(4).265–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wessén, E. 1968 [1941]. Svensk Språkhistoria. 1, Ljudlära och ordböjningslära. (8. uppl.) Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Widmark, G. 1991. Fornvästnordiska förleder i omljudsperspektiv. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
2010. Det nordiska u-omljudet. En dialektgeografisk undersökning. Del 2. Uppsala.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Kostakis, Andrew
2024. The Phonology of Mid Vowels in Germanic Languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 36:2 ► pp. 112 ff. DOI logo
Dresher, B. Elan
2018. Contrastive Feature Hierarchies in Old English Diachronic Phonology. Transactions of the Philological Society 116:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hansen, Erik W. & Hans F. Nielsen
2017. The autonomy of historical linguistics. NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 70:2 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.