Presented to you through Paradigm Publishing Services

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

English /au/

An acoustic explanation for a phonological pattern

Abstract

When a consonant follows the English diphthong /au/, it must be coronal, e.g. loud, count (cf. *loub, *counk). This is a robust pattern but also an unnatural one, as there is no obvious synchronic link between /au/ and coronal place. A diachronic approach fares better, where historical changes obscured the original motivation for the pattern. The claim is that the rarity of /uː/+labial and /uː/+velar sequences in Old English resulted from a once-active constraint banning |U|-type consonants (labials, velars) after long /uː/ (also |U|). Later, /uː/ developed into /au/ while its coronal (i.e. non-labial/velar) context remained unchanged. Words such as room, soup are well-formed because their /uː/+labial sequences evolved after the constraint had become inactive.

Abstract

When a consonant follows the English diphthong /au/, it must be coronal, e.g. loud, count (cf. *loub, *counk). This is a robust pattern but also an unnatural one, as there is no obvious synchronic link between /au/ and coronal place. A diachronic approach fares better, where historical changes obscured the original motivation for the pattern. The claim is that the rarity of /uː/+labial and /uː/+velar sequences in Old English resulted from a once-active constraint banning |U|-type consonants (labials, velars) after long /uː/ (also |U|). Later, /uː/ developed into /au/ while its coronal (i.e. non-labial/velar) context remained unchanged. Words such as room, soup are well-formed because their /uː/+labial sequences evolved after the constraint had become inactive.

Downloaded on 13.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/lfab.14.c1/html
Scroll to top button