Two palatovelar fricatives?! the case of the ich-Laut in German
-
Artur Konrad Kijak
Abstract
This study concentrates on the alternation between two dorsal fricatives: [x] and [ç] in Modern Standard German. The primary source of data for the analysis include both native German words and loanwords. Moreover, the discussion encompasses some strictly related processes such as g-spirantization [g] > [x]/[ç], e.g. Ber[ç] ‘mountain’ and Ta[x] ‘day’, and coronalization [ç] > [ʃ], e.g. mi[ʃ] ‘me’ found in various German dialects and colloquial variants. Finally, since it is responsible for the appearance of both alternants in an identical context, e.g. Frau[ç]en ‘woman, dim’ and rau[x]en ‘to smoke’, a brief look is taken at the historical development of the diminutive suffix chen.
It is argued here that in contemporary German there are two palatovelar fricatives [ç] which differ in their internal organization of the melodic content. In loanwords and in the diminutive suffix -chen, [ç] is lexically specified for palatality, while after front vowels and coronal sonorants the same fricative shares the palatality element with the preceding segment. The analysis is couched in a recent version of Element Theory and it proceeds on two assumptions: a) front vowels and coronal sonorants [l ʁ n] in German are defined by the resonance element |I| and b) [ç] is a complex segment containing two resonants |I| and |U|.
References
Backley, P. 2011. An introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748637447Search in Google Scholar
Bloch-Rozmej, A. 2008. Melody in Government Phonology. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Search in Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1930. “dʒr̩ mn̩ ɛnd x. Le Maître Phonétique” 30: 27–28.Search in Google Scholar
Broadbent, J. 1996. The representation of coronal segments. (PhD dissertation, University College, London.)Search in Google Scholar
Brockhaus, W. 1995. Final devoicing in the phonology of German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110966060Search in Google Scholar
Cyran, E. 2010. Complexity scales and licensing in phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110221503Search in Google Scholar
Dietrich, G. 1953. “[ç] und [x] im Deutschen – ein Phonem oder zwei?” Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschraft 7: 28–37.10.1524/stuf.1954.78.jg.28Search in Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 2002. Phonology: Analysis and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164108Search in Google Scholar
Gussmann, E. 2007. The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199267477.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Hall, T. 1989. “Lexical Phonology and the distribution of German [ç] and [x]”. Phonology 6: 1–17.10.1017/S0952675700000920Search in Google Scholar
Hall, T. 1992. Syllable structure and syllable-related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111657882Search in Google Scholar
Harris, J. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, J. and G. Lindsey. 1995. “The elements of phonological representation”. In: Durand, J. and F. Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations. London & New York: Longman. 34–79.Search in Google Scholar
Hermann, E. 1932. “Phonologische Mehrgültigkeit eines Lautes”. Philologische Wochenschrift 52: 115–118.Search in Google Scholar
Herrgen, J. 1986. Koronalisierung und Hyperkorrektion. Das palatale Allophon des /Ch/-Phonemes und seine Variation im Westmitteldeutschen. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Howell, R.B. 1987. “Tracing the origin of uvular r in the Germanic languages”. Folia Linguistica Historica 7. 317–349.10.1515/flih.1986.7.2.317Search in Google Scholar
Iverson, G.K. and J. Salmons. 1992. “The place of structure preservation in German diminutive formation”. Phonology 9. 137–143.10.1017/S0952675700001524Search in Google Scholar
Jessen, M. 1988. “Die dorsalen Reibellaute [ç] und [x] im Deutschen”. Linguistische Berichte 117. 371–396.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, D. 1929. “defɪniʃn əv ə founiːm”. Maitre Phonétique 28. 43f.Search in Google Scholar
Kijak, A. 2017. Labial-dorsal interactions: a phonologically based approach. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Search in Google Scholar
Kloeke, W.U.S. van Lessen. 1982. Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie: Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111357171Search in Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1987. An integrated theory of autosegmental processes. Albany: SUNY Press.Search in Google Scholar
Merchant, J. 1996. “Alignment and fricative assimilation in German”. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 709–719.Search in Google Scholar
Pilch, H. 1966. “Das Lautsystem der hochdeutschen Umgangssprache”. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 33. 247–266.Search in Google Scholar
Pilch, H. 1968. Phonemtheorie. (I Teil.) (2nd ed.) Basel: S. Karger.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, O.W. 2001. Whose German? The ach/ich alternation and related phenomena in ‘standard’ and ‘colloquial’. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.208Search in Google Scholar
Russ, Ch. 1978. “The development of the New High German allophonic variation [x] – [ç]”. Semasia 5. 89–98.Search in Google Scholar
Scheer, T. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology. Vol. 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110908336Search in Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1939[1969]. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: van der Hoeck and Ruprecht. Translated 1969 by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe as Principles of phonology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ungeheuer, G. 1969. “Das Phonemsystem der deutschen Hochlautung”. In: de Boor, H., H. Moser und C. Winkler (eds.), Siebs, deutsche Aussprache: reine und gemässigte Hochlautung mit Aussprachewörterbuch. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. 2742.Search in Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford & New York: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wurzel, W.U. 1970. Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Wurzel, W.U. 1980. “Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur”. In: Heidolph, K.E., W. Flämig und W. Motsch (eds.), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 898–990.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, S.T. 1992. Unterspezifikation in der Phonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111353890Search in Google Scholar
Zhirmunskii, V.M. 1962. Deutsche Mundartkunde; Vergleichende Lautund Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Articles in the same Issue
- Table of contents
- Naming as doing: Identities, positioning, and ideologies in capital trials
- The functions of the verb ‘to say’ in the Jordanian Arabic dialect of Irbid
- Two palatovelar fricatives?! the case of the ich-Laut in German
- English L3 acquisition in heritage contexts: Modelling a path through the bilingualism controversy
- The effect of focus and the focus particle samo on the exclusion of contextual alternatives in Serbian
- A list of English–Turkish cognates and false-cognates
Articles in the same Issue
- Table of contents
- Naming as doing: Identities, positioning, and ideologies in capital trials
- The functions of the verb ‘to say’ in the Jordanian Arabic dialect of Irbid
- Two palatovelar fricatives?! the case of the ich-Laut in German
- English L3 acquisition in heritage contexts: Modelling a path through the bilingualism controversy
- The effect of focus and the focus particle samo on the exclusion of contextual alternatives in Serbian
- A list of English–Turkish cognates and false-cognates
