The Development of English Obstruent Inventory: An Optimality-Theoretic Account

Chang Yong Sohn (Seoul National University)

Chang Yong Sohn. 2010. The Development of English Obstruent Inventory: An Optimality-Theoretic Account. Studies in Modern Grammar XX, XXX-XXX. The historical origin of obstruent phonemes in English traces back to the Indo-European system. This paper attempts to account for two important developments (Grimm's Law and Middle English phonemicization) within the framework of Optimality Theory. The proposal is crucially based on the rejection of a serial interpretation of Grimm's Law and the substitution of the Maintain Contrast constraint with the interactions between symmetry in the system and the minimality of phonological change. In addition symmetry is claimed to function as a guiding principle whose manifestation can be extended to Middle English phonemicization. It is also shown that the application of nonsystemic faithfulness constraints to the systemic domain enables us to state a formal definition of the types of phonemic change.

Key words: Grimm's Law, symmetry, phonemicization, chain shift, phoneme

inventory

1. Introduction
The systemic change in the phoneme inventory tends to be marginalized in mainstream Optimality Theory (McCarthy 2002, 2008, Prince and Smolensky 2004). As pointed out in McCarthy (2002: 226), there exist fundamental differences between evaluating systems or grammars and evaluating linguistic forms. System evaluation involves systemwide generalizations of a set of forms whereas form evaluation is restricted to specific forms. As a model for incorporating phonemic contrast at the

- 1 -

system level, Flemming (2002) proposes a systemic approach to synchronic inventory structure, building upon the dispersion theory. Recently, Grimm's Law, which denotes the change in the obstruent phoneme inventory from Indo-European (IE) to Germanic, has also been analyzed in terms of a constraint that controls the contrast between the input and the output (Petrova 2000, Ahn 2004, Lee 2007). Another systemic principle in the phoneme inventory is symmetry between phonemes. A more balanced system with a symmetrical distribution of phonemes within an inventory is preferred to an imbalanced or asymmetrical system and sound change is often driven by or tends toward a symmetrical system (Saussure 1959, Bynon 1977, Hock 1991, McMahon 1994, Campbell 1999, Sohn 2009). In the present paper, we propose an account within the framework of Optimality Theory (OT) of the changes in the English obstruent inventory in which the notion of symmetry is directly encoded.

2. Obstruent Inventories
This section introduces the obstruent phoneme inventories from IE to Middle English (ME) and brings to the fore two important transitions between inventories which serve as the focus of our analysis. 2.1 Phoneme Inventories from Indo-European to Middle English1) (1) IE Obstruent Inventory2)
1)

The major sources for the inventories are Scargill (1951), Voyles (1992) and Ringe (2006) for IE and Germanic and Campbell (1959), Brunner (1963), Pyles and Algeo (1993) and Millward (1996) for OE and ME.
2)

The glottalic theory proposed by a group of scholars (e.g., Emonds 1972, Hopper 1973, Kortlandt 1985) contrasts with the traditional view adopted here in that it denies the existence of voiced aspirates, with the IE obstruent series being reconstructed as voiced stops, voiceless stops and voiceless glottals (D, T, T'). The controversy regarding the reconstruction of the IE consonant inventory has

- 2 -

Manner Stops Fricatives Aspirates

Place voiceless voiced voiceless voiced voiceless voiced

labial p b

alveolar t d s

Palatal

velar k g

bh

dh

gh

(2) Germanic

Manner Stops Fricatives

Place voiceless voiced voiceless voiced

labial p b f

Interdental / alveolar t d /s

Palatal

velar k g h

(3) Old English (OE)

not been definitively resolved in favor of either view. However, Vennemann (2006) provides evidence supporting the traditional view based on the phonological adaptation of Semitic loanwords in Germanic. Calabrese and Halle (1998) also defend the traditional view on the grounds that the rarity of voiced aspirates without voiceless counterparts alone is not a sufficient reason for rejecting it. In fact, as Garret (1991) observes, the glottalic system entails highly unnatural developments in various daughter languages.

- 3 -

Manner Stops Fricatives Affricates

Place voiceless voiced voiceless voiced voiceless voiced

labial p b f

Interdental / alveolar t d /s

Palatal

velar k g

(4) Middle English (ME) Manner Stops Fricatives Affricates Place voiceless voiced voiceless voiced voiceless voiced labial p b f v Interdental / alveolar t d /s /z Palatal velar k g h

A cursory glance at the inventories reveals two general characteristics that hold throughout the developments. First, except for the change from IE to Germanic, the number of phonemes constantly increases with each stage. In addition, the phoneme inventory tends towards a more "balanced" system. Thus, as time passes, gaps in the inventory are filled and the distribution of the filled gaps shows a consistent pattern. Note that the phoneme inventories given in (1~4) presuppose the hypothetical and nonlinguistic demarcation of the periods. In fact, the actual phoneme inventories may vary depending on the specific period (e.g., early or late OE) under consideration. Moreover, the time depth from IE to ME exceeds 5,000 years. Thus, a substantial generalization is likely inevitable to

- 4 -

elicit an inventory for each period. Among the changes in the phoneme inventories of English obstruents, we will focus on two transitions: one from IE to Germanic and the other from OE to ME. We limit ourselves to these two transitions because they represent the typical changes attested in phoneme inventories, that is, a chain shift and a phoneme split. In addition, to explore how a chain shift and a phoneme split (or merger), which are not amenable to formalization in traditional theories, can be interpreted in Optimality Theory is by itself of theoretical significance. 2.2 Grimm's Law and ME phonemicization The shift from IE in (1) to Germanic in (2) is better known as Grimm's Law (or The First Consonant Shift) and the shift from OE in (3) to ME (4) is known as the ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives. These two shifts differ in several respects even though both of them result in a change in the phoneme inventory. First, as shown in 2.1, Grimm's Law (GL) incurs no change in the number of total phonemes, whereas with the ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives (MEP) the number of phonemes increases. GL involves a chain shift in which a series of changes are interleaved with each other and MEP is a phoneme split in which conditioned allophones become contrastive. In other words, while GL is a sound change by itself, MEP is the result of a group of phonological processes. Second, the triggering elements of GL are quite different from those of MEP. Aside from language-internal causes (as discussed here), the language-external or "ultimate" causes of GL range from highly psychological to ethnological explanations, most of which are purely stipulative and, thus, easily reputable (Prokosch 1939, Hock and Joseph 1996, Campbell 1999). On the other hand, MEP is often claimed to be triggered by a variety of language-internal sound changes that occurred during the time span from the late OE to the early ME (Millward 1996,

- 5 -

Laker 2009).3)

3. Review of Previous Analyses

3.1 Previous OT accounts of Grimm's Law Grimm's Law, as a whole, refers to the three changes depicted in (5) and (6). (5) IE a. b, d, g b. p, t, k c. bh, dh, g s Germanic p, t, k f, , h4) b, d, g s

(6) a. Devoicing: b, d, g p, t, k b. Spirantization: p, t, k f, , h c. Deaspiration: bh, dh, gh b, d, g Several analyses have been conducted within the framework of OT to account for GL (Petrova 2000, Ahn 2003, and Lee 2007). Despite the different assumptions on the trigger and the intermediate stages of GL, they have much in common with respect to having a perception-based constraint at the core of their analysis. Building on the functional constraints proposed by Flemming (1996, 2002, 2005), which in turn draws on the adaptive dispersion theory, they employ a constraint that forces the contrast in the
3)

French loans, dialect mixtures with Kentish, final vowel deletion, weakening in function words (Millward 1996) and Celtic influence (Laker 2009) all lead to the neutralization of conditioning environments and, as a result, voiced fricatives become contrastive. Teedle (2006) offers an OT account of MEP in terms of misperception in the transmission from speaker to listener.
4)

As is customary in most accounts, minor changes in the place of articulation (labials to bilabials and alveolars to interdentals) are disregarded.

- 6 -

input to be preserved in the output. The definition of the constraint is given in (7).5) (7) Maintain Contrast (Ahn 2003: 52) The phonemic contrast of the input should be maintained in the output. When applied to GL, the constraint in (7) prohibits neutralization among phonemes. At the same time, it prevents phoneme splits. Without a merger or a split in the phoneme inventory, the number of phonemes is maintained and the phonemic contrast of the input remains intact. Another property that all previous OT analyses have in common is that they view GL as a set of intermediate stages, each of which is activated stepwise by the constraint banning the loss of contrast. Although they all interpret GL as a series of steps, these analyses radically differ in terms of the order and content of each step. The stages assumed in each account are summarized in (8).6) (8) Intermediate Stages of Grimm's Law

5)

A more concrete constraint (3-way VOT CONTR) which prefers the 3-way contrast in stops in Petrova (2000) and PreserveContrast in Lee (2007) play a role similar to that in (7).
6)

There are other versions of intermediate stages (e.g., Prokosch 1939, Cser 1994), which makes any attempts to derive a unified serial account more unlikely.

- 7 -

Stages 1 2 3 4

Petrova (2000) b, d, g p, t, k p, t, k ph, th, kh ph, th, kh f, , h bh, dh, gh b, d, g

Ahn (2004) bh, dh, gh b, d, g b, d, g p, t, k p, t, k ph, th, kh ph, th, kh f, , h

Lee (2007) bh, dh, gh , , p, t, k f, , x b, d, g p, t, k , , b, d, g

The differences in the posed stages in (8) appear to result from their assumptions pertaining to two issues with regard to GL. One issue centers on the trigger of GL, whereas the other assesses whether or not the notion of Germanic enhancement (aspiration) as proposed by Iverson and Salmons (2003) is relevant to GL. In Petrova's account, GL is initiated by marked (word-initial) voiced stops and in Ahn and Lee, it is triggered by marked voiced aspirates. As argued in Ahn, Petrova's treatment of word-initial voiced stops as the initiator of GL faces a serious problem when we consider the fact that relatively more marked voiced aspirates (bh, dh, gh) are deaspirated at a later stage. In the other two accounts, the markedness of voiced aspirates functions as a trigger of GL.7) The inclusion of Germanic enhancement as a viable intermediate stage, as in Petrova and Ahn, appears to lack any substantive evidence. If we assume Germanic enhancement as one stage of GL, a conflict arises with the end result of GL in which aspirated obstruents, voiced or voiceless, disappear from the subsequent inventories. To summarize, the intermediate stages posited in previous accounts are too varied for any convergence to be possible. In addition, as regards a
7)

Kim (2004) also argues that Grimm's Law begins with the deaspiration of marked voiced aspirates and that successive changes should be regarded as a push-chain rather than a pull-chain.

- 8 -

change in two prehistoric languages (IE and Germanic), finding convincing evidence that supports the existence of intermediate stages independent of language-internal and ad-hoc arguments is challenging. The dubious status of detailed stages of GL can be highlighted by the following excerpt: (9) Hock and Joseph (1996: 135) For Grimm's Law, for instance, it is possible to cook up three or four different scenarios, all of them chain shifts. (Some of them may be more likely than others, but which of them actually took place remains anybody's guess.) Viewing GL as a series of stages also raises a theoretical problem as to how it can fit into the OT framework. Ahn (2004) assumes the same ranking between identical sets of constraints throughout all stages, with each stage having as its input the output of the previous stage. Lee's (2007) account, on the other hand, uses reranking as well as a different input for each stage.8) Under the basic principles and architecture of OT, reranking and lexicon optimization are legitimate formal mechanisms of sound changes (Holt 2003). Thus, in any version of a multiple-stage model of GL, the interactions between reranking and lexicon optimization should be spelled out. However, neither Ahn nor Lee provides testable and precise assumptions regarding this point. 3.2 Maintain Contrast The theoretical importance of the constraint Maintain Contrast (MC) (or PreserveContrast in Lee (2007)) as defined and employed to account for GL is linked to its abstractness. First, it does not specify particular features of individual phonemes, for instance, [asp] or the noise frequency. As long as the number of the input contrasts is preserved, the output inventory satisfies
8)

Petrova (2000) does not offer constraint interactions for stages other than the first stage of Grimm's Law.

- 9 -

the constraint. As Flemming (2005: 71) observes, this very nature of Maintain Contrast complements the fundamental restriction on faithfulness constraints which only block but cannot motivate change. In the case of GL, the deaspiration of marked voiced aspirates (bh, dh, gh) yields voiced stops (b, d, g), which are already present in the phoneme inventory. Without the Maintain Contrast constraint which prohibits mergers between phonemes, no further changes are necessary. And the actual changes are governed by the interactions between the markedness and faithfulness constraints. On the other hand, this abstractness may allow a massive change from the set (b, d, g, p, t, k, bh, dh, gh) to the set (, , , f, , h, b, d, g) in the phoneme inventory. Moreover, if we interpret the Maintain Contrast constraint as sensitive to more specific levels such as the content of the contrasts, then GL cannot be regarded as a chain shift in which the phonemic contrast of the input is preserved in the output. In IE the phonemes contrast with each other in a four-way fashion: voiced aspirates (bh, dh, gh), voiced stops (b, d, g), voiceless stops (p, t, k) and a voiceless fricative (s). In Germanic, however, to which GL applies, there is actually a three-way distinction: voiced stops (b, d, g), voiceless stops (p, t, k), and voiceless fricatives (f, , s, h). Thus, in order for the Maintain Contrast constraint to work properly, we should assume that the maintenance of the contrasts is equivalent to the maintenance of the number of phonemes. The MC constraint as defined in (7) differs from that originally proposed by (Flemming 1996) in two important aspects. First, in most cases, Flemming's MC does not regulate the relationship between the input and the output. In particular, MC with respect to the phoneme inventory is restricted to the output evaluation. Second, according to Flemming's theory, the MC constraint is simply a formal implementation of the functional goal to maximize the number of contrasts and it never functions as an active constraint that evaluates the faithfulness between the input and the output. (10) a. Functional goal (Flemming 2005: 4)

- 10 -

Maximize the number of contrasts b. Formal implementation (Flemming 1996: 89) Maintain 1 contrast >> Maintain 2 contrasts >> ... >> Maintain n contrasts Thus, given its rather restricted interpretation and somewhat deviant application, we find the MC constraint as in (7) to be marginally relevant at best to the account of GL. 3.3 ME Phonemicization of Voiced Fricatives Sohn (2009) proposes the following set of constraints (11) and the ranking (12) for the ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives. (11) Constraints9) a. Symmetry (SM) Obstruents should be symmetric with regard to voice. b. DEP Output phonemes must have input correspondents. c. MAX Input phonemes must have output correspondents. d. *Voiced/Velar-Fricative (*V/VF) Velar fricatives must not be voiced. (12) a. OE ranking DEP, MAX, *V/VF
9)

SM

Apparently, applying the concept of correspondence reserved for segments in OT (Kager 1999, McCarthy 2002, 2008) to phonemes in an inventory is a novelty. In particular, the formal significance of the related constraints such as LINEARITY or CONTIGUITY is difficult to determine in this domain. However, it is obvious that the input phonemes are not wholly independent of the output phonemes and that some version of faithfulness constraints should be invoked to express the relationship between them.

- 11 -

b. ME ranking MAX, *V/VF

SM DEP

The change as a result of the ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives can be described in (13) and (14), in which the interactions between the markedness constraints (SM and *V/VF) and the faithfulness constraints (MAX and DEP) are shown. (13) OE phoneme inventory (fricatives) f, /s, , h a. f, /s, , h b. c. d. e. f. f, /s, , h v, /z, , f, /s, , h v, /z, f f v f, /s, v, /z, *! *!*** *!**** *!*** *!*** **** * * * * DEP MAX *V/VF SM *****

(14) ME phoneme inventory (fricatives)

- 12 -

f, /s, , h a. b. c. d. e. f. f, /s, , h f, /s, , h v, /z, , f, /s, , h v, /z, f f v f, /s, v, /z,

MAX

*V/VF

SM *!****

DEP

*! * *!*** *!*** *! *

***** ****

* ****

The crucial constraint in this approach is SM, which evaluates an obstruent set with voiceless and voiced obstruents as more harmonic than those without either voiceless or voiced obstruents. In addition, DEP and MAX regulate the insertion of a phoneme (split) and the deletion of a phoneme (merger).

4. Symmetry and Minimality

4.1 Grimm's Law A new account of GL builds on two assumptions. First, to circumvent the problem of unsubstantiated intermediate stages, we interpret GL as a single change. This type of parallel interpretation has been well documented in numerous works (King 1969, Hock 1991, Hock and Joseph 1996, Calabrese and Halle 1998, Noske 2009).10) Second, the Maintain Contrast constraint, whose definition and implementation are not firmly grounded, must be substituted by more justifiable constraints.
10)

Unlike other accounts, Noske (2009) adopts the glottalic theory and proposes an analysis which combines Grimm's Law with Verner's Law.

- 13 -

To capture the nature of a chain shift, we assume the following constraints in addition to DEP and MAX and the ranking between them. (15) Constraints a. *ASP11) Aspiration must not be allowed b. IDENT(F) The feature (F) of the output segments must be identical with that of the input correspondents. (16) *ASP >> MAX, DEP >> IDENT(F) The ranking in (16) guarantees that the voiced aspirates of IE become something else while the number of phonemes remains the same. Thus, any candidate with a merger or with aspirated phonemes involves more violations than a candidate with no merger and no aspirated phonemes. This is shown in (17). (17)

11)

Since Lass and Anderson (1975) the idea that *ASP is the trigger of Grimm's Law has been prevalent in the literature (Calabrese and Halle 1998, Ahn 2004, Lee 2007, among others).

- 14 -

b, d, g p, t, k b, d, g s a. b. c. d. e. No Change DA DV SP GL *!** *!** *!** *!** *** *** *** *** ****** ***
h h h

*ASP

MAX

DEP

IDENT (F)

For the sake of exposition, the candidates in (17) are named after the process involved. The actual candidates are given below. (18) a. No Change b, d, g p, t, k bh, dh, gh s b. Deaspiration (DA) only change: bh, dh, gh b, d, g phoneme inventory: b, d, g p, t, k s c. Devoicing (DV) only change: b, d, g p, t, k phoneme inventory: p, t, k bh, dh, gh s d. Spirantization (SP) only

- 15 -

change: p, t, k f, , h phoneme inventory: b, d, g f, , h bh, dh, gh s e. Grimm's Law (DA, DV, SP all applied in one sweep) change: bh, dh, gh b, d, g / b, d, g p, t, k / p, t, k f, , h phoneme inventory: p, t, k f, , h b, d, g s The ranking in (16) triggers the elimination of voiced aspirates from the IE inventory but maintains the number of phonemes. At this stage, we have to deal with how voiced aspirates turn into voiced stops and nothing else and how other phonemes are changed into the desired outputs. In order to account for the actual changes, we propose the two additional constraints given in (19). (19) a. MINIMALITY (MN)12) More than one feature cannot be affected. b. SYMMETRY (SM) SM(stops) >> SM(fricatives) (19a) assigns a violation mark if the change involves more than one feature of the input. As pointed out by Picard (1999), the insight behind the MN constraint is that any sound change should be gradual, affecting one feature
12)

Admittedly, the constraint as it stands in (18) does not fit well into the usual formation of OT constraints despite the fact that its motivation is well justified. In the current OT, there is no formal mechanism established to measure the degree of deviation from the identity between the input and the output.

- 16 -

at a time. Bynon (1999) offers a remark on the general principle motivating the MN constraint. (20) Bynon (1977: 86, recited from Picard 1999) The first of these requirements, namely that changes in the realization of particular sounds must be small enough for speakers using both the old and new realizations still to be able to recognize lexical items, is self-evident. This is why it is usual for change to proceed in small steps which involve the alteration of only one feature at a time, ... (19b) is a subset of the SM constraint of (11a). It requires that the symmetry of voice be enforced differently depending on the categories of the obstruents. The symmetry of stops are preferable to the symmetry of fricatives.13) (21) MN, SM(stops) >> SM(fricatives)14)

13)

For expository reasons, candidates violating *ASP >> MAX, DEP >> IDENT(F) and with [s] are not included in the tableau.
14)

The phonemes that undergo a change are marked with shading in (21).

- 17 -

b, d, g p, t, k bh, dh, gh p, t, k a. f, , h b, d, g b, d, g b. p, t, k , , b, d, g c. p, t, k f, , h f, , h d. b, d, g p, t, k p, t, k e. , , b, d, g , , f. f, , h b, d, g *!** *!***** *!** *!** MN

SM (stops)

SM (fricatives)

***

***

***

***

***

*!**

All of the candidates in (21) satisfy *ASP, MAX and DEP, which indicates that there are no aspirated phonemes, with the number of phonemes remaining intact. Candidate (a) is selected as the optimal candidate because it incurs no violations of the superordinate constraints MN and SM(stops). Candidates (b) and (c) differ from (a) as regards the manner in which voiced aspirated banned by *ASP are eliminated. In (b), the voiced aspirates become voiced fricatives and two features [asp] and [cont] are affected. In (c) the voiced aspirates turn into voiceless fricatives affecting three features [asp], [voice] and [cont]. (d) and (e) are candidates in which the MN constraint is violated either in IE voiced stops or in IE voiceless stops. In

- 18 -

both cases, more than one feature are affected, resulting in violations of the MN constraint. Candidate (f) is crucial for motivating the reduction of the SM constraints and the ranking between the SM(stops) and the SM(fricatives) constraints. As a series of changes (spirantization of voiced and voiceless stops and deaspiration of voiced aspirates) involve only one feature ([cont] for spirantization and [asp] for deaspiration), it incurs the same number of violations with regard to the MN constraint. However, satisfaction of the MN constraint is achieved by creating a symmetric fricative set instead of a symmetric stop set. In contrast, candidate (a), the output of GL, satisfies the superordinate SM(stops) constraint with all stops having voiced and voiceless pairs. 4.2 Grimm's Law and ME Phonemicization Depending on their nature, the constraints proposed thus far can be classified into two groups. (22) a. Faithfulness constraints DEP, MAX, IDENT(F) b. Markedness constraints SYMMETRY, *ASP, MINIMALITY With the constraints in (22) GL can be accounted for by the reranking (or promotion) of the markedness constraints *ASP, SM(stops) and MN over the faithfulness constraints DEP and MAX. (23) a. IE Obstruent Inventory DEP, MAX >> *ASP, SM, MN b. Germanic Obstruent Inventory *ASP, SM(stops), MN >> DEP, MAX, SM(fricatives) >> IDENT(F)

- 19 -

MEP is a typical case of a phoneme split in which the phonemicization of voiced fricatives (except for the velar //) leads to a symmetric fricative set. The change in the obstruent phoneme inventory from OE to ME can be viewed as the result of reranking the SM(fricatives) over the faithfulness constraint DEP as in (24).15) (24) a. OE Obstruent Inventory DEP, MAX, *V/VF MAX, *V/VF

SM(fricatives)

b. ME Obstruent Inventory

SM(fricatives) DEP

The faithfulness constraints MAX, DEP and the other markedness constraints on symmetry along with the MN constraint play a crucial role in our account of GL and MEP. An additional benefit of introducing MAX and DEP to the domain of the phoneme inventory is that we can now derive a formal definition of the types of change in the phoneme inventory. (25) Types of Phoneme Change a. Chain Shift (Grimm's Law) markedness constraints >> MAX, DEP >> ... b. Phoneme Split (ME phonemicization) MAX, markedness constraints >> DEP ... c. Phoneme Merger DEP, markedness constraints >> MAX ...

5. Conclusion
The present paper argues that Grimm's Law, the systemic change in the

15)

For other minor changes from OE to ME (symmetry in palatal fricatives and affricates), refer to Sohn (2009).

- 20 -

phoneme inventory from IE to Germanic need not resort to the Maintain Contrast constraint whose definition and implementation in previous accounts are not well motivated. Instead the notion of symmetry in inventory in conjunction with minimality of change are employed. It is also demonstrated that a serial approach to Grimm's Law should be replaced by a parallel analysis which obviates the postulation of stipulative intermediate stages. By adopting symmetry as a viable constraint, we can integrate Grimm's Law with the later ME phonemicization of voiced fricatives. In addition, a formal description of the types of phonemic changes at the system level is made possible. The replacement of the Maintain Contrast constraint by symmetry presupposes the extension of the faithfulness constraints reserved for segments in the current version of Optimality Theory to the systemic domains of phoneme inventory, though this requires further research.

References
Ahn, Sang-Cheol. 2004. Towards an Optimal Account of Diachronic Chain Shifts. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 10-1, 43-67. Brunner, Karl. 1963. An Outline of Middle English Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bynon, Theodora. 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Calabrese, Andrea and Morris Halle. 1998. Grimm's and Verner's Laws: A New Perspective. Jasnoff J., C. Melchert and L. Olivier (eds.), Mir Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, 47-62. Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck. Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Campbell, Lyle. 1999. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

- 21 -

Cser, Andrs. 1994. Constraints Operating on Germanic Geminates. Vienna English Working Papers 3, 62-74. Emonds, Joseph. 1972. A Reformulation of Grimm's Law. Brame, M. (ed.) Contributions to Generative Phonology, 108-122. Austin: University of Texas Press. Flemming, Edward. 1996. Evidence for Constraints on Contrast: The Dispersion Theory of Contrast. ULCA Working Papers in Phonology 1, 86-106. Flemming, Edward. 2002. Auditory Representations in Phonology. New York and London: Routledge. Flemming, Edawrd. 2005. Speech Perception and Phonological Contrast. Pisoni, D. and R. Remez (eds.) The Handbook of Speech Perception, 156-181. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Garrett, Andrew. 1991. Ind-European Reconstruction and Historical Methodologies. Language 67.4, 790-804. Hock, Hans H. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hock, Hans H. and Brian D. Joseph. 1996. Gruyter. Holt, Eric. 2003. Remarks on Optimality Theory and Language Change. Holt, E. (ed.) Optimality Theory and Language Change, 1-30, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hopper, Paul. 1973. Glottalized and Murmured Occlusives in Indo-European. Glossa 7, 141-166. Iverson, Gregory and Joseph Salmons. 2003. Laryngeal Enhancement in Early Germanic. Phonology 20, 43-74. Kager, Ren. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, Kee-Ho. 2004. Grimm's Law: Push or Drag Chain Revisited. English Language and Linguistics 18, 1-24. King, Robert. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Language History, Language Change, and Language Relationship. Berlin, New York: Mouton de

- 22 -

Kortlandt,

Frederik.

1985.

Proto-Indo-European

Glottalic

Stops:

The

Comparative Evidence. Folia Linguistica Historica 6, 183-201. Laker, Stephen. 2009. An Explanation for the Early Phonemicisation of a Voice Contrast in English Fricatives. English Language and Linguistics 13.2, 213-226. Lass, Roger and John. M. Anderson. 1975. Old English Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, Sechang. 2007. First Consonant Shift in the Germanic Obstruent System. Korean Journal of Linguistics 32.3, 539-555. McCarthy, John. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, John. 2008. Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Millward, Celia. 1996. A Biography of the English Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Noske, Roland. 2009. Verner's Law, Phonetic Substance and Form of Historical Phonological Description. Proceedings of JEL'2009 (dis)continu, 6th Nantes Linguistic Meeting, 33-42. Petrova, Olga. 2000. Grimm's Law in Optimality Theory. Journal of Indoeuropean Studies Monograph Series 35, 45-68. Picard, Marc. 1999. On Spirantization and the Minimality of Phonological Change. Folia Linguistica Historica 20.1-2, 63-78. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A Comparative Germanic Grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Pyles, Thomas and John Algeo. 1993. The Origins and Development of the English Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ringe, Donald. 2006. From Proto-Ino-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. New York:

- 23 -

McGraw-Hill. Scargill, Matthew. 1951. Notes on the Development of the Principal Sounds of Indo-European through Proto-Germanic and West Germanic into Old English. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Sohn, Chang Yong. 2009. Reranking and Sound Change. Studies in Modern Grammar 57, 1-14. Teedle, David. 2006. Phoneme Split in OT. ms. University of California, Santa Cruz. Vennemann, Theo. 2006. Grimm's Law and Loanwords. Transactions of the Philological Society 104.2, 129-166. Voyles, Joseph. 1992. Early Germanic Grammar: Pre-, Proto-, and Post-Germanic Languages. San Diego: Academic Press.

Department of English Language and Literature Seoul National University 599 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu Seoul 151-742, Korea (02) 880-6093, cysohn@snu.ac.kr Received: Revised version: Accepted:

- 24 -