Morphology (2007) 17:151–178
DOI 10.1007/s11525-007-9112-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Inflectional paradigms have a base: evidence
from s-Dissimilation in Southern German dialects
T. A. Hall Æ John H. G. Scott
Received: 7 March 2007/Accepted: 4 June 2007/Published online: 15 September 2007
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract
In many varieties of Southern German the contrast between /s/ and
/∫/ is neutralized to [∫] before /p t/ anywhere within a word (e.g. Post [po∫t]
!mail"), but neutralization does not occur before inflectional suffixes (e.e. küss-t
[kyst] ‘kiss (3 SG)’). It will be argued that the underapplication of neutralization
before inflectional suffixes is an example of a Paradigm Uniformity effect:
Neutralization is blocked from applying to the final /s/ of a stem so that it will
retain a constant shape in a paradigm. Underapplication in examples like [kyst]
follows from a requirement that the stem in a derived word be identical to the
unaffixed base. By contrast, the German data will be shown to be problematic
for the Optimal Paradigms model (McCarthy 2005), since this approach does
not allow for a base in inflectional paradigms.
Keywords Paradigm uniformity Æ Base identity Æ Optimality Theory Æ
German Æ Swabian Æ Realize Morpheme Æ Homophony
T. A. Hall (&) Æ John H. G. Scott
Department of Germanic Studies,
Indiana University,
Ballantine Hall 644, 1020 Kirkwood Avenue,
Bloomington, IN 47405-7103,
USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. H. G. Scott
[email protected]
123
152
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
1 Introduction
In many southern German dialects (e.g. Swabian) the contrast between /s/ and
/∫/ is neutralized to [∫] before /p t/ anywhere within a word. Representative
examples illustrating the process we refer to as s-Dissimilation are presented in
(1a). s-Dissimilation is systematically blocked before (inflectional) suffixes, as in
(1b). These data have been collected from a Swabian speaker from Donaueschingen:
(1)
Examples illustrating s-Dissimilation (in a) and its blockage (in b):
a. stark [∫t k] ‘strong’
Post
[po∫t]
‘mail’
b. küss-t [kyst]
‘kiss (3 SG)’
ac
In the terminology of rule-based phonology s-Dissimilation underapplies in
(1b). This means that the structural description of the rule is met but that the
process nevertheless fails to go into effect.
We argue that the underapplication of s-Dissimilation in (1b) derives an
explanation based on the notion of Paradigm Uniformity (e.g. Raffelsiefen
1995; Kenstowicz 1996; Benua 1997; Steriade 2000; Raffelsiefen 2004 and the
contributions in Downing et al. 2005). One of the central ideas of Paradigm
Uniformity is that a phonological process (e.g. s-Dissimilation) can be blocked
from applying or favored in applying to increase the identity of morphologically related words.
In Optimality Theory (OT; Prince and Smolensky 2004; Kager 1999) Paradigm Uniformity is commonly captured by positing specific Output-Output
(O-O) constraints, which by definition demand identity to morphologically
related words. Although O-O constraints are frequently employed in the literature there is little agreement on how they should be evaluated. In derivational
morphology there appears to be agreement that O-O constraints compare
affixed forms with an unaffixed base (e.g. Raffelsiefen 1996, 2004; McCarthy
2005), but there is disagreement in the literature concerning whether or not this
approach also holds for inflection. Some linguists have argued that inflectional
paradigms have a base to which the remaining forms in the paradigms must be
faithful (e.g. Kenstowicz 1996; Albright 2004), while others hold that inflectional paradigms do not require reference to a base (e.g. the Optimal Paradigms
(OP) model of McCarthy 2005). Thus, in the latter approach McCarthy formalizes O-O constraints (called OP constraints in his model) in such a way that
each member of an inflectional paradigm must match every other member but
without a base.
The OP model makes a very clear prediction concerning the type of PU
effects which should be possible in natural language. If a canonical, phonological pattern requires the general ranking in (2a), then McCarthy shows that
the regular phonology can spread to the rest of the paradigm (i.e. the regular
rule overapplies), by means of a high-ranking OP constraint, as in (2b).
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
(2)
153
Paradigm Uniformity effects in the OP model:
a. Canonical pattern:
Markedness » I-O Faithfulness
b. Paradigm Uniformity effects (overapplication):
OP Faithfulness » Markedness » I-O Faithfulness
McCarthy (2005, p. 197) stresses that the ranking in (2b) always results in the
overapplication paradigm being selected over the underapplication paradigm
and that underapplication in inflectional paradigms is a situation that can only
be possible if there is some high ranking (markedness) constraint which
penalizes the overapplication paradigm fatally.
We argue below that the data in (1) are problematic for McCarthy’s prediction. In particular, we show that for German it is not clear what the high
ranking constraint would be which would allow the underapplication paradigm
to be selected as optimal. We propose instead that the data in (1) follow if the
O-O constraint is faithful to a base, contrary to the approach taken in
McCarthy (2005).
A second problem dealt with below is the realization of the second person
singular in verbs whose stem ends in a sibilant fricative. In the southern
German dialects we discuss, the stem-final segment deletes, e.g. grüssen ‘greet, 2
SG’ [griE-∫] (from /griEs-∫/), in violation of the base-identity requirement. Our
analysis therefore needs to answer two questions: First, why are base-identity effects
sacrificed for segmental deletion? And second, why is the final segment of the stem
deleted and not the sibilant of the suffix? We argue that faithful outputs like *[griEs∫]
which would satisfy base-identity do not occur because German avoids a sequence of
two sibilants and that the deletion of the suffix does not occur (*[griEs-]) because
there is a strict requirement that every morpheme receive some phonological exponence (Kurisu 2001). Varieties of southern German in which the second person
singular ending is [∫t] (and not [∫]) prohibit the deletion of the [∫] in the suffix
because the output would be homophonous to another member of the same paradigm
(Crosswhite 1999; Kenstowicz 2005).
The present article is structured as follows. In Sect. 2 we present the data from
Swabian German — representative of the southern German dialects referred to
above — which motivate s-Dissimilation and then give an analysis thereof. In Sect.
3 we introduce the data illustrating the underapplication of s-Dissimilation. Our
analysis of s-Dissimilation in (1) as a process requiring a constraint ensuring baseidentity is presented in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5 we discuss the OP model of McCarthy
(2005) and show that it makes the incorrect predictions concerning the German
data. In Sect. 6 we discuss the case of the second person singular in verbal paradigms. Sect. 7 presents our conclusions and points to directions for further research.
2 s-Dissimilation: the canonical pattern
The two coronal fricatives /s/ and /∫/ are uncontroversially phonemes with
similar distribution in both Standard German and Swabian German (SwG), as
123
154
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
illustrated in (3) below. We see here that these two fricatives contrast wordinitially before a vowel (in a), word-finally after a vowel (in b) and intervocalically (in c).1
(3)
Contrast between [s] and
Standard
a. Saal
[zaːl]
Schale
[∫aːlE]
b. Bus
[bʊs]
Rausch
[Rau∫]
c. Massen
[masEn]
Maschen [ma∫En]
[∫] in Standard German
SwG
[saːl]
‘hall’
[∫aːl]
‘bowl’
[bus]
‘bus’
[rEu∫] ‘intoxication’
[masE] ‘masses’
[ma∫E] ‘meshes’
and SwG:
[Frey
[Frey
[Frey
[Frey
[Frey
[Frey
1975:
1975:
1975:
1975:
1975:
1975:
14]
14]
34]
11]
14]
14]
It should be noted that the opposition between /s/ and /z/ in Standard German
is neutralized to [s] everywhere in SwG. The postalveolar fricatives /∫ Z/ have
been neutralized in the same manner to [∫].
The contrast between /s/ and /∫/ is neutralized to [∫] before /p t/ in both
varieties of German (see 4a–b). In Standard German this neutralization occurs
word-initially but in SwG it occurs throughout the word. In (4c) we can observe
that no neutralization takes place before /k/ in either dialect.2
Contrast between [s] and [∫] is neutralized to [∫] before [tp]:
Speise
Knospe
Haspel
Wespe
b. stark
Staat
Fenster
Post
Standard
[∫pek]
[∫paizE]
[knOspE]
[haspEl]
[vespE]
SwG
[∫pek]
[∫pais]
[kno∫pE]
[ha∫pEl]
[ve∫p]
[∫taRk]
[∫taːt]
[fenst ]
[pOst]
[∫Oak]
[∫taːt]
[fen∫t ]
[po∫t]
a
a. Speck
a
(4)
‘bacon’
‘food’
‘bud’
‘hasp’
‘wasp’ [Frey 1975, p. 56]
‘strong’
‘country’
‘window’
‘mail’
1
Our primary source of data for SwG is Frey (1975), who describes the variety of that dialect
spoken in Stuttgart. The relevant facts are consistent with those in other varieties of SwG and other
southern German dialects to be discussed below. The examples below not from Frey (1975) or
another published source were provided by Vera [Hagen] Hausherr from Donaueschingen.
2
With the exception of nonintegrated loan words like Sphäre [sfeːRE] ‘sphere’ and Sphinx [sfɪnks]
⌢
‘sphinx’, /s/ cannot precede fricatives. The only /s/ plus affricate sequences involves [sts], e.g. Szene
⌢
[stseːnE] ‘scene’. Jutz (1931, p. 199) writes that neutralization takes place before /k/ in some varieties
of southern German. One example (not given by Jutz) is the Swiss dialect described by Wipf (1910),
in which the facts seem to be the same as in SwG with the exception that /s/ also shifts to [∫] before
/k/ (p. 87). As noted by Wipf, these examples are loan words, since all original /sk/ clusters in native
German words shifted this sequence to [∫]; e.g. German Schiff [∫ɪf] ‘ship’ (< Old High German
scif).
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
c. Skelett
brüsk
Kiosk
[skelet]
[bRYsk]
[kiːOsk]
155
[skElet]
[bRysk]
[kiOsk]
‘skeleton’
‘brusque’
‘kiosk’
The pattern of neutralization in (4a–b) is referred to in the literature as
s-Dissimilation (Wiese 1991; Hall 1992; Alber 2001; Scott 2006). The reason
why neutralization involves a dissimilation is not crucial to our analysis, but it
will be discussed below.
The within-word context for s-Dissimilation is typical not only for SwG, but
for most dialects spoken in southwest Germany (including parts of Switzerland
and Austria). See Jutz (1931, p 199), Schirmunski (1962, p. 361–362) and Alber
(2001, p. 26) for some general discussion. We concentrate below on the SwG
pattern, although we also make some reference to dialects outside this region
(which we refer to collectively as ‘southern German’).
We follow the authors cited above who see s-Dissimilation as an active
process because it also applies to (recent) loan words in both SwG and Standard
German. Representative examples of loanwords which undergo s-Dissimilation
are provided in (5):
(5)
s-Dissimilation in loan words:
Stil
Spezies
Protest
[∫tiːl]
[∫peː⌢
tsjEs]
[prote∫t]
‘style’
[Wiese 1991, p. 129]
‘species’ [Wiese 1991, p. 129]
‘protest’ [Russ 1982, p. 76]
We now posit the following provisional rule:
(6)
Provisional rule of s-Dissimilation in SwG:
/s/ fi [∫] / __ [p t ]
The feature which changes in s-Dissimilation has been argued to be [high] as
opposed to [anterior] (see Hall 1992; Wiese 1996; Alber 2001). Various models
of feature geometry have proposed that [high] is independent of all articulators
(i.e. [LABIAL], [CORONAL] and [DORSAL]); see, for example, Lahiri and Evers
(1991). The relevant place features for German consonants we are assuming are
presented in (7):
(7) Place features for German consonants
[LAB]
[COR]
[DOR]
[high]
p b pf m f v
t d ts s n l r
–
–
+
+
–
As can be seen in (7), the segments /p t/ are [–high], while /k/ is [+high].
s-Dissimilation in SwG can now be formalized featurally as in (8):
123
156
(8)
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
s-Dissimilation rule in SwG:
/s/ fi [+high] / __ [–sonorant, –continuant, –strident, –high]
In terms of features, s-Dissimilation only applies to a [–sonorant, +continuant,
⌢
CORONAL] segment. Since the coronal affricate /ts/ is not [+continuant], these
features ensure that the rule only affects /s/. The analysis of affricates as strident stops
assumed here is defended by a number of phonologists, e.g. LaCharité (1993),
Rubach (1994), Clements (1999), Kim (2001), and Kehrein (2002), following Jakobson et al. (1952).
We have written s-Dissimilation in such a way that the process does not apply
before sonorants because the sonorant environment is different from the environment before /p t/. Consider first the regular neutralization of /s/ to [∫] in both
varieties of German before sonorant consonants (including [v]), as illustrated in (9).
(9)
Neutralization of /s/ and /∫/ to [∫] before sonorant consonants
(including [v]):
Standard/SwG
schreiben [∫RaibEn] ‘to write’
Schlange
[∫laNE]
‘snake’
Schmuck
[∫mʊk]
‘jewelry’
Schnee
[∫neː]
‘snow’
⌢] ‘black’
schwarz
[∫vaRts
However, in contrast to the loan words in (5) with initial /sp st/, loan words with
initial /sn sm sl/ do not undergo s-Dissimilation, e.g. Snob [snOp] ‘snob’ (*[∫nOp]),
Slalom [slaːlOm] ‘slalom’ (*[∫laːlOm]). This generalization also extends to wordinternal clusters, e.g. Kosmos [kOsmoːs] ‘cosmos’ (*[kO∫moːs]), Oslo [Oslo] ‘Oslo’
(*[O∫lo]).
Although the rule we posited above in (8) correctly applies before /p t/ only, we do
not have an explanation for why s-Dissimilation fails to apply productively before
sonorants. It is also worth noting that the literature referred to above does not address
this issue either, so this is a question that must remain open for further study. The
important point is that the analysis we posit below of underapplication in Sect. 4 does
not crucially depend on an answer to the question because underapplication occurs
precisely where s-Dissimilation applies productively, namely before /t/.
Following Alber (2001), we see an OT analysis of s-Dissimilation as a response
to the conflict between the specific OCP constraint in (10a) and the faithfulness
constraint in (10b). This conflict is illustrated in the tableau in (11).3
3
Alber (2001) observes several potential problems with constraint (10a). First, it is too general
⌢
because it also penalizes sequences like /pl/ (e.g. Platz [plats] ‘seat’), /ps/ (e.g. Gips [ɡɪps] ‘plaster’)
and /sn sm sl/ (e.g. Kosmos [kOsmoːs] ‘cosmos’). Second, there are also dialects of southern German
in which s-Dissimilation applies productively to /s/ in /sk/ clusters. The first problem is addressed in
Hall (2007) but cannot be repeated here for reasons of space. The second point referred to above
means that for speakers of these dialects the neutralization of /s/ before /p t k/ is not a dissimilatory
change, in which case OCP-[high] would have to be substituted with a markedness constraint which
penalizes [s] plus any stop. Note that an answer to these questions is not a prerequisite to the main
point of the paper, which is an explanation of the underapplication of s-Dissimilation before /t/.
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
(10)
157
Constraints necessary for the canonical pattern:
a. OCP-[high]: [ahigh] [ahigh] is disallowed
b. IDENT -[high]: corresponding segments are identical in the
feature [ high]
(11)
s-Dissimilation for the example Last [la∫t] ‘burden’ in SwG:
/last/
a. [last]
b.
[la t]
OCP-[high]
*!
IDENT -[high]
*
Candidate (11a) violates OCP-[high] fatally because of the adjacent [s] and [t] and
therefore candidate (11b) is selected as optimal.4 The analysis in (11) is in conformance with Richness of the Base. Thus, a potential input form /la∫t/ would
correctly surface as [la∫t], because its closest competitor [last] violates OCP-[high].
3 The context for blocking
The examples in (12) illustrate that s-Dissimilation does not apply if the /s/ and
the following consonant are separated by a morpheme boundary. This generalization is true across a compound juncture, so if the /s/ ends the first member
of the compound and the non-high consonant begins the second part (see 12a),
then /s/ surfaces as [s].5 The same situation obtains in prefixed words in which
the prefix ends in /s/ and a non-high consonant begins the stem (see 12b).6 The
final set of examples (see 12c) demonstrates that s-Dissimilation is blocked from
applying to a stem-final /s/ followed by an inflectional suffix (which can only be
/t/). There do not appear to be any derivational suffixes beginning with /t/ (or
/p/) which could potentially attach to a base ending in /s/ (see Frey 1975 for the
Stuttgart variety of SwG and Fleischer and Barz 1995 for Standard German).7
4
Candidate (11a) has two possible representations; namely one in which [s] and [t] each have their
own instantiation of [–high] and one in which [–high] is shared by both segments. Only the first
representation (which corresponds to what we have in 11a) violates OCP-[high]. The second representation violates Crisp-Edge [Segment], a constraint penalizing linked structures across segments,
which we omit below (It^
o and Mester 1999, p. 208; Noske 1997, p. 225)
5
One occasionally encounters descriptions of specific dialects in which s-Dissimilation applies
across the two parts of a compound. See, for example, Bertram’s (1937, p. 137) description of the
dialect spoken in the Palatinate. We do not attempt to account for the domain of s-Dissimilation in
such dialects.
6
Miss- is a common prefix. Frey (1975, p. 108) lists the uncommon, nonnative prefix dis-, e.g.
⌢
diskret [dɪskret] ‘discreet’ vs. Distanz [dɪ∫tants] ‘distance’, in which s-Dissimilation applies in the
second example. We propose that speakers who apply s-Dissimilation in words like Distanz no
longer perceive of dis- as being a prefix.
7
The Standard German derivational suffix –t, e.g. Fahr-t ‘drive (noun)’ (cf. fahr-en ‘drive (verb)’) is
such a suffix, but it is not productive at all. More to the point, there are no stems ending in /s/
followed by this /t/ which could potentially undergo s-Dissimilation (Muthmann 1988).
123
158
(12)
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
s-Dissimilation blocked across a morpheme boundary in SwG:
a. Kinderbrei [kendlesbrEi] ‘pap’
[Frey 1975: 120]
b. miss-trauen [mistrEuE]
‘mistrust’ [Frey 1975: 107]
c. pass-t
[past]
‘fit (3 sg)’ [Frey 1975: 14]
ge-wuss-t
[gvist]
‘knew (PAST PART)’
According to our survey of the literature on German dialects the blockage of
s-Dissimilation across morpheme boundaries as in (12) is true in virtually all of
the regional varieties of German spoken within the geographical area mentioned
in Sect. 2, although it needs to be stressed that many of these works only list the
(12c) context and the ones in (12a–b) are not discussed. For other varieties
of SwG showing the same pattern of blockage in (12) see Haag (1898, p. 37), who
describes the dialects spoken in Schwenningen. See also Wipf (1910, p. 88)
and Berger (1913, p. 131), who describe Waliser German (Wallis, Southern
Switzerland) and St. Gallen German (Eastern Switzerland) respectively.
According to Schatz (1897, p. 92) the same pattern holds in a variety of Bavarian
German spoken in Western Austria. See also Tarral (1903, pp. 55, 105–114), who
observes the same type of blockage in the Falkenberg dialect spoken in Lorraine
(present day France, Département Moselle).
We do not consider the blockage of s-Dissimilation in (12a–b) to be particularly remarkable, since segmental processes in many other languages
(including German) are inhibited from applying in precisely those environments. We account for (12a–b) by adopting the proposal made independently
for German by other linguists (e.g. Booij 1985; Wiese 1996; Raffelsiefen 2000;
Hall 2002) that stems like [kendles], [brEi], and [trEuE] are independent phonological words, and that s-Dissimilation only applies when the /s/ and the
following non-high consonant belong to the same phonological word. From a
formal point of view the analysis in (11) can capture the blockage of s-Dissimilation in contexts (12a–b) by modifying OCP-[high] so that the two
instantiations of [ahigh] referred to in that constraint only count as an OCP[high] violation if they both belong to the same phonological word. Given this
prosodic restriction, the adjacent [st] and [sp] sequences in (12a–b) will surface
faithfully.
The prosodic solution described in the preceding paragraph makes sense for
(12a-b), but it fails to account for under application in (12c). The reason is that
in any analysis these inflectional suffixes must belong to the phonological word
of the stems to which they attach. Thus, the question that needs to be answered
is why s-Dissimilation underapplies in (12c).8
8
One could imagine a prosodic solution according to which an example like /pas-t/ is parsed
((pas)xt)CG, where `x' and `CG' denote `phonological word' and `clitic group' respectively, and
s-Dissimilation does not apply to the /s/ because the trigger and target must belong to the same phonological word. Since there is no independent evidence at all for (a) analyzing /t/ as being outside of the
phonological word of the stem and (b) postulating some additional prosodic category like the clitic group,
we contend that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of linguists who want to uphold this type of
analysis.
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
159
Given the examples in (3–6) and the additional examples in (12) one might
hypothesize that s-Dissimilation only applies within a stem. The additional
examples in (13) show that this domain is not sufficient to account for the entire
range of data because s-Dissimilation also applies to the /s/ if it lies within the
same suffix as the following consonant. There are no prefixes to our knowledge
in which /s/ occurs to the immediate left of a non-high consonant.
(13)
s-Dissimilation applies within a suffix:
a. superlative suffix:
doof-ste
[doːf∫t]
‘most stupid’
plump-ste
[plomp∫t] ‘most awkward’
b. second person singular suffix:
stirb-st
[∫tirp∫t]
‘die’
[Frey 1975, p. 56]
[Frey 1975, p. 57]
[Zinser 1933, p. 29]
In (13a–b) we can observe that the /s/ of the superlative suffix and the second
person singular suffix surface as [∫] because it is followed by /t/.9
In Sect. 4 and 5 we concentrate on the underapplication of s-Dissimilation
before inflectional suffixes as in (12d). One conceivable analysis of these data,
which we do not adopt here but discuss for the sake of thoroughness, would be
to posit different inputs for tauto- and heteromorphemic /st/ sequences such as
those depicted in (14):
(14)
a.
b.
The structure in (14b) is similar to the ones proposed by Ní Chiosa!in (1991,
p. 34) and Grijzenhout (1998, pp. 41–42) resulting from processes they call
‘‘coronal fusion’’ – a process which is intended to explain the blockage of other
phonological processes in derived clusters. Given the input structures in (14)
and the constraint in (15), the pattern of s-Dissimilation in (14a) and its
blockage in (14b) would follow, as illustrated by the tableaux in (16) and (17).
(15)
O-CONTIGUITY (‘No Intrusion’):
The portion of the output standing in correspondence forms a
contiguous string (McCarthy and Prince 1995, p. 123; Alber 2001, p. 13)
9
As we note in section 6, the second person singular suffix in some varieties of SwG is [∫t]
(Bohnenberger 1928: 46, Zinser 1933: 28ff.), and in other ones it is [∫], which we analyze synchronically as /∫/ (e.g. Frey 1975). Our informant appears to pronounce the suffix as [∫] before a word
beginning with a stop and as [∫t] before a word beginning with a vowel. Since we do not have a
complete set of phonological and syntactic contexts in which deletion of [t] occurs, our analysis
abstracts away from the [∫] ![∫t] alternation.
123
160
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
In its general definition, O-CONTIGUITY militates against the insertion of an
entire segment or a single feature. Given the input (14a) s-Dissimilation can
apply without violating the constraint:
(16)
Input = (14a)
Input: /pas-t/
a.
[past]
b. [pa t]
O-CONTIGUITY
OCP-[high]
!
*!
In contrast, O-CONTIGUITY is violated given input (14b):
(17)
Input = (14b):
Input: /pas-t/
a.
[past]
b. [pa t]
O-CONTIGUITY
OCP-[high]
!
*!
The problem with the above alternative analysis is that it would crucially require
input structures for tautomorphemic /st/ clusters which are distinct from heteromorphemic inputs. In so doing, this analysis does not comply with Richness of the
Base, which requires that multiple potential input forms be accounted for, including
various autosegmental structures. More generally, the approach described above
does not have a principled explanation for why (14a–b) would be required for tautoand heteromorphemic structures respectively and not the reverse.
4 Underapplication as base-identity
4.1 Introduction
We argue below that the reason s-Dissimilation underapplies in SwG is that the
stem of the suffixed form will remain faithful to the ‘base’—a unit to be defined
below. Since our analysis refers to the cells in verbal paradigms, we consider in
the present section some representative verb conjugations. In (18) we have
provided conjugations for lachen ‘laugh’, grüssen ‘greet’, essen ‘eat’ and wissen
‘know’ (from Frey 1975).10 The reason verbal paradigms have been chosen is
10
Frey does not give the complete paradigm for the second and third verbs in (18). We have
modified slightly Frey’s phonetic transcriptions in (18) and below.
The abbreviations in (18) and below are: INF = infinitive, 1 SG = first person singular, 2 SG =
second person singular, 3 SG = third person singular, 1 PL = first person plural, 2 Pl = second
person plural, 3 PL = third person plural, IMP SG = imperative singular, IMP PL = imperative
plural and PASTPART = past participle. The 1–3 Sg and 1–3 Pl forms in all conjugations below are
in the indicative present. We do not include the subjunctive in our analysis, but according to Frey
(1975) /s/ will also surface as [s] before all subjunctive endings beginning with /t/, e.g. [viːst] ‘know
(1 SG SUBJUNCTIVE II)’ (p. 132).
The preterite suffix (-te [tE] in Standard German, e.g. lach-te [laxtE] ‘laughed’) does not exist in SwG
(see Frey 1975, p. 127 and Vogt 1977, p. 122). In SwG past time is expressed exclusively with the
past participle (e.g. er hat gelacht ‘he laughed’).
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
161
that verbs (as opposed to words belonging to other lexical categories) show the
underapplication of s-Dissimilation because many verb stems end in /s/ and two
verbal suffixes are /t/ (third person singular and past participle). Put differently,
there are no /t/-suffixes which could potentially attach to noun or adjective
stems ending in /s/. The cells of the paradigms which involve underapplication
have been shaded, while the boxed cells represent forms in which a stem-final /s/
has been deleted (see below).
(18)
Verb conjugations in SwG (after Frey 1975, pp. 126–132):
INF.
1 SG
2 SG
3 SG
1 PL
2 PL
3 PL
IMP SG
IMP PL
PAST PART
lachen
[lax-E]
[lax]
[lax-∫]
[lax-t]
[lax-Et]
[lax-Et]
[lax-Et]
[lax]
[lax-Et]
[g-lax-t]
grüssen
[griEs-E]
[griEs]
[griE-∫]
[griEs-t]
[griEs-Et]
[griEs-Et]
[griEs-Et]
[griEs]
[griEs-Et]
[griEs-t]
essen
[es-E]
[es]
[i-∫]
[is-t]
[es-Et]
[es-Et]
[es-Et]
[es]
[es-Et]
[g-es-E]
wissen
[vis-E]
[vOes]
[vOe-∫]
[vOes]
[vis-Et]
[vis-Et]
[vis-Et]
[vees]
[vis-Et]
[g-vis-t]
The first of the verbs in (18) has been given to illustrate the affixes corresponding to the various inflectional categories. The verbs grüssen, essen and
wissen are representative of verbs whose stems end in [s]. These three examples
correspond to the traditional categories of weak verbs, strong verbs and
irregular (weak) verbs respectively.
Note the following differences between SwG and Standard German verbal
conjugations: (a) The imperative singular: In SwG this member of the paradigm
is always identical to the unaffixed stem, while this is not always true for strong
verbs in the standard language (e.g. [IS] ‘eat (IMP SG)’); (b) The first person
singular: In contrast to the standard language, in SwG there is no suffix –e; (c)
Indicative (present) plural: In SwG there is a single homophonous suffix for this
category; (d) The past participle: The prefix [g] (= [gE] in the standard language) has
a zero allomorph before stems beginning with a stop or an affricate; see Frey (1975,
p. 130); and (e) Infinitive: The SwG infinitive is marked with an –e rather than the
Standard German –en.
With this background information in mind we can now consider the conjugation of grüssen in (18), paying particular attention to the phonetic representation of the stem. Note that with the exception of the second person singular
there is no stem allomorphy; hence, the stem is consistently pronounced [griEs] in
each of the members of the verbal paradigm. There are two members of the
grüssen paradigm in which the stem-final /s/ is situated next to /t/, namely the
third person singular and the past participle. These are the contexts in which
s-Dissimilation underapplies. In the essen and wissen paradigms the cells which
show underapplication of s-Dissimilation are the third person singular (for the
123
162
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
former verb) and the past participle (for the latter verb). Examples like these will
be discussed in Sect. 4.2.
An examination of the conjugation for grüssen reveals the stem allomorph
[griE] in the second person singular. The deletion of a stem-final sibilant in this
context is purely phonological in the sense that it is triggered by a constraint
banning adjacent sibilants. Hence, we can observe deletion of /s/ in the second
person singular in the final two verbs in (18) as well. The details of the analysis
accounting for the second person singular are spelled out in Sect. 6.
4.2 The base-identity model
We argue that the underapplication of s-Dissimilation in [s]-final stems like
grüssen, essen and wissen in (18) can most insightfully be analyzed by adopting
the BASE-IDENTITY constraint in (19) from Raffelsiefen (1996) in her treatment
of the derivational morphology of English.
(19)
BASE-IDENT: The stem of the derived word must be identical to the base.
Other versions of the same constraint can be found in the literature, e.g.
Kenstowicz (1996) and Kager (1999, p. 261). As we will see below, BASE-IDENT
makes an analysis possible which accounts for the underapplication of s-Dissimilation by considering the surface representation as opposed to earlier levels
in a derivation.
The constraint in (19) makes crucial reference to a ‘base’. Following Kager
(1999, pp. 281–282) and other authors, we assume that the base (with respect to
inflectional paradigms like the ones in 18) is (a) a surface form, (b) a free
morpheme (i.e. a word), as opposed to a bound morpheme, (c) compositionally
related to its derived counterpart (i.e. the affixed form), meaning that the base
contains a proper subset of the grammatical (i.e. morphological) features of the
derived form. For SwG the base is simply the (present indicative) stem, i.e. the
cell in the paradigm corresponding to the imperative singular (or first person
singular), e.g. [griEs] for the grüssen paradigm in (18).11
To see how BASE-IDENT works, we can consider the evaluation of the first
person singular form (in 20) and the third person singular form (in 21) for
grüssen. In both tableaux we have specified the base as well as the input. See Kager
(1999, p. 284–285), who takes a similar approach to the inflectional morphology of
Arabic.
11
Descriptive grammars of German usually consider the base (i.e. Grundform) of the verbal
conjugation to be the infinitive stem, e.g. Frey (1975, p. 129) for SwG and Eisenberg (1998, p. 146ff.)
for Standard German. An examination of (18) reveals that the only verb in which the infinitive stem
is not the same as the first person singular/imperative singular is wissen, which belongs to the
irregular conjugation. Note that an analysis of the base as the infinitive stem does not conform to (b)
above because this cell in the paradigm is not a free form. Since our analysis works in either analysis,
we leave this discussion open for future research.
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
(20)
Input: /
Base: [
a.
b.
(21)
[
[
/
]
]
]
Input: /
Base: [
a.
b.
[
[
BASE-IDENT
OCP-[high]
IO-IDENT-[high]
*!
-/
]
-]
-]
163
BASE-IDENT
*
OCP-[high]
IO-IDENT-[high]
*
*!
*
In (20–21) we can observe that the high-ranking constraint BASE-IDENT ensures
that the respective (a) candidate is optimal. The crucial example is the one in
tableau (21), which shows why underapplication is the correct output: Underapplication (in 21a) wins out over the ‘normal application’ of s-Dissimilation (in
21b) because of the pressure to ensure identity of the suffixed form with the base
[griEs].
A few comments are in order concerning the inputs in (20–21). In contrast to
the base, the input is not a surface form. In conformance with Richness of the
Base, the analysis does not depend on an input with /s/; hence, the correct
outputs in (20–21) will also be selected given an input with /∫/ as opposed to /S/.
See also Kager (1999, p. 413ff.) and references cited therein, who acknowledges
that in a model with a base the input does not play a decisive role.
The base-identity approach to underapplication also accounts for verbs
which have irregular stem allomorphs, e.g. the strong verb essen and the
irregular verb wissen in (18). A re-examination of the wissen paradigm in (18)
reveals that the base is the irregular form [vOes], but in the past participle
[g-vis-t] we see a stem with a different vowel. (The third person singular of essen
provides a similar example). In examples like these BASE-IDENT will select the
output which incurs the fewest violations. For example, the correct output
[g-vis-t] is selected over the incorrect output [g-vi∫-t] because the latter violates
BASE-IDENT twice (for the vowel change and the change from [s] to [∫]), but the
former one violates the same constraint only once.12
4.3 A normal application dialect
In our analysis of SwG in Sect. 4.2 we demonstrated that the ranking of
constraints in (22a) correctly selects the underapplication paradigm. Were
12
Any analysis (including our own) needs to ensure that the past participle is [g-vis-t] and not
[g-vOes-t]. In verbs with irregular stem alternations one needs to include the morphological context
in the input, e.g. / vOes sg ~ vispl, past part / for wissen and /eS1 sg, 1–3 pl, imp., past part. ~ is2–3 sg/ for essen.
This means that [g-vis-t] is selected over [g-vOes-t] because the latter form does not satisfy a constraint which ensures that the input morphological features surface in the correct morphological
context.
123
164
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
BASE-IDENT to occupy a lower slot in the constraint hierarchy, then the ranking
in (22b) would obtain.
(22)
Two possible permutations of the constraints:
a. underapplication:
BASE-IDENT » OCP-[high] » IO-IDENT-[high]
b. normal application: OCP-[high] » IO-IDENT-[high], BASE-IDENT
As we noted above, the ranking in (22a) illustrates the unmarked pattern in the
literature on southern German dialects, characterized by SwG. Thus, scores of
authors have described various regional dialects spoken in southwest Germany
in which under-application in verbal paradigms is the correct outcome. Given
the ranking in (22b), s-Dissimilation would apply not only within morphemes
but also across the stem and inflectional suffix. We refer to this ranking as
‘normal application’ because s-Dissimilation does not underapply; instead, it
operates precisely where one would expect it to if it were a purely phonological
process.13
We are aware of one normal application dialect of German, namely the
variety of the language spoken in Eastern France (D!epartement Moselle) which
was described by Hoffmann (1900: 29–30). We refer to this dialect below as
Mosel German. In Mosel German, as in SwG and Standard German, the
opposition between [s] and [∫] is neutralized to [∫] before non-high consonants
in word-initial position:14
(23) Neutralization in word-initial position in Mosel German:
schleichen
schneiden
Schwalbe
schwarz
spalten
stehen
Mosel German
[∫laixEn]
[∫naidEn]
[∫molEf]
⌢]
[∫toːErts
[∫paːlEn]
[∫toːn]
Gloss
‘sneak’
‘cut’
‘swallow’
‘black’
‘split’
‘stand’
As in SwG, the neutralization of [s] and [∫] to [∫] in Mosel German can also be
observed word-internally within a morpheme before /t p/. Hoffmann does not
discuss this neutralization, but it can be deduced from the examples he gives, as in
(24–25). In (24) we can observe the application of s-Dissimilation within stems
(pp. 37, 46, 48) and in (25) within a suffix (superlative suffix (p. 59) in (a), the
ordinal suffix (p. 65) in (b) and the second person singular suffix (p. 83) in (c)):
13
In addition to underapplication and normal application, overapplication is a situation that often
obtains in inflectional paradigms. A comparison of all three for the s-Dissimilation example can be
found in Sect. 5.
14
Since Hoffmann uses unconventional phonetic symbols, we have replaced them with the corresponding characters in the IPA based on his phonetic description (pp. 4–5; 23).
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
165
(24) Neutralization in morpheme-internal position within a stem:
Gast
Last
Brust
Kosten
Mosel German
[ga∫t]
[la∫t]
[broː∫t]
[khe∫tEn]
Gloss
‘guest’
‘burden’
‘chest’
‘costs’
(25) Neutralization within inflectional suffixes:
a
b
c
reich-ste
rau-ste
zwanzig-ste
brauch-st
Mosel German
[raix-∫t]
[rau-∫t]
⌢tansex-∫t]
[ts
[braux-∫t]
Gloss
‘richest’
‘coarsest’
‘twentieth’
‘need (2 SG)’
Hoffmann (1900, p. 35) also shows that /s/ in French loan words surfaces as [∫]
before /p t/, thereby demonstrating that the process was productive at the time
he wrote his description.
Some crucial examples are the conjugation of the verbs werfen ‘throw’,
lassen ‘let’ and wissen ‘know’ in (26). The first of these three verbs illustrates the
regular endings. The latter two conjugations are representative of verbs whose
stem ends in /s/. Hoffmann does not say what the imperative singular is for
these examples.
(26)
Verb conjugations
werfen
INF
[verf-En]
1 SG
[verf-En]
2 SG
[verf-∫t]
3 SG
[verf-t]
1 PL
[verf-En]
2 PL
[verf-t]
3 PL
[verf-En]
IMP SG [verfn]
in Mosel
lassen
[loːs-En]
[lo-En]
[leː-∫t]
[leː∫-t]
[loːs-En]
[loː∫-t]
[loːs-En]
——
German (Hoffmann 1900, pp. 78, 85):
wissen
[ves-En]
[veːs]
[veː-∫t]
[veːs]
[ves-En]
[ve∫-t]
[ves-En]
—–
The important examples are shaded (i.e. the third person singular and second
person plural of lassen and the second person plural of wissen), because the
suffix for these forms is /t/. What these three forms illustrate is that, in
contrast to SwG, s-Dissimilation applies across a morpheme boundary. We
are assuming, based on Hoffmann (1900), that the ‘normal application’ of sDissimilation across a morpheme boundary in verb conjugations is the rule
rather than the exception based on other examples. For example, we can
observe that /s/ surfaces as [∫] in the third person singular of essen ‘eat’,
fressen ‘eat’ (p. 80), blasen ‘blow’ (p. 81) and the past participle of müssen
‘must’ (p. 85).
123
166
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
The upshot of the data from Mosel German is that this dialect shows that
BASE-IDENTITY does not inhibit s-Dissimilation from applying. This point is
illustrated in (27a), which is the verb lassen (2 Pl). We assume here that the base
is [loːs], even though it is not provided by Hoffmann. Since BASE-IDENTITY is ranked
low, the nature of the base is a moot point anyway.
(27)
Input: /l
Base: [l
a.
b.
[l
[l
-t/
]
OCP-[high]
-t]
-t]
*!
IO-IDENT-[high]
BASE-IDENT
*
In (27) we can see that s-Dissimilation will apply across a morpheme boundary
in (27b) because its underapplication in (27a) is blocked by OCP-[high].
Why are dialects like Mosel German so rare? We assume that the paucity of
such dialects is an accidental by-product of history. Diachronically, the underapplication of s-Dissimilation in verbal paradigms was a consequence of the
fact that /t/-initial suffixes were schwa-initial when s-Dissimilation entered most
southern German dialects in the 13th century (Moser 1951, p. 221ff.; Russ 1978,
pp. 86–87) and that for this reason there simply were no heteromorphemic
examples in verbal paradigms to which s-Dissimilation could have potentially
applied. Only after the historical syncope of schwa in examples like [ɡriEs-t] did
the context for s-Dissimilation arise. Mosel German was innovative because it
extended s-Dissimilation to examples like the one in (27b), while the numerous
underapplication varieties of southern German (e.g. SwG) are more conservative. We predict that there could in principle be more innovative dialects like
Mosel German which are not known to us, or that such dialects could arise in
the future.
5 The OP model
In the OP model of McCarthy (2005) a distinction is drawn between inflectional morphology, which is organized into paradigms, and derivational
morphology, which hinges on a ‘derived form’. Specific OP constraints are
postulated which guarantee identity with surface forms in an inflectional
paradigm. An OP constraint for the feature [high] might be formalized in this
approach as in (28):
(28) OP-IDENT-[high]: The value of [high] for a segment within a stem
is identical to the value of the feature [high] of the corresponding
segment in other words belonging to the same inflectional paradigm.
An important component of the OP model is that there is no base. This means
that OP constraints like the one in (28) compare each surface form in a paradigm with every other surface form in the same paradigm. No member of the
paradigm is more important than the others.
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
167
In OP entire paradigms are candidates. Consider, for example, the paradigm
given in (18) above for the verb grüssen. This paradigm (the underapplication
candidate) can be abbreviated as in (29a) below. Two other conceivable paradigms (in their abbreviated forms) for this verb are presented in (29b–c). The
former is the ‘normal application’ paradigm because s-Dissimilation applies as
expected before /t/ and nowhere else. The latter paradigm can be thought of as
the ‘overapplication’ candidate because s-Dissimilation applies not only before
/t/ but also in absolute word-final position.
(29)
Three abbreviated paradigms for SwG. (29a) is correct and (29b–c) are
incorrect.
a. [griEs ! griEs-t…]
underapplication
b. [griEs ! griE∫-t…]
c. [griE∫ ! griE∫-t…]
normal application
overapplication
As in our own analysis, an OP account would analyze s-Dissimilation with the
ranking OCP-[high] » IO-IDENT-[high]). One might assume that the underapplication of s-Dissimilation would require that OCP-[high] be dominated by
OP-IDENT-[high], but as illustrated in (30) this ranking incorrectly predicts that
the overapplication candidate should win (indicated by the backwards arrow).
(30)
a.
b.
c.
/
~
- …/
[
[
[
~
~
~
- …]
- …]
- …]
OP-IDENT-[high]
OCP-[high]
IO-IDENT-[high]
*!
*!
*
**
The problem with the analysis in (30) is that the overapplication candidate in
(30c) is incorrectly selected as optimal because the intended winner in (30a)
incurs a fatal violation of OCP-[high].15
McCarthy not only stresses that the ‘overapplication only’ prediction is
correct for the Semitic examples he discusses; he also maintains that this should
be the correct state of affairs for other languages as well. The reason his model
makes this prediction is that both the underapplication candidate and the
overapplication candidate satisfy any OP constraint, but only the latter one will
satisfy the markedness constraint. McCarthy argues that underapplication in
inflectional paradigms is only possible if one can motivate some high ranking
(markedness) constraint which has the function of penalizing the overapplication candidate so that the underapplication paradigm can be selected. His
example involves underapplication in the verbal conjugation of Tiberian
Hebrew (pp. 207–208): Both the underapplication and overapplication paradigms satisfy an OP constraint, but the former one wins because the latter one
15
We have yet to encounter a dialect of German in which s-Dissimilation overapplies. For this
reason we do not present a formal analysis of what underapplication might look like in our own
analysis.
123
168
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
violates a (presumably undominated) markedness constraint which prohibits
schwa in the VC__CV context.
To save the analysis in (30) one would therefore require a constraint which
consistently penalizes (at least) one of the members of the overapplication
paradigm but a fewer number of the members in the underapplication paradigm. In contrast to the Tiberian Hebrew example referred to above, it is not at
all obvious what that constraint would be for the German example in (30). One
option is to create a markedness constraint which penalizes an output form with
[∫] in stem-final position, but this would be a classic example of an ad hoc
constraint because it has no independent motivation. An added insurmountable
difficulty with the markedness constraint *∫]stem is that German has many
words with [∫] in the stem-final context, e.g. Rausch from (3b). Another way of
saving (30) would be to appeal to a specific version of the general faithfulness
constraint ANCHORING-IO. In its general form (McCarthy and Prince 1995;
Kager 1999, p. 137) that constraint penalizes deletion or epenthesis at the edge
of a grammatical word, but if the constraint were modified so that it also
penalized a featural change (e.g. from /s/ to [∫]) in stem-final position (see van
Oostendorp 2000), then (30a) would be more harmonic than (30c) because the
latter paradigm would violate ANCHORING-IO twice and the former one would
incur no violations.
As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, there are several reasons to
believe that the ANCHORING-IO analysis is not on the right track. First, as
argued by Nelson (2003), processes of reduplication require either left
anchoring or the anchoring of both edges, but not right anchoring. This suggests that the general constraint ANCHORING-IO (right) described above might
not exist as an independent constraint. Second, there is excellent evidence
against the specific featural constraint ANCHORING-IO (right): In German
(including the southern German varieties discussed here) left stem edges resist
phonological processes much more than right stem edges. Well-known examples of phonological processes affecting only a right stem edge consonant include Final Devoicing and Dorsal Fricative Assimilation (i.e. the rule which
accounts for the alternation between [ç] and [x]). In fact, there are probably
other processes in German involving the feature [high] which apply at the right
stem edge (e.g. the change from /n/ to [N] before /k g/).
Our conclusion is that the OP model is too strong because it does not allow
for a base in inflectional paradigms. See also Albright (2004), who advocates a
position similar to ours in his analysis of the historical loss of Final Devoicing
in Yiddish and Reiss’s (2003, p. 157ff.) criticisms of the base-identity analysis
for Korean proposed by Kenstowicz (1996).
6 Explaining the second person singular
6.1 Introduction
Let us now consider the second person singular form for verbs whose stem ends
in a sibilant. In (31) we have repeated the conjugation for grüssen (from 18),
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
169
which is representative of verb stems ending in /s/. We have also included here
the conjugations for zischen ‘fizz’, kratzen ‘scratch’ and quatschen ‘gab’, which
are representative of verbs whose stem ends in [∫] and the two coronal affricates
⌢
⌢
⌢⌢
/ts / and /t∫/ respectively. /s∫ ts t∫ / are the only sibilants in SwG.16
(31)
Verb conjugations with sibilant-final stems in SwG:
INF.
1 SG
2 SG
3 SG
1 PL
2 PL
3 PL
IMPSG
PASTPART
grüssen
[griEs-E]
[griEs]
[griE-∫]
[griEs-t]
[griEs-Et]
[griEs-Et]
[griEs-Et]
[griEs]
[griEs-t]
zischen
⌢
[ts i∫-E]
⌢
[ts i∫]
⌢
[ts i-∫]
⌢
[ts i∫-t]
⌢
[ts i∫-Et]
⌢
[ts i∫-Et]
⌢
[ts i∫-Et]
⌢
[ts i∫]
⌢
[ts i∫-t]
kratzen
⌢
[krats -E]
⌢
[krats ]
⌢
[krats -E∫]
⌢
[krats -t]
⌢
[krats -Et]
⌢
[krats -Et]
⌢
[krats -Et]
⌢
[krats ]
⌢
[krats -t]
quatschen
[kvat∫-E]
⌢
[kvat∫ ]
[kvat∫-E∫]
⌢
[kvat∫ -t]
⌢
[kvat∫ -Et]
[kvat∫-Et]
[kvat∫-Et]
⌢
[kvat∫ ]
⌢
[kvat∫ -t]
A comparison of the second person singular in the four conjugations in (31)
reveals that a sequence of adjacent sibilants is avoided by deleting the first one
(in stems ending in /s/) or by epenthesizing schwa between the two sibilants (if
the stem ends in a coronal affricate). For stems ending in [∫] it is impossible to
tell whether or not the final segment of the stem or the sibilant of the suffix
deletes. We are assuming the former so that we can analyze all sibilant-fricative
final stems in a parallel fashion.17
An anonymous reviewer points out that we are simply assuming that the
second person singular of verbs whose stem ends in a sibilant fricative (e.g.
grüssen) involve a deletion of the final segment of the stem (i.e. [griE-∫] from
/griEs-∫/) as opposed to an assimilation of /s/ to [∫] before [∫], followed by the
deletion of the suffix (i.e. [griE∫-] from /griEs-∫/). Let us refer to these two
treatments as !analysis A" and !analysis B" respectively. We know of no
empirical evidence for either approach, but it needs to be stressed that
16
The second conjugation in (31) is from Frey (1975, p. 131). Virtually none of the works cited
earlier on German dialects give conjugations for verbs whose stems end in an affricate. The final two
conjugations in (31) were therefore obtained from an informant.
17
See Frey (1975, p. 130), who writes that verb stems which end in /s ∫/ delete this sound before the
second person singular suffix /∫/.
⌢
/, the only noncoronal affriNeither deletion nor epenthesis occurs
⌢ after a verb stem ending in /pf
cate, e.g. klopfen ‘knock (2 sg)’: [klOpf∫]. This means that the pattern of deletion and epenthesis in
(31) is triggered by the avoidance of adjacent (coronal) strident segments (i.e. *[CORONAL, +strident]
[CORONAL, +strident] in terms of features).
We do not discuss the equivalent paradigms in Standard German because s-Dissimilation never
underapplies in that dialect in inflectional paradigms. (Recall from (4a–b) that s-Dissimilation only
applies in Standard German word-initially). We would like to point out here that (in contrast to
SwG) in the standard language the /s/ of the second person singular suffix /st/ deletes if the verb
⌢
⌢
⌢
stem ends in /s/, e.g. [gry:st] (from /gry:s-st/) or the affricate /ts /, e.g. kratzst [kRatst] (from / kRats-st/),
while deletion does not occur when the stem ends in /∫/, e.g. [vYn∫st] (from /vYn∫-st/). We leave open what
a formal analysis of this dialect would look like.
123
170
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
analysis B must overcome a problem not present in analysis A (which we
adopt). In analysis B we have the input /griEs-∫/ mapping onto the output
[griE∫-]. To account for the assimilation referred to above an additional
markedness constraint would be necessary (e.g. *[s∫]) which would be ranked
ahead of IDENT-[high]. The challenge is to account for why [griE∫-] is selected
over the faithful form [griEs-]. This is a difficult problem to solve given the
traditional (i.e. monostratal) approach to OT we are assuming here, which has
an input and an output but no intermediary levels of representation. The reason
the problem described here poses a challenge for the traditional OT model is
that the mapping of [griE∫-] from /[griEs-∫/ involves opacity: The trigger for
assimilation (i.e. the suffix /∫/) is not present on the surface. While one might be
able to save analysis B by introducing a stratal-OT treatment, we do not believe
that these strata derive independent support. Since analysis A does not involve
opacity, it is the treatment we adopt.
The processes of deletion and epenthesis in the second person singular of the verbs
(31) are triggered by the markedness constraint in (32a), which penalizes a sequence of
adjacent sibilants. The pattern of deletion and epenthesis follows from the interaction
of *SIBSIB with the faithfulness constraints in (32b–d). Of these faithfulness
constraints the first two penalize the epenthesis and deletion of any segment
respectively. By contrast, constraint (32d) is a specific faithfulness constraint
which penalizes the deletion of an affricate, which we have generalized here to
all [–continuant] segments. The ranking required for the pattern of deletion and
epenthesis in the second person singular forms in (31) is given in (32e).
(32)
Constraints and rankings for 2 SG forms in SwG:
a. *SIBSIB: A sequence of two sibilants is ungrammatical
b. DEP-IO: No epenthesis
c. MAX-IO: No deletion
d. MAX-IO-[–cont]: No deletion of [–continuant] segments
e. *SIBSIB, MAX-IO-[–cont] » DEP-IO » MAX-IO
The ranking in (32e) (to be illustrated in tableaux below) says that a sequence of
adjacent sibilants is repaired by epenthesis rather than deletion if the first of the
two sibilants is an affricate (i.e. *SIBSIB, MAX-IO-[–cont] » DEP-IO). Given a
sequence of two sibilant fricatives the correct repair is to delete one of the
fricatives (i.e. *SIBSIB » DEP-IO » MAX-IO).
As will be shown below, there are two dialects which we define structurally in
terms of the realization of the second person singular. In the first, represented
by (31), the second person singular is pronounced [∫] (Sect. 6.2), and in the
second (Sect. 6.3) the same morpheme is [∫t]. We refer to these two dialects
henceforth as ![∫]-dialects" and ![∫t]-dialects".
6.2 [∫]-dialects
The ranking in (32e) for [∫]-dialects is illustrated with the tableaux for grüssen
(2SG) and kratzen (2SG) in (33–34):
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
(33)
Input: /
Base: [
a.
b.
c.
(34)
[
[
[
[
[
[
-]
-]
- ]
*SIBSIB
MAX-IO- DEP-IO
[–cont]
BASEIDENT
MAX-IO
*
*
BASEIDENT
MAX-IO
*
*
*!
-]
-]
- ]
Input: /
Base: [
a.
b.
c.
-/
]
171
*!
-/
]
*SIBSIB
MAX-IO- DEP-IO
[–cont]
*!
*!
*
In the first tableau the deletion candidate in (33b) is correctly selected because its two competitors in (33a) and (33b) violate *SIBSIB and DEP-IO
respectively. This example therefore provides evidence for the ranking of the
latter two constraints ahead of BASE-IDENT, which only the winner violates.
By comparison, the selection of the epenthesis candidate in (34c) follows only
if DEP-IO (which the winner violates) is outranked by MAX-IO-[–cont] and
*SIBSIB.
Although the analysis proposed in (33–34) successfully captures the facts of
the second person singular for sibilant-final verb stems, it cannot explain why a
stem-final consonant is deleted in (33b) and not the sibilant of the suffix. Put
differently, why is [griE-∫] (2SG) in (33b) more harmonic than the incorrect
[griEs-] (2SG)? Note that the incorrect candidate [griEs-] (2SG) is the one might expect
to be optimal given the analysis presented in the preceding section because—in
contrast to the actual winner ([griE-∫])—it does not cause the otherwise uniform
paradigm to be disrupted. In tableau (34) one similarly needs to explain why the
winner in (34c) is more harmonic than a candidate in which the suffix is deleted, i.e.
⌢
[krats ] (2SG).
It needs to be stressed that the problem posed with the pattern of epenthesis
and deletion in (31) is not a theory-internal one. Traditional generative approaches would require a rule deleting the first of two adjacent sibilants, but
even in this analysis it is necessary to explain why it is the first sibilant and not
the second one which deletes.
Consider once again the grüssen conjugation in (31). There are two conceivable explanations for why a nonoccurring form like [griEs-] (2SG) is less
harmonic than the correct form [griE-∫]: (a) [griE∫s-] (2SG) is homophonous with
another member of the paradigm, i.e. [griE∫s-] (IMP SG); or (b) [griE∫s-] (2SG) is an
output form in which the suffix is not realized. We argue below that explanation (a)
holds for [∫t]-dialects, while (b) holds for [∫]-dialects.
The constraint necessary to capture explanation (b) (from Kurisu 2001,
p. 39) is presented in (35).
123
172
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
(35) REALIZE MORPHEME:
Let a be a morphological form, b be a morphosyntactic category,
and F(a) be the phonological form from which F(a+b) is derived
to express a morphosyntactic category b. Then REALIZE MORPHEME
is satisfied with respect to b iff F(a+b) 6¼ F (a) phonologically.
The intuition behind REALIZE MORPHEME is that every morpheme receives some
phonological exponence. Hence, if a suffix is deleted entirely (which would be
the case in [∫]-dialects), then the constraint is violated. REALIZE MORPHEME can be
illustrated by considering the conjugation of grüssen !greet", in (31). An examination
of the second person singular in this conjugation reveals that the stem-final /s/
deletes. Were the second person singular suffix to delete rather than the stem-final
sibilant, then REALIZE MORPHEME would be violated. The intuition described above is
captured formally in the tableau in (36):
(36)
Input: /
Base : [
a.
b.
c.
d.
[
[
[
[
-]
-]
-]
- ]
-/
]
REALIZE *SIBSIB
MORPHEME
DEP-IO
BASEIDENT
MAX-IO
*
*
*
*!
*!
*!
Candidate (36c) is less harmonic than candidate (36b) because the former one
violates REALIZE MORPHEME. Although the ranking of REALIZE MORPHEME over
DEP-IO is not necessary in tableau (36), it can be deduced from verbs whose
stems end in a sibilant affricate, e.g. kratzen (recall 31): The correct second person
⌢
singular form [krats - E∫] (which violates DEP-IO) is selected over the incorrect one
⌢
[krats E-], which violates REALIZE MORPHEME.
6.3 [∫t]-dialects
The analysis presented in Sect. 6.2 will only work in [∫]-dialects. A typical example
of a [∫t]-dialect is illustrated with the following conjugation of the (strong) verb
essen ‘eat’ from the dialect spoken in and around Falkenberg (Tarral 1903, pp.
111–112). The verb werden ‘become’ (Tarral 1903, p. 107) has been provided as a
representative example of a verb whose stem does not end in [s].18
18
In his section on strong verbs Tarral only gives the singular (indicative) forms in the conjugation
in (37), so we have omitted the plural forms. Tarral does not give any examples of weak verbs ending
in /s/ like grüssen in (31), but the analysis we present below will go through with strong verbs as in
(37).
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
173
(37) Conjugations for werden and essen in Falkenberg German (Tarral 1903):
INF.
1 SG
2 SG
3 SG
IMP SG
PAST PART
werden
[weːr-En]
[weːr-En]
[weːr-∫t]
[weːr-t]
[weːr]
[woːr-t]
essen
[es-En]
[es-En]
[e-∫t]
[es-t]
[es]
[gEsas]
In the conjugation of essen we can see that s-Dissimilation underapplies in the
third person singular and that the stem-final /s/ is deleted before the second
person singular suffix. The reason conjugations like the one in (37) are
important is that the deletion of the stem-final sibilant in the second person
singular cannot be accounted for by appealing to REALIZE MORPHEME. That
constraint will not do the job because the candidate for the second person
singular in which the sibilant of the suffix has been deleted (i.e. [es-t]) satisfies
the constraint.
We argue that the second person singular forms in dialects like the one in
(37) require the anti-homophony constraint in (38) (modified slightly from
Crosswhite 1999, p. 8). For a comparison of other versions of the same constraint see Ichimura (2006) and the works cited therein. In the formalization in
(38) the symbol ‘ℜ’ stands for a correspondence relation between two output
strings ([S1] and [S2]). This relation produces pairs consisting of one [S1] element
and one [S2] element. IO-IDENT and OO-IDENT constraints (as well as ANTIIDENT) compare the members of these pairs and determine whether or not they
are the same.
(38)
ANTI-IDENT:
For two forms, [S1] and [S2], where /S1/ 6¼ /S2/, $ a, a 2 [S1], such
that a 6¼ ℜ(a).
This constraint says that for two output forms [S1] and [S2], there must be
some segment a which is a member of [S1], such that a is not identical to its
correspondent in [S2]. The two forms referred to here (i.e. [S1] and [S2]) are
intended to be members of the same paradigm). Put simply, the constraint
ANTI-IDENT penalizes an output form which has the same phonological realization as another member of a paradigm. A concrete example will be discussed
below. Note the requirement that the input to [S1] (i.e. /S1/) not be the same as the
input to [S2] (i.e. /S2/). This condition is intended to ensure that ANTI-IDENT will allow
homophony within a paradigm only if the two forms have the same input. For
example, the third person singular and past participle of grüssen are both [griEs-t]
(recall 31), but this homophony is permitted because the two forms have the same
input, namely /griEs-t/.
123
174
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
The role ANTI-IDENT plays in [∫t]-dialects is illustrated in (39) for the second
person singular of the verb essen in (37):19
(39)
Input: / - /
Base: [ ]
a.
[ - ]
b.
[ - ]
c.
[ -]
d.
[
*SIBSIB
ANTI-IDENT
DEP-IO
BASEIDENT
MAX-IO
*!
*
*
*!
*
*!
]
In this tableau we see that the deletion of the final segment of the stem in (39b)
is more harmonic than the deletion of the sibilant of the suffix in (39c) because
the latter candidate violates ANTI-IDENT by virtue of the fact that it is identical
to the third person singular form [es-t]. To see why (39c) violates ANTI-IDENT,
consider [es-t] (2 SG), which is [S1] and [es-t] (3 SG), which is [S2]. The violation
of ANTI-IDENT occurs in (39c) because there is no segment a which one finds in [S1]
which is not present in [S2]. Since [S1] and [S2] are segmentally identical, ANTI-IDENT
is violated.20,21
Recall from note 18 that Tarral does not give the 1–3 plural cells of the essen
paradigm in (37). Assuming that the second person singular is [es-t], as in
Standard German, then this word would not be blocked from surfacing by
ANTI-IDENT because of the /S1/ 6¼ /S2/ condition in (38):
(40)
Input: / - /
Base: [ ]
a.
[ - ]
b.
[ - ]
c.
[ -]
d.
[
*SIBSIB
ANTI-IDENT
DEP-IO
BASEIDENT
*!
*
*!
]
MAX-IO
*
*
*!
In this tableau the winner in (40b) satisfies ANTI-IDENT because its input is /es-t/,
which is the same input for the third person singular. Put differently, the /S1/ 6¼ /S2/
19
The tableau in (39) does not crucially require ANTI-IDENT to dominate DEP-IO. This ranking
would be required assuming that epenthesis applies in the second person singular after sibilantaffricate stems (recall 31). Tarral does not give examples of verbs whose stems end in a sibilant
affricate to confirm this ranking.
20
One might be tempted to explain the ungrammaticality of forms like [es-t] in (39) by replacing
ANTI-IDENT with OCP-[high]. This alternative will not work because of the logic of the constraint
hierarchy: Earlier in (21) it was demonstrated that underapplication is the correct outcome if BASEIDENT outranks OCP-[high]. Since BASE-IDENT is crucially dominated by DEP-IO in (39) the implication is that OCP-[high] will also be outranked by the latter constraint.
21
A superficial re-examination of tableau (36) for the weak verb grüssen suggests that REALIZEMORPHEME could be replaced with ANTI-IDENT because candidate (36c) violates both constraints.
The reason this is not the correct analysis for [∫]-dialects is that it cannot account for the second person
singular of strong verbs, e.g. essen `eat' (i.e. [i-∫] from /is-∫/) from (18). The second person singular form
[i-∫] wins out over [is-] because [is-] violates REALIZE-MORPHEME, but crucially [is-] satisifies ANTI-IDENT.
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
175
condition in (39) ensures that only derived homophony is avoided but that nonderived (i.e. underlying) homophony is allowed.
7 Conclusions and directions for further research
In this article we analyzed the canonical pattern of s-Dissimilation in SwG, in
which the process underapplies before inflectional suffixes. We argued that the
German facts make sense given an approach to PU which includes a base. By
contrast, the data were shown to be problematic for the OP model, because that
approach does not recognize a base in the evaluation of inflectional paradigms.
Finally, we showed that the facts from what we call [∫]-dialects and [∫t]-dialects
require constraints militating against the deletion of an entire morpheme and
outputs homophonous to another member of the same paradigm (i.e. REALIZE
MORPHEME and ANTI-IDENT respectively).
Our treatment leaves open two general questions for further research. First, an
analysis of base-identity in any language needs to say why these effects would
choose to make paradigms uniform along certain dimensions (i.e. the right edge
consonant in verbal conjugations) but not along others. One very obvious
example of a segmental phenomenon that is typically not subject to base-identity
involves the umlauted vowels in the German nominal and verbal systems, e.g. in
the singular, indicative conjugation of the verb tragen ‘carry’ we have trag-e (1sg),
träg-st (2 sg), träg-t (3 sg), trag-en (1 pl), trag-t (2 pl), trag-en (3 pl), but this is an
‘ununiform’ paradigm due to the allomorphs trag- and träg-. From a formal point
of view one could easily write a specific BASE-IDENT constraint for a vocalic feature
(e.g. BASE-IDENT-[back]) which would be situated lower down in the constraint
hierarchy, but this approach begs the question of why certain BASE-IDENT
constraints are high ranked whereas other are not. We believe that an answer to
this type of question needs to consider the morphological function of features
like [back]. Many linguists (e.g. Wurzel 1984) have argued that umlaut in
examples like the one mentioned above has a morphological (as opposed to a
phonological) function. For example, in the form träg-t, the morphological categories !third person, singular, indicative" are expressed not only with the suffix –t,
but also with the change in backness of the stem vowel. By contrast, the feature
[high] has a purely phonological function in German consonants. What this discussion therefore suggests is that the only kinds of features that cannot be present in a
high-ranking BASE-IDENT constraint are those features that have some kind of morphological function. By contrast, features that have a purely phonological function
are the only ones which can potentially be present in a high-ranking BASE-IDENT
constraint. Whether or not this idea can be shown to be correct for other dialects of
German or for other languages is a question we leave open for further study.
A second research question is whether or not additional examples of underapplication in inflectional paradigms can be found. According to the OP
model, underapplication should be the ‘marked’ case and overapplication the
norm. We do not believe this to be the case because examples of underapplication abound in the history of German. Consider, for example, the sound
123
176
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
change whereby the dorsal fricative /x/ dissimilated to the stop [k] before the
fricative [s], e.g. Middle High German vu[xs] > Modern German Fu[ks] ‘fox’,
Middle High German se[xs] > Modern German se[ks] ‘six’ (Russ 1978, p. 83).
Significantly, this change did not affect a stem-final [x] followed by inflectional
suffixes, e.g. Modern German lach-st [laxst] ‘laugh (2 SG)’. A second example
involves the rule of Compensatory Lengthening (VNC]r > VːC]r) in Old Saxon
(Holthausen 1921), e.g. Old Saxon fūs !ready" (cf. the retention of [n] in the Old High
German cognate funs). Holthausen (pp. 68, 166) points out that Compensatory
Lengthening is regularly blocked from applying to an [n] if an (inflectional) suffix
follows, e.g. kan-st !can (2 SG)" because the same segment is present in a morphologically-related word, e.g. kan !can (1 SG)". One could argue that these additional
examples of underapplication involve only historical rules and that they therefore
simply require a restructuring of the input from one stage to the next, rather than a
BASE-IDENT constraint (Reiss 2003). Another possibility is that—at least for some
dialects—these historical rules represented synchronic rules, in which case an
analysis with BASE-IDENT might do more justice to the facts.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the audiences at the Phonology Fest at Indiana
University in June 2006, the Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)
in Berlin in February 2007 and the Fifteenth Manchester Phonology Meeting in
May 2007 for helpful comments on earlier versions of the present article. In
particular, we would like to thank Laura Downing, Barbara Stiebels, Jochen
Trommer, Marzena Zygis for their helpful questions. We would also like to
thank two anonymous referees for their thoughtful feedback. Any remaining
errors are our own responsibility.
References
Alber, B. (2001). Regional variation and edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in standard
and Southern varieties of German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 20, 3–41.
Albright, A. (2004). Sub-optimal paradigms in Yiddish. WCCFL, 23, 1–14.
Benua, L. (1997). Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Ph.D. dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Berger, J. (1913). Die Laute der Mundarten des St. Galler Reintals und der angrenzenden vorarlbergischen Gebiete. Beträge zur Schweizerdeutschen Grammatik, 3, 1–231.
Bertram, O. (1937). Die Mundart der mittleren Vorderpfalz. Erlangen: Palm & Enke.
Bohnenberger, K. (1928). Die Mundarten Würtenbergs. Eine heimatkundliche Sprachlehre.
Stuttgart: Silberburg.
Booij, G. (1985). Coordination reduction in complex words: a case for prosodic phonology. In
H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), Advances in nonlinear phonology (pp. 143–160).
Dordrecht: Foris.
Clements, G. N. (1999). Affricates as noncontoured stops. In O. Fujimura, et al. (Eds.), Item, order
in Language and Speech (pp. 271–299). Prague: Charles University Press.
Crosswhite, K. (1999). Intra-paradigmatic homophony avoidance in two dialects of Slavic. In
Matthew K. Gordon (Ed.), UCLA working papers in linguistics 1. Papers in phonology 2.
UCLA.
Downing, L., Hall, T. A., & Raffelsiefen, R. (Eds.). (2005). Paradigms in phonological theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
123
Inflectional paradigms have a base
177
Eisenberg, P. (1998). Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Fleischer, W., & Barz, I. (1995). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (2nd ed.). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Frey, E. (1975). Stuttgarter Schwäbisch. Laut- und Formenlehre eines Stuttgarter Idiolekts. Marburg: N. G. Elwert.
Grijzenhout, J. (1998). The role of coronal underspecification in German and Dutch phonology and
morphology. In W. Kehrein & R. Wiese (Eds.), Phonology and morphology of the Germanic
languages (pp. 27–50). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Haag, C. (1898). Die Mundarten des oberen Neckar- und Donaulandes. Reutlingen: Eugen Hutzler.
Hall, T. A. (1992). Syllable structure and syllable related processes in German. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hall, T. A. (2002). The distribution of superheavy syllables in Standard German. The Linguistic
Review, 19, 377–420.
Hall, T. A. (2007). Middle high German [rs] > [r∫] as height dissimilation. Ms. Indiana University.
Hoffmann, K. (1900). Laut- und Flexionslehre der Mundart der Moselgegend von Oberham bis zur
Reinprovinz. Metz: Buchdruckerei der Lothringer Zeitung.
Holthausen, F. (1921). Alsächsisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Ichimura, L. (2006). Anti-homophony blocking and its productivity in transparadigmatic relations.
Ph.D. dissertation: Boston University [ROA–881–1006].
Itô, J. & Mester, A. (1999). Realignment. In R. Kager, H. van der Hulst, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.),
The prosody-morphology interface. (pp. 188–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jakobson, R., Fant, G., & Halle, M. (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jutz, L. (1931). Die alemannischen Mundarten (Abriss der Lautverhältnisse). Halle (Saale): Max
Niemeyer.
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kehrein, W. (2002). Phonological representation and phonetic phrasing: Affricates and laryngeals.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Kenstowicz, M. (1996). Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In J. Durand
& B. Laks (Eds.), Current trends in phonology: models and methods (pp. 363–393). Manchester: European Studies Research Institute.
Kenstowicz, M. (2005). Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In L. Downing, T.A. Hall, &
R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.), Paradigms in Optimality Theory (pp. 145–169). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kim, H. (2001). A phonetically based account of phonological stop assibilation. Phonology, 18, 81–
108.
Kurisu, K. (2001). The phonology of morpheme realization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California at Santa Cruz [ROA-490–0102].
LaCharité, D. (1993). The internal structure of affricates. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ottawa.
Lahiri, A., & Evers, V. (1991). Palatalization and coronality. In C. Paradis & J.-F. Prunet (Eds.),
The special status of coronals. Internal and external evidence (pp. 79–100). San Diego: Academic Press.
McCarthy, J. (2005). Optimal paradigms. In L. Downing, T. A. Hall, & R. Raffelsiefen (Eds.),
Paradigms in phonological theory (pp. 170–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, J., & Prince, A. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. Walsh
Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (Eds.), Papers in optimality theory (pp. 249–384). University of
Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18. Amherst, Mass.
Moser, V. (1951). Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Muthmann, G. (1988). Phonologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Nelson, N. A. (2003). Asymmetric anchoring. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.
Nı́ Chiosáin, M. (1991). Topics in the phonology of Irish. Ph.D. dissertation, Amherst: University of
Massachusetts.
Noske, M. (1997). Feature spreading as dealignment: the distribution of [ç] and [x] in German.
Phonology, 14, 221–234.
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Raffelsiefen, R. (1995). Conditions for stability: The case of schwa in German. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs 282. Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität.
123
178
T. A. Hall, John H. G. Scott
Raffelsiefen, R. (1996). Gaps in word formation. In U. Kleinhenz (Ed.), Interfaces in Phonology
(pp. 194–209). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Raffelsiefen, R. (2004). Phonological Effects in Word formation. Habilitationsschrift. Freie
University of Berlin.
Raffelsiefen, R. (2000). Evidence for word-internal phonological words in German. In R. Thieroff,
et al. (Eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis (pp. 43–56). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Reiss, C. (2003). Language change without constraint reranking. In D. E. Holt (Ed.), Optimality
theory and language change (pp. 143–168). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rubach, J. (1994). Affricates as strident stops in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 119–143.
Russ, C. V. J. (1978). Historical German phonology and morphology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Russ, C. V. (1982). Studies in historical German phonology. Bern: Peter Lang.
Schatz, J. (1897). Die Mundart von Imst. Laut- und Flexionslehre. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.
Schirmunski, V. M. (1962). Deutsche Mundartkunde. Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der
deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Scott, J. H. G. (2006). Dissimilation of coronal fricatives in Swabian German tautomorphemic /sC/
clusters. Ms. Indiana University.
Steriade, D. (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In M. Broe &
J. Pierrehumbert (Eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V. Acquisition and the lexicon
(pp. 313–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tarral, N. (1903). Laut-und Formenlehre der Mundart des Kantons Falkenberg in Lothr. Strassburg: Heitz & Mündel.
van Oostendorp, M. (2000). Wieringse nasaalvelarisiering. Taal en Tongval LLL, 1, 163–188.
Vogt, E. F. (1977). Schwäbisch in Laut und Schrift. Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf.
Wiese, R. (1991). Was ist extrasilbisch im Deutschen und warum? Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 10.1, 112–133.
Wiese, R. (1996). The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wipf, E. (1910). Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Beträge zur Schweizerdeutschen
Grammatik, 2, 1–198.
Wurzel, W. U. (1984). Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Zinser, R. (1933). Die Mundart des Oberen Gäus südlich von Herrenberg nach Lauten und Flexion.
Stuttgart: J. Fink.
123