The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory
Lee, Ju Young
(Sogang University)
Lee, Ju Young. 2004. The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality
Theory. Language & Information Society 6, 84-106. This paper
proposes that OT can be used to account for such complex
language changes as the Great Vowel Shift(GVS). Some of the
theoretical consequences of its application to language change will
be discussed. This proposal accounts for three stages of the Great
Vowel Shift(GVS) (Miglio & Morén 1999). The GVS is a synchronic
chain shift which involve raisings and diphthongizations. With this
view, I also analyze the GVS within OT by using the distantial
faithfulness constraint (Kirchner 1996). I show that an OT analysis
is not only capable of handling the GVS, but is the only approach
which can formally characterize such synchronic chain shifts in a
unified manner.
1. Introduction
Since Kiparsky(1968) it has been standard practice in generative
phonology to account for sound change by means of rule addition,
rule simplification, rule reordering and rule loss. Given that the
phonological rule as such no longer exists in recently proposed
constraint-based theories of phonology, such as Optimality Theory
(cf. Prince and Smolensky (1993), McCarthy and Prince (1993a), the
question arises how sound change must be accounted for in these
theories.
In this paper, I will address this issue. It will be claimed that in
Optimality Theory, sound change can straightforwardly be accounted
for by constraint re-ranking. This will be illustrated by a sound
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 85
change in the Great Vowel Shift of English. Some of the theoretical
consequences of its application to language change will be discussed.
This proposal accounts for three stages of the Great Vowel Shift(GVS)
(Miglio&Morén 1999). The Great Vowel Shift is a synchronic chain
shift which involve raisings and diphthongizations. With this view, I
also analyze the GVS within OT by using the distantial faithfulness
constraint (Kirchner 1995, 1996). I show that an OT analysis is not
only capable of handling the GVS, but is the only approach which
can formally characterize such synchronic chain shifts in a unified
manner.
This article is organized as follows. In section 2, I explain chain
shifts and the background of the Great Vowel Shift(GVS). After that,
I mention the previous studies in rule-based approaches briefly and
analyze quantity and quality changes within OT. Section 3 discusses
three language change stages and OT analysis that Miglio and
Morén (1999) proposed. It will be argued that this sound change can
be more adequately accounted for by constraint-reranking. I conjoin
the several tableaux into one tableau. In section 4, I also analyze the
GVS within OT by using the distantial faithfulness constraint
(Kirchner 1996). Finally, in section 5, I will summarize and discuss
the main results of the proposed analyses.
2. Chain shifts and the Great Vowel Shift
2.1 Chain Shifts
Chain shifts have always been a problem for formal phonology,
but have never been a problem to formalize. Rule-based phonology
captures them simply by ordering rules appropriately; formalizations
of
chain
shifts
within
Optimality
Theory,
while
not
so
straightforward, have proved wholly possible (Kirchner 1995, 1996;
Gnanadesikan 1997).
Opacity (Kiparsky 1968) occurs when an otherwise regular
phonological process fails to apply in some forms of the language
86 이 주 영
(counter-feeding
opacity)
or
a
phonological
process
applies
unexpectedly (counter-bleeding opacity). Synchronic chain shifts,
whereby certain sounds are promoted (or demoted) stepwise along
some phonetic scale in some context, are one of the classic cases of
opaque rule interactions (see, e.g., Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977).
If for example, a particular chain shift, namely a→i→∅ reduction in
Hijazi Bedouin Arabic is illustrated below. These cases therefore pose
a challenge for non-derivational theories of phonology, including
standard (strongly parallel) Optimality Theory. In non-final open
syllables, short /a/ raises to a high vowel, while short /i/
syncopates:
(1)
i→∅
a→i
/kitil/
/katab/
ktil
'he was killed'
kitab
'he wrote'
In classic rule-based theories, such cases were handled by breaking
the chain shift into distinct rules, one rule for each link, and
imposing a counter-feeding order on the rule set.
(2)
Rule 1:
a
Rule 2:
i
→
→
i
/ ＿σ
Rule 2 precedes Rule 1
∅ / ＿σ
In the absense of counterfeeding, the application of these rules will
result in a neutralization rather than a chain shift.
(3)
/kitil/
Rule 1:
--
Rule 2:
ktil
/katab/
kitab
*ktab
/kitil/
Rule 2:
Rule 1:
ktil
/katab/
-kitab
It seems quite clear that a related cause is behind the raising of
all the vowels in such a chain, in a fashion that cannot be properly
captured by phonological rules operating on binary features, but
which might be captured through the right kind of constraints,
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 87
assuming it can refer to some grade across which the vowels are
distributed (such a relative height, sonority, or duration).
The growth of Optimality Theory has concentrated the attention of
phonologists upon finding unified explanations, in the form of
universal or motivated constraints, for disparate phenomena. This
analytic tendency favors accounts of chain-shifts that capture the
shifts as unified processes over those that treat such shifts as
independent and coincidental facts. In fact, OT has made chain-shifts
more interesting in a number of ways. Working in a framework
where rule ordering is no longer available as an analytic option for
dealing with counter-feeding opacity, OT phonologists have made a
number of proposals for formalizing chain-shifts without derivations
(Kirchner 1995, 1996; Moreton and Smolensky 2002; Lubowicz 2003).
2.2 The Great Vowel Shift
2.2.1 Background of the GVS
Although all components of the grammar are susceptible to change
over time, some type of change yield more obvious results than
others. Variation and change are particularly noticeable in the
phonology of a language. Several common types of sound change
can be distinguished. A phonological shift is a change in which a
series
of
phoneme
is
systematically
modified
so
that
their
organization with respect to each other is altered. A well-known
example of such a change is called the Great English Vowel Shift.
Beginning in the Middle English period and continuing into the
eighteenth century, the language underwent a series of modifications
to the long vowels. (Archibald 2000)
As for the specific changes that go by the name of the GVS, I
will account for the c. 1400-c. 1550 chain shift of long vowels
(Miglio & Morén 1999).
(4)
88 이 주 영
[ai]
←
[i:]
[u:]
↑
↑
[e:]
[o:]
↑
↑
[ɛ:]
[ɔ:]
→
[au]
The Great Vowel Shift was a major linguistic rearrangement which
took place in English in the century or two during and after
Chaucer's lifetime. In date, therefore, it seems reasonable to say that
the GVS was perhaps the most important process in the change
from Middle English to Modern English. In simplified terms, the
effects of the GVS are fairly easy to describe: it raised (and in one
case fronted) Middle English long vowels, causing the high long
vowels to become diphthongs, as the mid long vowels became high
long vowels and so on. This was a process limited only to English:
contemporary and neighboring languages like French, German, and
Spanish were entirely unaffected. The shift affected words of both
native ancestry and borrowings from French and Latin, and the
many pairs of words in each category which for morphological
reasons han a short-long alternation in Middle English thus have
quite radically differing pronunciations in Modern English. (Pyles
and Algeo 1993)
According to Luick(1921) the chronology of the relevant changes
would be as follows:
(5)
i: > ai
u: > au
around 1400/ completed by 1450
e: > i:
o: > u:
started 1400?/ mid XV, completed by mid
XVI
("first impulse)
ɛ:> e:
ɔ: > o:
1550/ 2nd half XVI
This model reduces those stages of the GVS to a synchronic chain
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 89
shift, and is treated, therefore, as other synchronic changes of the
same type (cf. Miglio 1999). They believe that the instability of long
lax mid vowels may in fact be isolated as a possible "cause" of the
restructuring of the grammar. The markedness of such vowels is
typologically known (Miglio 1999) and is also pointed out by
Dobson (1957). Luick(1921) and Dobson(1957) both comply with the
dominant view that the tense mid vowels raise first and the
resulting gap is filled by the tensing of the mid lax vowels. Miglio
and Morén (1999) believe that the relevant changes of the GVS (long
mid lax vowels becoming tense, long mid tense vowels becoming
high, and high vowels diphthongizing) are best modelled by a
unique grammar that depicts this part of the GVS as a synchronic
chain shift. In the following discussion, I will assume that vowels
were affected as follows:
(6) Modern Reflexes of the Changes Called the Great Vowel Shift
Middle English
Great Vowel Shift
Modern English
[ti:d]
[i:] > [ai]
[taid]
[lu:d]
[u:] > [au]
[laud]
[ge:s]
[e:] > [i:]
[gis]
[sɛ:]
[ɛ:] > [e:] > [i:]
[go:s]
[o:] > [u:]
[gus]
[brɔ:kən]
[ɔ:] > [o:]
[brokən]
[na:mə]
[a:] > [ɛ:] > [eɪ]
[si]
[neim]
Although is it apparent that the quality of the vowels is affected
in this change, quantity clearly must play an important role in a
possible explanation of how the change came about since the change
affects only long vowels.
English moved from a quantity system in which underlying vowel
and consonant moracity was mirrored perfectly on the surface (OE)
to a quantity system in which vowel length was perfectly
90 이 주 영
predictable from phonological context (ME). Just before the GVS, all
vowels surfaced as long in stressed monosyllables that were either
open or closed by a single non-geminate consonant. Non-high
vowels surfaced as long in stressed open penults. All other vowels
were short. In addition, mid vowels gained a tense/lax distinction
that the other vowels did not, but this distinction was manifest only
in the long vowels.
2.2.2 Previous studies of the GVS: rule-based approaches
In the SPE account, Chomsky and Halle split the process of vowel
shift into two parts. In the first part, the value of the feature
[±high] is inverted in non-low vowels:
(7) [α high] → [-α high] /
-cons
-low
The restriction of the scope of the rule to non-low vowels is
appropriately formalized by the inclusion in the envoirment of the
specification [-consonantal] (=vowels) and [-low] ([-consonantal,
-low]= non-low vowels, namely, [i] and [e]). The process these
vowels undergo involves the inversion of the value for [±high]: an
input [α high] becomes [-α high] in the output. If we interpret the α
in the input of rule (7) as + (thus defining the vowel [i] in our
present context), we must also interpret α as + in the output.
Consequently, the rule will express the change from [+high] [i] to
[-high] [e]: -α = -, if α = +. On the other hand, if we interpret α as
-, rule (7) will change [-high] [e] to [+high] [i]: -α = +, if α = -. All
this is of course in accordance with the ordinary rules of algebra
and logic. The overall effect of rule (7) will be an interchanging of
/i/ and /e/, precisely as desired:
(8)
/i/ → e
div/i:/ne → div[e:]ne
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 91
/e/ → i
ser/e:/ne → ser[i:]ne
The second part of Chomsky and Halle's Vowel Shift rule inverts
the value for [±low] in non-high vowels:
(9) [β low]
→
[-βlow] /
-cons
-low
The mechanics of rule (9) parallel those of rule (7), with the
appropriate substitutions of the affected and contextual features.
Notice the crucial use of a different Greek letter variable, [α high] in
rule (7) and [β low] in rule (9), to encode the independence of the
respective values. The effect of rule (9) will be the exchange of /e/
and /æ/:
(10) /e/ → æ
/æ/ → e
div[e:]ne → div[æ:]ne
s/æ:/ne → s[e:]ne
The effects of the two branches of rule are illustrated below in
(11), ordered in strict succession:
(11)
i
e
↓↑ Branch a. (cf. rule (12))
e
Notice
↓↑
Branch b. (cf. rule (14))
æ
that
the
relative
success
of
Chomsky
and
Halle's
formalization hinges on the breaking down of the lowering of [i] to
[a] into two steps. The output of the first branch feeds the second
branch. In this way, each step corresponds to a natural change in
height: [i] → [e], and [e] → [æ], and conversely.
In the autosegmental formalization, an account of the alternation
92 이 주 영
between long and short vowels affecting a sizeable set of English
forms crucially relies on the availability of the timing tier. (Roca &
Johnson 1999: 214)
(12)
X
X
X
[-cons]
[-cons]
div[aɪ]ne
div[ɪ]nity
ser[i:]ne
ser[ɛ]nity
s[eɪ]ne
s[æ]nity
The qualities of the related vowels in Modern English are of
course significantly different from their counterparts in Middle
English, that is, in the English that resulted from the mixture of the
purely germanic Old English with the Norman French of the
conquerors, and which towards the end of the fifteenth century
became Modern English. The problem with the modern English
situation is that the long vowels [aɪ], [i:], [eɪ] do not correlate
phonetically with their predecessors [i:], [e:], [æ:], respectively, in any
obvious way- by contrast, the short vowels have only undergone
laxing,
a
minimal
and
highly
natural
change:
[ɪ],
[ɛ],
[æ],
respectively. The solution to the puzzle posed by the quality of the
long vowels can again be found in the history of the language. In
particular, the Middle English long vowels [i:], [e:], [ɛ:] and [æ:]
underwent a series of changes which ultimately led to their modern
incarnations [aɪ], [i:], [eɪ]. If such processes are followed step by
step, the motivation for each individual change becomes apparent.
3. Pre-OT Analysis of the GVS
3.1 Description of the Three Stages of the GVS
Miglio and Morén (1999) propose that there is an intricate
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 93
relationship between the GVS and the acquisition of the ME vowel
system, such that underlying contrasts in feature specification must
be maintained on the surface despite both phonetic and phonological
pressure to collapse the contrasts. Further, they propose that
language change can be formalized as taking place in three distinct
stages (Miglio 1999). The first stage depicts a specific ranking of
universal constraints that results in a fairly transparent relationship
between input and output forms. During the input and output to be
somewhat opaque. The final stage entails a reanalysis of the primary
linguistic data by the next generation of speakers to attain a more
harmonic (transparent) relationship between input and output forms.
As far as the GVS is concerned, stage one is characterized by
predictable vowel quantity and predictable vowel quality for all but
the long mid vowels. Stage two consists of a re-ranking of
constraints to 1) disfavor long lax mid vowels, and 2) cause the rest
of the non-low vowels to raise or break (diphthongize) to avoid
merging them. This causes a complex correspondence between input
and output vowels that bear little resemblance to each other. Stage
three is then the reanalysis of the input/output vowel pairs such
that they are more similar to one another. This reanalysis is
manifested as a re-ranking of constraints and as a restructuring of
the relation between surface and underlying forms.
3.2 Analysis of STAGE I-Pre GVS
Stage I corresponds to the pre-GVS Middle English period, i.e. the
period preceding the main vowel quality changes. This section will
provide an analysis of the height and tense/lax distribution at this
stage of the grammar. It will assume the quantity system discussed
in section 2.
First, it is apparent that height is distinctive in this stage. Since
height does not change from input to output at this stage for either
long or short vowels, the faithfulness constraints to height are
ranked
higher than the relevant markedness constraints.
The
94 이 주 영
following rankings must hold:
(13) IDENT[HIGH] >> *[HIGH]
(14) IDENT[LOW] >> *[LOW]
The first ranking ensures that vowels underlyingly specified as
[high] do not lose that feature despite the markedness constraint
against surfacing with a [high] feature. Tableau (15) shows the first
constraint ranking as it applies to high and mid input vowels. Bear
in mind that we assume privitive height features, and that mid
vowels are specified as both high and low. I combined the high
vowels and mid vowels tableaux into one tableau here.
IDENT[HIGH]
*
☞i→ɪ
i→a
*!
☞e→e
e→a
*!
(15) Non-lowering of High & Mid Vowels
[HIGH]
*
*
The second ranking ensures that vowels underlyingly specified as
[low] do not lose that feature despite the markedness constraint
against surfacing with a [low] feature. This is exemplified in the
following tableau.
(16) Non-raising of Mid&Low Vowels
a→ɪ
☞a→a
e→i
☞e→e
IDENT[LOW]
*!
*
[LOW]
*
*!
*
To summarize, faithfulness to height outranks height markedness.
This ensures that high vowels remain high, low vowels remain low,
and mid vowels remain mid. Note that a cooccurrence constraint
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 95
specific to mid vowels, *[HIGH, LOW], is not necessary here because
the other four constraints will ensure that mid vowels do not
become either only high or only low.
Recall from the discussion of quantity changes prior to the GVS
given in section 2, high vowels always surfaced as tense, long mid
vowels had distinctive tenseness, and short mid vowels always
surfaced as lax.
(17) Non-distinctive tenseness for high vowels, Distinctive tenseness
in long mid vowels, and Non-distinctive tenseness for short mid
vowels
FTBIN
ɪ→ɪ
☞ɪ→i
i→ɪ
☞i→i
☞ɛ→ɛ:
ɛ→e:
e→ɛ:
☞e→e:
☞e→ɛ
e→e
*
[HIGH,RTR] *SHORT[TENSE] IDENT[RTR]
*!
*
*
*!
*
*
*
[RTR]
*
*
*
*!
*!
*
*
*
*!
To summarize, the constraint ranking that will result in tense high
vowels, distinctive tenseness in long mid vowels and only lax short
mid vowels is:
(18) *[HIGH,RTR] >> *SHORT[TENSE] >> IDENT[RTR] >> *[RTR]
The three-way height distinction is captured by ranking two
height faithfulness constraints above markedness constraints against
[high] and [low] features. Distinctive tensing in long mid vowels is
the result of ranking faithfulness to underlying [RTR] above the
markedness constraint against [RTR]. The lack of a tenseness
distinction in short mid vowels comes from ranking a constraint
96 이 주 영
against short tense vowels above faithfulness to [RTR]. Finally, the
complete lack of lax high vowels resuls from a markedness
cooccurence constraint against being both high and lax ranked above
both the constraint against short tense vowels and the faithfulness
constraint on underlying [RTR].
3.3 Analysis of STAGE II-GVS
Stage II is distinguished from the prior stage in two ways:
i) the lack of a tense/lax distinction for mid vowels on the
surface despite an underlying distinction.
ii) a chain shift (systematic raising and diphthongization) of
non-low long vowels.
3.3.1 Tenseness of Underlyingly Mid Lax Vowels
Morén (1999) has proposed two types of faithfulness constraints on
moraic affiliations that militate against deleting underlying moras
from segments and adding moras to segments that they did not
have underlyingly: MAXLINK-MORA[SEG] and DEPLINK-MORA[SEG],
respectively. The former was introduced above for pre-GVS quantity
adjustments and will not be discussed here. It is latter that plays an
active role in causing the chain shift of the GVS.
(19) DEPLINK-MORA[SEG]- Do not add morae to a particular type
of segment that it did not have underlyingly.
(20) Tensing of Underlyingly Mid Lax Vowels
FTBIN
ɛ→ɛ:
☞ ɛ→e:
ɛ→e
ɛ→ɛ
DEPLINK-MORA DEPLINK-MORA
[HIGH,LOW,RTR]
*!
[HIGH,LOW]
*
*!
*!
IDENT[RTR]
*
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 97
Now the problem is explaining why /ɛ/ becomes [e:] and not [i:].
Under the analysis provided thus far, the lax mid vowel should also
lengthen and raise to high since DEPLINK-MORA [HIGH,LOW,RTR]
outranks DEPLINK-MORA [HIGH] by transitivity. If long tense mid
vowels are so marked as to warrant raising, then why do the lax
vowels not also raise? This is the paradox inherent in any chain
shift. Tableau (21) demonstrates this.
(21) Incorrect Raising of Lengthened Mid Lax Vowels
FT DEPLINK-MORA
DEPLINK- DEPLINK-
BIN [HIGH,LOW,RTR]
ɛ→ɛ:
MORA
MORA
[HIGH,LOW]
[HIGH]
IDENT IDENT
[RTR]
[LOW]
*!
☜ɛ→e:
*!
*
☞ɛ→i:
*
*
*
Following Miglio (1999), the solution to this paradox is to use
local conjunction to prohibit the underlying mid lax vowel from
losing both [RTR] and [low] (IDENT[RTR]&IDENT[LOW]). Under this
approach, it is worse to change both [RTR] and [low] at the same
time that it is to change only one or the other. Tableau (22)
demonstrates this.
(22) Tensing (non-Raising) of Lengthened Mid Lax Vowels (Miglio
1999)
FT
BIN
IDENT[RTR]
&
IDENT[LOW]
ɛ→ɛ:
MORA
[HIGH,LOW,
RTR]
DEPLINK- DEPLIN
IDENT IDENT
MORA
K-MORA
[RTR] [LOW]
[HIGH,LOW]
[HIGH]
*!
☞ɛ→e:
ɛ→i:
DEPLINK-
*
*!
*
*
*
*
98 이 주 영
3.3.2 Raising of Underlyingly Tense Mid Vowels
With the analysis for tensing underlyingly lax mid vowels when
lengthened as our guide, a similar solution can be used to raise
underlyingly tense mid vowels to long high vowels. The way to
analyze the preference of lengthening high vowels over lengthening
mid vowels is to rank DEPLINK-MORA [HIGH,LOW] >> DEPLINK-MORA
[HIGH], IDENT[LOW].
(23) Raising (Non-lowering) of Tense Mid Vowels
FTB DEPLINK-MORA DEPLINK-MORA
IN
e→e:
☞e→i:
e→a:
☞e→i:
[HIGH,LOW]
[HIGH]
IDENT
IDENT
[HIGH]
[LOW]
*!
*
*
*!
*
To summarize stage II of the GVS thus far, there are underlying
distinction among high vowels, non-lax mid vowels and lax mid
vowels. However, long lax mid vowels are fairly marked both
phonetically and phonologically. To avoid having long lax mid
vowels surface as long, they tense. This is accomplished by a
constraint against adding a mora to a mid lax vowel being ranked
above both a constraint against adding a mora to a non-lax mid
vowel and a constraint against changing [RTR] feature specification.
Using local conjunction, tableau (24) shows that underlying /e/ still
raises to [i:].
(24) Raising of Lengthened Mid Tense Vowels (Miglio 1999)
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 99
FTB
IN
IDENT[RTR]
&
IDENT[LOW]
DEPLINK DEPLINK
DEPLINK
-MORA -MORA
IDENT IDENT
-MORA
[HIGH,LO [HIGH,
[RTR] [LOW]
W,RTR]
e→ɛ:
e→e:
☞e→i:
[HIGH]
LOW]
*!
*
*!
*
*
3.3.3 Diphthongization
The last leg of the synchronic chain shift to be dealt with is the
breaking (diphthongization) of the high vowels. Since underlying
mid vowels raise to high, breaking occurs in response to a need to
keep underlyingly mid vowels distinctive from underlyingly high
vowels on the surface (recall IDENT[LOW]
*
>> [LOW]).
Miglio&Morén (1999) explain this diphthongization using this
constraint ranking, DEPLINK-MORA [HIGH] >> IDENT[LOW] and got a
correct result in tableau (25).
(25) Breaking of Lengthened High Vowels
FTBIN
i→i:
☞ i→ai
DEPLINK-MORA[HIGH]
*!
IDENT[LOW]
*
However, the winning candidate has also violated a faithfulness
constraint against fission-INTEGRITY (McCarthy & Prince 1995:124).
(26)
I NTEGRITY- “No Breaking"
No element of S1 has multiple correspondents in S2
INTEGRITY[HIGH] must be ranked below DEPLINK-MORA [HIGH], as
shown in (27):
(27) Breaking of Lengthened High Vowels (Miglio & Morén 1999)
100 이 주 영
i→i:
☞ i→ai
FTBIN DEPLINK-MORA[HIGH]
*!
INTEGRITY[HIGH]
*
(28) Raising (Non-breaking) of Lengthened Tense Mid Vowels
FTBIN INTEGRITY[HIGH,LOW] DEPLINK-MORA[HIGH]
*
*!
☞ e→i:
e→ai
To summarize, although the underlying vowels in stage I and
stage II are essentially the same, stage II is distinguished by a large
discrepancy in the nature of the surface forms. Underlyingly lax mid
vowels do not simply lengthen, but also become tense. This
threatens to neutralize the distinction between tense and lax mid
vowels. To avoid merger, the underlyingly tense vowels raise to
high. In turn, this threatens to neutralize the distinction between
mid and high vowels. To avoid merger, the underlyingly high vowel
breaks and becomes a sequence of a low vowel followed by a high
vowel.
3.4 Analysis of Stage III Vowels
Since the relationship between input and surface vowels at stage II
is opaque, the constraint ranking required to maintain this grammar
is unstable. Without heavy cross-dialectal influence and/or strong
evidence from morphological alternations, the next generation of
learners will take the output of the Stage II grammar and acquire a
constraint ranking that results in a more transparent relationship
between input and output.
The constraint ranking that produces this pattern of non-distinctive
tenseness for all vowels as follows:
(29)
*
[HIGH, RTR] >> *SHORT[TENSE] >> *[RTR] >> IDENT[RTR]
With this ranking, there is no underlying distinction between tense
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 101
and lax mid vowels, subsequently, there is no motivation to
maintain a
distinction between /ɛ/
and
/e/
on
the
surface.
Therefore, lengthened /e/ is not forced to raise to high to avoid
merging with lengthened /ɛ/. Thus, the /i/ is not forced to break
to avoid merging with raised /e/. Ignoring the result of the stage II
chain shift, the only difference between Stage I and Stage III is the
lack of a tensing distinction for mid vowels.
The grammar of stage III is virtually identical to that of stage I.
First, three vowel heights are maintained by ranking the height
faithfulness
constraints
(e.g.
IDENT[HIGH])
above
the
height
*
markedness constraints (e.g. [HIGH]). Second, high vowels do not
participate in a tense/lax distinction. They always surface as tense
*
*
because [HIGH, RTR] ranks above both IDENT[RTR] and SHORT[TENSE].
Finally, short mid vowels are always lax because *SHORT[TENSE]
outranks *[RTR]. The major difference is in the loss of the tense/lax
*
distinction for long mid vowels. This entails a re-ranking of [RTR]
above IDENT[RTR].
4. Proposal: The Great Vowel Shift using distantial
faithfulness constraint
Synchronic chain shifts, whereby certain sounds are promoted (or
demoted) stepwise along some phonetic scale in some context, are
one of the classic cases of opaque rule interactions (see, e. g.,
Kenstowicz and Kisseberth 1977). Kirchner (1996) examine synchronic
vowel raising alternations in Basque and Nzebi. Employing the
notion of distantial faithfulness, i.e. minimization of distance between
underlying and surface values along the phonetic scale, he show
that an OT analysis is not only capable of handling these sorts of
alternations,
but
is
the
only
approach
which
can
formally
characterize such shifts in a unified manner.
The Great Vowel Shift is an example of synchronic chain shifts. In
this section, I explain the GVS(raising phenomenon) using distantial
102 이 주 영
faithfulness constraint. It is illustrated here with the example of
Western Basque Hiatus Raising, in which /a/→[e] and /e/→[i]
before vowels.
(30) Western Basque Hiatus Raising
Indefinite
Definite
/a/→[e]/_V
alaba bat
alabea
/e/→[i]/_V
seme bat
semie
Gloss
‘daughter'
‘son'
First, Kirchner (1996) attribute the Etxarri Basque raising to the
following constraint:
(31) H IATUS R AISING: In V1 V2, maximize height of V1.
Second, he provided that the feature system can express the
four-way height distinction observed in Etxarri Basque, and provided
that we can evaluate the relation “higher than" over the values of
the height features, so that violations of HIATUS RAISING can be
assessed in a scalar manner.
y
w
i, u
i, u
e, o
a
low
+
high
+
+
-
raised
+
-
">" = higher than
+raised > -raised
+high > -high
-low > +low
He rank PARSElow above HIATUS RAISING to rule out the raising of
/a/ in V1 position. However, there appears to be no way to rank
HIATUS RAISING relative to PARSEhi and PARSEraised to permit raising
of /e/ and /i/ without allowing /e/ to raise all the way to [iy]:
y
(32) /e/ →[i ] raising is not ruled out:
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 103
PARSElow
e→a
e→e
☜e→i
☞e→iy
*!
HIATUS
RAISING
***
**!
*!
PARSEhi
PARSEraised
*
*
*
To capture the stepwise restriction in chain shifts generally,
Kirchner
(1995)
proposed
constraints
which
enforce
distantial
faithfulness. That is, assuming some phonetic scale, the output may
not be more than a certain "distance" from its input value along
that scale. For Etxarri Basque, we assume that each link in the chain
shift represents a distance of 1 along the vowel height scale.
(33) V-H EIGHT D ISTANCE ≦ 1 (initial formulation): The output may
not be a distance>1 from the input value with respect to vowel
height.
PARSElow
e→a
e→e
☞e→i
e→iy
*!
V-HEIGHT HIATUS
DIST ≦ 1 RAISING
***
*!*
*!
*!
PARSEhi PARSEraised
*
*
This approach capture the vowel raising in a unified manner,
while directly expressing the faithfulness factor that makes this a
chain shift rather than a neutralization, namely the requirement that
surface values not be too distant from the underlying values.
In same way, we can analyze the raisings of the Great Vowel
Shift. In section 3, Miglio and Morén (1999) assumed that ɛ→e: is a
tensing and e→i: is a raising phenomenon. However, I assume ɛ→e:
is also raising alternation in here. Tableau (34) demonstrates these
raising alternations. FTBIN dominates all the constraints below.
104 이 주 영
(34) Incorrect raising
FTBIN PARSElow
ɛ→a:
ɛ→ɛ:
☜ɛ→e:
☞ɛ→i:
e→a:
e→ɛ:
e→e:
☞e→i:
*!
*!
HIATUS
RAISING
***
**!
*!
PARSEhi PARSEraised
*
*
*
*
***
**!
*!
As tableau (34) shows, incorrect raising ɛ→i: is involved here. To
solve this problem, I will use the distantial faithfulness constraint. I
posit the following distantial faithfulness constraint in the GVS. I
changed PARSE constraints into IDENT Constraints here.
(35) The Great Vowel Shift using distantial faithfulness constraint
FTBIN
ɛ→a:
ɛ→ɛ:
☞ɛ→e:
ɛ→i:
e→a:
e→ɛ:
e→e:
☞e→i:
IDENT V-HEIGHT HIATUS IDENT
IDENT
[LOW] DIST ≦ 1 RAISING [HIGH] [RAISED]
*!
***
**!
*
*!
*
*
*!
***
*!*
*!
*
*
Using distantial faithfulness constraint, I also analyze raisings of
the GVS within OT. I show that an OT analysis is not only capable
of handling the GVS, but is the only approach which can formally
characterize such synchronic chain shifts in a unified manner.
The Great Vowel Shift in Optimality Theory 105
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper proposes that OT can be used to account
for such complex language changes as the Great Vowel Shift(GVS).
This proposal accounts for three stages of the Great Vowel Shift(GVS)
(Miglio&Morén 1999). Miglio and Morén(1999) have given OT
analysis of the GVS in English. They propose that language change
can be formalized as taking place in three stages: an inert stage
depicting a specific ranking of universal constraints; a second stage
where at least one constraint has been re-ranked; and a final stage,
where the next generation of speakers reanalyses the output, it hears
to attain a more harmonic relationship with the input. Actual
historical data support their argument that the GVS can be broken
down into 3 main stages. StageⅡ is the most active stage of the
change, when the bulk of alternations are shown to take place
synchronically.
These
are
the
well-known
raisings
and
diphthongisations exemplified by alternations such as: /sɛ:/→[se:]
'sea', /ge:s/→[gi:s] 'geese', and /ti:d/→[taid] 'tide'. The chain shift
is modeled with the help of local conjunction and cooccurrence
constraints penalizing, for instance, the long mid lax vowels.
Kirchner(1995) examine synchronic vowel raising alternations using
the distantial faithfulness constraint. I analyze the GVS as Kirchner
does. In doing so, I show that the GVS can be analyzed in an
unified manner.
References
Dobson, E.J. 1957. English Pronunciation 1500-1700 (vol. II). Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Gnanadesikan, A. 1997. Phonology with Ternary Scales. Ph. D. dissertation,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kenstowicz, M and Kisseberth, C. 1977. Topics in Phonological Theory,
Academic Press.
Kenstowicz, M and Kisseberth, C. 1979. Generative Phonology, Academic
106 이 주 영
Press.
Kiparsky, P. 1968. How abstract is phonology?
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Explanation in phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 119-163.
Kirchner, R. 1995. Going the distance: synchronic chain shifts in Optimality
Theory, Ms., Rutgers Optimality Archive [ROA 66-0000].
Kirchner, R. 1996. Synchronic Chain Shifts in Optimality Theory, Linguistic
Inquiry 27(2): 341-350.
Luick, K. 1921. Historische Grammatik der Englischen Sprache. Leipzig:
Tauchnitz.
Lubowicz, A. 2003. Contrast Preservation in Phonological Mappings.
Ph.D.dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [ROA
554-1002].
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. 1993a. Generalized Alignment. Yearbook of
Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 79-153.
McCarthy, J and Prince, A. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity.
University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers, 18, 249-384.
Miglio, V. 1999. Interactions between Faithfulness and Markedness
Constraints in Vowel Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of
Maryland at College Park.
Miglio, V and Morén, B. 1999. Language Change in OT: The Great Vowel
Shift. Optimality Theory and Language Change, 187-219.
Moreton, E. and Smolensky, P. 2002. Typological consequences of local
constraint conjunction. WCCFL 21, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
O'Grady, W. and Archibald, J. 2000. Contemporary Linguistic Analysis,
Addison Wesley Longman.
Prince, A. and P, Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction
in Generative Grammar, ms., Rutgers University, University of Colorado.
Pyles, T and Algeo, J. 1993. The Origins and Development of the English
Language, Harcourt College, 134-164.
Roca, I and Johnson, W. 1999. A Course in Phonology, Blackwell, 204-229.
이주영
서울시 마포구 신수동 1번지
서강대학교 영어영문학과
우편번호: 121-742
E-mail: [email protected]