Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:01:06.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological Change Through Phonological Analogy: 2nd Person Singular -s → -st and Related Developments in Germanic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

David Fertig
David Fertig*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo / The State University of New York
*
Department of Linguistics, 609 Baldy Hall, North Campus, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA [fertig@buffalo.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Almost all existing accounts of the change of the 2nd person singular verbal agreement ending -s to -st in Old English and Old High German attribute the development to some combination of reanalysis of forms with enclitic subject pronouns ending in -stu and analogy based on a handful of mainly preterite-present verbs that already had 2nd person singular -st in the present indicative in Proto-(West)-Germanic. These factors retain a role in the analysis presented here, but I argue that the operative mechanisms are essentially phonological in nature, licensed ultimately by certain neutralizing processes such as degemination, rather than involving the spread of an existing -st morpheme, grammaticalization of an enclitic subject pronoun, or relocation of a morphological boundary. This analysis also sheds light on the relationship of the 2nd person singular change to the more general phenomenon of word-final t accretion seen in dozens of words such as German Axt ‘ax’ < Middle High German ackes or English against < earlier agains.*

Keywords

agreementanalogygrammaticalizationOld High Germanreanalysisrecutting
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 1 - 42
Copyright
© Society for Germanic Linguistics 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Special thanks to Jean-Pierre Koenig and to two anonymous referees for JGL for valuable feedback on earlier versions of this paper and to the attendees at my presentation at GLAC 23 (April 2017), which dealt with some aspects of this project.

References

References

Ackerman, Farrell, & Malouf, Robert. 2016. Implicative relations in word-based morphological systems. The Cambridge handbook of morphology, ed. by Hippisley, Andrew & Stump, Gregory, 297–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam, & Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90. 119–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, Hans. 1984. Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittelbairischen Mundart. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 51. 191–211.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena V. M., & Tomasello, Michael. 2006. The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognitive Development 21. 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning. 1980. Morphological change: Towards a typology. Historical morphology, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 1–50. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. Handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D., 425–40. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Axel, Katrin, & Weiß, Helmut. 2011. Pro-drop in the history of German. Null pronouns, ed. by Wratil, Melani & Gallmann, Peter, 21–52. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Benware, Wilbur. 1979. Zur Dentalepithese im Deutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 101. 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James. 2016. Word and paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2008. Consonant epenthesis: Natural and unnatural histories. Linguistic universals and language change, ed. by Good, Jeff, 79–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, & Reiffenstein, Ingo. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I: Laut- und Formenlehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, Hennig. 1931. Sprachwandel und Sprachbewegungen in althochdeutscher Zeit. Jena: Frommann.Google Scholar
Brunner, Karl. 1951. Die englische Sprache ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung, vol. 2: Die Flexionsformen, ihre Verwendung das Englische außerhalb Europas. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., & Moder, Carol Lynn. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59. 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection class, gender, and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70. 737–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1999. The tension between “combinatorial” and “class-default” regularity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 1017–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1959. The inflection of Germanic ō-presents. Language 35. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einarsson, Stefán. 1945. Icelandic grammar texts glossary. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 1999. Analogical “leveling” from outside the paradigm: Stem-vowel changes in the German modals. Diachronica 16. 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 2000. Morphological change up close. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2015. Analogy (translation of chapter 5 of Paul 1920). Hermann Paul’s “Principles of language history” revisited, ed. by Auer, Peter & Murray, Robert W., 83–98. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fertig, David. 2016. Mechanisms of paradigm leveling and the role of universal preferences in morphophonological change. Diachronica 33. 423–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Johannes. 1971. Mittelniederländische Grammatik mit Lesestücken und Glossar. 2nd edn. Arnhem: Gysbers & van Loon.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2011. Historical pathways to null subjects: Implications for the theory of pro-drop. Null pronouns, ed. by Wratil, Melani & Gallmann, Peter, 53–98. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric, & Wratil, Melani. 2013. Der Nullsubjektzyklus: Etablierung und Verlust von Nullargumenten. Sprachwandelvergleich—Comparing diachronies, ed. by Fleischer, Jürg & Simon, Horst J., 163–196. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gallée, Johan Hendrik. 1910. Altsächsische Grammatik. 2nd edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, & Smith, Linsey A.. 2013. Analogical learning and reasoning. The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology, ed. by Reisberg, Daniel, 668–681. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark, & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hermann, Eduard. 1931. Lautgesetz und Analogie (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, neue Folge 23, 3). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H., & Joseph, Brian D.. 2009. Language history, language change, and language relationship. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idiatov, Dmitry. 2017. Word-final consonant epenthesis in Northeastern Nigerian English. English Language and Linguistics, published online September 12, 2017 (pp. 1–38). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000429.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Neil G. 2005. Yiddish a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kienle, Richard von. 1969. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, Friedrich. 1975. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 21st edn. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kyes, Robert. 1983. Dictionary of the Old Low and Central Franconian psalms and glosses. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahe, Hans, & Meid, Wolfgang. 1969a. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft II: Formenlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krahe, Hans, & Meid, Wolfgang. 1969b. Germanische Sprachwissenschaft III: Wortbildungslehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krause, Thomas, & Zeldes, Amir. 2016. ANNIS3: A new architecture for generic corpus query and visualization. Literary and Linguistic Computing 31. 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The social stratification of English in New York City, Washington, DC: The Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lasch, Agathe. 1974. Mittelniederdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Reprinted from 1914].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 1984. Reste der athematischen Konjugation in den germanischen Sprachen. Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Grundsprache, ed. by Untermann, Jürgen & Brogyanyi, Bela, 25–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettke, Heinz. 1970. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altisländische und Altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre). Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2013. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen. 4th edn. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, ed. by Masek, Carrie S., Hendrick, Roberta A., & Miller, Mary Frances, 178–203. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2012. The listener as a source of sound change: An update. The initiation of sound change, ed. by Solé, Maria-Josep & Recasens, Daniel, 21–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orešnik, Janez. 1980. On the dental accretion in certain 2nd p. sg. verbal forms of Icelandic, Faroese, and the old West Germanic languages. Íslenskt mál 2. 195–211. Reprinted in Pétursson 1985:191–207.Google Scholar
Paraschkewow, Boris. 2003. Zur Polygenese des -t in der Verbalendung -st. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 31. 382–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1879. Beitraege zur Geschichte der Lautentwickelung und Formenassociation. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 6. 538–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1886. Principien der Sprachgeschichte. 2nd edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1916. Deutsche Grammatik, vol. 1. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1920. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 5th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1989. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 23rd edn., ed. by Wiehl, Peter & Grosse, Siegfried. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pétursson, Magnús (ed.). 1985. Studies in the phonology and morphology of Modern Icelandic. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Pfalz, Anton. 1918. Beiträge zur Kunde der bayerisch-österreichischen Mundarten (Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 190, vol. 2). Vienna: Hölder.Google Scholar
Pfeifer, Wolfgang (ed.). 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 2nd edn. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas. 2005. Variable grammars: Verbal agreement in northern dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Eduard. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Rabanus, Stefan. 2008. Morphologisches Minimum Distinktionen und Synkretismen im Minimalsatz hochdeutscher Dialekte (ZDL-Beiheft 134). Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Referenzkorpus Altdeutsch. Available at www.deutschdiachrondigital.de, accessed on June 15, 2017.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don. 2006. A linguistic history of English, vol. 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don, & Taylor, Ann. 2014. A linguistic history of English, vol. 2: The development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rowley, Anthony R. 1994. Morphologie aus Syntax - natürlich. Zur Flexion der Nebensatzeinleiter in nordostbayerischen Dialekten. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Dialektologenkongresses, Band 3 (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik. Beihefte 76), ed. by Viereck, Wolfgang, 488–497. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph. 2012. A history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schatz, Josef. 1927. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Scherer, Wilhelm. 1868. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Duncker.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, Viktor M. 1962. Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Richard. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sehrt, Edward H. 1925. Vollständiges Wörterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsächsischen Genesis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Sihler, Andrew. 1986. Germanic second person endings in -st. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 47. 193–215.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Somers, Katerina. 2011. The introduction and extension of the -st ending in Old High German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23. 141–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steller, Walther. 1928. Abriss der altfriesischen Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2005. Inflected complementizers in continental West Germanic dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72. 148–166.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter. 1989. Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Wright, Joseph, & Wright, Mary Elizabeth. 1908. Old English grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Etymological References

“graft, n.1”. OED Online. March 2017. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/view/Entry/80476, accessed on May 17, 2017.Google Scholar
“tuft, n.”. OED Online. March 2017. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/view/Entry/207281, accessed on May 17, 2017.Google Scholar
“whilst, adv. and conj. (and prep.)”. OED Online. March 2017. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com.gate.lib.buffalo.edu/view/Entry/228351, accessed on May 23, 2017.Google Scholar