<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	>

<channel>
	<title>vowel shift Archives - The Historical Linguist Channel</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/tags/vowel-shift/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/tags/vowel-shift/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2019 20:00:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.0.9</generator>
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">135321646</site>	<item>
		<title>Chaos? Nah, just a vowel shift</title>
		<link>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift</link>
					<comments>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sabina Nedelius]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 09:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Germanic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phonology & Phonetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Languages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GVS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vowel shift]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Vowel Shift]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chaos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weird spelling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chain shift]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[push chain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drag chain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sound change]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/?p=424</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Dearest creature in creation, Study English pronunciation. I will teach you in my verse Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse. I will keep you, Suzy, busy, Make your head with heat grow dizzy. Tear in eye, your dress will tear. So shall I!  Oh hear my prayer. Pray, console your loving poet, Make my &#8230; </p>
<p class="link-more"><a href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift/" class="more-link">Continue reading<span class="screen-reader-text"> "Chaos? Nah, just a vowel shift"</span></a></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift/">Chaos? Nah, just a vowel shift</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="margin: 0cm; margin-bottom: .0001pt; text-align: center;" align="center"><em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Dearest creature in creation,</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Study English pronunciation.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">I will teach you in my verse</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">I will keep you, Suzy, busy,</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Make your head with heat grow dizzy.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Tear in eye, your dress will tear.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">So shall I!  Oh hear my prayer.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Pray, console your loving poet,</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!</span></em></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Just compare heart, beard, and heard,</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Dies and diet, lord and word,</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Sword and sward, retain and Britain.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">(Mind the latter, how it&#8217;s written.)</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Now I surely will not plague you</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">With such words as plaque and ague.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">But be careful how you speak:</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Cloven, oven, how and low,</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.</span></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Finally, which rhymes with enough &#8212;</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Hiccough has the sound of cup.</span></em><br />
<em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">My advice is to give up!!!</span></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><sup>1</sup></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Gosh, English pronunciation can be really tricky at times, can’t it? Interested in knowing why?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Well, of course you are! Let’s dive into it together!</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">As the excerpt above clearly shows, English spelling is often considered a bit ’off’, poorly corresponding to the written word. That’s true, it often doesn’t. But why is that?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Well, while it is not the </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">only</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> reason behind <a href="http://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/todays-post-is-brought-to-you-by-the-letter-g/">this tricky correspondence between the spoken and written word</a>, today’s topic does explain a lot: the </span><b>‘Great’ English Vowel Shift</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (let’s stick to calling it the GVS from now on) came along and messed things up quite a bit.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Some of you will probably have heard about the GVS before; it was a significant sound change that occurred primarily during the Middle Ages. This sound change affected the </span><b>long</b> <b>vowels</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> of Middle English, causing them to shift like so:</span></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><img data-attachment-id="425" data-permalink="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift/skarmbild-1/" data-orig-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Skärmbild-1.jpg?fit=726%2C622&amp;ssl=1" data-orig-size="726,622" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}" data-image-title="Skärmbild (1)" data-image-description="" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Skärmbild-1.jpg?fit=300%2C257&amp;ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Skärmbild-1.jpg?fit=525%2C450&amp;ssl=1" loading="lazy" class="size-medium wp-image-425 aligncenter" src="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Skärmbild-1-300x257.jpg?resize=300%2C257" alt="" width="300" height="257" srcset="https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Skärmbild-1.jpg?resize=300%2C257&amp;ssl=1 300w, https://i0.wp.com/thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Skärmbild-1.jpg?w=726&amp;ssl=1 726w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" data-recalc-dims="1" /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">2</span></sup></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Great, so… we done here? You now know everything there is to know about the GVS, right?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Nah, not really.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">First, the GVS is actually considered by a lot of linguists to be a process of at least two phases</span><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">3</span></sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">:</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The </span><b>first</b> <b>phase</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> is considered to have lasted up until approximately the year 1500. During this phase, the long high Middle English vowels /i:/ and /u:/, pronounced similar to the vowels in Modern English </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">meet</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> [mi:t] and </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">lute</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> [lu:t], diphthongised and eventually became the modern English diphthongs /aɪ/ and /aʊ/, the pronunciations you find in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">mice </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">[maɪs] and </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">mouse</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> [maʊs]. The vowels immediately below them, that is /e:/ and /o:/</span><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">4</span></sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">, raised one position, falling into the slots previously held by /i:/ and /u:/.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">In the </span><b>second</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> phase, often considered to have been active between the late 16</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">th</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> to mid-17</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">th</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> centuries, the remaining vowels, that is /ᴐ:, a:, ɛ:/, raised one position in height.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">What we eventually wind up with is a system of vowels completely changed from its predecessor.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Now, why would that happen?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">As with a good number of things in historical linguistics, we don’t exactly know. However, there are two leading hypotheses out there.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The first is the so-called </span><b>push-chain theory,</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> which was introduced by the great German philologer Karl Luick as early as 1896. Luick argued that the GVS must have been initiated by the movement of the lower vowels /e:/ and /o:/. The two vowels, for some mysterious reason of their own, started to move toward the high vowels /i:/ and /u:/. As they drew nearer, /i:/ and /u:/ started panicking because, it is sometimes argued, they couldn’t raise any higher and remain vowels (instead becoming yucky consonants, bläch).</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Well, can’t have that, can we? In pure desperation, /i:/ and /u:/ look for a way out. And they find one—move in (or out, if you will). So, that is precisely what they do, they move in: they become diphthongs, lower and, suddenly, Middle English /i:/ and /u:/ become modern English /əɪ/ and /əʊ/, eventually becoming /aɪ/ and /aʊ/</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">. Tadaa, we have the first steps to a modern English vowel system.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Luick’s hypothesis is actually quite elegant in a way because it successfully explains the lack of diphthongisation of /u:/ in the northern dialects of British English. In these dialects, the vowel /o:/ had previously fronted, becoming /ø:/. The northern dialects therefore didn’t have a vowel /o:/ to push /u:/ out of its place, and the diphthongisation never happened there (pretty neat, huh?).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The second of our hypotheses, the </span><b>drag-chain theory</b><span style="font-weight: 400;">, was introduced by Otto Jespersen in 1909. Now, Jespersen argued that it was equally likely that the diphthongisation of the high vowels initiated the shift. Basically, Jespersen’s reasoning was like this:</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">The high vowels, i.e. /i:, u:/, shifted and became diphthongs. That left a ‘gap’ in the vowel system. Horrified, the lower vowels scrambled to move up the ladder to fill the gaps. All of the sudden, Middle English /a:/ became early Modern English /ɛ:/, Middle English /ɛ:/ became early Modern English /e:/ and so on (the back vowels tagged along, too), and so, harmony was restored.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Now, the (to me, at least) flaw of this hypothesis is that it doesn’t account for the </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">non-diphthongisation of northern /u:/, but then again, Luick’s hypothesis claiming that the high vowels couldn’t raise any higher has been noted to be somewhat limited—the high vowels could have done several other things to avoid becoming consonants</span><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">5</span></sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">. But that’s a different discussion.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Regardless of which of these hypotheses you want to consider more likely, </span><b>this </b><span style="font-weight: 400;">is the ‘Great’ English Vowel Shift: a huuuuge chain shift that took centuries to complete and affected all long vowels of Middle English. That’s a pretty big deal.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Now, you might be wondering what this has to do with spelling, right? Well, you see, the thing is that English spelling started to become standardized during the ongoing GVS. What this means is that we have a bunch of words where the written form corresponds to a pronunciation that is centuries old. So, basically, </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">meet </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">and </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">meat</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">, both pronounced [mi:t] in British English, are spelled differently because, when those high and mighty people speaking Middle English decided that there was a correct way to spell those words, they </span><b>did have</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> distinct pronunciations!</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">So, next time you get annoyed by having to look up how you spell something, just stop and consider that you’re actually spelling the word the way it was pronounced about 600 years ago. Pretty cool, huh?</span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">Oh, oh! I almost forgot! Have you been asking yourself why I keep using ‘’ around ‘Great’? No? Well, I’m going to tell you anyway!</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The ‘Great’ was introduced by Jespersen and, frankly, while the GVS did indeed have a huge effect on the English language, vowel shifts happen </span><b>all the time</b><span style="font-weight: 400;">. So, take the ‘Great’ with a pinch of salt and a shot of tequila and we might get on the right track of things.</span></span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><b>Side notes</b></span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight: 400; font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;">1.   There is nothing to say that either of these hypotheses is an accurate description on the initial process of the GVS. Long before I took my first bumbling steps into academia (actually, about a year before I was even born), Donka Minkova and Robert Stockwell noted that it may just be the desire to see a systematic aspect of language and discount its random quirks. So, don’t take it too seriously.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">2.     If you’d like to read more about the GVS and other hypotheses, please take a look at Gjertrud Flermoen Stenbrenden’s dissertation work </span><i style="font-size: 1rem;">The Chronology and regional spread of long-vowel changes in English </i><span style="font-weight: 400;">from 2010. It’s a really interesting read and introduces a lot more on the subject than I could possibly cover here.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><b>Sources</b></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">1 </span></sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">This is an excerpt of the excellent poem </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Chaos </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">by Dr. Gerard Nolst Trenité (Netherlands, 1870-1946). Translated by Pete Zakel.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">2 This is one of the common ways to depict the GVS, a similar one can be found in most textbooks on the subject. See, for example, </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Historical Linguistics </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">by Theodora Bynon (1977: 82)</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">3</span></sup><span style="font-weight: 400;"> See for example <em>T</em></span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">he Cambridge History of the English Language </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">(2008) in which Roger Lass writes about this division into two phases. A similar explanation can be found in most textbooks on linguistics that deal, in some way, with historical linguistics (though I </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">really</span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> recommend reading Lass’ explanation if you wish to know more about this).</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">4 </span></sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">Really, I would like to give you examples of these sounds, but I can’t. They’ve basically disappeared from modern English, though they can, most likely, be found in some dialects of English today. Examples can be found of /e:/ in some variants of Scottish English, for example in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">mate </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">[me:t], but other than that, I can’t seem to find enough examples. If you do find them, though, please let us know! We would love to know more!</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif;"><sup><span style="font-weight: 400;">5</span></sup><span style="font-weight: 400;"> See, for example the critique by Charles Jones in </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">A History of English Phonology </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">(1989).</span></span></p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift/">Chaos? Nah, just a vowel shift</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com">The Historical Linguist Channel</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://thehistoricallinguistchannel.com/chaos-nah-just-a-vowel-shift/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">424</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
