Phonological history of English close front vowels
History and description of |
English pronunciation |
---|
Historical stages |
General development |
Development of vowels |
Development of consonants |
Variable features |
Related topics |
The
Developments involving long vowels
Until Great Vowel Shift
The /iː/ and /eː/ generally corresponded to similar
Middle English /ɛː/ was shortened in certain words. Both long and short forms of such words often existed alongside each other during Middle English. In Modern English, the short form has generally become standard, but the spelling ⟨ea⟩ reflects the formerly-longer pronunciation.[1] The words that were affected include several ending in d, such as bread, head, spread, and various others, including breath, weather, and threat. For example, bread was /brɛːd/ in earlier Middle English but came to be shortened and to be rhymed with bed.
During the Great Vowel Shift, the normal outcome of /iː/ was a diphthong, which developed into Modern English /aɪ/, as in mine and find. Meanwhile, /eː/ became /iː/, as in feed, and /ɛː/ of words like meat became /eː/, which later merged with /iː/ in nearly all dialects, as is described in the following section.
Meet–meat merger
The meet–meat merger or the fleece merger is the
As noted in the previous section, the Early Modern/New English (ENE) vowel /eː/ developed from Middle English /ɛː/ via the Great Vowel Shift, and ENE /iː/ was usually the result of Middle English /eː/ (the effect in both cases was a raising of the vowel). The merger saw ENE /eː/ raised further to become identical to /iː/ and so Middle English /ɛː/ and /eː/ have become /iː/ in standard Modern English, and meat and meet are now homophones. The merger did not affect the words in which /ɛː/ had undergone shortening (see section above), and a handful of other words (such as break, steak, great) also escaped the merger in the standard accents and so acquired the same vowel as brake, stake, grate. Hence, the words meat, threat (which was shortened), and great now have three different vowels although all three words once rhymed.
The merger results in the FLEECE lexical set, as defined by John Wells. Words in the set that had ENE /iː/ (Middle English /eː/) are mostly spelled ⟨ee⟩ (meet, green, etc.), with a single ⟨e⟩ in monosyllables (be, me) or followed by a single consonant and a vowel letter (these, Peter), sometimes ⟨ie⟩ or ⟨ei⟩ (believe, ceiling), or irregularly (key, people). Most of those that had ENE /eː/ (Middle English /ɛː/) are spelled ⟨ea⟩ (meat, team, eat, etc.), but some borrowed words have a single ⟨e⟩ (legal, decent, complete), ⟨ei⟩, or otherwise (receive, seize, phoenix, quay). There are also some loanwords in which /iː/ is spelled ⟨i⟩ (police, machine, ski), most of which entered the language later.[5]
There are still some dialects in the
In some
In Alexander's book (2001)[2] about the traditional Sheffield dialect, the spelling "eigh" is used for the vowel of eat and meat, but "eea" is used for the vowel of team and cream. However, a 1999 survey in Sheffield found the /ɛɪ/ pronunciation to be almost extinct there.[7]
Changes before /r/ and /ə/
In certain accents, when the FLEECE vowel was followed by /r/, it acquired a
Another development is that bisyllabic /iːə/ may become
Other changes
In Geordie, the FLEECE vowel undergoes an allophonic split, with the monophthong [iː] being used in morphologically-closed syllables (as in freeze [fɹiːz]) and the diphthong [ei] being used in morphologically-open syllables not only word-finally (as in free [fɹei]) but also word-internally at the end of a morpheme (as in frees [fɹeiz]).[10][11]
Most dialects of English turn /iː/ into a diphthong, and the monophthongal [iː] is in free variation with the diphthongal [ɪi ~ əi] (with the former diphthong being the same as Geordie [ei], the only difference lying in the transcription[citation needed]), particularly word-internally. However, diphthongs are more common word-finally.
Compare the identical development of the close back GOOSE vowel.
Developments involving short vowels
Lowering
The short
Pin–pen merger
The pin–pen merger is a conditional
The pin–pen merger is one of the most widely recognized features of Southern speech. A study[16] of the written responses of American Civil War veterans from Tennessee, together with data from the Linguistic Atlas of the Gulf States and the Linguistic Atlas of the Middle South Atlantic States, shows that the prevalence of the merger was very low up to 1860 but then rose steeply to 90% in the mid-20th century. There is now very little variation throughout the South in general except that Savannah, Austin, Miami, and New Orleans are excluded from the merger.[18] The area of consistent merger includes southern Virginia and most of the South Midland and extends westward to include much of Texas. The northern limit of the merged area shows a number of irregular curves. Central and southern Indiana is dominated by the merger, but there is very little evidence of it in Ohio, and northern Kentucky shows a solid area of distinction around Louisville.
Outside the South, most speakers of North American English maintain a clear distinction in perception and production. However, in the West, there is sporadic representation of merged speakers in Washington, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado. However, the most striking concentration of merged speakers in the west is around Bakersfield, California, a pattern that may reflect the trajectory of migrant workers from the Ozarks westward.
The raising of /ɛ/ to /ɪ/ was formerly widespread in
A complete merger of /ɪ/ and /ɛ/, not restricted to positions before nasals, is found in many speakers of Newfoundland English. The pronunciation in words like bit and bet is [ɪ], but before /r/, in words like beer and bear, it is [ɛ].[21] The merger is common in Irish-settled parts of Newfoundland and is thought to be a relic of the former Irish pronunciation.[22]
/ɛ/ | /ɪ/ | IPA | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Ben | bin | ˈbɪn | [23] |
bend | binned | ˈbɪnd | |
cents | since | ˈsɪn(t)s | [23] |
clench | clinch | ˈklɪntʃ | |
den | din | ˈdɪn | |
emigrate | immigrate | ˈɪmɪɡreɪt | |
eminent | imminent | ˈɪmɪnənt | |
fen | fin | ˈfɪn | |
gem | gym, Jim | ˈdʒɪm | |
hem | him, hymn | ˈhɪm | |
Jen | gin | ˈdʒɪn | [23] |
Ken | kin | ˈkɪn | [23][24] |
lent | lint | ˈlɪnt | |
meant | mint | ˈmɪnt | [23] |
N | in | ˈɪn | |
pen | pin | ˈpɪn | [23] |
send | sinned | ˈsɪnd | [24] |
sender | cinder | ˈsɪndə(r) | |
sense | since | ˈsɪns | |
ten | tin | ˈtɪn | [23][24] |
tender | tinder | ˈtɪndə(r) | |
tent | tint | ˈtɪnt | |
tremor | trimmer | ˈtrɪmə(r) | |
wench | winch | ˈwɪntʃ | |
Wendy | windy | ˈwɪndi | [24] |
Kit–bit split
The kit–bit split is a
. The two distinct sounds are:- A standard [ɪ], or [i] in broader accents, which is used before or after a velar consonant (lick, big, sing; kiss, kit, gift), after /h/ (hit), word-initially (inn), generally before /ʃ/ (fish), and by some speakers before /tʃ, dʒ/ (ditch, bridge). It is found only in stressed syllables (in the first syllable of chicken but not the second).
- A centralizedvowel [ɪ̈], or [ə] in broader accents, which is used in other positions (limb, dinner, limited, bit).
Different
Thank–think merger
The thank–think merger is the lowering of /ɪ/ to /æ/ before the velar nasal /ŋ/ that can be found in the speech of speakers of
Developments involving weak vowels
Weak vowel merger
The weak vowel merger is the loss of contrast between /ə/ (
The merger is very common in Southern Hemisphere accents. Most speakers of Australian English (as well as recent Southern England English)[28] replace weak /ɪ/ with schwa, but in -ing, the pronunciation is frequently [ɪ]. If there is a following /k/, as in paddock or nomadic, some speakers maintain the contrast, but some who have the merger use [ɪ] as the merged vowel. In New Zealand English, the merger is complete, and indeed, /ɪ/ is very centralized even in stressed syllables and so it is usually regarded as the same phoneme as /ə/ although in -ing, it is closer to [i]. In South African English, most speakers have the merger, but in more conservative accents, the contrast may be retained (as [ɪ̈] vs. [ə]. Also, a kit split exists: see above.[29]
The merger is also commonly found in American and Canadian English, but the realisation of the merged vowel varies according to syllable type, with [ə] appearing in word-final or open-syllable word-initial positions (such as drama or cilantro), but [ɪ~ɨ] often appears in other positions (abbot and exhaust). In traditional Southern American English, the merger is generally not present, and /ɪ/ is also heard in some words that have schwa in RP, such as salad. The lack of the merger is also a traditional feature of New England English. In Caribbean English, schwa is often not used at all, and unreduced vowels are preferred, but if there is a schwa, /ɪ/ remains distinct from it.[30]
In traditional RP, the contrast between /ə/ and weak /ɪ/ is maintained, but that may be declining among modern standard speakers of southern England, who increasingly prefer a merger, specifically with the realisation [ə].
The merger is not complete in
Even in accents that do not have the merger, there may be certain words in which traditional /ɪ/ is replaced by /ə/ by many speakers (both sounds may then be considered to be in free variation). In RP, /ə/ is now often heard in place of /ɪ/ in endings such as -ace (as in palace); -ate (as in senate); -less, -let, for the ⟨i⟩ in -ily; -ity, -ible; and in initial weak be-, de-, re-, and e-.[34]
Final /əl/, and also /ən/ and /əm/, are commonly realized as syllabic consonants. In accents without the merger, the use of /ɪ/, rather than /ə/, prevents the formation of syllabic consonants. Hence in RP, for example, the second syllable of Barton is pronounced as a syllabic [n̩], but that of Martin is [ɪn]. Many non-rhotic speakers also pronounce pattern with [n̩], which is accordingly homophonous with Patton.
Particularly in American linguistic tradition, the unmerged weak [ɪ]-type vowel is often transcribed with the barred i ⟨ɨ⟩, the
/ə/ | /ɪ/ | IPA | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Aaron | Erin | ˈɛrən | With Mary-marry-merry merger .
|
accede | exceed | əkˈsiːd | |
accept | except | əkˈsɛpt | |
addition | edition | əˈdɪʃən | |
Aleutian | elution | əˈl(j)uːʃən | |
allide | elide | əˈlaɪd | |
allied | elide | əˈlaɪd | |
allision | elision | əˈlɪʒən | |
allude | elude | əˈl(j)uːd | |
alluded | eluted | əˈl(j)uːɾəd | With intervocalic alveolar flapping .
|
allusion | illusion | əˈl(j)uːʒən | |
amend | emend | əˈmɛnd | |
apatite | appetite | ˈapətaɪt | |
arrays | erase | əˈreɪz | Some accents pronounce erase as /ɪˈreɪs/. |
barrel | beryl | ˈbɛrəl | With marry-merry merger .
|
battered | batted | ˈbætəd | Non-rhotic
|
bazaar | bizarre | bəˈzɑːr | |
bettered | betted | ˈbɛtəd | Non-rhotic
|
bleachers | bleaches | ˈbliːtʃəz | Non-rhotic
|
bustard | busted | ˈbʌstəd | Non-rhotic
|
butchers | butches | ˈbʊtʃəz | Non-rhotic
|
buttered | butted | ˈbʌtəd | Non-rhotic
|
carat | caret | ˈkærət | |
carrot | caret | ˈkærət | |
censors | senses | ˈsɛnsəz | Non-rhotic
|
chartered | charted | ˈtʃɑːtəd | Non-rhotic
|
chattered | chatted | ˈtʃætəd | Non-rhotic
|
chiton | chitin | ˈkaɪtən | |
chromous | chromis | ˈkroʊməs | |
Devon | Devin | ˈdɛvən | |
ferrous | Ferris | ˈfɛrəs | |
foundered | founded | ˈfaʊndəd | Non-rhotic
|
humo(u)red | humid | ˈhjuːməd | Non-rhotic
|
installation | instillation | ˌɪnstəˈleɪʃən | |
Lennon | Lenin | ˈlɛnən | [36] |
mandrel | mandrill | ˈmændrəl | |
mastered | masted | ˈmæstəd, ˈmɑːstəd | Non-rhotic
|
mattered | matted | ˈmætəd | Non-rhotic
|
mergers | merges | ˈmɜːdʒəz | Non-rhotic
|
modern | modding | ˈmɒdən | G-dropping .
|
officers | offices | ˈɒfəsəz | Non-rhotic
|
omission | emission | əˈmɪʃən | |
parody | parity | ˈpærəɾi | With intervocalic alveolar flapping .
|
pattered | patted | ˈpætəd | Non-rhotic
|
pattern | patting | ˈpætən | G-dropping .
|
pigeon | pidgin | ˈpɪdʒən | |
proscribe | prescribe | prəˈskraɪb | |
racers | races | ˈreɪsəz | Non-rhotic
|
Rosa's | roses | ˈroʊzəz | |
Saturn | satin | ˈsætən | Non-rhotic
|
scattered | scatted | ˈskætəd | Non-rhotic
|
seraph | serif | ˈsɛrəf | |
splendo(u)red | splendid | ˈsplɛndəd | Non-rhotic
|
surplus | surplice | ˈsɜːrpləs | |
tattered | tatted | ˈtætəd | Non-rhotic
|
tendered | tended | ˈtɛndəd | Non-rhotic
|
titan | titin | ˈtaɪtən |
Centralized KIT
A phonetic shift of KIT, the vowel /ɪ/, towards
It typically cooccurs with the weak vowel merger, but in Scotland, the weak vowel merger is not complete: see above.[39][40]
There are no homophonous pairs apart from those caused by the weak vowel merger, but a central KIT tends to sound like STRUT to speakers of other dialects and so Australians accuse New Zealanders of saying "fush and chups", instead of "fish and chips", which in an Australian accent sounds close to "feesh and cheeps". That is not accurate, as the STRUT vowel is always more open than the central KIT. In other words, there is no
Most dialects with the phenomenon feature
The term kit–comma merger is appropriate in the case of the dialects in which the quality of STRUT is far removed from [ɐ] (the word-final allophone of /ə/), such as Inland Northern American English, but can be a misleading name in the case of other accents.
Happy tensing
Happy tensing is a process whereby a final unstressed i-type vowel becomes
Until the 17th century, words like happy could end with the vowel of my (originally [iː], but it was diphthongised in the
Conservative RP has the laxer [ɪ] pronunciation. it is also found in Southern American English, in much of northern England and in Jamaica. In Scottish English, an [e] sound, similar to the Scottish realization of the vowel of day, may be used. The tense [i] variant, however, is now established in General American and is also the usual form in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, in southern England and in some northern English cities (such as Liverpool and Newcastle). The tense variant is also becoming more common in modern RP.[46]
The lax and tense variants of the happy vowel may be identified with the phonemes /ɪ/ and /iː/ respectively. They may also be considered to represent a
Most modern British dictionaries represent the happy vowel with the symbol ⟨i⟩ (distinct from both ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨iː⟩). That notation was first introduced in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1978) by its pronunciation editor, Gordon Walsh, and it was later taken up by Roach (1983), who extended it to ⟨u⟩ representing the weak vowel found word-medially in situation etc., and by some other dictionaries, including John C. Wells's Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (1990).[51] In 2012, Wells wrote that the notation "seemed like a good idea at the time, but it clearly confuses a lot of people".[52] Lindsey (2019) criticizes the notation for causing "widespread belief in a specific 'happY vowel'" that "never existed".[50]
Merger of /y/ with /i/ and /yː/ with /iː/
Old English had the short vowel /y/ and the long vowel /yː/, which were spelled orthographically with ⟨y⟩. They contrasted with the short vowel /i/ and the long vowel /iː/, which were spelled orthographically with ⟨i⟩. By Middle English, the two vowels /y/ and /yː/ merged with /i/ and /iː/ and left only the short-long pair /i/-/iː/. Modern spelling therefore uses both ⟨y⟩ and ⟨i⟩ for the modern KIT and PRICE vowels. Modern spelling with ⟨i⟩ or ⟨y⟩ is not an indicator of the Old English distinction between the four sounds, as spelling has been revised after the merger occurred. The name of the letter ⟨y⟩ has acquired an initial [w] sound in it to keep it distinct from the name of the letter ⟨i⟩.[citation needed]
Additional mergers in Asian and African English
The mitt–meet merger is a phenomenon occurring in
The met–mat merger is a phenomenon occurring in
The met–mate merger is a phenomenon occurring for some speakers of Zulu English in which the phonemes /eɪ/ and /ɛ/ are both pronounced /ɛ/. As a result, the words met and mate are homophonous as /mɛt/.[54]
See also
- Phonological history of the English language
- Phonological history of English vowels
References
- ^ Barber, C. L. (1997). Early Modern English. Edinburgh University Press. p. 313.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-901587-18-0.
- ^ a b Wakelin, M. F. (1977). English Dialects: An Introduction. London: The Athlone Press.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 195
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 140–141.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 196, 357, 418, 441.
- ^ Stoddart, J.; Upton, C.; Widdowson, J. D. A. (1999). "Sheffield Dialect in the 1990s". In Foulks, P.; Docherty, G. (eds.). Urban Voices: Accent Studies in the British Isles. London: Edward Arnold. pp. 72–89.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 153, 361.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 153.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 375.
- .
- ^ McMahon, A., Lexical Phonology and the History of English, CUP 2000, p. 179.
- ISBN 978-0-8173-0129-3.
- .
- ^ OCLC 23527868.
- JSTOR 455802.
- ^ OCLC 181466123.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 423.
- ^ Hickey, R. (2004). A Sound Atlas of Irish English. Walter de Gruyter. p. 33.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 500.
- ISBN 0-521-83020-6.
- ^ .
- ^ a b c d "Pin-Pen Merger". ils.unc.edu. Retrieved 23 June 2023.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 612–3.
- ^ Rickford, John R. (1999). "Phonological and grammatical features of African American Vernacular English (AAVE)" (PDF). African American Vernacular English. Malden, MA & Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 3–14.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 167.
- ^ a b Lindsey (2019), pp. 109–145.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 601, 606, 612.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 520, 550, 571, 612.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 167, 262, 305, 326, 427.
- ^ Cruttenden (2014), pp. 113, 130–131, 138, 216.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 405.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 296.
- .
- ISBN 978-3-030-04356-8.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 404, 606, 612–613.
- ^ Bauer et al. (2007), pp. 98–99, 101.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 405, 605–606, 612–613.
- ^ Bauer et al. (2007), pp. 98–99.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 403, 607, 615.
- ^ Bauer et al. (2007), pp. 98, 101.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 165–166, 257.
- ^ Wells (1982), p. 165.
- ^ "Changes in British English pronunciation during the twentieth century", Jack Windsor Lewis personal website. Retrieved 2015-10-18.
- ^ Wells (1982), pp. 165, 294.
- ^ Roach (2009), p. 67.
- ^ Wells (2008), p. 539.
- ^ Cruttenden (2014), p. 84.
- ^ a b Lindsey (2019), p. 32.
- ^ Ashby et al. (1994), pp. 36–7.
- ^ Wells, John C. (7 June 2012). "happY again". John Wells's phonetic blog. Retrieved 23 January 2023.
- ^ a b Tony T. N. Hung, English as a global language: Implications for teaching. Retrieved 27 September 2008.
- ^ "Rodrik Wade, MA Thesis, Ch 4: Structural characteristics of Zulu English". Archived from the original on 17 May 2008. Retrieved 17 May 2008.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
Bibliography
- Ashby, Michael; Ashby, Patricia; Baldwin, John; Holmes, Frederika; House, Jill; Maidment, John (1994). "Broad transcription in phonetic training". Speech, Hearing and Language: Work in Progress (8): 33–40.
- Bauer, Laurie; Warren, Paul; Bardsley, Dianne; Kennedy, Marianna; Major, George (2007). "New Zealand English". .
- Cruttenden, Alan (2014). Gimson's Pronunciation of English (8th ed.). Routledge. ISBN 9781444183092.
- Kortmann, Bernd; Schneider, Edgar W., eds. (2004). A Handbook of Varieties of English: CD-ROM. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 3110175320.
- ISBN 978-3-030-04356-8.
- ISBN 0-521-28252-7.
- Roach, Peter (2009). English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-71740-3.
- .
- ISBN 978-1-4058-8118-0.