Fruta podrida

RG has a process of Diphthongization which four vowels can undergo:

(39) Diphthongization /i/  [iə̯ ] /e/  [eə̯ ] /u/  [uʊ̯ ] /o/  [oʊ̯ ]

The input to Diphthongization is any one of the four phonemic tense vowels. After the front vowels /i e/, the second part of the diphthong is schwa, but it is back [ʊ̯ ] after /u o/.

The rule is motivated by the optional realization of the monophthongs /i e u o/ as diphthongs, as in (40). For example, the word wie in (40a) surfaces as either [i] or [iə̯ ]. In most such RG words, there is frequent variation in vowels; that is, sometimes a given word will surface with a diphthong, and other times, it surfaces with the monophthong. Data showing such variation with all four tense, non-low monophthongs and respective diphthongs are given in (40), where (40a) shows [i] ~ [iə̯ ], (40b) [e] ~ [eə̯], (40c) [u] ~ [uʊ̯], and (40d) [o] ~ [oʊ̯ ].

(40) Diphthongization – Variation in Application optionally realized on the surface with a following non-syllabic vowel. The four diphthongs in (40) are the output of the process of Diphthongization (see (41)), where a single vocalic root node (monophthong) is produced on the surface with two adjacent vocalic root nodes (diphthong).

Diphthongization states that a tense vowel is produced with two root nodes within the same nucleus, where the second root is schwa. In this rule, the input vowel is [+ATR], since the four vowels which undergo Diphthongization are all specified as [+ATR]: /i, e, u, o/. As

shown in the feature matrices in (27), the only RG monophthong not specified for [ATR]

is [a], which does not undergo Diphthongization. Thus, these features predict that /a/ should not behave phonologically with other vowels with respect to tenseness; the process of Diphthongization shows that this prediction is correct. I analyze these four diphthongs as having a complex nucleus because there is a restriction within the nucleus that only tense vowels undergo Diphthongization. In chapter 5, however, I show diphthongs derived from vowel plus liquid sequences, which have a different syllable structure. For discussion on the syllable structure of diphthongs and constituency, see Booij (1989), Yip (2003), and chapter 5.

As noted above, diphthongs in RG are always falling: the first element is syllabic, while the second is a glide (cf. (36a)). Syllabification of diphthongs derived via Diphthongization adhere to this generalization, i.e. the glide is always the second vowel within the nucleus and never the first. Thus, the schwa produced via Diphthongization in (40a,b) is not syllabic, while the underlying tense vowel is. The same holds for the glide [ʊ̯ ] in (40c,d), which is non-syllabic, while underlying [u] and [o] are.

The data in (40a,b) illustrate that the second part of the derived diphthongs surfaces as schwa if the input monophthong is /i/ or /e/. By contrast, the second part of the derived diphthongs is a rounded vowel if the input monophthong is /u/ or /o/. Recall the examples in (40c,d). I account for this difference with a rule of Labial Assimilation in (42), which states that when the syllabic element of a diphthong is labial, and the non-syllabic element is unspecified for place (i.e. schwa), PLACE spreads to the non-syllabic segment, producing a rounded vowel ([ʊ̯ ]).

(42) Labial Assimilation N

+son +son

-cons -cons

[+ATR] PLACE

LABIAL

As stated in (42), Labial Assimilation only spreads LABIAL to a vowel not marked for place features (i.e. schwa). Given that requirement, LABIAL cannot spread from /ɔ/ to /ɪ/ in the underlying diphthong /ɔɪ/.

Featural representations for diphthongs derived via Diphthongization are given in (43).

(43) Derived Diphthongs a. RG [iə̯ ]

N

+son +son

-cons -cons

[+ATR] PLACE

[+high] CORONAL

b. RG [eə̯ ]

N

+son +son

-cons -cons

[+ATR] PLACE

[-high] CORONAL

c. RG [uʊ̯ ]

N

+son +son

-cons -cons

[+ATR] PLACE [+high] LABIAL

d. RG [oʊ̯ ]

N

+son +son

-cons -cons

[+ATR] PLACE [-high] LABIAL

When schwa is the non-syllabic segment of a diphthong in (43a,b), its features remain [+sonorant, -consonantal] because schwa never has place features (cf. Wiese 1996, van

Oostendorp 2000; see section 3.3.2 for more literature on schwa). In (43c,d), both [-consonantal] segments share place (via Labial Assimilation). While the syllabic vowel in

each of these diphthongs is specified for the feature [high], this feature is irrelevant for the non-syllabic segment ([ʊ̯ ]), as was discussed concerning phonemic diphthongs.

Diphthongization in (41) and Labial Assimilation in (42) are context-free (and optional). They apply in closed and open syllables word-internally and word-finally, and before consonants with different manners and places of articulation. I speculate that

variation is determined by some socio-linguistic variable, although this is a question which I ultimately leave open for further research.²⁵

I did, however, observe that Diphthongization was more likely in my speakers when certain non-phonological conditions were met; as with any fieldwork, other linguistic factors came into play. For example, in quicker speech, subjects were less likely to produce the words in (40) with the diphthong version; i.e., in these instances, the monophthong surfaced. In addition to this, when a word received sentence-level stress, such as the subject or main verb, speakers often produced the words with the diphthong version. Finally, in sentences when speakers paused on a particular word, either for interpretation’s sake or because they were contemplating how to pronounce a word or articulate a certain idea later in the sentence, the words were elongated, and an elongated underlying tense vowel frequently surfaces as a diphthong.

The data given in the rest of this dissertation generally reflect the underlying monophthongs, not the diphthongs created by Diphthongization. However, if a specific word is only realized in the data with the diphthong version (for reasons as yet unknown), a monophthong form will not be provided; rather, I will give the diphthong form.

It appears that Diphthongization may be more prevalent in Bavarian German regions north of where these data were collected (i.e. Central Bavarian), as grammars which focus more on dialect spoken in Bavaria do not distinguish between all phonemic and allophonic diphthongs. It is possible that other diphthongs, aside from the three I have discussed for Styria, could be phonemic in Bavaria. For example, Merkle (2005:13) states

25 Some evidence suggests that the tense monophthongs in certain words idiosyncratically fail to undergo Diphthongization. For example, the word Spieler ‘player’ is only pronounced [ʃpi.lɐ] for my speakers; I assume that this is a lexical exception.

that there are eleven diphthongs, while Zehetner (1985:54, 79) states that there are 24 attested BG diphthongs with three historical origins: OHG/MHG diphthongs, diphthongization of long monophthongs, and liquid vocalizations. It is not clear to me whether or not diphthongs behave differently in Bavaria than they do in Styria, and as the majority of data given for this study are from Styria, I will only make strong claims concerning the status of these diphthongs in Styria. See the conclusion for further discussion of variation concerning diphthongs and Diphthongization.