In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Grundfragen der Umlautphonemisierung: Eine strukturelle Analyse des nordgermanischen i/j Umlauts unter Berücksichtigung der älteren Runeninschriften by Michael Schulte
  • Marc Pierce
Grundfragen der Umlautphonemisierung: Eine strukturelle Analyse des nordgermanischen i/j Umlauts unter Berücksichtigung der älteren Runeninschriften. By Michael Schulte. (Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 17.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. Pp. x, 321.

This book, a revised version of a 1996 Bonn dissertation, deals with one of the more problematic issues of historical Germanic phonology, namely the development of i/j umlaut in North Germanic. The main goals of the book are to reanimate the debate about this problem, to investigate the phonemicization of i/j umlaut from a structuralist point of view, and to explore the relationship between i/j umlaut and other phonological developments found in early North Germanic, e.g. syncope and vowel reduction.

The crux of the matter is as follows: Short stem forms fail to exhibit i/j umlaut, e.g. talða ‘told, counted’, from *talid̄o, as opposed to forms like gest ‘guest’ (acc.sg.), from *gasti, and synir ‘sons’ (nom.pl.), from *suniuz. A number of explanations have been offered for this variation, most prominently perhaps Axel Kock’s suggestion that there were three distinct periods with regards to i/j umlaut. In the first period, syncope of i triggered umlaut; in the second period, umlaut failed to take place, despite a later round of syncope; and, in the third period, preserved i caused umlaut.

Schulte deals with this thorny problem by distinguishing three types of i/j umlaut, namely j-umlaut, ı̄-umlaut, and ı˘-umlaut. This proposal resolves the problem of variable application of umlaut as some of these three types are more restricted than others (e.g. ı˘-umlaut was more restricted than ı̄-umlaut). Furthermore, it renders any appeal to periodization unnecessary.

Other strong points of the book include the very useful review of earlier analyses of i/j umlaut (limited mainly to North Germanic, although i-umlaut in Old High German is briefly discussed) and the discussion of the runic evidence for i/j umlaut. S suggests that earlier analyses of North Germanic i/j umlaut are all unified in their belief that i/j umlaut became phonemicized in North Germanic because of the loss of the conditioning factor. S instead defends the thesis that phonemicization was not caused by the loss of the conditioning factor but by its reduction. With regard to the runic evidence, S argues that the runic evidence for i/j umlaut is not as strong as some scholars have claimed, and also that there is good evidence for vowel weakening in the inscriptions.

Overall this is a useful book. In some respects it is certainly not for the beginner. For instance, all quotations are in the original language, meaning that readers will have to be familiar with German, English, French, and at least one Modern Scandinavian language. I also wish that S had discussed the West Germanic parallels more extensively, and there are some surprising gaps in the bibliography. Be that as it may, S has certainly achieved the goals for the book outlined in the introductory chapter.

Marc Pierce
University of Michigan
...

pdf

Share