Whose German?: The ach/ich Alternation and Related Phenomena in 'Standard' and 'Colloquial' (review)

This absorbing, highly readable book focuses on one of the classic problems of German phonology and phonetics, the alternation of the fricatives [x] and [ç]. (This is a slight oversimplification of the actual situation since [χ] is also involved; Robinson argues that [χ] is related to [x] by a low-level rule.) The distribution of the two sounds in question is as follows: [x] appears after back vowels, [ç] after front vowels and the sonorant consonants n, l, and r and as the initial consonant in the diminutive suffix -chen. Although this alternation has been analyzed by a number of scholars within a wide variety of theoretical frameworks, a number of issues require further discussion or clarification, and this book does a largely admirable job.

Some of the issues R focuses on include the following. First, what data should be employed in an analysis of this alternation? A number of analyses of the alternation focus exclusively (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) on the standard language as described and codified in various pronunciation dictionaries. R notes early on that the entire concept of ‘Standard German’ is somewhat problematic and goes on to argue that data from colloquial German, as well as from nonstandard dialects, must be employed in any analysis of the problem. In fact, by not limiting himself to the standard language, R arrives at an analysis quite different from most other treatments.

Second, what is the correct underlying representation of the sounds in question? Most analyses claim that /ç/ is the underlying representation of the relevant segment as its distribution is putatively less predictable. R argues instead that /ç/ is in fact not the underlying representation, for a number of reasons. For instance, in some Middle German dialects, [ç] is shifting to [∫], resulting in an alternation between [x] and [∫]. Since [∫] from older /∫/ appears after back vowels, it is impossible to derive [x] from /∫/ in these dialects as required by the standard analysis.

Third, how should cases where the appearance of [ç] cannot be predicted from the sounds that precede it, namely loanwords and the diminutive suffix -chen, be handled? R notes that most earlier analyses include some loanwords but exclude others, often without providing any clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Most scholars seem to accept [ç] in initial position but reject words with initial [x] as insufficiently nativized. The issue is further complicated by dialectal variation such that many northern speakers replace [ç] or [x] with [∫] in words like Chemie ‘chemistry’ and China ‘China’ while [k] is normal in such forms for southern speakers. R therefore somewhat tentatively proposes that a distinction should be made between [ç] from /ç/ and [ç] derived by assimilation. As to -chen, R notes that it is a relatively young suffix (first attested in the fourteenth century) and suggests that it is a loan-suffix in certain areas, a borrowing from literary German. It is therefore not entirely surprising that [ç] is maintained in -chen—an observation which weakens analyses that claim that the two fricatives are allophones of the same phoneme.

This is an excellent book. It is well-written, absorbing, and sheds new light on a complex issue. It will be of use to all interested in German phonology and phonetics.