Editor for this issue: <>
Michael Kelly's posting about possible articulatory effects on the distribution of phoneme sequences raises an interesting question about the relation of articulatory motivations, synchrony, and diachrony. The situation of the English velar plus /i/ sequences is, I think, a perfect illustration of that relation. First, there is a historical reason why English shows the distributional skewing it does for velar followed by /i/ vs. other stops followed by /i/. The sequence velar + /i/ underwent a sound change very early in the history of English whereby /k/ turned to /ch/ before /i, e/ and /g/ turned to y (i.e. /j/) before /i, e/. That is, cirice turned to church, ceas to cheese, ceap to cheap etc. ( The c's in these words, historically velar stops, were probably already pronounced ch in Old English, but ch was just an allophone of /k/, rather than a distinctive phoneme as it is now.) Similarly, gear turned to year, geard to yard, and geonian to yawn (all with original velars). Words like get, give, and kill are loanwords from Scandinavian which came after the sound change was completed; other examples of present- day ki- were from old English cy (k + front rounded vowel) like king < cyning, kiln < cyline (and of course we have still later loanwords like kinetic etc.) So it's no wonder there are relatively few words with velars followed by non-low front vowels in English--all the original ones underwent sound change, and no longer fall into that class. Now for the interesting question--the relation of the diachronic facts to synchronic articulatory motivations. Rather than starkly putting it this way: "Articulatory incompatibility of velars with front (non-low) vowels will disfavor such sequences", I would say that there is a tendency toward assimilation of articulatorily distant but temporally adjacent sequences that leads to a reduction in such sequences. In particular, velar + high front vowel is a historically unstable sequence. So, there is a synchronic, articulatory-driven factor (assimilation to get rid of troublesome sequences) that leads to diachronic tendencies that in turn result in the synchronic skewings that we see. We don't want to simply say that the synchronic, articulatory factor is "the" explanation for the skewings, because it doesn't have very strong, direct, immediate effects on the phonology, but effects which slowly manifest themselves in sound change. The conventional system is the mediating factor that keeps the articulatory tendency from immediately reaching into the phonology and getting rid of all the not-quite-optimal sequences. --Suzanne KemmerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue