Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:59:12.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open Syllable Lengthening in Middle Dutch: Evidence from Verse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2018

Johanneke Sytsema  and
Aditi Lahiri
Johanneke Sytsema*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Aditi Lahiri*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
*
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Institute, Walton Street, Oxford OX1 2HG, UK, [aditi.lahiri@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk], [johanneke.sytsema@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk]
Faculty of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Institute, Walton Street, Oxford OX1 2HG, UK, [aditi.lahiri@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk], [johanneke.sytsema@ling-phil.ox.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper attempts to determine a more precise timeline for the onset of Open Syllable Lengthening in Dutch. We examined two late 14th-century Brabantic texts in the Manuscript Marshall 29 (1375 AD), Mellibeus and Saladijn, and compared these with an older Brabantic text Lutgart to ascertain when exactly Open Syllable Lengthening originated in (Brabantic) Middle Dutch. A combination of diachronic correspondences and a careful examination of the texts written in verse during the course of approximately 75 years has helped us to establish the synchronic systems of 13th- and 14th-century Middle Dutch, and, furthermore, has allowed us to determine the onset of prosodic changes such as Open Syllable Lengthening. Orthographic, rhythmic, and metrical evidence from the three texts suggests that the process was incomplete in the earliest period and was finalized in the late 14th century in Brabant, thereby refuting the standard assumption that the lengthening was completed before the onset of Middle Dutch in general.*

Keywords

Open Syllable LengtheningMiddle Dutchiambic metertrochaic meter
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 167 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Booij, Geert. 1995. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bosworth, Joseph, Toller, Thomas Northcote, & Campbell, Alistair. 1964. An Anglo-Saxon dictionary, based on the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, & Lahiri, Aditi. 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Germanic. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 251–286.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, & Lahiri, Aditi. 2005. Main stress left in Middle English. Historical linguistics 2003 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 257), ed. by Fortescue, Michael, Jensen, Eva Skafte, Mogensen, Jens Erik, & Sch⊘sler, Lene, 74–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula. 2000. Prosodic variation in ‘Lutgart’. Analogy, levelling, markedness. Principles of change in phonology and morphology, ed. by Lahiri, Aditi, 301–332. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fikkert, Paula, Elan Dresher, B., & Lahiri, Aditi. 2006. Prosodic preferences: From Old English to Early Modern English. The Handbook of the History of English, ed. by van Kemenade, Ans & Bettelou, Los, 125–150. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, Johannes. 1910. Mittelniederländische grammatik: mit lesestücken und glossar. Zweite, neubearbeitete Aufl. Leipzig: Herm. Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Goossens, Jan, Verleyen, Geert, & De Wulf, Chris. 1998. Fonologische atlas van de nederlandse dialecten. Gent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2009. Vowel duration, syllable quantity, and stress in Dutch. The nature of the word. Essays in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. by Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon, 181–198. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gysseling, Maurits, & Pijnenburg, Willem (eds.). 1977. Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300). ‘s-Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, & Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1966. Chaucer and the study of prosody. College English 28. 187–219.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William. 1994. Open and closed feet in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 522–533.Google Scholar
Kienhorst, Hans. 2005. Hoe moet zo'n boek genoemd worden? Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis 83. 785–817.Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of language change: Internal factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi. 2015. Change in word prosody. Stress and quantity. Oxford handbook of historical phonology, ed. by Honeybone, Patrick & Salmons, Joseph, 219–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, & Elan Dresher, B.. 1999. Open syllable lengthening in West Germanic. Language 75. 678–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, & Fikkert, Paula. 1999. Trisyllabic shortening in English: Past and present. English Language and Linguistics 3. 229–267.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 1982. The environment for open syllable lengthening in Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 3. 29–58.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 1985. Of rhyme and reason: Some foot-governed quantity changes in English. Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Theoretical Linguistics, ed. by Roger Eaton, Olga Fisher, Willem F. Koopman, & Frederike van der Leek, 163–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Philippa, Marlies, Debrabandere, Frans, Quack, Arend, Schoonheim, Tanneke, & van der Sijs, Nicoline. 2003–2009. Etymologisch woordenboek van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Pijnenburg, Willem, van Dalen-Oskam, Karina, Schoonheim, Katrien Depuydt Tanneke, & van der Horst, Joop. 1997. Vroegmiddelnederlands (circa 1200–1350). van den Toorn, Pijnenburg, van Leuvensteijn, & van der Horst 1997, 69–145.Google Scholar
Russom, Geoffrey. 1987. Old English meter and linguistic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schönfeld, Moritz. 1947. Schönfeld's Historische grammatica van het Nederlands: klankleer, vormleer, woordvorming, 8e druk 1970. Zutphen: W. J. Thieme.Google Scholar
Sytsema, Johanneke, Grijzenhout, Janet, & Lahiri, Aditi. 2014. Middle Dutch back vowels in rhymes. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17. 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Te Winkel, Lamert Allard. 1863. Grondbeginselen der Nederlandsche spelling. Ontwerp der spelling voor het aanstaande Nederlandsch Woordenboek. Leiden: Noothoven van Goor.Google Scholar
Toorn, Maarten van den, Pijnenburg, Willem, van Leuvensteijn, Arjan, & van der Horst, Joop (eds.). 1997. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, Evert, & Berteloot, Amand. 1994. Van dichter tot kopiist. Een dialectgeografisch onderzoek. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 110. 34–54.Google Scholar
Van Bree, Cor. 1987. Historische Grammatica van het Nederlands. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Van Loey, Adolphe. 1968. Middelnederlandse spraakkunst, I Vormleer, II Klankleer. Groningen: Tjeenk Willink & Wolters/Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Van Loon, Jozef. 2014. Historische fonologie van het Nederlands. Schoten: Uitgeverij Universitas.Google Scholar
Van Oostrom, Frits. 1992. Aanvaard dit werk. Over Middelnederlandse auteurs en hun publiek. Amsterdam: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Verwijs, Eelco, Verdam, Jacob, de Vreese, Willem, Lieftinck, Gerard Isaac, & Beekman, Anton Albert. 1885. Middelnederlandsch woordenboek. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Vries, Matthias de, & Winkel, Lamert Allard te. 1882. Woordenboek der Nederlansche Taal. 's-Gravenhage: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Weijnen, Antonius Angelus. 1958. Nederlandse dialectkunde (Taalkundige bijdragen van Noord en Zuid 10). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Willemyns, Roland, & van der Horst, Joop. 1997. Laatmiddelnederlands (circa 1350–1550). van den Toorn, Pijnenburg, van Leuvensteijn, & van der Horst 1997, 147–225.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim. 2000. Van Afflighem en Chaucer: Het Leven van Sinte Lutgart als jambisch gedicht. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/ Munster: Nodus.Google Scholar

Textual Sources

Manuscript Marshall 29, Bodleian Library, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sytsema, Johanneke. 2014. Manuscript Marshall 29 Diplomatic Edition. Available at http://www.ling-phil.ox.ac.uk/dutch.Google Scholar
Van Veerdeghem, François (ed.). 1899. Leven van Sinte Lutgart (tweede en derde boek). Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar