Preference Laws in Change Robert Mailhammer (Arizona State ...

Preference Laws in Change 

Robert Mailhammer (Arizona State University), David Restle and Theo Vennemann 

(University of Munich) 

1. Introduction 

During the 1980s Robert Murray and Theo Vennemann developed an approach to language 

change, which, building on theories of markedness and naturalness, aimed at elucidating the 

motivations behind sound changes. From the beginning this theory stood in apparent contrast 

to traditional approaches, which were largely descriptive. The key assumptions behind the 

preference-law approach is that certain linguistic structures are more preferred than others 

and that languages strive towards improvement in line with these preferences. This 

perspective on language change has provided theoretical underpinnings for more recent 

phonological theories, most notably Optimality Theory. 

This chapter introduces the concept of preference laws, giving an overview of its 

development, its most significant features and key applications, as well as a discussion of 

critical points raised in the literature. It is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the 

theoretical foundations and essential basics of preference-law theory. In section 3 we 

demonstrate its application in motivating sound change. In sections 4 and 5 developments and 

controversies involving the concept of preference laws are discussed. The main points of this 

chapter are summarized in section 6. 

2. Preference laws as a theoretical concept 

In a nutshell, preference laws are graded statements about quality. The concept is a 

generalization of Jakobson‟s markedness theory. Instead of using a contrasting pair of terms 

“marked” vs. “unmarked”, it works with a gradation “the less marked, the”, “the more 

preferred, the” or simply “the better, the”. In other words, preference laws make a statement 

about a preferred structure with respect to a certain parameter, in the sense that “X is more 

preferred than Y in terms of Z. Z is a gradable property of X and Y”. The preferences 

themselves are based on the criteria that Jakobson outlined for his markedness theory, but 

essentially they are theorems: 

- CROSSLINGUISTIC DISTRIBUTION: The more languages show a certain property the 

more preferred it is. 

- FIRST LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: The earlier and quicker a certain feature is acquired, 

the more preferred it is. 

- APHASIA: The longer it takes for a certain structure to become lost in aphasia, the 

more preferred it is. 

Though Jakobson‟s original markedness theory was applied to sound inventories (phoneme 

systems), this concept can be applied to all human culture systems and their applications. 

Related approaches have been used in Natural Phonology, Morphology and Syntax as well as 

Optimality Theory. Similarly to Jakobson, the preference laws discussed here apply to 

syllable structure. The fundamental assumption is that a change in a language‟s system is 

always a local improvement with respect to one given parameter. Every parameter permits 

several configurations, and the tendency towards optimization is expressed in the hypothesis 

that a language will, as a rule, not possess dispreferred structures with respect to a single 

parameter without possessing more preferred structures at the same time. This can be 

formulated as the Synchronic Maxim: 

(1) Synchronic Maxim (Vennemann 1988: 3)

Mailhammer, Restle & Vennemann, Preference Laws in Change 

A language system will in general not contain a structure on a given parameter without 

containing those structures constructible with the means of the system that are more 

preferred in terms of the relevant preference law. 

It is necessary to relativize this maxim, because occasionally gaps on the graded scale of 

parameters occur as a result of more global changes or language contact. In some cases gaps 

are motivated naturally, i.e. because some sound combinations are phonetically impossible, 

but in general this hypothesis holds, because it is based on the human natural language 

endowment and human culture, which form the basis of all language systems. 

The corollary to the Synchronic Maxim is the Diachronic Maxim, which makes a 

statement on how language change proceeds with respect to a certain parameter. Accordingly, 

language change affects the worst structures first, and then moves up the parametrical scale 

towards the end of optimization. 

(2) Diachronic Maxim (Vennemann 1988: 2) 

Linguistic change on a given parameter does not affect a language structure as long as 

there exist structures in the language system that are less preferred in terms of the relevant 

preference law. 

It is important to keep in mind the local limitation of the language improvement assumption. 

A change in syllable structure naturally takes place on the level of the syllable. Hence, a 

change that is not an improvement according to a preference law on the level of the syllable 

is motivated by a preference on another parameter and not by a syllabic preference. What is 

more, as will become evident from the synopsis of the most important preference laws in 3. 

below, sometimes preference laws on a given level can be in competiton with each other. In 

those cases, the precedence of one law over the other can be specific to a certain change. 

For instance, Sp escuela improves the first-syllable head of ancestral L schola [sk] in line 

with the Head Law (cf. (4) below), by removing the appendix s- from this syllable. However, 

in doing so the word becomes longer by one syllable, which is against a universal preference 

for shorter words, and it is also in disharmony with the Head Law and the Coda Law (see (6) 

below) with respect to the newly-created first syllable, which is naked and closed by a fairly 

strong consonant. Evidently, breaking up the initial cluster in harmony with a phonotactic 

constraint against [sk] in heads has priority over optimizing a new syllable which does not 

violate the phonotactic regularities of Spanish, although it clearly does not have a preferred 

structure. 

Applying the preference laws diachronically can not only provide the motivation for a 

given sound change, it can also explain sound changes that seem to run into opposite 

directions. Dispreferred syllable structures can usually be improved in more than one way 

(see e.g. Vennemann 1988: 50-51 for a catalogue of syllable contact changes), and a language 

may use two different strategies at the same time. For instance, “Pāli has regularly eliminated 

cases of word initial clusters by means of a cluster reduction or epenthesis” (Murray 1982: 

176), i.e. it simplified heads in accordance with the Head Law in two different ways: Skrt. 

srotas „stream’ vs. Pāli sota but Skrt. sneha „affection‟ vs. Pāli sineha. 

Generally, a language will show a tendency towards one solution, but sometimes two 

solutions appear to occur with an almost equal distribution (see e.g. Labov 2010: ch. 7 on 

bifurcational sound changes in North American English). The next section will illustrate the 

most important preference laws as formulated in Vennemann (1988), and demonstrate their 

significance for language change. 

3. Preference laws for syllable structure 

2


In the formulation of the preference laws the concept of consonantal strength as a relational 

measure of “deviation from unimpeded (voiced) airflow” (Vennemann 1988: 8) is pivotal. 1 

Inversely related to this measure is the idea of sonority, which orders speech sounds 

according to how vowel-like they are (see Murray 1988 for a discussion of the two concepts). 

Several formulations with different grades of sonority can be found in the literature, see 

Restle & Vennemann 2001: 1312 for examples. 

(3) Scale of consonantal strength 

INCREASING CONSONANTAL STRENGTH 

voiceless stops 

voiced stops 

voiceless fricatives 

voiced fricatives 

nasals 

lateral liquids (l-sounds) 

central liquids (r-sounds) 

glides/approximants 

high vowels 

mid vowels 

low vowels 

INCREASING SONORITY 

Such a categorization is aimed at explaining the relative position of sounds to the syllable 

nucleus. Members of sound classes towards the bottom of the scale, i.e. the more sonorous 

sounds, tend to be closer to the syllable nucleus than those towards the top of the scale, i.e. 

the more consonantal sounds. This has been recognized in the literature (see e.g. the Sonority 

Sequencing Generalization formulated in Blevins 1995: 210). 

For reasons of space we will discuss only a selection of the preference laws of for syllable 

structure in more detail, covering intrasyllabic, intersyllabic and extrasyllabic relations. 

3.1 Intrasyllabic relations 

The preference laws for syllable structure formulated in Vennemann 1988 reflect empirical 

studies on syllable structure (e.g. Greenberg 1978). The basic generalization these 

preferences are based on is that a syllable structure is the better the more monotonous it is. 

Monotony is defined as a continuing decrease of consonantal strength in the body and a 

continuing increase of consonantal strength in the rhyme (see Vennemann 1988: 9-10 for 

further details). 2 These laws also express that the optimal syllable possesses a head with a 

single, strong consonant, a nucleus with a low monophthongal vowel and an empty coda, as 

e.g. pa, ta and ma. 

1 See Restle & Vennemann 2001: 1312 for references discussing the phonetic foundation of sonority concepts. 

2 The body comprises syllable head and nucleus, the rhyme nucleus and coda. See Vennemann 1988: 5-10 for 

the basic terminology on syllable structure used here. 

3

3.1.1 The Head Law 


(4) Head Law 

A syllable head is the more preferred, 

(a) the closer the number of speech sounds is to one, 

(b) the greater the consonantal strength value of its onset, and 

(c) the more sharply the consonantal strength drops from the onset towards the nucleus. 

(a): Empty syllable heads, i.e. heads with fewer than one speech sound, are dispreferred. 

This can be seen from the fact that there are no languages allowing only empty heads, but 

languages banning empty heads are not uncommon. One such example is Tolowa 

(Athapaskan), which permits the following syllable types, CVV, CCVV, CVC, CCVC, 

CCVCC, CVCC and – more rarely – CV but not VV, VC and VCC (Collins 1989). Northern 

Standard German fills empty heads of stressed and of initial syllables with a glottal stop, e.g. 

chaotisch „chaotic‟ [k h ɑ.ˈʔo.t h ɪʃ]. (but Chaos [ˈk h ɑ.ɔs]), Aorta „aorta‟ [ʔɑ.ˈʔɔr.t h ɑ]. But this 

preference of filled syllable heads is not particularly strong, as there are indeed languages 

with a considerable number of naked syllables, i.e. syllables with empty heads. For instance, 

in Basque about half of all words begin with a vowel. Moreover, naked syllables may be 

treated differently according to syllable position, e.g. language may have different rules for 

hiatus position (see 3.2.2 below). Furthermore, there are also languages in which the 

canonical syllable seems to have an empty head, e.g. the Australian languages Arrernte and 

Kunjen (Evans 1995: 747). 

Conversely, syllable heads with more than one speech sound are not considered 

optimal either, and this is proportionate to the number of speech sounds above one. This can 

be inferred from the fact that a given language (1) will have an upper limit as to the number 

of speech sounds permitted in the syllable heads; (2) will permit heads with n-1 speech 

sounds if it permits heads with n (n > 1) speech sounds, and (3) will have more limitations as 

the number of speech sounds in the syllable head increases. For instance, Standard German, 

permits heads filled with a maximum of three speech sounds, and hence also with two and 

one, conforming to the first two postulates. That it is also in line with the third can be seen 

once one examines which sequence of consonants can also occur with the reverse order (this 

is not valid for all clusters consisting of obstruents plus sonorants, e.g. [kr-] but *[rk-], [ʃm] 

but *[mʃ]), and if it is borne in mind that the roughly 20 permitted speech sounds do not form 

20*20*20, i.e. 8000, triple consonant clusters, but only four, namely [ʃpr-], [ʃpl-], [ʃtr-] and 

[skr-] (springen „jump‟, Splitter „chip‟, streng „strict‟ and Skrupel „scruple‟), possibly six if 

[skl-] and [str-], occurring in little-integrated loanwords (e.g. Sklerose „sclerosis‟ and Strip 

„strip‟), are added. 3 

In language change one observable effect of this preference law is the frequent 

shortening of syllable heads. For instance, heads in Old Indic (Vedic and Sanskrit) could 

comprise up to three speech sounds, whereas in Middle Indic (e.g. Pāli) consonant clusters 

were no longer permitted in syllable heads at all. A development in the opposite direction, i.e. 

a systematic lengthening of syllable heads does not seem to occur. Lengthening of syllable 

heads usually has a specific reason that has nothing to do with syllable structure. The 

epenthetic change of sr > str in Pre-Proto-Germanic is a more global change that eliminates 

the sequence sr generally and not only in syllable heads; the lengthening of syllable heads is 

just a side-effect: Gmc. + strauma- „river, stream‟ vs. OI srávati „(3sg) flows‟, but also PGmc. 

3 Whether [pfr-], [pfl-] and [tsv-] have to be included, depends on whether the affricates [pf] 

and [ts] are counted as monophonematic or diphonematic. 

4


+ swester- < PIE + swesr- with epenthentic t in the syllable coda or the syllable contact 

respectively. 4 Complex syllable heads can also result from syncope, but this is evidently not 

aimed at improving syllable structure but at shortening the word. 

(b): Many languages do not allow the least consonantal sounds to form syllable heads, 

e.g. all vowels in Standard German. This tendency towards maximally consonantal heads is 

especially apparent in word-initial position, as consonants tend to weaken by assimilation 

word-medially. Spanish, for instance, tolerates both /ɾ/ and /r/ as word-medial syllable heads 

but only /r/ in word-initial heads: pero „but‟, perro „dog‟, but only rojo [r-] „red‟. Many 

languages do not permit voiced fricatives word-initially but only voiceless ones (e.g. Old 

English), others aspirate voiceless stops in this position (e.g. Modern English). 

(c): This preference can be illustrated with several well-known cases. Standard 

German allows strong consonants (obstruents) before sonorants but not weak consonants 

(sonorants), not even if they are relatively stronger: Knie „knee‟, Platz, „place‟, blank „bare‟, 

groß „big‟, frei „free‟, schmal „narrow‟, Schnee „snow‟, schlimm „bad‟, schräg „diagonal‟, but 

*mn-, *ml-, *mr-, *nl-, *nr-, *lr-. The history of the Germanic languages shows that [h] too is 

a weak consonant. It derived from a Proto-Germanic velar fricative [x], which in turn goes 

back to a PIE velar stop [k]. In all Germanic languages except Icelandic, [h] is then lost in 

syllable heads before consonants, and in many varieties of English /h/ is already being lost 

before vowels (e.g. it has been lost in Cockney English), whereas it has been preserved 

before /w/ in others (e.g. in varieties of American English). In Icelandic, /hw/ is threatened by 

a more general process of strengthening, [w] > [v]; as far as [w] does not resist this 

development in this cluster, [h] is strengthened instead to maintain a sufficient fall in 

consonantal strength: /hw/ > /hv-/ > /kv-/, e.g. in hvítur /hwitʏr/ or /kvitʏr/ „white‟. 

The well-known fate of word-initial k- in English is instructive at this point as well. 

Like Modern German, Old English possessed the clusters kn-, kl-, kr-, kw-, kV-. In Late 

Middle English the worst of these (kn-) became unstable, and [k] was subsequently lost, cf. 

ModE knee. Of the remaining groups kl- represents the worst structure according to the 

theory and is already under attack in certain varieties, as predicted by the Diachronic Maxim 

in (2) above. By contrast, the groups to the right-hand end of the scale – those with the 

weaker slope consonants – are completely stable in all varieties: kr- and kw- can only be 

eliminated after kl- has disappeared, and it is predicted that kr- becomes unstable before kw-, 

unless [w] would strengthen to [v] like in Islandic and German (see Lutz 1991: ch. IV.B.2 for 

the developments in English and ch. IV.B.3 for the developments in the other Germanic 

languages 

However, the Romance languages illustrate another way to get rid of word-initial 

consonant clusters, namely by weakening the second consonant rather than strengthening or 

deleting the first. This can be shown with what happened to inherited clusters consisting of 

obstruent plus liquid, after obstruent plus nasal had been eliminated already in Latin. 

In many Romance languages the structurally worst structures became subsequently 

unstable, namely those consisting of obstruent plus l. In a first step l developed into a palatal 

glide after voiceless obstruents, and then the whole group gradually ended up as a voiceless 

alveo-palatal fricative ([ʃ], spelt ch): Latin plumbum „lead‟, clavis „key‟, flamma „flame‟ > P 

chumbo, chave, chama. In a second step, l in new loans changed to r following a voiced stop 

and following a voiceless obstruent in new loans, compare Spanish blanco „white‟, obligar 

„pledge‟, regla „rule‟, plancha „board‟, clavo „nail‟, flota „fleet‟ with Portugese branco, 

obrigar, regra, prancha, cravo, frota. The aim of these developments was an improved 

4 To avoid ambiguity, the raised cross „ + ‟ indicates a reconstructed form, the asterisk „*‟ marks an 

ungrammatical form. 

5


system, which is being undermined by more recent loanwords – sometimes words have been 

borrowed twice, e.g. flauta ~ frauta „flute‟. 

(5) Head improvement in Portuguese 

*KN- *Kl- Kr- 

increasing quality of syllable head 

Heads consisting of obstruent plus r have so far been stable everywhere, they even represent 

partly the target structure in the elimination process of l-clusters (cf. Vennemann 1989: 17-21 

[1933: 326-330] on head clusters) 

3.1.2 The Coda Law 

(6) Coda Law 

A syllable coda is the more preferred, 

(a) the smaller the number of speech sounds, 

(b) the lower the consonantal strength of its offset, and 

(c) the more sharply the consonantal strength drops from the offset towards the 

consonantal strength of the preceding syllable nucleus. 

(a) and (b): Sanskrit progressively reduces word-final codas from outside to inside until 

maximally the innermost consonant remains: adan „eating‟, replacing ad-ant-s (cf. L edēns < 

ed-ent-s, acc. edentem). The only exceptions are clusters consisting of /r/ plus stop, i.e. 

exactly those clusters with the steepest possible drop in consonantal strength: āvart „(3sg) 

turned‟, amārṭ „(3sg.) wiped‟, vark „(3sg.) bent‟. 

(b): After the implementation of Klingenheben‟s Law, according to which all lingual coda 

consonants changed to /r/ and all labial and velar consonants to /w/, Hausa permitted only 

these two weakest consonants in the coda: + ma.za.ma.za „very fast‟ > + maz.ma.za > 

mar.ma.za; + ma.kaf.ni.ya „a blind female‟ > ma.kaw.ni.ya (~ ma.kā.fo „a blind male‟); + hag.ni 

„left side‟ > haw.ni (~ ba.ha.go „a left-handed person), etc. (cf. Klingenheben 1928). 

3.1.3 The Nucleus Law 

(7) Nucleus Law 

A syllable nucleus is the more preferred, 

(a) the closer the number of its speech sounds is to one, 

(b) the lower the consonantal strength of its speech sounds. 

(a): If a language has nuclei of a certain length (> 1), then it always has also shorter nuclei 

(≥ 1), and the upper limit is low in all languages (≤ 3). All languages have monophthongs but 

not necessarily diphthongs, and triphthongs are rare but do occur, e.g. in Portuguese. 

Diachronically, this preference surfaces in the shape of crosslinguistically very frequent 

spontaneous monophthongizations. Diphthongizations, by contrast, never occur 

spontaneously, they are always motivated by some other factors within a given system. 

(b): Low vowels may function only as nuclei and as offglides of diphthongs (though they 

do not make good offglides). The higher a vowel, the more it tends to be marginalized, 

especially if adjacent to sounds that can also function as nuclei. Consonants generally are 

poor nuclei, especially if they are strong. This becomes clear from the fact that only few 

languages have consonantal nuclei, and if they do, these tend to occupy continuous sections 

6


towards the sonorous end on the scale of consonantal strength, e.g. only r (like in Croatian, 

e.g. Krk, an island in the Adriatic Sea) or r and l (like in Sanskrit), or these and the nasals 

(like in English unstressed syllables, e.g. hammer, saddle, mutton, bottom). 

(8) Corollary to the Nucleus Law 

The shell of a syllable is the more subject to severe restrictions, the higher the 

consonantal strength of its nucleus. 

This corollary is explained by the fact that both the Head and Coda Law cannot easily be 

fully observed if the nucleus is filled with a very consonantal speech sound. If, for instance, a 

speech gesture in German contains /s/ as its nucleus, this means that in order to keep the shell 

monotonous it is restricted to stops, pst „hush‟. This also explains the only exception to the 

rule for syllable heads in Tolowa (cf. 3.1.1 above), which is that a syllable with /n/ as nucleus 

does not permit any speech sound in its shell. 

3.2 Intersyllabic Relations 

Languages can differ not only with respect to their syllable structure, but also with respect to 

how they string syllables together. This has been the subject of a fruitful direction of 

phonological research. Perhaps the most well-known generalization is the principle of Head 

Maximization (maximal onset principle, CV-rule, onset-first principle, left-precedence 

principle, ONSET, e.g. already Varma 1929, Allen 1953, Bell 1977, Selkirk 1982, Clements 

1990, Prince & Smolensky 2002). This principle, however, at least as a universal rule of 

language structure, is inaccurate. This can easily be seen from the fact that different 

languages – even one and the same language at different chronological stages – can syllabify 

the same sequence of sounds differently. 

This has been well-known since antiquity, as clusters of obstruent (K) and sonorant 

(R) (muta cum liquida) in intervocalic position caused problems for Greek and Latin poets if 

the first vowel was short: the syllabification V.KRV meant that the first syllable was short, 

and hence light, whereas the syllabification VK.RV meant that the first syllable was long, and 

thus heavy. In the metric system of a quantity language this is a significant difference. As a 

result, syllabification was used to manipulate syllable weight. Antique poets even coined a 

term for making a syllable with short nucleus light by tautosyllabification of a muta cum 

liquida cluster, cf. correptio Attica in Classical Greek. But varieties of antique languages 

without correptio, in which KR cluster are heterosyllabified, have word-initial KR-clusters 

too, cf. kr- in older Greek krókos „crocus‟, but pikrós „spicy‟ with k $ r (Allen 1974: 101-102). 

The principle of Head Maximization would require the syllabification [pi.krós]. Moreover, 

the opposite of correptio – namely productio (lengthening) in Late Latin, compare Classical 

Latin integrum [ˈin.te.grum] but Late Latin [in.ˈteg.ro] - is also well-known, which shows 

that head maximization cannot even be considered a universal tendency. 

Since the discussion of this and similar problems in Vennemann 1972, Murray & 

Vennemann 1982, 1983, Lutz 1985, 1986, Clements 1990, Vennemann 1987, 1988a: 40-55 – 

since 1982 known as “syllable contact” (which refers to the connection between two speech 

sounds A and B at the syllable boundary A $ B) – it has become clear that syllabification 

depends strongly on the relative consonantal strength of the speech sounds involved. In 

Faroese, for instance, muta cum liquida clusters (except tl) always belong to the second 

syllable, but not in closely related Icelandic, which tautosyllabifies only fortis obstruents and 

r but not l. As a matter of fact, Icelandic always syllabifies V $ MLV in the case of fortis M 

and L = r (and for L = v and = j, which, as former glides, are even weaker than r), but 

VM $ LV in the case of L = l and for all stronger consonants as well as for lenis M (as well as 

for all weaker onset consonants). Tautosyllabification can unambiguously be identified from 

7


the effect of open syllable lengthening, and conversely, heterosyllabification from shortening. 

This new allocation of quantity affects all old short and long vowels as well as diphthongs 

(cf. Vennemann 1972, 1978). 

Languages can also differ with respect to the connection between syllabification and 

prosodic properties, e.g. stress or the position in the word. This section covers the two main 

laws applying to intersyllabic relations, the Syllable Contact Law and the Hiatus Law. For 

additional laws, namely the Law of Initials and the Law of Finals see Vennemann 1988 and 

Restle & Vennemann 2001. 

3.2.1 The Syllable Contact Law 

(9) Syllable Contact Law 

A syllable contact is the better the greater the strength difference between its second and 

first speech sound. 

This law was already illustrated in 3.2 above. Tautosyllabifying V $ MLV in Icelandic, as 

mentioned above, avoids a contact M $ L exactly for the twelve least preferred cases, i.e. for 

those in which the above-mentioned difference in strength is smallest, in this case even 

negative. This becomes especially clear if the consonants are arrayed on a numerically 

interpreted scale of strength, as in (10), cf. Vennemann 1972: 6. 

(10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 

v r l m d t 

j n b p 

g k 

f s 

This permits the statement that two consonants only form a syllable contact A $ B in Icelandic 

if the critical difference in consonantal strength, KS(B) – KS(A), is equal to or greater than - 

3. For instance, this is the case with /pl/: KS(/l/) - KS(/p/) = -3; hence epli „apple‟ is 

syllabified /ep.li/, which can be seen from the short stressed vowel and the preaspirated fortis 

stop [ˈe h p.li]. But it is not the case with /pr/: KS(/r/) - KS(/p/) = -4; therefore skopkra „to roll‟ 

is syllabified /sko.pra/, recognizable from the long stressed vowel and the postaspirated fortis 

stop, [skɔ:.p h ra]. Like the other preference laws, the contact law manifests itself in sound 

changes which improve syllable contacts (see Vennemann 1988: 50-55 for a list of relevant 

changes). 

3.2.2 The Hiatus Law 

(11) Hiatus Law 

A hiatus is dispreferred, in particular the more properties the two vowels involved 

share, and also the closer one of them is phonetically to a glide. 

From part (a) of the Head Law (see (4) above), which disfavours naked syllables, it can be 

inferred that a hiatus is not a preferred structure. This can also be seen from the fact that 

many languages do not allow them at all (according to Bell & Hooper 1978: 8 this is valid for 

about half of the world‟s languages). To eliminate hiatus structures languages use 

mechanisms that are similar to those that eliminate empty syllable heads as well as some 

KS 

8


additional ones, such as the insertion of a glide and others (see Restle & Vennemann 2001: 

1318-1319 for further details). 

3.3 Extrasyllabic relations 

Languages also exhibit preferences with respect to the relationship between syllables and 

stress as well as rhythm. This section highlights some key principles. 

3.3.1 Syllabification and stress 

Although onset maximization as a simple principle is incorrect, it is possible to state 

conditions for a relatively good syllabification. These are graded and involve multiple factors, 

which first became apparent from research in historical phonology investigating the way 

words are separated in handwritten manuscripts and how this is sensitive to syllabification 

(Lutz 1985, 1986). This section briefly summarizes the results of this work (see Restle & 

Vennemann 2001: 1320-1321 for further details). 

(12) General Law of Syllabification (Lutz‟s Law) 

The syllabification of two syllables is the more preferred 

(a) the better the resulting syllable contact, and 

(b) the better this syllable contact is embedded. 

Part (a) of the law refers to the preferences stated by the Contact Law (cf. 3.2.1 above). In 

order to understand part (b) it is necessary to define the embedding of a syllable as well as 

other related terms and to give relevant preference laws. 

(13) Syllable Contact Bed 

Let A $ B be the syllable contact of a sequence of syllables S1.S2. The onset syllable of 

the contact is defined as the rhyme of S1 minus A, i.e. minus its offset, and the offset 

syllable as the body of S2 minus B, i.e. its onset. The sequence of a contact‟s onset 

syllable and its offset syllable is called syllable contact bed. 

(14) Syllable Embedding Law 

The bed of a syllable contact is the better the greater the rhyme attractiveness of its 

onset syllable and the greater the body attractiveness of its offset syllable. 

(15) Rhyme Attractiveness 

This is defined as how well a syllable is capable to attract the onset of the following 

syllable as part of its rhyme. 

(16) Body Attractiveness 

This is defined as how well a speech sequence is capable to attract the offset of a 

preceding syllable as part of its body. 

(17) Law of Rhyme Attractiveness 

The rhyme attractiveness of a syllable (i.e. heterosyllabification into it) is the greater 

(a) the more it is stressed in relation to the following syllable, 

(b) the shorter its rhyme, and 

(c) the lower the consonantal strength of its rhyme, in particular its offset. 

(18) Law of Body Attractiveness 

The body attractiveness of a syllable (i.e. heterosyllabification into it) is the greater 

9


(a) the more it is stressed in relation to the preceding syllable, 

(b) the shorter its body is, and 

(c) the lower the consonantal strength of its body, in particular its onset. 

3.3.2 Syllable structure and stress 

Syllable structure and stress are interrelated in multiple ways, but all seem to conform to an 

overarching preference law (see Vennemann 1988: 58 for further details): 

(19) Law of Stressed Syllables 

Complexities of syllable structure are the less favoured the less rhythmic prominence 

the syllable possesses. 

The clearest illustrations of this law are constraints on syllable structure that are categorically 

tied to word stress. For instance, unstressed syllables in Icelandic can only have [ɪ], [ʏ] and 

[a] as nuclei, whereas stressed syllables have a much wider variety of phonologically 

contrastive nuclei. 

3.3.2 Syllable structure and rhythm 

There are also preferences governing the relationship between syllable structure and 

rhythmical types as well as with syllable weight, which is also relevant to rhythm. 

(20) Rhythm Law 

Complexities of syllable structure are the less favoured the smaller the rhythmic unit 

is. 

For instance, English as a stress timed language possesses a complex syllable structure, 

whereas a syllable timed language such as Spanish tends to have a less complex structure, 

and mora timed languages seem to prefer fairly simple syllable structures (see Dufter 2003 

for a detailed discussion of rhythmical types). There is also a well-known connection between 

dynamic stress and moraicity, which has also been called Prokosch‟s Law (see Vennemann 

1988: 30). 

(21) Weight Law 

In stress accent languages an accented syllable is the more preferred the closer its 

syllable weight is to two moras, and an unaccented syllable is the more preferred the 

closer its weight is to one mora. 

In other words, stressed syllables are preferably bimoric and unstressed syllables preferably 

unimoric. This law has often been used to motivate quantity changes, such as lengthening of 

open monosyllables in some Germanic dialects, such as Old English (compare OE bī, nū, swā 

vs. Goth. bi, nu, swa). 

4. Developments in the concept of preference laws 

As mentioned in 2. above, the theory of linguistic preferences can be seen as a generalization 

of Jakobson‟s markedness concept. Historically, the direct forerunners are Natural Generative 

Grammar and Natural Generative Phonology (Hooper 1976). Vennemann (1972) discusses 

problems of syllabification in Icelandic, considering universal interrelationships between 

syllable structure and consonantal strength, which also manifest themselves in probabilistic 

statements about language change. Although Hooper (1976) is not primarily concerned with 

diachrony, she discusses implications for principles of diachronic change in connection with 

10


her principles of optimal syllable structure which represent targets in processes of language 

change. 

However, a concrete theory based on linguistic preferences and its application to 

language change was proposed in Vennemann 1983a and b, as a type of theory that can 

explain the “regularities within a certain domain by turning to theories that are not theories 

for that particular domain” (Vennemann 1983b: 9), as opposed to generative theories that 

attempt to explain regularities by virtue of deductive inferences within the same domain, in 

this case, grammar. Consequently, the preferences themselves are motivated by 

extralinguistic theories, such as “phonetic theories, theories of learning, semiotic theories, 

theories of communication, etc.” (Vennemann 1983b: 13). Such a theory makes statements 

about a space Q in which all real languages are situated and about what is possible and what 

is impossible for languages in Q. As languages are not evenly distributed within Q, one 

arrives at a theory operating on the basis of this distribution calling it preference, markedness, 

naturalness etc. As Vennemann (1983b: 11) points out, it is exactly this “concept of rank 

order” that sets preference theories apart from purely descriptive theories, and that explains 

linguistic structures, not in a deductive sense, but in a sense that Vennemann (1983b: 13) 

calls “elucidation”, i.e. by shedding light on a particular structure or development, which can 

often be taken as an explanation. Discussing the issue of explaining language change, 

Vennemann (1983b: 18f) also points out that a theory of preferences in connection with a list 

of possible changes, a “closed catalogue”, can actually be falsified, thus being capable of 

deductive explanations. Such a catalogue of changes on a macro-level is found in Bartsch & 

Vennemann 1982: 153, and a nearly “complete” list of syllable-contact improving sound 

changes was assembled in Vennemann 1988: 50f. 

Further developments took place in subsequent work by Vennemann, Murray and Lutz in 

discovering and substantiating preference laws for syllable structure (see Murray 1982, 1988, 

Murray & Vennemann 1982, 1983, Vennemann 1986a, b, 1987, 1988, Lutz 1985, 1986 and 

the summary in Restle & Vennemann 2001). This was meant to be the beginning of a new 

direction in research in that future energies ought to be directed at assembling catalogues of 

language change and at discovering new preferences (Vennemann 1983b: 24f). 

A further development can be seen in the ways the idea of preference laws was 

developed from the 1990s onwards. Beginning with the elaborations in Vennemann 1993, 

which showed the value of this concept for syntactic change, preferences have continued to 

play a major role in Natural Phonology (see papers in Hurch & Rhodes 1996) and also 

Optimality Theory (see the discussions in Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2001 and Holt 2003). 

Moreover, a theory of linguistic preferences seems to be an ideal complementation to cases of 

diffusional and bifurcational sound changes. Beginning with Labov‟s (1981) seminal paper, it 

became increasingly apparent that Neogrammarian sound laws represent but one end of a 

continuum of sound changes, namely those with a particular thorough application (see also 

the discussion in Vennemann 2000a). This is underlined by the cases like ModE cradle and 

saddle and other bifurcational changes, which cannot be adequately accommodated within 

the Neogrammarian framework (see Murray 2005 for a discussion and Labov 2010: ch. 7 for 

further details on bifurcational changes). 5 In the description and elucidation of the breakdown 

of phonological quantity in the Germanic languages a preference-based framework (syllable 

cut theory) has proven to be useful, because the evaluative character of such a theory can 

explain why structures change, and also in which direction they change (see e.g. Vennemann 

2000b, Murray 2000, Mailhammer 2009). Consequently, the notion that bifurcational changes 

5 OE cradol and sadol change in different directions towards Middle English despite an identical (relevant) 

phonological structure. The former develops smooth syllable cut on its accented syllable (with Open Syllable 

Lengthening), the latter, abrupt syllable cut (which closes the syllable ambisyllabically and therefore keeps the 

vowel shot), see Murray 2005 and Mailhammer 2007, 2009 for further details. 

11


are the result of an “unstable structure” being eliminated in different ways (Labov 2010: 156) 

can be rendered meaningful by stipulating why a given structure has to be seen as unstable 

and by predicting the result of the change, even if the change itself cannot be predicted. 

Vennemann (2000) provides another especially useful application of a preference-based 

framework, namely in the area of etymology, connecting words that are deemed unrelated 

according to the Neogrammarian concept. According to this approach, words in daughter 

languages can be the result of differently implemented constraints, similarly to the 

cradle/saddle case in Middle English. 

As Vennemann (1993: 321) points out, preference theory is a way out of the classical 

argument whether language change is fashion-like or functional. As language change is seen 

as language improvement, this is a “unified principle” to conceptualize language change, 

which accommodates “both the conscious and subconscious and both the socially and 

structurally motivated changes, as well as those motivated by the needs of communication”. 

It seems that this is the greatest achievement of this theory, which withstands criticism that 

has been directed at it (see the following section). From the perspective of application, a great 

strength of preference-based approaches is the motivation of bifurcational and diffusional 

changes. 

5. Criticism of preference theory 

Criticism against a theory of linguistic preferences has focused mainly two issues, namely 

their empirical foundation and the notion that language change is seen as language 

improvement (see e.g. Berg 1990 and Hill 2009) 

As Vennemann (1988: 4) asserts, preference laws are theorems derived from universal 

properties of the human communicative capacity, and no attempt is made to justify them, as 

this would fall outside the domain of linguistics, though this is not considered an 

uninteresting question (see Vennemann 1983b: 9. The need for a solid empirical footing 

stems from the perspective of laws as generalisations based on the data specifying what 

happens under which circumstances. This is perhaps due to the term “laws” in the title of 

Vennemann (1988). As Berg (1990: 570) suggests, the term “tendencies” would have maybe 

been less problematic to some readers. The term “preference laws” simply refers to the 

qualitative evaluation of linguistic structures. As assumptions they need not be based on 

quantitative empirical data, they are tested directly by the data, but not in the way generative 

laws are tested, since we are dealing with statements about better and worse structures and 

not with simple output rules. For instance, no one would question the preferred nature of 

open syllables based on crosslinguistic data, even though there is no quantitative study for a 

sizeable body of the languages of the world and even though there may be languages in 

which the canonical syllable is closed. Hence, the supposed lack of empirical foundation 

stems from the view of the preference laws as inductively based, whereas in reality they are 

hypotheses. 

The second point of criticism centres on the idea that language change is always an 

improvement with respect to a certain parameter (see especially Hill 2009: 244). Again, this 

is not a notion that is empirically supported; it is an axiomatic statement that is founded on 

the idea that human development is motivated by aiming at improvement rather than 

worsening. The opposite or the idea that change is unmotivated seems difficult to imagine. 

That there are changes for the worse is obvious but whether such a change was intentional (as 

a single development) is very doubtful. Consequently, there is no sensible alternative but to 

assume that a change leading to a dispreferred structure was motivated differently. This is the 

solution to the puzzle in Berg (1990: 570): “I can see no reason whatsoever why we should 

follow Vennemann in believing that ora > gora is a syllable structure change whereas la vita 

> la ita is not.” If the loss of the head consonant in the second case was not an improvement 

12


on some other level it can only have been either a random change or a deliberate move to 

decrease the quality of the syllable head of vita, both of which we find difficult to believe. 

The example adduced by Berg can be seen as a case of intervocalic assimilatory weakening, 

which is then clearly not a change motivated by syllable structure. 

6. Summary 

This chapter illustrates and discusses the concept of preference laws and their application in 

problems of historical phonology. Its key points are the assumptions that language change is 

always an improvement with respect to a certain parameter and that linguistic structures can 

be situated on a graded scale of quality. In language change, improvements start with the 

structure that is worst according to the preference law pertaining to the relevant parameter. 

But because parameters do not exist in isolation, improvements on one end can lead to a 

decrease in quality on another, which explains why change is not an improvement seen from 

every perspective. The strength of this concept is to elucidate and explain language change as 

the implementation of preferences, which is especially valuable in accounting for 

bifurcational changes. Though a concrete sound change may not always be predicted, 

catalogues of possible changes make it possible that preference laws can be tested. As 

hypotheses the fundamental tenets of preference theory need not have a quantitative empirical 

basis, but are assumptions whose value lies in their application (see also Berg 1990: 570). 

Preference-like concepts have played a role in various linguistic theories, most 

notably, Optimality Theory. But in contrast to most of these, they are not one-output models, 

which is precisely their strength. It seems that a good deal of the controversy preference laws 

have caused is due to an imperfect understanding of their nature and their aims. We hope to 

have succeeded in remedying this to some degree. 

References 

Allen, Sidney (1953), Phonetics in Ancient India, London: Oxford University Press 

Allen, Sidney (1974), Vox Greaca: A guide to the pronunciation of Classical Greek, 2 nd 

edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [first edition 1968] 

Bartsch, Renate and Theo Vennemann (1982), Grundzüge der Sprachtheorie, Tübingen: 

Niemeyer 

Bell, Alan (1977) The distributional syllable, in Juilland, Alphonse (ed.). Linguistic studies 

offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. 

Saratoga/Kalifornien: Anma Libri, 249 -262 

Bell, Alan and Joan B. Hooper (1978), Issues and evidence in syllabic phonology, in: Alan 

Bell and Joan B. Hooper (eds), Syllables and Segments, Amsterdam: North Holland 

Publishing Company 

Berg, Thomas (1990), Review of Vennemann (1988), Journal of Linguistics 26/2, 569-570 

Blevins, Juliette (1995), The syllable in phonological theory, in John A. Goldsmith (ed.) 

(1995), The handbook of phonological theory, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 206-244 

Clements, G. N. (1990), The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification, in Mary E 

Beckman & John Kingston (eds.) (1990), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between 

the Grammar and Physics of Speech, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283-333 

Collins, James. 1989. „Nasalization, lengthening, and phonological rhyme in Tolowa“. 

International Journal of American Linguistics 55, 326-340 

Dufter, Andreas (2003), Typen sprachrhythmischer Konturbildung, Tübingen: Niemeyer 

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna (2001). Phonotactic constraints are preferences, in: 

Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (ed.), Constraints and Preferences, Berlin/New York: 

Mouton de Gruyter, 69-100. 

13


Evans, Nicholas (1995), Current Issues in Australian Languages, in John A. Goldsmith (ed.) 

(1995), The handbook of phonological theory, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 723-761 

Greenberg, Joseph H. (1978), Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant 

clusters, in Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language. Volume 2. 

Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 243-279 

Hill, Eugen (2009), Die Präferenztheorie in der historischen Phonologie aus 

junggrammatischer Perspektive, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 231-263 

Holt, D. Eric (2003), Remarks on Optimality Theory and Language Change, in: D. Eric Holt 

(ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1-30 

Hooper, Joan B. (1976), An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology, New York: 

Academic Press 

Hurch, Bernhard and Richard A. Rhodes (eds.) (1996), Natural Phonology: the state of the 

art, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter 

Klingenheben, August (1928), Die Silbenauslautgesetze des Hausa, Zeitschrift für 

Eingeborenensprachen 18: 272-297 

Labov, William (1981), Resolving the Neogrammarian Controversy, Language 57: 267-308 

Labov, William (2010), Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol III. Malden, M.A.: Wiley- 

Blackwell 

Lutz, Angelika (1985), Die Worttrennung am Zeilenende in altenglischen Handschriften: 

Phonologische Betrachtungen zu Dieter Wetzels gleichnamigem Buch, Indogermanische 

Forschungen 90, 227-238 

Lutz, Angelika (1986), The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts, 

English Studies 6, 193-210 

Lutz, Angelika (1991), Phonotaktisch gesteuerte Konsonantenentwicklungen in der 

Geschichte des Englischen, Tübingen: Niemeyer 

Mailhammer, Robert (2009), Thoughts on the genesis and the development of syllable cut in 

English, Anglia 127, 261-282 

Murray, Robert (1988), Phonological Strength and Early Germanic Syllable Structure, 

Munich: Fink 

Murray, Robert (1982), Consonant Cluster Development in Pāli, Folia Linguistica Historica 

111, 163-184 

Murray, Robert (2000), Syllable Cut Prosody in Early Middle English, Language 76, 617-654 

Murray, Robert and Theo Vennemann (1982), Syllable contact change in Germanic, Greek 

and Sidamo, Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 8, 321-349 

Murray, Robert and Theo Vennemann (1983), Sound change and syllable structure [: 

Problems] in Germanic phonology, Language 59, 514-528 

Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (2002), Optimaliy Theory. Constraint Interaction in 

Generative Grammar, ROA version 8/2002 [http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/537- 

0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF] 

Restle, David and Theo Vennemann (2001), Silbenstruktur, in: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard 

König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds), Language Typology and 

Language Universals, II, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20, 

Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1310-1336 

Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. Syllables, in Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds), The 

structure of phonological representations, Vol. 2, Dordrecht: Foris, 337-383 

Varma, Siddheswar (1929), Critical studies in the phonetic observations of Indian 

grammarians, London: Royal Asiatic Society [reprinted 1961, New Delhi, India 

Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.] 

Vennemann, Theo (1972), On the theory of syllabic phonology, Linguistische Berichte 18, 1- 

18 

14


Vennemann, Theo (1978), Universal syllabic phonology, Linguistische Berichte 18, 1-18 

Vennemann, Theo (1983a), Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der linguistischen 

Präferenzen, Klangenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 9, 262-92. 

Vennemann, Theo (1983b), Causality in language change. Theories of linguistic preferences 

as a basis for linguistic explanations, Folia Liguistica Historica 6, 5-26. 

Vennemann, Theo (1986a). Neuere Entwicklungen in der Phonologie. Berlin: Mouton de 

Gruyter. 

Vennemann, Theo (1986b), Syllable based sound changes in Early Armenian, Annual of 

Armenian Linguistics 7, 27-43. 

Vennemann, Theo (1987), Muta cum Liquida: Worttrennung und Syllabierung im Gotischen, 

Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 116, 165-204 

Vennemann, Theo (1988), Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation of 

Sound Change, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter 

Vennemann, Theo (1989), Language change as language improvement, in Vincenzo Orioles 

(ed.), Modelli esplicativi della diacronica linguistica: Atti del Convegno della Società 

Italiana de Glottologica, Pavia, 15-17 settembbre 1988, Pisa, 11-35 [reprint in Charles 

Jones (ed.) Historical Linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 1993, London: Longman, 

310-344 

Vennemann, Theo (2000a), Triple-cluster reduction in Germanic: Etymology without sound 

laws? Historische Sprachforschung 113, 239-58. 

Vennemann, Theo (2000b), From quantity to syllable cuts: On so-called lengthening in the 

Germanic languages, Italian Journal of Linguistics 12, 251-282 

15

Preference Laws in Change Robert Mailhammer (Arizona State ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?