Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T02:32:06.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History of the Middle Bavarian vocalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Herbert L. Kufner
Herbert L. Kufner*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a period in the history of the German language of which we know relatively little, although it is much better documented than the Old High German period, where every phonetic detail has been intensively studied by several generations of scholars. I refer to the stage after the phonologizations of the umlaut variants were completed and before Luther and his precursors and contemporaries demanded a unified Schriftdialekt, the major feature of which was to be a uniform vocalism. As Fourquet has pointed out, this period was one marked by a large number of changes. To the traditional historical phoneticians these changes were ‘spontaneous’; that is to say, since they were phonetically unconditioned they were also inexplicable. Fourquet further suggests that this period may be the period needed, the period particularly favorable to testing and sharpening the methods of structural diachronic phonemics with the help of the descriptions that modern dialectology has put at our disposal. The following is an attempt at a structural history of the vocalism of Middle Bavarian during this period and up to the present time. Since the term Middle Bavarian covers a huge dialect area with many geographical variations, I must add here that the specific ‘target dialect’ of this study is that of the Salzachgau. It is spoken in a region about 80 km. east-southeast of Munich and 40 km. north-northwest of Salzburg. This area was under Austrian rule until the Treaty of Frankfurt in 1810, and has since belonged to Bavaria.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 33 , Issue 4-Part1: October-December , December 1957, pp. 519 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © 1957 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 J. Fourquet, The two E's of Middle High German: A diachronic phonemic approach, Word 8.122–35 (1952).

2 Braune-Mitzka, Althochdeutsche Grammatik 8 §§47–9 (Tübingen, 1953).

3 A. Haasbauer, Zur Geschichte der oberösterreichischen Mundarten 35 (Reichenberg, 1926); K. Weinhold, Bairische Grammatik §84 (Berlin, 1867); P. Lessiak, Vokalismus der Tonsilben in den deutschen Namen der ältesten Kärntnerischen Urkunden, Prager deutsche Studien 8.268–9 (Prag, 1908); P. Lessiak, Die Mundart von Pernegg in Kärnten, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 28.84 (1903) ; W. Schönberger, Die Sprachverhältnisse der Tirol-Salzburg-Bayerischen Länderecke, Teuthonista 10.62 (1934).

4 H. Weigl, Die niederösterreichische ui-Mundart, Teuthonista 1.163 (1924): ‘Die Diphthongierung der langen i und u Laute war Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts in Oesterreich vollzogen.‘

5 Lessiak, Vokalismus 252.

6 Lessiak, Vokalismus 258–9: ‘... die Tatsache, dass der Laut bald als oi, oy und bald als eu, ou erscheint ... lassen vermuten, dass “ü” im 13. Jht. in Kärnten etwa wie eü, öü klang.‘

7 Lessiak, Vokalismus 257.

8 Haasbauer 27 and 31.

9 K. Schiffmann, Historisches Ortsnamenlexikon des Landes Oberösterreich 1.48 (Linz, 1935; hereafter abbreviated HOL): Aufausen for earlier (1052) Hufhusun.

10 J. Schatz, Altbairische Grammatik 21 (1907); also Lessiak, Pernegg 72 and 76.

11 E. Kranzmayer, Die steirische Reimchronik Ottokars und ihre Sprache, Wiener Sitzungsberichte 226.4.98 (1950) ; also Haasbauer 17.

12 K. Zwierzina, Mittelhochdeutsche Studien, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 44.1–138, 249–316, 345–407 (1900), esp. 254, fn. 3.

13 Kranzmayer, Ottokar 95 ff.; also Haasbauer 17–8; F. J. Beranek, Die Mundart von Südmähren 60 (Reichenberg, 1936) ; Otto Mausser, Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik 50 (München, 1933); and A. Pfalz, Die Mundart des Marchfeldes, Wiener Sitzungsberichte 170.6.26 (1913), who cites interesting statistics: /ε/ > /e/ in 77 percent of the items, remains /ε/ in 23 percent of the items.

14 It seems here again the South Bavarian spellings were less conservative. Kranzmayer cites Gozzenperc for earlier Gezzenperc (1282), derfl for ‘Dörflein‘ (1290), leutgeb for leitgeb (1314) in Geschichte des Umlauts im Südbairischen, Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 14.79 (1938).

15 Haasbauer 21. Weigl's statement (162) seems too cautious; the unroundings must have taken place earlier than the end of the 15th century.

16 K. Schiffmann, Die mittelalterlichen Stiftsurbare des Erzherzogtums Oesterreich ob der Enns 2.121, item 93 (Wien, 1912–5); also HOL 1.191.

17 Haasbauer 29.

18 B. Gillitzer, Die Tegernseer Hymnen des Cgm. 858 89–90 (München, 1942).

19 HOL 1.225.

20 Gillitzer 96.

21 Schiffmann 2.548, item 48.

22 Gillitzer 95.

23 Both Lessiak (Pernegg 84) and Schönberger (62) assume these intermediate stages for the development of /iu/ (24) : iu > eu > eü > ǝu > ǝü > oi (or ui, depending on geographic distribution).

24 Gillitzer 97.

25 Haasbauer 27.

26 On the tendency towards equilibrium cf. Martinet's introduction to A. G. Haudricourt and A. G. Juilland, Essai pour une histoire structurale du phonétisme français (Paris, 1949) ; and Fourquet 133.

27 Haasbauer 29 §c, and 24 §c.

28 Beranek 69–70.

29 Haasbauer 28. The South Bavarian development was to [oǝ], cf. Lessiak, Vokalismus 254.

30 Braune-Mitzka cites evidence for this development in the Vienna Notker manuscript §40 fn. 2. My example is taken from Haasbauer 29.

31 Haasbauer 24; Weigl 155–6.

32 Haasbauer 15 and 32.

33 Schiffmann 1.200, item 20.

34 Haasbauer 27.

35 Gillitzer 8.

36 Schiffmann 1.30, item 1, and 1.137, items 1–3.

37 Lessiak, Pernegg 78; also Haasbauer 33.

38 For the exact distribution of this diphthong with a thorough historical description, cf. Beranek 81–7.

39 Haasbauer 33; Weigl 166.

40 Beranek 91–5; Haasbauer 35.

41 Schönberger (61) seems to feel that [ui] was the older form, prevalent in all varieties of Middle Bavarian. This seems improbable on phonetic grounds. He himself charts the development of MHG /iu/ (24) with [oi] as the first possibility. Cf. my fn. 23.

42 Cf. H. L. Kufner, Zur Phonologie einer mittelbairischen Mundart, Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 25.2.11–9 (1957).

43 Mausser (see fn. 13) 50–5; on ‘Mittelbaierische Konsonantenschwächung ‘ cf. Kranzmayer, Ottokar 90.

44 For the reasons for this decision, see B. J. Koekkoek, Zur Phonologie der Wiener Mundart 32–40 (Giessen, 1955); and A. Pfalz, Zur Phonologie der bairisch-österreichischen Mundart, Lebendiges Erbe, Reclam Festschrift 9–12 (Leipzig, 1936).

45 Beranek 92.

46 Schönberger 59–65; Pfalz §21b; Lessiak, Pernegg 84; Beranek 95; Weigl 168. They all point out that this replacement process is progressing rapidly and will soon have eliminated all traces of a separate development of MHG /iu/ (24) in the Middle Bavarian dialects.

47 It is interesting to note that this split apparently did not take place in the Makchfeld dialect.

48 HOL 1.17, 32, 42, 50.

49 Weigl 172. See also 173, where he establishes a chronology for the vocalization of /r/.

50 We cannot analyze the new diphthongs as vowel plus /l/, since the modern dialect shows forms such as /nǝl/ ‘needle’ < MHG nâdel.

51 HOL 1.37 and 40.

52 Cf. here Schönberger's (67) discussion of modern /iu/.

53 At the present time a process of denasalization has begun in the Salzachgau dialect: all forms with /in/ and /un/ have variants with oral vowels. In the Viennese variety of Middle Bavarian this denasalization has progressed much further; cf. E. Kranzmayer, Lautwandlungen und Lautverschiebungen im gegenwärtigen Wienerischen, Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 21.197–239 (1953).