The Vowel Phonology

Abstract

Discussion of palatal vowels is usually to be found under descriptions of the values and functions of the graphs e, i and the digraphs ea, ee, ie and eo. The issues raised in these discussions in part reflect the concerns and observations provided by grammarians in the earlier part of the century, although there are some interesting refinements as to the possibility of ascribing different values to the [i] segment, as well as to further controversy over whether the phonology at this period supported a tense/lax [i]/[i] contrast between lexical items such as beet/bit. Addressing this last issue first, we find that the evidence for the existence of such a contrast and for any lowering and centring of a Middle English ‘short i’ vowel to [i] is inconclusive and difficult to interpret, some commentators providing strong evidence for the existence of some type of contrast, some inferring its existence without concrete identification, while others seem to deny its existence at any level. In this last camp seems to be Joshua Steele (1775: x) who identifies the italicized vowels in English items such as evil, keen, it, be, iniquity with their French counterparts Paris, habit, ris, dit, il, suggesting a lack of any tense lax contrast in the palatal vowel area. Yet one might argue that such pronunciations reflect the special nature of Steele’s work, namely as a guide to the pronunciation of the stage, a context where one might expect these pronunciations to occur, much as they still do in some bel canto singing styles. Ash’s (1763: xv) three-way classification of vowel types under Broad (or full), Middle (or intermediate) and Narrow (slender) might at first sight suggest a possibility for the existence of a tense/lax alternation.