Tobias Scheer & Guylaine Brun-Trigaud Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis, UMR 6039 Lenition of branching Onsets: Celtic, Gorgia Toscana, Gallo-Romance (dialectal evidence from the ALF) Going Romance 24 Leiden, 9-11 December 2010
Mar 27, 2015
Tobias Scheer &Guylaine Brun-Trigaud
Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis, UMR 6039
Lenition of branching Onsets:
Celtic, Gorgia Toscana, Gallo-Romance
(dialectal evidence from the ALF)
Going Romance 24
Leiden, 9-11 December 2010
The Strong Position in Phonology
•the Strong Position (in Romance and elsewhere, Ségéral & Scheer 2001, 2008)
- {#,C}__ = Strong Position: PORTA > porte
TALPA > taupe
- V__V = weak position A: FABA > fève
- __{#,C} = weak position B (Coda): LUP(U) > l[u]
RUPTA > route•the mirror effect: {#,C}__ vs. __{#,C} are symmetric
- with respect to their position: mirror image
- with respect to their effect: strength vs. weakness
relevant consonants:
the word-initial consonant
the consonant that occurs after a coda
the initial CV = #
represents the morphological information
« beginning of the word »
•analysis in CVCV (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004)
The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing
initial consonant #__ post-Coda consonant C.__
C V - C V … … V C V C V …
| | | | | |
C V V R T V#
GvtGvt
Government
inhibits the segmental expression of its target
empty nuclei must be governed
Lic Lic
Licensing
promotes the segmental expression of its target
P O RTA T A L P A
consonants in Strong Position occur
after an empty nucleus
ø __
consonants in Strong Position are
licensed
but ungoverned
The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing
intervocalic position V__V
C V C V
| | |
V C V
Gvt
Lic
F A B A
internal coda __.C final coda __#
… V C V C V ... V C V #
| | | | | |
V R T V V C
R U P T A L U P (U)
intervocalic V__V: the consonant is
not adjacent to any empty nucleus
licencensed and governed
in coda position: the consonant
occurs before an empty nucleus: __ø
is neither licensed nor governed
Lic
Gvt
Lic
Gvt
summary
Strong Position = {#,C}__ = ø__ = strength = ungoverned but licensed
Coda = __{#,C} = __ ø = weak A = ungoverned and unlicensed
intervocalic = V__V = V__V= weak B = governed and licensed
The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing
C V C V C V
| | | |
C T R V
•worse than making a wrong prediction:
Gvt
Lic
branching onset
<==
IG
•the liquid R: licensed, but ungoverned ==> strong position
making NO prediction at all
branching onsets in CVCV
•what a branching Onset looks like (after a consonant)
•the solidarity of the cluster is due to a relationship that is contracted by the (melodies of) the two consonants: IG (Infrasegmental Government)
•the obstruent T: target of neither Gvt nor Lic ==> ??
Locality in Syntax
Relativized Minimality, Rizzi (1990)
given two classes of items A and B,
a relation between A1 et A2 is local iff no other A intervenes
Locality in Syntax
•three major classes of items in syntax: - verbs (heads) - arguments (A position) - quantifiers (A’ position)
Couldi John __i have come ?hea
dargumen
thea
dhea
d
☺ John could have come
argument
head
head
John could have come Havei John could __i come ?hea
d
*
C V C V C V
| | | |
C T R V
•a branching onset is a non-local structure: - major classes of items in phonology are: onset and nucleus- an internuclear relation exists whereby a third nucleus intervenes.
Gvt
Lic
branching onset
<==
IG
A M P L U S
Locality in Syntax
The trouble: summary
1. no prediction made
2. violation of locality
C V C V C V
| | | |
C T R V
Gvt
Lic
branching onset
<==
IG
•the intervening nucleus is the source of government
Gvt
instead of having a non-local government relation
The cure: making branching onsets local
•it is entitled to govern because it is not itself governed: it is unpronounced for a different reason (IG)
•consequence: the definition of what a good governor is owes nothing to phoneticsbefore: only nuclei with phonetic content can governnow: a nucleus can govern iff it is not governed itself
C V C V C V
| | | |
C T R V
Lic
TR in Strong Position
<==
•in case the TR is in intervocalic position, the T will also be in intervocalic position (licensed and governed)
•when the TR is preceded by an empty nucleus (Strong Position), the T will also be in Strong Position (licensed but ungoverned)
Gvt
C V C V C V
| | | | |
C V T R V
TR in intervocalic positon
<==
Lic
Gvt
local branching onsets: predictions
in other words:
given a branching onset TR, T behaves like if R were not there
•hence the following prediction:the T of a TR group behaves exactly like a simplex T
- if the TR group is in Strong Position, T will be strong
- if the TR group is in intervocalic position, T will be intervocalic
local branching onsets: predictions
testing the prediction
•typologically speaking, branching onsets are rare
•even rarer are languages that allow to test the reaction of TRs on lenition
•we examine 4 cases: - Celtic (in its prehistory) - Gorgia Toscana - French diachrony - Gallo-Romance dialects as witnessed by the ALF (Atlas Linguistique de la France)
•==> the empirical situation is largely unexplored
test case 1: Celtic
the classical scenario assumes 3 stages (e.g. McCone 1996)
•stage 1: IE b,d,g > v,,ɣ / V__V et V__RV
1. V__V IE Proto-Celtic Old Irish glose b kladibos *klaivos klaiəv épée
d kladibos *klaivos klaiəv épéeg tegos *teɣos tieɣ maison
2. V__RVb dubro- *duvro- dovər eaud widwa: *wiwa: fiev veuveg wegros *weɣros fe:r herbe
3. but resistance in Strong Position {#,C}__ and in gemination
N__ *windos fiind blanc#__, gém *buggos bog mou
test case 1: Celtic
•stage 2: as stage 1, but now also across word boundaries
1. V__V Insular Celtic Proto-Irish Old Irish glose t *ehja teɣah *eja eɣa ə ieɣ sa maison
k *inda: kloka: *inda: loa: iŋ lo la pierre
2. V__RVt *bre:tra: *bre:rə briiaər motk *dakra *dærə die:r larme
3. but resistance in Strong Position {#,C}__ and in geminationR__ *eisko- *eisk iask poissongém *makwkwos *makwkwah mak garçon
•stage 3: t,k > , / V__V and V__RV (there is no p)
test case 2: Gorgia Toscana
Castellani (1960), Giannelli & Savoia (1978, 1979), Marotta (2000-01)
1. V__V Stand. It. Tuscan glose p apɛrto aɸɛrto
ouvertt laato laaθo côték bruuko bruuxo, bruuho, bruuo
worm
2. V__RVp la piega la ɸjɛɛɣa le plit liitro liiθro litrek la krɛɛma la xɾɛɛma, la hrɛɛma la
crème
3. but resistance in Strong Position {#,C}__ and in gemination
R__ pɔrta pɔrta porte#__ pjɛɛde pjɛɛe
piedgém. gatto gatto chat
p,b,t,d,k,g > ɸ,β,θ,,x/h/ø,ɣ / V__(R)V
test case 3: French
•only labials and dentals are examined – the situation of velars is complicated by palatalizations (Bourciez 1967 etc.)
#__ Coda__ V__V
pr
pl
prunaprune
plenu plein
comprend(e)recomprendrepurp(u)ra pourpreamplus ample*temp(u)la temple
capra chèvrepip(e)re poivreduplu doublecap(u)lu afr chable
br
bl
brachiu bras
*blastimareblâmer
umbra ombrearb(o)re arbregerm *blād afr emblaverumb(i)licus afr umblil
labra lèvrerob(o)re rouvre—fab(u)la fable
•labials in TR groups
#__ Coda__ V__V
p porta porte talpa taupe riparive
b bene bien herbaherbe
faba fève
•simplex Labials
p
p
p
p
b
b
b
b
v
v
vv
#__ Coda__ V__V
tr tres troistractare traiter
capistru chevêtrealt(e)ru autre
petra pierreit(e)rare errer
dr drappu drap*dras(i)c drêche
—perd(e)re perdre
quadratu carrérid(e)re rire
•dentals in TR groups
#__ Coda__ V__V
t tela toile cantarechanter
vita vie
d dente dent ardore ardeur codaqueue
•simplex dentals
t
t td d
ø
dtd
øø
ø
test case 3: French
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
ALFAtlas Linguistique de la FranceGilléron, Jules, and Édmond Édmont 1902-10. Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Champion, 9 vol., supplément 1920.
based on fieldwork 1897-1900, 639 points of inquiry.
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
•prediction in a dialectal system T alone and T in a TR cluster behave alike in every given system (dialect)
•examination of labials in intervocalic position
•dentals are inconclusive for independent reasons (desolidarisation, see next slide), velars are blurred by palatalisations.
•hence for each obstruent and each position, the isoglosses of T alone and T in a TR cluster are identical.
==> not exactly a trivial or intuitive prediction==> a prediction about 639 systems at the same time
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
•goal: comparison of -P- with -PR- -B- with -BR-
•variation and its interpretation: only actual branching onsets (solidary TR groups) are an input for the comparison. Hence non-solidary groups are counted out:
coda vocalisation betrays desolidarisation: V.TRV > VT.RV
(grey-shaded on the maps below) example: solidary TR group: FEBREM > fièvre, TAB(U)LA > table
non-solidary TR group: FEBREM > fewre, TAB(U)LA > tole
-B-ABANTIARE > avancerABOCULUS > aveugleFABA > fèveHIBERNU > hiver
-BR- (primary)FEBREM > fièvre
-B’R- (secondary)BIB(E)RE > boireSCRIB(E)RE > écrire
-BL- (primary)OBLITARE > oublier
-B’L- (secondary)SAB(U)LU > sableDIAB(U)LU > diableSTAB(U)LA > étable
syntheses
lexical basis ALF level 0
B’L 0
BL 0
B’R 0
BR 0
B 0
level 1
BR 1
BL 1
B 1
level 2
BR 2
B 2
?
-B- vs. -BR-
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
-P-CREPANT > crèventNEPOTE > neveu*ARRIPARE > arriverTROPARE > trouverLUPA > louveSAPONE > savonSAPA > sève
-PR- (primary)APRILE > avril
-P’R- (secondary)PIP(E)R > poivreLEP(O)RE > lièvreOP(E)RARIU > ouvrier
-PL- (primary)DUPLU > double
-P’L- (secondary)CAP(U)LU > câble
syntheses
lexical basis ALF level 0
P’L 0
PL 0
P’R 0
PR 0
P 0
level 1
PR 1
PL 1
P 1
level 2
PR 2
P 2
?
-P- vs. -PR-
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
-P- aloneintervocalic
-P-in an intervocalic TR group
superposition:intervocalic -P- alone and in a group
poitevin
Croissant
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
Croissant
•-P- alone spirantizes (-P- > -v-), but remains a stop in -PR- (> -br-).
•8 points of inquiry (503‑5, 600, 601, 800, 802, 803)•well-known zone of transition (Croissant).
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
poitevin
•opposite pattern: P in PR spirantizes (> vr), but lexical variation is observed for isolated P (> b, v) (which however always voices)
•24 points of inquiry (429, 448, 459, 479, 509-13, 515, 517, 518, 521, 525, 527-29, 533, 535, 536, 540, 621, 630, 632)•since ‑PR‑ always spirantizes, a fricative output is also expected for ‑P‑.
•lexical basis ALF: 7 words•unexpected non-spirantization concerns only two words •two contravening words: LOPA > loube, SAPONE > sabon•LOPA: contravening in 19 out of 24 points, SAPONE in 17 out of 24. The five other words are well-behaved in all 24 points.
==> lexical inconsistency points to contact, rather than to regular evolution.
-B-alone intervocalic
-B-in an intervocalic TR group
superposition:intervocalic -B- alone and in a group
provençal
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
provençal
- there are no *vl, *vr at all - hence -BL-, -BR- could not produce *vr, *vl (cf. *vl in oïl)
thank you for your attention
References 1
Bourciez, Edouard & J. Bourciez 1967. Phonétique française. 9e édition Paris:
Klincksieck.Brun-Trigaud, Guylaine & Tobias Scheer 2010. Lenition in branching onsets in
French and in ALF dialects. Development of Language through the Lens of
Formal Linguistics, edited by Petr Karlík, 15-28. Munich: Lincom.Castellani, Arrigo 1960. Precisazioni sulla gorgia toscana. Boletin de de Filologia
19, 242-261.Giannelli, Luciano & Leonardo Savoia 1978. L'indebolimento consonantico in
Toscana (I). Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 2, 25-58.Giannelli, Luciano & Leonardo Savoia 1979-80. L'indebolimento consonantico in
Toscana (II). Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 3-4, 39-101.Lowenstamm, Jean 1996. CV as the only syllable type. Current trends in
Phonology. Models and Methods, edited by Jacques Durand & Bernard
Laks, 419-441. Salford, Manchester: ESRI.Marotta, Giovanna 2000-01. Non solo spiranti. La gorgia toscana nel parlato di
Pisa. L'Italia Dialettale 62, 27-60.McCone, Kim 1996. Towards a relative chronology of ancient and medieval celtic
sound change. Maynooth: St. Patrick's College.Rizzi, Luigi 1990. Relativized Minimality. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 16.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
References 2
Scheer, Tobias 2004. A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol.1: What is CVCV, and
why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer 2001. La Coda-Miroir. Bulletin de la Société
de Linguistique de Paris 96, 107-152.Ségéral, Philippe & Tobias Scheer 2008. The Coda Mirror, stress and positional
parameters. Lenition and Fortition, edited by Joaquim Brandão de Carvalho,
Tobias Scheer & Philippe Ségéral, 483-518. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
Dentalsoïl oc
-T- ø d
-TR- ør jr
-D- ø d,z
-DR- ør ør
desolidarisation j is the regular result of k,g in coda
postion: aqua > oc aigue agnellus > oïl agneau
desolidarisation ?
desolidarisation zero is the regular result of -D- in coda position: MOD(U)LU > oïl moule > oc mole ADLUMINARE > oïl, oc allumer RAD(I)CINA > oïl racine > oc racina
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)
test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)