Tobias Scheer & Guylaine Brun-Trigaud Université de Nice, UMR 6039

1. Early European Languages in the Eyes of Modern Linguistics Brno, 28 September – 1 October, 2008 Lenition of Latin branching Onsets in Gallo-Romance (French, Occitan, Franco-Provençal) Tobias Scheer & Guylaine Brun-Trigaud Université de Nice, UMR 6039

2. The Strong Position in Phonology • the Strong Position • (in Romance and elsewhere, Ségéral & Scheer 2001) • - {#,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

3. Gvt Gvt Lic Lic • relevant consonants: • the word-initial consonant • the consonant that occurs after a coda the initial CV = # represents the morphological information « beginning of the word » The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing • analysis in CVCV (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004) # P O RTA T A L P A • consonants in Strong Position are • licensed • but ungoverned consonants in Strong Position occur after an empty nucleus ø __ • Gouvernement • inhibits the segmental expression of its target • empty nuclei must be governed • Licensing • promotes the segmental expression of its target

4. Gvt Gvt Gvt Lic Lic Lic The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing • 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 F A B A R U P T A L U P (U)

5. The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing • summary • Strong Position = {#,C}__ = ø__ = strength = -governed, +licensed • Coda = __{#,C} = __ ø = weak A = -governed, -licensed • intervocalic = V__V = V__V = weak B = +governed, +licensed

6. 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

7. Couldi John __i have come ? Havei John could __i come ? head head head head head head argument argument * Locality in Syntax • three major classes of items in syntax: • - verbs (heads) • - arguments (A position) • - quantifiers (A’ position) ☺ John could have come  John could have come

8. branching onset Lic A M P L U S <== GI branching onsets • 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

9. Gvt branching onset Gvt Lic <== GI branching onsets • making branching onsets local instead of having a non-local government relation • the intervening nucleus could be the source of government

10. Gvt TR in Strong Position TR in intervocalic positon Gvt Lic Lic <== <== branching onsets • when the TR is preceded by an empty nucleus (Strong Position), the T will also be in Strong Position (licensed but ungoverned) • in case the TR is in intervocalic position, the T will also be in intervocalic position (licensed and governed)

11. Gvt Gvt TR in intervocalic positon Lic Lic <== branching onsets F A B A

12. branching onsets • hence the following predictions: • 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 in other words: given a branching onset TR, T behaves like if R were not there

13. testing the prediction • typologically speaking, branching onsets are rare • even rarer are languages that allow to test the reaction of TRs on lenition • ==> the empirical situation is largely unexplored • we examine 4 cases: • - Celtic (in its prehistory) • - Gorgia Toscana • - French diachrony • - Gallo-Romance dialects as witnessed by the ALF

14. 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 • V__V • IE Proto-Celtic Old Irish glose • b kladibos *klaivos klaiəv épée • d kladibos *klaivos klaiəv épée • g tegos *teɣos tieɣ maison • 2. V__RV • b dubro- *duvro- dovər eau • d widwa: *wiwa: fiev veuve • g wegros *weɣros fe:r herbe • 3. but resistance in Strong Position {#,C}__ and in gemination • N__ *windos fiind blanc • #__, gém *buggos bog mou

15. test case 1: Celtic • stage 2: as stage 1, but now also across word boundaries • stage 3: t,k > ,  / V__V and V__RV (there is no p) • V__V • Insular Celtic Proto-Irish Old Irish glose • t *ehja teɣah *eja eɣa ə ieɣ sa maison • k *inda: kloka: *inda: loa: iŋ lo la pierre • 2. V__RV • t *bre:tra: *bre:rə briiaər mot • k *dakra *dærə die:r larme • 3. but resistance in Strong Position {#,C}__ and in gemination • R__ *eisko- *eisk iask poisson • gém *makwkwos *makwkwah mak garçon

16. test case 2: Gorgia Toscana Castellani (1960), Giannelli & Savoia (1978, 1979), Marotta (2000-01) p,b,t,d,k,g > ɸ,β,θ,,x/h/ø,ɣ / V__(R)V • V__V • Stand. It. Tuscan glose • p apɛrto aɸɛrto ouvert • t laato laaθo côté • k bruuko bruuxo, bruuho, bruuo worm • 2. V__RV • p la piega la ɸjɛɛɣa le pli • t liitro liiθro litre • k la krɛɛma la xɾɛɛma, la hrɛɛma la crème • 3. but resistance in Strong Position {#,C}__ and in gemination • R__ pɔrta pɔrta porte • #__ pjɛɛde pjɛɛe pied • gém. gatto gatto chat MAIS: *la øɾɛɛma

17. v v p b p b p p v v b b test case 3: French • only labials and dentals are examined – the situation of velars is complicated by palatalizations (Bourciez 1967 etc.) • labials in TR groups • simplex Labials

18. t t ø ø d d t t ø ø d d test case 3: French • dentals in TR groups • simplex dentals

19. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF) • prediction in a dialectal system • T alone and in a group behave alike in every given system (dialect) • hence • for each obstruent, the isoglosses of T alone and in a group are identical • examination of labials in intervocalic position • dentals are inconclusive, cf. below.

20. 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

21. level 0 level 1 level 2 B 0 B 1 B 2 ? BR 0 BR 1 B’R 0 BR 2 BL 0 BL 1 B’L 0 test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF) -B- vs. -BR- syntheses lexical basis ALF -B- ABANTIARE > avancer ABOCULUS > aveugle FABA > fève HIBERNU > hiver -BR- (primary) FEBREM > fièvre -B’R- (secondary) BIB(E)RE > boire SCRIB(E)RE > écrire -BL- (primary) OBLITARE > oublier -B’L- (secondary) SAB(U)LU > sable DIAB(U)LU > diable STAB(U)LA > étable

22. ? test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF) -P- vs. -PR- syntheses lexical basis ALF level 0 level 1 level 2 -P- CREPANT > crèvent NEPOTE > neveu *ARRIPARE > arriver TROPARE > trouver LUPA > louve SAPONE > savon SAPA > sève -PR- (primary) APRILE > avril -P’R- (secondary) PIP(E)R > poivre LEP(O)RE > lièvre OP(E)RARIU > ouvrier -PL- (primary) DUPLU > double -P’L- (secondary) CAP(U)LU > câble P 0 P 1 P 2 PR 0 PR 1 P’R 0 PR 2 PL 0 PL 1 P’L 0

23. -P- alone intervocalic

24. -P- in an intervocalic TR group

25. poitevin superposition: intervocalic -P- alone and in a group

26. -B- alone intervocalic

27. -B- in an intervocalic TR group

28. provençal superposition: intervocalic -B- alone and in a group

29. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF) provençal - there is no *vl, *vr at all - hence -BL-, -BR- could not produce *vr, *vl (cf. *vl in oïl)

30. 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 desolidarisation ? test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF) Dentals • desolidarisation j is the regular result of k,g in coda postion: aqua > oc aigue agnellus > oïl agneau

31. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)

32. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)

33. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)

34. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)

35. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)

36. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF)

37. References Bourciez, Edouard & J. Bourciez 1967. Phonétique française. 9e édition Paris: Klincksieck. 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. 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.