1 / 43

Lenition of Branching Onsets: Celtic, Gorgia Toscana, Gallo-Romance Evidence from ALF

This study examines the phenomenon of lenition in branching onsets in Celtic, Gorgia Toscana, and Gallo-Romance dialects using evidence from the ALF. The authors analyze the Strong Position in Phonology and the concepts of Government and Licensing. They also discuss the Locality in Syntax and the concept of Relativized Minimality. The study presents predictions about local branching onsets and tests them in different languages.

paulhill
Download Presentation

Lenition of Branching Onsets: Celtic, Gorgia Toscana, Gallo-Romance Evidence from ALF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Going Romance 24 Leiden, 9-11 December 2010 Lenition of branching Onsets: Celtic, Gorgia Toscana, Gallo-Romance (dialectal evidence from the ALF) Tobias Scheer & Guylaine Brun-Trigaud Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis, UMR 6039

  2. 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

  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 __ • Government • 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 = ungoverned but licensed • Coda = __{#,C} = __ ø = weak A = ungoverned and unlicensed • intervocalic = V__V = V__V = weak B = governed and licensed

  6. Gvt branching onset Lic <== IG branching onsets in CVCV • worse than making a wrong prediction: making NO prediction at all • 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 liquid R: licensed, but ungoverned ==> strong position  • the obstruent T: target of neither Gvt nor Lic ==> ??

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. branching onset Lic A M P L U S <== IG Locality in Syntax • 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 

  10. The trouble: summary  • no prediction made • 2. violation of locality 

  11. Gvt branching onset Gvt Lic <== IG The cure: making branching onsets local instead of having a non-local government relation • the intervening nucleus is the source of government • 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 phonetics • before: only nuclei with phonetic content can govern • now: a nucleus can govern iff it is not governed itself

  12. Gvt TR in Strong Position TR in intervocalic positon Gvt Lic Lic <== <== local branching onsets: predictions • 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)

  13. local branching onsets: predictions • 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 in other words: given a branching onset TR, T behaves like if R were not there

  14. 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 • (Atlas Linguistique de la France)

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

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

  20. test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF) ALF Atlas Linguistique de la France Gilléron, 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.

  21. 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) • 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 • examination of labials in intervocalic position • dentals are inconclusive for independent reasons (desolidarisation, see next slide), velars are blurred by palatalisations.

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. ? 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

  25. -P- alone intervocalic

  26. -P- in an intervocalic TR group

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

  28. 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).

  29. 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.

  30. -B- alone intervocalic

  31. -B- in an intervocalic TR group

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

  33. 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)

  34. thank you for your attention

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Related