Tobias Scheer &Guylaine Brun-Trigaud

Université de Nice, UMR 6039

Lenition of Latin branching Onsets in Gallo-Romance

(French, Occitan, Franco-Provençal)

Early European Languages in the Eyes of Modern Linguistics

Brno, 28 September – 1 October, 2008

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

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

Gouvernement

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 = -governed, +licensed

Coda = __{#,C} = __ ø = weak A = -governed, -licensed

intervocalic = V__V = V__V= weak B = +governed,+licensed

The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing

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

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

Lic

branching onset

<==

GI

A M P L U S

C V C V C V

| | | |

C T R V

•making branching onsets local

Gvt

Lic

branching onset

<==

GI

•the intervening nucleus could be the source of government

Gvt

instead of having a non-local government relation

branching onsets

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

branching onsets

intervocalic position V__V

C V C V

| | |

V C V

Gvt

Lic

F A B A

branching onsets

C V C V C V

| | | | |

C V T R V

TR in intervocalic positon

<==

Lic

Gvt

in other words:

given a branching onset TR, T behaves like if R were not there

•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

branching onsets

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

•==> 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

MAIS: *la øɾɛɛma

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)

•prediction in a dialectal system T alone and in a group behave alike in every given system (dialect)

•examination of labials in intervocalic position

•dentals are inconclusive, cf. below.

•hence for each obstruent, the isoglosses of T alone and in a group are identical

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

-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 is no *vl, *vr at all - hence -BL-, -BR- could not produce *vr, *vl (cf. *vl in oïl)

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)

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.