Lenition of branching Onsets: Celtic, Gorgia Toscana, Gallo-Romance 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

The Strong Position in Phonology (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

The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing analysis in CVCV (Lowenstamm 1996, Scheer 2004) initial consonant #__ post-Coda consonant C.__ C V - … | R T Gvt the initial CV = # represents the morphological information « beginning of the word » # relevant consonants: the word-initial consonant the consonant that occurs after a coda Lic 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 Government inhibits the segmental expression of its target empty nuclei must be governed Licensing promotes the segmental expression of its target

The Coda Mirror: Government & Licensing intervocalic position V__V C V | Gvt Lic 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 internal coda __.C final coda __# … V C ... V # | R T Lic Gvt R U P T A L U P (U)

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

branching onsets in CVCV worse than making a wrong prediction: making NO prediction at all what a branching Onset looks like (after a consonant) Gvt Lic branching onset <== IG C V | T R 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 ==> ?? 

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 ? head John could have come argument head  Havei John could __i come ? head * John could have come argument head

 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. Lic branching onset <== IG A M P L U S C V | T R Gvt 

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

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) Lic branching onset <== IG C V | T R Gvt Gvt 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

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) TR in Strong Position <== TR in intervocalic positon <== C V | T R Gvt Gvt C V | T R Lic Lic

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

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)

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

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

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

v p p v b b p p v b b v 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 #__ Coda__ V__V pr pl pruna prune plenu plein comprend(e)re comprendre purp(u)ra pourpre amplus ample *temp(u)la temple capra chèvre pip(e)re poivre duplu double cap(u)lu afr chable br bl brachiu bras *blastimare blâmer umbra ombre arb(o)re arbre germ *blād afr emblaver umb(i)licus afr umblil labra lèvre rob(o)re rouvre — fab(u)la fable v p p v b b simplex Labials #__ Coda__ V__V p porta porte talpa taupe ripa rive b bene bien herba herbe faba fève p p v b b v

t t d d ø ø t t ø d d ø test case 3: French dentals in TR groups #__ Coda__ V__V tr tres trois tractare traiter capistru chevêtre alt(e)ru autre petra pierre it(e)rare errer dr drappu drap *dras(i)c drêche — perd(e)re perdre quadratu carré rid(e)re rire t t ø d d ø simplex dentals #__ Coda__ V__V t tela toile cantare chanter vita vie d dente dent ardore ardeur coda queue t t ø d d ø

test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (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.

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.

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

test case 4: Gallo-Romance dialects (ALF) -B- vs. -BR- 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- 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 ?

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

-P- alone intervocalic

-P- in an intervocalic TR group

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

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

intervocalic -B- alone and in a 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) Dentals oïl oc -T- ø d -TR- ør jr -D- d,z -DR- 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)