09.07.2015 Views

Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Underly<strong>in</strong>g (derived from ON) /pp, tt, kk/ should surface respectively [pː, tː, kː]. That's<strong>in</strong>deed what we can observe <strong>in</strong> Swedish and Bokmål, <strong>in</strong> (3). In Danish however, we can seethat voiced stops, [b, d, g] are produced. We posit simple consonants <strong>in</strong> underly<strong>in</strong>grepresentations and not gem<strong>in</strong>ates. O<strong>the</strong>rwise we can't justify why a consonant <strong>in</strong> a protectedenvironment (Lass 1984 : 182) undergoes lenition and why it's phonetically short.Dur<strong>in</strong>g a previous field study we recorded native speakers of Danish, Swedish andNorwegian (Bokmål) for read<strong>in</strong>g and conversation tasks. Some unexpected data showed upwith <strong>the</strong> Danish speaker, <strong>the</strong>y are presented <strong>in</strong> (4):(4). Danish (ikke) /ikə/ [ikə] not (lappe) /lapə/ [lapə] patch <strong>in</strong>f. (fatte) /fætə/ [fætə] catch <strong>in</strong>f.(klokken) /klogən/ [klokn̩] clockWhere Danish speaker was expected to produce voiced segments (<strong>in</strong>tervocally), sheproduced [p, t, k] <strong>in</strong>stead. This backs our proposal of underly<strong>in</strong>g s<strong>in</strong>gle voiceless stop: voic<strong>in</strong>gwould <strong>the</strong>n not be obligatory and <strong>the</strong> underly<strong>in</strong>g segment surfaces without any change.Follow<strong>in</strong>g Lass (1984) and his proposal expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sound change, we assume that <strong>the</strong>synchronic treatment of gem<strong>in</strong>ates <strong>in</strong> nordic languages allows us to reconstruct a sequence ofa developmental type from ON to today. We already mentioned that <strong>the</strong> jump from /pp/ to [b]without <strong>in</strong>termediate stage would be hard to justify. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this and to Lass' hierarchyof segments <strong>in</strong> terms of phonological strength (1984 : 178) we assume <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g sequence(we illustrate it with labial voiceless stops):(5). pp > p > bIn (5) [p] would be what Lass calls a miss<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>k (1984 : 337), i.e. a stage we can reasonablyposit but for which we don't have diachronic data. If <strong>the</strong> literature never mentions [p] as <strong>the</strong>production of /pp/ for any nordic languages, we showed <strong>in</strong> (3) that it is however a possiblestage. Lass (1984) proposed that check<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> outputs of speakers could be a way to borneout assumptions about miss<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>ks, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> movement across <strong>the</strong> hierarchy a speaker cancontrol may be taken as a "possible sound change" (Lass 1984 : 333).Assum<strong>in</strong>g that [p] is <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>the</strong> miss<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>k leads to two implications: ei<strong>the</strong>r speakershave access to <strong>the</strong> diachronic sequence, or <strong>the</strong> change is still <strong>in</strong> progress. Ano<strong>the</strong>r, maybemore conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>g, solution would be <strong>the</strong> one proposed <strong>in</strong> Nev<strong>in</strong>s & Vaux (2006): speakersunderly<strong>in</strong>g representations may be <strong>in</strong>fluenced by <strong>the</strong>ir knowledges of alternations andorthography. The datas <strong>in</strong> (4) are extracted from our read<strong>in</strong>g task: <strong>the</strong> speaker had <strong>the</strong> words<strong>in</strong> front of her and she may have produced [p,t,k] because of <strong>the</strong> orthographic (double) p, t, k.We explore here <strong>the</strong> possibility of reconstruct<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> diachrony with <strong>the</strong> help of <strong>the</strong>synchrony, consider<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> expected forms but also <strong>the</strong> particular or unexpected productionsmade by <strong>the</strong> speakers. In this way we should be able to f<strong>in</strong>d out <strong>the</strong> miss<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>ks between twoobservable stages, like we did <strong>in</strong> (5). We will also show how preaspiration fits <strong>in</strong> this scenario.In return, diachrony, and more particularly miss<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>ks, allows us to expla<strong>in</strong>s and to justify<strong>the</strong> underly<strong>in</strong>g representations we posit (here for Danish former "gem<strong>in</strong>ates").ANDERSSON E. (2002). "Swedish", <strong>in</strong> EKKEHARD K. & VAN DER AUWERA J., The Germanic Languages.Routledge, Londres - New York : 271-312. / ÁRNASON K. (2011). The Phonology of Icelandic andFaroese. Oxford University Press, New-York. / BASBØLL H. (2005). Phonology of Danish. OxfordUniversity Press, New-York. / DRESHER B. E. (2009). The Contrastive Hierarchy <strong>in</strong> Phonology.Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. / HALL D. (2007). The role and Representation of Contrast <strong>in</strong>Phonological Theory. PhD Thesis, University Toronto. / HAYES B. (1986). "Inalterability <strong>in</strong> CVPhonology", <strong>in</strong> Language, Vol. 62, num. 2 : 321 – 351. / KRISTOFFERSEN G. (2000). The Phonology ofNorwegian. Oxford University Press, New York. /LASS R. (1984). Phonology. An Introduction to basicConcepts. Cambridge University Press. / NEVINS A & VAUX B. (2006). Underly<strong>in</strong>g Representations thatdo not M<strong>in</strong>imize Grammatical " Violations ". Ms.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!