Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World
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.