Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:27:41.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Largonji des Loucherbems: An Optimality-Theoretic analysis of a 19th century French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2018

Avery Ozburn  and
Murray Schellenberg
Avery Ozburn*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Murray Schellenberg
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides a novel Optimality Theoretic analysis of the 19th century French secret language Largonji. While Largonji is a reversal game, we show that it is a type not previously described, in which the first onset that is not an /l/ reverses, even if it is not at an edge. Thus, traditional approaches to reversal games, such as cross-anchoring, do not work for Largonji. However, our account does not require direct reference to onsets. Instead, it is based on preservation of moraic structure, combined with alignment of a Largonji-specific prefix. Though suprasegmental faithfulness has been noted previously in language games, the present account implements it in Optimality Theory for the first time. Further, in analyzing the Largonji affix as a prefix that is sometimes realized as an infix, we suggest that Largonji provides additional evidence that language games can reflect cross-linguistic patterns not present in the base language.

Résumé

Cet article propose une nouvelle analyse d'un langage secret français du 19e siècle, le largonji. Bien que le largonji soit un jeu d'inversion, nous démontrons qu'il s'agit d'un type de jeu qui n'a pas été décrit auparavant, dans lequel la première attaque qui n′est pas un /l/ sera inversée, même si ce n'est pas au bord du mot. Ainsi, les analyses traditionnelles pour les jeux d′inversion, comme le « cross-anchoring », ne fonctionnent pas pour le largonji. Cependant, notre analyse n′a pas besoin de faire une référence directe aux attaques; elle se fonde, plutôt, sur la préservation de la structure moraïque, en combinaison avec l′alignement d′un préfixe spécifique au largonji. Bien que la fidélité suprasegmentale avait déjà été signalée dans les langages secrets, notre analyse l'applique pour la première fois dans la théorie d′optimalité. De plus, en analysant l′affixe du largonji comme un préfixe (parfois réalisé comme infixe), nous suggérons que le largonji apporte de nouveaux éléments de preuve que les jeux de mots peuvent refléter des mécanismes linguistiques qui sont absents de la langue de base.

Keywords

secret languageLargonjiOptimality Theorymoraic structureonsetslangage secretLargonjithéorie de l′optimalitéstructure moraiqueattaques
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 509 - 537
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to acknowledge Douglas Pulleyblank and the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions; any errors are our own.

References

Alderete, John D. 2001. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 18(2): 201–253.Google Scholar
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1989. Alternate phonologies and morphologies. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1995. Language games and related areas. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John, 697–712. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barlow, Jessica A. 2001. Individual differences in the production of initial consonant sequences in Pig Latin. Lingua 111(9): 667–696.Google Scholar
Black, David A. 1994. New Testament textual criticism: A concise guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni. 2010. Language disguise in OT: Reversing and truncating. In Indigenous language and social identity: Papers in honour of Michael Walsh, ed. Baker, Brett Joseph, Gardner, Rod, Harvey, Mark, and Mushin, Ilana, 367–385. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni, and Avery, Peter. 2009. Dhochi: A Dholuo language game. Australian journal of linguistics 29(2): 169–194.Google Scholar
Bullock, Barbara E. 1996. Popular derivation and linguistic inquiry: Les javanais. The French review 70(2): 180–191.Google Scholar
Bullock, Barbara E. 2002. Constraining the vagaries of glide distribution in varieties of French. In Romance phonology and variation: Selected papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. Wiltshire, Caroline R. and Camps, Joaquim, 11–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clements, George N., and Keyser, Samuel J.. 1983. CV phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2000. Consonant cluster phonotactics: A perceptual approach. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène, and Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart. 2007. The nature of the schwa/zero alternation in French clitics: Experimental and non-experimental evidence. Journal of French Language Studies 17(2): 159–186.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart, and Hammond, Michael. 1995. On the status of onglides in American English. Phonology 12(2): 159–182.Google Scholar
De Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1995. Consonant clusters and phonological syllables in French. Lingua 95(1-3): 5–26.Google Scholar
Dufresne, Monique, Dupuis, Fernande, and Tremblay, Mireille. 2003. Preverbs and particles in Old French. In Yearbook of Morphology 2003: 33–60. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Gess, Randall, Lyche, Chantal, and Meisenburg, Trudel, eds. 2012. Phonological variation in French: Illustrations from three continents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 1996. How to speak backwards in Tagalog. In Pan-Asiatic linguistics, Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Language and Linguistics, Institute of language and culture for rural development, Mahidol University at Salaya (Vol. 1), 297–306. Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University.Google Scholar
Harrikari, Heli. 1999. A Constraint-based approach to Finnish CV spoonerisms. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22: 111–136.Google Scholar
Hartkemeyer, Dale. 2000. An approach to atonic vowel loss patterns in two Early W. Romance grammars: A contrastive examination of Old French and Old Spanish. In New approaches to old problems: Issues in Romance historical linguistics. Selected papers from the LSRL XXIX Parasession, ed. Dworkin, Steven N. and Wanner, Dieter, 65–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2): 253–306. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178626>>Google Scholar
Hombert, Jean-Marie. 1973. Speaking backwards in Bakwiri. Studies in African linguistics 4(3): 227–236.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Orhan Orgun, C., and Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Exceptions and static phonological patterns: Cophonologies vs. prespecification. Ms: UC Berkeley and University of Iowa. <http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/124-0496/124-0496-INKELAS-0-0.PDF>>Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Kitagawa, Yoshihisa, and Mester, Armin. 1996. Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: Evidence from a Japanese argot. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5(3): 217–294.Google Scholar
Kallel, Raoudha. 1999. La créativité lexicale dans la langue de la médecine [Lexical creativity in the language of medicine]. Initial(e)s 18: 106–127.Google Scholar
Klein, Thomas B. 2005. Infixation and segmental constraint effects: UM and IN in Tagalog, Chamorro, and Toba Batak. Lingua 115(7):959–995.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The phonology of morpheme realization. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Larchey, Lorédan. 1883. Supplément aux neuvième et dixième éditions du dictionnaire d'argot avec une introduction substantielle et un répertoire spécial du largonji [Supplement to the ninth and tenth editions of the argot dictionary with a substantial introduction and a special inventory of Largonji]. Paris: E. Dentu.Google Scholar
Larchey, Lorédan. 1889. Nouveau supplément du dictionnaire d'argot avec le vocabulaire des chauffeurs de l'An VIII et le répertoire du largonji. [New supplement of the argot dictionary with the vocabulary of the drivers of the year VIII and the Largonji inventory] Paris: E. Dentu.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Lyche, Chantal. 1993. Quelques remarques sur le groupe OL en français [Some remarks on the OL group in French]. Revue romane 28(2): 195–217.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum-Reiner, Françoise. 1991. Secrets de bouchers et largonji actuel des louchébèm [Butchers’ secrets and present-day largonji of the louchébèm]. Langage et société 56(1): 21–49.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1982. Prosodic templates, morphemic templates, and morphemic tiers. In The structure of phonological representations I, ed. van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval, 191–223. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1985. Speech disguise and phonological representation in Amharic. In Advances in non-linear phonology: Results of the Amsterdam workshop on non-linear phonology, ed. van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval, 305–312. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology 1993, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 79–153. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in Optimality Theory: University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics, vol. 18, ed. Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Noske, Roland. 1982. Syllabification and syllable changing rules in French. In The structure of phonological representations II, ed. van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval, 257–310. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In The prosody-morphology interface ed. Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry, and Zonneveld, Wim, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plénat, Marc. 1985. Morphologie du Largonji des Loucherbems. [Morphology of Largonji of the Loucherbems.] Langages 78: 73–122.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Alvin. 1982. The cat's elbow and other secret languages. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Scullen, Mary Ellen. 1993. The prosodic morphology of French. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Scullen, Mary Ellen. 1996. French syllable structure: Reconsidering the status of the onset. In Grammatical theory and Romance Languages: Selected papers from the 25th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. Zagona, Karen, 229–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shaw, Jason. 2008. Compensatory lengthening via mora preservation in OT-CC: Theory and predictions. In Proceedings of NELS 38, ed. Schardl, Anisa, Walkow, Martin, and Abdurrahman, Muhammad. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1982. Play languages: With a note on ritual languages. In Exceptional language and linguistics, ed. Obler, Loraine and Menn, Lise, 175–199. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1987. The sounds of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1999. Optional schwa deletion: On syllable economy in French. In Formal perspectives on Romance Linguistics, ed. Authier, J.-Marc, Bullock, Barbara E. and Reed, Lisa A., 271–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2011. Language games. In The handbook of phonological theory, Second edition, ed. Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan C. L., 722–750. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Weinberger, Steven H., and Lefkowitz, Nathalie. 1992. Uncovering French syllable structure with Verlan. In Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics, ed. Laeufer, Christiane and Morgan, Terrell A., 37–54. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1982. Reduplication and C-V skeleta in Chinese secret languages. Linguistic Inquiry 13(4): 637–661.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Johannes C., Jacobs, Arthur M., and Stone, Gregory O.. 1996. Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 28(4): 504–515.Google Scholar