Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:11:21.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Government-Licensing and Consonant Cluster Simplification in Quebec French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Emmanuel Nikièma
Emmanuel Nikièma*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a reanalysis of cluster simplification in Quebec French (QF) in terms of government-licensing, a condition which requires non-nuclear governing heads to be licensed by a following vowel. It is suggested, contra Côté (1997, 1998), that simplification is triggered by a structural constraint rather than a constraint on sonority. It is shown that in QF, simplification does not apply to word internal clusters such as appartement and vendredi because the following vowel is realized, but applies to forms like table and casque, and converts them into [tab] and [kas] respectively at the surface level due to the lack of a final vowel. However, cluster reduction does not apply to final clusters such as barbe, gorge, and solde in which the first member is a liquid. To account for why simplification applies in one case and not in the other, it is suggested that the two types of final clusters differ with respect to syllabification: liquids are within branching nuclei, whereas the first member of other clusters is within a branching rhyme. The case of word-final cluster simplification attested in Haitian Creole is also examined.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article est une réanalyse de la réduction des groupes consonantiques en finale de mot en français québécois. Les formes comme table et casque se réduisent respectivement en [tab] et [kas] en forme de surface, alors que celles comme appartement, garderie et vendredi ne subissent pas la réduction. Contrairement à Côté (1997, 1998) qui rend compte de la simplification en termes de contrainte d’adjacence sur le degré de sonorité des consonnes, il est montré, sur la base des faits du tangalé où le même phénomène est attesté en position médiane, que le problème est de nature structurale. Nous expliquons la réduction par la G-légitimation (government-licensing), une condition qui requiert qu’en québécois, tout comme en haïtien, les consonnes impliquées dans une relation de gouvernement soient légitimées par une voyelle. Toutefois, les mots du type barbe, gorge et solde ne sont pas soumis à la simplification. Pour expliquer cette différence de comportement, il est proposé que les liquides sont dans le noyau et non pas en position rimale (coda).

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 327 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1999

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.)

References

Anderson, J., and Ewen, C.. 1986. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, J., and Jones, C.. 1973. Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1982. The analysis of French schwa: Or, how to get something from nothing. Language 58:534–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, Peter. 1996. The representation of voicing contrasts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik. 1990. License to govern. Phonology 7:233–253.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1986. Compensatory lengthening and consonant gemination in LuGanda. In Studies in Compensatory Lengthening, ed. Wetzels, Leo and Sezer, Engin, 37–78. Foris: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, ed. Kingston, John and Beekman, Mary, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 1997. Phonetic Salience and Consonant Cluster Simplification. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: PF: Papers at the interface, ed. Bruening, B.; Kang, Y. and McGinnis, M., 229–262.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 1998. Saillance phonétique et contraste dans la réduction des groupes consonantiques: le cas du français québécois. In Langues et Grammaire II-III: Phonologie, ed. Sauzet, Patrick. Paris: CNRS/Université de Paris 8.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1980. Generative phonology and French phonology. Translated from French by Cullen, Catherine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1995. Consonant clusters and Phonological Syllables in French. Lingua 5:5–26.Google Scholar
Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1991. On schwa in Quebecois. In Proceedings of the 1991 Annual meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Wilson, Tom, 65–76. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Dumas, Denis. 1986. Structure de la diphtongaison québécoise. Revue canadienne de de linguistique 26:1–61.Google Scholar
Dumas, Denis. 1987. Nos façons de parler. Sillery: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques. 1986. Generative and non-linear phonology. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. The sound structure of English. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. Coda licensing. Phonology 7:301–330.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1995. Derivations and interfaces. In Frontiers of Phonology, ed. Durand, Jacques and Francis, Katamba, 289–332. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7:193–231.Google Scholar
Kemp, William, Pupier, Paul, and Yaeger, Malcah. 1980. A linguistic and social description of final consonant cluster simplification in Montreal French. In Languages and the uses of language, ed. Shuy, Roger and Shnukal, Anna, 12–40. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Khan, Farhat. 1991. Final consonant cluster simplification in a variety of Indian English. In English around the World: Sociolinguistics perspectives, ed. Cheshire, Jenny, 288–298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kidda, Mairo. 1986. Tangale phonology and morphology: A descriptive analysis. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2:85–138.Google Scholar
Léon, Pierre. 1992. Prononciation du français standard. 2nd ed. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 1989. On the form of segment deletion and insertion rules. Probus 1:31–61.Google Scholar
Nikièma, Emmanuel. 1989. Gouvernement propre et licenciement en phonologie: le cas du tangalé. In Langue orientales anciennes, philologie et linguistique, vol. 2, 95–123. Louvain-Paris: Peteers.Google Scholar
Nikièma, Emmanuel. 1990. Governing segments, constituency and syllabification. Paper presented at the 1990 GLOW colloquium, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Nikièma, Emmanuel. 1992. De la légitimation des représentations en phonologie: le palier syllabique. Doctoral dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Nikièma, Emmanuel. 1999. De la variation du déterminant /la/ dans les créoles haïtien et st-lucien. Lingua 107:69–93.Google Scholar
Nikièma, Emmanuel, and Bhatt, Parth. To appear. Word-final consonant clusters in Haitian Creole. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Linguistics.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne. 1991. Apocope and the licensing of empty-headed syllables. The Linguistic Review 8:287–318.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne. 1999. At the right edge of words. The Linguistic Review 16.Google Scholar
Pupier, Paul, and Drapeau, Lynn. 1973. La réduction des groupes de consonnes finales en français de Montréal. Cahier de Linguistique 3:127–145.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1992. On deriving sonority: A structural account of sonority relationships. Phonology 9:61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The syllable. In The structure of phonological representations (Part 2), ed. van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval, 337–383. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1995. French final consonants and non-linear phonology. Lingua 95:131–167.Google Scholar
Valdman, Albert. 1978. Le créole: statut et origine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Walker, Douglas. 1984. The pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Wells, R.S. 1947. Immediate constituency. Language 23:81–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Shohei. 1993. Licensing of empty nuclei: The case of Palestinian vowel harmony. The Linguistic Review 10:127–159.Google Scholar
Zee, Draga. 1988. Bulgarian -epenthesis: A case for moraic structure. Conference Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 18:553–566.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21:1–29.Google Scholar