1. Cette étude a pour but d’analyser le statut catégoriel et la structure interne de petites propositions adjointes que la grammaire traditionnelle désigne couramment sous le terme de “constructions participiales absolues”. Nous sommes d’avis, toutefois, que cette appellation est inappropriée puisqu’ elle ne permet pas d’effectuer une généralisation légitime avec des constructions identiques qui ne présentent pas de forme participiale ou même de valeur absolue. Dans le cadre de la théorie du gouvernement et du liage qui est le nôtre, nous identifions plutôt celles-ci comme des “petites propositions à valeur aspectuelle”. Il s’agit de structures copulatives sans la présence du verbe copule en surface, elles sont introduites par un adverbe aspectuel et la position prédicat peut être remplie par différents syntagmes tels que AP, PP, NP ou un VP participial:

1. 1. a. [Une fois présentable], elle a ouvert la porte

   2. b. [Aussitôt dans le couloir], il s’est mis à hurler

   3. c. [Une fois médecin], elle a été heureuse

   4. d. [Sitôt les ballons crevés], la musique a commencé

Le marqueur aspectuel (une fois, aussitôt, etc.) permet d’identifier le temps interne de l’événement, il marque l’accompli et est lié à l’aspect perfectif.

The colonization of many parts of rural Manitoba got well under way in 1870. The arrival in the south of the province of numerous settlers, most of them from France, is an event of considerable importance in the history of the development of the Canadian west. Indeed, the colonization of Manitoba by French Catholics appeared to preoccupy greatly the St. Boniface diocese. Mgr. Taché remained convinced that St. Boniface ar.d St. Norbert would.cease to thrive unless linked to other cities and towns under the patronage of the church and extending to the very limits of the Saskatchewan boundary. Colonization seemed in many ways to be synonymous with Catholic evangelism, and the booklets distributed free of charge to the new settlers upon their arrival in the province did not fail to point out to them the advantages which they could obtain by settling near an established church, the symbol of Christian fraternity on the barren expanse of the uncultivated prairie.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the term “palatal” has been used with various meanings and to redefine or establish a consistency of terminology concerning this term with respect to palatalized and central consonants. Confusion arising from the various divisions of the tongue into articulators and from the misuse of the above articulatory terms has led to incorrect phonological solutions.

The status of Russian palatalized and palatal consonants has been under discussion recently. Dunatov claims in a recent article that Russian palatal consonants cannot be palatalized and suggests three different orders of palatals to distinguish “the three articulatory sets of palatals encountered in the Slavic languages”: pre-palatal, medio-palatal, and post-palatal. However, he fails to state the distribution of them in Russian or the other Slavic languages.

The ways in which the vowel system of Vulgar Latin (VL) differs from that of Classical Latin (CL) have been well documented. These differences arise from historical innovations including:

• (1) the monophthongization of the diphthongs [oj] œ and [aj] œ to [ē] and respectively,

• (2) the lowering of the short vowels to respectively, and the consequent introduction of a new phonemic degree of vowel height for the front unrounded and back rounded vowels,

• (3) the neutralization of the phonemic CL length differences, all stressed vowels now being long whatever the length of their CL source, and all unstressed vowels being short, and

• (4) the introduction of phonemic stress, since the position of stress is no longer synchronically predictable because of the neutralization of vowel length mentioned in (3).

One of the conundrums of the historical phonology of Spanish is the seemingly intrusive -s- in the word hasta ‘until.’ Its putative etymon, the Arabic ḥattā ‘up to, until, as far as, even, in order to’ does not have this -s- and, as far as is known, has never had it. The most recent serious discussion of and accounting for this -s- that I am aware of is that presented by Malkiel (1979) in which, dismissing previous lexical and phonological attempts as inadequate, he suggests that hasta (earlier fasta) resulted from a contamination of its predecessor fata, coming unambiguously from ḥattā, with a Romance form fascas ‘nearly, almost,’ derived in part from Latin usque ‘until.’ Both fata and fascas then went out of use, and fasta (> hasta) alone remains. In spite of the wealth of documentation adduced by Malkiel, his evidence adds up to this: before roughly 1300, there was a -word fata ‘until’ and a word fascas ‘almost’; after 1300 both fell out of use, and there was a new word fasta ‘until.’ The rest is speculation.

One well-known difference between British and American English concerns the verb prevent. In both varieties, the verb is commonly found in constructions with NP from -ing, as in […] the extreme temperature of the cold tenderises the flesh and prevents it from becoming tough (NOW Corpus 2010), and in British English it is also commonly found in corresponding constructions lacking the preposition from, as in Morgan […] fastened a belt around his wrists to prevent him saving himself (NOW Corpus 2011). There are major unresolved issues relating to the two types of constructions illustrated. One question is whether the constructions involve object control or a Raising rule. One novel idea proposed is that an ACC -ing analysis should be available for the pattern without from. The British and American segments of the NOW corpus offer good sources of data, which have not been used in earlier work on prevent.

The derivational system of Sechelt (Coast Salish) includes stative formations serving a variety of functions, one of which is the indication of possession in certain constructions. A sampling of stative forms is offered here, along with observations on their derivation. The purpose of this study is to propose, on the basis of such a survey, a generalized conceptual definition of the stative aspect in Sechelt and to suggest reasons for certain restrictions in the use of statives in possessive structures.

As far as phonology and morphology are concerned, the available evidence indicates that the role of L1 in shaping interlanguage is confined to those of its rules that are needed to account for its global alternations, alternations that are independent of its morphology (cf. Cearly 1974, Dressler 1985, Kilbury 1981, Singh and Ford 1982, 1987, Singh and Martohardjono 1989, Wode 1978, and Wurzel 1977, among others). The rules needed to account for the local, morphologically dependent alternations of L1 or the ones needed to account for its word-formation processes do not play such a role. Interference, in other words, can be caused only by across-the-board phonological rules of L1. So-called morphophonemic rules of L1 do not cause it, and morphological interference from L1 seems not to exist as word-formation errors in intermorphology are the results of illegal extensions of L2 word-formation rules (cf. Singh 1989 and Singh and Martohardjono 1989). The purpose of this note is to critically examine the accounts contemporary theories of phonology provide of this state of affairs and to argue that the account provided by the sort of theory proposed in Ford and Singh (1983, 1985a, 1985b) and Singh and Ford (1982, 1987) is the most satisfactory one.

Cet article propose une analyse comparée des styles conversationnels des néerlandophones et des francophones de Belgique tels qu'ils se présentent dans déux debats télévisés comparables diffusés sur les deux chaînes de télévision publiques beiges (l'une néerlandophone, l'autre francophone). L'étude des marqueurs discursifs fonctionnant comme «ouvreurs» ainsi que I'étude de la gestion des tours de parole, et notamment des chevauchements, font apparaître un style plus pondéré pour les néerlandophones et aussi plus hésitant et plus consensuel que le style francophone, les données pour le français confirmant ainsi ce qui a déjà été observé pour le style conversationnel des locuteurs franàais (de France).

L’Objet de cette étude est une analyse comparative et critique de deux ouvrages portant sur la syntaxe structurale du français, celui de Knud Togeby Structure immanente de la langue française (SI) et celui de Lucien Tesnière Eléments de syntaxe structurale (ESS).

Nous avons essayé de dégager les principes d’analyse syntaxiques utilisés par ces deux auteurs, de marquer dans quelle mesure leur méthode et les résultats qu’ils ont obtenus sont originaux à l’égard de la grammaire traditionnelle et s’ils apportent des solutions suffisantes à tous les problèmes de la syntaxe.

I argue that syntactic structure encodes three types of asymmetries. The first corresponds to the asymmetry between mother and daughters nodes that is called dominance, that is, syntactic hierarchy. The second is the selectional asymmetry between sister nodes, which is translated into the precedence relation in the phonological component. The third, called behindance, is an alternative to dominance, and corresponds to parataxis. Parenthesis, coordination, and apposition are analyzed on the basis of behindance. In our derivational model of grammar it is defined as a special type of inclusion that blocks c-command. It follows that parenthetic material can neither move toward the matrix, nor be bound by a constituent from the matrix.

The impact of anatomical transformations on the acquisition of sounds by infants remains poorly understood. Using the Variable Linear Articulator? Model, we simulate vowel production in the course of non-uniform vocal tract growth. Production abilities related to vocal tract growth are described by simulating French vowels, generated by assuming that sensori-motor control abilities are identical in newborns and adults. Despite small vocal tract size, an infant is able to produce all the vowels of its first language. The recurrence of certain units in the babbling inventory is attributable to motor control immaturity and cognitive abilities. Simulation of articulatory fibers provides a more accurate view of the relation between articulatory strategies and acoustic targets. The results highlight differences relative to labial and lingual articulators.

The experiment reported on here investigating the syllabic attachment of post-vocalic nasals and l grew out of an earlier experiment which compared the post-vocalic liquids r and l (Laubstein 1989). Using the error elicitation technique described in Motley et al (1983), induced errors involving Vr and Vl sequences were compared. The two sequences behaved quite differently, suggesting different syllabic attachments for the two liquids. Vowel-r sequences consistently interacted with single vowels or vowel glide sequences and such sequences never split up, supporting the hypothesis (based on naturally occurring errors) that vowel-r sequences belong to a uni-positional peak constituent and supporting Kahn’s argument that English r, like w and y, is a glide (Kahn 1976). Vowel-l sequences, on the other hand, did split apart; errors involved the l alone or the vowel alone, significantly more often than they involved the r or V alone from Vr sequences (Wilcoxon p <.0001). This supported the hypothesis that the r and l belonged to different constituents. The relative frequency of errors is commonly assumed to reflect constituency. See, for instance, Stemberger and Treiman’s (1986) arguments regarding different positions in the onset. Nevertheless, such sequences also acted as single units, and in this respect behaved like vowel-r sequences. In addition, when such sequences were involved as a unit they interacted with single vowels or vowel glide sequences, suggesting that at some level of analysis they belonged to the same constituents as vowels. Speech errors which involve interactions between two items, or the substitution of one item for another, are in general structure-preserving. They involve units of the same constituent type at some level of analysis; for instance, noun phrase with noun phrase, preposition with preposition, verb with verb, and at the sub-lexical level, syllabic constituent type a with syllabic constituent type a (Laubstein 1987).