Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:00:08.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence for suffix cohesion in French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2020

Benjamin Storme Open the ORCID record for Benjamin Storme [Opens in a new window]
Benjamin Storme*
Affiliation:
Université de Lausanne, Sciences du Langage et de l’Information
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a language, suffix cohesion refers to the fact that suffixed words behave phonologically as simple or complex units depending on the suffix they are built with. This article uncovers a previously undescribed pattern of suffix cohesion in French, where words suffixed with vowel- and glide-initial suffixes behave phonologically like simple units (e.g. fêtiez [fet-je] ‘you partied’) and words built with other consonant-initial suffixes behave phonologically like complex units (e.g. fêterez [fɛt-ʁe] ‘you will party’). The evidence comes from a reassessment of well-known data on [ə]–[ɛ] stem alternations and from an acoustic study of [e]–[ɛ] and [o]–[ɔ] alternations in suffixed words as pronounced by 10 speakers living in the Paris area. The suffix’s phonological shape is found to provide the best account of the data among a set of factors that have been argued to be relevant to suffix cohesion in other languages (in particular resyllabification). The French pattern has important theoretical implications for theories of suffix cohesion as it is not prosodically conditioned. An alternative analysis in terms of paradigm uniformity is proposed, where suffixed words are treated as complex units phonologically if the suffix’s phonological shape facilitates the perceptual recognition of the base corresponding to the suffixed word’s stem.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 75 - 103
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), (2020). Published by Cambridge University Press

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

*

For very helpful feedback and discussion, I would like to thank the editor, the associate editor, and three anonymous reviewers. For comments on earlier versions of this work, I am also thankful to Adam Albright, Ewan Dunbar, Edward Flemming, Michael Kenstowicz, Donca Steriade, the participants in the Atelier de phonologie at Paris 8 University, and the participants in the 2019 École d’été en phonologie de corpus at the University of Lausanne. This work was presented at the Workshop on phonological variation and its interfaces held at the University of Barcelona in 2018, at the 16èmesrencontres duRéseau Français de Phonologie held in Paris in 2018, and at the 2018 Manchester Phonology Meeting. All errors are my own.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67.1: 1–48.Google Scholar
Benua, L. (1997). Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. PhD thesis, UMass Amherst.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.56. URL: http://www.praat.org/, retrieved 20 June 2019.Google Scholar
Boomershine, A., Hall, K. C., Hume, E., and Johnson, K. (2008). The impact of allophony versus contrast on speech perception. In: Avery, P., Dresher, B. E. and Rice, K. (eds), Contrast in Phonology: Theory, Perception, Acquisition, Phonology and Phonetics, 13. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 145–172.Google Scholar
Bürki, A., Fougeron, C., Veaux, C., and Frauenfelder, U. H. (2009). How similar are clusters resulting from schwa deletion in French to identical underlying clusters? INTERSPEECH 2009: 2271–2274.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (2002). Surface-to-surface morphology: when your representations turn into constraints. In: Boucher, P. (ed.), Many Morphologies. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 142–177.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. (2014). Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology, 24(4): 291–323.10.1007/s11525-014-9243-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coquillon, A., and Turcsan, G. (2012). An overview of the phonological and phonetic properties of Southern French. In: Gess, R., Lyche, C., and Meisenburg, T. (eds), Phonological Variation in French: Illustrations from three Continents. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 105–127.10.1075/silv.11.07coqCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, F. (1978). Certains corrélats de la distinction entre morphologie dérivationnelle et morphologie flexionnelle dans la phonologie du français. Etudes linguistiques sur les langues romanes. Montreal Working Papers in Linguistics, 10: 1–10.Google Scholar
Dell, F. 1985. Les règles et les sons (2nd edn). Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. Some phonological rules in Yidiny. Linguistic Inquiry, 8: 1–34.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C., Gendrot, C., and Bürki, A. (2007). On the phonetic identity of French schwa compared to /ø/ and /œ/. Actes des 5èmes Journées d’Etudes Linguistiques, 2007, Nantes, France, pp. 191–198.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C. and Steriade, D. (1997). Does deletion of French schwa lead to neutralization of lexical distinctions? In EUROSPEECH 1997, volume 2, 943–946.Google Scholar
Gendrot, C. and Adda-Decker, M. (2005). Impact of duration on F1/F2 formant values of oral vowels: an automatic analysis of large broadcast news corpora in French and German. In Proceedings of Interspeech’2005 – Eurospeech: 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, 2453–2456. Lisbon.Google Scholar
Goslin, J. and Frauenfelder, U. H. (2000). A comparison of theoretical and human syllabification. Language and Speech, 44: 409–436.10.1177/00238309010440040101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, A. B. and Juillard, C. (2011). La phonologie parisienne à trente ans d’intervalle – Les voyelles à double timbre. Journal of French Language Studies, 21(3): 313–359.10.1017/S0959269510000347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. and Sims, A. (2010). Understanding Morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39(6): 1041–1070.10.1515/ling.2001.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. (2003). Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (1996). Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In: Durand, J. and Laks, B. (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. Volume One. Salford: ESRI, pp. 363–393.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. (2005). Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In: Downing, L., Hall, T. A., and Raffelsiefen, R. (eds), Paradigms in Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–169.Google Scholar
Lyche, C. (2010). Le français de référence: éléments de synthèse. In: Detey, S., Durand, J., Laks, B., and Lyche, C. (eds), Le français parlé contemporain dans ses variétés: ressources pour l’étude du français. Paris: Ophrys, pp. 143–165.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. and Chollet, G. (1977). The acoustic status of mute-e in French. Phonetica, 34: 19–30.10.1159/000259866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. and Walter, H. (1973). Dictionnaire de la prononciation française dans son usage réel. Paris: France-Expansion.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-J. (1988). De l’ajustement du schwa en syllabe fermée dans la phonologie du français. In: Verluyten, S. P. (ed.), La phonologie du schwa français. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp.133–189.10.1075/lis.16.05morCrossRefGoogle Scholar
New, B., Brysbaert, M., Veronis, J. and Pallier, C. (2007). The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28: 661–677.10.1017/S014271640707035XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, N. and Fagyal, Z. (2008). Acoustic aspects of vowel harmony in French. Journal of Phonetics, 36: 1–27.10.1016/j.wocn.2007.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oostendorp, M. (2004). Crossing morpheme boundaries in Dutch. Lingua, 114: 1367–1400.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. 2018. Word-Formation in English (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316771402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL: https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, R. (2005). Paradigm uniformity effects versus boundary effects. In: Downing, L. J., Hall, T. A. and Raffelsiefen, R. (eds), Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–262.Google Scholar
Raffelsiefen, R. (2015). Phonological restrictions on English word-formation. In: Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. and Rainer, F. (eds), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 894–917.Google Scholar
Robert, P. (ed.). (2013). Le Petit Robert: dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Nouvelle édition. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Y., Ishiguro, M., and Kitagawa, G. (1986). Akaike Information Criterion Statistics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Friederici, A., and Graetz, P. (1992). Inflectional and derivational morphology in the mental lexicon: Symmetries and asymmetries in repetition priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(2): 373–390.10.1080/02724989243000073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. 1972. Psychological representation of speech sounds. In: David, E. and Denes, P. (eds), Human Communication: A Unified View. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 67–113.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (2000). Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In: Broe, M. B. and Pierrehumbert, J. B. (eds), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–334.Google Scholar
Storme, B. (2017a). The loi de position and the acoustics of French mid vowels. Glossa, 2(1):64. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storme, B. (2017b). Perceptual sources for closed-syllable vowel laxing and derived-environment effects. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1987). The Sounds of French: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. C. (1993). Schwa and /œ/ in French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 38: 43–64.10.1017/S0008413100022295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. (2004). A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In: Hayes, B., Kirchner, R. and Steriade, D. (eds), Phonetically Based Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 34–57.10.1017/CBO9780511486401.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, K., and Peperkamp, S. (2015). Aspiration and the gradient structure of English prefixed words. In: The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow: University of Glasgow. Paper number 0382, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar