Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-08T09:50:15.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Structural Account of Root Node Deletion in Loanword Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Yvan Rose
Yvan Rose*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Paradis and LaCharité (1996, 1997) have proposed a model of loanword adaptation, couched within the Theory of Constraints and Repair Strategies (Paradis 1988a,b). One of the mechanisms used in their model, called the Threshold Principle, first advanced by Paradis, Lebel, and LaCharité (1993), poses problems. This principle, whose implementation implies arithmetic counting, goes counter to standard views of generative phonology against counting. In this article, an analysis of deletion contexts found in loanwords which accounts for the data observed on structural grounds only is developed without any appeal to arithmetic counting. Based on the adaptation of French rising diphthongs and nasal vowels in two languages, Fula and Kinyarwanda, it is argued that an analysis based solely on the segmental representations of the foreign forms to adapt and the segmental and syllabic constraints of the borrowing language is sufficient to make correct predictions regarding the adaptation patterns found in these languages.

Résumé

Résumé

Paradis et LaCharité (1996, 1997) ont proposé un modèle d’adaptation d’emprunts basé sur la Théorie des contraintes et stratégies de réparation (Paradis 1988a,b). L’un des mécanismes proposé à l’intérieur de leur modèle, le principe du Seuil de tolérance, initialement formulé par Paradis, Lebel, et LaCharité (1993), fait problème. Ce principe, dont l’implementation implique un calcul mathématique, va à l’encontre des positions courantes en phonologie générative contre le calcul. Cet article propose une analyse structurelle des contextes d’élisions trouvés dans les emprunts qui ne fait appel à aucun calcul. À partir de l’adaptation des diphtongues montantes et des voyelles nasales du français en peul et en kinyarwanda, il est démontré qu’une analyse basée sur la représentation segmentale des formes à adapter, ainsi que sur les contraintes segmentales et syllabiques des langues emprunteuses, permet de faire des prédictions justes par rapport aux patrons d’adaptation observés.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 359 - 404
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

Archangeli, Diana. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1983. Principles and parameters in prosodie phonology. Linguistics 21:249–280.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1989. On the representation of diphthongs in Frisian. Journal of Linguistics 25:319–332.Google Scholar
Bowen, Donald. 1975. Adaptation of English borrowing. In El lenguaje de los Chicanos, ed. Hernández-Chavez, Eduardo, Cohen, Andrew, and Beltramo, Anthony, 115–121. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, and Park, Hye-Bae. 1995. Mora conservation in second language prosody. In Phonological acquisition and phonological theory, ed. Archibald, John, 151–168. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, Cynthia A. 1997. Acquisition of segmental structure: Consequences for speech perception and second language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Carlson, Neil. 1981. The physiology of behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Carreira, Maria. 1992. The representation of rising diphthongs in Spanish. In Theoretical analyses in Romance linguistics. Selected papers from the Nineteenth Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, ed. Laeufer, Christiane and Morgan, Terrell A., 19–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Casagrande, Jean. 1984. The sound system of French. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1987. Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. In Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part two: Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology, ed. Bosch, Anna, Need, Barbara, and Schiller, Eric, 29–50. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Clements, George N., and Hume, Elizabeth V.. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 245–306. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clements, George N., and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1983. CV phonology: A generative theory of the syllable. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart, and Hammond, Michael. 1995. On the status of onglides in American English. Phonology 12:159–182.Google Scholar
Dell, François. 1970. Les règles phonologiques tardives et la morphologie dérivationnelle du français. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Grosjean, François. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish: A non-linear analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowings. Language 26:210–231.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1985. Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Niepokuj, Mary, Van Clay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, and Feder, Deborah, 429–446. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20:253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, Ronald G. 1995. Syllable structure in Imyan Tehit. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 26:101–171.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1970. The role of borrowings in the justification of phonological grammars. Studies in African Linguistics 1:1–48.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1985. A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodie phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, R. Armin. 1995. Japanese phonology: Constraint domains and structure preservation. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 817–838. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jacob, Irénée. 1987. Dictionnaire rwandais-français en trois volumes. Kigali, Rwanda: Presses de l’imprimerie scolaire.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Haike, and Gussenhoven, Carlos. To appear. Loan phonology: Perception, salience, the lexicon and OT. In Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, acquisition, ed. Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank, and van de Weijer, Jeroen. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar, and Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jouannet, Francis. 1983. Phonétique et phonologie: le système consonantique du kinyarwanda. In Le kinyarwanda: langue bantu du Rwanda, ed. Jouannet, Francis, 55–73. Paris: SÉLAF.Google Scholar
Jouannet, Francis. 1984. Le français au Rwanda: enquête lexicale. Paris: SÉLAF.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan. 1985. On the syllable structure of certain West African languages. In African linguistics: Essays in memory of M.W.K. Semikenke, ed. Goyvaerts, Didier, 285–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, and Lowenstamm, Jean. 1981. Syllable structure and markedness theory. In Theory of markedness in generative grammar, ed. Belleti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi, 287–315. Pisa: Scuola normale superiore di Pisa.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, and Lowenstamm, Jean. 1984. De la syllabicité. In Forme sonore du langage, ed. Dell, François, Hirst, Donald, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, 123–161. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, and Nykiel, Barbara. 1979. Loan words and abstract phonotactic constraints. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 24:71–93.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63:463-97.Google Scholar
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1979. Studies in Kinyarwanda and Bantu phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Yang, I.-S., 1–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology 2:85–138.Google Scholar
Kukanda, Vatomene. 1983. L’emprunt français en Ungala de Kinshasa: quelques aspects de son intégration phonétique, morphologique, sémantique et lexicale. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Dartene, and Paradis, Carole. 1993. Introduction: The emergence of constraints in generative phonology and a comparison of three current constraint-based models. In Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38(2): Constraint-based theories in multilinear phonology, ed. Paradis, Carole and LaCharité, Darlene, 127–153.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Lebel, Caroline. 1994. Le rôle des contraintes et stratégies de réparation dans l’adaptation phonologique d’emprunts français en peul. Master’s thesis, Université Laval.Google Scholar
Lebel, Éliane, Goad, Heather, and Rose, Yvan. 1999. The L1 acquisition of sC clusters in English: A case study. Paper read at the MOT Workshop on Phonology, Montréal.Google Scholar
Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1988. Generating ternary feet. In Texas Linguistic Forum 29:97–113.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maratta, G. 1988. The Italian diphthongs and the autosegmental framework. In Certamen phonologicum. Papers from the 1987 Cortona Phonology Meeting, ed. Bertinetto, P.M. and Loporcaro, M., 389–418. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1986. OCP effects: Gemination and anti-gemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17:207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodie morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodie Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin, and Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65: 258–293.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole. 1986. Phonologie et morphologie lexicales: les classes nominales en peul (fula). Doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole. 1988a. On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6:71–97.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole. 1988b. Towards a theory of constraint violations. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 5:1–43.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole. 1995. Derivational constraints in phonology: Evidence from loanwords and implications. In Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. Dainora, A., Hemphill, R., Luka, B., Need, B., and Pargman, S., 360–374. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and LaCharité, Dartene. 1996. Saving and cost in French loanword adaptation in Fula: Predictions of the TCRS loanword model. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 11:46–84.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and LaCharité, Darlene. 1997. Preservation and minimality in loanword adaptation. Journal of Linguistics 33:379–430.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Lebel, Caroline. 1994. Contrasts from segmental parameter settings in loanwords: Core and periphery in Quebec French. In Proceedings of the MOT Conference on Contrast in Phonology, ed. Dyck, Carrie, 75–95. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, Lebel, Caroline, and LaCharité, Darlene. 1993. Adaptation d’emprunts: les conditions de la préservation segmentale. In Proceedings of the 1993 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Dyck, Carrie, 461–476. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Lebel, Éliane. 1997. Centre et périphérie: comportement des segments anglais en français québécois. In Explorations du lexique, ed. Auger, Julie and Rose, Yvan, 229–242. Québec: CIRAL.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François. 1989. Vowel fusion and antigemination in Guère and in Mau. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10:1–20.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François, eds. 1991. The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Prunet, Jean-François. To appear. Nasal vowels as two segments: Evidence from borrowings. Language 76.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Rose, Yvan. 1995. Préservation et perte segmentale dans les emprunts français en kinyarwanda. In Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. Koskinen, Privi, 411–422. Toronto: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L. 1997. Licensing and alignment: A conspiracy in harmony. Phonology 14:437–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L., and Humbert, Helga. 1997. Representations and constraints: The case of Guaraní nasal harmony. In Phonology in progress — Progress in phonology. HIL Phonology Papers III, ed. Booij, Geert and van de Weijer, Jeroen, 219–256. The Hague: Holland Academic Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, Sankoff, David, and Miller, Christopher. 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26:47–104.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Prunet, Jean-François. 1986. Spreading and locality domains in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1986. Tone in lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rose, Yvan. 1995. Minimalité, préservation et tolérance dans les emprunts français en kinyarwanda. Master’s thesis, Université Laval.Google Scholar
Rose, Yvan. 1999. Licensing and head-dependent relations in explaining partial deletions in loanword phonology. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 14:155–192.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1987. The resolution of hiatus. In Papers from the 23rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part two: Parasession on autosegmental and metrical phonology, ed. Bosch, Anna, Need, Barbara, and Schiller, Eric, 279–290. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1978. On prosodie structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic prosody, ed. Fretheim, T., 101–140. Trondheim: TAPIR.Google Scholar
Shinohara, Shigeko. 1997. Analyse phonologique de l’adaptation japonaise de mots étrangers. Doctoral dissertation, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris III).Google Scholar
Shyirambere, Spiridion. 1978. Contribution à l’étude de la sociolinguistique du bilinguisme kinyarwanda et français au Rwanda. Paris: SÉLAF.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 1992. Multiple scansions in loanword phonology: Evidence from Cantonese. Phonology 9:289–328.Google Scholar
Singh, Rajendra. 1987. Well-formedness conditions and phonological theory. In Phono-logica 1984, ed. Dressier, Wolfgang, 273–286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Seiichi. 1982. Phonetic values of Old English digraphs. Linguistics 20:323–338.Google Scholar
Tioulenta, Timoré. 1987. Prolégomènes à une étude de l’emprunt linguistique français en fulfulde: le cas du Maasina. Master’s thesis, École des hautes études en sciences sociales.Google Scholar
Ulrich, Charles H. 1997. Loanword adaptation in Lama: Testing the TCRS model. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 42:415–463.Google Scholar
von Neumann, John. 1958. The computer and the brain. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1970. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1993. Cantonese loanword phonology and optimality theory. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2:261–291.Google Scholar
Zoubko, Galina V. 1980. Dictionnairepeul-russe-françaisd’environ 25000mots. Moscou: Langue Russe.Google Scholar