Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:25:38.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variable and invariable liaison in a corpus of spoken French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

JUDITH MEINSCHAEFER ,
SVEN BONIFER  and
CHRISTINE FRISCH
JUDITH MEINSCHAEFER*
Affiliation:
aFreie Universität Berlin
SVEN BONIFER
Affiliation:
bFormerly Universität Konstanz
CHRISTINE FRISCH
Affiliation:
cFormerly Universität Würzburg
*
Address for correspondence: Judith Meinschaefer Freie Universität BerlinHabelschwerdter Allee 45D-14195 BerlinGermany email: judith.meinschaefer@fu-berlin.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using texts selected from the C-Oral-Rom corpus, this study considers how linguistic and sociolinguistic variables affect liaison. In the majority of cases, liaison appears on monosyllabic function words. Individual lexemes differ greatly in rate of liaison. With regard to sociolinguistic variation, female speakers realize liaison consonants more often than male speakers, younger speakers realize it more often than older speakers, and liaison rates for speakers without university degree are higher than for speakers with university degree. Results are discussed in the light of models of prosodic structure and with respect to their implications for models of socio-linguistic variation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , November 2015 , pp. 367 - 396
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Ågren, J. (1973). Étude sur quelques liaisons facultatives dans le français de conversation radiophonique: Fréquences et facteurs. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, N. (1993). A Study of Phonological Variation in French Secondary School Pupils. Doctoral Dissertation, Newcastle upon Tyne: University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Armstrong, N. (2001). Social and Stylistic Variation in Spoken French: A Comparative Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (1981). French liaison as a sociolinguistic phenomenon. In: Cressey, W.-W. and Napoli, D. J. (eds), Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 46–57.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, J. D. (2008). Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review, 25: 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O., Boyé, G. and Tseng, J. L. (2004). An integrated approach to French liaison. In: Jaeger, G. (ed.), Formal Grammar 04 Preproceedings. Nancy, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., Boyé, G. and Tseng, J. L. (2005). Sur la grammaire des consonnes latentes. Langages, 39: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E. (1983). French C/Ø-alternations, extrasyllabicity and lexical phonology. The Linguistic Review, 3: 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. E. and De Jong, D. (1987). The domain of liaison: theories and data. Linguistics, 25: 1005–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2001a). Frequency effects on French liaison. In: Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2001b). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campione, E., Véronis, J. and Deulofeu, J. (2005). The French corpus. In: Cresti, E. and Moneglia, M. (eds), C-ORAL-ROM, Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. and Keyser, S. J. (1983). CV Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corver, N. and Riemsdijk, H. C. van. (2001). Semi-lexical categories. In: Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. C. (eds), Semi-Lexical Categories: The Content of Function Words and the Function of Content Words. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2005). Le statut lexical des consonnes de liaison. Langages, 39: 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2010). Le statut des consonnes de liaison: l’apport de données du français laurentien. In: 2ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2011). French Liaison. In: van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E. and Rice, K. (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 2685–2710.Google Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2013). Understanding cohesion in French liaison. Language Sciences, 39: 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresti, E. and Moneglia, M. (eds) (2005). C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, D. (1989a). A multivariate analysis of French liaison. In: Schouten, M. E. H. and van Reenen, P. T. (eds), New Methods in Dialectology: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Free University, Amsterdam, December 7–10, 1987. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, D. (1989b). The syntax-phonology interface and variable data: the case of French liaison. In: Hall, K. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 37–47.Google Scholar
De Jong, D. (1990). The syntax-phonology interface and French liaison. Linguistics, 28: 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jong, D. (1994). La sociophonologie de la liaison orléanaise. In: Lyche, C. (ed.), French Generative Phonology. Salford: Association for French Language Studies in association with the European Studies Research Institute, pp. 95–130.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1947). La liaison en français, tendances et classification. French Review, 21: 148–157.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1955). Les facteurs de la liaison facultative en français. French Review, 29: 42–49.Google Scholar
Durand, J., Laks, B., Calderone, B. and Tchobanov, A. (2011). Que savons-nous de la liaison aujourd’hui? Langue Française, 169: 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, J. and Lyche, C. (2008). French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies, 18: 33–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisikovits, E. (1987). Variation in the lexical verb in inner Sydney English. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 7: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Encrevé, P. (1983). La liaison sans enchaînement. Actes de La Recherche En Sciences Sociales, 46: 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Encrevé, P. (1988). La liaison avec et sans enchaînement: Phonologie tridimensionelle et usages du français. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Eychenne, J. (2011). La liaison en français et la théorie de l’optimalité. Langue Française, 169: 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouché, P. (1959). Traité de prononciation française. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C., Goldman, J.-P., Dart, A., Guélat, L. and Jaeger, C. (2001). Influence de facteurs stylistiques, syntaxiques et lexicaux sur la réalisation de la liaison en français. In: Actes de TALN 2001. Tours, pp. 173–182.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C., Goldman, J.-P. and Frauenfelder, U. H. (2001). Liaison and schwa deletion in French: an effect of lexical frequency and competition? In: Dalsgaard, P., Lindberg, B., Benner, H. and Tan, Z.-H. (eds), Eurospeech 2001 Scandinavia: Proceedings. ISCA, pp. 639–642.Google Scholar
Gaatone, D. (1978). Forme sous-jacente unique ou liste d’allomorphes? (a propos des consonnes de liaison en Francais). Linguistics, 16: 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (1989). Le français ordinaire. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Green, J. N. and Hintze, M.-A. (1990). Variation and change in French linking phenomena. In: Green, J. N. (ed.), Variation and Change in French. London: Routledge, pp. 61–88.Google Scholar
Green, J. N. and Hintze, M.-A. (2001). The maintenance of liaison in a family network. In: Hintze, M.-A., Pooley, T. and Judge, A. (eds), French Accents: Phonological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. London: Association of French Language Studies in Association with the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, pp. 24–44.Google Scholar
Harley, H. and Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78: 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (1985). A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1974). Rule inversion, opacity, conspiracies: French liaison and elision. Lingua, 34: 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1978). French linking phenomena: A natural generative analysis. Language, 54: 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). Hypercorrection by the lower middle class as a factor in linguistic change. In: Bright, W. (ed.), Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 84–113.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laks, B. (2005). La liaison et l’illusion. Langages, 39: 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laks, B. (2009). Dynamiques de la liaison en français. In: Baronian, L., Morin, Y. C. and Martineau, F. (eds), Le français d’un continent à l’autre. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 237–267.Google Scholar
Lucci, V. (1983). Etude phonétique du français contemporain à travers la variation situationnelle. Grenoble: Université des Langues et Lettres.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. K. S. (1976). Social class and language in Glasgow. Language in Society, 5: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malécot, A. (1975). French liaison as a function of grammatical, phonetic and paralinguistic variables. Phonetica, 32: 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallet, G.-M. (2008). La liaison en français: descriptions et analyses dans le corpus PFC. Doctoral Dissertation, Paris: Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense.Google Scholar
Miller, P. H. and Sag, I. A. (1997). French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15: 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1992). New perspectives in the analysis of sex differentiation in language. In: Bolton, K. and Kowk, H. (eds), Sociolinguistics Today. International Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 163–179.Google Scholar
Monachesi, P. (1994). Towards a typology of Italian clitics. In: Beals, K., Denton, J., Knippen, R., Melnar, L., Suzuki, H. and Zeinfeld, E. (eds), Proceedings of the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 266–280.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (1986). On the morphologization of word-final consonant deletion in French. In: Andersen, H. (ed.), Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167–210.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. and Kaye, J. D. (1982). The syntactic bases for French liaison. Journal of Linguistics, 18: 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, M. A. and Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1998). Interfaces: explanation of allomorphy and the architecture of grammars. In: Lapointe, S. G., Brentari, D. and Farrell, P. (eds), Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 308–338.Google Scholar
Plénat, M. (2008). La liaison “obligatoire” avec et sans enchaînement. In: Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2008. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française, pp. 1657–1667.Google Scholar
Pooley, T. (2001). Les variantes sociolinguistiques féminines: essai de synthèse. In: Armstrong, N., Bauvois, C., Beeching, K., Bruyninckx, M. and Gadet, F. (eds), La langue française au féminin: le sexe et le genre affectent-ils la variation linguistique? Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 53–73.Google Scholar
Post, B. (2000). Pitch accents, liaison and the phonological phrase in French. Probus, 12: 127–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranson, D. (2008). La liaison variable dans un corpus du français méridional: L’importance relative de la fonction grammaticale. In: Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française 2008. Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences, pp. 1669–1683.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. (2001). Liaison, nasal vowels and productivity. Journal of French Language Studies, 11: 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, G. (2005). Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in sociolinguistics. In: Trudgill, P. (ed.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1003–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, S. A. (1968). French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1972). The Phrase Phonology of English and French. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1974). French liaison and the X notation. Linguistic Inquiry, 5: 573–590.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and Syntax: the Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1996). The prosodic structure of function words. In: Morgan, J. L. and Demuth, K. (eds), From Signal to Syntax: Bootstrapping from Speech to Grammar in Early Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 187–213.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1999). Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In: Authier, J.-M., Bullock, B. E. and Reed, L. A. (eds), Formal Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, B. M. (1981). Concreteness in Generative Phonology: Evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. M. (1987). The Sounds of French: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, B. M. (1990). On suppletion and French liaison. Probus, 2: 169–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, B. M. (1995). French final consonants and nonlinear phonology. Lingua, 95: 131–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1: 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, D. (2005). Prosodic differences among function words. Phonology, 22: 77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar