2001 Douglas C. Walker. All rights reserved.

University of Calgary Press2500 University Drive NWCalgary, AlbertaCanada T2N 1N4www.uofcpress.com

Further information relevant to the use of this book and to the study of French phonology in general may be found on the following www site: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dcwalker/

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data

Walker, Douglas C.French sound structure

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-55238-033-5

1. French language Phonetics. 2. French language Pronunciation.3. French language Phonology. I. Title.

PC2135.W34 2001 441.5 C2001-910584-3

All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyrights hereon may be repro-duced or used in any form or by any meansgraphic, electronic or mechanicalwithout the prior written permission of the publisher. Any request for photocopying, recording, taping or reproducing in information storage and retrieval systems of any part of this book shall be directed in writing to CANCOPY, Suite 1900, One Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1E5.

We greatfully acknowledge the International Phonetic Association for allowing us to repro-duce the IPA chart found on page viii. For more information please contact John Esling at esling@uvic.ca or visit www.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/ipa.html

Printed and bound in Canada by Hignell Book Printing.This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Page and cover design and typesetting by Kristina Schuring.

We acknowledge the nancial support of the Government of Canada through the Book

Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP) for our publishing activities.

Douglas C. Walker

FRENCH

STRUCTURE

DEMO : Purchase from www.A-PDF.com to remove the watermarkDEMO : Purchase from www.A-PDF.com to remove the watermark

Table of Contents

Sound Charts and Transcription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiiAbbreviations and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1. The Object of Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.0 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.1 The French Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 A Brief Historical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

2. Key Descriptive and Theoretical Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.1 Orthography and Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2 Morphological and Lexical Notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3. Basic Descriptive Units and Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213.0 Introduction: The Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213.1 The Syllable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233.2 The SF Phonological Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .303.3 The Phonological Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .313.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

4. Vowels and Semi-vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414.0 The Vowel System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .414.1 Vowel Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .424.1.1 Lengthening Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434.1.2 Intrinsically Long Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .444.1.3 The /' ':/ Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .454.1.4 Supplementary Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .474.2 The Mid Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .484.2.1 Mid Vowels in Final Open Syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .494.2.2 Mid Vowels in Final Closed Syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .504.2.3 Mid Vowels in Nonnal Closed Syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .514.2.4 Mid Vowels in Nonnal Open Syllables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .524.2.4.1 Analogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .534.2.4.2 Vowel Harmony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 4.2.4.3 The loi de position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .554.2.5 Grammatical Consequences of the Constraints on Mid Vowels . . . . .574.2.6 Orthography and Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .594.2.7 The Potential Merger of /n/ and // . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .594.3 The Low Vowels /a/ and /#/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .604.4 Nasal Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .624.4.1 The Merger of /'/ and / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .634.4.2 Distribution of Nasal Vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .644.4.3 Alternations between X and VN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

vi

4.4.4 History and Orthography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .734.4.5 Dialects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .754.5 Schwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .764.5.1 Orthographic Representations of Schwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .774.5.2 Distributional Constraints on Schwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .774.5.3 The Phonetic Realization of Schwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .784.5.4 The Deletion of Schwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804.5.4.1 Schwa in the Phonological Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .804.5.4.2 A Rhythmic Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .844.5.4.3 Epenthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .854.5.4.4 The Tendency Towards Irregularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .864.5.4.5 Stylistic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .884.5.4.6 The Stabilization of Schwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .904.5.5 Alternations Involving Schwa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .924.5.6 Dialects and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .954.6 Semi-vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1004.6.1 Orthographic Representations of the Semi-vowels . . . . . . . . . . . .1024.6.2 The Phonology of the Semi-vowels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1034.7 Further Effects of the Phonological Phrase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1064.8 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

5. Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1195.0 The Consonant System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1195.1 Geminate Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1305.2 Nasal Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1325.2.1 The // /nj/ Interchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1325.2.2 The Importation of /0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1345.2.3 Nasal Assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1355.3 Voicing Assimilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1365.4 Aspirate-h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1405.4.1 Other Types of Aspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1465.4.2 Historical Comments Regarding < h > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1475.5 Final Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1485.5.1 Stable Final Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1485.5.2 Latent Final Consonants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1525.6 Linking Phenomena: Enchanement and Liaison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1605.7 Liaison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160

6. Prosody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1776.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1776.1 Stress and Rhythm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1776.1.1 Phrasal Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1786.1.2 Emphatic Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1816.2 Intonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1826.3 Colloquial Constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

vii

7. Around the Phonological Periphery: Playing with Language . . . . .1917.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1917.1 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1917.2 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1957.3 Reduplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1997.4 Word Games: Verlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .213

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227

viii ix

Standard French Vowels and Semi-vowels

front back

spread round round

semi-vowels L w

high K [ W

higher-mid G 1 Q nasal

lower-mid ' n ' n

low C # #

Standard French Consonants

labial apical palatal velar uvular

obstruents

stops

voiceless p t k

voiced b d g

fricatives

voiceless f s 5

voiced v z encloses specically orthographic representations< derives from (historically)> becomes (historically)* indicates an incorrect or impossible form

m., f., sg., pl. masculine, feminine, singular, pluralind. subj. indicative, subjunctive

Note on translations: Most of the French examples cited have been translated into one of their English equivalents, except in certain cases where the mean-ing is transparent (e.g., incorrect incorrect) or where the meaning is irrel-evant because the discussion bears on exclusively phonological issues.

xi

Preface

The material that follows reects my efforts over the past several years to understand the fascinating complexities and the theoretical implications of the sound patterns of French, and to communicate them to my classes in a com-prehensive and comprehensible fashion. As a consequence, I owe signicantdebts of gratitude to the many students who, through their questions and com-ments, have prodded me to clarify both my thinking and my presentation. I hope the result is a detailed, well-illustrated, and useful description of the pro-nunciation of Modern Standard French, incorporating occasional comments on regional and social variation, on abbreviatory processes and word play, on certain historical phonological changes that continue to be reected in the con-temporary language, and on the interdependence of phonology and morphol-ogy in an appropriate manner.

This work is intended primarily for university students studying French, not as a practical guide to pronunciation improvement but as a discussion of the sound system of the language. It is written in a way that presupposes little or no formal training in linguistics proper (other than some familiarity with basic terminology and with phonetic notation, to which students are normally exposed independently). The work should also provide data of interest to stu-dents of linguistics, where discussions of French phonology (schwa, liaison, nal consonants, and aspirate-h, in particular) have played a major role in attempts to resolve certain theoretical matters. Finally, there should be some material of relevance to those members of the general public with an interest in the nature of the French language, since pronunciation is rarely considered in any detailed way in the general introductory handbooks of French.

Now that the text is complete, I must also acknowledge the stimulation pro-vided by the community of scholars working on French phonology, a domain that provides seemingly endless fodder for the theoretical cannons of the day, and that, in a more neutral and (at least potentially) less contentious manner, fascinates and challenges those seeking to understand it in all its heterogene-ity. I trust this work, complemented by a relatively detailed list of references, furnishes an appropriate way to begin to confront the challenges involved.

Among French phonologists, two names require special acknowledgement: Jurgen Klausenburger and Yves-Charles Morin. Their well-informed and insightful studies of a vast range of French phonological issues provide models that none can ignore and that all would do well to emulate. More importantly in this context, however, they were kind enough to provide detailed and con-structive criticism of virtually every element of this presentation, and it is immensely improved as a result. ces deux collgues, un grand merci.

Preparation of this book has beneted from the advice of a group of stu-dents who suffered through its earlier versions and who have given me insight-ful feedback. Thanks are due to Shauna Haas, Sarah Johnson and Meghan McIntyre, and also to Anne Marie Hallworth-Duez, laboratory instructor extraordinaire, who subjected previous versions of this manuscript to a meticu-lous reading. The six speakers, Georges Blary, Jean-Bernard Gauthier, Etienne

xii

Grang, Sverine Lamontre, Fleur Larocque, and Eileen Lohka, who lent their voices to the CD ROM, deserve special acknowledgment for adding a bit of reality to alleviate the potentially abstract and arid theoretical discussions in the text.

Both directly and indirectly, this work has been supported in a variety of ways: by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada that have allowed me, over the years, to pursue the study of French linguistics; by a fellowship from the Camargo Foundation in Cassis, France, during which the work was brought into focus; and by a sabbatical leave from the University of Calgary. More immediately, I must acknowledge the generous nancial support received from Alberta Learning and Canadian Heritage, through the Canada-Alberta Agreement on the Ofcial Languages in Education 1999-2000, and a Fellowship from the University of Calgary Learning Commons that provided for technical support in the preparation of the CD-ROM. The Learning Commons team, led ably by Kathy Schwarz, Instructional Designer, included Greg Phillips, Sound Engineer, Lane Turner, Audio Technician, Michelle McGrath, Graphic Artist, and Programmers Julian Wood, Robert Purdy, Ashley Rollke, and Rob Loh, Testers Mike Walker and Eric Rogers, and Production Assistant Gord Southam. At the University of Calgary Press, Joyce Hildebrand edited the text with great acumen; Kristina Schuring spent many hours on the details of design; and Walter Hildebrandt, John King and Tim Au Young provided very helpful general support from the outset of the project. My sincere thanks to each of these organizations and to all of the individuals involved. And nally, with much gratitude to Tracy, Cris, and Dave, sine quibus non.

Preface

Chapter 1The Object of Description

1

1.1

1.01.0 PreliminariesWhile the title of this book, French Sound Structure, appears relatively straightforward, it also provides a starting point for general discussion of a number of concepts that will allow us to place the details to follow in a larger context. It will be useful, for example, to understand in some detail what the term French refers to. Sound, moreover, is at once too general and too spe-cic. It is not just any sounds that are of interest, but that subset of possible human sounds that play a variety of roles in the linguistic system we call the French language. Nor is it just French sounds in isolation that we need to examine, but sounds as constitutive of words, as conveyors of different types of meaning, as participants in different phonological and grammatical processes. Sound systems are, in other words, highly structured: classes of sounds, general phonological processes, grammatical consequences are all notions that will be important in the descriptions to follow.

1.1 The French Language

Originating in the Latin spoken in Northern Gaul and establishing itself as a recognizably independent language in the early Middle Ages,1 the French language is now spoken worldwide. It enjoys ofcial status in several dozen countries (including France, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Canada, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, French Guiana, Madagascar, and French Polynesia) and is a widely used medium of communication or education in many others (such as Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, much of sub-Saharan Africa, and Vietnam). It is one of the ofcial languages of the United Nations and of numerous other international organizations. Internationally, French numbers approximately 75 million speakers who count it as their native language and upwards of an addi-tional 150 million who use it readily for communicative purposes. The French language has long been associated with the prestige attached to French scien-tic, literary, and cultural contributions and continues, despite increasing pres-sure from English, to play a major role on the world stage.

2 Chapter 1

The wide geographic distribution of the French language is understandably correlated with linguistic differences. The French of Lige is not that of Marseilles, Geneva, Montral, Port-au-Prince, Algiers, Dakar, or La Runion. In fact, even within the borders of France itself,2 Alsace, Picardie, Normandie, Touraine, Bourgogne, Auvergne, Provence, and other regions offer recog-nizable local varieties. The French language, then, is geographically diver-sied, perhaps even to the extent that widely separated versions pose dif -culties of mutual comprehension. To this geographic diversity may be added social diversity. The speech of la haute bourgeoisie or even a residual aristo-cratie will differ from that of the middle class, recent immigrants, technocrats, labourers, or the SDF (sans domicile xe, the homeless). The speech of the young differs from that of older generations. (Reection on the use of slang, nicknames, tutoiement, or profanity, for example, provides immediate conr-mation of generational differences.) The speech of men differs from that of women. Each profession enjoys its own jargon. Finally, we must recognize differences correlated with various speech situations, where the nature of the context requires (or favours) different degrees of formality, different styles or registers. Usage differs in courtrooms, classrooms, family rooms, and locker rooms, and expressions appropriate in one context may bring censure or deri-sion in another.

Against this background of dramatic regional, social, and stylistic variation, what is the analyst (or the student) to do? Fortunately, there exists a widely accepted response to this challenge, adopted by linguists and speech commu-nities alike. The solution involves identifying a geographically, socially, and stylistically circumscribed variety and using it as a reference point. This refer-ence point, usually called a standard language or, in the case of French, le bon usage, is considered by its speakers to be the most appropriate variety for use in formal and educational contexts. It is traditionally employed in the media and codied in grammars.3 Often, it is the object of attention of a national linguistic legislature such as the Acadmie franaise. Thus, the object of discussion here will be Standard French (abbreviated SF), that variety of the language identied most often with the speech of the Parisian middle class (la bonne bourgeoisie parisienne; le Parisien cultiv) when its members are engaged in polite conversation. Warnant (1987), in a discussion of the reasons underlying his choice of recommended pronunciations, puts it as follows: 4

Gographiquement, nous avons choisi de consigner la prononciation dun des franais de Paris et, dans un sens large, de la rgion parisi-enne. Paris est sans conteste le centre de la trs grande majorit des activits intellectuelles et culturelles de la France. Nous pensons plus particulirement celles qui se manifestent par et dans la parole.

Socialement, nous avons choisi de recueillir la prononciation des intellectuels et des gens cultivs, qui, dans des domaines extrme-ment divers, sexpriment dordinaire non seulement avec clart, mais encore avec lgance.

3The Object of Description

Nous avons aussi choisi de ne dcrire que le parler dune gnra-tion, celle qui compte actuellement entre 20 et 45 ou 50 ans. Nous ne risquons pas ainsi, dune part, de proposer pour demain lusage dune prononciation dj vieille dans lun ou lautre de ses traits. Nous vi-tons, dautre part, de donner en exemple une prononciation non encore dnitivement installe.

Despite Warnants efforts to circumscribe the object of his description, his comments still do not rule out alternative pronunciations for one and the same form (and, in fact, he often lists alternates particularly where schwa is involved). Martinet and Walter, much more sensitive to the great heterogene-ity of current SF pronunciation, approach the matter pragmatically rather than normatively in this way (1973: 1617):

Est-ce dire que toutes les prononciations quon peut entendre soient galement recommandables? Et dabord quest-ce quune prononcia-tion recommandable? Il semble quen cette matire lidal soit de ne rien faire qui attire lattention et la dtourne ainsi de la comprhen-sion de ce qui est dit. Les bonnes prononciations sont celles qui pas-sent inaperues, les mauvaises celles qui soudain vous rappellent, ne serait-ce qu un niveau trs infrieur de la conscience, que votre interlocuteur est de telle origine, nationale, gographique ou sociale. Ce que recherche ltranger qui apprend une autre langue, cest prcisment dviter que les formes quil emploie rvlent sa non-appartenance la socit dont il cherche utiliser lidiome.

While these quotations give us a very good general idea of our descriptive target, they still leave room for a certain exibility. First, even within an unmarked, standard pronunciation, there will exist variants, often related to age differences, between innovative and conservative realizations. These distinctions have certain descriptive consequences, some of which we will address below. Secondly, despite our concentration on Standard French, we may occasionally wish to venture into an exploration of nonstandard territory, particularly the domain of popular or colloquial speech. It would be appropri-ate, then, to review briey the nature of other registers. It is important to rec-ognize, however, that stylistic (and social) variation forms a continuum and that levels of usage (and the distinctions made by analysts) may grade subtly from one into another. That being said, we may think of at least the following general distinctions:

(1) Levels of usage (registers)5

(a) formal (niveau cultiv, soign, soutenu): implies a formal or perhaps ofcial speech situation in which careful attention is paid to the organization and delivery of the message; may include archaisms of various types; normally conservative rather than

4 Chapter 1

innovative (although highly formal speech can also be innovative under certain circumstances, as in the phenomenon of liaison sansenchanement [Encrev 1988], which characterizes in particular the public pronouncements of certain politicians).

(b) standard (franais courant, usuel, commun, ordinaire): the unmarked register recognized as the norme by native speakers; the usage described by Martinet and Walter above.

(c) familiar: used in less formal situations, primarily in oral communication between family members, friends, or those of similar status.

(d) popular (trs familier, vulgaire): spontaneous, unmonitored speech replete with phonetic reductions, errors (e.g., avoir for tre as auxiliary, lack of agreement, absence of subjunctive), slang, and often profanity.

The following graded examples, moving from formal to familiar or popular, may give an indication of the passage from one level to another:6

(2) (a) O demeurez-vous? Where do you reside?

O est-ce que vous habitez? Where do you live?

Vous habitez o? You live where?

(b) Voil une voiture qui fait sensation. This car is creating asensation.

Elle est sensationnelle cette voiture. This is a sensational car.

Elle est sensas cette bagnole. What a terric car!

(c) Que dites-vous? May I ask what youresaying?

Quest-ce que vous dites? What are you saying?

Vous dites quoi? Youre saying what?

Quoi? What?

Hein? Huh?

(d) Elle sest prise de lui au premier regard.

She became enamoured of him at rst sight.

Elle est tombe amoureuse de lui ds leur premire rencontre.

She fell in love with him on the rst date.

Elle est alle samouracher de ce petit voyou.

Shes head over heels in love with the guy.

5The Object of Description

(e) importuner to importune

ennuyer to bother

enquiquiner, emmerder to bug

(f) Je vous prie de ne pas fermer la porte.

May I ask you not to close the door?

Ne fermez pas la porte, sil vous plat.

Please dont close the door.

Fermez pas la porte.

Dont close the door.

(g) Qui fut le premier ministre? Who was the rst primeminister?

Qui tait le premier ministre? Who was the rst primeminister?

Ctait qui le premier ministre? Who was he, the rst primeminister?

(h) Je nai pas vu ce lm. I havent seen this lm.

Moi, ce lm, je lai pas vu. This lm, I havent seen it.

(i) Pourquoi dites-vous cela? Why do you say that?

Pourquoi que vous dites a? How come you say that?

(j) lhomme avec qui ils sont venus the man with whom they came

lhomme quils sont venu avec the man they came with

While our concern in this work will be primarily with the phonology of the standard register, it is important to realize that the concept French encom-passes both extensive phonological variation and the use of other mechanisms (e.g., vocabulary choice, extensive syntactic modications) to permit subtle adjustment of usage to t a rich diversity of speech situations.

Although in what follows we will concentrate on the Standard French of Paris or the le-de-France, it is also evident, given the great geographic diver-sity in French, that one can recognize regional standard languages (and even include Paris as one among many regions). That is to say, the notion of stan-dard, in terms of an unmarked register recognized as the norme by native speakers, is not limited to any specic region. In social or stylistic terms, stan-dard can be applied to a variety recognized as prestigious within any commu-nity. One often sees reference, for example, to Standard Canadian French, just as the standard in English-speaking Canada is dened with respect to a style signicantly different from the Queens or BBC English in Great Britain.

6 Chapter 1

1.2

Minor lexical or phonetic differences aside, in fact, Standard Canadian French and Standard Parisian French are highly similar the differences only become dramatically signicant in the popular registers, and even here we would still have no difculty in recognizing both vernaculars as inherently French, rather than as separate languages.

Finally, although we have spoken of standard and norme, the speech we refer to by these terms is in a direct way a historical accident. The prestige attached to the standard associated with Parisian French reects the political and economic importance of Paris, mirroring its role as capital of France, focus of intellectual activity, seat of the government, industrial centre, and so on. Had French history been different, the dialect of Dijon, Poitiers, or Toulouse might just as easily have become the standard. Thus, in strictly lin-guistic terms (in tems of the linguistic structures involved), the forms of one dialect are no more worthy or unworthy than those of another. This is not to say that one cannot make value judgements about certain forms or styles, nor that these judgements are unimportant or without consequence. Opinions about speech forms, or particularly about their appropriateness to the context in which they are used, are crucial in all societies. But they reect the social values attached, at a limited set of times and places, to language and its use, and constitute judgements about the users, rather than an evaluation of the inherent merit of one pronunciation or one structure over another.

1.2 A Brief Historical Review

As the foregoing remarks have indicated, SF is a product of a combination of historical circumstances. The French of Paris in the Middle Ages is mark-edly different from (and perhaps incomprehensible to) that of a speaker in the court of Louis XIV or a Parisian lycen of our days. Here we will review, very briey, some of the key events and stages leading to the current situation.

Restricting our discussion to historical times (roughly from the eighth cen-tury B.C. onwards), the territory we now call Gaul was at that period inhab-ited by a variety of Celtic tribes who occupied lands previously settled by Ligurians, Iberians, and Aquitanians, among others. Eventually, the Celts took (or were given) the name of Gaulois, lending as well their name to the land they occupied: La Gaule.7 From about 125 B.C., Roman presence in southern Gaul (la Gaule transalpine) increased, and subsequently Caesar led a conquest of the remaining Gallic territory (5850 B.C.). Little by little, aided by the importance of the Roman administrative and educational structures, the Latin language replaced the earlier Celtic dialects, at least in the urban centres. Latin became the language of Gaul, but Latin itself, through the centuries, evolved into distinct spoken and written versions that increasingly diverged from each other. Following the fall of the Roman Empire in A.D. 476, local varieties mul-tiplied and a linguistic frontier solidied between the more heavily Romanized south and the northern regions, now occupied and governed by the Francs, a

7The Object of Description

Germanic tribe from the region of the Rhine. The langue doc or occitan in the south and the langue dol in the north became increasingly distinct.

In the north, the Francs assimilated linguistically to the local Latin-speaking population, but not without a certain amount of inuence on the lexicon8 andon pronunciation, the latter usually attributed to the heavy stress accent of their Germanic speech. Gaul remained, in other words, a Romance-speaking terri-tory, even following the Viking invasions of the early eighth century. These normands (hommes du nord) adopted in turn the Romance vernacular, even-tually exporting it to England following the Norman Conquest of 1066. In England, Anglo-Norman literature ourished, and French played a dominant role in British administrative and cultural life for several centuries.

By the mid-ninth century (Serments de Strasbourg) and certainly by the beginning of the tenth (Cantilne de sainte Eulalie) the indigenous Romance language of the north of France had diverged sufciently from the earlier spoken Latin that one can speak of the birth of the French language (franais,language of the Francs). At this time, however, social and political conditions were inuenced not so much by a unique national capital but by strong regional centres, so one must inevitably speak of regional dialects including, among others, picard, champenois, anglo-normand, bourguignon, louest and,needless to say, the francien of the le-de-France. At the Old French stage,9

many of the regional courts rivalled that of Paris, and literature in these dia-lects was easily the match of that written in francien.

With time, however, French kings extended their military and political domain much further throughout the territory, and the language of the Ile-de-France beneted from increased prestige: francien was on its way to becom-ing the national standard. In 1539, under Franois Ier, the Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterts made French (i.e., francien) the ofcial language (replacing Latin) for all court orders and judgements. In 1549, Du Bellay, on behalf of La Pliade, published the manifesto Dfense et illustration de la langue fran-aise, a work, along with those of Rabelais, leading to much linguistic innova-tion, innovation aided by the explosion of literary works following the inven-tion of printing. The increasing importance of Paris had further linguistic con-sequences. As Bonnemason (1993: 28) puts it, lEtat monarchique fait de la langue franaise son affaire. Le pouvoir politique est Paris, la langue est celle de Paris et elle sera codie et rgente. The Acadmie franaise, created in 1635 by Richelieu, codied the orthography and published its rst dictionary in 1694. The Grammaire de Port-Royal of 1660 established a general stan-dard to be met by even the greatest writers. Linguistic prescriptivism took rmroot.

Despite the inuence and prestige of Paris, however, regional dialects (patois) and regional languages persisted. Still, the industrial revolution, the development of science and technology, the importance of the writings of the philosophes, extensive exploration, and colonization all contributed to the expansion of French and to the suggestion of le franais comme langue universelle. Regional languages and the patois suffered under the uniformiz-ing pressures of the Revolution and the imposition of French as the general

8 Chapter 1

language of schooling, pressures that exist to this day. Nor is the role of the mass media negligible as a standardizing force. Nonetheless, alongside the national standard, linguistic variation in the form of both dialects and distinct regional languages remains characteristic of contemporary France, a variation that is sometimes discouraged ofcially and sometimes (as in some recent leg-islation inspired by the European Union) ofcially supported. And the stan-dard language itself is a mixture containing a foundation of words from the original Latin source, supplemented by early Celtic and Frankish contacts (among others), a technical and learned vocabulary necessitated by corre-sponding intellectual or industrial developments, and loans from the many lan-guages with which its long history has brought it into contact. Against this complex background, it is consequently not difcult to grasp why the notion of Standard French is at the same time both an arbitrary and ever-changing construct and a useful reference point. In any event, SF, as described above in all its complexity, is the object of this work. Before we undertake a study of the specic sound structures of SF, however, it is necessary to provide some further, theoretically oriented detail concerning the concepts to be used in a description of this material. This brief orientation is the task of the next chapter.

Notes

1. The Serments de Strasbourg from 842, a document conrming a political alliance between two of Charlemagnes grandsons concerning the partition of his empire, is often given as indicating the birthdate of French since it contains the earliest surviving text in the vernacular of Gaul.

2. Despite what may be thought, France itself is not linguistically homogeneous: other languages spoken to a greater or lesser degree within continental French territory include Catalan, Occitan or Provenal, Italian, Basque, Breton, Flemish, and the Germanic dialects alsacien and lorrain. Recent immigration has also sig-nicantly increased the number of speakers of Arabic.

3. See Morin (1999) for a detailed and up-to-date survey of this question, incorpo-rating the signicant term le franais de rfrence, a designation perhaps pref-erable to Standard French or le franais standard. We retain the latter on the basis of its wide familiarity. Morin also provides much detail concerning pro-nunciation variation within various normes, as well as the difculties inherent in the notion of norme itself. Martinet (1990) addresses some of the same issues.

In this context, spoken media have become more tolerant of a range of regional accents, provided that they are not too marked, as witnessed, for exam-ple, by the popularity on national television of the literary critic Bernard Pivot with his Burgundian accent (in Apostrophes and Bouillon de culture). In a paral-lel fashion, national television in Great Britain is also more accepting of regional pronunciations, as indicated by the presence of Welsh, Scottish, or Yorkshire

9The Object of Description

readers of the national news. In North America, the situation on national televi-sion news does not yet appear to be as diverse.

4. Warnant, interestingly enough in this context, is Belgian. The quotation is taken from the cover of his pronouncing dictionary but is compiled from material on pp. xxxxi.

5. Muller (1985: 225262) provides an excellent survey of these issues, with copi-ous examples. Guiraud (1969: 24) contrasts the two poles of usage in the fol-lowing indicative terms: Bref, il est lgitime de distinguer deux formes limites de la langue conditionnes par un ensemble de variables complexes dont les unes tiennent lhistoire, la culture, la socit, les autres aux conditions de la com-munication ou la nature du message. Ainsi sopposent populaire/bourgeois, relch/soutenu, libre/prscriptif, spontan/stylis, oral/crit, hrditaire/savant, dialectal/national, expressif/cognitif, locutif/prdicatif, naturel/cultiv.

6. Examples are drawn from Batchelor and Offord (1993a, 1993b) and Muller (1985).

7. Celtic traces in French are few, but include some sixty surviving words: sapinr, chne oak, lotte monksh, bouc goat, mouton sheep, chemin road, dune dune, druide Druid, etc., as well as several place names, perhaps most notably Paris, from the Celtic tribe Parisii.

8. Frankish lexical remnants are much more numerous than Celtic, including Franceitself, le pays des Francs. Additional Frankish words include banc seat, blwheat, bois wood, choisir to choose, cruche pitcher, danser to dance, framboise raspberry, garder to keep, gurir to cure, guetter to watch, hacheaxe, har to hate, honte shame (and numerous other aspirate-h words), jardingarden, lcher to lick, marchal marshall, orgueil pride, regarder to look at, soupe soup.

9. Old French is commonly divided into two periods, Early Old French, from the middle of the ninth to the end of the eleventh century, and Later Old French, from the beginning of the twelfth to the middle of the fourteenth (Pope 1934: 9). Middle French comprises the fourteenth, fteenth and sixteenth centuries. Later Old French constitutes a period of spectacular literary and cultural development.

Chapter 2Key Descriptive and Theoretical Concepts

11

2.0

2.1

2.0 Introduction

The preceding chapter discussed the general notion French, noting the ambi-guities and complexities inherent in treating a domain with the long history, extensive geographic range, and sociolinguistic complexity that characterize la francophonie. Here, we will focus on the remaining words in the title of this book, sound and structure, reviewing briey a number of concepts or distinctions that will prove useful in the description to follow.1 First among these is the need to explore the difculties arising from the nature of French orthography.

2.1 Orthography and Pronunciation

Clearly, there exists some type of systematic relationship between French orthography and the corresponding ways of pronouncing French words. It is not the existence, but rather the nature of this relationship that is of concern: how regular is it? what types of exceptions are found? where does it fail to inform us of the appropriate pronunciation? Unlike languages such as Spanish, where the link between writing and speaking is close and direct, French pres-ents a number of difculties in interpreting phonologically the orthographic representations of words. Consider the examples in (1).

(1) Orthographic puzzles

(a) one sound many spellings

/k/: coup, occuper, kilo, qui, cinq, grecque, acqurir, echo,ecchymose, khalife

/s/: si, cible, soixante, assez, a, science, balbutie

/a/: art, l, grce, drap,2 femme, paonne, habituer, Jeanne

/o/: vlo, aube, eau, eaux, cte, hte, hauteur, heaume, faux

12 Chapter 2

(b) one spelling several sounds

< e >: rue , breton //, serpent /'/, effacer /e/, femme /a/, en /#/

(This problem can extend to sequences of letters: < ent > [couventas /kuv/ or /kuv#/], < ai > [faisan /fz#/; faisceau /f'so/; faillir/faji/], for example.)

(c) silent nal consonants

plomb, caoutchouc, noeud, clef, poing, fusil, drap, donner, gros,salut, six, nez, il est, exact, gars, corps

(d) etymological spellings

doigt /dwa/ < CL digitus, sept /s't/ < CL septem, vingt /v'/ < CL viginti, compter /knte/ < CL computare, baptme /bat'm/ < Greek baptisma, corps /kn/ < CL corpus, sculpter /skylte/ < CL sculpere,sculptus

(e) contextually determined variation

deux petits chiens /dpti5j'/

cinq petits chiens /s'kpti5j'/

dix postes /dipnst/

dix emplois /diz#plwa/

plomb plombier /pln/ /plnbje/

fusil fusiller /fyzi/ /fuzije/

exact exactitude /'gza/ /'gzaktityd/

(f) stylistic variation

je ne sais pas

/

14 Chapter 2

as syntactic and phonological context). Savoir to know is even more com-plex: as a lexical item it encapsulates the full range of multiple inected forms such as sais, savons, savaient, saches, sauriez, smes, and so on, as well as the nonnite forms savoir, sachant, su. In what follows, we will often be con-cerned with the relationships between orthographic and phonological words and between lexical items and word forms.

As the preceding examples make clear, words are more complex than might at rst be thought. In fact, one can pursue the structural analysis of words much further, using concepts such as root and afx, inection, derivation, and compounding. A root is the minimal common part of a lexical item that occurs in all the word forms realizing that item and that bears its central meaning. To roots may be added afxes (prexes and sufxes) of two main types: inec-tional and derivational. Within larger structures, inectional afxes signal the grammatical properties of the word form in question. In French, nouns and adjectives are inected for number (singular/plural) and gender (masculine/feminine), as in grand, grands, grande, grandes, although the phonological realizations of these categories are far from consistent. Verbs are inected for a variety of categories: number (singular/plural), person (rst/second/third),tense/aspect (present/past/future/imperfect/conditional), and mood (indicative/subjunctive), as indicated for savoir above. Derivation, on the other hand, is concerned with the creation of new lexical items based on the root in question. From grand large one may derive by afxation grandet, grandelet, gran-dissime, grandiose, grandeur, grandement, grandir, grandissement, agrandir,agrandissement, and so on. Inection in French is accomplished through suf-xation, while derivation employs a rich system of both prexes and suf xes.

Additional word formation processes are also found in French, including compounding, conversion, and various minor mechanisms (abbreviation, acronyms, reduplication, to which we will devote separate treatment). Compounding involves the creation of a new word by combining two exist-ing roots or word forms: sang-froid, aigre-doux bitter-sweet, savoir-faire,porte-parole spokesperson, and so on. Conversion (called drivation impro-pre in French) entails the transfer of a lexical item from one grammatical category to another with the consequent attribution of new functions. Thus, nouns can function as adjectives (un culot monstre a huge amount of nerve, une rponse mi- gue mi-raisin an answer half g, half grape); adjectives as nouns (mon petit my child, le priphrique the ring road, les jeunesyouth); verbs as nouns (un devoir a duty, le savoir knowledge) and so on.6 Derivation, compounding, conversion, and other processes can all partici-pate in the formation of new words (neologisms), processes that constantly expand and renew the lexicon of a language. The degree of activity of any individual process is in part a reection of its productivity, that is, the degree of freedom and frequency with which it operates, a freedom that can vary over time.7 Thus, sufxation with -ie or -ure (courtoisie courtesy, magistraturemagistracy) is no longer productive, while -age (dopage doping, stockagestorage), -erie (billeterie cash dispenser, sweaterie sweater shop) and

15Key Descriptive and Theoretical Concepts

-ique (informatique computer science, robotique robotics), for example, continue to be used in the frequent creation of new lexical items.

Neologism is one way in which lexicons are expanded. Borrowing is another. Throughout its history, French has borrowed extensively recall the Celtic and Frankish examples of the rst chapter. To those earliest loans, one may add testimony of the close contact with Provenal (troubadour,amour, ballade, salade, tapenade); extensive Italian borrowings, many from the Italian inuence of the Renaissance (gazette, alarme, brigantin, baguette,piano); various Arabic words, often entering through Spanish (algbre, chiffrenumeral, alcool, girafe, abricot apricot); highly diverse words from the lan-guages of the French colonies or overseas contacts (cacahute peanut, patatepotato, tabac tobacco, cannibale, tomate, cobaye guineapig, banane,iguane); and the massive and controversial importation of English items char-acteristic of the latter part of the twentieth century and beyond, an importation so signicant it has led both to dictionnaires des anglicismes and to legislation attempting to stem the ow.8

French is also characterized by a special type of borrowing where the lan-guage draws on its own history: the massive importation of learned loan words. Learned words (mots savants) are those that French has imported from Latin (and Greek) subsequent to the Early Old French stage and that have, as a consequence, failed to be subject to the many sound changes that led to the formation of the basic French vocabulary. This type of borrowing has led to the formation of doublets, or pairs of words from the same source language, a learned word alongside its popular counterpart (mots savants mots popu-laires). Doublets, illustrated in (2), raise a number of interesting problems, of which the most important involves the issue of related word forms: are the phonological and semantic similarities between such words sufcient to con-clude that they represent the same lexical item?9

(2) Doublets

afiger afiction afict afiction

angle angulaire angle angular

bte bestial beast bestial

bouillir bullition to boil boiling

cendre incinrer cinder to incinerate

contredire contradiction to contradict contradiction

cte costal coast coastal

coupable culpabilit guilty guilt

croire crdibilit to believe credibility

diable diabolique devil diabolical

16 Chapter 2

double dupliquer double to duplicate

cole scolaire school scholarly

entier intgre entire complete

t estival summer summery

fte festival holiday festival

genou gnuection knee genuection

got dgustation taste sampling

mcher mastiquer to chew to masticate

peuple populaire people popular

pied pdestre foot pedestrian

poudre pulvriser powder to pulverize

poumon pulmonaire lung pulmonary

recevoir rception to receive reception

recouvrer rcuprer to recover to recuperate

restreindre restriction to restrain restriction

royal rgal royal regal

sret scurit safety security

However we decide to approach these examples in a discussion of French pho-nology, it will often be the case that special categories of words (loan words, learned words, proper nouns, highly frequent forms, and so on) will require separate treatment, either because of their specic properties or their excep-tional behaviour. These distinctions between different types of lexical items, in other words, will be useful in the detailed descriptions of subsequent chap-ters.

Finally, we must return to a set of issues associated with the relationship between lexical items and word forms. A lexical item is, in an important sense, the basic representative of what we rst called a word. Word forms, in contrast, are the specic realizations of those items in particular contexts. Word forms, as well as their component parts roots and afxes often differ in their phonological shape; when the differences are systematic and not restricted to a single unit or a single morpheme, we will call them alter-nations.10 Alternations occur when stems and afxes (inectional or deriva-tional) are combined, when words vary because of the context in which they occur, or when stylistic or other variation takes effect. The examples in (3) illustrate some of the alternation types to be discussed below.

17Key Descriptive and Theoretical Concepts

(3) Phonological alternations

je pars nous partons /pa/ /pat+n/ I leave we leave

je dors nous dormons /dn/ /dnm+n/ I sleep we sleep

nous venons ils viennent /vn+n/ /vj'n/ we come they come

nous crevons ils crvent /kv+n/ /k'v/ we wear out they wear out

gros grosse /go/ /gos/ big (m./f.)

bon bonne /bn/ /bnn/ good (m./f.)

sot sotte /so/ /snt/ silly (m./f.)

drap draperie /da/ /dap+i/ sheet drapery

son sonner /sn/ /snn+e/ sound to sound

honneur honorer /nn/ /nnn+e/ honour to sound

clair clart /kl'/ /kla+te/ clear clarity

peuple populaire /ppl/ /pnpyl+'/ people popular

je pars jarrive /

18 Chapter 2

Notes

1. This work does not pretend to be an introduction to phonetics, to general phonol-ogy, or to contrastive French-English analysis, for which many excellent manu-als exist. For the rst two areas, see Davenport and Hannahs (1998), Roca and Johnson (1999) or Goldsmith (1995). For the third, LeBel (1990, 1991), Ostiguy et al. (1996), and Picard (1987) all provide comparisons of English and French pronunciation.

2. This example represents many others ending in /aC(C)/ where the nal conso-nants are not pronounced: tabac, exact, ras, tat, gars, etc. The same situation arises with virtually all vowels in word-nal syllables.

3. There exist other notational systems but that of the IPA is the best known. For details concerning notation, see Pullum and Ladusaw (1986) or the works cited in footnote 1 above. The standard French dictionaries (Larousse, Le Robert, etc.) as well as the major pronouncing dictionaries (Warnant, Martinet and Walter, Lerond) all use IPA notation.

4. In other words, the description presented here will ignore for the most part the distinction between a phonetic and a phonemic or phonological description. Normally, the symbols used will represent SF phonemes, and we will refer spe-cically to the greater detail of phonetic variation as the need arises. In more theo-retical terms, we will not normally distinguish phonemic from morphophonemic representations, nor lexical from post-lexical forms. Those familiar with the lit-erature will recognize that this discussion has a strongly concrete orientation.

5. Material in this section borrows heavily from Trask (1999), an excellent hand-book for anyone interested in a survey of basic linguistic concepts.

6. See Bchade (1992: 136139) for a convenient summary of conversion pro-cesses.

7. Inectional processes may also be distinguished as to their productivity. For example, the formation of plurals in -aux from -al is nonproductive, while the formation of feminines by sufxation of -e (professeure, auteure) is widely used.

8. See Walter (1997) for a detailed and fascinating exploration of the diverse com-ponents of the French lexicon. Picone (1996) provides an excellent discussion of the current dynamics of French borrowing and neologism.

9. For discussion of the issues involved, see Dell and Selkirk (1978), Walker (1975) or Zwanenburg (1983). In general, learned words are longer, contain character-istic consonant clusters, lack schwa, are formed with a distinct set of learned afxes, and are more semantically specialized. We ignore here a large set of

19Key Descriptive and Theoretical Concepts

items derived from Greek rather than Latin (e.g., aptre apostolique apostle apostolic, hypnotique hypnotic, amnsie amnesia, etc.).

10. Technical terminology in this area abounds; we refer here to the traditional con-cepts of morpheme, allomorph and morphophonemic alternation.

Chapter 3Basic Descriptive Units and Domains

21

3.03.0 Introduction: The SegmentThe sound structure of a language is usually described in terms of discrete sound units called phonemes or segments, as well as the contexts or domains within which these units function. The next two chapters will pres-ent in some detail the French segmental inventory, divided into the two pri-mary groups (a) vowels and semi-vowels (or glides) and (b) consonants. In this chapter, we will present more general information concerning the descriptive framework to be used.

The starting point for any description involves the establishment of the pho-nemic inventory. SF phonemes (or segments) are presented in tabular form below, a form organized according to the articulatory properties of the seg-ments in question. Needless to say, we will have much more to say concerning these sounds and their functioning in the following pages.

(1) SF vowels and semi-vowels

front back

spread round round

semi-vowels L w

high K [ W

higher-mid G 1 Q nasal

lower-mid ' n ' n

low C # #

22 Chapter 3

(2) SF consonants

labial apical palatal velar uvular

obstruents

stops

voiceless p t k

voiced b d g

fricatives

voiceless f s 5

voiced v z such as saut-de-litnegligee and sauvegarde safeguard, all with /o/ in closed syllables since /.dl/ and /.vg/ are impossible syllable onsets. More importantly, since /n/ is also possible in open syllables, nothing prohibits the syllabication /bn.sk'/, and so on. However, what remains to be explained in this latter case is the impos-sibility of /o/ in many words like postal, since /o/ is normally permitted in such structures.

Nor do the related mid vowels /e '/ help here, despite the frequent claim that /e/ is excluded from closed syllables in French. 4 If such an exclusion were valid, we would not expect to nd /e/ in words such as festin if these words were syllabied /es.CV/ since they would violate the exclusion of /e/ from closed syllables. Hence, the argument goes, the proper syllabicationis /V.sCV/. Unfortunately for this proposal, SF does contain many words of the form /esCV/ rather than /'sCV/, whether syllabied /e.sCV/ or /es.CV/, and the behaviour of the mid vowels is consequently irrelevant in discussions of the syllabication of /sC/ clusters. 5 It is perhaps reassuring to know that cross-linguistically /s/ (and on occasion other fricatives) raise similar prob-lems with respect to the structure of consonantal clusters, phonotactic restric-tions, and the apparent violation of expected patterns.

The preceding discussion has dealt with VCCV syllabication and illus-trated the role of principles (8a-b). It is when we turn to VCCCV sequences that the role of (8c) is most evident. Consider the words in (10).

(10) Word-internal triconsonantal clusters 6

portrait portrait

ltrer to lter

surplus surplus

surplis surplice

spectral spectral

perdrix partridge

cercler to ring

directrice director (f).

meurtrier deadly

arbrisseau shrub

marbrer to marble, mottle

administrer to administer

30 Chapter 3

3.2

orchestral orchestral

escrime fencing

esclave slave

esprit mind

muscl muscular

embarquement boarding

forcen deranged

harcel harassed

Here we are confronted with two possibilities: VC.CCV or VCC.CV. Often, the CC. will form a perfectly acceptable nal cluster and .CC an acceptable initial cluster. In orchestral, for example, nal /Vst./ occurs in ouest, test,veste, etc., while initial /.tV/ is widespread (trs, trois, trop, and so on). Principle (8c) dictates the syllabication /n.k's.tral/, however, since this results in a minimal coda at the expense of a more complex onset. The other forms behave in an analogous fashion: if both a complex coda and a complex onset are possible, 7 minimize the coda and choose the complex onset.

We see, then, how templates and syllabication principles interact to deneboth possible syllables in French and the proper division of longer sequences into appropriate syllabic units. Before moving to the next section, we should consider briey one further potential unit in the phonological hierarchy, a combination of syllables into a unit known as the foot. Feet are well known in poetry, where they are used to represent relationships between strong and weak (accented and unaccented) units in accounting for the rhythmic patterns of sequences: iambic feet start with weak syllables; trochaic feet with strong, for example. The foot has been extended into phonological analyses to indi-cate not just strong and weak rhythmic patterns but more general relationships between strong and weak units so-called full vowels versus schwa in French, to name one obvious possibility. However, because SF is usually seen as a language where syllables are isochronous and of equal strength (except for the last syllable in a phonological phrase), the foot is of less relevance to our cur-rent discussion, and we will not use it further here. 8 This allows us to pass to a consideration of the word in French.

3.2 The SF Phonological Word

In his classic article Le mot est-il une entit phontique en franais, Pierre Delattre questions the necessity of the word as a phonological unit in French. The question arises because two of the fundamental phonological attributes of SF, stress placement and the operation of liaison and enchanement (the link-ing of a word-nal consonant with the initial vowel of a following word), are

31Basic Descriptive Units and Domains

3.3

apparently dened in terms not of words but of phonological phrases. Stress in French, for example, normally falls on the last syllable of the phonological phrase, and words in nonnal position have no word stress independently of that affecting the last syllable of the phrase. When liaison and enchanementare considered, we also see that the word loses its independence, in that word-nal consonants are resyllabied to the beginning of the following unit. This, too, is seen as demonstrating lack of independence for the word in French and minimizing its importance in the description of SF.

Recent work, however, some of which we will discuss in following chap-ters, indicates that in spite of Delattres concerns, the word must be retained as a unit in the description of French phonology.9 Many phonotactic con-straints, for example, make reference to the word, such constraints being vio-lated within larger units. Thus, if we consider words in isolation, nasal vowels do not normally precede nasal consonants in French (an isolated word such as /mnn/ is ill-formed),10 but /mnn/ occurs both in liaison (mon ami myfriend /mnnami/) and in phrases (mon nez my nose /mnne/ (compare Monet/mnne/)). Various phonological processes glide formation and the behaviour of nasal vowels in particular also refer to the notion of phonological word, as Hannahs (1995b) has demonstrated.11 Thus, high vowels may become glides when followed by another vowel within words (il joue hes playing /il

32 Chapter 3

aligned with it. That being said, we will use both phonological and grammati-cal attributes in discussing the phonological phrase, identifying rst the mini-mal phrases that is, those phrases that may not be broken down into smaller (phrasal) units.

In phonological terms, phrases are pronounced between pauses (at least potential pauses), are characterized by nal stress and specic intonational patterns, and rarely exceed six syllables in length. Over longer stretches of speech, moreover, there is a tendency to have phrases of roughly equal length (cf. Wioland [1991: 3738]). In grammatical terms, phrases are correlated with major lexical categories (nouns, verbs, adjectives) and their modiers or dependents (articles, pronouns, adverbs, etc.). These are the units that consti-tute minimal phrases those that may not be subdivided, even in slow speech. They are illustrated in (11).

(11) Phonological phrases

(a) verb-centred: single verbs (including auxiliaries, present participles, or innitives) plus accompanying subject or object pronouns and negations

je pars Im leaving.

le voit-il Does he see it?

on vous en parlera Theyll speak to you about it.

je ne lavais pas I didnt have it.

je te les envoie Im sending them to you.

donne-lui-en Give him some.

ne lui en donne pas Dont give him any.

nous ne le voulons plus We dont want it any more.

ne ten fais pas Dont worry about it.

le sachant knowing it

me le rpter repeat it to me

ne plus me le rpter not repeat it to me any more

nen sachant plus rien not knowing any more about it

ne vous en donnera-t-il pas Wont he give you any?

(b) noun-centred: nouns plus preceding (not following) determiners or modiers

un lment an element

trois chiens three dogs

33Basic Descriptive Units and Domains

ses voisins his neighbours

mes deux enfants my two children

leurs anciens camarades their former comrades

quelques instants a few moments

plusieurs beaux tableaux several pretty paintings

de bons amis good friends

toutes ces petites maisons all these little houses

(c) adjective-centred: adjectives plus preceding adverbs

trs lgant very elegant

bien aimable very nice

assez complexe rather complex

toujours prsent always there

souvent en retard often late

vraiment mesquin really stingy

rcemment mari recently married

pas trs loin not very far

si petit so small

(d) prepositional phrases

sans lui parler without speaking to him

en arrivant upon arrival

pour les vrier in order to check them

aprs tous les autres after all the others

dune autre fois of another time

pour ne pas le gner in order not to bother them

pendant une heure for an hour

en me les enlevant taking them from me

(e) subordinators and complementizers plus the following word

que vous aimez that you like

quil a pris that he took

quand il viendra when he comes

an quelle le prenne so shell take it

34 Chapter 3

si on pouvait if we could

depuis que Claude est l since Claude has been there

pendant que nous dormions while we slept

parce quon lexige because we have to

dont on parlait about which we were speaking

ce quil voulait what he wanted

These minimal phrases are so named because (in normal speech) they must be pronounced as single units without interruption. For je ne le vois pas, for example, one cannot say *jene le vois pas, je ne levois pas, *je ne le voispas, and so on (where indicates a pause), or *trsimportant, *la pro-chainelection, *sansy aller, *quandil viendra, and so on. Phrases of varying syllable length, minimal and non-minimal, are given in (12).13

(12) Phonological phrases of increasing syllable length

(1 syllable) o where

oui yes

tiens hold (this)

zut drat

(2 syllables) bonjour hello

jamais never

part-il Is he leaving?

au secours Help!

tout de suite right away

demain See you tomorrow.

daccord Okay.

(3 syllables) attention attention

dans une heure in an hour

cest toi Its yours.

quand vient-il When is he coming?

chez le mdecin at the doctors

rappelez-moi Call me back.

samedi until Saturday

oui daccord yes, Okay.

35Basic Descriptive Units and Domains

(4 syllables) cest impossible Its impossible.

on va se promener Were going for a walk.

jallais me baigner I was going to go swimming.

la semaine passe last week

gnralement generally

je ne le vois pas I dont see it.

pendant une heure for an hour

merci beaucoup Thanks a lot.

cest a nest-ce pas Thats it, isnt it.

(5 syllables) veuillez mexcuser Please excuse me.

jai mal la tte I have a headache.

cest au bout de la rue Its at the end of the street.

ne pars pas tout de suite Dont leave right away.

en avez-vous trop Do you have too much?

aux Etats-Unis in the United States

cet avertissement this warning

(6 syllables) rendez-vous midi meeting at noon

il faudra en parler We have to speak about it.

pourquoi pas tout Why not in a little while? lheure

vous ny arriverez pas You wont get there.

luniversit at the university

il y fait toujours froid Its always cold there.

considrablement considerably

As mentioned above, not all of these phrases are minimal phrases. Minimal phrases may be combined into longer sequences depending on a variety of factors, among which are the rate of speech (faster speech favours longer phrases), stylistic considerations (formal speech favours shorter phrases), and emphasis (phrase breaks may be used to mark items to be emphasized). Needless to say, a further controlling ingredient involves length: as we have seen, phrases rarely exceed six or seven syllables under normal circumstances. Again, under normal circumstances, the divisions between phrases will cor-relate with major syntactic divisions, as in (13) where the symbol (||) is here used to indicate an optional break.

36 Chapter 3

(13) Longer phrases composed of two (or more) minimal phrases 14

(a) verb nucleus plus verb

Je ne lavais pas (||) entendu. I hadnt heard it.

Il prtend (||) ne pas le vouloir. Hes pretending not to want to.

Tu devrais (||) lui en parler. You should speak to himabout it.

Veuillez (||) ne pas me dranger. Please dont bother me.

(b) noun phrase plus verb or vice-versa

Le match (||) sest bien termin. The game ended well.

Le professeur (||) nen sait rien. The professor knowsnothing about it.

Il nous raconte (||) des btises. Hes telling us nonsense.

Elle promet (||) de nous suivre. She promises to follow us.

Connais-tu (||) ce jeune homme? Do you know this young man?

(c) noun plus following modier

un journal (||) hebdomadaire a weekly newspaper

une maison (||) de campagne a country house

lautobus (||) de la ville the city bus

un appartement (||) louer an apartment to rent

une histoire (||) pas trs amusante a not very funny story

(d) verb plus following modier

Elle me le dit (||) assez souvent. She tells me quite often.

On vous rappellera (||) Well call you today.ds aujourdhui.

Nous lui en parlons (||) We talk to him about itconstamment. constantly.

Il faut y aller (||) tout seul. You have to go there alone.

Ils se parlent (||) avec difcult. They speak to each otherwith difculty.

The decision to combine shorter phrases into one longer one may have addi-tional phonological consequences. To begin with, there will be only one stressed syllable rather than two: un appartement || louer an apartment to rent /napatm# || alwe/ versus un appartement louer /napatm#alwe/.

37Basic Descriptive Units and Domains

3.4

Moreover, since syllabication does not usually cross phrase boundaries, removal of a boundary may require resyllabication (enchanement or liai-son): Paul lavait vite || oubli Paul had quickly forgotten it. /pnllav'vit || ublie/ versus Paul lavait vite oubli /pnllav'vi.tublie/ or je ne lavais pas|| entendu I hadnt heard it. /

38 Chapter 3

2. The qualication phonetic is needed because certain more abstract representa-tions may represent semi-vowels as vowels, the latter subsequently being modi-ed. Note also that, unlike their English counterparts (e.g., bottle, butter), French liquids may not be syllabic.

3. For a detailed treatment of liaison, see Section 5.6.1.

4. For such a claim, see Price (1991: 56). Tranel (1987: 52) also excludes /e/ from nal closed syllables, a claim countered by such loan words as cake /kek/ or mail/mel/. We will return to this matter in the discussion of mid vowels in chapter 4, section 4.2.

5. Martinet and Walter (1973) contains many examples showing both /e/ and /'/ in such contexts, including exprs specially /eksp' 'ksp'/, exploit /eksplwa 'ksplwa/, exact /egza 'gza/, where the syllabication can hardly be /e.ksp'/,/e.ksplwa/, or /e.gza/.

6. We will ignore the less frequent VCCCCV possibilities (e.g., extra- rst-rate/'ksta/, abstrait abstract /apst'/, expliquer to explain /'ksplike/), which allow for either VC.CCCV or VCC.CCV (/'k.sta/ or /'ks.ta/, /ap.st'/ or /aps.t'/, /'k.spli.ke/ or /'ks.pli.ke/), depending on where /s/ is assigned. Principle (8c) favours the former option. We should also note that in popular speech, words like expliquer and exprimer to express are reduced to espliquer and esprimer,with simplication to a triconsonantal cluster.

7. This condition leads to a discussion of embarquement (where, as in forcen andharcel as well, the schwa has exceptionally deleted to create the triconsonantal cluster). In embarquement /#bakm#/, a syllabication /#.ba.km#/ is impossible because /km/ is not a possible onset. Here, then, we must complicate the coda: /#.bak.m#/. This data is taken from Juilland (1965).

8. See, however, Selkirk (1978) or Bullock (1995) for work that makes crucial use of the foot in analysing aspects of French phonology the behaviour of schwa in particular.

9. Lyche and Girard (1995), in particular, revisit this question in detail.

10. Exceptions such as ennui boredom /#ni/ or vnmes we came /v'm/ are dis-cussed below in Section 4.4.2.

11. See also Rochet (1977) or Lyche and Girard (1995). It is perhaps worth recalling that the concept word is complex and notoriously difcult to dene in cross-linguistic terms (cf. Trask [1999: 34244] for a concise discussion). It is necessary to distinguish, particularly in French, between orthographic words (those written between white spaces) and phonological words (those pronounced as single

39Basic Descriptive Units and Domains

units), with the latter of primary importance. For our purposes here, Hannahs denition of the French phonological word as consisting of either pre xes or stems plus all associated sufxes is most useful.

12. Also known in the literature on French as groupe rythmique, groupe accentuel, groupe de soufe, groupe respiratoire, groupe intonationnel, albeit with occa-sional subtle distinctions among the various units. If the syntactic or semantic underpinnings of the unit are involved, the term groupe syntaxique is also found (e.g., in Bchade [1992: 60]).

13. Many of these examples are from Wioland (1991: 89), a work that provides excellent material concerning phonological phrases. Note the discrepancy in these examples between the orthography and the pronunciation arising from the dele-tion of schwa, a topic to be discussed in some detail in chapter 5.

14. Examples are based primarily on material from Mueller et al. (1968: 4445).

15. Such liaison examples can be contradicted by liaison sans enchanement (Encrev 1988), as in /

Chapter 4Vowels and Semi-vowels

41

4.04.0 The Vowel SystemTraditionally, SF is described as having a system of sixteen vowels, twelve oral and four nasal, as tabulated in (1) below (see also 3.0 above). To this must be added the semi-vowels or glides /j w/, corresponding to the three high vowels /i y u/ respectively.

(1) SF vowels and semi-vowels (glides)

semi-vowels L w

high K [ W

higher-mid G 1 Q nasal

lower-mid ' n ' n

low C # #

(2) Examples (in word-level contexts)

# __ __# __C.

/i/ ivre drunk vie life vite quickly

/y/ une a vue sight jupe skirt

/u/ outre besides vous you vote vault

/e/ t summer fe fairy cake1 cake

// euro Euro jeu game jene fast

/o/ autre other sot silly saute sudden change

/'/ tre to be mais but dette debt

// heure hour jeune young

/n/ or gold fort strong

42 Chapter 4

4.1

/a/ art art chat cat patte paw

/#/ ge age mt mast pte pastry

// (sur) ce this

/'/ impair uneven n end sainte holy

// humble humble brun brown emprunte he borrows

/n / ongle nail bon good honte shame

/# / entre between dent tooth banque bank

#__ C__ V__V __#

/j/ iode iodine bien well balayer sweep paille straw

// huit eight puis then 2

/w/ ouest west couette bunches

In comparative or typological terms, this vowel system is relatively rich. In particular, it requires four degrees of tongue height and contains both front rounded vowels and nasal vowels.3 All vowels, with the exception of //(schwa, to which we return in detail below), are tense and nondiphthongized. There exist a number of complex phonological problems associated with this system, problems that we will treat in turn.

4.1 Vowel Length

Historically and dialectally, long vowels have played and continue to play a signicant role in French. In SF, however, their role is signicantly reduced. Long vowels are largely contextually determined, and the remnants of an earlier long-short opposition are minimal. The contextually determined long vowels occur in stressed closed syllables. Stress and syllable structure, in other words, provide the two fundamental conditions that must be present for vowel length to appear. Given the close relationship between stress and phonological phrases, moreover, long vowels are further restricted to phrase-nal position in SF.4

(3) Constraints on contextually determined long vowels

Long vowels occur in:

(i) stressed syllables

(ii) closed syllables

If the foregoing conditions are met, two types of long vowels occur in SF: (i) those induced by the lengthening consonants /v z < /5 and the cluster /v/, and (ii) the intrinsically long vowels / o #/ plus the nasal vowels /'n#/.

43Vowels and Semi-vowels

4.1.14.1.1 Lengthening ConsonantsThe effects of the lengthening consonants are shown by the following con-trasts:6

(4) Lengthening versus nonlengthening consonants

/v f/ vive [vi:v] lively (f.) vif [vif] lively (m.)

grave [ga:v] solemn graphe [gaf] written form

/z s/ vise [vi:z] she aims vice [vis] vice

rase [a:z] he shaves race [as] race

/

44 Chapter 4

4.1.2

parte [pat] leaves (subj.) part [pa:] leaves (ind.)

quatorze [katnz] fourteen tort [tn:] wrong;

orge [n

46 Chapter 4

reine queen Rennes (city name)

scne scene

tte head tte sucks

tratre traitor

Unlike the two preceding types of long vowels, long /'/ is distinctive in SF, and as a consequence, examples of the vowel can be found in unstressed syl-lables, normally provided the syllable is word-nal.8 Examples of this occur-rence are found in (8).

(8) Unstressed (phrase-internal) long /'/

cest une fte importante Its an important holiday.

un matre-chanteur a black-mailer

il a reu une grle de balles He suffered a hail of bullets.

This opposition is increasingly unstable in SF, the long vowel being excep-tional, so many speakers now have only one vowel /'/, the short version, with the words in (7) therefore showing assimilation to the regular pattern.

To conclude this description of vowel length in SF, we may note that length is not cumulative. That is, intrinsically long vowels or long /'/ followed by a lengthening consonant are not doubly long; length in rose [oz], chaisechair [5'z] or genre kind [

48 Chapter 4

4.2

(c) learned nonlearned pairs

pre /#p/ bitter asprit /aspeite/ bitterness

bte /b':t/ animal bestial /b'stjal/ bestial

crote /kut/ crust croustillant /kustij#/ crusty

fte /f':t/ holiday festoyer /f'stwaje/ to feast

fort /fn'/ forest forestier /fn'stje/ forest (adj.)

got /gu/ taste dgustation /degystasj/sampling

hpital /npital/ hospital hospitalier /nspitalje/ hospital (adj.)

le /il/ island insulaire /'syl'/ insular

matre /m':t/ master magistral /ma

50 Chapter 4

4.2.2

Although the match between orthography and pronunciation is far from con-sistent in French, there are several patterns that allow for prediction of /e/ versus /'/ in this context. Final orthographic < , e, ez, er > (where the < r > is not pronounced, as in innitives) are normally realized as /e/. Final < ai, aiC, aC, eC or C > are normally pronounced /'/, with the exception of the words et /e/ and and les /le(z)/ the, and the verbal ending < -ai > /e/, as in jai Ihave, je mangeai I ate, je mangerai I will eat.14

For the sake of completeness, (13) illustrates // and /o/ in nal open syl-lables in a variety of orthographic guises; recall that // and /n/ are excluded from this context.

(13) Final // and /o/

/o/ //

beau handsome jeu game

hros hero ceux those

vos your peut she can

animaux animals noeud knot

zro zero queue tail

eaux waters voeu wish

4.2.2 Mid Vowels in Final Closed Syllables

In word-nal closed syllables, the situation is the converse of the preceding. The rounded pairs of vowels, front / / and back /o n/, are distinct, while only the lower-mid unrounded /'/ occurs, /e/ being excluded from nal closed syllables in SF (with the exception of loanwords such as ale /el/ discussed elsewhere).

(14) // versus //, /o/ versus /n/ in nal closed syllables

// //15

jene fast jeune young

neutre neuter seul alone

meute pack peur fear

beugle to moo aveugle blind

meugle to moo veuve widow

creuse hollow (f.) deuil bereavement

51Vowels and Semi-vowels

4.2.3

/o/ /n/

saute change sotte silly (f.)

Beaune (region) bonne good

fausse false (f.) fosse ditch

paule shoulder molle soft (f.)

paume palm pomme apple

cte16 coast cote mark

In fact, for the front rounded vowels, the number of words involved in this opposition is very low, since the appearance of // in this context is infre-quent. Standard references normally list no more than a dozen items, while // occurs freely, and many speakers replace // with the lower-mid partner. There are, moreover, more specic distributional constraints on these two vowels: only // occurs before the lengthening consonant /z/, as in creuse or the femi-nine derivational sufx -euse (chanteuse singer [f.]), while only // appears before // (peur fear or the suf xes -eur as in chanteur singer [m.], gran-deur size).17 The distinction between /o/ and /n/, on the other hand, is stable, although analogous distributional constraints are also in evidence. Specically, only /n/ may occur before // and // (store blind, ivrogne drunk), while only /o/ appears before /z/ (rose).

4.2.3 Mid Vowels in Nonnal Closed Syllables

Before treating nonnal open syllables, we may deal easily with the least com-plex situation: nonnal closed syllables, where the lower-mid vowels /'n/normally appear. This neutralization of the higher-mid/lower-mid distinction leading to the absence of /e o/ from nonnal closed syllables foreshadows the discussion of the loi de position to occur below and is illustrated in (15).

(15) /'n/ in non nal closed syllables

/'/ // /n/

fertile fertile heurter to strike dormir to sleep

personne person meurtrier deadly colporteur pedlar

plerin pilgrim seulement only cordial cordial

festival festival effeuillement18 leaf fall nocturne nocturnal

There is, however, one complication in this area: the possibility, for some speakers, of /e/ in nonnal closed syllables. (This minor effect is indicated by the parentheses surrounding the /e/ in the table in [11] above.) Such examples

52 Chapter 4

4.2.4

arise in three primary contexts: (i) closed syllables created by the deletion of mute-e:19 cleri celery /sel.i/, dmesure excessiveness /dem.zy/, meriemery /em.i/, ennemi enemy /en.mi/, vnement event /even.m#/, mde-cin doctor /met.s'/, and so on; (ii) sequences of /esC/ (assuming the syllabication /es.C/): espoir hope /es.pwa/, destin destiny /des.t'/,digestion /di.: exact /eg.za/, examen examination /eg.za.m'/, excellent /ek.se.l#/, exotisme exoticism /eg.zn.tism/, exploit /eks.plwa/, extra /eks.ta/, textuel /teks.t'l/, and many others. That this pronunciation of /e/ in closed syllables is restricted to unstressed position is indicated by the behaviour of related words: digesteeasily digested, geste gesture, modeste, texte, where /e/ is impossible. Moreover, not all speakers of SF accept such pronunciations, allowing only /'/ in nonnal closed syllables. As a result, we will continue to see /'/ as the primary realization of the mid front unrounded vowels in this context.

4.2.4 Mid Vowels in Nonnal Open Syllables

If one were to indicate a single standard pronunciation for the mid vowels in nonnal open syllables, it would no doubt be /e n/, as in (16):

(16) Mid vowels in non nal open syllables

/e/ // /n/

cder to give up pleuvoir to rain poteau post

tmoin witness jeudi Thursday pome poem

fcond fertile heureux happy modle model

gnreux generous deuxime second folie madness

However, by far the greatest amount of variability and hence complexity in the pronunciation of the mid vowels occurs in this context, and consistent gener-alizations are difcult to establish. Paradoxically, the pronunciation of a vowel as higher-mid or lower-mid in such syllables has very little effect on the iden-tication of words (unlike the distinction between saute sudden change and sotte silly (f.) or cre create and craie chalk, for example) or on com-munication in general. In addition to simple free variation, the realization of the vowels in nonnal open syllables is inuenced by several further factors, sometimes conicting, sometimes mutually supportive. These factors include analogy (the persistent inuence of the root vowel in derived forms), vowel harmony, and (perhaps) the loi de position. We will deal with each in turn.

53Vowels and Semi-vowels

4.2.4.14.2.4.1 AnalogyFrench has a relatively rich system of inectional and derivational morphol-ogy in which sufxes are added to roots to indicate a change in inectionalcategory or to form new words, as in il embauche nous embauchons (root:embauch- hire) or bleu bleuir, bleutre (root: bleu blue). If a vowel-initial sufx is added to a stem ending in a vowel or a single consonant (as in the pre-ceding examples), the sufx will bear the stress and the root vowel will then be found in a nonnal open syllable.20 As indicated in (17), there is a strong tendency in SF to preserve, through analogy, the root vowel in derived forms, even if this contradicts the indications in (16) above.

(17) Preservation of root vowels

gu ford guable fordable /e/ /e/

th tea thire teapot /e/ /e/

laide ugly laideur ugliness /'/ /'/

beau handsome beaut beauty /o/ /o/

gros large grosseur thickness /o/ /o/

bosse hump bossu hunchbacked /n/ /n/

cole school colier student /n/ /n/

roche rock rocher rock /n/ /n/

This pressure is particularly strong when it involves the vowels / /; if the base contains either of these vowels, that vowel is normally preserved in both verb conjugations and derived words, as in (18).21

(18) // and // in roots

feuille leaf feuillu leafy // //

elle cueille she gathers cueillir to gather // //

il pleure hes crying pleurer to cry // //

jeune young rajeunir to rejuvenate // //

beurre butter beurrer to butter // //

il creuse hes digging creuser to dig // //

deux two deuxime second // //

elle jene shes fasting jener to fast // //

heureux happy heureusement fortunately // //

bleu blue bleutre bluish // //

54 Chapter 4

4.2.4.2

In both (17) and (18), we see that this analogical pressure has produced forms that contradict the initial generalization in (16) above: raideur stiff-ness /'.d/, not (or at least rarely) */e.d/; beaut beauty /bo.te/, not */bn.te/; feuillu broad-leafed tree /f.jy/, not */f.jy/; and so on.

4.2.4.2 Vowel Harmony

Vowel harmony is a type of assimilation in French in which the vowel of the stressed syllable inuences the pronunciation of a mid vowel in a preceding open syllable. If the stressed vowel is lower-mid or low (/' na #/), it will favour a lower-mid realization of the vowel in the open syllable preceding it. If it is higher-mid or high (/i y u e o/, especially /i y e/), it will, conversely, favour the appearance of a higher-mid vowel. Vowel harmony is never obliga-tory; it is characteristic of less rather than more formal speech; and it affects primarily the front unrounded pair of vowels /e '/, although its inuence on the other mid vowels is not unknown. Vowel harmony is illustrated in (19).

(19) Vowel harmony

(a) higher-mid vowels through harmony

aigre bitter /'/ > aigri /e/ /i/

bte animal /'/ > btise /e/ /i/

terre earth /'/ > territoire22 /e/ /i/