Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives 9780191845000, 0191845000, 9780198807384, 0198807384

Table of contents :
Contents
Series preface
Acknowledgments
List of abbreviations
Introduction
Theoretical considerations
The phonetics of palatals
Palatals in the history of the Romance languages
Palatals in the Romance languages today
Palatal sound change in the Romance languages: A unified account
Final remarks
APPENDICES
References
Index

Citation preview

Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS GeneralEditors Adam Ledgewayand Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory Editors Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermudez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer,Universityof Cambridge;Charlotte Galves,University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania;David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; George Walkden, University of Konstanz; David Willis, University of Cambridge RECENTLY PUBLISHED

IN THE SERIES

30 Arabic Historical Dialectology Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches

Edited by Clive Holes 31 Grammaticalization from a Typological Perspective

Edited by Heiko Narrog and Bernd Heine 32

Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou 33 Indefinites between Latin and Romance

Chiara Gianollo 34

Verb Second in Medieval Romance Sam Wolfe 35

Referential Null Subjects in Early English Kristian A. Rusten 36 Word Order and Parameter Change in Romanian A Comparative Romance Perspective Alexandru Nicolae 37 Cycles in Language Change

Edited by Miriam Bouzouita, Anne Breitbarth, Lieven Danckaert, and Elisabeth Witzenhausen 38 Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives

Andre Zampaulo For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 233-6.

Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages Diachronic and SynchronicPerspectives ANDRE ZAMPAULO

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

PRESS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of exce!Jence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries @

Andre Zampaulo 2019

The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2019 Impression: l All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2019936808 ISBN 978-0-19-880738-4 Printed and hound hy CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CRO4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Contents ~ ix xi

&~p~a Acknowledgments List of abbreviations 1. Introduction 1.1 The Romance languages 1.2 Romance "palatals" 1.3 Approach and objectives 1.4 Book outline

1 2 4 6

2. Theoretical considerations

8

2.1 Introduction 2.2 The concept of sound change 2.2.1 The origins vs the spread of sound change 2.2.2 The possibility of sound change 2.3 Optimality Theory 2.3.1 Phonetically based Optimality Theory 2.3.2 Optimality and sound change 2.3.3 Constraint reranking and the explanation of sound change 2.4 The role of the speaker and the listener-turned-speaker in sound change 2.5 A non-teleological constrained-based model of sound change 2.6 Concluding remarks

3. The phonetics of palatals 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Introduction The phonetics The phonetics The phonetics Summary and

of palatal vowels and the glide [j] of palatal sonorants of palatal obstruents concluding remarks

4. Palatals in the history of the Romance languages 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The emergence of Latin YOD 4.3 The emergence of the palatal lateral [.(J 4.3.1 First-stage [.iC](Ai) 4.3.2 Second-stage [A] (A2)

1

8 10 lO 11 14

16 19 20 21 26 29

31 31 32 34 39 44

46 46 47 49 49 62

vi

CONTENTS

4.4 The emergence of the palatal nasal [J1] 4.4.1 [-nj-] 4.4.2 [gn] and [n:] 4.5 The emergence of palatal obstruents 4.s.1 U-J 4.5.2 [dj gj j] 4.5.3 [gi ge gE] and [ki ke k£J 4.5.4 *[kregreJ 4.5.5 [sj] and [§] 4.5.6 [tj kj] 4.5.7 [kt ks] 4.5.8 [pi kl fl bl gl) and [pj bj mj vj]

4.6 Swnmary and concluding remarks

5. Palatals in the Romance languages today 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Palatals in Ibero-Romance varieties 5.2.l The rise and spread of YEfsMoin Modern Spanish 5.2.2 Palatals in the languages of Spain 5.2.3 Palatals in the Spanish dialects of Hispanic America and other varieties 5.2.4 Palatals in Portuguese varieties 5.3 Palatals in Gallo-Romance 5.4 Palatals in Italo-Romance and Sardinian 5.5 Palatals in Rhaeto-Romance and Eastern Romance varieties 5.6 Swnmary and concluding remarks

78 78 80 83 83 87 89 92 93 94 95 96 97

99 99

100 100 105 113 143 144 145 147 149

6. Palatal sound change in the Romance languages: A unified

account

150

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Sound change as constraint rerank.ing

150

6.3 Pathways for the emergence and evolution of palatal sonorants 6.4 Pathways for the emergence and evolution of palatal obstruents 6.5 Swnmary and concluding remarks

7. Final remarks

151 153 172 199

200

Appendices Appendix 1: Demographic questions Appendix 2: Sentence-reading task Appendix 3: Knowledge of potential minimal pairs

207

208 209

References

211

Index

231

r

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first-language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focusing on change in linguistic structure, and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts

Universityof Cambridge

Acknowledgments This book is the culmination of years of research and could not have come to light without the endless effort, genuine collaboration, and wise advice from many wonderful colleagues and friends. First and foremost, my mentors in phonetics, phonology, dialectology, and historical linguistics at The Ohio State University, namely, Rebeka Campos-Astorkiza, Fernando Martinez-Gil, and Terrell A. Morgan, who deserve my sincerest thanks. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this book, who have provided invaluable balance and much needed criticism that has made this project worth publishing. As with any large project, colleagues, friends, and family have played a crucial role in the development of this book. In particular, I wish to thank Kyle Dunkle for his friendship and constant enthusiasm as he proofread every chapter draft, as well as the following individuals for their unconditional support: Eric Carbajal, Manena Gomez Sanchez, James Hussar, Juan Ishikawa, Enric MallorquiRuscalleda, Madalena Sanchez Zampaulo, and the Zampaulo family. Lastly, Julia Steer, Vicki Sunter, and the entire editorial team at Oxford University Press should be commended for their superb professional work and tireless dedication throughout all the developmental stages of this book. Thank you all very much. Andre Zampaulo

Fullerton, California November 2018

List of abbreviations

*

> Ara. Aro. Ast. Ast.-Leo. Bar. C Cal. Cast.-Sp. Cat. Cln. Cor. Cpd. Dal. Egd. Em.-Rom. F

FI F2

Fr. Fr-Prov.

Fri. GL Gsc. I IPA Ist-Ro.

syllable boundary (i) unattested form or usage (ii) constraint violation becomes, yields Aragonese (Pyrenean Thero-Romance language spoken in Aragon, northeastern Spain) Aromanian (Daco-Romance dialects spoken in Greece, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and the Republic of Macedonia) Asturian (dialect group of northwestern Spain) Astur-Leonese Barese (central eastern Pugliese dialect of Bari, upper southeastern Italy) (i) central (ii) constraint Calabrian (dialect group of Calabria, extreme southwest ofltaly) Castilian Spanish Catalan Cellinese (northern Salentino dialect of Cellino San Marco, extreme southeast of Italy) Corsican Campidanese (dialect group of Campidania, southern Sardinia) Dalmatian (obsolete group of dialects formerly spoken in the Dalmatia region of Croatia and Montenegro) Engadine (Romansh dialect of Engadine Valley, southeastern Switzerland) Emilian-Romagnol (group of dialects spoken mainly in the northern Italian region of Emilia-Romagna) feminine first formant frequency second formant frequency French Francoprovenyal (Gallo-Romance dialects spoken in central eastern France, western Switzerland, and northwestern Italy) Friulian (dialect group of Friuli, northeastern Italy) Galidan (Ibero-Romance language of northwestem Spain) Gascon input International Phonetic Alphabet Istro-Romanian (Daco-Romance dialects spoken in !stria, Croatia)

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

It. J-Sp. Lad. Lat. Lecc. Leo. Lig. LO Log. Lorn. Mat. MCat Mil. Moli. Neap. Norm. Nuo. 0 0cc. OT

Pie. Pied. PL PRES

Proto-Rom. Proto-Sp. Prov. Pt. Ro. Roma. Sard. SES SG

Sic. Sp. SUBJV

Tusc. UG Up. Ven.

w

Italian Judeo-Spanish Ladin Latin Leccese (southern Salentino dialect of Lecce. extreme southeast Italy) Leonese Ligurian (dialect group of Liguria, northwestern Italy) Lexicon Optimization Logudorese (dialect group of Logudoro, northwestern Sardinia) Lombard (dialect group of Lombardy, central northern Italy) Materano (southeastern Basilicatese dialect of Matera. upper southern Italy) Mallorcan Catalan Milanese Molisan (dialect group of Molise, upper south Italy) Neapolitan Norman Nuorese (Sardinian dialects of Nuoro and province, northeastern Sardinia) (i) output (i) old Occitan Optimality Theory Picard (dialects spoken in Picardy and Pas-de-Calais, northern France) Piedmontese (dialect group of Piedmont, northwestern Italy) plural present tense Proto-Romance Proto-Spanish Proven~al Portuguese Romanian Romansh Sardinian Santiago del Estero Spanish singular Sicilian Spanish subjunctive Tuscan Universal Grammar upper Venetan west(ern)

1 Introduction

1.1 The Romance languages The Romance languages form a large group of linguistic varieties which owe much of their historical development to Latin and are nowadays spoken worldwide, particularly in Europe, the Americas, and Africa, by around 800 million native speakers (Lewis 2009). The most widely known representatives of the Romance family are French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Romanian, essentially because of their high number of speakers around the world and their prestige as national languages. However, many other varieties are part of the Romance-speaking world. Thus, before embarking on the details of this book, it is important to specify the Romance languages that will be the focus of the following pages and from which historical and contemporary data will be retrieved and analyzed in the present study. The Romance languages featured in this book, along with their corresponding dialects, are organized in the following six major groups: 1. Eastern Romance: Romanian and Dalmatian (the latter already extinct)

2. Rhaeto-Romance: Friulian, Ladin, and Romansh 3. Italo-Romance: Italian, Tuscan, Corsican, and the dialects of northern, central, and southern Italy 4. Sardinian S. Gallo-Romance: French, Occitan, and Francoprovem;:al 6. Thero-Romance: Catalan, Navarro-Aragonese, Astur-Leonese, Galician, Portuguese, and Spanish In addition to these languages, there are also many creoles whose lexicon is Romance-based and was built mainly under the influence oflbero- and GalloRomance varieties (e.g. Haitian, Papiamentu, Sao Tomense, Chabacano, etc.). Although data from some of these creoles will be considered, the varieties of the aforementioned language groups will inherently receive primary focus in the following chapters. Palatal Sound Changein the RomanceLanguages.First editio~. A~dre Zampaulo.

e Andre Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford Uruvemty Press.

2

INTRODUCTION

1.2 Romance "palatals" This book presents a thorough investigation of the historical and present-day variation and change patterns undergone by so-called "palatal" consonants in the Romance languages. The word "palatal" is used here as a general term for sounds that have emerged from palatalization processes, which entail not only changes in place of articulation (e.g. a consonant's articulation moving toward a more palatal position), but also changes in manner of articulation (e.g. the emergence of alveolar affricates from Latin /tj dj/). Some scholars favor the use of a more precise term such as "(alveolo)palatal" to refer to these sounds (see Recasens 2013). However, for the sake of simplicity and readability, in this book we will follow the Romance tradition by which palatalization has given rise not only to "true" palatal consonants (i.e. consonants articulated with the body of the tongue against the hard palate), but also to alveolar, palatoalveolar, and retroflex consonants, as shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Consonants that emerged from palatalization processes in the evolution of the Romance languages Alveolar

Palato-alveolar

Alveolo-palatal

Plosive Affricate Fricative

ts dz

tf > Y >> Z II/ A

CONSTRAINT

CONSTRAINT

Y

CONSTRAINT

Z

*!

11'-i!'B C

X

*!

* *

*

As illustrated in Table 2.1, in the grammar of a particular language or dialect, candidate B emerges as the optimal candidate for input /I/ given the constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z, since candidates A and C both violate a more highly ranked constraint, i.e. constraint X, and despite the fact that candidate B itself violates constraints that are low-ranked in the system. However, in the grammars of other languages or dialects, these constraints may be organized in

16

THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

a different domination ranking, which may, then, select another optimal candidate, as illustrated in Table 2.2.

Table2.2 Candidate A is selected as the optimal candidate under the constraint ranking Y >> X >> Z /1/

CONSTRAINT

r&A

Y

CONSTRAINT

X

CONSTRAINT Z

*

B

*!

C

*!

* *

Table 2.2 predicts that A will be selected as the optimal candidate under the constraint ranking Y>> X >> Z, as candidates Band C both violate a constraint that is more highly ranked, i.e. constraint Y. By comparing Table 2.1 and 2.2, it is possible to visualize how different rankings of the same constraints result in cross-linguistic and/or cross-dialectal differences. In addition to GEN,CoN, and EvAL, two other principles of OT regarding the input and underlying representations are worth characterizing, i.e. Richness of the Base (ROTB) and Lexicon Optimization (LO) (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [19931).The ROTB principle states that constraints must operate at the output level or on the correspondence between an input and an output. Thus, they do not operate directly on the input, as was the case in previous, serially-based generative frameworks (cf. Chomsky and Halle 1968; Dresher 2015). On the other hand, determining a given underlying representation falls under the LO principle, according to which the selection of underlying forms will derive from a set of possible inputs and indicate the representation that is most harmonic with the output, given the constraint ranking of a language (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]; Ito et al. 1995). Thus, in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, constraints 'X', 'Y', and 'Z' evaluate the shape of the candidates and their relation to the input. While 'A' is the most harmonic candidate with /I/ in Table 2.1, 'B' is the most harmonic in Table 2.2, given the different constraint rankings and the fact that the principle of LO would establish these candidates as underlying forms.

2.3.1 Phonetically based Optimality Theory Upon considering the OT machinery, a question naturally arises regarding the nature of OT constraints, i.e. what their characteristics are in CON.In the classical version of OT (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]) constraints are

2.3

OPTIMALITY

THEORY

17

considered universal and innate, that is, speakers of all languages are born with all constraints, and what determines a sound pattern in a given language is its particular constraint ranking. Thus, the difference among sound patterns and languages is determined by their different constraint rankings. The formulation of constraints in OT falls under two basic families, i.e. faithfulness constraints and markedness constraints. While the former evaluate the relationship between two forms (e.g. Input-Output, Output-Output), the latter assess the shape or configuration of sounds in an output candidate. To establish the universality of faithfulness and markedness constraints, scholars have relied upon typological tendencies observed in known languages and/ or phonetic evidence of sound patterns. If we assume that phonetics plays a crucial role in the initiation of sound change during the speaker-listener interaction, then it is reasonable to predict that phonetic detail (e.g. articulatory and acoustic factors) will be directly encoded in the formulation of OT constraints. This viewpoint is in alignment with phonetically based OT approaches to phonology that consider phonetics to play a direct role in shaping phonological patterns (e.g. Steriade 2001; Flemming 2002, 2004; Hayes and Steriade 2004; Jun 2004; Wright 2004; Bradley 2006; Bradley and Delforge 2006 among others). It departs from other works that also rely on phonetic information to inform constraints, but confer a more abstract role to them (e.g. Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994; Walker 2004, 2005; among others). The direct encoding of phonetics into OT constraints followsfrom a grounded definition of markedness, which comprises speakers' knowledge of how speech is produced and perceived This knowledge provides the basis for markedness constraints. According to Hayes and Steriade (2004: 1), the typological effects that are found in sound inventories derive precisely from such knowledge: The effect phonetic knowledge has on the typology of the world's sound systems stems from the fact that certain basic conditions governing speech perception and production are necessarily shared by all languages, experienced by all speakers, and implicitly known by all. This shared knowledge leads learners to postulate independently similar constraints. This definition of markedness constraints is relevant for purposes of the present approach because it delimits the role of phonetics in the shaping of sounds and how the origins of sound change may take place in part due to their articulatory and acoustic patterns. Thus, the model adopted here departs from other approaches which define and use markedness in the strictly typological sense, i.e. by using the frequency of a segment's occurrence to determine if a given structure is marked (infrequent) or unmarked (frequent).

18

THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

For example, it is well known that the palatal lateral [A]is not very common in the languages of the world. In a typological sense, then, it could be considered a marked sound, by which one could posit the markedness constraint *lA:].The current approach, however, strives to understand what are the conditions (i.e. phonetically based markedness constraints) that contribute for this segment not to be frequent in the languages of the world in the first place. Another common assumption in classical versions of OT is the universality and innateness of constraints, i.e. the postulation that speakers of all languages are born with all constraints provided by Universal Grammar (UG). However, by following phonetically based versions of OT, the analyses in this book depart from that notion and assume, instead, that markedness constraints may be universal due to certain phonetic patterns, but they need not necessarily be innate (Hayes and Steriade 2004: 6). Rather, they emerge throughout the course of child language acquisition and adult language development. This approach follows particular tendencies in the research on the phoneticsphonology interface (e.g. Clements and Ridouane 2011) and the OT literature on sound change (e.g. Gess 1996, 2003; Boersma 1998; Hayes 1999; Holt 2003a), according to which language users organize phonological categories and constraint ranking not only during, but also beyond, the acquisition period of their languages. For example, Lindblom et al. (2011) examined the attested preference of languages for labial, dental/alveolar, and velar places of articulation through computational experiments that were centered on the place of articulation in voiced stops from different languages, and designed to produce "optimal" stop+ vowel syllables to determine the perceptual cost, the articulatory cost, and the mode of learning of such segment sequence. Their findings confirm not only the preference for those places of articulation in known languages, but also speakers' constant re-use of place features in giving rise to voiced stop inventories. Lindblom et al. (2011) argue, then, for the feasibility of user-based accounts of phonological facts and point out the crucial role played by phonetic restrictions in shaping the formal structure of sound patterns throughout their historical evolution. Thus, in the course of language acquisition and development, similar constraints may arise and display the same ranking cross-linguistically because of the presence of similar or equal phonetic contexts. This finding entails that constraints may not necessarily be innate (e.g. Gess 2003: 68). In classical versions of OT, scholars frequently resort to the argument that, if a given phonological process is absent in one language, for example, it is because certain universal constraints are lowranked and their effects are, thus, not visible.While this may work descriptively, it does not represent an informative approach as to why that phonological

2.3 OPTIMALITY

THEORY

19

process is absent from that language or did not appear in its evolution altogether. By solely relying on the rankings of the constraints themselves, classical versions of OT reach a point of circularity that is only informative within its own premises and falls short of providing a grounded motivation for said process or lack thereof. In contrast, if we assume that phonetics motivates and informs markedness constraints, it is possible to achieve a grounded and well-motivated explanation for a given phonological process or lack thereof. Therefore, if constraints are not innate but emergent, then UG does not stand as a mere repository of pre-established constraints; rather, it provides "a set of abstract analytical predispositions that allow learners to induce grammars from the raw facts of speech ( ... )" (Hayes and Steriade 2004: 6).

2.3.2 Optimality and sound change As sound systems are found in constant paths of evolution, it is important to note that they do not always present a static configuration and frequently display variation among and within dialects. Thus, it is assumed that phonetically based constraint rankings are inherently unstable (cf. Bernhardt and Sternberger 1998), which helps to account for the great variability that is found in sound production and perception cross-linguistically and within dialects of the same language. Additionally, it is worth pointing out what is meant by "optimal," especially considering the evolution of sounds. As critics of OT have pointed out (cf. Boersma 2003 and references therein), if phonological patterns arose, through sound change, from any kind of optimization process, then it would be fair to consider that sound change would serve the purpose of improving sound systems, i.e. that sound change would have a goal and be a teleological mechanism. In the present approach, however, the mechanism of initiation of sound change is viewed as free of teleology (Ohala 1981, 2003, 2012; Blevins 2004). Thus, the analyses in this book depart from classical OT approaches that use the term "optimal" to satisfy a purpose or a goal in the initiation of sound change. Rather, by "optimal" we assume a candidate that is selected by a specific constraint ranking that derives from the phonetic conditions present in the interaction between speakers and listeners and not from the need to satisfy a goal or a purpose. More precisely, a sound change is formally captured, through language use, by the difference in constraint ranking between the grammar of the speaker (which generates the primary linguistic data) and the grammar of the listener-turned-speaker (which is acquired and concomitantly used). If any apparent glimpse of "grammar

20

THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

improvement" results from this process, then it is just that-a result-, but the motivations for constraint reranking itself do not necessarily play any teleological role. As the analyses in Chapter 6 will show, this non-teleological and context-specific optimization approach is particularly relevant for a grounded understanding of the different evolutionary pathways taken by palatal sounds in the history of the Romance languages and their manifestations in current varieties. Moreover, this approach also successfully accounts for why, from a phonetic perspective, the multiple evolutionary pathways of palatals were able to arise from the same historical sources.

2.3.3 Constraint reranking

and the explanation of sound change If we posit that, during the process of sound change, phonetically based constraint hierarchies are reorganized in the grammar of the listener-turnedspeaker throughout language acquisition and development-as compared to how they were organized in the grammar of the speaker who provided the input for that listener-turned-speaker-, then we must be explicit as to what may trigger the reranking of constraints in the first place. After all, sounds do not change and evolve solely due to their internal phonetic characteristics. If they did, then it would be easy to presume that, at some point, sound systems would evolve toward an equal configuration. Thus, we consider that, whereas the ranking of OT constraints provides a mechanism through which listenersturned-speakers are able to produce a given sound pattern, the motivation for sound change per se lies in the interaction between the speaker's inherent variation in production (according to constraint rankings that may determine either faithful outputs or unfaithful, novel variants) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the original speaker's input. Therefore, while the OT model allows for constraint reranking, it does not explain when, how, or why such reranking may take place (see McMahon 2000, 2003). Put differently, OT grammars provide an adequate approach for constraint storing and ranking that enables speakers to produce meaningful sounds but does not say anything about how or why constraints may be reranked in the course of history. Thus, it is assumed here that a sound change is formally captured by the difference in constraint rankings observed in the OT grammars of the speaker and that of the listener-turned-speaker. The motivation for such reranking is, thus, not theory-internal and relies, instead, on external, complementary factors. The following section provides

2.4 THE ROLE OF THE SPEAKER

21

the details on how phonetic mechanisms inform constraint (re)ranking over time in the interaction between speakers and listeners.

2.4 The role of the speaker and the listener-turned-speaker in sound change If we assume that a sound change begins at the level of the individual during the natural interaction between a speaker and a listener (Ohala 1981, 2003, 2012; Holt 1997, 2015; Jones 2015), then it is reasonable to posit that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to observe and capture the exact moment in which a sound change occurs in real life (Croft 2010). After all, linguists, as observers, cannot be present during every single interaction between children and their caregivers or between two adults in the same or different speech communities. However, a phonetic-centered approach does let us recreate possible scenarios in which the beginning of a change event occurred. The work of several scholars (e.g. Ohala 1981, 1989, 1993, 2003, 2012; Beddor 2009, 2012; Miiller and Mota 2009; Milller 2010, 2011; among others) has focused on the internal, phonetic constraints that lead to a possible initiation of sound change. By excluding changes that are culture- and/or language-specific and others that result from the role of writing, paradigm analogy, or dialect borrowing, this approach centers on the physiological mechanisms that are shared by all human beings, no matter their linguistic background, i.e. "the physical phonetic properties of the speech production and perception systemsn (Ohala 2003: 671). Whereas variation in production is essential to provide the conditions for a possible sound change, (mis)perception and reanalysis represent the key factors that lead to its occurrence. Ohala's and other scholars' approach, then, builds a model centered on the listener-turned-speaker's contribution to sound change, according to which sound systems are considered to be in a constant state of synchronic variation and the change of a given sound may arise due to the misperception and reanalysis of the speech signal. It is safe to assume, then, that misperceptions and reanalyses hold the key for possible sound changes "in that they constitute a changeof norms:the listener forms a phonological norm that differs from that intended by the speaker" (Ohala 1993: 244). During the speaker-listener interaction, Ohala (1993: 244) formalizes three possible scenarios: (l) no sound change (by the correction of the intended signal), (2) sound change through hypocorrection, and (3) sound change through hypercorrection. Figure 2.2 illustrates the scenario in ( l ), in which no sound change takes place.

s:::::.;

22

THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

Speaker /utJ

Listener Jut/

distorted by vocal tract into

l

(yt] ---

r

reconstructed as

heard as --► [yt]

Figure 2.2 Ohala's (1981: 182) Scenario 1: No sound change. The listener is able to reconstruct the intended signal by the speaker.

In Figure 2.2, a phonetic realization [yt] may result from the coarticulation between the high back vowel /u/ and the dental stop It/, especially when the sequence /ut/ is pronounced rapidly. Lindblom (1963) and Ohala (1992) demonstrated that this is indeed the case, as the very low frequencies of the first and second formants of /u/ increase in this phonetic context, reaching the acoustic space where the front rounded vowel /y/ is expected to be found. This one time production [yt] represents variation in production, however, and not necessarily sound change. It represents a case of individual innovation that may potentially lead to a sound change. As shown in Figure 2.2, the listener, upon hearing [yt], is able to reconstruct the sequence /ut/ in the exact way that the speaker intended, likely due to exposure to other instances where the acoustic result of /ut/ did not resemble that of [yt]. If this is the case, then no sound change takes place, as the listener is able to normalize the exposed acoustic variation. However, another scenario is also possible: the listener may interpret what he or she hears at face value, thus failing to normalize it. If this interpretation differs from the sequence intended by the speaker, then a sound change occurs. This second scenario is named 'hypocorrection' in Ohala,s model, as illustrated in Figure 2.3.

Listener Listener-turned-speaker

Speaker /ut/

'f 7

distorted as

l

[y(t)) ---

interpreted as

heardas

I

--► [y]

produced as

1

[y]

(where[t) may be weakly articulated or unreleased or simply masked by ambient noise.)

Figure 2.3 Ohala's (1981: 183) Scenario 2: Sound change through hypocorrection. The listener fails to reconstruct the intended signal by the speaker and interprets what he or she hears at face value.

2.4

THE ROLE OF THE SPEAKER

23

During hypocorrection (Figure 2.3), a sound change occurs through the listener's interpretation of a representation that differs from that intended by the speaker. Such reanalysis becomes evident when the listener starts to produce it as a speaker, and his or her realization of a certain sound sequence now differs from the one stored in the original speaker's mind. The /u/-fronting illustrated in Figure 2.3 specifically mirrors a case of sound change in the history of Tibetan, where /ut/ historically became /y/ (Ohala 1981, 1989). Cases of vowel nasalization also illustrate hypocorrection very well. For example, in the evolution of French, the word bon /bon/ 'good' was pronounced as [bon] with the articulation of the nasal consonant and partial nasalization of the preceding vowel. At a given point in the tenth century, however, listeners failed to detect the presence of the nasal consonant in the coda, internalizing the sequence as /bo/ instead (Pope 1934: 169). This failure in sound recognition may have come from speakers' weak pronunciation of coda-In/ and/or from this consonant being masked due to ambient noise. The fact is that when the listener-turnedspeaker started producing the internalized sequence /b6/ as the variant [bo] at the expense of the original variant [bon], a sound change arose, given the difference in constraint hierarchies between the original speaker's grammar and that of the listener-turned-speaker. If the listener introduces a sound change based upon the speaker's variation in production, then it is also possible that the same listener may apply correcting and normalization processes inappropriately. When the initiation of a sound change takes place because the listener undoes specific perturbations in the speech signal and stores a representation that differs from both what he or she heard and what the speaker him or herself intended, a third scenario in sound change arises according to Ohala's model, namely, 'hypercorrection', as illustrated in Figure 2.4. Listener Listener-turned-speaker

Speaker lytl

produced as

l

[yt]

heard as

--+

T7 reconstructed as

produced as

[yt]

[ut]

1

Figure 2.4 Ohala's (1981: 187) Scenario 3: Sound change through hypercorrection. The listener undoes or reverses the predictable perturbations found in speech.

24

THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

As shown in Figure 2.4, the speaker produces a sound sequence that corresponds with what he or she has stored and the listener hears it correctly. However, the listener attributes a different characteristic to the signal and ends up forming a different representation than the one originally stored and intended by the speaker. When the listener starts to produce this new sequence at the expense of the former variant intended by the speaker, a sound change has taken place. Cases of dissimilation involving similar sounds illustrate this scenario very well. For example, Ohala (2012: 29) cites the case of the orthography of the English word "sword," which retains the presence of an earlier labiovelar glide /w/, but the word is now pronounced [sord]: "Presumably the vowel and the glide were too similar and so the glide was eliminated" by the listener. Ohala (1993: 250-1) also mentions the case of Latin /'kwil)kwe/ > */'kiIJkwe/ (cf. Italian [ 1tjll)kwe] 'five'), where speakers initially pronounced this word with lip rounding on both syllables. Judging by its subsequent evolution in Italian, a reconstructed form such as */ 1kil)kwe/ is in order and reveals the loss of the labiovelar glide in the first syllable. Assuming that this non-distinctive lip rounding also affected the nuclear vowels /i/ and /e/ (Devine and Stevens 1977), Ohala posits that a listener, through hypercorrection, may have considered the lip rounding in the first syllable as a perturbation triggered by the lip rounding on the second syllable, and thus misapplied the corrective process by reconstructing the word as */ 1kil)kwe/. When establishing the differences between hypo- and hypercorrection, Ohala (1993: 246) points out that hypocorrection occurs "if the listener fails to correct the perturbations in the speech signal," which eventually "become part of the pronunciation norm." On the other hand, a sound change based upon hypercorrection reveals the "listener's ability to undo or reverse the predictable perturbations found in speech" (Ohala 1993: 250). In other words, the listener misapplies corrective processes that would have helped him or her to identify and parse the message as intended by the speaker. From these two possible scenarios of sound change, we can infer that the origins of a sound change take place at the level of the individual. If favorable sociolinguistic conditions are met, then this change event may be carried on and diffused throughout the lexicon and to other individuals within the speech community (e.g. Ohala 1981, 1993. 2012; Blevins 2004). It should be noted that, while the listener has a central role in this model by standing as the actual activator of a possible sound change, the speaker is equally important for creating the variation and ambiguity in the speech signal in the first place (cf. Bybee 2015). Therefore, the articulatory patterns of sounds also play a decisive role, in that they pre-condition a potential sound change.

2.4

THE ROLE OF THE SPEAKER

25

Thus, the current approach offers a clear view of the role that the interaction between speakers and listeners plays in the evolution of sounds. It departs from other, traditional approaches to sound change that are exclusivelybased upon articulatory factors and that tend to anthropomorphize sounds, by attributing a change mainly to the articulatory complexity of a given sound (e.g. Martinet 1955; Coseriu 1973; Lloyd 1987). As shown in Figures 2.2-2.4, variation in production indeed represents the raw material for a possible sound change, but the role of the listener-turned-speaker must be recognized and given its equal share; otherwise, variation in sound production will remain only that-sound variation-and not necessarily lead to sound change. This reasoning stems from the fact that listeners constantly filter out and normalize the varying patterns to which they are exposed during their perception of sounds, "as long as [listeners] have evidence or expectations of the environment or factors leading to the variation" (Ohala 2012: 25). This accounts for the seemingly slow pace for a given sound change to complete its course and then become part of the phonemic inventory of all speakers in a speech community. Were it not for this "filtering system" and listeners' ability to normalize sound variation, it would be possible to predict that sounds would change at a much faster pace than they actually do. The capacity to normalize stems from the various sources of experience to which the listener is exposed when acquiring the pronunciation norm in his or her speech community, such as pronunciations of multiple speakers, reactions of other listeners at his or her attempt to pronounce words, and also spelling, as is the case of literate cultures (Ohala 1989: 184-5). Ohala (2012: 25 and elsewhere) compares listeners' compensation for variation in speech sounds with the type of normalization that is found in vision: "When we see someone at a distance they subtend a very small angle, equal to the angle subtended by something small that is close by. But we don't judge them to be as small as the nearby object because we normalize the estimated size, correcting for the effects of distance." In other words, following our experiences, we know that the actual size of a person who is very far from us cannot be as small as an object that is close to us. A handful of works have empirically attested listeners' normalization of speech variation, in which the phonetic context that triggers such normalization is often regarded as an imagined speech sound (e.g. Ohala et al. 1978; Beddor et al. 1986; Ohala and Feder 1994). The insights of Ohala's framework are crucial for the analysis of palatal sound change in the Romance languages because it provides a phonetically based theoretical approach to account for the (re)ranking of OT constraint hierarchies observed in the grammar of the speaker and that of the listener-turned-speaker (Chapter 6).

◄

26

THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

However, it is also necessary to point out that not all listeners perceive sounds the same way in a given language, and that variation in perception is also expected to play a role in the evolution of sounds. Beddor (2012), for example, reports on empirical evidence showing that listeners respond differently to the effects of coarticulated speech. Some of them-who the author labels as innovative-put more weight on the acoustic cues that result from coarticulation than other listeners typically do: "For some ( ... ) listeners, the coarticulatory cues are dominant and sufficient cues for making their perceptual decisions" (Beddor 2012: 38). Innovative listeners, then, are more likely to contribute to sound change, as they rely upon the effects of coarticulated speech to make their perceptual decisions, as opposed to conservative listeners, who do not put as much weight on the perceptual cues resulting from coarticulation. As an example, the author conducts an experiment in which the degree of listeners' attentiveness to vowel nasalization is analyzed in two scenarios: (1) when the nasal consonant is absent from the signal, i.e. [VJ,and (2) when the nasal consonant is present in the signal, i.e. [VN]. Beddor reports that listeners differ in the degrees to which they identify vowel nasalization in both contexts, since they assign different individual weights to the coarticulation of supralaryngeal gestures. While conservative listeners do not tend to use coarticulatory information as the source for their perceptual decision-hence relying more on reconstructing the signal-, innovative listeners, on the other hand, tend to put more weight on the signal itself and, thus, rely directly upon the effects of coarticulatory speech to inform their perceptual assessment. According to Beddor (2012: 53): These [different] weights shape how listeners categorize, discriminate, and access words in real time. The perception grammars of innovative listeners have strong potential to contribute to sound change in that they are likely manifested in conversational interactions either through their expectations about coarticulated speech or through their own productions. Thus, for the purposes of this book, we regard the innovative listener as the initiator of a given sound change, considering also the fact that the speech signal may not be perceived equally among all listeners of a language.

2.5 A non-teleological constrained-based model of sound change The theoretical insights from the previous approaches inform the basis for the model under which the analysis of the evolution of palatal consonants in

2.5

A MODEL OF SOUND CHANGE

27

the Romance languages is presented in this book. To illustrate this model, let us suppose that in a hypothetical language, a speaker has the underlying representation /I/, whose faithful output [I] is determined by the constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z, as illustrated in Table 2.3.

Table2.3 Candidate [I] is the output of underlying representation fl/, given the constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z /1/

CONSTRAINT

CONSTRAINT Y

X

III IV

Z

*

ir.FJ

II

CONSTRAINT

*! *! *!

* * *

*

If the listener perceives the sound [I] (i.e. the faithful output to the speaker's input /I/) and reconstructs it as his or her input, then the exact same constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z will determine the faithful output to the listener's input and, consequently, no sound change will take place. Let us assume, however, that variation is inherent in the production of underlying form /1/. In this case, the speaker may realize it with different outputs, say [I] and [II], on different occasions (e.g. in a slow or fast speech rate according to the sociolinguistic context), as some constraints may be unranked with respect to one another. Thus, the speaker may realize /I/ as the faithful output [I] or as an unfaithful output, such as [II]. This scenario is illustrated in Table 2.4, where the dotted line indicates that constraints 'X' and 'Y' are unranked in relation to each other (cf. Anttila 1997; Anttila and Cho 1998; Morris 1998; among others, for more on the exemplification of production variation in OT).

Table2.4 Candidates (I] and [II] may surface as the output of underlying representation /1/, following the constraint ranking X, Y >> Z I

/1/

CONSTRAINT

X : CONSTRAINT Y I I I

arI

arn

*

III

*!

IV

*!

CONSTRAINT

'

* *

' I

'

' I

I

'

* *

*

Z

28

THEORETICAL

CONS ID ERA TI ONS

If the experience of the listener during the acquisition period and throughout his or her adult language development enables him or her to normalize this variation in the speaker's production of /1/ and/or he or she is a conservative listener, then he or she will interpret [I] as the most harmonic candidate and, consequently, will interpret it as input /II-exactly as the input /I/ stored in the original speaker's grammar. Therefore, no sound change will have occurred. This case corresponds roughly to Ohala's first scenario in the speaker-listener interaction (see Figure 2.2). Since the listener, upon normalizing the speaker's variation in production, stored the same underlying form as the one in the otiginal speaker's grammar (with its faithful output determined by the same constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z), then no sound change will have occurred when the listener turns into speaker. If, however, we consider an innovative listener, who relies heavily on the signal cues from the speaker's articulation of sounds and is exposed more often to the output [II} (which is one of the unfaithful realizations to the underlying form /1/ in the speaker's grammar), then it is reasonable to postulate that this listener will normalize the speaker's variation in favor of [II]. When this innovative listener proceeds to reanalyze [II] as input /11/-and produces it later as the faithful output [II]-, then a sound change will have occurred. Put a different way, whereas the faithful output to the speaker's input is [I], the faithful output to the listener's input is (II]. Thus, a sound change /I/> /II/ is captured by the difference in the constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input /1/ and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to that original speaker's input /1/. One may wonder, however, whether a sound change will indeed have taken place in this case, since one of the sounds produced by the speaker may be the exact same output produced by the listener-turned-speaker. It is important to keep in mind, however, that [II] represents only one out of the possible outputs produced by the speaker and, because he or she has a different underlying representation /I/ (hence also a different constraint ranking determining its faithful realization, as compared to the one stored by the listener), the speaker will likely produce other outputs on other occasions as well. In this case, we can indeed model a sound change because the faithful output to the listener-turned-speaker's internalized underlying form /II/ is determined by a different constraint ranking than the faithful output to the underlying representation stored (and intended) by the speaker, i.e. /1/. As in Ohala's model, sound change can be portrayed in yet another scenario. In this case, the listener perceives the speaker's output correctly, but actively reverses or undoes the perturbations found in the ambiguous speech

2.6

CONCLUDING

REMARKS

29

signal, leading to the formulation of an underlying representation that differs from the one intended by the speaker and, therefore, a sound change. As in the previous illustrative cases, this change event is also captured by different constraint hierarchies. For example, let us suppose that, for the underlying form /I/, the speaker produces the faithful output [I] determined by the constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z (cf. Table 2.3). If the innovative listener, upon properly perceiving this output [I], actively misapplies corrective processes that identify it as the most harmonic output for /I/ (as in cases of dissirnilation), he or she may posit a different underlying form /II/, whose faithful output is determined by another, different constraint ranking Y >> X >> Z. As seen in §2.3, the selection of an underlying form is determined by the principle of Lexicon Optimization (LO). By considering these various possible scenarios and different results in the interaction between speakers and listeners, it is possible to illustrate how the (non-)application of LO will follow the type of listener we consider: LO applies in cases of sound change-as the innovative listener internalizes a sound representation that is most harmonic with the speaker's output to which the listener is more often exposed-while it is blocked in cases of correction, where the conservative listener internalizes the same sound representation intended by the speaker. As will be shown in Chapter 6, this non-teleological, constraint-based approach allows us to successfully account for the multiple, divergent evolutionary pathways that palatal consonants have taken in the history of the Romance languages from their shared sources in Latin. Furthermore, it provides an approach to understand why analogous sound changes may originate in different languages or in the same language across periods of time, provided the same phonetic motivations are present now and then.

2.6 Concluding remarks Based upon the theoretical models described and illustrated in the previous sections, the analyses put forth in this volume will focus on modeling the motivations for the initiation phase of sound changes. Thus, the current approach will assume that, after initiated, a sound change may spread through the lexicon and the speech community until it is incorporated into the sound inventory of all language users. Phonetic characteristics, as well as phonological patterns of sounds, inform constraints at the "Big Bang" moment that characterizes a change event. The different constraint hierarchies between the faithful outputs of the underlying representations stored by the speaker on one

◄

30

THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

hand, and by the listener-turned-speaker on the other, formally represent our understanding of sound change. By considering the inherent variation in the production and perception of sounds and opening up the realm of possible pathways that a given change may take, the current approach successfully accounts for the diverse evolutionary routes that palatal consonants have taken throughout the history of the Romance languages and how they are manifested in current dialects. To explain these different diachronic pathways and synchronic manifestations, a phonetic characterization of the relevant palatal sounds will be provided in Chapter 3, followed by a description of historical data and a review of previous accounts on the evolution of palatals in Romance (Chapter 4), as well as a summary of the synchronic data characterizing the current status of palatals throughout the Romance-speaking world (Chapter 5).

3 The phonetics of palatals

3.1 Introduction Several studies have described the articulatory and acoustic characteristics of palatal and other consonants across world languages (cf. Maddieson 1984; Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996). With regard to the Romance family, descriptions of palatals abound with experimental data from languages such as Spanish (Quilis 1981, 1993; Fernandez Planas 2000; Kochetov and Colantoni 2011; Rost 2011; Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013), Portuguese (Cagliari 2009), Catalan (Recasens 1984, 2014; Recasens and Espinosa 2006), and other Romance varieties (Recasens 1990, 2013; Recasens et al. 1993). Although fine-grained details of these general descriptions may vary, they all observe the intrinsic complexity associated with the articulation of these sounds. This complexity derives from the fact that the production of palatals often entails the activation of both the tongue blade and the tongue dorsum, and a concomitant closure takes place throughout a large surface area that surpasses the palate itself and, in many cases, also reaches the postalveolar and velar regions (Recasens 1990, 2013). Because several of the variation and change processes of palatals in Romance can be connected to their inherent phonetic complexity, a general characterization of their articulatory and acoustic patterns must be made prior to embarking on historical and dialectal data analysis and a unified theoretical account. This chapter provides a brief summary of the phonetic characteristics of the most common palatal segments attested in Romance, focusing on particular issues that are relevant to the goals of the current investigation. The reader is, thus, referred to the studies cited throughout the chapter to explore deeply and thoroughly the phonetics of these sounds. Knowing the articulatory and acoustic characteristics of palatal sounds is crucial to understanding the patterns of their synchronic variation and the basic motivations for their diachronic pathways. Furthermore, it provides an essential tool with which to use the theoretical assumptions outlined in the previous chapter

Palatal Sound Changein the Romance Languages.First edition. Andre ZampauJo. © Andre ZampauJo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

32

THE PHONETICS

OF PALATALS

and account for palatal variation and change in the development of the Romance languages. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 3.2 provides a description of palatal vowels [i e E]and the glide [jJ.The articulatory complexity and varying acoustic patterns of palatal sonorants are described in §3.3, while palatal obstruents are characterized in §3.4. Section 3.5 provides a summary and concluding remarks.

3.2 The phonetics of palatal vowels and the glide

Ul

In general, the vowel system of most Romance languages consists of the palatal glide [j] and three palatal vowels, i.e. high front [i], close-mid front [e], and open-mid front [E]. While [iJ, [e], and [j] are present in the inventory of virtually all Romance varieties, open-mid front [E] is absent from a handful oflanguages, including Romanian (Pana Dindelegan 2013: 7; Maiden 2016: 93) and Spanish (Hualde 2005: 52-5; Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 171-92), although it may surface dialectally as a contextual allophone of /e/ (Navarro Tomas 1991: 52-3). On the other hand, a number of varieties lack [eJ instead, such as Sicilian and the Logudorese and Nuorese dialects of Sardinian (Loporcaro 2011: 112, 116; Schmid 2016: 471). With regard to the general articulatory patterns of palatal vowels, the tongue tip touches the lower incisors and the tongue dorsum is elevated to make contact with the hard palate, while leaving a narrow central channel through which the air escapes. In the articulation of [i], more specifically, this channel is narrower than in the articulation of (e] and [E], as the tongue body is higher in the production of the former than in the articulation of the latter two vowels. During the realization of all three vowels, however, the lips are unrounded, despite appearing more stretched in the articulation of [i]. Besides [e i E], all Romance languages present a palatal glide [j], commonly labeled as "yon" in the Romance tradition. The articulation of this segment is similar to that of [i], with a shorter duration and lacking the steady-state portion of its vocalic counterpart. Recasens (1990: 275) provides additional articulatory detail for [j], stating that this segment is articulated with the front of the tongue dorsum, while the tongue tip is always down. The electropalatograms in Figure 3.1 illustrate the articulatory similarity between the palatal vowel [i] and the palatal glide [jl in Spanish:

3.2

THE PHONETICS

OF PALATAL

VOWELS

AND THE GLIDE

[J]

33

Figure 3.1 Electropalatograms of the palatal glide [j] (left) and the palatal vowel [i] (right) (Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 169). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonetica espanola. Arttculaciones y sonidos del espafi.ol © Euge1110Martinez Celdran y Ana Maria Fernandez Planas© Editorial Ariel. 2013

The articulatory patterns of these sounds are reflected in their acoustic characterization, chiefly in the different values of their first two formants, i.e. FI, a function of tongue height (the higher a vowel is articulated, the lower its FI value will be) and F2, a function of tongue frontness and backness (the more fronted a vowel is articulated, the higher its F2 value will be). The latter also correlates with the roundness of the vowel: the higher the F2 of a vowel, the more unrounded it will be. Among palatal vowels, [i] presents the highest F2 values, since it is the most fronted vowel. Conversely, as [i] is articulated higher than [e] and [£], its F 1 is lower than that of [e J and [£]. Indeed, Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas (2013: 175) report mean Fl values of 313 Hz for [i] and 457 Hz for [e] in Peninsular Spanish, while mean values of F2 stand at 2,200 Hz and 1,926 Hz for [i] and [e], respectively. With regard to the mean values of the formants for [j], little consensus is found in the literature, which reflects the articulatory variability that this segment displays and a lack of a steady-state portion in its formants, making it difficult to find an agreed upon point from which to measure them. Borzone de Manrique (1976: 123), for example, reports on Buenos Aires Spanish [j] (as in the word hielo [ jelo 1'ice') and finds a wide range of formant values. While FI values are found in the range of over 300 to SOOmels, reported F2 values appear between 1,700 to 1,800 mels. Colantoni (2004: 88) converts these estimates into the following Hertz values: 254-471 Hz for FI and 2,246-2,757 Hz for F2. In a subsequent study, Borzone de Manrique (1980) finds yet another value range for [j] in the same initial position, i.e. 250-500 Hz for Fl and 1,700-1,800 Hz for F2. 1

34

THE PHONETICS

OF PALATALS

Colantoni (2001: 32-3), on the other hand, provides mean values for [j] from other Argentine provinces, such as C6rdoba, San Luis, and San Juan, and finds an average frequency of 390 Hz for Fl (which is in the range of Borzone de Manrique's results), but 1,473 Hz for F2, which is lower than the values reported by Borzone de Manrique. This difference may stem from different methodologies: whereas Borzone de Manrique reports her results from wordlist recordings, Colantoni retrieves hers from sociolinguistic interviews. Regardless of this variation, scholars agree that the structure of formants in the acoustics of [jJ features smooth transitions from or into the neighboring nuclear vowel. Smooth formant transitions typically entail longer transitions as opposed to abrupt, short ones, which may provide an insight into the phonetic motivation for many of the palatalization processes considered in the present study.

3.3 The phonetics of palatal sonorants In the articulation of the palatal lateral [A],the tongue dorsum is raised to establish contact with the palate while the tongue tip may or may not touch the upper incisors (Quills 1963; Straka 1965; Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 189). However, the extent of palatal contact may vary from language to language. Bladon and Carbonaro (1978), for example, provide articulatory data showing that the occlusion in Italian [AJis realized about two-thirds of the way back on the hard palate, while in dialects of Peninsular Spanish the same occlusion occurs over a more extended area (Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 141-2). While the place of articulation of this sound is traditionally characterized as palatal-and appears as such in the IPA consonant chart-, there is convincing articulatory evidence to suggest contact with the alveolar ridge as well, rendering a dorso-alveolopalatal occlusion, which is followed by a brief period of explosion during its release (Recasens 1991: 317; Quilis 1993: 311; Recasens and Espinosa 2006; Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 141-2). Thus, [A]should be understood and classified as an alveolopalatal consonant instead (cf. Recasens 2013). For the sake of simplicity and readability, however, the general term "palatal" will continue to be used here in reference to [A]. Because of the lateral manner of articulation of [A], the air may flow continuously and without friction through both or either one of the sides of the tongue. The extensive area of contact between the tongue and the alveolar and palatal regions during the production of this consonant becomes evident when its articulation is compared to that of other lateral sounds, such as the alveolar (l] and the palatalized [Ii]. The larger contact area in the production of [A]is shown in the electropalatograms in Figure 3.2.

3.3

THE

PHONETICS

OF PALATAL

SONORANTS

35

Figure 3.2 Electropalatograms of the alveolar lateral [I] (left), the palatalized lateral {Iil(center), and the palatal lateral [A) (right) (Martinez Ccldran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 141). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonetica cspaf1ola. Articulaciones y sonidos de! espai'lol © Eugenio Martinez Ccldran y Ana Maria Fernandez Planas© Editorial Ariel. 2013

The larger area of contact in the articulation of the palatal lateral consonant makes its production susceptible to a considerable amount of variation "both from individual to individual and from one phonetic context to another" (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 191), since it does not require a precise articulation as its alveolar counterpart [l] does. Recasens and Espinosa (2006: 297) exemplify this variation in multiple Romance languages, most of which present an alveolopalatal closure (as is the case in most dialects of Catalan, French, Italian, Occitan, Portuguese, and Spanish), while in some varieties [A]is realized "with a very front closure at the alveolar zone, e.g. in Italian and Spanish ( ... )." The authors also report on experimental data suggesting that in the production of Majorcan Catalan [J], the closure location is produced at the dentoalveolar zone, with the airflow escaping "through lateral channels located at the postpalate and at the velar zone" (Recasens and Espinosa 2006: 305-6). Indeed, Recasens (1991: 317) compares the articulation of [A] with that of palatal nasal [p] in Catalan and argues that the dorsal contact area of the former is less central than that of the latter, which suggests that the dorsal contact during the realization of [A] may be subject to coarticulatory effects: "l'activitat dorsal [in the production of [A]] sigui menys resistant als efectes coarticulatoris per part dels sons adjacents." Variation in the production of [A}is also evident in Brazilian Portuguese, in which some speakers do not articulate (or perceive) the palatal lateral consonant. Instead, they produce a two-segment sequence, i.e. an alveolar lateral [l] followed by the palatal glide [jJ, creating homonyms such as 6lhos ['::,ljusJ 'eyes' and 6leos [ ::>ljus]'oils,' which are contrastive for other speakers (i.e. 6lhos ['::>Aus]'eyes' vs 6leos [ :Jljus]) (Crist6faro Silva 2009: 65). With regard to the acoustics of [A]in Romance varieties, descriptions do not abound in the literature (cf. Colantoni 2004: 86). However, Quilis (1981: 281) reports that the duration of [A] presents an average of 73.2 ms in Peninsular Spanish. Its FI and F2 present mean values of 290 Hz and 2,047 Hz, 1

1

36

THE PHONETICS

OF PALATALS

respectively (Quilis 1993: 311-14), although in Brazilian Portuguese higher values have been found, i.e. 389 Hz (FI) and 2,091 Hz (F2) (Stein 2011: 10), suggesting a lower and more fronted realization than Peninsular Spanish [A]. These findings (i.e. a low Fl and a high F2 for Brazilian Portuguese [A]) are expected due to the articulation of this consonant with a raised and fronted tongue body (Recasens 1990: 271-2; Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996). Its F2 is generally higher than the F2 of non-front vowels and presents values close to those of front vowels. Following the large contact area between the tongue and the palate, the Fl of [A] is often lower than the FI of any following vowel (Quilis 1993: 314). In comparison with the formant values of the alveolar lateral /1/, for example, Quilis (1981: 286) reports that intervocalic [A]presents a smaller dispersion area than its alveolar counterpart, and the frequencies of its first two formants place it right above palatal vowels [i] and [e] in the formant chart. It is possible to infer, then, that the acoustic characteristics of the palatal lateral are similar to those of [i] and [e], since all three segments are articulated with the tongue dorsum in a high and fronted position. By contrast, the same cannot be said about the acoustics of alveolar [11,which presents a dispersed and variable acoustic pattern, susceptible to coarticulatory effects from neighboring vowels. This information is pertinent for the present discussion, as it suggests possible clues for a phonetic motivation in the evolutionary pathways of the palatal lateral in the Romance languages. For example, the interaction between an alveolar lateral [l] and a palatal vowel may produce a palatalized sequence that approximates the acoustic spaces of [l] and [i e] and generates acoustic cues that may lead the listener to reinterpret the sequence as only one segment. Put differently, [l] may palatalize before [i e] and thus become more similar to [A],whose characteristics are akin to those of palatal vowels. Indeed, this represents one of the sources for the emergence of the Romance [A]. On the other hand, if it is right to assume that similar acoustics results in similar perception, the coarticulation between [A]and a following palatal vowel may not offer the necessary cues for the listener to interpret it as a two-palatal segment sequence due to the similar formant values shared by the consonant and the front vowel. Furthermore, the fact that [A] displays formant structures renders it more vowel-like (as opposed to palatal obstruents, for example), which suggests that its boundaries with a following vowel will not be as clear and defined. Thus. in a sequence such as [Ai], for example, the acoustics resulting from the similar dorsal articulation of both segments may not offer the necessary cues for the listener to parse it as a sequence of two palatal segments. Instead, innovative listeners may reanalyze it as a sequence of an alveolar lateral consonant [l] (from the closure in the dentoalveolar zone during

3.3

THE PHONETICS

OF PALATAL

SONORANTS

37

the production of [A]) followed by a palatal vowel (from the dorsal articulation of both [A]and [i]). In fact, the depalatalization of [AJwhen followed by a palatal vowel is attested in dialects of Brazilian Portuguese, in which speakers produce /Ai/ and /A£/as [U] and [I£},respectively, e.g.filhinho lfi1lij10J'son-DIM', colher 1 [ku l£] 'spoon,' etc. (Aguilera 1999; Giangola 2001; Zampaulo 2019). The articulation of nasal consonants, on the other hand, is characterized by oral closure and velum lowering, which makes the air from the lungs come out through the nasal passage (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 102). With regard to the palatal nasal [jl.], specifically, traditional descriptions hold that the tongue dorsum is raised to establish contact with the palate, while the tongue tip touches the lower incisors and the tongue blade may reach the alveolar ridge (cf. Recasens 1990: 271; Navarro Tomas 1991: 132). Recent experimental studies, however, point out that the area of linguopalatal configuration of [p] extends from the postalveolar region to the back of the palate, suggesting an alveolopalatal lingual articulation similar to that of [A] (cf. Recasens 1990: 271-2; Fernandez Planas 2009). The electropalatograms in Figure 3.3 illustrate both alveolar and palatal contact in the articulations of [jl.] in comparison with the production of alveolar [n].

Figure 3.3 Electropalatograms of [n] (upper line) and [jl] (bottom line) in the sequence [aCa]. The images on the left correspond to the initial point of development of both consonants, the ones in the center refer to the point of maximum contact, and the images on the right correspond to the end point of the articulation of these consonants. (Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 129). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonetica cspanola. Articulacioncs y sonidos de! espanol ©Eugenio Martinez Cddran y Ana Marla Fernandez Planas (0 Editorial Ariel. 2013

38

THE PHONETICS

OF PALATALS

Due to the complex nature of this consonant's articulation, however, a high degree of articulatory variation has been reported in the Romance literature, particularly with regard to its deocclusivization in many dialects, rendering a nasal glide [j] instead of a fully articulated IJl].This process has been found mainly in varieties of Brazilian Portuguese (Shosted and Hualde 2010; Shosted et al. 2012), although it has also been attested in some varieties of Spanish (Lipski 1989; Quilis 1993: 203), French, and Francoproven,,:al (Straka 1979: 345). Acoustically, nasals present formant patterns like vowels, but with less intensity. For Spanish nasals, for example, Machuca ( 1991) finds low F l values ranging between 250 Hz and 350 Hz in laboratory speech, and between 400 Hz and 468 Hz in spontaneous speech. The articulation of nasals also produces antiformants in the vocal tract. The frequency values of the first antiformant are associated with the place of articulation of nasals. Th us, for example, Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas (2013: 124-5) report that Spanish alveolar [n] has its first antiformant at 1,400 Hz, while palatal IJl]has it at 2,730 Hz. The transition periods into neighboring vowels also differ, with palatal IJl]displaying the longest transition of the three nasal consonants common in Romance (i.e. [m n Jl}), mainly due to the large linguopalatal contact area in its production. Indeed, it is common for listeners to parse IJlJas a sequence of an alveolar nasal and a palatal glide (i.e. [nj]), and vice versa, although IJl]and [njJ are acoustically (and articulatorily) different, as illustrated by the spectrogram in Figure 3.4.

0-1-----_;.__;_.,:

0

n

__________________ 0

---!

Time (s)

J1

0

0.767438

Figure 3.4 Spectrograms of the sequences [njo] and LJ1o] (Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 128). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonctica cspa11ola.Articul,icioncs y sonidos dd cspa11ol © Eugenio Martinez Cddran y Ana Maria Fernandez Planas© Editorial And. 2013

3.4

THE PHONETICS

OF PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

39

Figure 3.4 shows that the actual palatal glide [j] in the sequence [njJ has a longer duration than the palatal articulation embedded in [JlJ,despite the fact that L}l] has a longer overall duration than its alveolar counterpart [n]. Indeed, the acoustic cues generated by the longer duration in the sequence [nj] might have contributed for innovative listeners to reinterpret this sequence as a single consonant lP]in the evolution of the Romance languages.

3.4 The phonetics of palatal obstruents The complexity of palatals is perhaps best noticed when one considers the various articulatory patterns of palatal obstruents. Let us start by discussing the plosives [c j] and their fricative counterparts [c;:j]. In the articulation of all these palatals, the tongue tip touches the lower incisors, while the tongue dorsum is raised towards the hard palate, and the degree of constriction determines the realization of either the plosives or the fricatives. Controlling for this degree of constriction is not an easy task, however, hence the extensive variation found in Romance with regard to central palatal obstruents. Indeed, Ladefoged (2001: 144), describes how uncommon palatal plosives (or palatal stops) are in the languages of the world due to the specificity required for their production, which often renders that of affricates: Palatal stops are slightly less common [than other palatal consonants] ( ... ). They occur, for example, in the Akan languages of Ghana. Because of the shape of the roof of the mouth, the contact between the front of the tongue and the hard palate often extends over a fairly large area. As a result, the formation and release of a palatal stop is often not as rapid as in the case of other stops, and they tend to become affricates. In the Romance languages, the palatal plosives [c j] are mainly found in Eastern Romance (Pana Dindelegan 2013: 10), Rhaeto-Romance (Beninca and Vanelli 2016; Salvi 2016: 157), and in dialects of southern Italy (Schmid 2016: 480). In varieties of Ibero-Romance, more specifically, Recasens and Espinosa (2006) report the occurrence of voiceless [c] as an allophone of velar /kl in Majorcan Catalan. Its voiced counterpart lt] is featured in the consonant inventory of Spanish, although many authors point out the actual occurrence of an affricate WJinstead of a true palatal plosive [j] (e.g. Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 87-8). Hualde (2005: 43) describes lt] and its affricate counterpart [Jj] as actually the same segment, but with the former being frictionless and the latter displaying "some affrication." As for the realization of the

40

THE PHONETICS OF PALATALS

continuant variant [j], some authors consider it a fricative (cf. Navarro Tomas 1991; Real Academia Espaflola 2011: 184-5), while others treat it as an approximant [J] (cf. Martinez Celdran and Fernandez Planas 2013: 103). These different characterizations stem from the different degrees of constriction that these consonants display depending on factors such as style, register, dialect, phonological context, etc. In emphatic speech, for example, it is expected that speakers pronounce [j] with more friction than they would otherwise in a more casual or relaxed conversation, where the approximant fj] might be expected. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 166) provide X-ray tracings of plosives [c j], as well as their fricative counterparts [ It. notte, Ro. noapte. Consequently no YOD was produced in this case and thus no possible metathesis." The metathesis stage proposed by Rini (1991) remains controversial and his argument is not unanimously accepted in the literature. Recasens (2014a: 129-30), for example, cites evidence from various Romance varieties where the proposed metathesis of [j] is not attested and yet this segment seems to have palatalized a following consonant, e.g. [jl] > [A] (as in Cat. i[A]a < *i[jA]a

54

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

< i[jl]a < is[l]a < Lat.

cisland'), and [jnJ > (Jl] (as in J-Sp. pe[Jlli < PECTEN ccomb'). In fact, Recasens (2014a: 130) shows how progressive palatalization is especially productive in the sequence [-j.s-], rendering [iflor Ul, such as Western Catalan re[ill (cf. Cat. re[js]) 'kings' and European Portuguese do{fil (cf. most varieties of Brazilian Portuguese do[js]) 'two'. Wireback ( 1997) offers a substantially different account to explain the palatalization of [-k.1- -g.1-1and the emergence of A1from these sources in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance. According to the author's proposal, [-k.1- -g.l-] first evolved into *[-kA- -ga-], after which both velar consonants would have eroded due to lenition until they finally disappeared, leaving [a] as a result in intervocalic position. Wireback centers his proposal basically on two arguments. First, after the syncope of [u], both [k] and [g] most likely would not have been in coda position and would have resyllabified with the following lateral instead, forming the acceptable syllable onsets [kl] and [gl] in Latin: INSULA

( ... ) it is unclear why /kl and /g/ should become syllable final after syncope. Before syncope, the initial syllable structure of the Romance sequence in ocULu 'eye' would be /o-ku-lu/, with the velar consonant in the syllable onset. After the syncope of the unstressed /u/ produces */o-k-lu/, the /kl cannot remain in its original onset position now that its vocalic nucleus has been lost. At this point, the stranded /kl must be reassigned to the preceding syllable as a coda, or become part of the following syllable onset along with /l/. From the existence of words like CLA VIS 'key', CLAVUS 'nail', and GLANS 'acorn', we know that /kl/ and /gl/ were possible syllable onsets in Latin, so it is likely that Romance /k'l/ and /g'l/ were syllabified in the same way. It is misleading to say that the /kl remained in syllable-final position after syncope, because before syncope /kl was syllable initial, and immediately after syncope it was not yet reincorporated into the syllable structure. Thus, both /ok-lu/ and /o-klu/ must be derived syllabifications, so if /kl was to be syllabified in the syllable coda, it had to be according to existing Latin syllable-structure patterns. (Wireback 1997: 70) Second, by assuming that word-initial /kl-/ and post-consonantal, wordmedial [Ckl-] both evolved into *[kA], then the same evolution would necessarily need to be posited for [-k.l- -g.1-]. Different mechanisms would, then, account for the diverging results of [kA gA] throughout the Romance languages, namely, obstruent spirantization in intervocalic position and delateralization of [a] in word-initial and word-medial, postconsonantal position: Using Latin /kl/ and Romance /k'l/ as examples, since the palatalization of /kl/ and /k'l/ to [k.A]produced a heavy onset cluster in articulatory terms,

4.3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL LATERAL

[A]

55

a simplification of some sort was likely; the role of obstruent lenition was to provide the pattern that cluster reduction would follow. In weak contexts like word-medial intervocalic position, obstruent spirantized and was eliminated, leaving /A/. In strong contexts like word-initial or post-consonantal position, the word boundary or preceding consonant supported the obstruent, thereby imposing some degree of simplification upon the lateral, e.g. delateralization to /j/ followed by fusion with the obstruent to /c/ [= tj]. (Wireback 1997: 71) Wireback (1997: 81-2), then, proposes a series of four stages for the evolution of Romance [-k.1- -g.l], namely: (i) regular intervocalic palatalization: /k.1/ -► [kA], /g.l/ -► [gA]; (ii) extension of this palatalization to postconsonantal Hispano-Romance: /Ck.I/---;. [CkA], /Cg.1/-► [CgA};

clusters in

(iii) voicing of intervocalic Romance clusters: [kA] -► [gA'.];and

(iv) merger of [gA'.J(< /k.l, g.11)with {A](< /lj/}: [gA}> /A/.

A few problems characterize Wireback's proposal for intervocalic [-kA- -gA-] as an initial development in Romance. For example, word-initial [kl- gl-] and word-medial, postconsonantal [-Ck.I- -Cg.l-J never palatalized in languages such as French and Catalan, e.g. CLAVE >Fr. de, Cat. clau 'key'; MASCULU >Fr. male, Cat. mascle 'male'. If one accepts Wireback's proposal, then one would also need to suggest the emergence of *[kA-gA- CkA- CgA-] in these languages and then posit an additional ad hoe mechanism of depalatalization, whereby these sequences mysteriously would have gone back to their original state, i.e. Lat. [kl- gl- Ckl- Cgl-] > Rom. *[kA- gA- CkA- CgA-J > Fr., Cat. [kl- gl- CklCgl-J. Given the available evidence, these additional steps of an initial [kl-, gl-, Ckl-, Cgl-]-palatalization and then a subsequent [A]-depalatalization in the history of the aforementioned languages would seem counterintuitive and unlikely. Foreseeing this criticism, Wireback argues that the reason why Latin initial [kl- gl-] did not palatalize in Gallo-Romance was because wordmedial [Ckl- Cgl-] never palatalized either, therefore the latter could "not transmit the palatalized variants to the Latin groups" (Wireback 1997: 87). Nevertheless, the author still leaves unexplained why the latter did not palatalize in Gallo-Romance in the first place. Furthermore, Wireback's proposal does not convincingly explain the fact that in some Italo- and Eastern Romance varieties, such as Italian and Romanian, the intervocalic voiceless sequence [-k.1-] palatalized into *[kA] (e.g. AURICULA >It. *ore[k:A]o > ore[k:j]o, Ro. *ure[kA]e > *ure[kj]e > ure[c]e 'ear'), but the intervocalic voiced sequence [-g.1-] remained unchanged or never even emerged (e.g. TEGULA > It te[goI]a,

56

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY

OF THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

Ro. ,ti[gl}a 'roof tilel To explain such a disparity between voiceless and voiced consonants, the author invokes Torreblanca's (1990) theory of articulatory energy, according to which the ((principal cause of palatalization is a high level of articulatory energy, and voiceless consonants presuppose a higher level of articulatory energy than voiced consonants,, (Wireback 1997: 83). However, if a high level of articulatory energy is assumed as a phonetic motivation for the palatalization of voiceless obstruent + lateral sequences, then Wireback' s proposal of [-g.1-]-palatalization into [-gA>]in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance lacks its own phonetic motivation. In swn, the author's accoWlt reveals itself circular in nature and leaves several questions unanswered. Moreover, by stipulating the reconstructed stages *[-kA--gA:-]and *[CkA-CgA:-]for necessarily all Romance varieties, it ends up having to resort to ad hoe mechanisms that are difficult to motivate and seem unwarranted based upon available, comparative data. The most accepted proposal of velar obstruent vocalization in the intervocalic sequences [-k.l- -g.1-] by Menendez Pidal (1950) and others still proves to be the simplest and most direct change pattern toward the development into A1in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance. Assuming that degrees of lenition, such as voicing and, in some cases, spirantization, eventually affected obstruents in postvocalic environments followed by liquid consonants in these language families (e.g. Lat. PATRE > Sp. padre, Fr. pere 'father', Lat. nuPLARE > Sp. doblar,Fr. doubler),it is conceivable that at some point the velar consonant in [-k.1-] (< -CUL-) may have voiced into *[-g.1-] and followed the course of the coetaneous [-g .I-] (< -GUL-) in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance, spirantizing into *[y.l] and eventually fronting its articulation to *[j.IJ and vocalizing into *[j.l]. Alternatively, asswning that both velars remained in coda position, it may also have been the case that both may have neutralized into *[y.l],in the same spirit of voiced plosive codas in most current varieties of Spanish, e.g. a[o]quirir 'to acquire', ri[o]mo (rhythm', dia[y]n6stico'diagnostic', a[y]tor 'actor' (cf. Navarro Tomas 1991: 78-9). Be that as it may, the fact is that the evolutionary pathways of [-k.1--g.1-] did merge with those of [-lj-] in the evolution of many words in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance varieties, giving rise to A1 • The question whether [-k.1--g.1-] should or should not have been syllabified as onsets (i.e. as [-kl- -gl-]) after the syncope of [-ii-] (instead of these plosives having become part of the preceding syllable's coda and then vocalized into [j]), will depend essentially upon scholars' assumptions on whether intervocalic -CL- and -GL(< Lat. -CUL- and -GUL-, cf. Appendix Probi ocu1us NON OCLU) should necessarily have had the exact same pronunciation as word-initial CL- and GL- (as in Lat. CLAVE 'key' and GLANS 'acorn'). Put in a different way, it may have been the case that the velar consonants of word-initial CL- and GL- were

4.3

THE EMERGENCE OF THE PALATAL LATERAL

[A]

57

pronounced as plosives, while the velar consonants of intervocalic -CL- and -GL- already had a weakened pronunciation of some sort in Ibero- and GalloRomance, in a similar fashion as current varieties of Spanish. For example, in Spanish, orthographic may appear word-initially or between vowels (e.g. glandula 'gland, and regla 'rule'), but speakers from the vast majority of dialects pronounce differently according to each context, i.e. as [gl] word-initially, but as [yl] between vowels (e.g. glandula [ glaodula], but regla reyla]), even though both sequences are acceptable syllable onsets. In the particular development of Ibero- and Gallo-Romance [-k.1- -g.l-] > *[y.l], however, it may have been the case that the weakening of *[y) was in such an advanced stage, that speakers could no longer resyllabify it with the following [l]. As complex onsets tend to be formed by consonants that are maximally different in sonority (e.g. a voiceless plosive [k] and an alveolar lateral [l]), an extremely reduced [y] would have made the difference in sonority with the following [l] not great enough, hence disfavoring a potential consonant cluster with the lateral. Furthermore, traces of the intervocalic vowel from the original sequences -CUL- and -GUL- may still have surfaced phonetically, instead of disappearing altogether as orthographic OCLU or TEGLA might suggest. Therefore, this may have prevented speakers from syllabifying the weakened velar with the following lateral, in a hypothesized, reconstructed phonetic sequence such as *[yu.lJ.Following the subsequent fronting and vocalization of the velar (and the concomitant disappearance of the traces of the vocalic segment), the emergent palatal glide [j] remained in coda position (i.e. [-j.l-]) and eventually palatalized the following lateral (although cf. Recasens 2014a: 162-3) and Wireback (2010) for an alternate view on the palatalization of the consonant clusters, according to which palatals may have arisen in this context through blending between the front lingual gesture of the alveolar consonant and the dorsal gesture of the velar). The fact that intervocalic -CL- and -GL- consistently evolved into [A] in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance, while word-initial CL- and GL- present a complex and widely varied evolution in the Romance languages (cf. §4.3.2.1)leads us to conclude that (i) the evolutionary pattern of the former probably occurred much earlier than that of the latter due to contextual factors, namely, one would more likely expect weakening to occur in word-medial, intervocalic position than in word-initial position; and (ii) Ibero- and Gallo-Romance [-k.1-] and [-g.l-] may not have had necessarily the same pronunciation as their word-initial counterparts. This motivates the hypothesis that the plosives in [-k.1--g.l-] may indeed have vocalized into [j] due to an advanced stage of obstruent weakening in those language families. On the other hand, in other 1

1

[

58

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

Romance varieties the lack of velar lenition motivated [-Id- -g.1-] to resyllaby as [-kl-] and [-gl-] and, thus, present the same pronunciation as their wordinitial counterparts. Therefore, reconstructions such as OCULU > *o[k.l]u > *o[y.l)o > *o[j.l]o > *o[j.li]o> o[i]o 'eye' represent the evolutionary pathway proposed for Ibero- and Gallo-Romance varieties and formally analyzed further in the book (cf. Chapter 6). 4.3.1.3 The development of

A.1into Old Spanish [-3-]

The evolutionary pathway of A1 into Old Spanish [-3-] is worth further discussion due to the intense debate that it has generated among IberoRomance scholars. The emergence of this fricative is evidenced in HispanoRomance texts from the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, such as the Glosas Emilianenses and the Glosas Silenses, both written in the monastery of San Millan de la Cogolla. The appearance of [3] has been hypothesized from an observed change in the orthography of certain words throughout the Old Spanish period. For example, Latin words that presented orthographic LI, LL, CL, and GL are found to be written with various orthographic representations, such as , , , , , , and (Menendez Pidal 1950: 58-60). For instance, a word such as Lat MULIERE 'woman' gives way to OSp. mugger or mugier.Lapesa (1981: 167) also cites the case of paja 'straw', ojo 'eye', and vieju 'old' ( < Lat. PALIA, ocLu, VECLU). Because of this orthographic variation, scholars argue that it is difficult to interpret their real phonetic value, although most agree that it should have been either a palato-alveoar fricative [3] or an affricate [d.3].In light of this, many speculative accounts have surfaced in the literature. Menendez Pidal (1950: 275), for example, puts forth a hypothesis to explain the change in the pronunciation of Ai,by arguing that: [l]o corriente es hallar en Castilla grafias que no pueden indicar [l], sino que algun sonido que ha perdido ya su caracter de lateral, y que sin duda debemos interpretar [~] o [z]: mortagga937, taggare964, magguelo979, 1044 Cardena Cartul., pags. 330, 367, 305, 161; Uallegio1011 Ona, Ualleijo 1057 Ona < vallkiilu; confego 1057, Nogga 1034, Cascaihares1011, que unidas a la grafia latinizante relias 974, y la mas corriente espejo 1096, se usan mezcladas durante el siglo XII. La grafia latinizante Ii pudiera indicar l; pero la j no puede indicar sino una evoluci6n de l > y, o bien una [i] o [z]; hemos de aceptar esto ultimo en vista de las otras graflas g, gg, ih.6

Menendez Pidal's phonetic symbols [!], [y], [i], and [zj correspond to IPA [A],U], ltld.3],and (3], respectively. 6

4.3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL LATERAL

[A]

59

Based on Menendez Pidal's philological research and insights, many authors working on Ibero-Romance have proposed a direct change [A] > [3] in Old Spanish without providing a compelling explanation of the phonetic mechanisms for this change. Alonso (1962: 84) is one of the few who explicitly poses the question of how a palatal lateral would have changed directly into a palatoalveolar fricative: "( ... ) supuesto que existi6 un grado primitivo J,tc6mo se pas6 de 1a .t?" Before embarking into an attempt of explanation, it is worth keeping in mind what happened to the same [A] in other Ibero- and GalloRomance languages, since comparative evidence often provides insights into an otherwise impossible task to solve, which is precisely to decipher how words were pronounced more than a thousand years ago. For instance, in other varieties of Ibero-Romance such as Old Catalan, Old Aragonese, and Old Portuguese, A1 was preserved, e.g. OPt. ouelia [o'veAa] 'sheep' and molier [mo 1AEf] 'woman', OAra. maglolo [ma 1Aolo] 'hawthorn', etc. (Menendez Pidal 1950: 53-5). In Old Eastern and Central Leonese, however, the evidence suggests that A1delateralized and evolved into a palatal fricative [j], represented by the grapheme , although, in this case, could also indicate a glide [j]. Ariza (1990: 122) cites the occurrence of fiyos 'children' in a document of Sahagun from 1171, while Lapesa (1981: 166) presents the case of paya 'straw', gueyu 'eye', and vieyu 'old'. Moreover, Menendez Pidal (1950: 277) confirms the almost exclusive use of for words which derived from Latin LI, CL, and GL. These findings have led scholars to propose the emergence of an earlier yeismo in Old Leonese, not to be confused with the yeismo of Modern Spanish (c£ Chapter 5), although the latter may offer valuable insights for the evolution of A1as well. With regard to the attempts to explain the evolution of A1into [3} in Old Spanish, some have relied on the articulation of the palatal lateral itself, while others have taken into account the functional load of this segment within the overall consonant system of the language. Lloyd (1987: 44), for example, argues that this segment developed a fricative component in its articulation, while Alonso (1961: 180) considers that such a component is inherent in the pronunciation of the [A], claiming that "en la ll lateral hay un rehilamiento [friction] que lees propio, o sea una vibraci6n, adicional a la de las cuerdas vocales, producida por las vibraciones de las mucosas linguales al ser sacudidas por el soplo en la zona lateral de la articulaci6n." However, other authors endorse the hypothesis that a change from A1to [3] took place to prevent the former from merging with A2< [pl- kl- fl- I:] (cf. §4.3.2.1). According to this view, the putative fricative component of A1,which should have been nondistinctive until then, would have emerged as distinctive between the two

60

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

palatal laterals. Although such an account seems feasible and can fit the Old Spanish data well, it fails to provide a reason for the merger between f...1 and f...2 in other Ibero-Romance varieties, such as Catalan, Navarro-Aragonese, and a few dialects of Leonese, as pointed out by Lapesa (1981: 166): La evoluci6n de la geminada /ll/ y la de los grupos /c'l/, /g'l/, /I + yod/ llegaron a un mismo resultado IV en algunas zonas del Occidente leones (/purtielul, igual que /bie!ul, /uo!us/ 'ojos', /pa!a/ en San Ciprian de Sanabria), en navarro-aragones (caballo,castiello,igual que viello,palla) y en catalan occidental (cavall,castell,vel~ull,palla, todos con IV). Thus, although the hypothesized change [f...]> [3J in Old Spanish is featured in several accounts, overall it is difficult to argue for it with no intermediate steps, based on three principal reasons: (i) this change is unattested elsewhere in the history of Spanish and any other Romance language; (ii) in phonetic terms, it is highly unlikely for a lateral whose articulation covers a wide area of the palate to move directly to a precise articulation of a palato-alveolar fricative with no intermediate steps; and (iii) abundant comparative evidence from the evolution of f... 1 in other Ibero- and Gallo-Romance languages at different periods, and also from the evolution of f...2in Spanish itself (cf. §4.3.2.1 and Chapter 5), strongly suggests an intermediate delateralized stage, whereby f... 1 most likely gave rise to a central palatal segment *[jJ or *[jJ, which, in turn, strengthened into [3]. Granda Gutierrez ( 1966) is one of the few scholars who proposed an intermediate step in the evolution of f...1 into [3] in Old Spanish. In fact, the author sketches a general evolution of Latin [-lj- -k.1- -g.l-] and [l: I into the languages of Central and Eastern Iberia as follows: a. -lj-, -k.1-, -g.l- > (jlj) > f...(= f... 1), in Catalan, Navarro-Aragonese, and Mozarabic 1: > f...(= A2) b. -lj-, -k.1-, -g.1- > (jlj) > j > j., in Southeastern Menorca and Riberas del Navia 1: >f...(= f...2)> j c. -lj-, -k.1-,-g.1- > (j/j) >j, in Western Leon and Asturias, Balearic Islands, etc. I: >f...(= f...2) d. -lj-, -k.1-, -g.1- > (jlj) > j > 3, in Castile and Central and Eastern Leon l: >f...(= f...2) Granda Gutierrez' s sketch runs into a few problems. First, his proposal for the Catalan, Navarro-Aragonese, and Mozarabic data in (a) seems highly unlikely, because it fails to recognize the emergence of [f...]from Latin [-lj- -kl- -gl-J and also inexplicably proposes the change *Li. j] > [f...],which is not attested in any

4.3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL LATERAL

[A] 61

Romance language. With regard to the Spanish data in (d), his account does not recognize A1as a historical stage in the evolution of Latin [-lj- -k.1--g.1-) and, instead, suggests that these sequences lost their lateral component altogether and developed a central palatal segment before giving rise to [3]. Furthermore, Granda Gutierrez fails to account for the fact that the evolution of the proposed stage *j/j never merged with the coetaneous palatal plosive fJ] in Spanish. Indeed, this has been the main argument in the literature to justify a direct change from A1to [3]; in other words, the hypothesis that if .{1 had delateralized into *fj] or *[j], then it would necessarily have merged with fJ],as Ariza (1994: 93) states: Uno de los argumentos mas s6lidos en contra de una evoluci6n de la yod segunda no nasal palea > pa!a > *paya > paza era que, de haber existido el estadio [paya], se tendria que haber fundido la /y/ < LY con la /y/ < 1, GY, etc., o, como se pregunta Damaso Alonso, por que [may6r] no pas6 a [mazor]. Alonso (1962: 84) raises the same hypothesis, but is more cautious in his evaluation and considers the possibility of an actual delateralization of A1, albeit not providing a definitive answer to the problem of how Ai became [31, particularly since one will never know how exactly sounds were pronounced in the past: ( ... ) pudo tambien haber causas desconocidas que, en lejana epoca, mantuvieron la -y- de mayo mientras se operaba la serie muller > muyer > muier. Es posible que la -y- de mayo y la del castellano prelit. muyer no hayan sido siempre iguales; es posible que la -y- < J< -lj-, etc., tuviera desde el principio algun rehilamiento. Hay aqui, como siempre, en los lingiiistas, una tendencia a sentenciar. La verdad es que no sabemos. No sabemos siquiera si la pluraridad de grafias del castellano primitivo (g, gg, i, j, ih, etc.) cubria un solo sonido o una serie de palatales distintas, de las que todas sucumbieron menos

z.

Lapesa (1981: 167, n.10), on the other hand, chooses to consider the evolution of Ai together with that of A2.By observing that both palatal laterals did not merge in the history of Spanish, the author proposes three different scenarios to explain their development: a. When Latin [l:Jpalatalized into A2,A1had already changed to [j], (t], or [3); b. In dialects where Latin [lj kl gl] eventually evolved into a central palatal segment, [A]emerged first, but somehow was kept different from A2;

62

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

c. Latin [lj kl gl] evolved into either ti] or [jJ from the start and never gave rise to Ar. Lapesa leans toward scenario (b) and proposes that both palatal laterals coexisted in Spanish despite having never merged, which echoes Lloyd's (1987: 44) hypothesis that A1had developed a "non-distinctive fricative element" that emerged as distinctive when A2came about. The problem with both Lapesa's and Lloyd's explanations is that neither author provides a clear definition as to what precise phonological property that "fricative element" of A1would have so as to keep it in contrast with A2,especially when no other Ibero-Romance language had a Ar with such a particular feature. Finally, neither Lapesa nor Lloyd provides evidence (documented or otherwise) to support the proposed subtle distinction between both palatal laterals. The relative chronology of the changes in question is also worth exploring. More specifically, it is possible to postulate that the delateralization of A1first gave rise to a palatal glide *[jJ early enough in Hispanic Latin, which evolved independently from the coetaneous [j] (cf. §4.5.1 and §4.5.2). The evolution of this palatal glide *[j] ( < A1), thus, entails a series of strengthening processes that eventually led this segment to assibilate into [3] in Old Spanish (i.e. *[j] > *fj] > [3]), hence keeping the contrast with [J], which, in turn, developed an intervocalic allophone [jJ by the time when [3] (< *[jJ < *[j] < A1)had already emerged. This hypothesis is consistent not only with the history of A1in other Romance languages, such as Romanian, French, Portuguese, and ItaloRomance varieties, but also with [A]-delateralization in current varieties of Ibero-Romance, particularly Brazilian Portuguese and northeastern Argentine Spanish (cf. Colantoni (2004) and other references in Chapter 5).

4.3.2 Second-stage [A](A2) 4.3.2.1 [pi- kl- fl-]

One of the most complex, and difficult to solve, problems in the historical phonology of the Romance languages is the evolution of the Latin initial groups [pi- kl- fl-] (cf. Reppetti and Tuttle 1987; Wireback 1997: 57-92; Ariza 2012: 113-18). As will be discussed, the complexity of their development stems from the multiple evolutionary pathways that they have followed in the history of the various Romance varieties. Furthermore, [pi- kl- fl-] oftentimes present different results even within the history of the same language. Table 4.1 exemplifies most, albeit not all, of the different evolutionary results of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] in the Romance-speaking world.

4.3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL

[A] 63

LATERAL

Table4.1 Evolution of Latin [pi- kl- fl-Jacross the Romance-speaking world LATIN

pi

kl

fl

Eastern Romance

Romanian

pl

kjlc

fl

Rhaeto-Romance

Friulian

pl

kl

fl

Ladin (most dialects)

pl

kl

fl

Ladin (Marebbano, Badiotto, Gardenese)

pl

tl

fl

Ladin (Fassano and Moenan)

pj

kj

fj

Romansh

pi

kl

fl

Piedmontese

pj

fj

Ligurian (Genoese) Ligurian (Cinqueterrean)

lf tf

Lombard (Milanese)

pj

If tJ tf tf

Lombard (Alpine)

pl

kl

fl

Venetan

pj

fj

Emilian-Romagnol (Bolognese)

pj

If If

fj

Italian, Tuscan, Corsican, Romanesco, Umbrian, Marchigiano

pj

kj

fj

Abruzzo (some dialetcts)

pj/kj

kj

fj

Molisan

C

C

JI Sic. [tflaia, It. [pj]aga, Fr. [pl]aie, Sp. [A'.]aga,Pt. [Jlaga'wound' PLORARE > It [pj]angere,Fr. [pl]eurer,Cat. [pl]orar,Sp. [A'.]orar, Pt. [florar'to cry' PLUMBU > Sic. [1j]ummu, Fr. [pl]omb, Fr-Prov. [pA]omb,Pt. fJ1umbo'lead' PLAGA

7

Some disagreement exists with regard to the precise representation of the result of Latin [kl-] in Romanian. While some authors consider that the palatalization of the lateral in this cluster eventually producing the sequence [kj], e.g. chema (kje'ma] 'to call' < CLAMARE (Repetti gave rise to a glide UJ, 2016: 666), others state that a palatal plosive [c] is actually the consonant that emerged from the evolution of the original Latin duster [kl-] (via delateralization of the palatal lateral in [kA-1),e.g. cheie ('ceje) 'key'< CLAVIS (PanaDindelegan 2013: 10). Be that as it may, the plosive [cl seems to bea natural next step in the articulation of a palatalized velar [kj], given the articulatory similarities between [cl and [kj] (cf. Recasens 2014b).

4,3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL LATERAL

[A] 65

> Ro. [pl]oaie, Ven. [pj]oba, Fr. [plJuie, Cat. [pl]uja, Sp. [A]uvia, Gl. [tjluva, Pt. [fluva 'rain'

PLUVIA

> Ro. [kj]eamd, Lig. [tfjama, It. [kjJama, Sp. [A]ama, Gl. [tfjama, Pt. U]ama 'call.3sa'

CLAMAT

Lad. [kl]af, Lad. (Fassan) [kj]ef, Fr-Prov. [kA]af, Cat., Ara. [kl]au, Sp. [A]ave,Gl. [tfjave, Pt. [flave 'key' FLAMMA > Neap. [flamma, Fr-Prov. [ftjlamna, Sp. [A]ama, Pt. [flama 'flame' FLORE > Ro. [fl]oare, Fri. [fl]or, Lad. (Fassan) [fj]o, Pied. [fj]ur, Lig. rJ1ua,It. [fj]ore, Moli. lf/

However, it is also worth pointing out that palatalization of [pl- kl- fl-] was by no means a sweeping process across the lexicon of varieties where they incurred historical changes. For example, many Spanish and Portuguese words maintain the original Latin clusters intact, while in some Portuguese words the lateral rhotacized, resembling its evolution in Leonese, as illustrated in (12). (12)

Sp. [pl]aya, Pt. [pr]aia 'beach' PLATEA > Sp. [pl]aza, Pt. [pr]afa 'town square' PLACITU > Sp. [pl]azo, Pt. [pr]azo 'term, period' PLANT A > Sp., Pt. [pl]anta 'plant' PLUMBU > Sp. [pl]omo 'lead' CLAVU > Sp. [kl]avo, Pt. [kr]avo 'nail' CLARU > Sp., Pt. [kl]aro 'clear, light' FLAccu > Sp. [fl]aco 'thin', Pt. [fr]aco 'weak' FLORE > Sp., Pt. [fl]or 'flower' FLUXU > Sp. [fl]ojo, Pt. [fr]ouxo 'loose' PLAGA >

Many have been the attempts to account for the complex evolution of Latin [pi- kl- fl-] (cf. Tuttle (1975), Repetti and Tuttle (1987), and references therein). In light of the comparative evidence in Table 4.1 and the data exemplified in (10) and (11), one must agree with Lloyd (1987: 224) when the author points out that the [pl- kl- fl-] clusters appeared in a great variety of Latin words, which gave rise to multiple results mirroring "a number of different linguistic forces ( ... ) affecting their development." Lausberg (1965: 332-5), on the other hand, hypothesizes that the lateral component of those clusters probably had a different pronunciation in some areas where Latin was spoken, which, then, could have given rise to so many different evolutionary patterns. By considering data from languages such as Romanian and Italian, Lloyd (1987: 224-5) suggests that the supposed different pronunciation was indeed a palatalized lateral, which initially resulted from the coarticulation

66

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

between velar [k] and the following lateral [l]. In other words, a palatal lateral [A] would first have emerged from a compromised articulation located midway between the velar and alveolar places of articulation. Given that in Romanian only [kl-] incurs some type of change (while [pi- fl-] remain intact), Lloyd (1987) and Repetti and Tuttle (1987) hypothesize an initial set of [pl- kA- fl-] clusters, with the palatal lateral from [kA-] later spreading to the other groups by phonetic analogy (cf. Tuttle 1975: 407-8). Although the authors do not provide any concrete evidence for the proposed stage *[kA-] in languages such as Spanish, they and other scholars (e.g. Ariza 2012: 115) indicate that [pA-kA-£\-] are still found in varieties of Francoprovenc,:aland in Ribagorzan (Upper Aragonese) (cf. Table 4.1), the latter of which is "known for its preservation of other archaic features" (Lloyd 1987: 225). Indeed, Echenique Elizondo and Sanchez Mendez (2005: 152) report the occurrence of such clusters in Medieval Upper Aragonese, in words such as pllano 'plain' (< PLANU), cllau 'key' (< CLAVE), jllama 'flame' (< FLAMMA), etc. In Modern Upper Aragonese, however, these pronunciations are only kept precisely in the northern region of Ribagorza (Tuten 2003: 138, 289), while in other areas the lateral consonant tends to vocalize, e.g. [p,{Jora > [pj]ora 'to cry' (Martin Zorraquino and Fort Canellas 1996: 300). Milller and Mota (2009) tested the palatalization of [l] when preceded by plosive consonants, using experimental data from speakers of Catalan and Occitan. The authors recorded the subjects' reading of two randomized word lists: one containing word-initial [pl- bl- kl- gl-] and another containing [pj- bj- kj- gj-]. Next, they extracted the first twenty milliseconds of the lateral and the glide in each sequence and calculated the distance between their second formant (F2) and first formant (F 1) to determine the degree of "palatality" of the lateral, under the assumption that the magnitude of F2-Fl is directly correlated with the degree of palatalization. Their results confirm the hypothesis that velar plosives favor [l]-palatalization in onset dusters more than labial plosives, as "velar+ lateral and velar+ YOD clusters may resemble each other during the first few milliseconds of the sound ( ... ). This could not be seen in labial+ lateral clusters,, (Mtiller and Mota 2009: 1698). As for the articulatory patterns that produce [lJ-palatalization in velar + lateral clusters, the authors hypothesize that velar plosives tend to undergo closure fronting during their release, which would account for the "palatalized acoustic structures in the first part of the lateral" (Muller and Mota 2009: 1698). The results from Muller and Mota's (2009) study provide preliminary, experimental evidence for Lloyd's (1987) and Repetti and Tuttle's (1987) hypothesis, i.e. that [l]-palatalization first began when [l] was preceded by velars and possibly

4.3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL LATERAL

[A]

67

spread later to preceding labials by analogy, as no phonetic evidence has been found for the latter. This scenario is particularly revealing when one considers the comparative evidence in Table 4.1: the languages and dialects in which [pl- fl-] palatalize, so does [kl-], whereas the opposite is not true, i.e. the areas where [kl-] palatalizes, one does not necessarily observe the palatalization of [pl- tl-] (cf. Romanian and dialectal French in Table 4.1). Once the original Latin clusters [pl- kl- fl-] become [pA- kA- fA-], their various subsequent evolutionary pathways end up uniquely characterizing the consonant inventory of many of the Romance varieties and, thus, need to be accounted for. With regard to Ibero-Romance, for example, Penny (2002: 71) argues that the initial obstruent consonants in [pA-kA- fA-] assimilated to [A] and were subsequently absorbed by it in Old Spanish, although no explicit mention is made as to how or why voiceless obstruents would ever assimilate to a voiced sonorant such as [A]. Lloyd (1987: 225), on the other hand, maintains that the obstruents in [pA-kA- fA-] simply dropped in Old Spanish due to the heavy articulatory nature of the clusters. On this observation, further evidence from documents of the eleventh and the twelfth centuries may present an important insight, which takes into account the process of general obstruent lenition as a whole in Spanish. Menendez Pidal (1977: 238) cites cases of orthographic representations that indicate that the voiceless plosives in [pl-] and [kl-] may have weakened by that period, considering orthographic spellings such as flausa (< CLAUSA), flano (< PLANU), aflamare (< ADCLAMARE), among others. Indeed, Torreblanca (1990: 319-24) points out confusion of CL- with FL- and PL- in Leonese (e.g. CLAUSA > plosa,flausa, flosa), leading the author to propose that [kA-] started to be first pronounced as [pA-). Once [kA-] became [pA-], Old Spanish would have the sequences [pA- fA-] from the original Latin [pl- kl- fl-]. Tuttle (1975: 408-9), then, connects the simplification of [pA- fA-] into [A-] as part of, and in similar fashion as, the general weakening and loss of word-initial [f-] in the history of Spanish. More specifically, the voiceless plosive [p] would have first lenited into a bilabial fricative *[cp] and, then, into a glottal fricative [h], which coincided with the debuccalization of prevocalic initial [f-], as in [f] > [h] > 0 (cf. FILIU > hijo 'son'). Evidence for this proposed evolution of original [pl-] is found in Leonese toponyrns such as Hllantada, Hlantada (< Latin PLANTATA), where seems to suggest an aspirated sound (cf. Torreblanca 1990: 324-5). Wireback (1997: 77) agrees with this explanation, but notes that the change of word-initial prevocalic [f-] into *[cp-]was the actual initiator of that of [f] in[£(-]:"( ... ) the extension of [q>]( [pl-k.A- fl-] > *[pA- le.A-£\-]>*[pA- £\-] > *[A-]> *[M-] > [A-]

The overall lack of voiceless obstruent lenition in word-initial position in the history of other Romance varieties would likely contribute to account for the subsequent changes (or lack thereof) that Latin [pl- kl- fl-) underwent in their development. In most of Eastern, Rhaeto-, and Gallo-Romance varieties, these clusters remained unchanged with a few exceptions, more notably Romanian ( CL- > [kj-]), Fassano and Moenan Ladin (PL-, CL- > [pj- kj-]), and Francoprovenc;al (cf. Table 4.1). In the latter variety, the case of Chevroux in eastern ftj] ( < Latin [pi- kl- fl-]) France is worth a few remarks. The resulting [ptj'le.A reveal that the palatal glide in a likely delateralized stage of [A) in the labial dusters (i.e. *[pj fj])} must have subsequently undergone strengthening (probably to an initial affricate ltil or [iBDand later devoicing into [tj] by voice assimilation to the preceding labial consonant. In fact, the same affricate [tj] is observed for [pj] in word-medial position in Old Provenc;al (cf. Lat. SAPIAT > OProv. Csaptj'a] 'know.3sG.SBJv'), and in the development of French it later deaffricated and gave rise to the palato-alveolar fricative U1(cf. Lat. SAPIA T > Fr. [ 1saJ1 'know.3sG.SBJv'). As for lbero-Romance, the affricate [tj] also emerged in Galician and Portuguese, having subsequently deaffricated into U1in most varieties of the latter variety. Originally, the lack of obstruent lenition in the reconstructed clusters *[p.A- k.A-£ *[pj- kj- fj-J, as attested in Modern Upper Aragonese (e.g. {pA]ora > [pj]ora 'to cry' (Martin Zorraquino and Fort Canellas 1996: 300). Next, the coarticulation of [k] + [j] generated a palatalized sequence whose articulatory and acoustic result likely resembled that of a palatal plosive [c], which may have yielded an affricate [cc;] (cf. Chapter 3) and, eventually, [tj]. Assuming that [pj-] and [fj-] followed the same pathway of [kj-] by analogy, the unification stage of the three sequences is reached with [tj'-], before deaffricating into [f-] in Portuguese, as reconstructed in (14). (14)

> *[p.A]egar > *[pj]egar > *[kj]egar > *[c~]egar> Gl., OPt. [tj]egar > Pt. lJlegar'to arrive' PLUVIA > *[pA]uva > *[pj]uva > *[kj]uva > *[cc;]uva > Gl., OPt. [tj]uva > Pt. lJluva 'rain' CLAMARE > *[k.A]amare> *[kj]amar > *[c~]amar > Gl., OPt. [if]amar > Pt. [J]amar 'to call' PLICARE

4.3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL LATERAL

[A] 69

CLAVE> *[kA]ave > *[kj]ave > *[c~Jave> Gl., OPt. [tflave, Pt. Ulave 'key' FLAMMA> *[fa]ama > *[fj]ama > *[kj]ama > *[c~]ama > Gl., OPt. {l;flama > Pt. [llama 'flame' Indeed, Repetti and Tuttle (1987: 102-6) propose that the loss of laterality in a cluster such as [kA-] was due to a more fortis pronunciation in conservative areas of Western Iberia, whereas in Castile a lenis pronunciation entailed further deletion of the plosive and survival of the palatal lateral. Interestingly, however, both Spanish and Portuguese present the same evolution of Latin clusters [pl kl fl] when these clusters were found in word-medial position after a nasal consonant or [s]: after the palatalization of the lateral consonant and its subsequent delateralization into [jJ, the velar + plus glide sequence [kj] likely gave rise to a palatal plosive or affricate before giving rise to a palato-alveolar affricate [tfl (and later fJ1 in Portuguese). Illustrative examples from different Romance varieties are provided in ( 15). (15)

AMPLU> Ro. am[pl]u, It am[pj]o, Fr. am[plJe, Cat. am{pl]i, Ara. am[pl]o, Sp., Ast. an[tjlo, Pt an[f]o!am[pl]o 'broad' C0NCLAVARB > Sp. con[tflabar, Pt. conU]avar IMPLERE> Fr. em[pl]ir, Sp. hen[g]ir, Pt. enlf]er 'to fill' (MACOLA>)*MANCLA > Sp. man[tfla, Pt. man[fla 'stain' INFLARE> Sp. in[tflar, Pt. inU]ar 'to inflate, swell' MASCULU > Ro. mas[kulJ, It. mas[kjJo,Fr. ma[l]e, Sp. ma[tflo, Pt. maU]o 'male'

Assuming that [pl kl flJ in this case also would have developed initially into *[pa kA £(], Penny (2002: 72) postulates that the consonant preceding the voiceless obstruents (i.e. a nasal in most cases) prevented them from weakening in Spanish. Preserved in this phonetic context, the plosives, then, devoiced the palatal lateral before being absorbed by it. Lloyd (1987), on the other hand, connects the emergence of the word-medial affricate [tJ1 after a consonant to that of word-initial [g] in Galician and Old Portuguese. According to Lloyd (1987: 226), the [tJ1 resulting from *[Np.{ NkA N£(] was generalized to all positions in Galician and Portuguese, "while Castilian continued to preserve the palatal [a] in initial position." This argument, however, misses the fact that Latin word-initial [pl-] also gave rise to [tf-] in a few Spanish words, which are treated here as exceptions, as shown in (16).

70 (16)

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

POPULU

> Sp. [tj]ato'snub-nosed' > *PLOPPU > Sp. [t.flopo'black poplar'

PLUTEU

> Sp. [t.flozo, whence [tJ1oza 'hut'

*PLATTU

When taking into account the evolution of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] into [if-] in Western Iberia due to the lack of obstruent lenition, the same development of these clusters in word-medial position in Spanish, Galician, and Portuguese becomes clearer to understand, i.e. the presence of a preceding consonant, particularly a nasal, militates against the weakening of the obstruents in the sequences *[Cpl CkA CfX].With the preservation of these, the following palatal lateral eventually delateralizes and the clusters evolve in the same fashion as they did word-initially in Galidan and Portuguese, resulting in the affricate [tj]. A similar reasoning may be extended to the evolutionary pathways of those clusters and the emergence of palatal and palato-alveolar affricates in the same context in northern and southern Italo-Romance varieties (cf. Table 4.1). With regard to the words that still preserve the original Latin clusters [pl- kl- fl-] in Spanish and Portuguese, some authors have proposed that they represent cases of learned words that were either introduced or infrequently used at the time when the early evolution into Spanish [J-] and Galician and Old Portuguese [if-] had already crystalized in popular words. This argument is based on the existence of word pairs that reveal the same Latin root, but present a different evolution, such as Spanish plano vs llano (< Lat. PLANU), plenovs lleno(Lat. < PLENU ), etc. Although this explanation seems likely, it is difficult to maintain it for every single word that does not present the evolution of [pl- kl- fl-] into [i-] or [tj'-] (> Pt. [f-J).For example, many of the words that still preserve the original Latin clusters in Spanish and Portuguese likely belonged to the everyday vocabulary of speakers (instead of being learned by them at a later time), e.g.flor 'flower', plaza 'town square', etc. Furthermore, the fact that these words do not have a learned counterpart with initial [A-] (i.e. *llor,*llaza,etc.) represents further evidence that they may have indeed belonged to popular speech since the early stages of Proto-Spanish and Proto-GalicianPortuguese but were not subject to the palatalization as other words were. Despite the complexity of the different outcomes in the evolution of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] across the Romance languages illustrated in Table 4.1, the development of these clusters into [A] is of utmost importance because they represent most of the sources of A2,Other sources include the palatalization of Latin intervocalic geminate [l:] in Ibero- and Italo-Romance varieties and that of word-initial [l] in Catalan and some Astur-Leonese dialects, to which we now turn.

4.3

THE EMERGENCE

OF THE PALATAL

LATERAL

[A] 71

4.3.2.2 [l:] As is well known, most Latin consonants also appeared in geminate forms. The different evolutionary pathways of the intervocalic lateral geminate [-1:-] illustrate yet another major difference in the development of consonant inventories across the branches of the Romance family. With regard to Ibero-Romance, for example, Latin [l:] palatalized to [a) in all central and eastern varieties (i.e. Asturian, Leonese, Spanish, Aragonese, and Catalan), while it underwent degemination and became an alveolar lateral [l] in western varieties (i.e. Galician and Portuguese), as illustrated in (17). (17)

> Sp. ani[a]o, Gl., Pt. ane[l] 'ring' BELLU > Sp. be[a]o, Gl., Pt. be[l]o 'beautiful' CABALLU > Sp. caba[a]o, Gl. caba[l]o,Pt. cava[l]o 'horse' CAPILLU > Sp. cabe[a]o,Pt. cabe[I]o'hair' CASTELLU > Sp. casti[a]o,Gl., Pt. caste[l]o'castle' COLLU > Sp. cue[a]o'neck', Pt. co[l]o 'lap' GALLU > Sp. ga[a]o, Gl., Pt. ga[lJo'rooster' STELLA > Sp. estre[a]a,Gl., Pt. estre[l]a'start' VALLE> Sp. va[a]e,Gl., va[l], Pt. va[l]e 'valley'

ANELLU

In learned words, however, Spanish also presents cases of [I: ]-degemination, such as Sp. vacilar 'to hesitate' (< v ACILLARE), peUcula'film' (< PELLICULA) (but cf. pelleja 'sheepskin'). Ariza (1990: 150; 2012: 203) also cites [ld] as yet another possible result from the evolution of [l:] in Spanish, as observed in learned words such as celda 'cell' (< CELLA, cf. Pt. cela), and rebelde 'rebel' (< REBELLE). Ariza's explanation for the latter evolution focuses on the hypothesis that speakers would try to reproduce a lateral geminate [l:], but since they did not have it in their consonant inventory, a pronunciation such as [ld] emerged due to an articulatory proximity between [l] and [d]. In wordmedial and word-final position after syncope of the following vowel, [a] (< [l:]) depalatalizes into [l], e.g. Sp. galgo'greyhound' (< GALLI CU), Sp. cabalgar'to ride a horse' (< CABALLICARE), Sp. piel 'skin' (< PELLE), Sp. mil 'thousand' (< MILLE). As Ariza (2012: 204) points out, the palatalization of Latin [1:] is a relatively late phenomenon. Moreover, the fact that this [a] (< [l:]) merges with that which emerged from Latin [pl- kl- fl-] in Spanish motivates us to separate it chronologically from the earlier, pan-Romance [a] (i.e. A1).In fact, the palatal lateral [a] that results from the palatalization of Latin [1:] seems to be a particular development of central and eastern Ibero-Romance varieties. Contrary to Spanish, however, in most dialects of Catalan the evolution of

72

PALATALS

Latin [-lj-

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

-k.l- -g.1-](> A1) and that of [1:] (> A2) in many words did merge

into [A],which also originated from the palatalization development also documented shown in (18).

in some Western

of word-initial Asturian

[l]-a

dialects-as

{18) MULIERE> Cat. mu[.i{]er'woman, wife' (AURICULA>) ORICLA> Cat. ore[A]a 'ear' OCLU > Cat. u[,(] 'eye' REGLA> Cat. re[A]a 'ploughshare' CABALLU> Cat. cava[,(]o 'horse' GALLINA> Cat. ga[A]ina 'hen' COLLE> Cat. co[,(] 'mountain pass' PELLE> Cat. pe[A] 'skin' LACTE> Cat. [A]et 'milk' LANA> Cat. [.i{]ana'wool' LINGUA> Cat. [,(]engua'tongue' LUPU> Cat. [,(]op 'wolf' 1ocu > Cat. [A]oc'place' LUNA> Cat. [,(] una 'moon'

It is worth mentioning at this point that Latin [l:I followed another yet path in its evolution within central varieties of Ibero-Romance.

In some Western

Asturian and Leonese dialects, Latin [1:J(as well as word-initial [l]) gave rise to a voiceless affricate that is commonly transcribed as [ts] or [th] and referred to as "la [th] vaqueira", e.g. W. Ast.-Leo. va[tsle 'valley'(< VALLE),W. Ast.-Leo.

ga[ts]o 'rooster'(
Fri. bie[I], Rom., Fr. be[l]. 0cc. be[IJ'beautiful-MsG' CABALLU> Fri. cjava[l]!chava[l], Lad. ciava[l], Fr. cheva[I],0cc. cava[I] 'horse' GALLU> Fri. g;a[l], Lad. gia[l]/ia[l], OFr., Fr-Prov. ja[l]. 0cc. ga[l]/ja[l] 'rooster' MOLLE> OFr. mo[l], 0cc. mo[l] 'soft' VALLE> Fr. va[l] 'valley' VILLA> Fr. vi[l] 'town'

4.3 THE EMERGENCEOF THE PALATALLATERAL[.{] 73 However, the original lateral geminate [l:] did not evolve to [l] in all GalloRomance dialects. In the Occitan variety of Gascon, more precisely, [l:] follows a distinct evolutionary path toward a voiced retroflex plosive [q], which then may give rise to a Gsc. anhe[t] 'little lamb' BELLU> Gsc. be[t], Lim. be[r] 'beautiful.MsG' ILLU> Gsc. e[t] 'he' ILLA> Gsc. e[r]a 'she' PELLE> Gsc. pe[t] 'skin' PULLU> Gsc. pu[tj] 'chicken' BELLA> Gsc. be[r]a 'beautiful.FsG' BULLIRE> Gsc. bu[r]ir 'to boil' GALLINA>Gsc. ga[r]ina 'hen'

A similar evolution of Latin [l:] is also observed in Upper Aragonese, a variety where the outcomes of the lateral geminate include a palato-alveolar affricate [tj] in the north, a dental plosive [t] in the east, as well as a palatal lateral [.{]in the south (Vazquez Obrador 2011: 65-100). Illustrative data are shown in (21). (21)

VALLE> Up. Ara. ba[tj]e, ba[.{]e 'valley' VALLICULA >Up.Ara. ba[t]ella 'little valley VILLA> Up. Ara. bi[tj]a, bi[A]a 'village'

In Eastern Romance, on the other hand, the alveolar lateral [1] resulting from the degemination of Latin [l:] may also further delete in some cases, as shown in (22). (22)

CABALLU > Ro. ca[l]. Ist.-Ro. co, Dal. cavu[l] 'horse' VALLE> Ro. va[l]e 'valley' ANELLU> Ro. ine[l], Dal. ania[l] 'ring' . MOLLE> Ro. moa[l]e, Ist.-Ro. mo[l]e, Aro. moa[l]i 'soft' GALLINA>Ro. gaina, Dal. ga[l]aina 'hen' STELLA>Ro. stea 'star'

In Italo-Romance, the evolution of Latin [l:] becomes complex and often gives rise to an array of possible outcomes. The northern dialects, for example, generally display [l: ]-degemination like other Romance varieties, although deletion (0) and a palatal glide [j] may also appear, as shown in (23).

74 (23)

PALATALS

FRATELLU

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

> Pied. fre[l], W. and C. Lig. fra[j], Genoese Lig.

[frre:]

'brother' CAPELLI > Pied. cave[j] 'hair' CABALLU > Pied. cava[l], Ven. cava[l]o 'horse' GALLU > Em.-Rom. ga[lJ, Lorn. ga[l] (cf. pl. GALLI > ga[j]) As Maiden (1995: 67) points out, the central and southern dialects of Italy, along with Sicilian, are the only ones that have preserved Latin geminate consonants. Central dialects in general maintain [l:J, e.g. It. cipo[l:Ja 'onion' (< CEPULLA), It.ga[l:]o 'rooster'(< GALLU), It. cava[l:]o 'horse'(< CABALLU), although in some Tuscan vernaculars one can also find a voiced retroflex 1 plosive [cl:], e.g. [ka wa It. sde[Jl:]are, Fr. dedai[Jl]er, Sp., Pt. desde[Jl]ar 'to refuse, to scorn' INSIGNARE > It. inse[Jl:]are, Fr. ense[Jl]er,Ast., Sp., Cat. ense[Jl]ar'to teach' LIGNA > It. le[Jl:]a, Cat lle[Jl]a, Occ., Ara., Sp., Pt. le[Jl]a 'firewood' PUGNU > It. pu[Jl:]o, Occ., Cat. pu[Jl], Sp., Pt pu[Jl]o, Ast. pu[Jl]u 'fist' SIGNU > It. se[Jl:]o, Fr. si[Jl], Ro., Occ., Cat. se[Jl],Sp., Pt. se[Jl]a'sign'

DISDIGNARE

One of the hypotheses for the emergence of the palatal nasal from the sequence [gn] is based on a likely vocalization process undergone by the velar plosive in coda position, whereby [g] would have weakened and rendered a [j]-like realization, which, in turn, would have palatalized the following nasal in many, but not all, Romance varieties, in an evolutionary pathway such as [gn] > [yn] > [jn] > [jui] > [jJl] > []1]. The reconstructed YOD from the vocalization of coda [g] is attested in many of the current dialects of ItaloRomance, particularly those spoken in Basilicata, Puglia, Campania, and Abruzzi, e.g. Ischitan ['lejna] < LIGNA 'firewood', ['ajna] < AGNU 'lamb', ['pujna] < PUGNU 'fist' (Maiden 1995: 56}. In fact, the vocalization of coda [g] is often proposed as part of a larger hypothesis that also includes the vocalization of its voiceless counterpart [k], in the palatalization of sequences such as [kt] (> [tjl}, [kl] (> [J;:]},and [ks] (> [Jl} (cf. §4.5.7}. Some of the scholars who subscribe to this hypothesis include Menendez Pidal (1977: 144-5), Williams {1962: 84), Maiden (1995: 56, 87), and Penny (2002: 69}, among others. The emergence of [j] from coda velars and the subsequent 8 In a few cases,the palatal nasal also evolvedfrom the Latin sequence [t}gl),e.g.SlNGLARIU > Sp. se [Jl-]ero'lone', UNGLA > Sic. u[Jl-:]a,Sp., Gl., Pt. u[p]a 'nail'.

4.4 THE EMERGENCE OF THE PALATAL NASAL [J1] 81

progressive palatalization of the following consonant is widespread in varieties of Gallo- and Ibero-Romance, with some of them having preserved [j] with or without palatalization of the following consonant, as seen in (30). (30)

> Proto-Rom. *la[j]te > Pt. le[jt]e, OFr. [lejt], Prov. [latj], Lorn. [lElfj,Sp. le[tj1e 'milk' NOCTE > Proto-Rom. *no[j]te > Pied. [n0jtJ, Pt. no[j]te, Lorn. [nolf], Sp. LACTE

no[tj]e 'night' PECTU > Proto-Rom. *pe[j]to > Pt., Gal., Ara. pe[jtJo, Sp. pe[lf]o, Ast. pe[tj]u, 0cc. pie{tj] 'chest'

Another proposal for the emergence of [J1]from [gn] is based on a different hypothesis about the pronunciation of Latin GN. Proponents of this hypothesis maintain that Latin GN was actually realized as [IJn] in Proto-Romance and not as [gn], with the original velar consonant having assimilated in manner of articulation to the following nasal (cf. Tekavcic 1980: 201; Wireback 2010a; Recasens 2014a: 130; among others). The velar nasal [IJ] would, then, have assimilated to the following alveolar nasal [n], rendering a nasal geminate which would later palatalize into [.Jl] as did the original Latin geminate [n:] (cf. §4.4.3) (Lloyd 1987: 244). Wireback (2010b: 299), on the other hand, excludes the assimilation part of this process and argues that the palatal nasal [.Jl] emerged from a possible gestural blending in the realization of [IJn}:"Given that Latin /fJn/ constituted a similar velar + alveolar consonant sequence [as the one in /kt/], it is likely that gestural blending at the midpoint of the /IJn/ sequence, along with maintenance of blending up to the offset of /n/, played a role in the palatalization of Latin /IJn/." In addition to articulatory factors, Wireback (2010b: 299) claims that acoustic factors also aided in the palatalization of /IJn/, which include "(1) the enhancement of the acoustic cues produced by gestural blending, caused by the phenomenon of nasal murmur, and (2) the acoustically motivated shift of the first nasal from /r:J/to /pi, which in turn created a contiguous /Jln/ sequence that was much more susceptible to gestural blending and phonemic reanalysis than heterorganic /rJn/." Despite the likelihood of both hypotheses for the emergence of [J1] from Latin GN, Recasens (2014a: 130) points out the fact that it still remains uncertain how precisely palatals arose from sequences composed of velar and den to-alveolar consonants. However, ·given the available data from Ibero-, Gallo-, and Italo-Romance, where the majority of words in these cases display a glide [j] in the position once occupied by a velar consonant in Latin, the analysis in this book will follow Williams' (1962), Menendez Pidal's (1977), Maiden's (1995), and Penny's (2002) view and assume coda

82

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY

OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

velar weakening and eventual vocalization into [j] as the process that triggered the palatalization of the following consonant. Finally, the nasal geminate [n:] also palatalized into [J1]in select varieties of Ibero-Romance, although it is also attested in a few Italo-Romance dialects (Rholfs 1966: 334-5), as indicated by the data in (31).9 (31)

> Cat. a[J1], Sp., Ara. a[J1]o, Ast.-Leo. a[p]u •year' CANNA > Cat., Sp., Ast. ca[p}a 'cane' GRUNNIRE > It. gru[p:]ire,Sp., Pt. gru[p]ir 'to growl' PANNU > Cat. pa[p], Sp. pa[p]o 'cloth' ANNU

Accounts of [n:]-palatalization in dialects of !hero-Romance usually take into consideration the palatalization of the geminate lateral [l:] and the fate of the singletons (n] and [l] in languages of this family (cf. Holt 2003b; Graham 2017). For example, Holt (2003b) argues that the retention of intervocalic [n] and [l] in Spanish prevented the simplification of their geminate counterparts, as this would have rendered many cases of consonant merger: "instead, in the process of loss of length, original energy associated with the articulation of geminates is maintained by spreading out the region of contact of the tongue with the roof of the mouth" (Holt 2003b: 290-302), thus rendering Old Spanish [J1]and [A].Lloyd (1987: 243) proposes a similar hypothesis, adding that merger avoidance in this case would have propelled Old Spanish speakers to find another solution, as though consonant merger were an inherently problematic process. On the other hand, in languages such as Galician and Portuguese, the simplification of Latin [n:] and [l:] took place without merger because the original intervocalic singletons [n] and [1}had been lost in the first place. While Holt's (2003b) and Lloyd's (1987) hypotheses account for the evolution of (n:] and [l:] and their singleton counterparts in HispanoRomance, they do not address the development of these segments in other Romance varieties. This is important due to the fact that data from other parts of the Romance-speaking world may undermine those scholars' teleological presupposition that consonant mergers are to be avoided in order not to produce "more confusions of words" (Lloyd 1987: 243). In French, for example, Latin geminates [n:] and [l:] degeminated and did merge in many instances with their singleton counterparts, e.g. LUNA > lu[n]e 'moon' and

In Astur-Leonese, IJll also emerged from word-initial [n], e.g. NOSTRU > (p]uestro 'our'. The palatalization of [n] in this case is usually postulated from a general fortition process undergone by sonorants in this position, including the alveolar lateral and rhotic consonants (c£ Cravens 2002: 93-115}, 9

4.5

THE EMERGENCE

OF PALATAL

OBSTRUENTS

83

PENNA> pe[n]e 'feather'; VILLA> vi[l]e 'town' and D0L0RE > dou[lJeur'pain'. Thus, merger avoidance may not be a necessary force to favor or inhibit the palatalization or degemination of geminates [n:] and [l:J. What is likely, however, is that speakers might have displayed varying realizations of these consonants, one of which was characterized by a palatal quality. As Graham (2017: 7) puts it, upon their release, "the tongue left the hard palate, creating the palatalized consonant as a result." One may hypothesize, then, that as this pronunciation became frequent enough to gain social prominence in HispanoRomance, listeners eventually reanalyzed them as palatals rather than alveolars.

4.5 The emergence of palatal obstruents Interconnected with the development of the palatal lateral and the palatal nasal in the history of the Romance languages is the evolution of many J 3 c J], which emerged from various Latin obstruents, such as [ts dz tf d.3 sources, i.e. [j dj gj gi ge gEki ke kEka ga sj § tj kj kt ks pl kl f1 bl gl pj bj mj vj]. Because oftentimes the same source may give rise to different sounds in the history of different languages, the following discussion is organized by source groups rather than by individual sounds. Section 4.5.1 reviews the development of Latin initial 0-], while the evolution of intervocalic [dj gj j] is detailed in §4.5.2. Next, the evolution of Latin [gi ge gE] and [ki ke kE] is summarized in §4.5.3, while the development of [ka ga] is discussed in §4.5.4. The evolutionary pathways of the sequences [sj], [tj kj], and [kt ks] are reviewed in §4.5.5, §4.5.6, and §4.5.7, respectively. Lastly, §4.5.8 discusses and exemplifies palatal results from Latin [bl gl]. The many obstruents that emerged from [pl kl fl] and [pj bj mj vj] are excluded from the following discussion since they are featured in §4.3.2.1 and §4.4.1, respectively.

4.5.1 [j-] As previously mentioned, different sources gave rise to YODin early Latin. One of them was a reduction in hiatuses, in which unstressed I and E were realized as [j]. Penny (2002: 62) points out this YODwas pronounced in word- and morpheme-initial position, e.g. [j]ANUARIUS'January', CON[j)UGES'spouse', etc. In the development of many Romance languages, this glide was subject to fortition, which generated varying degrees of friction and, thus, rendered 3], as illustrated in (32). different evolutionary results, such as [J dz d.3

84 (32)

PALATALS

IACERE

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

> Proto-Rom. [j]ace > ORo. [dz]acea, Log. [dz]achire, It.

[d3)acere,Sic, [j]aciri, OFr. [d.3]esir,OSp. [J]azer, OOc., OPt. [d.3] azer 'to lie'

> Proto-Rom. [j]anuariu > Ro. [j]anuarie,Log-Sar. [dz:Janarzu, It. [d3]ennaio,Sic. U]innaru, Cor. [t]ennaghju,OFr. [d3]anvier,OSp. [t]anero,OLeo. [tJeneyro,OPt [d3]aneiro'January' 1ocu > Proto-Rom. [j]ocu > ORo. [d.3]oc,OLig. [dl]eugo, Sic. [j]oco, It. [ Proto-Rom. [j]urare > ORo. [d.3]ura, It. [d.3]urare,OFr. [d.3]urer, OSp. [3]urar, 0 Pt. [d.3]urar 'to swear'

IANUARIU

As the exampl~s in (32) suggest, the degree of friction undergone by Latin [j-] varied throughout the Romance-speaking world. Given the available data, however, it is possible to hypothesize that its consonantization likely started with a palatal plosive [j] (e.g. Roma. [t]un, Cor. [t]ugnu 'June'), whose affricate release Lti]later evolved into a palato-alveolar affricate [d.3], which, in some dialects, either depalatalized into [dz] or deaffricated into [3] (cf. Loporcaro (2011: 146) for a similar viewpoint). Early attestation of some kind of fricativization of [j-] is found in Latin misspellings such as ZANUARIO 'January' (< IANUARIO), ZIACONUS 'deacon' (< DIACONUS), OZE 'today' (< HO DIE), SUSTUS 'just, fair' (< IUSTUS) (Penny 2002: 62; Alkire and Rosen 2010: 61). To further illustrate the varying patterns of [j-]-fortition, let us consider the data from Spanish. In the evolution from Latin to Proto- and Old Spanish, for example, [j-] increased its degree of palatal constriction and fronted its articulation, eventually evolving into a palato-alveolar fricative [3] in most words, although a palatal plosive [j] has remained until the present day before a non-back vowel, although a few cases of [j] before back vowels are attested. 10 The data in (33) and (34) illustrate these two evolutionary pathways.

A fricativefjJ or a glide [jJmay surfacephoneticallywhen [j] is precededby a vowel,e.g. Ya lo ha comprado[ja lo 'a kom'pracfo]'already bought it.3sG' vs Lo ha compradoya [lo 'a kom'pracfo'ja] 'alreadybought it.3sG'. 10

4.5 (33)

THE EMERGENCE

OF PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

85

1ocu > Proto-Rom. [j]ocu > *lt]uegu > *[c\3]uego > OSp. [3]uego'game' IOVIS (-DIE) > Proto-Rom. [j]ovis > *[t]ueves> *[c\3]ueves > OSp. [3]ueves 'Thursday' IUDAEU

> Proto-Rom. [j]udeau > *ltJudio > *[c\3]udio > OSp. [3]udio

'Jewish'

> Proto-Rom. [j]udice > *lt]uez > *[c\3]uez > OSp. [3]uez 'judge' IUSTU > Proto-Rom. [j]ustu > *[t]usto > *{c\3]usto> OSp. [3Justo'just' IUNIU > Proto-Rom. [j]uniu > *[tJunio > *[c\3Junio> OSp. [3Jufio'June' IUNCTU > Proto-Rom. [j]unctu > *[t]unto > *[c\3]unto > OSp. [3]unto 'joined' IURARE > Proto-Rom. [j]urare > *[jJurar > *[c\3]urar > OSp. [3]urar 'to swear' IUVENE > Proto-Rom. [j]uvene > *[tJoven > *[c\3]oven> OSp. [3Joven 'young' IUDICE

(34)

IAM

> Proto-Rom. [j]a > Sp. [j]a 'already'

Proto-Rom. [j]ace > Sp. [j]ace 'he lies' IACOBE > Proto-Rom. [j]acobe > Sp. lt]ague (vocative) 'James' IUGU > Proto-Rom. [j]ugu > Sp. lt]ugo 'yoke' IUNCTA > Proto-Rom. [j]uncta > Sp. [j]unta 'pair of oxen' IACET >

With a handful exceptions (e.g. [jJugo'yoke' and [j]unta 'pair of oxen'), the data in (33) and (34) reveal two general patterns for the evolution of Latin [j-]: (i) it gives rise to the palatal plosive [j], which remains before the non-back vowel [a]; and (ii) before back vowels, this palatal plosive develops into the affricate [c\3], which in tum, deaffricates into [3] (cf. a similar evolutionary path in Romanian, Catalan, and Portuguese: ORo., OCat. [c\3]oc > Ro., Cat. [3] oc, OPt. [d.3]ogo> Pt. [3]ogo 'game'). To these two patterns one must add a third outcome, i.e. 0, when [j-] is found before front vowels, e.g. Sp. enero (< IA-, IENUARIU) 'January', Sp. echar (< IA-, IECTARE) 'to throw out', Sp. enebro (< *1EN[I/E]PERU) 'juniper', etc. While the change of [j-] to lt-}represents a straightforward example of fortition (in this case, an increase of constriction between the tongue body and the palate), the eventual emergence of [3] before back vowels involves a complex process whereby this segment merged with the palato-alveolar [3] from the evolution of Ai, cf. MULIBRE > mu [A]er> *mu[j]er > OSp. mu[3]er (> mu[Jler > Sp. mu[x}er) 'woman' and mcu > *[j]oco > *[t]uego > *[c\3]uego> OSp. [3]uego(> U]uego> Sp. [xJuego)'game•. To add to this complex scenario, the results from the evolution of Latin [j-}also frequently merged with those from intervocalic [j] and [dj gj], which are discussed further in §4.5.2.

86

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

To distinguish the two different results, [3] and [j], from Latin [j-] in the history of Spanish, Lloyd (1987: 250-2) presents two different accounts. In agreement with Malkiel (1976), Lloyd argues that examples with (3] reflect cases of learned words, since several of them belong to the area of justice and administration. Furthermore, the author points out that the existence of doublets in Old Spanish, such as yunta-junta and yurar-jurar,could only provide further evidence that, while popular words tended to preserve the plosive lt], a more prestigious pronunciation made use of [3] in Old Spanish, which also echoes Malkiel's (1983) attribution of sociolinguistic factors to the variation between lt] and [3] in the aforementioned words. Following Lloyd's and Malkiel's account, then, the palato-alveolar [3] would have appeared in Old Spanish from borrowings that carried its prestigious pronunciation in other Romance languages such as French, although a few exceptions persisted. Subsequently, the great number of such words "so overwhelmed the few original words that the normal outcome appeared to be lz-1 rather than lj-1 ( ... )"(Lloyd 1987: 250-1). Alarcos Llorach (1954: 340-1), on the other hand, offers a more general explanation, by claiming that the different outcomes [t] and [3] resulted from varying pronunciations of the same word within discourse. Thus, after a word ending in a consonant, Latin [j-Jcould have been pronounced as [3-], whereas its original pronunciation would have been maintained after a word ending with a vowel, e.g. elojuez [elo juets] vs elos juezes [eloz 3uedzes] (Lloyd 1987: 252). Though conceivable, such explanations are highly speculative in nature and seem to ignore the phonetic environment that likely contributed to the different evolutionary patterns of Latin [j-] in O Id Spanish, namely, [j-] evolved into [t] before [a] and into [3] before a rounded vowel, mainly [u]. Ariza (2012: 167-8) hints at a possible phonetic motivation for the emergence of [3], by arguing that, during the coarticulation between [j] and a back vowel, the backing of the tongue caused by [o] and [u] would have produced a narrower articulation, which arguably would have led to more friction and the eventual emergence of [3]: "Cuando Iii iba seguida de vocal velar se produjo un retraimiento lingual, lo que suponia un mayor cierre articulatorio, por lo que Iii> lzl, ya que todavia no existia lyl. Pensemos que esto tambien ocurre en posici6n intervocalica en un contorno velar: INODIO > enojo"(Ariza 2012: 167-8). However, Ariza does not develop this hypothesis any further, especially with regard to the fact that a narrower articulation of [j] probably would have rendered that of a plosive (t] and not that of a palato-alveolar [3], hence less, not more, friction. Nevertheless, the phonetic motivation of Ariza's account seems more credible than Alarcos Llorach's and Lloyd's analogical explanation, although it is possible that both viewpoints, when considered together, may provide a complementary

4.5 THE EMERGENCE OF PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

87

solution for the emergence of [3] in Old Spanish. Thus, considering that wordinitial [j-] underwent at least some degree of fortition across all Romance languages, it is worth pursuing Ariza's (2012: 167-8) insights to provide an account of the phonetic motivation for the eventual evolution of [j-] into [3-] before back vowels in Old Spanish. As formalized in Chapter 6, word-initial [j-] is proposed to have strengthened into a plosive [t], whose realization included the articulation of an affricate *W-1 before back and non-back vowels. Subsequently, *W-1 would have fronted its articulation toward the prepalatal region before back vowels-hence acquiring sibilance and being realized as [d.3]-due to a dissimilation process between the two close tongue body gestures, i.e. that of the consonant WJand that of back vowels [o u]. The eventual emergence of [3-] (< [j-]) in Old Spanish, therefore, is posited to have taken the following evolutionary pathway: *[Ji-]> *[d.3]> [3]. The non-backing of the tongue body gesture in the production of [a], on the other hand, would not have provided a phonetic motivation for an increase in friction during the articulation of Wlbefore this non-back vowel.

4.5.2 [dj gj j] In word-medial position, Latin intervocalic [dj gj j] also gave rise to palatal obstruents, from a plosive [t] to the affricates [d.3) and [dz]. According to Castellani {1965: 113-18), however, [dj gj j] were all pronounced with a palatal glide (j] up to the first century AD, given misspellings such as 'Aiutor' and 'Aiutoris' for ADIUT0R,AIUT0RIS'helper, assistant'. This result is maintained currently in varieties of southern ltalo-Romance, as shown in (35) (Loporcaro 2011: 14-15; Repetti 2016: 660).

(35)

H0DIE > Sic. [ 1::iji]'today' FUGI0 > Sic. and Cal. ['fuju] 'flee.Isa' 1 PEIU > Sic. [ pEju] 'worse'

In most Romance varieties, however, this glide was subject to fortition, producing the affricates [dz] and Id.3],given their similarevolutionary path and merger with the results from word-initial U] (c£ §4.5.1), as exemplified in {36).

{36) H0DIE > ORo. a[dz]i, It. o[d.3:]i, OPt. o[d.3:]e 'today' FUGIT> OR0.fu[d.3]e, It.fu[d.3:]e, OPt./o[d.3]e 'flee.3sG' MAIU> It. ma[d.3:]o 'May' Loporcaro (2011: 145) cites cases of words spelled with a for Latin I in the second century as evidence of [j]-fortition, e.g. AZUT0RIBUS< ADIUT0RIBus

88

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY

OF THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

'helpers', OZE < BODIE 'today'. It is also worth mentioning that both outcomes have rivaled each other at some point, given that they are both attested in Tuscan, e.g. ra[d.3:]o 'ray' and ra[dz:]o 'rocket'< RADIUM. In many varieties, [dz]and [d.3]subsequently weakened into [z] and [3], respectively, cf. Ro. a[z]i, Pt. 0[3]e < HODIE 'today'; Ro. mie[z], Gen. me[z]o < MEDIU 'core'; Ro. fu[3Je, Pt. fo[3]e 'flee.3sd. It is also worth pointing out, however, that fortition of intervocalic U](< [dj gj j]) did not take place across the board, even in varieties that do display this process in both word-initial and word-medial position, cf. Pt. ma[j]o, Ro. ma[j], Fr. m[e] < MAIU 'May'; Pt. ra[j]o, Fr. ra[j]on < RADIU 'ray'; Pt. ensa[j]o,Fr. ess[E],Ro. eseu < EXAGIU 'essay'. In other varieties, [j]-fortition did not give rise to affricates, but to a plosive [jJ instead. Indeed, Penny (2002: 64) argues that Latin intervocalic I was undoubtedly pronounced as a geminate [t:], considering remarks by Roman grammarians, as well as spellings with a double-height 1. This reconstructed * [j] later weakened into a fricative [jJ in some varieties. This was the case in Spanish, in which li] is represented by the graphemes and in historical docwnents. 11 The data in (37) illustrate these series of changes. 12 (37)

> Proto-Sp. *po[j]o> Sp. pofj]o 'small hill, bench' RADIARE > Proto-Sp. *ra[tJar> Sp. rafj]ar 'to scratch, score' EXAGIU > Proto-Sp. *ensa[t]o> Sp. ensa[j]o'essay' FAGEA > Proto-Sp. *fa[t]a> Sp. fa[j.]a(later hafj]a) 'beech tree' FUGIU > Proto-Sp. *fu[j]o > Sp. fu[j]o 'I escape' MAIU > Proto-Sp. *ma[j]o> Sp. mafj]o 'May' MAIORE > Proto-Sp. *ma[t]ore> Sp. ma[j]or'greater' PODIU

Alarcos Llorach (1954: 337) correctly points out, however, that the same result did not occur in Spanish when Latin [j] (< [dj gj j]) was in contact with a palatal vowel. In this case, the glide was dropped, as observed in words such as hastio < FASTIDIU 'boredom', correa< CORRIGIA 'strap' (cf. Pt. corre[j]a), peor < PEIORE 'worse', etc. It is possible to hypothesize, then, that the preceding palatal vowel offered a phonetic motivation for the disappearance of the glide, given that in the production of both adjacent segments the same articulators

' Note that, while [dj gj j} are the main intervocalicsources of the obstruent ti) in Old Spanish, Ariza (2012: 130-1) also cites a few caseswhere this consonant emergedfrom [bj], e.g. HABEAT > haUJa 'there is/are.3.sG.SBJV' and POVEA > ho[lla 'hole, pit'. However, it is more common that a bilabial 11

consonant is preserved in this cluster,cf. ru[pj]o 'blond', la[pj]o 'lip', llu{pj]a 'rain', etc. This variation is not seen with [dj gj], which palatalize across the board in Spanish. Ariza (2012: 130-1) adds, "Lo 'normal' es la conservaci6n [of -bj-], y solo en contadas ocasiones encontramos la palatalizaci6n." 12 Alvar et al. (1995:221) point out a similar palatalizationof [dj] in current varietiesof Andalusian Spanish, e.g. sacuyendofor sacudiendo'shaking' in Bermez (C6rdoba province).

4.5

THE EMERGENCE

OF PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

89

are activated (i.e. the tongue dorsum and the palate), and the fact that both present similar acoustic characteristics ( cf. Chapter 3), which may have led the listener-turned-speaker to reanalyze this vowel + glide sequence as a monothong. The exact same pattern is also observed in Judea-Spanish, Central American, and Equatoguinean Spanish varieties, where the palatal fricative fj] weakens to a glide [j] and eventually deletes in contact with a neighboring palatal vowel, e.g. estrea (< estre[j]a < estrefj]a) 'star', cae (< ca[j]e < ca[j]e) 'street', ea (< e[j]a < efj]a) 'she', (cf. Chapter 5 for a full discussion and specific data and references regarding [jJ-deletion when adjacent to a palatal vowel.).

4.5.3 [gi ge gE] and [ki ke kE] Velar plosives followed by palatal vowels underwent palatalization in virtually all Romance languages, except for certain varieties of Sardinian and Dalmatian (Loporcaro 2011: 147). With regard to the sequences [gi ge gi::],their evolution mirrors that of word-initial [jJ and word-medial [dj gj j] in many varieties, producing results such as [j], f.t],[d.3J,and [3], as shown in (38). 13

(38)

> Ro. [d.3]er,It. [d.3]elo,Fr. [3]el, Cat. [3], OSp. f.t]elo,Pt. [3]elo (but Log.-Nuo. Sard. [g]elo) 'frost, ice' GENERU > Ro. [c:\3]inere, It. [d.3]enero, Neap. [j]enero,Sic. [j]enniru, Occ., Cat. [3]endre, OSp. f.t]erno, Pt. [3Jenro (but Log.-Nuo. [g]enneru) 'son-in-law' GENESTA > It. [d.3]inestra, Nea. [j]enesta,Cor. [t]inestra,Fr. [3]enet,Cat. [3] inesta,OSp. [t]iniesta,Pt. [3)iesta(but Log.-Nuo. [g]enista)'broom plant' GENTE > Ro. [d.3]inta,It. [d.3]ente, Fr. [3]ens,Cat. [3]ent, OSp. [3]ente,Pt. [3]ente 'people' GINGIVA > Ro. [d.3Jin[c:\3]ie, It. [d.3]en[d.3Jiva, Fr. [3]encive,Cat. [3]eniva, OSp. [tJencia,Pt. [3]en[3]iva (but Log.-Nuo. [g]in[g]fa) 'gums' GYPSU > Fri. [d.3]es, It. [c:\3]esso, Sic. [j]issu, Fr. [3Jypse,Ast. [t]elsu, OSp. [t]esso,Pt. [3]esso'gypsum plaster'

GELU

In some Ibero-Romance varieties, when [gi ge gi::Jwere found in unstressed 14 position, the resulting f.t]was later dropped, as illustrated in (39). u Additionally, the emergence of a word-initial glide [j-] deriving from the diphthongization of stressed open-mid front vowel l't] in some languages also gave rise to lf], cf. EQUA > lj]egua > OSp. [t]egua 'mare', HERBA > [j]erba > OSp. [j]erva 'grass'. 14 Words such as iermano'brother' from Old Spanish,jermanos,iermanos, giennanis'brothers' from Lconese,and yenair'January'from Mozarabic(Lloyd1987:248),in additio.nt~ the data_in (37),support the reconstruction of a likelypalatal plosive{J}that emergedfrom the palatalizationof (91ge gt].

90

(39}

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

> [t]ermano> Sp. hermano,Gl. irmdn, Pt. irmiio 'brother' GELARE > [t]elar> Sp. helar'to freeze GENEST A > [t]iniesta > Sp. hiniesta'broom plant' GINGIVA > lt]encia> Sp. encia,Gl. enxiva 'gums' GERMANU

1

Other !hero-Romance languages, however, preserved the palatal segment in this case, as in Old Leonese yermanos, jermanos, iermanos [j-elmanos] < GERMANUS 'brothers' (Zamora Vicente 1967: 36). Penny (2002: 67) hypothesizes that the loss of the initial palatal plosive [t] when found in unstressed syllable during its evolution from Old to Modern Spanish may be due to analogy with Latin unstressed, close mid-front vowel [eJ, which did not diphthongize into [je] as did the stressed, open mid-front vowel [*e]. Since the sequence ['je] resulting from the diphthongization of ['e] and from the palatalization of ['ge] appeared exclusively in stressed position, Old Spanish words with unstressed [te] such as yenero 'January' (< IE-, IANUARIU) and yermano 'brother' (< GERMANU) would have sounded unfitting to speakers, who regularized the sequence [Je] with its counterpart [e], i.e. yermano > ermano (later hermano) 'brother', yenero > enero 'January'. Although an analogical motivation for the deletion of [J} in this context seems plausible, so does a phonetic motivation. For example, it is conceivable that the YOD in [je] {< Latin [j-], e.g. IE-, IANUARIU) and the palatal plosive [t] from the palatalization of [ge] may have weakened for being in an unstressed position, and the fact that both segments were followed by a palatal vowel only contributed to their further monophthongization into [eJ. In light of the data presented, then, it is evident that stress must have played a contributing role in this case. While acoustic cues of [t] were recovered by the listener when this consonant was found in word-initial stressed syllables, the same could not be said for word-initial unstressed syllables, which are perceptually weaker. In languages such as Romanian, Italian, French, and Portuguese, on the other hand, a stronger pronunciation led to the affricaand, later, in some cases, the fricativization of the latter tion of [t] into [d.31 into [3}, which, due to its high intensity frication, is more perceptually salient than [J]. Both [d.3] and [3}, then, offered more possibilities for the listener to recover their acoustic cues in either stressed or unstressed wordinitial position, hence accounting for why they were not dropped in wordinitial unstressed syllables, as did [t] in Old Spanish. Much like their voiced counterparts, the Latin sequences [ki ke kE} also gave rise to palatal consonants in the history of nearly all Romance languages, except, once again, for Sardinian and, in many cases, also Dalmatian.

4.5 THE EMERGENCE OF PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

91

Palatalization of [ki ke ke] produces affricate results, i.e. either a palatoalveolar [tj] or an alveolar [ts], although from an articulatory viewpoint, it is likely that the first, immediate result of [ki ke kE]-palatalization would have been more likely a central palatal plosive *[c] or its affricate counterpart *[cc,:]. If it is right to assume that fronting of these segments' articulation continued to take place, then hypothetically the next step would have been a palatoalveolar [tj], which, in some varieties, was further fronted and gave rise to alveolar [ts].15 Moreover, in some areas, [ts] later deaffricated to [s] or fronted its articulation to [01 (as in central and northern Castilian Spanish), while in intervocalic position it also frequently voiced to [dl], which itself then produced intervocalic [z), mainly in some Ibero- and Gallo-Romance varieties. The examples in (40) illustrate these evolutionary paths, as well as the nonpalatalization of [ki ke kEJ in Sardinian. (40)

CENA> Proto-Rom. *[cc,:]ena> Aro. [ts]inii, Ro. [tj]ina, Roma. [tj]aina, It., Sic. [tj]ena, OFr. [ts]ene(> Fr. [s]ene), OCat. [ts]ena(> Cat. [s]ena), OSp. [ts]ena(> Cast.-Sp. [0}ena, Sp. [s]ena),OPt. [ts]ea (> Pt. [s]eia) (but Dal. [k]aina, Sar. [k]ena) 'dinner' CENTU > Proto-Rom. *[cc,:]entu> Aro. [ts]entu, Ro. [tj]ent, Roman. (Sur.) [tj]ien, It., Sic. [tj]ento, OFr. [ts]ent (> Fr. [s]ent), Nor. [tj]ent, OCat. [ts]ent (> Cat. [s]ent), OSp. [ts}iento (> Cast.-Sp. [0]ien, Sp. (s]ien), OPt. [ts]en (> Pt. [s]em) (but Dal. [tj]ant, Sard. [k]entu) 'hundred' DULCE> Proto-Rom. *dul[cc,:]e> Aro. dul[ts]i, Ro. dul{tj]e, Roma. dul[tj], It. dol[tj]e, Sic. du[g]i, OFr. dou[ts] (> dou[s] > Fr. doux),OCat. dol[ts] (> Cat. dol[s]), 00cc. dol[s] (> 0cc. do[s]), OSp. dul[ts]e (> Cast.-Sp. dul[0]e, Sp. dul[sJe),OPt. do[ts]e (> Pt. do[s]e) (but Dal. dol[k], Sard. dur[k]e) 'sweet' v1c1Nu > Proto-Rom. *vi{cc,:]inu> Dal. vi[tf]ain, Aro. vi[ts}in, Ro. ve[tj]in, ORoma. vi[tj]inu (> vi{Ro. vi[3]in), It. vi(g]ino, Sic. vi[tf]inu, OFr. voi[dl]in (> Fr. voi[z]in), 00cc. ve[ts]in (> ve[dl]in > 0cc. ve[zJin), OSp. ve[ts]ino (> Cast.-Sp. ve[0]ino,Sp. ve[s]ino),OPt. vi[dz]inno (> Pt. vi[z]inho) (but Sard. bi[k]inu) 'neighbor'

1s As Posner (1996: 113) points out, however, it is still uncertain whether this was indeed the evolutionary path in all cases or whether [ts] would have changed to [tflinstead.

92

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY

OF THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

4.5.4 *[kre gre] One of the unique characteristics of the evolution of Rhaeto-Romance and northern varieties of Gallo-Romance was the palatalization of velars before Latin A.16 Repetti (2016: 664) argues that Latin A must have had an anterior articulation in those varieties in this context, while Haiman and Beninca (1992: 66) explicitly consider a likely fronting of Latin [a] to *[re] as the phonetic motivation for velar palatalization in this case, which Nyrop (1935: 396) describes as the result of a gradual coarticulatory process: Le point d'articulation de la mediopalatale se deplace peu a peu en avant clans la bouche; par ce deplacement se developpe un son transitoire fricatif qui finit par devenir un element independant, et }'explosivese trouve transformee en une affriquee, en meme temps que son articulation devient de plus en plus prepalatale, et enfin dentale: carrum > karro > kjar > tfar. Thus, Latin CANE'dog' would have given Rhaeto-Romance [tf/c]an via the intermediate step *[kre]ne, while Latin GAMBA'leg' would have evolved into Old French [d.3]ambehypothetically from the previous steps *(gre]mbe> *(JJ ambe.Today's fricative results from this evolutionary path in French derive from the deaffrication of [tj1and [d.3]during the thirteenth century (Nyrop 1935: 398). Notable exceptions to palatalization in this case include Picard and Norman, which maintain the original velar consonant. With regard to Rhaeto-Romance, some dialects of Friulian display the affricates [tf d.3],while the plosives [c j] appear in other varieties. The data in (41) illustrate these various patterns. (41)

CABALLU > Fri. [tflc]aval,Fr. [naval (but Norm., Pie. [k]eval)'horse' CANE> Fri. [tf!c]an,Fr. [Dien'dog' CARU> Fr. [tf!cJar,Fr. [Der,Norm. (but Pie. [kJier)'costly, dear' CAUSA> Fr. [tf!c]osse,Fr. [nose(but Norm., Pie. [k]ose) 'thing' VACCA>Fri. va[tf!c]e,Fr. va[ne 'cow' GALBINU> Fr. [3]aune 'yellow' GALLINA> Fri. [d.3/J]aline,Fr. [3]eline 'hen' GAMBA>Fri. [d.3/j]ambe,Fr. [3]ambe 'leg' GATTU> Fri. [d.3/j]at'cat' GAUDET>Fr. [d.3/j]olda'enjoy.3sG' LARGA> Fr. lar[3]e'wide.FsG'

16 Loporcaro (2011: 149) and Repetti (2016: 664) cite cases of velar palatalization before Latin A also in varieties of northern Italo-Romance. However, because the results of this process are now restricted to individual lexical items and place names in said varieties, they will not be included in this section's data and discussion.

4.5

THE EMERGENCE OF PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

93

4.5.5 [sj] and [§] An additional historical source of the palato-alveolar fricative U1in many Romance languages was the palatalization of alveolar [s] by a following voo or palatal vowel [i]. In some languages this palato-alveolar voiced further into [3] when found in intervocalic position, while in others [s] never even palatalized or the sequence [sj] was subject to metathesis, particularly in some lbero- and Gallo-Romance varieties, as shown in (42). 17 (42)

BASIU

> Fri. bu[s], Tusc. baUlo, Lig. ba[3]u, Sard. ba[s]u, Fr. bai[z}er,

Cat. be[s], Sp. be[s]o, Gl. beiUlo, Pt. bei[3]0 'kiss' CASEU > Ro. caUl, Tusc. caUlo, Sard. ca[s]u, Sp. que[s]o,Gl. queiUlo, Pt. quei[3Jo'cheese' CERESIA > Ro. cireaUla, Fri. cjarie[z]e, Roma. tschareUla,Tusc. cilie[3]a, Lig. feU]a, Ven. sireUla, Sard. cere[z]ia,Fr. ceri[z]e, OSp. cere[zJa,Gl. cereiUla , Pt. cerei[3]a 'cherry' ROSEU > Ro. rolflu, It. ro[s:]o, Fr. rou[3]e, OSp. rolflo 'red', Pt. rolflo 'purple'

Moreover, Latin syllable-initial s also gave rise to UJin a number of words, most notably in some varieties of Ibero-Romance. The reasons for this shift are not yet clear, despite some hypothetical phonetic motivations. More precisely, in many cases, syllable-initials was followed by a palatal vowel, which might have favored palatalization of [s] into lfl. Additionally, in many instances, Latin s was likely pronounced as an apical segment [§] (rather than laminal [s]). The fact that the articulatory and acoustic patterns of[§] are similar to those of lfl (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 145-50) may, then, have contributed to s-palatalization into [D.Indeed, Lloyd (1987: 266) points out both factors (i.e. the coarticulation with a following palatal vowel and an apical from syllable-initial s: realization of s) as contributing to the emergence of U1 ''The sibilant /s/ was pronounced with the tongue tipped upward toward the alveolar ridge so that the resulting sibilant tended to have a somewhat palatal articulation. Thus the presence of the vowel with the most palatal qualities could induce a speaker to retract the tongue further and thus articulate a clearly palatal sibilant ( ... )."Under the theoretical assumptions presented in

Standard Italian Hfd.s}< Latin [sj] (e.g. BASIU > It. ba[g]o 'kiss', FASIANU > It. fa[d_s]ano 'pheasant') likely represents a case of hypercorrection (cf. Maiden 1995: 50-1; Tuttle 1977: 610; Tuttle 1979: 95). 17

94

PALATALS

IN THE HISTORY

OF THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

Chapter 2, it is possible, then, to hypothesize that the listener-turned-speaker would have reanalyzed [§] as [f1 in these cases, at some point in medieval times. The data in (43) illustrate a handful of cases of s-palatalization in different Romance varieties. (43)

VESICA

> It. ve[f:]ica, Cat. veif.niga,Ast., OSp., Gl. ve[f]iga, Pt. be[f]iga

(but Ro. ve[z]ica, Fr. ve[s]ie) 'bladder' PASSARU > Ast. paU]aru, Ara., OSp., Gl. paf.naro (but Ro. pa[s]are, It. pa[s:]ero, Pt. pa[s]aro) 'bird, sparrow' SAPONE > Ast., OSp., Gl. [llab6n (but Pt. [s]abao) 'soap' SERICA > Ast., OSp., Gl., Pt. [llerga 'serge, rough cloth' sucu > OSp. U1 ugo (but Pt. [sJuco) 'juice' SEPIA > Gl. U1 iba, OSp. Ulibia 'cuttlefish' SYRINGA > OSp. f.neringa(but Pt. [s]eringa) 'syringe'

4.5.6 [tj kj] The Latin sequences [tj kj] were likely the first ones to undergo palatalization already in the first century AD, given misspellings such as VINCENTZUS for VINCENTIUS and TERSIO for TERTIO (Penny 2002: 63). By the third century, however, confusion between both sequences appeared regularly in many varieties (Posner 1966: 111), with the exception of Alpine Romance (cf. Tuttle 1986). The most frequent and direct result of [tj]-palatalization is the affricate [ts], while that of [kj] most often renders [tjl (via *[cc;]) (Maiden 1995: 52). Exceptions abound, however, particularly due to the aforementioned confusion between both sequences, which, in several cases, have rendered [tjl from etymological [tj], and [ts] from etymological [kj] (cf. Aski (2001) for a usage-based account considering prototype categorization of these latter developments of [tj kj] in the history of Italian). Moreover, in many varieties, most notably in intervocalic position, [ts] followed different paths, including deaffrication to [s], fronting to [0], or voicing to [dz], which, then, rendered [z] in numerous instances. The voicing of [tjl into [cl3]and occasional deaffrication of both consonants into f.fland [3], respectively, is also observed in some cases. A unique evolutionary pathways is that of Sardinian, where [tj kj] gave way to an affricate [t0], spelled in medieval texts (Loporcaro 2011: 148), which nowadays is realized as [0] in Nuorese, as a geminate [t:] in Logudorese, and as an affricate [ts:] in Campidanese. The data in (44) illustrate the various pathways of Latin [tj kj].

4.5 (44)

DISTANTIA

THE EMERGENCE OF PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

95

> Ro. distan[ts]a, It. distan[ts]a, Fr. distan[s]e, Cast.-Sp.

distan[S]ia, Sp. distan[s]ia, Pt. distan[s]ia 'distance' PORTIA> Ro., It.for[ts]a, Fr.for[s]e, Cast.-Sp.fuer[S]a, Sp.fuer[s]a, Pt. for[s]a 'strength' > Ro. gra(tsJie,It. gra[ts:]ia, Cal. gra[dz:]ia, Fr. gra[s]e, Cast.-Sp. gra[0]ia, Sp. gra(sJia, Pt. gra[s]a 'grace' MARTIU > Ro. mar[t]ie, It. mar[ts]o, Fr. mar[s], Cast.-Sp. mar[S]o, Sp., Pt. mar[ s]o 'May' GRATIA

> Ro., It. pia[ts]a, Nuo. pra[0:]a, Log.-Sard. pra[t:]a, Cpd. pra[ts:]a, Fr. pla[s]e, Cast.-Sp. pla[S]a, Sp. pla[s]a, Pt. pra[s]a 'open space, square' PUTEU > Ro. pu[ts], It. po[ts:]o, Mil. po[s], OFr. pui[ts], Cast.-Sp. po[0Jo, Sp., Pt. po[s]o 'well (N)' RATIONE > Ro. ra[ts]iune, It. ra[d.3]ione,Fr. rai[z]on, Cast.-Sp. ra[0]6n, Sp. ra[s]on, Pt. ra[z]ao 'reason' STATIONE > Ro. se[z]on,It. sta[d.3]one, Rml.sta[3]on, Fr. sai[z}on, Cast.Sp. esta[8]i6n, Sp. esta[s]i6n, Pt. esta[s]ao'season' BRACCHIU > Ro. bra[ts], It. bra[1f:]o, WLom. braU]u, Lorn. bra[s], OFr. bra[ts], Cast.-Sp. bra[0]o, Sp., Pt. bra[s]o 'arm' FACIO > It. fa[tf:]o, Nuo-Sard. fa[0]o, Log.-Sard. fa[t:]o, Camp.-Sard. fa[ts:]u, OFr.fai[ts], Pt.fa[s]o 'do.l.sg' ERICIU > Ro. ari[g]i, It. ri[tf:Jo, Fr. heri[s]on, Cast.-Sp. eri[8]o, Sp. eri[s]o, Pt. ouri[s]o 'hedgehog' MINACIA > Ro. amenin[ts]are, It. mina[1f:]a, Fr. mena[s]e, Cast.-Sp. amena[8]a, Sp. amena[s]a, Pt. amea(s]a 'threat' PLATEA

4.5.7 [kt ks]

I

Palatalization of the intervocalic sequences [kt ks] by means of velar vocalization into [j] was briefly discussed in §4.4.2. Although the emergence of YOD from coda velars and the subsequent palatalization of the following consonant are attested in varieties of Ibero-, Gallo-, and Italo-Romance, many dialects followed different pathways for those sequences, such as keeping the glide [j] without consonant palatalization or displaying consonant assimilation instead, with no glide emergence at all, as illustrated in (45). (45)

FACTU FRICTU

> It.fa[t:]o, Lom.fa[tj], Fr.fait, Sp. he[g]o, Pt.fe[jt)o 'fact' > It.fri[t:]o, Fr.Jrit, Sp., Pt.jri[t]o 'fried'

96

PALATALS

LACTE

IN THE HISTORY

OF THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

> It. la[t:]e, OFr. [lejt], Prov. la[g], Lom. le[tfj, Sp. /e[tfje, Pt. le[jt]e

'milk'

> It. no[t:]e, Pied. [n0jt], Lorn. no[tj], Fr. nuit, Sp. no[g]e,Pt. no[jt]e 'night'

NOCTE

> It. pe[t:]o, 0cc. pie[tj], Sp. pe[tj]o, Ast. pe[tj]u, Pt., Gl., Ara. pe[jt]o 'chest' TECTU > It. te[t:]o, Fr. toit, Sp. te[lf]o,Pt. te[t]o 'roof' OCTO > It. o[t:]o, Fr. huit, Sp. o[tj]o, Pt. o(jt]o 'eight' AXILLA > It. a[f:]ella, Fr. ai[s]elle,Sp., Pt. a[k.s]ila 'armpit' COXAE > It. co[f:]a, Lig. co[fla, Fr. cu[js]e, Pt. co[Da 'thighs' mx1 > It. di[s:)i, Fr. dis, OSp. di[fle, Pt. di[s}e 'said.l.sG' TEXERE > It. te[s:]ere, Fr. ti[s]er, OSp. tefj]er,Pt. te[s]er'roof' PECTU

4.5.8 [pl kl fl bl gl] and [pj bj mj vj] The strengthening of [j] when adjacent to labial consonants in French and other Gallo-Romance varieties was reviewed in §4.4.l, whereas the different kinds of palatalization of initial [pl kl fl] in a variety of languages were examined in §4.3.2.1. To the latter discussion it is worth adding that the voiced sequences [bl gl] also produced palatal results in many instances, including [bA gA], [bj gj], [j], and [431, although other, non-palatal evolutionary pathways are also attested, as shown in (46). 18 (46)

GLACIE

> Ro. lt]afa, It. [gj}accio, Lig. [c\3]afa, Fr.-Prov. (Chevroux)

[j]afe, Occ., Cat. [gl]af, Ast. [A]az 'ice' GLANDE > Ro. [j]inda, It. [gj]anda, Sard. landha, Fr. [gl]and, Fr.-Prov. [gA]and (Ruffieu-en-Valromey), Cat. a[gl]a, Sp. landre, Ast. [A]ande, Pt. lande 'acorn) GLAREA > It. [gj]aia, Fr. [gl]aire, Ast. [A]era, Sp. [gl]era 'gravel' *BLANKU > It. [bj]anco, Lig. [c\3]ancu, Fr.-Prov. [bA]anc (Ruffieu-enValromey), Fr.-Prov. (Chevroux) [bj]anc, Sp. [bl]anco, Pt. [br]anco 'white'

18 Consider [Jl] in Salentinoas yet another possibleresult of [bl gl], e.g. GLANDE > [Jl}ana,BETULA > ~leta > [Jl]eta (Rohlfs 1966:241-55).

4.6

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUDING

REMARKS

97

4.6 Summary and concluding remarks Several have been the Latin sources that gave rise to palatal consonants in Romance. Considering (i) the comparative data presented throughout this chapter, (ii) the chronology of the sound changes reflected in orthographic representations, and (iii) the plausibility of the phonetic motivation for the sound changes in question, the pathways in (47) illustrate the hypothesized reconstruction of the main evolutionary patterns of palatals in the history of the Romance languages. (47)

a.I. [lj] > i1 a.2. [ljJ > i1 a.3. [lj] > i1 a.4. [lj] > i1

> > > >

[j] > [tl > WJ > [d.31 > [3J > [n [j] > uJ> WJ> [d.31 > [dzJ [j] > [t] > Wl > [d.3] > [tj] [jJ > 0

b. [k.l g.l] > [c;.1j.l] > [j.l] > A1 c. [pl- kl- ft-] > [pl- kA- fl-] >[pi- kA- fA-] >[pi- fA-J>[q>i-J>[M-] >i2

cl.I. [l:] > Az d.2. [l:] > [qJ e. [nj] >

f.ri]

f. [g.n] > [j.nJ > [jJ1] > [p]

g. [n:] > [pJ h.l. [(p).j], [(b).j], [(v).j], [(m).j] > [(labial C).j] h.2. [(p).j], [(b).j], [(v).j]. [(m).j] > [(labial C).j]

>fJ]>W] >[d.31 >[tj] >[n >fJ]>fJj]>[d.3] >[dz]

U-1> u1> W1> [d.31 > [31 i.2. [j-J > u1> WJ> ld.31 > [dzJ j.L [dj gj j] > [j] > ltl > Wl > [d.31 > [3] j.2. [dj gj jJ > [jl > ltl > Wl > [d.31 > [dz] > [z] k.l. [ge gi gE] > [j] > W]> [d.3] > [3] i.L

k.2. [ge gi ge] > [j] > U] > [j] > 0

I.I. [ke ki kE] > [c] > [cc;]> [tj] > [ts] > [s] 1.2. [ke ki kE] > [c] > [cc;:]> [tj] > [ts] > [dz] > [z) 1.3. [ke ki kE] > [c] > [c [tj] > [ts] > [~] > [01 m. [ka ga]

> *(k.:eg.:e] > [cj]

> [c

[tj'd.3] > [f3]

98

PALATALS

n.l. [tj] > n.2. [tj > n.3. [tj > n.4. [tj >

IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

[ls] > [tfj >

[d.3]

[ts] > [s] [ts] > [§] > [0] [ts] > {ell)>[z]

o.l. [kj] > [c] > [cc;:]> [tfj > [d.31 > [3] o.2. [kj] > [c] > [cc;:]> [tfj > [f1

It is important to note, however, that, while the changes in (47) are meant to account for most of the data in the evolution of Romance palatals, one must keep in mind the several exceptions discussed throughout this chapter and documented elsewhere in the book. In Ibero-Romance, for example, Menendez Pidal (1977: 152, 159) cites the case oflearned words in which Latin [-lj-] never palatalize into Ai, such as peculiar 'peculiar\ concilio 'council' (cf. popular concejo),etc. Furthermore, Boyd-Bowman (1980: 85) provides evidence for semi-learned words in which A1never evolved into a palato-alveolar [3] in Old Spanish; instead, it followed the same path as A2,by delateralizing starting in the sixteenth century and eventually merging with the palatal fricative fjJ (< [j]) intervocalically, a phenomenon referred to in Modern Spanish as yeismo (cf. Chapter 5), as illustrated in (48). (48)

> Sp. maravi[A]a > maravifj]a 'wonder' MURALIA > Sp. mura[A]a > mura[j]a 'rampart' HUMILIARE > Sp. humi[A]are > humili]ar 'to humiliate'

MARABILIA

Despite eventual exceptions, however, the pathways in (47) help us to understand the general history of palatals from Latin to Romance and provide the necessary background to motivate a phonetically based analysis of their evolution into contemporary varieties (cf. Chapter 6). Before embarking on a theoretical account, however, a current dialectal picture of Romance palatals is provided in the next chapter, whose aim is to reveal how the multiple patterns of palatal sound variation and change currently in progress mirror those that took place historically in the making of the Romance languages.

5 Palatals in the Romance languages today

5.1 Introduction The various evolutionary pathways followed by palatals from their roots in Latin have generated multiple contemporary results across the Romancespeaking world. Indeed, because variation and change are inherent aspects of human language, those pathways still continue to be shaped and render palatals unique in the sound inventories of the Romance languages. This chapter reviews the multiple manifestations of palatals in current varieties of the Romance family, relying on .the results from available studies, as well as new unpublished data. A synchronic dialectal overview of Romance palatals is necessary to understand and appreciate the variation and change patterns of these sounds. As will be discussed, recent and current change processes in many Romance varieties mirror those which are hypothesized in the linguistic making of this linguistic family. A comprehensive dialectal portray, then, represents a useful tool with which to understand and model the hypothesized changes for which spoken historical data is unavailable and also the possibility for similar change patterns to reoccur in the future. Because of the extension of its geographic area in the world, as well as the number of its speakers, Ibero-Romance varieties (most notably Spanish dialects) will receive deliberate focus in this chapter. However, a summary of the main palatal manifestations in virtually all of the other Romance branches will be included in the following pages. It is important to point out, however, that the dialectal picture drawn in this chapter inadvertently has its own limitations, partially due to the fact that some of the available dialectal studies at times did not use experimental methodology for data collection. Thus, while this chapter represents an attempt to gather and summarize the main palatal patterns that have been described in the literature, it also identifies areas upon which future research will certainly shed light, and further dialectal and experimental studies will contribute to advancing our knowledge of palatal sound manifestations across the Romance-speaking world. PalatalSound Changein the RomanceLanguages.First edition. Andre Zampaulo. © Andre Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

100 PALATALS IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES TODAY

This chapter is organized as follows. Section 5.2 provides data on current varieties of Ibero-Romance languages, particularly Spanish, Catalan, Galician, and Portuguese. Section 5.3 is dedicated to Gallo-Romance varieties, while Italo-Romance and Sardinian are reviewed in §5.4. Palatal variation in current Rhaeto-Romance and Eastern Romance languages is reviewed in §5.5. Section 5.6 provides a summary of the present discussion and a few concluding remarks.

5.2 Palatals in Ibero-Romance varieties 5.2.1 The rise and spread of YEISMO in Modern Spanish Since around the sixteenth century, the second-stage palatal lateral [A](i.e. A2< Lat. [pl- kl- fl- 1:1)has been undergoing a process of delateralization in most dialects of Spanish, the result of which frequently eliminates the contrast between [A] and the coetaneous central palatal obstruents fJ]and [j] in favor of the latter two consonants (Lipski 1989). This merger toward palatal obstruents receives the traditional label "vEfsMo" and reveals itself when speakers of Spanish pronounce orthographic and typically as Lt] after a pause, nasal, or lateral consonants (e.g. yo [to] T, lleno ri1eno] 'full', c6nyuge rkopjuxe] 'spouse', conllevar[kopje'/3ar] 'to entail', el yate [eA1Jate] 'the yacht', etc.) or as [j] elsewhere, particularly after or between vowels (e.g. la lluvia [la 1ju/3ja] 'the rain', ayuntamiento [ajuu.ta1mjeu,to] 'town hall', caballo [ka 1/3ajo] 'horse', etc.). Several authors have attempted to provide evidence of the first occurrences of YEISMOin the history of Spanish, relying upon sporadic misspellings of words in poems, diaries, and general documents of medieval authors. Lloyd (1987: 344), for example, mentions the isolated case of yeva for lleva'carry.3sd already in thirteenth-century documents. Lapesa (1981: 383), on the other hand, cites the sporadic case of the word ayo for hallo 'find.Isa' in a text written by a monk from Toledo at the end of the fifteenth century. In other Spanish documents, however, there is an abundance of erratic examples that have been interpreted as cases of orthographic hypercorrection, where words were written with instead of . A manuscript of the Librode Alexandre shows llagofor yago 'I lie down,' whereas a glossary of El Escorialindicates llemafor yema 'egg yolk' andpapagallofor papagayo'parrot' (Lloyd 1987: 344). These examples have led scholars to posit that the substitution of [A] for [j j]-a process labeled here as LLEisMo-indicates "a strong reaction against the tendency toward the merger,, (Lloyd 1987: 345). In the sixteenth century,

5.2 PALATALS IN !BERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

101

however, the sporadic character of these cases gave rise to a steady increase in orthographic misspellings between and . Lapesa (1981: 383), for instance, provides the hypercorrected form sullo(s) for suyo(s) 'his, her'. Examples of YEisMo in texts of Spanish travelers found in the American colonies, however, clearly outnumber the ones discovered in Spain. Among many of them, Parodi (1977: 243-4) cites ayd for alld 'over there' in Honduras in 1528, hoyandofor hollando'setting foot on' in Mexico City in 1537,cogoiofor cogollo'heart (of lettuce)' in Cusco in 1549, allanfor hayan 'have.3PL.PRES.SUBJ' in Mexico City 1574, and papagallosfor papagayos 'parrots' in Venezuela in 1575. Guitarte (1971) also contributes with evidence found in Puebla, Mexico, from letters of a Spanish dyer from Brihuega, who evidently confuses the orthography of and in words such as vallan, hayares,salla,alla, valla,yamais for vayan, hallares,saya, haya, vaya, llamais.As Lloyd (1987: 345) points out, these examples may belong to Spanish writers, but it is impossible to pinpoint a single geographical area as the birthplace of YEiSMO.Some doubt is even cast upon a few of these orthographic representations, as they may potentially reveal cases of lexical interference from other words rather than concrete evidence of a sound change in progress, e.g. papagallo 'parrot' instead of the correct form papagayo, possibly due to word gallo 'rooster>, written with . Recent research has also witnessed an interest in the origins of Modern Spanish YEISMO.Kania (2010) carries out one of the most thorough studies on the spread of this phenomenon in Latin American Spanish, particularly in colonial Mexico. The author gathers data from 279 documents written in Mexico between 1525 and 1800, and which display a wide range of textual production, such as letters, notes, crime reports, trial testimonies, inventories, wills, petitions, and official reports. Kania reports no evidence of YEISMO in the documents written in the first half of the sixteenth century and only one case in the second half. However, the author finds incidence of a possible lack of contrast between [A] and [jJ (e.g. haya for halla 1find.3sG') in the text of four out of twenty-eight authors from the second half of the seventeenth century. This number doubles in the first half of the eighteenth century and reaches fifteen (out of thirty-three) authors in the second half of the latter century. Kania (2010: 228) concludes, then, that the slow spread of YEiSMOmust have been due not only to internal factors but also to external ones. With regard to the former, the low frequency of these consonants in Spanish words of the time may have played a role in the initial low incidence of the merger. Among the 500 occurrences of words containing the palatal lateral and a palatal obstruent (word repetitions included), the author reports that the former

102

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

TODAY

occurs in only thirteen words (i.e. ella,ello,llegar,llevar,llamar,calle,hallar, alli, caballero,lleno,alla, valle, llamado), while the latter shows up in only seven of them (i.e. yo, ya, mayor, cuyo, cuya, rey, leyes).As for external factors, it is likely that a social reaction against the merger between [iJ and a central palatal obstruent may also have contributed to its low spread, since the pronunciation of the palatal lateral still held high prestige back then. Furthermore, the level of education of writers may also reveal their knowledge of the correct orthography of words. Kania (2010) reports that such information was available in the texts of six authors from the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries: while half of them were two priests and a scribe (who, therefore, must have had at least some level of instruction), the other half was represented by a baker, a commissioner, and an Andalusian commoner. Thus, it is possible to hypothesize that YEiSMO was not only present in the speech of the lower classes, but was also beginning to be part of the pronunciation of those who displayed at least some level of education in Spain and in Hispanic America. Despite the sporadic evidence for YEfSMO beginning in the sixteenth century, diverging opinions have contributed to an increasing controversy surrounding the date of this process on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Some scholars (Penny 2002: 106) argue that, while the merger could have existed since Old Spanish time, evidence in Spain is only attested in the eighteenth century, contrary to the sporadic examples found in Hispanic America in the sixteenth century. Other authors (Alonso 1961: 161-76) reject, however, the hypothesis of Old Spanish YEISMO and rely upon the lack of direct commentary from seventeenth-century grammarians and also the lack of concrete evidence from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts written in Spain. The latter argument echoes Alonso's (1961: 163-4) claim that Spanish was indeed pronounced as [A]until the eighteenth century in Spain: He repasado con el mayor cuidado los libros de todos los que en los siglos xvi y xvn escribieron sobre pronunciaci6n de nuestra lengua. ( ... ) Pero ni siquiera los andaluces {Nebrija1517; FranciscoDelicado,1534; Cristobalde las Casas, 1570; Juan Sanchez, 1586; Mateo Aleman, 1609; Bernardo de Aldrete, 1606 y 1614; Juan Bautistade Morales, 1623; Juan de Robles,1631; Juan Villar, 1651, etc.) hablan en ninguna ocasi6n de confusionesdell cony [while some confusion is indeed cited between and , and , and , and , < s> and ,and and ]. Alonso (1961) also reports a specific passage by Andalusian scholar Bernardo de Aldrete (1565-1645), who offered indirect comments about the existence

5.2 PALATALS IN IBERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

103

and pronunciation of [A:]in Spanish at the time of the war for the Kingdom of Granada, when the Moorish attempted to produce [A), but ended up pronouncing it as [lj]: "En la guerra del reino de Granada, en la rebeli6n de los moriscos, a los aljamiados que no avian desde nifi.os aprendido nuestra lengua i con su pronunciaci6n, para conocerlos les hazian dezir cebolla,y el que era morisco dezfa xebolia.'' Moreover, the palatal lateral was present in commentary that compared its pronunciation with that of its alveolar counterpart, as seen in the words of Extremaduran scholar Gonzalo Correas in 1626: «La l sola haze su ofizio libremente; mas doblandola con otra, las dos hazen letra propia espaiiola, coma la ke suena en estas diziones: llave, llaga. .. lluvia. El portugues la suple con lh, filho; el italiano con gli, figliolo, fillolo, hixo" (Alonso 1961: 168). Data from Judea-Spanish has often been invoked in the discussion regarding the origins of YEISMO in Modern Spanish. Penny (2000: 186; 2002: 106) claims that the non-lateral results from YEISMO are universal in varieties of Judea-Spanish and the merger is partially due to the small number of minimal pairs which displayed a phonemic contrast between both sounds. As the expulsion of the Jews from Spain took place at the end of the fifteenth century, Penny argues that it is plausible to conceive the occurrence of YEISMO in Spain long before the eighteenth century and, indeed, already in Old Spanish time. However, Alonso {1961: 184-5) opposes this argument by claiming that the YEISMO of Judea-Spanish is a later phenomenon that took place after the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula, in addition to the fact that even some YEISTA dialects of Judea-Spanish still keep the palatal lateral in a few words: ( ... ) en ladino se ha mantenido y se mantiene ll, lo cual indica que en la lengua hablada de los siglos XVI y XVII se practicaba la ll todavia: la pronunciaci6n real se transcribia directamente con los caracteres Raxi (rabinicos) y no podemos suponer la presi6n escolar de la escritura castellana. Tambien se mantiene la ll, entre los yeistas de algunos dialectos, en ciertas palabras conservadas en los romances, como donzella, castillo( ... ). However, data from Judea-Spanish ought to be considered with caution, as the evolution of [A] in this variety presents different outcomes. For example, Alonso {1961: 185) provides evidence that in some dialects a central palatal obstruent has been dropped by contact with a preceding or a following palatal vowel, e.g. J-Sp. cuchfo,estrea,aquea, s{a, a{,galna (cf. Sp. cuchillo,estrella, aquella, silla, allf, gallina), which is also characteristic of several current Spanish varieties, particularly in Central and North America (cf. §5.2.3.3).

104

PALATALS

JN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

TODAY

Penny (2000: 188), on the other hand, also cites a different evolution which resembles that of some Leonese dialects, in which the palatal lateral was subject to depalatalization instead of delateralization, e.g. kaleja, pileyu, pelixku for Spanish calleja 'sidestreet', pellejo 'animal skin', and pellizco 'pinch. I sd, respectively (cf. a similar pattern in dialectal Brazilian Portuguese in §5.2.4).

Despite the controversy involving the chronology and geographical beginnings of Spanish YEisMo, scholars seem to agree that its origins are due to an articulatory, acoustic, and perceptual similarity between [AJ and [jJ (Real Academia Espaftola 2011: 220). The diffusion of YEiSMO within the Spanishspeaking world, on the other hand, has relied upon appropriate, changeconducive sociolinguistic conditions that were found in each area over the years. Hence, urban environments have stood as favorable scenarios from which speakers spread the innovating YEIST A pronunciation in Spain, especially since most of the surviving pockets of DISTINCTION between [A]and [jjJ in this country are relegated to non-urban areas (ALPI 1962; Zamora Vicente 1967; Garda Mouton and Moreno Fernandez 1994; Garcia Mouton and Molina Martos 2009, 2012). Sevilleand other cities in southern Spain have been judged as probably the most fertile region for the diffusion of YEISMO, which was, then, carried over to other parts of Spain, following Andalusian immigration to the north.Yet, as Moreno Fernandez (2004: 987) correctly points out, this does not mean that other regions could not have already employed a YEiST A pronunciation before the contact with southern Spanish speech. Indeed, Alonso ( 1961: 162, 204) vehemently discards the widely shared hypothesis that the phenomenon of YEISMO was entirely a product of Andalusia: ( ... ) se ha crefdo que el seseo y el yeismo han sido productos andaluces exportados e impuestos a los colonos americanos del siglo XVI. Es la opini6n unanime entre los profanos, y lo es casi unanime todavfa entre los fil6logos, pero como mero arrastre de opini6n y no como conocimiento elaborado. ( ... ) Las zonas yeistas de Asturias, Santander, Valladolid (y otras menores y no precisadas de Castilla la Vieja), est.in aisladas, tanto de Andalucia como entre sf, por tierras conservadoras de la ll ( ... ).

Lloyd (1987: 346) concludes, then, that whenever and wherever the origins of YEISMO took place in the transition from Medieval to Modern Spanish, the exact course of its diffusion may be impossible to define with scientific rigor. The fact that it was probably not an accepted form of speech at first and only sporadic evidence is confirmed from time to time in Medieval Spain makes it difficult to pinpoint any single area of spread. In Hispanic America, on the

5.2 PALATALS IN IBERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

105

other hand, documents reveal a likely occurrence of the merger since the time of conquest. Thus, Spanish colonies likely offered a fertile territory for YEISMO to become part of the accepted speech within communities before it did so outside of the lower social classes in Spain (Parodi 1977: 247), although even data from eighteenth-century texts suggest that YEiSMO was not a widespread feature throughout all of the former colonies (cf. Ramirez Luengo 2012: 298 for the lack of YEiSMO in eighteenth-century Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua). It is safe to conclude, then, that the delateralization of ;(2 and its eventual merger with [t j] may have been initiated in multiple places within the Castilian territory sometime between the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, likely in the uneducated speech of the lower social classes. The orthographic evidence from mostly Andalusian travelers only illustrates how the merger may have been more advanced in southern Spain, but by no means excludes the possibility of having taken place in isolated areas in the center and in the north of the Iberian Peninsula as well. Having established the historical grounds from which Spanish YEISMO arose and started to spread within Spain and toward its former colonies, the following discussion provides a snapshot of the current manifestations of palatals in the languages of Spain, as well as in the Spanish varieties of Hispanic America.

5.2.2 Palatals in the languages of Spain 5.2.2.1 Non-bilingual regions The spread of YEiSMO in recent times has made itself evident in many parts of Spain. Navarro Tomas (1964), for example, argues that the YEISTA pronunciation spread north and reached Castile by 1930 as a variable among speakers who still distinguished between [;(J and [t jJ. However, today it is widely recognized that most of the country is YEiSTA (Lloyd 1987: 347), and younger generations no longer have the palatal lateral in consonant inventory particularly in urban areas, despite the persistence of a few patches of DISTINCTION throughout the country (cf. Garcia Mouton and Molina Martos 2012). It is safe to claim, then, that while [AJis more frequently pronounced in nonurban areas in the north (e.g. Alonso 1961; Chapman et al. 1983; Moreno Fernandez 2004), it may also be found in a few small towns and villages in the center and south of Spain, as further discussed below. Beginning with the north, in the region of Cantabria, N ufio Alvarez ( 1996: 187) reports data revealing a predominantly YEiSTA dialect, especially in its

106 PALATALS IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES TODAY

central and northern areas and the capital Santander. However, cases of DISTINCTION are still found in southern Cantabrian towns. Additionally, the author cites other phenomena related to this process, such as a glide-like pronunciation of [JjJ (e.g. pollo 'chicken' and poyo 'stonebench' both realized as ['pojo]) or its complete loss by contact with a palatal vowel (e.g. ovillo 1 [0 ~iu] 'ball of yarn', traendo 'bringing' (cf. Sp. trayendo),leendo 'reading' (cf. Sp. leyendo)),particularly in the mountainous areas. Around Western Santander, Nufto Alvarez reports the occurrence of [dj] as the pronunciation of [J] in word-initial position, e.g. diendo 'going' and diesca'tinder' (cf. Sp. yendo and yesca,respectively). Data from Castile and Leon also indicate that a YEfSTA pronunciation is gaining ground, especially in urban environments, such as Valladolid, Palencia, Avila, and Segovia, although a few areas may still conserve DISTINCTION, such as Leon and Zamora (Alonso 1961: 178). Moreno Fernandez (2004: 989) and Hernandez Alonso (1996: 219), on the other hand, report that [A] can still be found in the city of Burgos, despite the fact that 60% of their informants no longer displayed DISTINCTION between [A]and [Jj]. Moreno Fernandez (2004: 989) refers to this as a partial YEfsMo, since the contrast is reported mainly in the speech of older speakers, pronounced in more formal situations, and likely to fade in the coming years. A similar pattern is found in Covarrubias (Chapman et al. 1983), where [A] surfaces more frequently in the speech of those who are older than forty years of age. In Castile-La Mancha, most cities are YEiSTAS, while there are still a few patches of DISTINCTION, particularly in the north of this region (Garcia Mouton and Molina Martos 2012). Moreno Fernandez (1996: 219) reports that Toledo represents the main focus of YEiSMO, while in Guadalajara and Cuenca the palatal lateral has almost completely given way to a central palatal obstruent. However, the author also cites cases of sporadic LLEISMO in Alarcon (Cuenca), where [A] is observed not only in words with orthographic ,but also in words written with , e.g. yugo [1AuyoJ 'yoke' and yunque ['AUIJke] 'anvil' (Moreno Fernandez 2004: 986). While the fricative [j] occurs frequently, Moreno Fernandez (2004: 986) cites the occurrence of a velar plosive [g] in southern Guadalajara and northern and Western Cuenca in words that begin with and , such as guieso'plaster', guierro'iron', guierba 'grass', and guierno 'son-in-law' (cf. Sp. yeso, hierro,hierba,hierno).Paredes (2013: 79-80), on the other hand, documents a wide range of palatal variation in the central region of La Jara (i.e. the countryside of the provinces of Toledo, Caceres, and Ciudad Real), including three YEISTA variants, i.e. [j], fj3},[3], as well as DISTINCTION between [A] and [j], as illustrated in Figure 5.1.

5.2

PALATALS

IN !BERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

107

10

.•.. t'

X -0 I

~~ ®

•

0

I

,/

,

0

,,/

...

·,.

0

r-♦ -l--::-j3-]n-o-tfi-ou_n_d _ _,,.,......

• 131 not found ® [j] not found X [j] only 0 all variants □ absence of yelsmo

0

0 0

'·.. \

/'\, .... /

·,\ 'i

.,

\,

/ ·,.... i

0

i

... ,

.J••'\·-·

Figure 5.1 YEISTA variants in the region of La Jara in central Spain (adapted from Paredes 2013: 80) Adapted with permission from G6mez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variaci6n yeista en el mundo hispanico. © lbero-Americana-Vervuert2013.

Madrid has also been reported as mostly YEISTA (Alonso 1961: 177; Gomez and Molina Martos 2013). However, recent dialectal studies uncover a much more complex scenario for this autonomous region, where not only [A] is evidently fading, but also the palatal obstruent of YEiST A areas may present multiple realizations. Ruiz Martinez (2003), for example, provides a detailed phonetic study on the Spanish spoken in northeastern Madrid and reports five possible realizations of the central palatal obstruent, namely, a palatal fricative 1 ij] (e.g. lleva [ jeJ3a] 'carry.3sa', gallina [ga1jina] 'chicken'), a palatal affricate [jj] (e.g. llovi6[jjo1J3jo]'it rained', ya [jja] 'already'), a palato-alveolar fricative [3] (e.g. all{ [a13i] 'over there', mayo [1ma30] 'may'), a palato-alveolar affricate [~J (e.g. llenos['~enos] 'full-PL',ayuda [a1~uoaJ 'help'), and a palatal approximant [j] (e.g. ayuntamiento [ajuuta 1mjeu.toJ 'city hall') (Ruiz Martinez 2003: 169). While the fricatives correspond to more than half the realizations (55%), the glide allophone occurred in 23% of the data (Ruiz Martinez 2003: 170). To the west, in Extremadura, Alonso (1961: 177) reports the general presence of YEisMo, with a few pockets of DISTINCTION between [A] and [j jJ, especially in the south. Alvarez Martinez ( 1996: 177) also reports cases of DISTINCTION in a few areas, such as Madroftera, which is surrounded by YEfsTA towns (cf. also Ortes 2011 for sociolinguistic data on current DISTINCTION around the city of Badajoz). Regarding the realization of the palatal obstruent in YEiSTA areas, however, Alvarez Martinez mentions the

108

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

TODAY

presence of a palato-alveolar fricative [3]. This 3EfSMOis found mainly in southern Caceres, as well as in northern Badajoz. Alonso (1961: 182) and Zamora Vicente ( 1967: 334) also comment on such a pronunciation, particularly in Merida, providing the following examples: caballo[ka ~a30] 'horse', mayo ['ma30] 'May', and silla ['si3a] 'chair'. In southern Spain, Andalusia has traditionally been considered the epicenter of YEISMOand most of its territory today is YEiSTA.However, such a general statement hides several cases of small areas in which speakers still practice DISTINCTION between {A]and [t j]. Zamora Vicente (1967: 311), for example, cites the presence of the palatal lateral in areas surrounding Huelva, Granada, and Jaen, while Penny {2000: 121) also reports on data from rural Seville and Cadiz. In parts of Western Andalusia, particularly in small towns around Seville, three forms of DISTINCTION can be found, namely, between {A]and [t j], [A] and [3], and a third contrast, between [tJ and [3] (Zamora Vicente 1967: 312; Hidalgo Caballero 1977: 135-6). In the small town of Olivares (to the west of Seville), for example, some speakers differentiate between word pairs such as polio [1poAo]'chicken' and poyo [ po30] 'stone bench' (Emilia Alonso-Marks, personal communication). In Jerez de la Frontera, Harjus (2018: 174-6) reports not only on the characteristic YEfSMOof the region, but also on the incipient 3EiSMOthat is featured in many Andalusian dialects,with the occurrence of the palato-alveolar fricative [3] in words such as [3]a 'already', [3]0 'I', pa[3]aso'clown', [3]ave'key', Sevi[3)a'Seville',ma[3)0'May',po[3]0'chicken',etc.InHarjus' {2018) study, [3]is used more often by women, speakersolder than thirty years of age,and those with less formal education. Payan Sotomayor (1988: 65) also finds this fricativeto be common in Cadiz, particularly in the speech of young speakers. In the Canary Islands, speakers are essentiallyYEISTAS, despite a few impressionisticreports on reminiscent areas of DISTINCTION (Alonso 1961: 185). With regard to the affricate [tj], its deaffrication into lfl is commonly observed in many dialects across Andalusia, especially in the speech of lower social classes and older speakers, despite the fact that it is not the norm for all speakers: e.g. cofJle 'car', mulflo 'much', lefJ]e'milk.', mu[JJa[flo'young boy' (Harjus 2018: 154, 157; cf. also Alvar et al. 1973; Payan Sotomayor 1988; Moya Corral and Garcia Wiedemann 1995; Jimenez Fernandez 1999: 66-9; Narbona Jimenez et al. 2011: 195-8). While the affricate [tf] is still used more often than [JJin most Andalusian cities, Harjus (2018: 156, 160) reports that the latter is realized four times more frequently than [tf] in Jerez de la Frontera, and, thus, represents a defining characteristic of this city's linguistic variety. 1

1

5.2 PALATALS IN !BERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

109

5.2.2.2 Bilingual regions In Spain, regions where other languages have official status and coexist with Spanish also present cases of YEfSMO and DISTINCTION between the palatal lateral and palatal obstruent consonants. In the northwest, for example, Galicia is essentially YEiSTA in Spanish as well as in most varieties of Galician (Porto Dapena 1977: 35-6; Dubert Garcia 2013: 40). Ferreiro (1996: 190) additionally reports that YEiSMO is widespread in Galician (particularly among young speakers), although [A] is still considered to be part of the consonant inventory of this language, supposedly contrasting with the glide [jl, e.g. mollo [1moAo] 'I wet' vs moio ['mojo] '1 grind'. Indeed, Freixeiro Mato (2006: 180) cites the delateralization of [A] among young speakers of Galician as the source for a new consonant that is emerging in the system, i.e. the palatal obstruent lt]: "Moitos falantes novas, das vilas e das cidades principalmente, trocaron o fonema lateral palatal sonoro /IJ polo fricativo mediopalatal sonoro /j/, inexistente no sistema tradicional, de forma que se produce unha forte tendencia a perda do caracter lateral deste fonema: muller [mu 1AEf]> [mu 1JEf]." However, the author also points out that the emergent [j] still maintains a contrast with the existing glide [j], despite the fact that the younger generation does not practice this DISTINCTION: ( ... ) este fen6meno [i.e. delateralization] non se pode confundir coa natural realizaci6n da semivogal [j] en casos como maio [1majo] ou vaia [1baja], que nunca deberian realizarse como mallo [1mreAoJ ou [1mreJ0J, pertenecente ao verbo mallar, nin como valla [1breAa]ou ['breja], do verbo valer, ainda que, por interferencia do espaflol, tal confusion xa se produza entre os falantes que realizan a deslateralizaci6n, principalmente novos. (Freixeiro Mato 2006: 181) Dubert Garcia (2013) offers a precise and updated dialectal picture of YEISMO in Galicia. The author indicates that the YEfSTA pronunciation in the region-both in Spanish and in Galician-presents several phonetic realizations of the palatal obstruent. Among those, Dubert Garcia (2013: 43) cites the palatal obstruent [j] as the most frequent allophone, "a veces realizado como una oclusiva sin barra de explosion, [j]", in addition to a palatal glide [j] and fronted, affricate realizations such as [~]. While the Spanish spoken in Galicia is generally characterized as YEISTA, the dialectal scenario of Galician is more complex. Dubert Garcia (2013: 50-1) characterizes the existence of three possibilities for the realization of the palatal segments in question:

110

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

TODAY

(i) a variety a, which is more conservative and where /fJ surfaces in the speech of older speakers, particularly in rural areas, and is in contrast with a palatal glide /j/, e.g. mollo [ 1m0Ao] 'I wet' vs moio ['mojo] 'I grind';

(ii) a variety~. which represents most of Galician speakers and distinguishes between a palatal obstruent /j/, phonetically realized as [t ~ j], and a glide /j/, e.g. callo['kaj0] 'I stop talking' vs caio ['kajo] 'I fall'; and

(iii) a variety y, represented by younger speakers, who strengthen the glide and level it with the palatal obstruent /j/, e.g. mollo ['mojO] 'I wet' vs 1 moio [ moJo] 'I grind'. In yet another study, Dubert Garcia (1999: 74-5) also reports an IEISTA pronunciation in Western Galicia, particularly in the region of Santiago de Compostela, where Galician is pronounced with a glide [j], e.g. traballas [tra'~ajas] 'work.2sG', palla [1paja] 'straw', muller [mu'jEr] 'woman'. To the east, however, in the towns along the border between Galicia and Asturias, Alarcos Llorach (1996: 137) reports the co-occurrence of YEiSMO and DISTINCTION throughout the area (e.g. fiyu ['fiju] and fillo ['fu\o] 'son'). Borrego Nieto ( 1996: 145) finds a similar pattern in regions of Leonese dialects. While the region around the town of La Cabrera (Leon) is YEiSTA (e.g. agu[j]a 'needle', navali]a 'razor', and abe[j]a 'bee'), in Sanabria (Leon) speakers still produce the palatal lateral (e.g. mu[A]er 'woman',.fi[A]o 'son', and vie[A]a 'old'). In Asturias, the two biggest cities, Oviedo and Gij6n, are predominantly YEISTAS (both in Spanish and in Asturian), while in the rest of the region the evolution of [A]has given rise to various realizations, such as [A], [t], [j], [ts], and [tj] (cf. Alonso 1961: 178-9; Alvarez Martinez 1996: 122; cf. also Chapter 4). In the Basque Country, Hualde (2005: 291) argues that speakers still maintain a DISTINCTION between [A] and [t j] in both Basque and Spanish, particularly because in this region "the pronunciation of/ A/ has a very positive social consideration (at least in some circles)." Hualde goes further and claims that, for some speakers, the transfer of a YEiST A pronunciation from Spanish to Basque is "little less than an affront to the language and these speakers carefully maintain the contrast in both languages" (Hualde 2005: 291). However, the author also points out that YEISMO will likely prevail, as the younger generations are losing the DISTINCTION between those two consonants in both languages. In Catalonia, most speakers are YEISTAS in Spanish, while [A] is kept in many varieties within the Catalan-speaking areas (Figure 5.2).

5.2

PALATALS

IN IBERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

111

CENTRAL

WESTERN CATALAN

EASTERN CATALAN

Figure 5.2 The Catalan-speaking area (Alsina 2016: 364) Reproduced from Ledgeway and Maiden (eds.) The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, by permission of Oxford University Press.© Alex Alsina 2016.

However, cases of [l]-delateralization also abound in Catalan dialects. Indeed, Veny and Massanell (2015: 144-5) characterize the historical delateralization of [A] into [j] in central varieties of Catalan, documented as far back as the fifteenth century, as the most distinguished consonantal feature of this variety,

112

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

TODAY

although this process is observed with the palatal lateral that derived from Latin [-lj- -k.1--g.1-] (i.e. Ai) and not from Latin [l- -1:-](i.e. a 2), e.g. APICULA > 1 CCat. [::>~Eja] 'bee>, FENUCULU > CCat. [fu 1noj] 'fennel', MIRACULU > CCat. [mi'raj] 'miracle' vs LINGUA> CCat. [ 1ae1Jga] 'tongue', LIBRu > CCat. ['Ai~ra] 'book\ LUPU > CCat. [aop] 'wolf'. In these same varieties Veny and Massanell (2015: 147) also report a tendency to devoice the palato-alveolar affricate [d.3] into [tfj, particularly in the speech of older speakers, e.g.forma[tfle'cheese',fe [tj]e 'liver', via[tjle 'trip', etc. In Tarragona, two palatal patterns stand out, namely, the affrication of word-initial and postconsonantal palato-alveolar fricatives (e.g. [tjlocolata'chocolate', [d.3]uan'John', [d.3Jendre 'son-in-law', mar[tjlar 'march, go') and the palatalization of the alveolar nasal [n] by a preceding glide [j] (e.g. cu[jnJa> cu{.p]a'kitchen',fe[jn]a >fe{.p]a'task, job', etc.) (Veny and Massanell 2015: 162). Northern varieties (e.g. rossellones) replace the palatal lateral with a glide [j] (e.g. ca[j]ar'to stop talking'), delete the fricative[Jl preceded by [j] in wordfinal position in singular forms, e.g. pe[j] 'fish' (cf. Cat. peix), cala[j]'drawer' (cf. Cat. calaix),gre[j] 'fat' (cf. Cat. greix), and tend to voice the affricate [tjl into [d.3],e.g. borra[tf]o/borra[d.3]0 'drunk', ma[tf]olma[d.3]0 'mule', etc. (Veny and Massanell 2015: 175-6). Balearic dialects are characterized by widespread [a]-delateralization into [j], although the latter segment is often deleted when in contact with a palatal vowel, e.g. palla [1paja]/[ 1paa] 'straw', vella ['vea] 'old.FEM.Sa', cullera[ku'era] 'spoon',fulla [ fuja]/['fua] 'leaf',jill [fij]/[fi] 'son',fills [fijs]/[fis] 'sons', conill [ku 1nij]/[ku 1ni] 'rabbit', ull [uj] 'eye' (Recasens 1991: 323-4; Echenique Elizondo and Sanchez Mendez 2005: 297; Veny and Massanell 2015: 190). In Majorcan Catalan, more specifically, many varieties exhibit the stops [c J (< [kl) and [j] (< [g]) word finally or in contact with a front or central vowel, e.g. MCat. pac ['pac] 'pay.Isa', car [ea] 'expensive', boca ['boca] 'mouth\ esquerra [as 1cna) 'left', esquena [as 1cana] 'back', galta ['Jalta] 'cheek', piga ['pija] 'mole', caguetes[ci'Jatas] 'diarrhea', etc. (Veny and Massanell 2015: 201). The northwestern dialects of Pallars and Ribagonra in general preserve the palatal lateral [A] (e.g. ce[a]a 'eyebrow', re[a]a 'bars', abe[A:}a'bee', pa[a]a 'straw') and the glide [jJ from Latin [-dj- -gj- -j:- -bj-] instead of the affricate [d.3](e.g. [ma 1jo] 'bigger'< Lat. MAIORE, [ 1maj] 'May'< Lat. MAIU, [pu 1ja] 'to increase'< Lat. PODIARE, ['puj] 'stone bench'< Lat. PODIU, ['roj] < Lat. RUBEU 'red', [ko 1reja] < Lat. CORRIGIA 'strap') (Veny and Massanell 2015: 246, 256). > [1f] In the dialect of Ribagor, riyo 'river',feyo 'ugly,' is attested etc. As for the palato-alveolar affricate [tj1,its deaffrication into U1 in Nicaragua (Rosales Solis 2010: 149), Costa Rica (Quesada Pacheco and Vargas Vargas 2010: 168), and particularly in Panama, where it is socially and geographically well in advance (Cardona Ramirez 2010: 198-200, cf. also Quesada Pachecho 1996). While most of the Mexican territory is YEiST A, the realizations of palatals in Mexican Spanish varieties offer a much more complex scenario. Alonso (1961: 192) and Lipski (1994: 279), for instance, report on the realization of a palato1 alvolar fricative [3], e.g. caballo[ka ~a30] 'horse', in Veracruz, Oaxaca, and Puebla, in contrast with a palatal fricative ij},as in mayo ['majo] 'May', despite the fact that the realization of [3] is socially stigmatized (Lipski 1994: 279). In the Yucatan Peninsula, however, a weak glide [j} replaces palatal obstruents intervocalically, in a similar fashion to the speech of northern Mexico (Lipski 1994: 281). Martin Butraguefto (2014: 395-430), however, provides the most current report on Mexican YEiSMO by summarizing relevant data from the Linguistic Atlas of Mexico. The author carries out a statistical study of the documented variants and reports on the possible occurrence of a total of six general scenarios, namely, a fricative li], a glide [j], an affricate [tj.], word-internal deletion, and a palatal lateral [A]and a palato-alveolar [3] emerging postlexically, i.e. [A]after (I] (as in elyerno 'the son-in-law,' el llavero'the keychain\ and [3] after [s] (as in las yemas 'the yokes') (Martin Butraguefto 2013: 194, 201). The analysis of 1,738 tokens suggests that dialectal areas represent a statistically significant factor with regard to the occurrence of palatal obstruents. Thus, while in the Northwest [jJ and 0 prevail, in the Northeast only [j] is significant. In Midwestern and Mideastern Mexico, three allophones are significant: li], [3], and [Jj],with postlexical [A]occurring also in the Midwest. In the Southeast, however, only [j], postlexical [A], and 0 are statistically significant realizations. Therefore, it is possible to characterize Mexican Spanish into two main dialectal areas as far as the realization of palatals, namely, a general rnisTA region to the north, along the US-Mexico border, and to the east in the Yucatan Peninsula; and a general YEfSTA pronunciation throughout most of the country, with the possibility of a palato-alveolar allophone emerging (mainly postlexically) in a few areas in the center and in the south (i.e. Oaxaca, Puebla, and Veracruz).

5.2 PALATALS IN !BERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

117

Another feature that characterizes many varieties of Mexican Spanish, particularly in the northwestern states such as Chihuahua, Sonora, and Baja California, is the deaffrication of [tjl into [f1,as in muchacho[mu'faJo] 'young 1 boy►, leche [ leJeJ 'milk', etc. (Moreno de Alba 1994; Martin Butraguefio 2014: 303-30). Mendez (2017) reports on the variation between [tjl and (f1 in Ciudad Jmirez (Chihuahua) and finds that the fricative realization is favored by a preceding [s], [i], and [u], particularly in the speech of young men from lower social classes. A similar pattern is found in varieties of New Mexican Spanish in the United States (Jaramillo 1986).

5.2.3.2 The Caribbean, Venezuela, and Colombia In Dominican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Venezuelan Spanish, the palatal lateral is non-existent and their YEiSTApronunciation reflects a palatal obstruent lt] in phrase-initial position and a palatal fricative fjJ elsewhere (Saciuk 1980; Lipski 1994: 231, 238, 331, 350), although many times both can also be found in free variation. Colombian Spanish, however, presents different dialectal areas according to the realization of palatals. Both its Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Amazonian region are YEiSTAS,with the coastal regions presenting intervocalic palatal patterns similar to the one found in Central America and northern Mexico, i.e. with the realization of a glide [j] intervocalically, such as in va[j]a 'fence' and va[j]a 'go.1.3-PRES.SUBJV' (Canfield 1981: 15; Lipski 1994: 212; Montes 1996: 137; Rodriguez Cadena 2008: 144, 148). In the central Andean region, however, the DISTINCTION between [A'.] and ltj] is still attested, as indicated in Figure 5.6, particularly in rural areas, while main cities like Bogota are YEISTAS today. The speech of Antioquia-represented mainly by the city of Medellin-on the other hand, presents either affricate ([jj]/[qs]) or fricative ([3]) realizations in intervocalic position, e.g. mayo 1 1 [ maJio]/[ maqso] 'May; caballo [ka 1~aJio]/[ka1~a30] 'horse', instead of a fricative ij], as is the case of most YEISTAdialects (cf. Canfield 1981: 36; Leslie 2016). As for the affricate [tj], Caribbean Spanish presents a great amount of variation, with a tendency to deaffricate into U] (cf. Quilis and Vaquero ( 1973) for Puerto Rican Spanish). 5.2.3.3 Ecuador Despite its small size in comparison with other South American countries, Ecuador provides a variety of palatal sound patterns (cf. Alonso 1961: 190; Lipski 1994: 248-9). Throughout the Pacific coast, with Guayaquil and Esmeraldas as the main cities, a weak palatal fricative or glide represent the YEISTApronunciation of this region, e.g. valla'fence' and vaya 'go.1.3.SG.PRES.

9

118

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

TODAY

Figure 5.6 DISTINCTION between [A] and [j j] in the central Andean region of Colombia (Espejo Olaya 2013: 235). Adapted with permission from G6mez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variaci6n yeista en el mundo hispanico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

realized as [1baja]/[ 1baja] (Canfield 1981: 15, 48-51). ln the Andean region, however, two contrastive patterns are found, namely, a DISTINCTION between [A:]and [t j] (e.g. valla [1baAa] 'fence' vs vaya ['baja]), and another 1 DISTINCTION between [3] and [t j] (e.g. valla [ ba3a], vaya ['baja]). While the former is attested in the southern Andean region (for example, in the provinces of Caftar, Azuay, and Loja) and also in the extreme northern highlands, the latter is observed in the central-northern highlands, including areas around Quito and Ambato, as illustrated in Figure 5.7. SUBJV'

5.2 PALATALS IN !BERO-ROMANCE

LJ D D

Figure 5.7

DISTINCTION

VARIETIES

119

[3eista] zone [ieista] zone [iCeista]zone

patterns and YEfsMoin Ecuadorian Spanish

(G6mez 2013: 237). Adapted with permission from G6mez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variaci6n yeista en el mundo hispanico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

Thus, it is safe to argue that both YEISMO and a two-way DISTINCTION characterize Ecuadorian Spanish. In addition, a group of scholars (e.g. Toscano Mateus 1953: 100-1; C6rdova 1996: 192) also indicate the existence of a voiceless palato-alveolar fricative in central rural areas, where a DISTINCTION between U1 and [t j] is reportedly observed in the speech of uneducated speakers, who may or may not be bilingual in Spanish and Quechua:

m

[there isJ un tercer fonema, esta vez fricativo sordo, es decir la variante sh (s).1 Su presencia la encontramos frecuentemente en el lenguaje rustko con la seiial de reconocer sustrato quichua, pero sin que el hablante sea necesariamente quichuahablante. Asi, se oye shave 'llave', cashe 'calle', cabasho'caballo'. (C6rdova 1996: 192) 1

Here

"s"corresponds

to IPA U].

120

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

TODAY

Recent research suggests, however, that the DISTINCTION between [3] and [j j] in the central highlands may not last for too long, as quitefio speakers younger than twenty-five years of age are now eliminating this contrast in favor of [j j], many times pronouncing words also with a palato-alveolar affricate [d.31 (Haboud and De la Vega 2008: 168). The origins of the [3] vs [j j]-DISTINCTION in the central highlands of Ecuador have been the subject of discussion and scrutiny in the recent literature, not only because it represents a zone of linguistic contact between Spanish and Quechua, but also because similar patterns are also attested in other Quechua-influenced geographical areas where Spanish is spoken, such as the Argentine province of Santiago del Estero. Most scholars agree that the DISTINCTION between [3] and [j j] in the Ecuadorian central highlands first originated in the pronunciation of the Quechua spoken in this area, and speakers of this variety later transferred it to their pronunciation of Spanish. One reason to suppose this shift relies on the fact that in most other Andean regions where Quechua and Spanish coexist, speakers still preserve the contrast between [A]and lt j] in both languages, in addition to also having [3J in their Quechua inventory (Toscano Mateus 1953: 101). Despite the possible role that contact between Spanish and Quechua may have had in the rise of [3] vs [j j)-DISTINCTION in some areas, further research is still necessary to shed a definitive light upon when and how the hypothetical transfer from Quechua to Spanish may have occurred. Another unresolved problem is the reason for the emergence of [3] (pronounced in words with orthographic )in the aforementioned areas. It is frequently assumed that [3] derived from Quechua [A]. As most Quechua varieties use the palatal lateral, then it is often argued that the Quechua of central highland Ecuador must have had [Alin the past as well, from which [3] eventually emerged. However, no proof for a direct change [A]> [3] has been found for the relevant Quechua dialects and many authors seem to guide such a hypothesis based on a reconstructed, similar change in Old Spanish (cf. Chapter 4), arguing that the current [3] is the phonetic realization of an underlying representation /IJ (Granda Gutierrez 1992). However, as in Old Spanish, due to a lack of documented proof for the change *[A] > [3L a phonetically grounded reconstruction is in order, namely, one which considers the result of the delateralization of [a] to be likely a palatal glide [j], which in turn increases its degree of palatal constriction and eventually fronts its articulation toward the prepalatal area (i.e. [j] > [j] > [31),while maintaining the contrast with [JJ.The fact that the same DISTINCTION pattern between [3] and [j j] arose in two historically and geographically different Quechua-

l ◄

1

5.2 PALATALS IN !BERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

121

speaking regions such as central highland Ecuador and the Argentine province of Santiago del Estero (cf. Granda Gutierrez 1992: 66-7), lends support to the theoretical approach followed in this book, i.e., that similar sound change processes may arise in varieties of the same language and in different languages, provided that innovative listeners reinterpret the acoustic signal of speakers' articulation of sounds in a way that differs from the one that those speakers intended (Chapter 2).

5.2.3.4 Chile and Peru Chilean Spanish is predominantly YEiSTA,although some authors still claim the existence of DISTINCTION between [A] and fJ,j] in a few areas in the far south of Chile (Alonso 1961:189; Canfield 1981: 33; Lipski 1994: 200). Wagner ( 1996: 226) confirms this claim, but suggests that it may not be systematic, since [A] and fJj] may surface in speakers' pronunciation of the same word: "La provincia de Cautin [in the south] merece un apartado especial. Alli subsiste la / fJ, pero en la localidad donde se pronuncia coexiste con la UJ, incluso en un mismo individuo, lo que ocurre en Carahue: gallina [gaAinreJ, estrella [ehtreA'.a],Tolten: calle [ka.Ae],yuguillo [juyiAo], Villarica: cebolla [se~6A'.a]."A few areas in northeastern Chile have also been proposed to display a similar DISTINCTION, although Lipski (1994: 200) argues that they represent a continuum of"a macro-Bolivian dialect of Spanish," and not actual varieties of Chilean Spanish. Palatalization of velars [k g x] before front vowels [e i] is also a feature of Chilean dialects, frequently resulting in the 1 palatals [cj c;:]respectively, e.g. quiero ['cero] 'want.l.sG.', higuera [i Jera] 'fig tree', gente [1c;:eute]'people' (Wagner 1996; Flores 2016). With regard to the affricate [tjl, its depalatalization into [ts] is noteworthy in some Chilean varieties (Lipski 2011: 81). The Spanish varieties spoken in Peru also offer a considerable amount of variation with regard to the production of palatals. YEISMOis a linguistic feature of the capital city Lima and the entire coastal region, although a weak, IEiSTA-likepronunciation is attested throughout the coast, where [j]deletion is also observed after [i] (Canfield 1981: 15; Lipski 1994: 322; Caravedo 2013: 261). The DISTINCTION between [A] and fJj] is docwnented throughout most of the Andean region (Canfield 1981: 15, 73), especially in the south, in cities such as Cusco and Puno (Lipski 1994: 319; Godenzzi 2013), despite the occurrence of an incipient YEiSMOin the northern highlands among educated urban speakers (Lipski 1994: 319). The Amazon region, however, represents an important dialectal area, with a reported case of DISTINCTIONbetween a palato-alveolar fricative [3] and a central palatal

◄

122

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

TODAY

obstruent lt] (Caravedo 1996: 157; 2013; Calvo Perez 2008: 204), which resembles the situation in central highland Ecuador and the province of Santiago del Estero in Argentina. Caravedo (1995), however, carries out a sociolinguistic study of this variety-particularly in the areas of Iquitos, Yurimaguas, Chachapoyas, and Pucallpa-and reports a more complex scenario. According to data from word elicitation tasks, spontaneous interviews, radio recordings, and personal observations, Caravedo reports that words with orthographic are always pronounced with either a weak fricative [i] or an approximant [j] by all speakers (both educated and uneducated), even in phonological contexts where a "stronger" obstruent lt] would be expected, such as after nasal consonants in words like c6nyuge'spouse' and inyeccion 'injection' (Caravedo 1995: 133). Words with orthographic , on the other hand, present a great amount of sociophonetic variation. While uneducated or fricative [3], educated speech tends to speakers tend to favor an affricate [, Figure 5.14 shows that voiceless variants occurred more often than voiced ones, i.e. 70.7% (N=222) occurrences of lf]and 29.3% (N=92) instances of [3]. Results from the third experiment equally support the findings of the previous two experiments. Participants were instructed to read and answer a set of four questions regarding their knowledge of four potential minimal pairs in SES,i.e. word pairs that differed orthographically by the presence of and and that would constitute minimal pairs according to the available literature on SES (see Appendix 3). Figure 5.15 shows that nearly all participants were 25

~r:: 20 0

0.

~

15

..

10

§

5

..... 0 ~

z

0

vaya-valla cay6-call6 maya-malla poyo-pollo Minimal pairs

Figure 5.15 Participants' reported knowledge of the meanings of four word pairs representing potential minimal pairs in SES

5.2 PALATALS IN !BERO-ROMANCE

VARIETIES

137

aware of the difference in meaning of three of the four word pairs, while a majority (N=13) of informants were unaware of the difference in one of the word pairs (i.e. between the words poyo 'stone bench' and polio'chicken'). In Figure 5.15, the first three word pairs are comprised of common words in Spanish, while the fourth pair contains the word poyo 'stone bench', which was reported by participants as not being used very often in SES. Some participants claimed never to have seen this word before. However, despite asserting their knowledge of the difference in meaning in those three word pairs, speakers did so based entirely on orthography. When reading and answering all four questions, they pronounced these word pairs with the same phonetic variants they used in the first two experiments, i.e., with a palato-alveolar fricative, either voiced or voiceless. Table 5.2 summarizes the overall results for each of the variants found in this experiment. Table 5.2 Frequency of variants used in the third experiment

Variants [3] [f] Total

Variable

Variable .05 The results in Table 5.2 indicate that no statistically significant difference was found in the distribution of variants in the third experiment (p > .05), suggesting that the observed variation between voiced and voiceless palatoalveolars in this experiment was likely due to chance and that the four word pairs tested do not constitute minimal pairs, despite having different meanings. More important, however, is the fact that no palatal glide was uttered in any of the words of each pair, which supports the findings of the first two experiments and rejects the reported contrastive pronunciation between [j] and [3] described in previous studies. The second hypothesis held that there would be a statistically significant difference among the variants by different age groups of SES speakers, taking into consideration Lipski's (1994: 172-3) and Colantoni and Hualde's {2013:22) reports of a possible loss of the former contrast and a change toward the use of palato-alveolar fricatives in the pronunciation in SES.The results in Table 5.3 support this hypothesis with data from the answers to the demographic questions, as well as from the sentence-reading task.

138

PALATALS

IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

TODAY

Table 5.3 Participants' age groups and distribution of variants Experiment

m Demographic Questions

vs chia ['tjlB]) 'hiss.3.sG'and diz ['dis] 'say.3sG' vs giz [ d.3is]'chalk' (Zampaulo 2019: 154, 167). In northern and northeastern Portugal, particularly in the regions of Alto Minho and Tras-osMontes, the palato-alveolar affricate [tj] is also present and contrasts with its fricative counterpart f.fl,e.g. cha['tj'a] 'tea' vs xa['fa] 'shah'. 1

1

5.3 Palatals in Gallo-Romance In the history of French, Pope {1934:SS, 274) mentions that the palatal lateral [l] (i.e. J:..1 < Lat. [-lj- -k.1--g.1-])persisted well into the seventeenth century, although the first traces of its delateralization date as far back as the twelfth century (Bruna Cuevas2003:47-9). In the sixteenthcentury, the emergenceof the glide [j] in the realizationof [I..]becamemore frequentlyattested,especiallyin the speech of the small bourgeoisieof Paris. This palatal glide,then, becamethe acceptednorm in French only in the nineteenth century,despitethe fact that one may still find [A]in varietiesof Swissand BelgianFrench,and in a few areas of France,such as Gap (Walter 1982:175)and Perpignan (BrunaCuevas2003:49). As evidencefor the delateralizationof [I..]in the history of French,Nyrop (1935: 356-7) mentions a text from 1836in which the use of the palatal glide during that time is explicit:"Dans la conversation,on prononcera bi-iard,bi-iet,bi-iot, rou-ier,tdAeur,etc. pour billard,billet,billot,rouiller,tailleur,sans s'inquieterdes avis contraires,ni des reclamationsde province." Current dialects of French also provide remarkable varying patterns with regard to palatals. For example, in Picardy and Nord-Pas-de-Calais to the

5.4 PALATALS IN ITALO-ROMANCE

AND SARDINIAN

145

north of Paris, palatalization of [z] into [3], [s] into UJ,and [t] into [if] is common before palatal vowels and glides (e.g. je disais [3'di3E] 'I said', cinquante ans lfE':ka'td) 'fifty years', metiers [me 1tjje] 'jobs'), along with depalatalization of former final [A](e.g. cercueil[sEKkrel]'casket') and the nasal [jl] (e.g. campagne [kd'pan] 'countryside') (Dawson et al. 2016: 155). In the Auvergne region, in central France, [3] devoices to UJwhen assimilating to a following voiceless consonant after schwa deletion, e.g.je trouve lftxuv] 'I find',je saispas lfepaJ (Chabanal et al. 2016: 175). In Toulouse, in the south, Courdes-Murphy et al. (2016: 188) have registered the sequence [nj] instead of the palatal nasal [jl] (e.g. agneau [a1njo] 'lamb'), which has also been found in Parisian French, particularly in word-medial position (Armstrong and Pooley 2010: 109-10; Hansen and 0stby 2016: 414). In Rhone-Alpes in the east, as well as in other varieties such as Central African French and Louisiana French, palatalization of [t d] by a palatal glide is quite common, e.g. soutien [su 1tj}f] 'support', entier [d'tj)e] 'whole', dix [d.3i}'ten', cadien [ka 1d.3E]'cajun', moitie [mo'tfe] 'half', (Dajko 2016: 311; Pustka and Vordermayer 2016: 198; Steien et al. 2016: 242). Belgian French varieties typically devoice [3] into UJ,e.g. liege [ljEJ]'cork' (Hambye et al. 2016: 218), while in Canadian French (particularly the varieties spoken in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta), assibilation of [t d] into [ts dz] before [i j y 4] is widely attested, e.g. coutume [ku tsYm] 'custom', dire fdzijH]'to say', etc. (Reinke and Ostiguy 2016: 43; Tennant and Poire 2016: 296; Walker and Canac-Marquis 2016: 285). 1

5.4 Palatals in Italo-Romance and Sardinian Standard Italian has five palatal consonants (i.e. [Jtf d.3Ajl]) and two alveolar · affricates (i.e. [ts dz]) that are the result of historical palatalization processes. As Ledgeway (2016) points out, the alveolar affricates, the palato-alveolar fricative, and the palatal nasal and lateral consonants are long in intervocalic position (e.g. liscio['liJ:oJ 'smooth', spugna [1spuJ1:a] 'sponge', paglia rpa&a] 'straw', ozio ['ots:jo] 'idleness', ozono [o'dz:ono] 'ozone', cf. Ledgeway 2016: 209), whereas in the south and in southern Tuscan, specifically, the palatoalveolar [d.3]is also long (e.g. una [d.3:]ornata 'a day'). Furthermore, [tjl and [d.3]are found in complementary distribution with [J1and [3], respectively, which occur intervocalically, e.g. Tusc. Gigio [1d.3i30]'Luigi.DIM',Tusc. cece ['lfefe] 'chickpea' (Ledgeway 2016: 210). The voiced fricative [3] also appears between vowels in Corsican (e.g. basgiu [1ba3u] 'kiss'). Throughout northern Italy, depalatalization of sonorants [Ajl] into the sequences [lj nj] is prevalent,

146

PALATALS

IN THE

ROMANCE

LA

GU AGES TODAY

~ Nuorcsc

CJ

Logudorese

[=:J Cnmpldanesc

CJ

Arboreme

(=i

not Sardlnlan

,· 1

J

ARilORENSE

) ' .,

r

i

J

CAMPIDANESE

0

LIGURIAN~ s.. l.)

,,,,,rv (

S. A11tioca

/

./

Figure 5.16 Sardinian dialects (Mensching and Remberger 2016: 271, modified version of Virdis 1988: 905) Reproduced from Ledgewayand Maiden (eds.) The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages,by permission of Oxford University Press.© Guido Mensching and Eva-Maria Remberger 2016.

e.g. moglie ['molje] 'wife', Ii taglia [li'talja] 'them=he.cuts', campagna [kam 'panja] 'countryside' (Ledgeway 2016: 211 ). As for the palatal lateral, its delateralization into [j] is documented in Umbria, Lazio, Marche, and southern Tuscany, e.g. taglio 'cut.Isa', tagliato ['taj:o]/[ta 1j:a:to] 'cut-PAST PARTICIPLE'.

S.S PALATALS IN RHAETO-ROMANCE

AND EASTERN ROMANCE

147

mealio ••· ] ,tot ake, grab,, figlio ['fi.j:o]'son',foglio °. [ mei•o] ,. 'bett er,• pig· 1·iare [pIJ:are [ foJ:o], famiglia [fa mij:a] 'family' (Canepari 1980: 57, 60, 62, 72, 82). In 1

1

1

Calabria, however, [&] varies between "una realizzazione standard, una intermedia e quella dialettale [Wjj!ggj]:figlio ['fij:jo/'fig:gjo]" (Canepari 1980: 79). The same delateralization process is obsezved in the south, more specifically in southern Lazio, Campania, Molise, and Abruzzo (e.g.fi[j:]a 'daughter', cuni[j:]o 'rabbit', ne[j:]a 'fog'), although this glide is strengthened to [jJ in the far south and in Pugliese, e.g. SCal./Lec./Sic. .fifJ:]a, cunif.t:]u, ni(e)f.t:]a (Ledgeway 2016: 254). The voiceless palatal stop [c] is also attested in many southern dialects, e.g. 1 Bar. [ cat:sa] 'square', Cal. rca:~e] 'key', etc. Of the three main varieties of Sardinian (see Figure 5.16), Nuorese and Logudorese represent consezvative dialectal areas with only a glide [j] as a palatal segment (except for [lf d.3J1]in borrowings from Italian, Catalan, and Spanish). However, the affricate [dzl is attested in Nuorese and Logudorese, 1 e.g. [1fidzu] 'son', [ dz:EnteJ'people'. Campidanese, on the other hand, does present cases ofpalatalization (e.g. Nuo./Log. ['kentu] vs Cpd. ['lfentu] 'hundred', Nuo./Log. [gi'rare] vs Cpd. [d.3i1rai] 'turn.INF' cf. Mensching and Remberger 2016: 274), while all varieties have the voiced retroflex plosive [q], e.g. [ 1biq_:a]'village', [1puq_:u] 'rooster'.

5.5 Palatals in Rhaeto-Romance and Eastern Romance varieties Rhaeto-Romance presents an array of palatal variants among its several dialects across southeastern Switzerland and northern Italy (Figure 5.17). Beninca and Vanelli (2016: 140) divide Friulian into three major varieties, i.e. Carnie Friulian to the north, Western Friulian, and Eastern Central Friulian (which includes the city of Udine). Although the palatal stops [c] and lt]traditionally represent a unique characteristic of the Friulian consonant inventory, both consonants are now realized as the affricates [tjl and [d.3], respectively, in all varieties, except in Carnia to the north (Beninca and Vanelli 2016: 143). Haiman and Beninca (1992: 37) list the palatals [tj'd.3J1]as part of the consonant system in Udine, while Carnie Friulian maintains the contrast between [c] and [tjl and also displays the fricatives [J3]. The palatal lateral [A] is hypothesized to have existed at some point, but evidence shows that it must have delateralized beginning in the sixteenth century, giving rise to [j},which itself was deleted when in contact with a palatal vowel, e.g. OFrl. fameglo (gl = [A])> Frl. [fa 1mee] 'family'. The palato-alveolar fricatives [f 3] are also featured

~

;·1,~ ·r, rJm1m1rnnil/ffillffli, ~'?.:~] J Illffitm~~~!1w t}/l.~~;l~)~?~~. 11111

Gcm,,nk

/

> PRES1s(palatal) constraints, from 100 to I. The selection of the candidate [A:],i.e. one of the possible productions of speakers' /lj/, is illustrated in Table 6.3 The boxes in each candidate represent the articulatory gestures encoding the input place features, while their manner is indicated inside each box. "TT" refers to the "tongue tip" gesture, while "TB" denotes the "tongue body" gesture. Phonetic symbols represent the acoustic effects of gestures. Table 6.3 Regressive place assimilation in the articulation of [l] + Ll] /1/ + /j/

TT 1

11:ii"2

TB TT TB

3

TT TB TT

4

PRES

:WEAK

PREs

WEAK: WEAK

palatal

:I alveolar

alveolar

alveolar

100

TB

75:

~

I appro I

I

~

~

75

I I

I appro I

I

100

''

~

appro

lx

'

[lj]

*!

[.(]

GJ

!

0.75x : Ix '' :''

*

*

*

.: : '•' .' * '' . ''' * '

palatal

0.75x

*

*

'' 'i

Ll]

*

'' * ''

*!

':

*

'

[l]

*I

[Ii]

*!

TB TT

5

Acoustic effect

Articulation

*

*

*

*

*

*

158

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

In Table 6.3, candidate #1 is ruled out for its complete tongue tip gesture, which crucially violates WEAK1x(nlveolar)• Candidates #4 and #5 are also ruled out because they not only present a full articulation of the alveolar lateral (hence violating WEAKix(alveolar)),but they also do not preserve 100% of the On the other cues of input /j/. Thus, they fatally violate PRESrno(palatal)• hand, candidates #2 and #3 satisfy both PRESpalataland WEAK1x(alveolar), so the winner will be determined according to how much of the alveolar cues are preserved. Candidate #2 is, then, selected as the most harmonic output because it preserves at least 75% of the alveolar cues of the input (hence satisfying PRES7s(palatal)),while candidate #3 does not and must be, then, ruled out. The constraint ranking in Table 6.3 represents only one of the possible outputs produced by the speaker, and so other outputs are also possible. For example, the production of [lj] faithfully represents the input [l] + [j] and indicates no weakening or place assimilation. Therefore, [lj] entails a different constraint ranking than [a], i.e. one in which all PRESconstraints dominate all WEAK constraints, i.e. PRESpalatal> PRESatveolar >> WEAKaJveolar, WEAKpalatal·Put their continuous values-were another way, if all PRES constraints-with ranked higher than WEAK constraints, one would expect the constraint ranking to select a candidate whose production preserves 100% of the cues for place of articulation of the input /1/ + /j/ (represented by candidate #1) that the speaker in underlying form. Thus, if [l] + [jJ is realized as [a], this means that the speaker produced a segment chosen by a constraint ranking that differs from the ranking that selects the faithful realization to the input, i.e. that of [lj]. This derives from the inherent unstable nature of constraint rankings (Bernhardt and Sternberger 1998; Morris 1998; Chapter 2). If the listener, then, interprets /A/ as the input from the acoustic signal, it means that the constraint ranking of the faithful realization to the input internalized by the listener is now the constraint ranking of [a], not that of [lj] (whose constraint ranking represents the faithful realization to the input of the original speaker). Considering the assumptions on sound change described in Chapter 2, while the speaker has the input /lj/ (and so the constraint ranking of [lj] is the faithful one to the input /lj/), the listener, on the other hand, internalizes one of the speaker's unfaithful realizations to the original input /lj/. In this case, the listener internalizes / Iv as the input by virtue of Lexicon Optimization (LO) (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]). In the present account, the sound change /lj/ > /1:.Jis captured by a difference in the constraint ranking between the realization that is faithful to the speakees input and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the

r 6.3

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

SONORANTS

159

speaker's realization that is unfaithful to the original speaker's input, as formalized in (12). (12)

Speaker's input: /lj/ Faithful output: [lj], determined by PRESpalatab W EAKpalatal•

PRESa1vcolar >> WEAKa1vcolar,

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g.

[A], determined

by

PRES1oo(palatal) •.•

>>

PRES1s(palatal) ••• ,

WEAK1x(alveolar) • • • >>

>> PRES1s(alveolar), • • • >> WEAKo.75x(palatal)•

PRES10o(alveolar) • •, WEAK1x(palatal)

•,

>>

WEAKo.75x(alveolar) • • •,

etc. Listener's input: /A/ Faithful output: [A],determined by

PRES1oo(palata1) •••

>> PRES1s(palata1) •••

,

WEAK1x(alveolar) • • • >> PRES100(alveolar) • • • >>

PRES1s(alveolar) • • • >>

WEAKo.7Sx(alveolar) • • •,

>> WEAKo.7sx(palatal)

in the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /lj/.

WEAK1x(palatal)

•••

In the evolution of many Romance varieties, [A]also emerged from [-kl- -g.1-], while [p] derived from [-g.n-], and, therefore, the pathways of these changes must also be accounted for. Let us model the evolution of the palatal lateral and assume a similar mechanism applies in the emergence of the nasal in this case. Considering that both obstruents in the sequences [-kl- -g.l-] had the same fate by weakening in coda position after the syncope of the original intervocalic [u] (< Lat. -CUL- and -GUL- ), it is conceivable to state that their eventual vocalization into a reconstructed glide */j/ derived from a weakening process in their constriction. In the present approach, this process is captured by the outranking of WEAKvelar coda constraints (i.e. the drive to conserve the articulatory effort of a velar input in coda position) over PRES constraints (i.e. the drive to preserve the perceptual cues of input features). However, because obstruent weakening in this case did not lead to a full segment deletion, not all WEAKveiar coda constraints outranked PRES constraints. Thus, the resulting glide in coda position [j.] must have violated at least some of the lower WEAKvelar coda constraints, while still complying with some PRES constraints. If we consider, for example, the fate of the voiced velar plosive /g./ in this case (and assume that the voiceless plosive in /kl/ had the same evolution), its eventual vocalization can be formalized as in (13).

160

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE

(13)

WEAKtx(vdar

coda)•••>>

LANGUAGES

WEAKo.75x(velnr coda)•••>>

WEAKo.Sx(velar coda).,.

>> PRES100(,..,lorl••• >> PRES1s(vclar), •• >> PRESso(velar) •,, >> PRES2s(velar) >>

PRES10(velar)

>>

WEAKo.2Sx(vclar

coda) >>

WEAKo.lOx(velar

coda) >>

PRESplosive•

By rankingWEAK1x(vdar coda)•••>> WEAKo.7Sx(velar coda)•••>> WEAKo.sx(velar coda) above PRESvetan we infer that all candidates having from 100% to 50% of the input gesture will be automatically ruled out. On the other hand, candidates that show 25% or less of the input gesture will be evaluated according to their violations of PRESvelar> i.e. they will be evaluated on the percentage of the place cues they preserve. Moreover, it is expected that a candidate with 0% of place cue preservation (i.e. total deletion) will be ruled at this stage, as PRESvelar outranks WEAKo.25x{velar coda) and other WEAKve1ar coda constraints oflowervalues. Table 6.4 illustrates this scenario. The boxes in each candidate represent the articulatory gestures, while the phonetic symbols represent their acoustic effects. "TB" refers to the "tongue body" gesture. Full lines indicate a complete occlusion, while dotted lines represent an incomplete occlusion. Table6.4 Weakening and eventual vocalization of lg.I into [j.J lg.I

Acoustic

Articulation

I ,-------

1.

TB:

2.

, ___ approx. , TB: .. ..,.__,

3.

TB:

I

pies

I

I

r----

effect

Ix

[g.]

*!

[y.]

I

['i.] '~_a.!':_, ' r--,

ir.i"4. TB:

5.

TB:

:_a~._:[i.] 0

WEAK

PRES

WEAK

velar coda

velar

velar coda

0.75x 0.Sx

100

75 50 25 0.25x 0.lx

*

*

*!

*

*

*!

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

PRES plosive

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*!

In Table 6.4, candidate #1 presents a faithful realization of the input and, for this reason, it fatally violates the most highly ranked constraint WEAKix(velar coda)• Candidates #2 and #3, on the other hand, fatally violate the next two

highly rankedconstraintsrespectively,i.e. WEAKo.7Sx(velar

coda)

and WEAKo.sx

and are then ruled out. Candidates #4 and #5, however, comply with WEAK1x(velar coda),•,>> WEAKo.Sx(velar coda), and so their evaluation depends on how much of the input cues for velar place they preserve. Because candidate #5 does not preserve any percentage of the input, it is ruled out. Thus, candidate #4 emerges as the winner, since it incurs one less violation of PRESvelar than candidate #5. In other words, candidate #4 preserves at least 25% of the input cues for velar place of articulation and is then selected as the output of /g./, given the constraint ranking in (13). (velar coda),

6.3 PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL SONORANTS

161

It is important to note, however, that weakening of the velar gesture does not necessarily lead to a full realization of a palatal glide. Instead, the superscripted symbol [;] is meant to represent here some fronting of the tongue body gesture from the velum to the back of the palate, whose acoustic effect begins to resemble that of a palatal glide. Thus, extreme weakening of the original tongue body gesture on the velum is assumed to produce some fronting of the tongue body toward the back of the palate, in part due to an assimilation caused by the overlap with the tongue tip gesture of the following alveolar lateral. Given this assumption, a reduced velar place of articulation would beget [i.] and not, say, a bilabial [il.J, which would not preserve information about the original velar gesture. Note, moreover, that the constraint WEAKvelarcodaapplies to all cases in which velar obstruents in coda position are believed to have vocalized into *[j] in the evolution of many Romance varieties (i.e. /-k.1- -k.s- -k.t- -g.1- -g.n-/). We follow Rini (1991), however, in assuming a subsequent metathesis stage, i.e. [iJ] > [Ii], after which [Ii] is free to evolve into [.&]along similar lines and the analysis illustrated in Table 6.3. As with the change /lj/ > /.&/,the emergence of ll/ from /g.1/ can also be modeled in the speaker-listener interaction. Following our formal approach to sound change, /g.l/ > /i.1/ is captured by the difference in the constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [g.l]) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. /i.11),as shown in (14). (14)

Speaker's input: /g.1/ Faithful output: [g.IJ,determined by PRESveJar, PRESpJosive >> WEAKvelar coda• Other possible, unfaithful outputs:

E.g. [i.I], determined by WEAK1x(velar coda)... >> WEAKo.75x(velar coda)··· >> WEAKo.Sx(velar coda),,,>> PRES1oo(velar) • ••>> PRES1s(velar) · · · >> PRBSso(velar) ... >> PRBS2s(velar) >> PRES10(velar) >> WEAKo.25x(vclar coda) >> WEAKo.lOx(velar coda)>> PRESplosive• etc. Listener's input: / ;.I/ Faithful output: [JJJ, determined by WEAK1x(velarcoda)•··>> WBAKo.75x(velar coda)•••>> WBAKo.Sx(velar coda)••·>> PRES1oo(velar) • •• >> PRES7 s(velar)... >> PRESso(velar) ... >> PRES2s(velar) >> PRES10(velar) >> WEAKo.2sx(velar coda)>>WEAK0.1ox(velar coda)>>PRESplosive in the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /g.1/.

162

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

As the proposed metathesis stage *fi.1/> /1;/ is assumed to have occurred due to the effects of analogy with the more highly frequent sequence /lj/ (cf. Chapter 4), the reasons for this change are beyond the scope of the current analysis and, thus, will not be formalized here.2 A second palatal lateral [l] (i.e. A2) emerged later in the history of many varieties from Latin [l: pl- kl- fl-], while a palatal nasal [Ji] derived from Latin [n:]. With regard to the lateral geminate /1:/ specifically (and, by extension, that of /n:/), Straka ( 1979: 305) provides evidence that the long duration of this segment may increase the raising of the tongue body, generating a palatal quality to its overall production. This palatal quality in the production of /1:/ is interpreted here as the activation of a tongue body gesture (in addition to the tongue tip gesture on the alveolar region). If the alveolar gesture is, then, weakened, an actual palatalized lateral [P] emerges and may eventually become a fully articulated palatal lateral [A].Moreover, if we take into account the fact that the duration of Spanish [l] is usually 33% longer than the duration of its alveolar counterpart [l] (Lavoie 2000), it is reasonable to infer that, in the palatalization process [I:]> [A],part of the long duration of the original lateral geminate is also preserved. Otherwise, the non-preservation of this duration would entail the production of a singleton [l]. In our formal analysis,palatalized realizationswould comply with the constraint PRESduration• while the singleton [l] would violate it. A candidate whose acousticeffectsis [PJsatisfiesPREsduration and PREspalatab although it violatessome PRESaiveolar constraints,as per the weakening of the original tongue tip gesture from the input /1:/. The force to conserve articulatory effort during the production of geminates is formalizedhere as the constraint WEAKgeminate• which, in the present case,will penalizeboth the tongue tip (i.e. WEAKgeminate, alveolar) and the tongue body (i.e. WEAKgeminate, palatal) gestures. The constraint ranking in (15) determines the selectionof {liJ. (15)

PRESduration, PRESpalatal >> WEAKt:x(geminate, alveolar)•••>> WEAKo.Sx(geminate, alveolar) ... >> PRES1oo(alveolar) •••>> PRESso(alveolar) •,, >> WEAKo.Sx(geminate, alveolar)•••>>WEAKo.3x(geminate, alveolar)•••,WEAK1x(geminate, palatal)••,>> W EAKo.8x(geminate, palatal)·

Under this ranking, singletons would fatallyviolate highly ranked PRESduration• while faithful realizations to the input /1:/ would violate higher values of WBAKgeminate, alveolar• as illustrated in Table 6.5.

2

For a different approach, sec Baker's (2004: 109-18) analysis and the implementation of his proposed CONDENSE constraint, which would have given rise to [A)by forcing a coarticulation between the preceding [JJand the following [l].

6.3

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

163

SONORANTS

Table 6.5 Palatalization of /1:/ '

WEAK

I

/1:/

Articulation

WEAK

WEAK

gemtnate gcmtnatc PRES Aco. PREs: PREs gemlnate alveolar effect durallon: palatal alveolar alveolar ' palatal ' I I lx 0.Bx 100 80 0.Sx 0.3x: lx 0.Bx I

TT:

1. 2 U:W3.

TB:

TT: TT: TB:

EJ

GJ

~ ~

I

I

' I

I I I I I I

[I: J [l]

*!

"'!

I I

' * ' ' ' : I I

"'

"'

*

*

"'

*

I

[}J]

GJ

I I

*

I

In Table 6.5, candidate #1 fatallyviolates WEAKgeminate, alveolar by not conserving any effort in the articulation of the tongue tip gesture during the realization of the input, while the degeminated realization [1] from candidate #2 does not preserve the duration cues from /1:/ nor its palatal quality. Thus, it fatally violates the most highly ranked constraints PRESduratlon and PRESpalataI• The palatalized lateral [lj] from candidate #3 is then selected, for satisfying PRESduration• PRESpalatal> despite the fact that it still violates PRES1oo(alveolar) due to weakening of the tongue tip gesture. If the listener, then, interprets the palatal quality in [lJJ as an inherent characteristic of the lateral in question, then a sound change occurs. In the present analysis, this is captured by the difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speakees input (i.e. [1:]) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. /lj/), as indicated in (16). (16)

Speaker's input: /1:/ Faithful output: [l:]' determined by PRESduration• PRESpalatal> PRESa1veolar >> W EAKgeminate• Other possible, unfaithful outputs:

E.g. [Ii]. determined by

>> WEAK1x(geminate, alveolar) , , •>> W EAKo.Sx(geminate, alveolar) • • • >> PRESl00(alveolar) •· · > > PRESso(alveolar), • • >> WEAKo.sx(geminate, alveolar)•··>>WEAKo,3x(geminate, alveolar)•••,WEAK1x(gemlnate, palatal)···>> WEAKo.Sx(geminate, palatal)• etc.

PRESduration• PRESpalatal

164

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

Listener's input: !11! Faithful output: [l'], determined by PREsduration, PRESpaJatal >> WEAK1x (geminate, alveolar)•••>> WEAKo.8x(gem1nate, alveolar)•••>> PRES100(alveolar) · · · >> PRESso(alveola.r) •• •>> WEAKo.sx(genunate, alveolar)•••>> WEAKo.3x(gcminate, alveolar)•••,WEAK1x(geminate, palatal),••>>WEAKo.8x(gem1nate, palatal)in the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /1:/. Next, the sequence [lj] is free to evolve into [A}along the lines and analysis illustrated in Table 6.3.3 A similar proposal may also be applied to model the palatalization of [n:] into the palatal nasal f.Jl]. As for the evolution of /1:/ into a retroflex plosive !dj in varieties of southern Italo- and Gallo-Romance, as well as in dialectal Astur-Leonese and Upper Aragonese (c£ Chapter 4), an articulatory emphasis on the tongue tip and blade likely led to a retroflex movement in the production of /l:/, the acoustic result of which may have been initiallyperceived as a retroflexlateral [l], and subsequently,as a plosive [q.J.In the present analysis, the retroflex lateral articulation is formalized by a constraint ranking whereby WEAKgem1nate, palatal outranks PRESpaJatal• The emergence of a retroflex plosive [cl],on the other hand, will derive from a candidate that violates PRESmannen while still complying with a highly ranked constraint militating for consonants to strengthen in onset position-in this case toward a plosive manner of articulation (cf. the constraint HONSET in (25)). Around the same time that [A] emerged from the palatalization of [I:] in varieties of Ibero-Romance, it also did from Latin [pl- kl- fl-]. The discussion in Chapter 4 illustrates the complexity of this change, the many different evolutionary pathways of Latin [pl- kl- fl-], and the substantial body of research already carried out on this topic. It is assumed that the reader is aware of the details and rationale for the proposed pathways that led to the emergence of [i] in this case, and thus, we will focus on presenting a formal analysis of the proposed steps. Let us start by assuming that the first palatalization emerged in the velar+ lateral cluster, i.e. [kA-],which is in agreement with the majority of well-known studies in the literature (e.g. Tuttle 1975; Lloyd 1987; Holt 1997; Penny 2002; Baker 2004). Indeed, Lloyd (1987: 225) suggests that [kl] > [kA]may be viewed as a case of assimilation of the alveolar lateral to the dorsovelar articulation of [k]. In other words, the raising of the

I

3 For a differentproposal, see Baker (2004: 175),who viewsthe palatalizationof [l:] as a result of his proposed CoNDENSE constraint outranking his markednessconstraint "'PALATAL. In this case,however, Baker is not explicitas to how CONDENSE works to produce a palatal gesture in the realizationof/!:/. Furthermore, Baker'sproposal is unclear as to why or how *PALATAL suddenly emergesin the analysis and what its role actuallyis, other than making the selectedcandidate [Alviolate a given constraint.

j

6.3

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

SONORANTS

165

back of the tongue body in the articulation of [k] would cause a retraction of the tongue tip toward the palate in the articulation of [I]. The effects of this coarticulation have been explored by Millier and Mota (2009: 1698), who report a small closure fronting of the velar plosive [k] in the production of the cluster [kl-] (as opposed to no change in the closure of the other obstruents [p] and [f] in their respective clusters [pl-] and [fl-]). However, as the evolution of Latin [kl-] is reconstructed as *[kA-], it is assumed that this likely closure fronting of the velar plosive was too short to produce an actual palatalized velar *[W].Therefore, if Lloyd's (1987: 225) intuition is right and we consider that the tongue tip in the articulation of the lateral does indeed retract toward the palate in the production of [kl-], then we may also hypothesize that at least some tongue body gesture was activated in the production of the lateral. If this is the case, we may interpret the acoustic effect of this realization of /kl-/ to be [klt In the present formal analysis, it is expected that a candidate with an output such as [kPIwill satisfy top-ranked PRESmanner and PRESvelwbut violate other constraints related to the lateral in this complex onset. We invoke, then, the constraint WEAKcomplex onset,Voiceless Obst+L, which militates for conserving articulatory effort in the production of complex onsets with voiceless obstruents followed by [l]. An output such as [kl;] will violate at least some percentage of WEAKcomplex onset,Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar and at least PRES10o(alveolar), as determined by the constraint ranking in ( 17). (17)

PRESplosive manner> PRESJateral manner> PRES1oo(velar) · .. >> PRES75(velar)" •>> WEAK1x(complex

onset, Voiceless Obst+L, velar)•••>>

WEAKo.75x(complex onset, Voiceless

Obst+L velar)•••>>WEAK1x(complex onset,Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar)•••>> WEAKo.7sx (complex onset,Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar)•••>> PRES1oo(alveolar) •••>> PRES75(alveolar)· manner and PRES1ateral mannerare unranked in relation Note that in (17), PRESp!osive to each other, while PRESvelar dominates WEAKcomplex onset,Voiceless Obst+L. velar& alveolar> which, in turn, is ranked higher than PRESa1veolar• Table 6.6 illustrates the 4 selection of [kP] as the output of /kl-/, given,the constraint ranking in (17).

4 In Table 6.6, top-ranked PRESmanner represents the constraint that ruJes out a candidate with the complete deletion of a gesture. However, in other tables (cf. Tables 6.3, 6.9, and 6.12) candidates with the complete deletion of a gesture are ruled out through the interplay between WEAK and PRESp1m constraints. These different strategies to rule out candidates with gestural deletion are interpreted as the consequence of the type of place assimilation at hand. In cases of regressive place as~imilation (i.~. Tables6.3, 6.9, and 6.12) PRBSmanner is assumed to be top-ranked and does not surface m the analysis because the selection of the output is determined by WEAK and PRESptnce constraints. On the other hand, in cases of progressive place assimilation (i.e. Table 6.6), PRESmnnner does surface to rule o~t candidates with complete gestural weakening. We acknowledge, however, that further research 1s necessary to shed light upon the overall role of PRESmnn?er constraints in determining optimal outputs and banning candidates with complete gestural weakemng.

166

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

Table6.6 Selection of [klJJas the output of /kl-/ PRES

' PRES

WEAK

I

PRES

I

complex onset, VolcclcssObst+L manner Place place Acou. velar alveolar alveolar effect plo lat '' velar :100 75 lx 0.75x lx 0.75x 100 75 '' I

/kl-/

l

Articulation

TB TT TB

IIE2

TT

~ ~ ~

0

I

I

[kl]

''

*

*

*

*

*!

*

' I

[kli}

' ' I I

•

*

*

I

TB 3

4

~

TT TB

I I

I

[kl

: *! '' ' ' '' * *! '' ' '' ' ' ' '' *! ' '' ' ' ' I

~

TT

[I]

*

I

I I I

*

I

I

*

I

I

5

TB TT

0

I

~

[kl]

I I

I

*

*

*

I

In Table 6.6, candidates #3 and #4 fatally violate the most highly ranked constraint, i.e. PRESmanner• Candidate #5, on the other hand, fatally violates PRESioo(veiar), as per the weakening in the tongue body gesture. Candidate #1 represents the faithful realization of the input /kl/ and, because of this, it violates all WEAKcomplex onset, Voiceless obst+L constraints. Candidate #2, then, emerges as the winning candidate for not violating WEAK1x(complex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar), despite the fact that it violates WEAKcomplex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, veJar and does not preserve 100% of the alveolar place cues. The palatal quality in [l]in the sequence [kl!]is assumed to emerge from the weakening of [l] and its subsequent assimilation to [k]. Thus, if the listener interprets [kJ!]as intended by the speaker as !kJ!I,a sound change occurs, since the underlying representation in the listener's grammar will differ from the representation in the original speaker's grammar (i.e. /kl/). In terms of constraint reranking, this sound change is captured by the difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [kl]) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. /kP/),as indicated in (18). (18)

Speaker's input: /kl/ Faithful output: [kl], determined by WEAKcomplex onset, Obst+L-

PRESmanner

>>

PRESptace

>>

6,3

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

SONORANTS

167

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [kP],determined by PRESstop

manner, PRBSJateral manner, PRES10o(vclar) • • •

>> PRES7s(velar)

• • • >> WEAK1x(complex

onset velar)·••>>

WEAK1x(complex

onset velar)•••>>

onset alveolar)•••>>

WEAKo.7Sx(complex

WEAKo.7Sx(complex onset

nlveolar) • • • >> PRES10o(alvcolar) •,, >> PRES7s(alveolar)•

etc. Listener's input: /kl;/ Faithful output: [~], determined by PRES100(velar) • • • >>

PRBSstop manner, PRBSJateral manner,

PRES7s(ve!ar) • • • >>

WEAKo.75x(complex

onset velar)·••>>

WEAKo.75x(complex

onset alveolar)•••>>

WEAK1x(complex

WEAK1x(complex

onset velar)•••>> onset alveolar)•••>>

PRES10o(alveolar) • • • >> PRES7s(alveolar)

in the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /kl/. Once this step is achieved, the palatalized lateral in the sequence [kli] is free to evolve into [A]along similar lines and the analysis illustrated in Table 6.3, thus giving rise to the reconstructed cluster [kA]. As the palatalization of the lateral in the [pl- fl-] dusters is assumed to have stemmed from a systemic regularization (Tuttle 1975: 409; cf. Chapter 4) and not from precise phonetic factors (Milller and Mota 2009), we now reach the stage of the reconstructed, regularized clusters [pA- kA- £\-]. Although a few scholars propose that all voiceless obstruents in this case were simply dropped in the evolution of languages such as Spanish due to the overall gestural complexity of the clusters (see Tuttle 1975; Lloyd 1987), it is worth pursuing an approach that illustrates how their "drop" could have occurred in the first place, which consequently led to the simplification of these dusters into [A-].The drive for obstruent deletion in /Cl..-/clusters in Spanish is interpreted to have been motivated by a highly ranked constraint WEAKa.., which militates for conserving articulatory energy in the realization of clusters formed by a voiceless obstruent consonant and a palatal lateral [A].Because the obstruents were the ones that disappeared, it is inferred that all WEAKac-,obstruent constraints had to dominate W EAKa,.,pa1ata1, which, in turn, had to be outranked by PRESpalatal· The ranking in (19) determines the selection of [A-]as the output of /Cl..-/clusters. (19)

WEAKtx(CA.·,obstruent), >> PRESso(palatal),. >> PRES1oo(obstruent)

•, >> WEAKo,sx(Ci(·,obstruent) • >> WEAKtx(C.(.,palatal)

• • •, PRES10o(palatal) • · •

• • • >> WEAKo.Sx(Cf:-,palatal) • • •

• • • >> PRESso(obstruent)

Under this ranking, all obstruents in /Cl..-/ dusters are expected to delete, as candidates with [pA-J, {kA-], or {£\-] would violate the most highly ranked

168

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

constraint WEAKix(C\-,obstrucnt), which militates against the complete gesture of the obstruents in these clusters. Candidates with a weakened realization of these obstruents, for example, [q>A-], [XA-], and [M-] would satisfy but would fatally violate the next highly ranked constraint, WEAKo.sx(C(-,obstruent) (see Chapter 4 for the hypothesis on the possible existence of this fricative stage in the evolution of the obstruents in [pA- kA- fA-)). The series of ellipsis in (19) indicate lower values of constraints (e.g. in WEAK1x(C\-,obstrucnt),

"WEAKo.sx(C(-,obstruentJ

.•• ,"

the ellipsis entails all other lower values of

from 0.4 to 0.1). Thus, all W EAKc,{-,obstruent constraints must be top-ranked, which causes the full deletion of the obstruents in /CA-/ clusters. A candidate with only an initial palatal lateral will emerge,

W EAK(CA-,obstruent),

Table6.7 /pA- kA- fA-/ > [A-] 6.7a

'' obstruent '' ' lx 0.5x '' '' * *! WEAKc,c.

/pA-/ 1. [pi]

PRESpJace

palatal

100

*!

irF3. [.(]

50

'' '

' ''

PRESplace

pa1ata1

'

2. [ W EAKcA-,palatal

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [pj- kj- fj-], determined by palatal) >> PRESrno(palatal

PRES10o(placc of the obstruent), WEAK1x(CA-,

place)•••>>

(CA-,palatal) >> WEAK1x(C/;-,obstruent)·

etc.

PRES7s(palatal

place)·••>>

WEAKo.75x

172

PALATAL SOUNDCHANGEIN THEROMANCE LANGUAGES Listener's input: /pj- kj- fj-/ Faithful output: [pj-, kj-, fj-], determined by PRES10o(placc oftheobstrucnt), WEAK1x(CJC-,palatal) >> PRES10o(palatal place)•••>>PRES7s(palatal place)•••>> WBAKo.7Sx(Cl-,palatal) >> WEAK1x(Cl-,obstruent) in the original speakec>s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /pl..- kA-fi..-/.

6.4 Pathways for the emergence and evolution of palatal obstruents In the next phase of their evolution in many Romance varieties-particularly in western Ibero-Romance-[pj- kj- fj-] all evolve into [tf]. A phonetic motivation for the emergence of [tj] comes from the interaction between the velar obstruent and the palatal glide in the cluster [kjJ.5 Research shows that the palatalization of [kj] into [tj] is a common sound change in the languages of the world (Chang, Plauche, and Ohala 2001), while palatalization of labials is less likely. Thus, considering that velar clusters were more frequent than labial clusters (Tuttle 1975), it is assumed that [pj- fj-] followed the evolution of [kj-] by analogy, hence the regularization of all three clusters into [tj], i.e. [pj- kj- fj-] > [tj].Although analogicalprocessesare not formalizedin the present analysis, it is worth illustrating how the palatalization process in [kj] > [tJ] would have occurred in the first place. By considering the interaction between a velar plosive [k] and palatal glide [j], it is feasibleto hypothesize a regressive place assimilation whereby the target segment, i.e. [k], first fronts its articulation toward the palate, generating the acoustic effect of a voiceless palatal plosive, which results in the sequence [cj]. For this to happen, in the present formal analysisPRESpaJatal and WEAK1x(kj, velar) must outrankPRESvelar and WEAKkj,palatalconstraints, since the palatal cues of the input are maintained and at least some percentage of the velar gesture is weakened. The constraint ranking in (23) determines the output [cj}. (23)

PRES1oo(pa]atal) ... >> PRES1s(palatal) ... , WEAK1x(kj,velar) ... >> PRES100(velar) ... >> PRES1s(velar),,, >> WEAKo.75x(kJ,velar),, •, WBAK1x(kj,palatal) · · • >> W EA Ko. 75x( (kj,palatal)•

A similar scenario is envisioned for the interaction between the alveolars(t d] and the glide UJ, which gives rise to the affricates[ts dz] in the history of severalRomancevarieties. 5

6.4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

173

OBSTRUENTS

Under this ranking, all candidates with any weakening of the palatal gesture are expected to be ruled out due to a fatal violation of highly ranked constraint PRESpalatal• Candidates that preserve the velar gesture, on the other hand, will fatally violate WEAKix(kj,velar)· The next highly ranked constraint PRESvclar will determine the most harmonic output based on the percentage of velar cues that are preserved. Table 6.9 illustrates how the output [cj] is selected as the most optimal for the input /kj/, given the constraint ranking in (23 ). Table 6.9 Regressive place assimilation in the articulation of [k] + [j] PRESpJacc : WEAKkj

/k/ + /j/

Articulation

Aco.

etfe.

I

palatal ' velar ' 100

75 :

TB I

I appro I

TB TB

3

TB TB

TB 4

6

I appro I

TB

75

WEAKkj

velar '' I

palatal

0.75x : lx

0.75x

'

[cjJ

'' '

*

*

' '' ' ' *

*

* *

*

I I I I

I I I I I I I

I appro I

[j]

EJ 0

*

I I I

I I I

*!

I I

I I

EJ

TB TB

100

*!

[kjJ

' I I I

I

[kJ

*!

TB TB

5

0

velar

WEAKkj:

'

EJ TB

ll'E2

lx

PRESpJacc

GJ [kil iki]

GJ

*!

*

' I I I

' I I

I'

I

I

I

I I I I I I

I

I

*

*

''

*!

' I I

I I I

I

I

I I I I

' '

' I I

'

*

I

*

*

I

'

*

I I

'

In Table 6.9, candidates #4, #5, and #6 are ruled out due to their fatal violation of PRESrno(palatal)• Candidate #l (the faithful output), on the other hand, fatally violates top-ranked WEAKtx(kj,vclar) due to its full realization of the velar consonant /k/. Candidates #2 and #3 both satisfy WEAK1x(kj,vclar and PRES100 (palatal) constraints, so the winner is determined by the next ranked constraint, PRESvclar- As candidate #3 does not preserve any of the velar cues of the input, it fatally violates PRES 7 s(velar)• which candidate #2 satisfies. Hence, [cj] emerges as the output of /kj/ given the constraint ranking in (23).

174

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

A sound change such as /kj/ > /cj/ is, then, understood in terms of a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [kj-)) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. /cj-/), as indicated in (24). (24)

Speaker's input: /kj/ Faithful output: [kj], determined by

PRESpalatah

PRBSvelar

>> WEAKkj,

palatal, WEAKkj, velar•

Other possible, unfaithful outputs:

>> PRES1s(palatal) ••• , WEAK ix >> PRES1s(velar),, • >> WEAKo.7Sx(kj,velar) • • •,

E.g. [cj-], determined by PRES1oo(palatal) (kj,velar) • • • >> PRES1oo(velar) • •,

•••

WEAK1x(kj,palatal) • • • >> WEAKo,7sx(kJ,palatal)·

etc. Listener's input: / cj/ Faithful output: [cj], determined by

WEAK1x(kj,velar) • • • >> PRBS1oo(velar) •••

velar) • • •, WEAK1x(kj,palatal) •••

>> PRES1s(palata1) ••• , >> PRES1s(velar) ••• >> WEAKo.75x(kJ,

PRES1oo(palata1)•••

>>WEAKo.7Sx(kj,palatal) in the original speaker's

grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /kj/. To understand the subsequent evolutionary phases, it is necessary to consider the phonetics of the segments involved. Palatal plosives are uncommon in the languages of the world, since their release frequently renders the production of an affricate: Because of the shape of the roof of the mouth, the contact between the front of the tongue and the hard palate often extends over a fairly large area. As a result, the formation and release of a palatal stop is often not as rapid as in the case of other stops, and they tend to become affricates (Ladefoged 2001: 244).

Thus, if we consider what the actual realization of /cj/ (< /kj/) may be, it is likely that it is produced as a voiceless palatal affricate [c> HONSETplosive >> HONSETsib-affricatc >>HONSETnon-sib-affricate.,, >>PRESpaJatal in the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithfulrealization to the speaker's input /c~.

The emergence of /tf/ in word-medial position after a consonant may also be understood along the same lines. In other words, the preceding consonant (most often a nasal) contributed for the occlusion of the obstruents in /NpN Nk£V N£(V / to remain unchanged. Subsequently, these obstruents were free to follow the same pathway of change as /pl..-kA- fA-/ did in many varieties (i.e. by first evolving into /pj- kj- fj-/ and eventually giving rise to /tf/) as illustrated in Tables 6.8, 6.9, and 6.10.7 With regard to the evolutionary pathways of syllable-initial initial /j/, a straightforward case of fortition is observed: this glide is strengthened in the evolution of most Romance languages, first as a plosive [j] and, subsequently, as an affricate [d.3] in many varieties. Fortition is determined by the effects of a 1 For a markedness-basedexplanation, see Holt's (1997)proposal of the constraint /"'-NCA-/,which would have caused [A]to first devoice and then palatalizethe preceding voicelessobstruent, eventually giving rise to /Nlf/.

178

PALATAL

SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

highly ranked HONSETls• In the present analysis, this process is motivated by ranking PRESpalatal over HONSET1s, which, in turn, dominates PRESapproximant 8 and WEAK,as indicated in (29). (29)

PRESpalatal>> HONSETlsplosive ... >> HONSE'flsfricative.,. >> HONSETls glide • • • >> PRESapprox> WEAK.

Given the constraint ranking in (29), the output is expected to preserve the Next, palatal place of articulation of the input /j/, by satisfying PRESµalatal· the strongest segment in onset position is predicted to be a plosive, rather than a fricative or a glide, as they would violate HONSET!splosive· Any candidate that does not preserve the manner of the input (i.e. approximant) will violate PRESapprox.,while any weakening in the realization of the input will violate WEAK.The selection of the palatal plosive [j-] for the input /j-/ is illustrated in Table 6.11. Table 6.11 /j-/ > [j] /j-/

Articulation

I

Acoustic PRES HONSETIS HONSETIS palatal plosive fricative effect

1.

TB:

lapproxa

[jl

*!

2.

TB:

B

lll

*!

~3.

TB:

a

HoNSET/sPRES: gllde

approx. : WEAK

*

*

' '' ' ''

*

*

'

*

'I

* *

I

[j]

*

I I

I

*

'

In Table 6.11, all candidates satisfy the most highly ranked constraint PREspalatal• However, candidate #l (i.e. the faithful realization of the input) and candidate #2 both fatally violate the next ranked constraint, HoNSET1 splostve,and are thus ruled out. Candidate #3, then, emerges as the selected despite incurring one violation of output of /j-/, as it satisfies HoNSETlsplosive• all the other lowly ranked constraints. In the current approach, the fortition /j-1 > /J-/ is formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization of the speaker's input (i.e. [j-]) and the listener's

This ranking ensures that only non-plosive palatals are strengthened. To prevent other initial segments with different places of articulation from strengthening to a plosive (e.g. If-I > /p-/), it is assumed that aH PllESmnnncr constraints (e.g. PIIESft1cn1ive1 PRES1111crah etc.) arc top-ranked, except for PRESapproximMt> which is low-ranked in (29). 8

6,4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

OBSTRUBNTS

179

interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. lt-]), as indicated in (30). (30)

Speaker's input: /j-/ Faithful output: [j-], determined by PRESpalatah PRESmanner >> HoNSETjs plosive•·•>>H0NSETlsfricative.,.>>HONSETjs glide>> WEAK, Other possible, unfaithful outputs: >> HoNSETlsplosive ... >> H0NSETls E.g. lt-], determined by PRESpalatal fricative•••>>

HONSETls glide•••>>

PRESappro:iuWEAK.

etc. Listener's input: /J-/ Faithful output: lJ-],determined by PRESpalatal >> HONSETls plosive ... >> HoNSET1sfricative ... >> HoNSET1sglide... >> PRESapprox, WEAKin the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speakees input /j-/. As illustrated in Chapter 4, in many Romance varieties the palatal plosive /J/ eventually evolved into the affricate /df,/, which, in other cases, fronted its articulation to an alveolar [dz]or weakened to its fricative counterpart [3]. The affrication of /j/ into /dj/ can be understood along similar lines as that of /c/ into /tf/, formalized in Table 6.10. In other words, the phonetic realization of /J/ often renders that of a central palatal affricate Wl,whose change in place of articulation into the palato-alveolar [df,] is determined by the ranking PRESplosive, PRESfricative >> HONSETpiosive >> HONSETsib-affricate >> HONSBTnonsib-affricate ... >> PRBSpaJatal· The subsequent fronting of [Cl3]into [dz], on the other hand, is determined by top-ranking PRESalveolar over PRESpaJatab while top-ranking WEAKa1veo!ar over PRESpaJatal generates the fricative output [3].The same constraint reran.kings apply to cases where the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate [tf] either fronted its articulation into an alveolar [ts] or weakened to its fricative counterpart [J1. The palatal obstruents lt](> [Jj]> [df,])and [c] (> [c [tf]) also emerged in the palatalization of velars in the sequences [ge gi ge gre] and [ke ki kE kre], respectively. Palatalization here is interpreted as the result of partial regressive place assimilation, whereby the target segments, i.e. the velars lg/ and /k/, first front their articulation toward the palate, generating the acoustic effect of the palatal plosives lt} and [c], respectively.In this sense, it represents an assimilation process comparable to the change /kj/ > /cj/ illustrated in Table 6.9, the major difference being the presence of voice in /ge gi ge gre/ > /jeJiJEjre/. For

180

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

our purposes, let us consider the evolution of /ge gi gE gre/ and assume that a similar change event took place in the development of their voiceless counand another constraint that militates to terparts [ke ki kt kreJ. PRESpaJatal conserve articulatory energy in the production of velar plosives followed by vowels-which we will call WEAKvelarploslve+v-are top-ranked in the present analysis. This WEAKconstraint is motivated by the fact that, in this case, the velar consonants /k g/ and vowels /e i E re/ are produced with a tongue body gesture. Thus, it would be more costly to produce [ge gi ge greJ as opposed to [be bi be bre], for example, where the sounds are produced with different articulators, i.e. the first segment with the lips, and the second with a tongue body gesture. By the same token, [ge gi QE gre] are also more costly than [go gu] in articulatory terms, as the tongue body moves from the "back" (i.e. the velar area) to the "front,, (i.e. the palatal area) in [ge gi ge gre], whereas it stays in the velar area in [go gu]. Thus, assuming that the articulation of /g/ undergoes partial gesturalweakeningin [ge gi ge gre],PRESpalatal and WEAK1x{velar ploslve+V, velar) must dominate PRESvelarand WEAK(velarplosive+V, palatal), as indicated in the constraint ranking in (31). (31)

>> PRES1s(palatal), •,, WEAK1x{velar ploslve+V, velar)••,>> PRES100(velar) • • • >> PRES1s(velar) • • • >> WEAKo.75x(velar plosive+V, velar)••·, PRES1oo(palatal),,,

WEAK1x(velar plosive+V, palatal)•••>>

WEAKo.75x(velar plosive+V, palatal)·

Under this ranking, all candidates with weakening of /e i Ere/ are expected to be ruled out due to a fatal violation of highly ranked constraint PRES1oo{paiata1)· A candidate with a full realization of the velar gesture will fatally violate top-

rankedWEAK1x(velar

plosive+V, velar)• PRESvelar

constraintswill determine,then,

the optimal output according to the percentage of preservation of input velar cues. For visual convenience, Table 6.12 illustrates how [J-e]would be selected as an output of Igel, while the same is assumed for /gi ge gre/ > [jiJ£JreJ and the production of their voiceless counterparts. In Table 6.12, candidates #4 and #5 are ruled out as they fatally violate PRBS 1oo(palatal)• Candidate #1 (i.e. the faithful output), on the other hand, satisfies PRBSpalatal constraints, but fatally violates top-ranked WEAKix(velar plosive+V, velar}•Because candidates #2 and #3 satisfy both PRESpalataland WEAK1x(velar plosive+V, velar), the winneris determinedby the next highlyranked

constraint, PRESveJar• Candidate #2 emerges, then, as the most optimal output because it preserves at least 75% of the velar gesture of the input, while candidate #3 is ruled out because it does not preserve any percentage of the velar gesture. In the present approach, the sound change /gel > /Je/ is, then, understood in terms of a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful

6.4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

181

OBSTRUENTS

Table 6.12 Regressive place assimilation in the articulation of [g) . + [ej I I I I I I

PRES pluce

lg/+ le/

Artietilation

Acou. effect

ll'..ii"2

TB 3

TB

: 100

75

*

*!

I I

*

*

*

*

I

'

I

'

I I I

' I

*

I I

*

I

' I I

[e]

*!

*

I

I I I

I plosiv I

lgl

*!

I

I

I

'

* '

I I I I I

I

TB

' ''

TB Iplosiv I

I

I I I

'

G

· TB

' '' ' I

'

4

5

0.75x

I

'

Ivowel I

TB

100 0.75

I

I vowel I

TB

lx ' '' ''

(je]

velar plosive+V

' '' palatal

'

0

I

WEAK

velar

I

[ge]

I I

velar

I

Iplosiv I TB I vowel I TB

velar plosive+V

I I

velar

75:

TB I

WEAK

PRES pince

velar plosivc+V

I I I

palatal 100

WEAK

'' ''

[QC] *!

' I

*

*

I I

'

I

I I I

*

realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [gel) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (Le. /je/), as formalized in (32).

(32)

Speaker's input: Igel Faithful

output:

WEAK(velar

by

[ge], determined

plosivc+V, velar), WEAK(vclar

PRES(velar)>

PRES(palatal)

>>

plosive+V, palatal)

Other possible, unfaithful outputs:

E.g. [Je-],determined by PRES10o(palatal) ... plosive+V, velar),••>> plosive+V, velar)•••,

PREStoO(velar),,,

WEAKtx(velar

>>

>> PRES7s(palatal) ... , WEAK1x(velar PRES7s(velar), • • >>

plosive+V, palatal)•••>>

WEAKo.75x(velar

WEAI> WEAKo.75x(velar

by

plosive+V, velar)•••>> plosivc+V, velar)•,,,

PRES1oo(pulutal),

• • >>

PRES1oo(velar) • · · >> WEAK1x(velar

plosive

182

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

· · 1 spea ker's t he ongma grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input Igel.

+V, palatal)··•>>

· WEAKo.7Sx{velar plosive+V, palatal) lil

The emergence of the affricates [jj] and [d.3]in the subsequent evolution of [t] (< [ge gi gE gre]), and that of [c~] and [lf] in the evolution of [c] (< [ke ki kE kre]), is understood in similar fashion as shown in (26) and formalized in Table 6.10. As discussed in Chapter 4, however, the palatalization of lge- gi-1 in Hispano-Romance had different outcomes according to the presence or absence of stress: while IJI has survived until the present day in Latin words with stressed lge- gi-1, in words with unstressed lge- gi-1, the plosive !JI eventually weakened and disappeared in Old Spanish. If we consider that: (i) in unstressed position, [te Ji] tends to be weaker and shorter in duration than stressed riJe'Ji], and (ii) both segments of each sequence in [JeJi] are articulated with the same tongue body gesture in the same place of articulation, then it is possible to hypothesize that the place cues of the palatal consonant were not necessarily preserved in the production of lje Ji/, since the vowels [e i] would have already secured the palatal place of articulation. This reasoning motivates, then, the low ranking of a PRES constraint that militates for the maintenance of place of articulation cues of the palatal consonant, which is labeled here as PRES(place, Je- Ji-, consonant)• This constraint would, then, be ranked below its W BAK counterpart, i.e. W EAK(palatal, Je- Ji-, unstressed), which militates for the conservation of articulatory effort in the production of the palatal consonant in unstressed lje, Jil. 9 The ranking in (33) formalizes the constraint hierarchy that determines the deletion of /j/ in the realization of /je Ji/. (33)

WEAKtx(palatal,

Je- Jh unstressed)•••>>

WEAKo.75x(palatal, ,Je- Ji-, unstressed)•••

>> WEAKo.Sx(palatal, Je- Ji-. unstressed)•••>> PRESso(place

Je- Jh

vowel)•••>>

PRES10o(place ,Je- Ji-, vowel)•••>>

WEAK1x(vowel,

WEAKo.sox(vowel, Je- Ji-, unstressed)•••>>

,Je-

Ji-,

unstressed)•••>>

PRES100(place Je- Ji-. consonant)•••>>

PRESso(place, ,Je- Jh consonant)•

Under the ranking in (33), all outputs with a palatal consonant in the onset are expected to be ruled out regardless of their realization, as all WEAK(palatal, Je- Ji-, unstressed) constraints are highly ranked, above PREs constraints. Thus, a candidate with no palatal consonant in the onset, but with a palatal vowel, is expected to

It is assumed here that a palatal fricative UJand a palatal approximant [j) would also violate Jl-, unstressed) constraints, as [j] and [j}would represent weakened realizations of /J/. Thus, one may interpret 'j' in 'WEAK(polatul, Je• Ji-. unstressed)' as a cover symbol for all voiced palatal oral segments, 9

WEAK(palatal.J~

6.4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

183

OBSTRUENTS

emerge as the most optimal, given the ranking in (33). This ranking is assumed to apply to both unstressed /Je/ and unstressed /Ji/. For visual convenience, Table 6.13 only illustrates how [e] is selected as the most harmonic output of unstressed /je/. Table6.13 /Je/ > [e] WEAKJc-, unstressed

/Je-/ l. [jeJ 2. ije]

palatal cons.

~4.

vowel

palatal vowel

lx

0.75x

0.5x

*!

* *!

3. [je1

PRESptace,Je- WEAKJe·, unstressed

100

50

PRESpJace, Jc-

palatal cons.

lx

0.5x

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

*

*

[e]

5.0

*!

*

100

75 50

*

* *

*

*

*

*

In this table, only the phonetic symbols representing the perceptual consequences of the articulatory gestures arc indicated.

In Table 6.13, candidate #1 represents the faithful realization of the input /Je-/ and, thus, fatally violates WEAK1x(palatal, JC- Ji-, unstressed)· Candidate #2, on the other hand, contains a weakened realization of the input consonant, and so it satisfies WEAK1x(palatal, je- ji-, unstressed) while fatally violating the next ranked constraint, WEAKo. 7 sx(palatal, Jc- Ji-, unstressed)· The palatal glide in candidate #3 fatally violates w EAKo.sx(palatal, JC- ji·, unstressed) and is, thus, ruled out. Candidate #5 satisfies all WEAK constraints, but fatally violates PRES(place Je-, vowel)· Consequently, it is also ruled out. Candidate #4 emerges as the output of /Je-/ for complying with all WEAK(palatal, Jc- Ji-. unstressed) constraints, despite containing a full realization of the input vowel, thus violating the low-ranked constraint WEAKix(vowel, Je- Ji-, unstressed)· In the present approach, the sound change /Je/ > / e/ is, then, captured by the difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. f.te-]) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. /e-/), as indicated in (34). (34)

Speaker's input: /Je-/ Faithful output: f.te], determined by

PRES(place,

Je- Ji-, vowel & cons.) >>

WEAK(je-, unstressed)·

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [e-], determined by WEAK1x(pnlatal, (palatal,Je- Ji-, unstressed)•••>>

Jc- JI-, unstressed).••>>

WEAKo.sx(palntal,

Je- JI-, unstressed)•••>>

WEAKo.7sx PREStoo

184

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN

(pince, Je- Ji•,

THEROMANCE

LANGUAGES

vowel)•••>>PRESso(plnce, Jc- Ji-, vowel)•••>>WBAK1x(vowel,

unstressed)•••>>

WEAKo.sox(vowel, Je- Ji-, unstressed),••>>

consonant)•••>>

PRESso(plnce, Jc-, Ji-, consonant)•

Je- Jh

PRES10o(place, Je- Ji-,

etc. Listenees input: /e-/ Faithfuloutput:[e], determinedby WEAK1x(palatal, WEAKo.75x(palntal, JC-Ji-, unstressed)•••>> PRES10o(place, JC-Ji-, vowel)•••>> JC-Jh unstressed)•••>>

JC- Ji-, unstressed).. •>>

WEAKo.sx(palntnl, Je· Ji-, unstressed)•••>>

PRESso(place Jc- Ji-, vowel)•,•>>

WEAKo.sox(vowel,Je• Ji·, unstressed)•••>>

WEAK1x(vowel,

PRES1oo(place,Je- Ji-,

consonant) ... >> PRESso(place, Je- Ji-, consonant)in the grammar of the original speaker, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /Je-/. The Latin sequences/-dj- -gj-/ also gaverise to palatal obstruents.Assumingthat such sequenceswere most likelyrealizedas a palatal glide up to the first century AD (Castellani 1965: 113-18; cf. Chapter4), it appears safe to posit that the original voiced plosivesin the sequences/-dj- -gj-/ had sufferedextreme weakening so as not to incur palatalization by the following glide. As such, this weakening continued until both consonants eventuallydisappeared. Comparative evidence for this evolutionary stage is also found in current Western Romance varieties (e.g. Lat. MAIU,RADIU,EXAGIU > Pt. ma[j]o, ra[j]o, ensa[j]o, Fr. mai, raU]on,essai'May', 'ray', 'essay'},while in many other cases the glide strengthened and gave rise to a palato-alveolar [d.3],and, subsequently,to its fricativecounterpart [3] (e.g. Lat MAIU,RADIU, EXAGIU > It. ma[d.3:]o,ra[d.3:]o, sa[d.3:]o'May', cray','essay';Lat. FUGIT>It.fu(d.3:Je,Pt.fo[3]e)'flee.3sa'}.In the present analysis,the deletion of the postvocalicvoiced obstruents [d g] followed by [j] is determined by the dominance of all WEAK(vdj, vgj)constraints (which militate to conserve articulatory effort in the production of postvocalic/d g/) over PRESptosive placeconstraints. WEAK(VdJ, Vgj)is motivated by the fact that the tongue is the activearticulatorin both /d/ and /g/ and surrounding sounds.Thus, it would be more costlyto use the same articulatorin these sequences,as opposed to other postvocalic sequencesinvolvingdifferent articulators, as is the case of postvocalic/bi,which relieson lip gesturesin its production. The selectionof the glide as the optimal output of /dj gj/ is determined by the ranking in (35). (35)

WEAK1x(Vdj, Vgj),••>> WEAKo.75x(VdJ, VgJ)•••>> WEAKo.sx(Vdj, Vgj)•, •, PRES10o{palatal) .. , >> PRESso(palatal), •• >> WEAK1x(palatal) •••>> WEAKo.sx (palatal) .. ,>> PRES10o(plosive place)•••>>PRES7s(ploslve place)••,>>PRESso (plosive place)•

6.4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

185

OBSTRUENTS

Under this ranking, any candidate with a realization of postvocalic /d/ or /g/ is expected to fatally violate WEAKcvdJ, VgJ) constraints. On the other hand, a candidate with any weakening of the following palatal segment will violate PRES10o(palatal) and, thus, will also be ruled out. A candidate with only the realization of the palatal segment will emerge as the winner, as it will satisfy highly ranked WEAK1x(Vdj, Vgj) and PRES(palatal)· As this ranking applies to /dj/ and /gj/, for visual convenience Table 6.14 only illustrates how [+] is selected as the most harmonic output of /dj/. Table 6.14 /dj/ > [j] WEAKvdj, Vgj

''

dental

'' I

/dj/ 1. [dj]

I&

50

*

*

*

'

*

*

*

*!

''

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

*

*!

'' '

.''

4. [j]

' *!

5.0

'

100

75

'' '

0.Sx : 100

3. [i'lj]

dental

0.5x

0.75x

50

PRESplosivc place WEAKpalatal

Ix

Ix

2. [oj]

PRE 5 palatal

*

In this table, only the phonetic symbols representing the perceptual consequences of the articulatory gestures are indicated.

In Table 6.14, candidates #1, #2, and #3 all contain at least some realization of the voiced plosive /d/ and, thus, fatally violate WEAKcvdJ, Vgj) (i.e. WEAK1x

and WEAKo.Sx(Vvoiced dental-j)• respectively). Candidate #5, on the other hand, satisfies WEAKcvvoiced dental-j) constraints, but fatally violates PRESpalataI· Candidate #4 emerges, then, as the output of /dj/ as it satisfies WEAK(vvoked dental-j)• despite violating WEAK1x (palatal) and PRESdental· In the present approach, /dj/ > /j/ is formalized as the difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [dj]) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. /j/), as indicated in (36).

(Vvoiccd dental-j-)• WEAKo.75x(Vvoiced

(36)

dental-j)1

Speaker's input: /dj/ Faithful output: [dj], determined by PRESdcntal,

PRESpalatal

>> WEAKtx(Vdj),

WEAKpaJatal

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [j], determined by (Vdj) ••• ,

>> WEAKo.7sx(VdJ) • •• >> WEAKo.sx • >> PRESso(palatal) • • • >> WEAK1x(palatal) • • • >>

WEAK1x(Vdj) ••.

PRES10o(palotal).,

186

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

WEAKo.Sx(palatal) • •. >>

PRES1oo(ploslve place),••>>

PRES7s(ploslve place)·••>>

PRESso(plosive place)•

etc. Listener's input: /j/ Faithful output: U],determined by WEAKtx(VdJ)

••• >> WEAKo.7sx(Vdj) ••• >>

WEAKosx(Vdj) ••• , PRES1oo(palata1)••• >> PRESso(pahttal)••• >> WEAK1x(palatal) • • • >> WEAKo.sx(palatal) • • • >> PRES10o(plosive place),,,>>

PRES7s(plosive place)•••>>

in the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /dj/.

PRESso(plomve place)

The subsequent evolutionary pathways of this emerging glide /j/ (< /dj gj/) are modeled under the same analysis illustrated in Tables 6.11 and 6.10, with the fronting of [d.3]toward [dz] determined by top-ranking PRESa1veolar over PRESpalatab and the deaffrication of [d.3]into [3] generated by top-ranking W EAKa1veolarover PRESpalatal• Two other common sound changes observed in many Romance varietiesboth diachronically and synchronically-are the delateralization of [AJinto [j] and the devoicing of palato-alveolars [3] and [d.31 into [J] and [tf], respectively. In the history of Spanish, for example, A1delateralized into [j] and subsequently strengthened into [3], which, in Medieval times, devoiced into [n before dissimilating into the velar fricative (x] (e.g. Lat. MULIERE > mu[i *mu[j]er > *mu[j]er > mu[3]er > mu[ner > Sp. mu[x]er 'woman'). By considering the dialectal data in Chapter 5 and the general evolution of the palatal lateral across the multiple linguistic varieties in the Romancespeaking world, it is reasonable to suppose that the delateralization of this segment first gives rise to a palatal glide, which, depending on the language, may soon acquire frication and evolve into [j]. If we take into account the regressive place assimilation by which [A] arises (cf. Table 6.3), 10 a subsequent complete weakening of the alveolar gesture leaves the segment with only the tongue body gesture, i.e. the gesture representing the palatal glide [jJ.11 In the present analysis, this scenario is formalized by top-ranking all WEAKA-alveolar (i.e. conserve articulatory effort in the alveolar gesture of [A]) and PRESpalatal constraints above WEAKA-palatal and PRESatveolar constraints. The dominance hierarchy in (37) specifies the proposed ranking.

10 Note that, in the articulation of (.{},the tongue tip still establishes contact with the alveolar ridge (Quilis 1993: 311; Recasens and Espinosa 2006), rendering it an actual alveolo-palatal lateral segment. 11 Here the laterality of [A}is assumed to be attached to the tongue tip gesture.

6.4

PATHWAYS

WEAK1x(A:-alveolar) • • • >>

(37)

PRES7s(palatal)

• • • >>

PRES10o(alvcolar),

FOR PALATAL

PRES10o(palatal) • • • >>

WEAK0,1sx(A:-alvcolar) •, •,

WEAKtx(A:-palatal) • • • >>

187

OBSTRUENTS

WEAKo,7Sx(A-palatal) • •,

>>

• • >> PRES7s(alvcolar)•

Under the constraint ranking in (37), candidates with alveolar gestures in the realization of / fJ will be ruled out, as they fatally violate WEAK, [j] : PRESpface

WEAK,e

PRESplace

Acous. alveolar ' palatal effect lx 0.75x: 100 75 '

palatal

alveolar

WEAK,e

IA/ 1

~2

I I

Articulation

TT

~

TB

I

TT TB TT

3

lx

0.75x

*

*

*

*

100

75

*

*

I

[A] appro

I

*!

*

I I I I

'

I I

r I

''

[j]

I appro I ~

[l]

0

[Ii]

I I I

''

'' *!

*

TB TT 4

TT 5

GJ

TB

TB

QJ I approx

!

['j]

*!

*

*!

*

*

*

*

*

In Table 6.15, candidates #1, #3, and #4 all violate the most highly ranked constraint, i.e. WEAKix(A-aJvcolar), for not conserving any articulatory effort in the tongue tip gesture and are, thus, ruled out. Candidate #5, on the other hand, does satisfy WEAKix(A-alvcolar)• as it presents weakening of 75% of the tongue tip gesture. However, it then fatally violates the next ranked constraint, i.e. WEAKo. 7sx(A-alvcolnr)• Candidate #2 emerges as the most optimal output

188

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

given the constraint ranking in (37), by presenting only the tongue body gesture and, thus, satisfying both WBAK.> WEAKo,7Sx

>>WBAK1x(A:-palatal)••• >> WEAKo,1sx(A:-palatal) •, • >> PRES1oo(alveolar) • • • >> PRES7s(alvcolar) in the (A-alveolar)•••, PRES1oo(palatal) • •,

>>PRES7s(palatal)

•••

original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /A/. After the delateralization of [A'.],the emerging glide [j] is likely to display different degrees of constriction in its articulation. In fact, as discussed in Chapter 3, a comparison between the electropalatographs of [j] and the fricative fj] show little difference between the two segments, with the tongue body touching the hard palate slightly more in the articulation of fi] than in the production of [j]. Thus, it is likely that fj] and [j] may co-exist in free variation at some point after the delateralization of [A'.].In the present analysis, the selection of the faithful output [j] is determined by top-ranking PRBSpa1ata1 and PRESapprox.imant above all WEAK and HoNSET constraints, as indicated in (39). (39)

PRESpalatal, PRESapprox.imant

>> WEAKpalatal

(plosive, lateral), HONSETptosive,

fricative, nasal, lateral

Note that, in the reconstructedevolutionof [j] (< i,) in the history of Spanish,this glide remains in contrast with the coetaneous intervocalicpalatal plosive/J/, Support for the reconstruction of this contrast is found in current varietiesof Argentineand PeruvianSpanish(i.e.in the varietiesspoken in the Argentine province of Corrientes and the Amazonianregion of Peru), where speakersdo maintain a DISTINCTION between intervocalicUland intervocalicWJ(cf. Chapter 5). 11

6.4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

OBSTRUENTS

189

Under the ranldng in (39), any realization that is unfaithful to the input is expected to be ruled out for fatally violating either one of the top-ranked PRES constraints, as shown in Table 6.16.13

Table 6.16 /j/ > [j] PRES: I PRES palatal : approx.

1-j-/

I

1. [j]

I&

*

: *!

I

*

'

I

I

'' ''

4. {A]

HONSET

I I I

I I

fJ]

I I

plosive lateral : plosive fricative nasal lateral

I

2. fj] 3.

WEAKpaJatal

I

I

*

*!

*!

' I

''

*

I

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

In Table 6.16, candidates #2 through #5 all preserve the palatal place of articulation of the input /j/, but fatally violate PRESapproximant• Thus, the faithful output [j] in candidate # 1 emerges as the winner. The selection of the fricative fj], on the other hand, will be determined by the ranking of PRESapproximant below WEAK and HONSET constraints, as in (40). (40)

PRESpalatal lateral

>> WEAK

palatal (plosive, lateral)

>>

HONS ET plosive, fricative, nasal,

>> PRESapproximant

Under the ranking in (39), the optimal output is expected to preserve the input's palatal place of articulation and satisfy WEAKpaJatal (plosive, nasal, lateral) constraints, as shown in Table 6.17.

Table 6.17 /j/ > fj] /-j-1

PRES

palatal

plosive lateral plosive fricative nasal lateral

I. [j] I&

*

2. [j]

3.

fJJ

4. [A]

HONSET

WEAKpaJatal

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

*! *!

*

PRES approx.

*

u In Tables 6.16 and 6.17, PRES, 10541 is assumed to be ranked above WEAKplllntnl na~~l due to the occurrence of palatal nasal consonants in onset position, e.g. Lat. ARANEA > Sp., Pt. am[Jl]a 'spider'.

190

PALATAL

SOUND CHANGE

IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

In Table 6.17, candidates #3, #4, and #5 all fatallyviolate WEAKpalataJ constraints (i.e. WEAKpalatal plosive• WEAKpalatnJ nasal> and WEAKpalatal lateral> respectively). Candidates #l and #2, on the other hand, satisfy WEAKpalataJ constraints, but violate HoNSE1\,losivc• Thus, the determination of the most harmonic output is relegated to HoNSETfncative• which selects candidate #2, since candidate # 1 fatally violates it. Next, the ranking in (40) may become more frequent and, thus, the variation between [j] and Li]may eventually settle in favor of the fricative, which was the case in the history of Spanish. A subsequent evolution of Li]into [3] reveals a fortition process by the acquisition of sibilance, while still preserving its fricative manner. Put another way, the strengthening that derives from the acquisition of sibilance entails a fronted realization, i.e. from the central palatal region toward the palato-alveolar region. Therefore, PRESmanner must outrank HoNSETplosive and both HONSETsib-fricative and HoNSETnon-sib-fricative· Assuming the fronted articulation of [3] in comparison with that of ULit is reasonable to posit that the former would incur a violation of lowly ranked PRESpiace· The ranking in (41) indicates this scenario. (41)

PRESmanncr >> HONSETpJosive >> HONSETsib-fricative >> HONSETnon-sib-fncative >> PRESpJace·

The constraint ranking in (39) predicts that in the fortition of /j/, a palatal stop lt] will be blocked from surfacing because it would fatally violate the most highly ranked constraint PRESmanner· Thus, a sibilant fricative [3] is expected to surface as the most harmonic output given the constraint ranldng in (39), as shown in Table 6.18. Table 6.18 /j/ > [3) ljl

PRES

HoNSET manner plosive

* *

1. [jJ ~

2. [3}

3. [j]

*!

HONSET fricative

sib

non-sib

PREs place

*' * *

*

*

In Table 6.18, candidate #3 (i.e. the palatal plosive [j]) is ruled out for representing a strengthened realization of the input that does not preserve the fricative manner of articulation, thus fatally violating PRES111anncr•Candidates # 1 and #2, on the other hand, satisfy PRESmannerHowever, because both of

6.4 PATHWAYS FOR PALATAL OBSTRUENTS

191

them violate the next ranked constraint HoNSETpJoslve, the selection of the winning candidate is relegated to H0NSBTfr1cauve• Candidate #2 surfaces as the output, as it satisfies HoNSBTsib-fricatlve, while candidate # 1 is ruled out because it fatally violates it. When the listener (re)analyzes /'!,/as the input from the acoustic signal, a sound change occurs. In the present approach, /j/ > /'!,/is formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [i]) and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. /3/), as seen in (42}. (42)

Speaker's input: /j/ PRESpJace >> HoNSETplosive Faithful output fj_],determined by PRESmanner,

>> HONSETsib-fricative >> HONSETnon-sib-fricative• Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [3], determined by PRESmanner>> HONSETplosive >> HONSETsibfricative

>> HONSETnon-sib-fricative >> PRESplace·

etc. Listener's input: /3/

>> Faithful output: [3], determined by PRESmanner>> HONSETpiosive HoNSETsib-fricative >> H0NSETnon-sib-fricative >> PRESplacein the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /j/. With regard to the devoicing of /3/ into If/, Penny (2002: 98-101} points out that this change occurred during the sixteenth century, as part of the overall sibilant devoicing that took place in the history of Spanish. While fully accounting for sibilant devoicing is beyond the scope of this book (cf. Joos 1952; Kiddle 1977; Bradley and Delforge 2006; and Zarnpaulo 2013 for comprehensive approaches), it is worth illustrating how the change /3/ > If/ may be modeled under the present approach. As mentioned in Chapter 3, voiced fricatives are inherently difficult to produce, because "high volume velocity is needed to produce the turbulent noise characteristic of fricatives, and [at the same time] the vibrating vocal cords [generating voicing] impede the flow of air through the vocal tract" (Johnson 2013: 156). Thus, we may infer that, during the production of a voiced fricative such as [3], the need for turbulence conflicts with the need to maintain voicing. Throughout the evolution of Spanish, this conflict is often resolved in favor of the need for turbulence, the result of which produces the devoicing of fricatives, illustrated in the devoicing of /3/ into If/ from Old to Medieval Spanish, and a similar

9 192

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

change event currently taking place in many varieties of Argentine and Uruguayan Spanish. 14 In the present analysis, the need for the maintenance of voicing is formalized as the faithfulness constraint PRESvoicing• which may present gradient values in the same spirit as PRESplace• as indicated in (43), (43)

PRES10o(voicing)

>> PRES99(voiclng) >> PRES9s(voiclng)

• • • >> PRBSI(voiclng)

where PRES 1oo(voicing) militates for the maintenance of 100% (i.e. the maximal preservation) of the input cues for voicing, and PRESi(volcing) pushes for the preservation of I% (i.e. the minimal preservation) of the input cues for voicing. As the place and manner of articulation in the change /3/ > If/ are preservedand the same is assumed for the devoicing of Id?,/into /tf/ in the history of other Romance varieties-the constraints PRESplace, PRESmanner• and WEAK must be all highly ranked. It is necessary, then, to bring other constraints that conflict with PRESvoicing• i.e. constraints that militate for the turbulence of noise in fricatives to be voiceless. As Smith (1997) and Widdison (1997) point out, voiceless sibilants tend to be preferred over voiced sibilants, as the former are more perceptually salient than the latter because of the longer duration and higher noise intensity in the production of voiceless sibilants. If we recall that consonants are also perceptually salient in onset position (Beckman 1997, 1998), we infer that sibilants in such position are likely to be voiceless. We invoke, then, Bradley and Delforge's (2006: 32) markedness constraint o[s and formalize it in (44). (44)

o(s: A sibilant in syllable-initial position is [-voice]. (Bradley and Delforge 2006: 32)

This constraint militates for sibilants in onset position to be voiceless and, thus, will rule out candidates that display any degree of voicing. Hence, we expect it to conflict directly with PRESvoicing• As the history of many Romance varieties show, the voiceless palato-alveolars If/ and /tf/ sometimes emerge from their respective voiced counterparts /3/ and /d.?,/.In the present approach, a voiceless sibilant realization of a voiced input is motivated by top-ranking o[s over PRBSvoiclng, as formalized in (45). (45)

o[s >> PRES10ovolcing•., >> PRESsovolclng•

This ranking predicts that any candidate with a complete or partial preservation of voicing in the output will be ruled out by highly ranked o[s. Thus, for

14

See Robena Madrazo (2015) for the completionof /3/ > /J/ in BuenosAires Spanish.

___J

6.4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

OBSTRUENTS

193

example, UJ should emerge as the selected output of /3/, given the dominance hierarchy in (45). This scenario is illustrated in Table 6.19. Table 6.19 /3/ > U1

/3'

a[s)

1. [3)

*I

2. [3]

*!

PRESvoicing

100

w 3. U1

50

* *

*

In Table 6.19, candidate #1 (i.e. fully voiced [31) and candidate #2 (i.e. devoiced [:~]) are ruled out for their fatal violation of highly ranked a[s, as this constraint militates for a sibilant in onset position to be completely voiceless. Candidate #3 emerges as the output in this constraint ranking because it satisfies cr[s, despite violating lowly ranked all PRESvoidng constraints. In the present approach, the devoicing of /3/ into /ff (and, by extension, that of /03/ into /tf/) is formally captured by a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [3]} and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. If!), as shown in (46). (46)

Speaker's input: /3/ Faithful output [3], determined by PRES 100vo1cing.•• >> PRESs0voicmg>> cr[s. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g.

m.determined by a[s >> PRES10ovoidng·

•• >> PRESsovoicing·

etc. Listenees grammar: If/ Faithful output: (fl, determined by a[s >> PRES100voicing ..• >> PRESsovoicing in the grammar of the original speaker, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker's input /3/. As discussed in Chapter 5, the evolution of the obstruent [J] and that of l..2 started to cross paths in the history of Spanish, likely during medieval times, giving rise to YEiSMO. With regard to [J],its evolution suggests that it probably had already developed a weakened pronunciation (e.g. fj]) in intervocalic position at some point already in Old Spanish. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that other voiced plosives changed in similar fashion. For example,

"'1 194

PALATAL

SOUND

CHANGE

IN THE ROMANCE

LANGUAGES

Penny (2002: 78) points out that Old Spanish /d/ was pronounced as an As for bilabial approximant [q] in words like ca[9]ena'chain' (> WEAK1xVoicedPlosive(V_V),,, >> HONSETpJosivc >> HONSETfricativc >> H0NSETgiide >> WEAKo.sxV01cedPlosive(V _V)· · · >> WEAKo.zsxVoicedPlosive (V_V)·

The ranking in (47) predicts that a weakened output of a voiced obstruent will necessarily preserve its place of articulation, since PRESpJacc is the most highly ranked constraint. The second highly ranked constraint, WEAKtxVoicedPiosive (V_V),will rule out any output with a voiced plosive realization in intervocalic position. The hierarchy ofHoNSETconstraints will, then, determine the degree of "strength" of the weakened output, as illustrated in Table 6.20. Table6.20 !JI > [j] /-J-/

PRESpJace WEAKvokedPlosivc (V_V)

palatal 1. [-J-] i;-E

plosive

HONSET

fricative

* *

3. [-j-]

*!

HONSET

glide

lx *!

2. [-j-]

4.0

HONSET

*

*!

*

*

* *

WEAKvolcedPlosl\'c (V_V)

0.5x

0.25x

*

*

*

In Table 6.20, candidate #4 (0) incurs a fatal violation of highly ranked

PRESpJace and is then ruled out. Candidate #1 (i.e. the voiced palatal plosive f.t])satisfies PRESpiacc• but fatally violates WEAKtxVoicedObst(V _V)•The selection of the output of !JI is then relegated to the degree of lenition in palatal

6.4

PATHWAYS

FOR PALATAL

OBSTRUBNTS

195

constriction. As HONSETfricntlve outranks HONSETglide,candidate #3 is ruled out and candidate #2, i.e. fj], emerges as the optimal output, despite the fact that both candidates violate HONSETpJosive• A similar analysis applies to the voiced is formalized as a difference in constraint plosives /b d g/. The emergence of Li1 ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input (i.e. [-J-]) and the listener's interpretation and use of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker's input (i.e. [-j-l), as shown in (48).

(48)

Speaker's input: /j/ Faithful

intervocalic

output:

[-J-], determined

by PRESpJace>>

>> HONSETfricative >> HONSETglide >> WEAKtxVoicedPlosive (V_V)• • · >> WEAKo.SxVoicedPlosive(V_V) · · · >> WEAKo.25xVoicedP!osive(V_V). HoNSETpJosive

Other possible, unfaithful intervocalic outputs: E.g. [-j-], determined by PRESpJace>> WEAK1xVoicedPlosive(V_V)·">> HONSETpJosive >> HONSETfricative >> HONSETglide >> WEAKo.sxVokedPlosive(V_V) · • · >> WEAKo.25xVoicedPlosive(V_V)• etc. Listener's input: !JI Faithful

intervocalic

output: • • >>

[-j-], determined by PRESplace >> WEAK1xVoicedPlosive(V_V), HONSETplosive >> HONSETfricative >> HONSETgJide >> WEAKo.sxVoicedPlosive(V_V), • · >> WEAKo.25xVolcedPlosive (V_V)in the original speaker's grammar, which represents an unfaithful, intervocalic realization to the speaker's input /J/. In Modern Spanish, /J/ (with its allophones [j-] and [-j-]) started to merge further with the evolutionary patterns of Az.The delateralization of 1.. 2 initially gave rise to *[j], in the same fashion as the evolution of Ai (cf. Table 6.15), and this palatal glide subsequently underwent fortition and merged with the evolutionary patterns of !JI, namely, as a palatal plosive [j] word-initially and as a palatal fricative [j] intervocalically. With regard to the former, one can motivate the same evolutionary pattern as that of word-initial Latin /j-/, by the ranking of HoNSET over PRESmannerand WEAK (cf. Table 6.11). In intervocalic position, however, [ < A2 ) is assumed to have rapidly leveled with [-j_-J (< !JI), as the difference in palatal constriction between the two segments was likely not high enough to maintain a hypothetical contrast (recall the reconstructed free variation stage between [-j-] and [-j-l from Ai,illustrated in Tables6.16 and 6.17). Moreover, any attempt to strengthen these segments to an intervocalic palatal plosive was blocked by the effects of highly-ranked

+] (

196

PALATAL SOUND CHANGE IN THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES

WBAK1xVokedPloslve(V _V}over HONSET.Thus, by the Moden1 Spanish period, YEiSMOhad already arisen in a few (mostly southern) dialects, where speakers had merged A2 with /j/. However, many current varieties of Spanish still preserve A2as such (see Chapter 5), while other dialects and other Romance languages are displaying the same evolutionary cycle of /Al once again, i.e. by giving rise to a palatal glide [j] as its first immediate evolutionary step, as formalized in Table6.15. When considering the evolutionary pathways of palatals in the history of Romance, one notices that the different realizations of these sounds in contemporary dialects reflect different historical stages. For example, the delateralization of /Al, the fortition of syllable-initial /j/, the deaffrication of /tf [3] illustrates a similar evolutionary pathway as the proposed [j] stage (< A1) in the history of Spanish (cf. Table 6.18) and as the fricative [j] from the YEiSTApronunciation of nineteenth-century Buenos Aires (cf. Chapter 5). The only difference here is that, in scattered parts of Andalusia, A2is still preserved. Hence, a new type of DISTINCTION emerges, i.e. one between /J:Jand /3/. Other dialects where f..2is still preserved (e.g. Paraguay, Northeastern Argentina, the Andes, etc.) maintain the same contrast with the palatal obstruent /j/ from the Old Spanish period, with the exception of one area, i.e. the Northeastern Argentine province of Corrientes. In this region, f..2is currently undergoing delateralization, from which the palatal glide [j] is emerging, exactly as the proposed steps for f..1 and f..2 (cf. Table 6.15). In Corrientes Spanish, however, the emerging glide [j] contrasts with the palatal obstruent [j] (Colantoni 2004). This is crucial for the present analysis because it suggests that a similar contrast may also have been likely in the initial stages of the development of Spanish. Moreover, it suggests that in this dialect, /j/ has not undergone weakening intervocalically. Corrientes Spanish /j/ illustrates, then, a ranking in which PRESpJacc and PRESmanner both outrank WEAKcvpal)Cpal(Vpal) constraints, so that /j/ is realized as [-J-], hence contrasting with [-j-] (< IJ:J).

6.5

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUDING

REMARKS

199

6.5 Summary and concluding remarks This chapter has presented a formal analysis of the (re)occurrence of the most important palatal sound changes illustrated in Chapters 4 and 5. By invoking a HoNSBT, and a[s) and small group of constraints (i.e. WEAKENING, PRESERVE, assuming the interaction between the speaker and the listener in the emergence of a sound change (cf. Chapter 2), the present discussion has demonstrated how similar palatal change events in Romance have taken place in different varieties and/or in the diachrony of same language, across different historical periods. Despite acknowledging that not every sound change may have its seed in phonetics (recall the assumed analogical processes involved in the evolution of Latin /pl- kl- fl-1),the present approach illustrates how the use of phonetically based constraints helps us to capture the inherent gradient character associated with most of the discussed changes. Similarly, the emerging nature of those constraints and their (re)ranking in the interaction between speaker and listener is shown to bring diachrony and synchrony together and, thus, provide us with the necessary tools to achieve a unified account in the study of palatal variation and change. Put another way, a diachronic approach helps us to explain why synchronic patterns have come to be so varied, while historical issues greatly benefit from the insights of synchronic dialectal realizations, so that hypotheses for sound change reconstructions are put forth under a grounded and principled perspective.

7 Final remarks

By considering the role of phonetics in the shaping of phonological patterns (Ohala 1981, 1989, 1993, 2012; Hayes 1999; Hayes and Steriade 2004; Jun 2004), this book approaches variation and change patterns in Romance palatals from its inception during the speaker-listener interaction and formalizes it as the difference in constraint ranking between the grammar of the speaker and that of the listener-turned-speaker. This perspective has shed light upon how and why similar palatal change events have taken place in different Romance varieties and/or within the same language across different periods of time. Moreover, the use of synchronic dialectal data to understand patterns of diachronic evolution has revealed itself as relevant and pertinent to filling in the gap between the present and the past of the aforementioned sounds in the Romance family. The analyses in this book have provided, then, a unified and comprehensive explanation for the evolution of such sounds and their current dialectal manifestations. More specifically, the previous chapters have offered a detailed discussion of the interplay among the phonetics, phonology, history, and current dialectology of Romance palatals, and how they manifest themselves in phonological merger processes and different patterns of contrast. By unfolding the continuum between the past and the present of palatal sounds, the present study has aimed to advance the study of palatal sound variation and change in Romance, utilizing the manifestations of those sounds in present-day dialects to shed light upon issues in their historical evolution, and conversely, taking diachronic development as a critical tool to account for synchronic dialectal patterns. Thus, synchrony and diachrony are regarded here not as two necessarily dichotomic perspectives, but rather as complementary viewpoints toward a successful understanding of sound patterns across related languages and, many times, also among varieties of the same language. Using phonetic information to motivate a formal analysis of palatal sound variation and change has provided the present study with the necessary tools to help answer why the discussed changes could occur in the first place-as opposed to only describing their documented or reconstructed evolutionand, more important, how it is possible for them to reoccur in distinct periods PalatalSoundChangein the RomanceLanguages.First edition. Andre Zrunpaulo.

coAndre Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford UniversityPress.

FINAL

REMARKS

201

of different varieties or within the diachrony of the same language. The presence of similar phonetic environments-both in the past and in the present-ensure a grounded motivation for similar patterns of sound change to arise. Put another way, once the same phonetic conditions are met, similar change events may take place during the speaker-listener interaction at different points in time. In terms of the formal analysis provided in Chapter 6, similar phonetic environments may give rise to similar constraint (re)rankings in the evolution of the sound pattern of a language. Thus, considering the phonetics of sounds, their inherent variation in production, and how the seed of change arises in the speaker-listener interaction, the present study has exemplified how related evolutionary pathways can arise and be accounted for in a straightforward, non-teleological manner. For example, the emergence of the palatal glide [j] from the delateralization of the palatal lateral consonant I IJ throughout the history of virtually all of the Romance languages is understood as the listener's interpretation (as input) of the full weakening of the tongue tip gesture and deletion oflaterality in the speaker's production of /IJ, which is formalized by the effects of top-ranking WEAKi_, alveolar and PRESpalatal constraints. On the other hand, the fronting of the palatal fricative /j/ into the palato-alveolar [3] is captured by the outranking of HoNSETover PRESp!ace in the speaker's production of /j/, while still preserving its fricative manner, hence crucially satisfying top-ranked PRESfrJcative• When the listener interprets I 3/ as the input from the acoustic signal, the change /j/ > /3/ occurs. The devoicing of palato-alveolars /3/ and /dt,/ into /J/ and /tf/, respectively, derives from the listener's interpretation of the latter two consonants as inputs, formalized by top-ranking the constraint cr[s over PRESvoicing in the speaker's production of the voiced palato-alveolars. At a theoretical level, the present study lends support to phonetically based approaches to phonological patterns. It illustrates how a small group of phonetically motivated constraints (e.g. WEAKENINGand PRESERVE)and constraints that make reference to different prosodic positions (e.g. H0NSET and cr[s) help to capture and formalize the inherent gradience associated with phonetic changes, at least in their beginning stages. Furthermore, the model adopted here demonstrates how a sound change event at the level of the individual manifests itself as a constraint reranking between the faithful realization to the speaker's input and the listener's interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the original speaker's input. Therefore, the proposal put forth in this book combines-and builds upon-theoretical insights of two previously competing approaches, i.e. one thoroughly phonetic and focused on the language user (Ohala 1981, 1989, 1993, 2012), and another

202

FINAL REMARKS

centered on the abstraction of constraints as the individual's phonological competence (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]). While this study brings together insights from much of the phonetics, phonology, dialectology, and history of palatals in Romance, its analyses and hypotheses invariably generate many other questions that await a satisfying answer. With regard to synchronic dialectal data, much remains to be done to unveil and confirm the current status of palatal patterns in parts of the Romance-speaking world. For example, if we follow a similar sociophonetic methodology as that of Ruiz Martinez's (2003) documentation of the Spanish spoken in Northeastern Madrid and apply it to other Romance varieties, we hypothesize that additional allophones will be reported in areas where palatal pronunciation has so far been understood in categorical terms or where new allophones will add to the envelope of palatal variation. In other words, detailed acoustic analyses will likely reveal further variation in speakers' palatal production, which meets the predictions of the theoretical approach pursued in this book. Under the present approach, these additional realizations are formalized by different constraint rankings in the grammar of those speakers. The emergence of a new change event will, then, arise from the listener's interpretation (as input) of an unfaithful realization to the original speaker's input. While the precise moment of change (or in Janda's (2003) terms, the "Big Bang" moment of sound change) is arguably impossible to witness, it still remains feasible to predict under the present study's theoretical approach and empirically verify in the laboratory. One telling case is the documented [j]-fronting and subsequent emergence of [3] in Andalusian Spanish. Further research and acoustic analysis will elucidate the systematicity of the contrast between [3] (< fj]) and [A] and testify the occurrence of this pattern of DISTINCTION, which also falls under the predictions of the theoretical model developed here. Similarly, phonetic experiments will reveal if such pattern of DISTINCTION holds in different prosodic positions, such as word-initially and word-medially. A phonetic approach that makes use of acoustic analysis will also shed light upon patterns of [A]-delateralization in the Corrientes province of Argentina, and the DISTINCTION between the emergent glide [j] and the obstruent WJ, supporting the hypothesis of a similar change event in the history of Spanish. Fieldwork in neighboring provinces such as Misiones, Chaco, and Formosa may also bring forth more data and a broadened view on this process, which is predicted under the current model by top-ranking WEAK(.(,alveolar) and PRESpalatal constraints. Also predicted here is the possible affrication of /31 and ff/ into [d.3]and [tj], respectively, by top-ranldng HoNSET over PRES(place)•

PINAL REMARKS

203

Indeed, Fernandez Trinidad (2010) reports the occurrence of [d.3] in phrase-initial position in Argentine Spanish. The occurrence of [lf] (< If!) in the same dialect has been claimed elsewhere (cf. Penny 2002; Rost 2013), but still awaits a definitive empirical verification from phonetic studies like the opposite direction of this change (i.e. Ul < /tf/) has received in varieties of Northern Mexico and Central America (cf. Chapter 5). On theoretical grounds, the present study invites further research on the nature of the constraints used in its analyses. For example, Jun's (2004) model concerns how categorical and gradient place assimilation can be formalized in a phonetically based formal account. Thus, it assumes that information related to manner of articulation is preserved during place assimilation. However, one may further investigate whether manner of articulation can also present gradient values, i.e. PRES10o(manner) >> PRES99(manner) >> PRES9s(manner) • • • >> PREs1 cmanner), following the gradient reduction of gestures. Moreover, a precise investigation into what exactly constitutes manner cues would enhance the scope of such a model. For example, perceptual studies may reveal if and how listeners are able to identify the assumed cues of manner of articulation depending on the degree of gestural weakening. Put a different way, how much weakening may a gesture incur while still preserving identifiable information related to manner of articulation that the listener is able to correctly perceive? What would the consequences be for the formalization of PRESmanner and its role in constraint (re)ranking with PRESptace and WEAK during the speaker-listener interaction? The findings of this research will undoubtedly contribute to improving our understanding of how listeners internalize different underlying representations than the ones stored in the speaker's grammar and, thus, will also shed light upon the underpinnings of sound change at the level of the individual.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX

1

Demographic questions Por favor, conteste las siguientes preguntas. 1. iQue dia es hoy?

2. >.Comose llama usted? 3. iQue hace? iDonde trabaja? 4. iCuantos afios tiene? 5. iDonde nacio? 6. iQue idiomas habla? 7. tEn que pafses y ciudades ha vivido? 8. iCuanto tiempo lleva viviendo en su domicilio actual? 9. iQue hace en su tiempo libre? 10. tQue es lo que mas le gusta de esta regi6n? >.Ylo que menos le gusta? 11. tPuede contarme una anecdota de cuando era nifto/a? 12. >.Deque forma era la vida diferente cuando era nifio/a? 13. >.Cualesson algunas de las tradiciones de esta region? 14. En su opinion, tcuales son las principales diferencias entre la gente de su regi6n y la gente de otras zonas de Argentina? 15. >.Cualesson algunas de las principales fiestas de su region y c6mo se celebran?

/!J en espafiol.' Revista de filologfaespafiola70: 317-27. Toscano Mateus, Humberto (1953). El espaiiolen el Ecuador.Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas. Trwnper, John (1997). 'Calabria and southern Basilicata', in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialectsof Italy. New York: Routledge, 355-64. Tuten, Donald N. (2003). Koineizationin MedievalSpanish.Berlin: de Gruyter. Tuttle, Edward (1975). 'The development of PL, BL, and FL in Italo-Romance: Distinctive features and geolinguistc patterns', RLiR 39: 400-31. Tuttle, Edward (1977). 'Sociolinguistics and philology applied to an Italian phonologic asymmetry', in Robert J. Di Pietro and Edward L. Blansitt, Jr. (eds), The Third Lacus Forum.Columbia, SC: Hornbeam, 605-13. Tuttle, Edward (1979). 'Sviluppo delle palatali stridule nell'italiano', in Alberto Varvaro (ed.), Atti del XV Congressointernazionaledi linguisticae filologia romanza, vol. 3. Naples and Amsterdam: Macchiaroli and John Benjamins, 87-100. Tuttle, Edward F. (1986). 'Alpine systems of Romance sibilants', in Gunter Holtus and Kurt Ringger (eds), Raetia antiqua et moderna. W. TheodorElwert zum 80. Geburtstag. Tu.bingen: Max Niemeyer, 315-30. Utgard, Katrine (2010). 'El espanol de Guatemala', in Miguel Angel Quesada Pacheco (ed.), El espafiolhablado en America Central.Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/ V ervuert, 49-82. Vasiliu, Emanuel (1968). Fonologiaistoriciia dialectelordacoromdne.Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania. Vazquez Obrador, Jesus (2011). Sohrefonetica historicadel aragones.Uesca: Publicazions d'o Consello d'a Fabla Aragonesa Veny, Joan and Mar Massanell (2015). Dialectologiacatalana:aproximaci6practica als parlarscatalans.Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Vidal de Battini, Berta Elena (1964). El espafiolde la Argentina.Buenos Aires: Consejo Nadonal de Educaci6n. Vincent, Nigel (1988). 'Latin', in Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance languages.New York: Oxford University Press, 26-78. Wagner, Claudio {1996). 'Chile', in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectologia hispanica: El espanolde America.Barcelona: Ariel Lingil.istica,222-9. Walker, Douglas C. and Rejean Canac-Marquis (2016). 'French in Alberta: A speaker from Riviere-la-Paix', in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varietiesof spokenFrench.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 279-89. Walker, Rachel (2001). 'Positional markedness in vowel harmony', in Caroline Fery, Antony Dubach Green, and Ruben van de Vijver (eds), Proceedings of HILP5:Linguistics in Potsdam,Postdam: University of Potsdam Press, 212-32.

REFERENCES

229

Walker, Rachel (2004). 'Vowel feature licensing at a distance: Evidence from Northern Spanish language varieties', Proceedingsof WCCFL23: 787-800. Walker, Rachel (2005). 'Weak triggers in vowel harmony', Natural Languageand Linguistic Theory 23: 917-89. Walter, Henriette (1982). Enquete phonologiqueet varietes regionalesdu franfais. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Wang, William S.-Y. (1969). 'Competing changes as a cause ofresidue', Language45: 9-25. Wang, William S.-Y. (1979). 'Language change - a lexical perspective', Annual Review of Anthropology8: 353-71, Wanner, Dieter (2006). The power of analogy:An essayon historicallinguistics.New York: de Gruyter. Wheeler, Max W. (1988a). 'Catalan', in Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance languages.New York: Oxford University Press, 170-208. Wheeler, Max W. (1988b). 'Occitan', in Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance languages.New York: Oxford University Press, 246-78. Widdison, Kirk A. (1997). 'Phonetic explanations of sibilant patterns in Spanish', Lingua 102: 253-64. Williams, Edwin B. (1962). From Latin to Portuguese.2nd edn. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Wireback, Kenneth J. (1997). The roleof phonologicalstructurein sound changefrom Latin to Spanish and Portuguese.New York: Peter Lang. Wireback, Kenneth J. (2010a). 'A reexamination of the palatalization of Latin /kt/ in the light of phonetic research', in Daniel Recasens, Fernando Sanchez Miret, and Kenneth J. Wireback (eds), Experimentalphoneticsand sound change.Munich: Lincom, 99-114. Wireback, Kenneth J. (2010b). 'On the palatalization of /rJn/ in Western Romance and Italo-Romance', RomancePhilology64: 295-306. Wolf, Clara and Elena Jimenez (1979). 'El ensordecimiento del yeismo porteflo', in Ana Maria y dialectologicos. Buenos Aires: Hachette, 115-45. Barrenechea (ed.), Estudioslingufsticos Wright, Richard (2004), 'A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness', in Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds), Phoneticallybasedphonology.New York: Cambridge University Press, 34-57. Yu, Alan C. L. (ed.) (2013). Origins of sound change:Approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yu, Alan C. L. (2015). 'The role of experimental investigation in understanding sound change', in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historicalphonology.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 410-28. espanola.2nd edn. Madrid: Gredos. Zamora Vicente, Alonso (1967). Dialectolog{a Zampaulo, Andre (2013). 'Sibilant dissimilation in the history of Spanish: An informationtheoretic approach', in Chad Howe, Sarah E. Blackwell, and Margaret Lubbers Quesada (eds), SelectedProceedingsof the 15th HispanicLinguisticsSymposium.Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 172-8. Zampaulo, Andre (2014). 'Los caminos diacr6nicos de la lateral palatal en la historia del castellano: evidencia cronologica, comparativa y dialectal para una nueva propuesta', Revista de la LenguaEspanola8: 149-74. Zampaulo, Andre (2015). 'The evolution of the (alveolo)palatal lateral consonant in Spanish and Portuguese', in Dag T. T. Haug (ed.), HistoricalLinguistics2013:Selected

Papersfrom the 21st International Conferenceon Historical Linguistics (ICHL 21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69-86. Zampaulo, Andre (2019). Os sons do portugues: Uma introduplo pratica a fonetica e pronuncia da Unguaportuguesa.London: Routledge.

a

Index alveolo-palatal 2, 3, 42-4, 186 analogy l I, 21, 53, 66-8, 80, 90, 142, 162, 172 Aragonese 1,59-60,63-8, 71-7, 164 Asturian 40, 51, 63, 68-72, 110 Catalan 1, 8, 31, 35, 39, 44, 54-5, 59-66, 70-1, 75-7,85, 100, 110-13, 146-7 coarticulation 13, 22, 26, 36, 65, 68, 86, 93,162,165 coronalization 124-5, 129-30, 141 Corsican 1, 63, 74-5, 145 Dalmatian l, 89-90, 149 deaffrication 92, 94, 108, 116-17, 150, 186,196 delateralization 50, 54-5, 61-4, 68-9, 100, 104-5, 109, 111-12, 120,126, 143-4, 146-7, 150,169, 186-8, 195-8,201-2 depalatalization 37, 55, 104, 121, 145 devoicing 44-5, 68, 112, 123-4, 141, 150, 186, 191-3, 196,201 diachrony 3-4, 128,149,196, 199-201 electropalatogram 32-7, 41 Emilian-Romagnol 63, 75

/

faithfulness 17, 155, 192 formant 22,33-4,36,38,41-2,66, 132 fortition 79, 82n9, 83-8, 150, 177-8, 190, 195-6, 198 Francoproven~al 1,63,66,68, 75,148 French 1, 8, 13, 23, 35, 38, 50, SS, 62-4, 67-8,75-6, 78,80,82,86,90,92,96, 128, 144-5 friction 34, 39-40, 42, 59, 77, 83-7 Friulian 1, 63, 75, 92, 147-8 fronting 23,56-7,66,91-4, 161,165, 174-5, 179, 186,201-2 Galician 1, 8, 63-4, 68-71, 75, 82, 100, 109-10

Gallo-Romance 1, 51-60, 63-4, 68, 72-3, 75,80,91-3,96, 100,144,164 geminate 46, 70-1, 73-4, 76, 78, 81-3, 88, 94, 162-4 Hispano-Romance 55, 58, 82-3, 182 hypercorrection 21, 23-4, 93nl 7, 100 hypocorrection 21-4 Ibero-Romance 1,39-40,49,58-60, 62-4, 67-8, 71-2, 75,81-2,89-90,93, 98-100, 164,172,196 Italian 1,8,24,34-5,42,51,55, 63, 65, 75, 90, 93-4, 103, 128, 145, 147-8 Italo-Romance 1, 62-4, 70, 73-5, 79-82, 87,92,95, 100,145 Judeo-Spanish 89, 103, 142-3 Ladin 1,63-4,68, 75,103, 148-9 lenition 54-8, 67-70, 194 Leonese 1, 13,59,60,63-7, 70-2, 75, 77, 82,89-90, 104,110,164 Lexicon Optimization 16,29, 152,158 Ligurian 63, 75, 146, 148 listener 5, 10, 11, 14, 19-30, 36, 38-9, 77, 83,90, 121,126, 152-4, 158-74, 177-203 conservative 26, 28-9 innovative 26,28-9,36, 39,121,126 listener-turned-speaker 5, 14, 19-25, 28, 30,45,89,94, 150,200 Lombard 63, 75,148 Luso-Romance 52 markedness 17-19, 155, 164, 177, 192 metathesis 53, 93, 161-2 Neapolitan 63, 74-5 Norman 92

232

INDEX

Occitan 1, 3, 8, 35, 43, 63-6, 73, 75, 148 optimal 14-19, 165n4, 170, 173, 176, 180, 183-4, 187,189,195, 197-8 Optimality Theory 6, 14, 16, 152 Picard 92, 144 Piedmontese 63, 75, 148 Portuguese 1, 7-8, 13, 31, 35-8, 52n5, 53-4,59,62-5,68-71,75-6,82,85,90, 100,104, 143-4, 153 Proto-Romance 47,49,51,81 Quechua 119-20, 127-9 reanalysis 14, 21, 23, 81 retroflex 2,42-3, 73-7, 147,164 Rhaeto-Romance 1, 8, 39, 63-4, 72, 75, 92, 100,147 rhoticization 76 Ribagorzan 63, 66 Romanian 1, 8, 32, 51, 53, 55, 62-8, 75-8, 85, 90,149 Romansh 1,42,63, 75,149

Sardinian 1, 3, 8, 32, 51, 63-4, 75, 77, 79, 89-91,94, 100, 145-7 Sicilian 32, 63-4, 74-5 speech community 9-14, 24-5, 29, 45,141 synchrony 3-4, 149,196, 199-200 syncope Sln4, 52, 54,56, 71,159 Tuscan 1, 63, 74, 87-8, 145-6, 148 Universal Grammar 18 violation 15, 151, 154-5, 160, 170, 173, 178, 180, 190, 193-4, 197-8 vocalization 52n5, 53, 56-7, 80, 82, 95, 159-60 weakening 57,67-70,82, 154-66, 173, 178,180, 184-7, 194,196,198, 201,203

yod 3,60-1