Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated] 9780198807384, 0198807384

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS General Editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory Editors Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of 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      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 André Zampaulo For a complete list of titles published and in preparation for the series, see pp. 233–6.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives ANDRÉ ZAMPAULO

1

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3

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 excellence 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 © André Zampaulo 2019 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2019 Impression: 1 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 bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

Contents Series preface Acknowledgments List of abbreviations

1. Introduction 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

vii ix xi

1

The Romance languages Romance “palatals” Approach and objectives 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 of palatal vowels and the glide [j] The phonetics of palatal sonorants The phonetics of palatal obstruents Summary and concluding remarks

4. Palatals in the history of the Romance languages 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The emergence of Latin  4.3 The emergence of the palatal lateral [ʎ] 4.3.1 First-stage [ʎ] (ʎ₁) 4.3.2 Second-stage [ʎ] (ʎ₂)

8 10 10 11 14 16 19 20 21 26 29

31 31 32 34 39 44

46 46 47 49 49 62

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 5/7/2019, SPi

vi

 4.4 The emergence of the palatal nasal [ ɲ] 4.4.1 [-nj-] 4.4.2 [ɡn] and [nː] 4.5 The emergence of palatal obstruents 4.5.1 [j-] 4.5.2 [dj ɡj j] 4.5.3 [ɡi ɡe ɡɛ] and [ki ke kɛ] 4.5.4 *[kæ ɡæ] 4.5.5 [sj] and [s̺] 4.5.6 [tj kj] 4.5.7 [kt ks] 4.5.8 [pl kl fl bl ɡl] and [pj bj mj vj] 4.6 Summary and concluding remarks

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

5. Palatals in the Romance languages today

99

5.1 Introduction 5.2 Palatals in Ibero-Romance varieties 5.2.1 The rise and spread of ˊ in 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 Summary and concluding remarks

144 145 147 149

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

150

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Introduction Sound change as constraint reranking Pathways for the emergence and evolution of palatal sonorants Pathways for the emergence and evolution of palatal obstruents Summary and concluding remarks

7. Final remarks

99 100 100 105 113 143

150 151 153 172 199

200

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

References Index

207 208 209

211 231

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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 University of Cambridge

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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 Martínez-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 Gómez Sánchez, James Hussar, Juan Ishikawa, Enric MallorquíRuscalleda, Madalena Sánchez 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. André Zampaulo Fullerton, California November 2018

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

List of abbreviations . * > Ara. Aro. Ast. Ast.-Leo. Bar. C Cal. Cast.-Sp. Cat. Cln. Cor. Cpd. Dal. Egd. Em.-Rom.  F1 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 Ibero-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 of Italy) 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 Francoprovençal (Gallo-Romance dialects spoken in central eastern France, western Switzerland, and northwestern Italy) Friulian (dialect group of Friuli, northeastern Italy) Galician (Ibero-Romance language of northwestern Spain) Gascon input International Phonetic Alphabet Istro-Romanian (Daco-Romance dialects spoken in Istria, Croatia)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

xii

  

It. J-Sp. Lad. Lat. Lecc. Leo. Lig. LO Log. Lom. Mat. MCat. Mil. Moli. Neap. Norm. Nuo. O Occ. OT Pic. Pied.   Proto-Rom. Proto-Sp. Prov. Pt. Ro. Roma. Sard. SES  Sic. Sp.  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 Provençal Portuguese Romanian Romansh Sardinian Santiago del Estero Spanish singular Sicilian Spanish subjunctive Tuscan Universal Grammar upper Venetan west(ern)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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 5. Gallo-Romance: French, Occitan, and Francoprovençal 6. Ibero-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 of Ibero- and GalloRomance varieties (e.g. Haitian, Papiamentu, São 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 Change in the Romance Languages. First edition. André Zampaulo. © André Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2



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

ʦʣ

ʧʤ

ʨʥ

ʃʒ

ɕʑ

Retroflex

Palatal

ɖ

cɟ

ʈʂ ɖʐ ʝ ɲ

Nasal Lateral Approximant

ɭ

ʎ j

Note: Symbols to the left in a cell are voiceless, to the right are voiced. Single symbols in a cell are voiced.

Table 1.1 illustrates the most relevant consonants that emerged from palatalization processes in the Romance-speaking world, considering documented data from current and past Romance varieties. A couple of remarks on the phonetic symbols used in this table are in order. First, although all of the symbols appear on the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), there are discrepancies with regard to the terminology used for the place of articulation of some of them. In particular, while in the IPA chart the place of articulation of the affricates [ʧ ʤ] and the fricatives [ʃ ʒ] is labeled as “postalveolar”, in this book we will refer to these consonants more precisely as “palato-alveolar” affricates and fricatives,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

1.2  “”

3

respectively, mainly due to the existence of other postalveolar consonants whose place of articulation is “alveolo-palatal” instead, e.g. the fricatives [ɕ] and [ʑ], which may appear as variants of alveolar [s] and [z], respectively, in dialects of Occitan (Oliviéri and Sauzet 2016: 325), and the affricate [dʑ], which is found in some Lugorese dialects in Sardinia (Blasco Ferrer 1988: 89). Another divergence concerning the sounds in Table 1.1 is with regard to their articulatory classification. Recent phonetic studies depart from the current IPA taxonomy and argue for a revision to its current consonant chart. For example, Recasens (2013) provides linguopalatal and sagittal vocal tract configuration data to suggest that the place of articulation of consonants such as the lateral [ʎ] and the nasal [ɲ] are actually more accurately described as “alveolopalatal” rather than only “palatal”. Again, for the sake of simplicity and readability, this book will follow the current IPA classification and refer to [ʎ] as a “palatal lateral” and to [ɲ] as a “palatal nasal” consonant. Finally, a few taxonomic inconsistencies are found in the literature with regard to the articulatory classification of the affricates [ʦ ʣ]. Some Romance scholars refer to their place of articulation as “dental/alveolar” (e.g. Wheeler 1988b: 248), “dento-alveolar” (e.g. Penny 2002: 98), “alveolar” (e.g. Jones 1988: 319; Vincent 1988: 248), or simply “dental” (e.g. Mallinson 1988: 395; Penny 2002: xx, 99; Repetti 2016: 658). In this book we will opt to use their IPA classification as “alveolar affricates”, in light of a “dental affricate” consonant [tθ] posited for medieval Sardinian (Repetti 2016: 658). In terms of their historical emergence, it is worth noting that, of all the segments in Table 1.1, the palatal approximant [j]—known in the Romance tradition as “yod”—is the only one that already appeared in Latin, particularly in the pronunciation of unstressed, prevocalic front vowels  and , e.g.  [ˈfilja] ‘daughter’,  [ˈpalja] ‘straw’ (cf. Kent 1932: 108; Elcock 1960: 37; Allen 1965: 51). When considering the development of individual Romance varieties, however, one quickly notices that the configuration of the sounds in Table 1.1 hides a series of synchronic differences and divergent diachronic pathways. For example, while [ʦ ʣ ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ ʎ ɲ j] are all found at one point or another in the history of nearly all of the Romance languages, the consonants [ɖ c ɟ ʝ ɭ] appear only in select areas and varieties. Another aspect not immediately clear in Table 1.1 is the relevance for studying the diachrony and synchrony of those sounds. The history of the Romance languages showcases a wealth of evolutionary pathways taken by their vowel and consonant inventories from shared roots in Latin. The emergence of the palatal order of consonants, in particular, is of utmost interest for historical linguists working with this language family, since it is well

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4



known that Latin displayed only labial, dental/alveolar, and velar consonants (Vincent 1988: 29; Penny 2002: 61; Oniga and Schifano 2014: 15–16). Thus, the rise of palatals represents a phonological innovation that is critical to understanding the current composition and manifestation of the consonant inventories of the Romance languages. As will be argued throughout the book, the variability, complexity, and, in many respects, unique diachronic pathways and synchronic manifestations of Romance palatals constitute a challenging, albeit rewarding, case study worth the attention of Romance and general linguists alike. Furthermore, as will be discussed, Romance palatals offer an illustrative example of how history tends to repeat itself time and again, as many of the sound changes observed in current Romance varieties mirror those that occurred (or are posited to have occurred) in the past, not only in different languages, but, more often than not, in the evolution of the same language.

1.3 Approach and objectives By relying on phonetic and phonological information to motivate a formal account of palatal sound change, and through the observation and analysis of both historical and current dialectal data, the analyses proposed in this book offer a principled, constraint-based explanation for the evolution of palatals in the Romance-speaking world. The approach pursued here aims to reveal how the traditionally assumed boundaries between synchrony and diachrony become hazy, once a comprehensive and evolutionary account connects and addresses both diachronic and synchronic data. It features a robust and up-to-date literature review on the subject, taking into consideration not only the viewpoints and data from diachronic studies (e.g. Pope 1934; Menéndez Pidal 1950, 1977; Williams 1962; Rohlfs 1966; Vasiliu 1968; Boyd-Bowman 1980; Lapesa 1981; Kibler 1984; Repetti and Tuttle 1987; Harris and Vincent 1988; Ariza 1990, 1994, 2012; Maiden 1995; Posner 1996; Paden 1998; Penny 2000, 2002; Cravens 2002; Castro 2006; Teyssier 2014; among many others), but also the results from various phonetic, phonological, dialectal, and comprehensive studies (e.g. Haiman and Benincà 1992; Gess 1996, 2003; Maiden and Parry 1997; Baker and Wiltshire 2003; Baker 2004; Krämer 2009; Loporcaro 2011; Recasens 2011, 2013, 2014; Gómez and Molina Martos 2013; Zampaulo 2014, 2015; Müller 2015; Rohena-Madrazo 2015; Detey et al. 2016; Ledgeway and Maiden 2016). By taking into account the role of phonetic information in the shaping of phonological patterns (e.g. Ohala 1981, 1989, 1992, 1993, 2003, 2012; Hayes

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

1.3   

5

1999; Hayes and Steriade 2004; Jun 2004), this book approaches sound change 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 approach is intended to cast light upon how and why similar change events may take place in different varieties and/or the same language across periods of time. Furthermore, in many instances, the use of synchronic dialectal data to understand patterns of diachronic evolution reveals itself as relevant and pertinent to filling in the gap between the present and the past of Romance palatals. The following pages offer, then, a unified and comprehensive explanation for the evolution and dialectal distribution of these sounds. Its basic argument is grounded on the hypothesis that, given (co)articulatory and acoustic-auditory constraints in the speech signal during the spoken communication between two individuals, the phonetic cues present in the signal represent a conditio sine qua non for the relevant changes and evolution of sounds (e.g. Kavitskaya 2002; Ohala 2012; Recasens 2014; and references therein). Thus, this book assumes that the inception of palatal sound change has its seed intra-linguistically and takes place at the level of the individual, while the diffusion of change—which ultimately may lead to a change in the phonemic inventory of all the speakers of a given language—becomes possible with the consideration of other, change-conducive extralinguistic variables (e.g. Ohala 1981, 1989; Labov 1994, 2001; Croft 2000, 2010; Blevins 2004). Assuming that the configuration of Romance palatals, as illustrated in Table 1.1, represents the outcome of different evolutionary pathways from their roots in Latin throughout the last two millennia, the following questions will guide the remainder of the book: 1. What were the Latin sources and diachronic pathways of Romance palatals? 1a. What is the available evidence for their evolution? 1b. Are any particular steps necessary to account for their development? 1c. How are they currently realized across the Romance-speaking world? 2. Why and how have their different diachronic steps frequently given rise to similar synchronic results across different languages and areas and, oftentimes, in the evolution of the same language? 3. What role does phonetic and phonological information play when accounting for their evolution? 4. How can phonetic motivation be integrated in a phonological analysis of their diachronic development and synchronic manifestations?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6



1.4 Book outline Chapter 2 provides the theoretical framework that informs the analyses in the book. It builds upon the assumptions and contributions of different—albeit complementary—theoretical approaches to sound change which are deemed appropriate to account for the evolution of Romance palatals, particularly Ohala’s (1981, 1989, 2003, 2012) listener-based model and the constraintbased model of phonetically based Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]; Hayes et al. 2004; Jun 2004). Specifically, it presents an approach that focuses on the origins of a sound change based upon the interaction among speakers and listeners during oral communication. Furthermore, this chapter exemplifies the theoretical machinery based upon which formal analyses are proposed in the book. Chapter 3 provides a detailed characterization of both articulatory and acoustic patterns of Romance palatals and their relevance to the goals of the book. While focusing on available data for sounds that are commonly found across the Romance-speaking world, such as [ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ ɟ ʝ ʎ ɲ j], this chapter also characterizes consonants whose emergence appears more restricted and/or for which articulatory and acoustic data do not abound in the Romance literature. As will be shown, knowing the articulatory and acoustic characteristics of these sounds is crucial to understanding the basic phonetic motivations for their diachronic pathways as well as their patterns of synchronic dialectal variation. Tracking the proposed origins of Romance palatals is central to fully understand how their current dialectal manifestations have come to be so varied. Chapter 4 traces the documented diachronic pathways of palatals in the development of the Romance languages from their origins in Latin. In addition to unveiling their evolution, this chapter also reviews the insights of, and challenges posed by, previous accounts in the literature to explain the series of different phonetic changes that led to the emergence of the aforementioned sounds. Historically documented data as well as sound reconstructions that have been proposed based upon comparative evidence are presented. In light of much disagreement that exists with regard to particular sound reconstructions due to the lack of available historical data, this chapter presents sound reconstructions from the most plausible and phonetically grounded perspective and in agreement with similar change processes observed throughout the Romance-speaking world. Chapter 5 provides a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the various manifestations of palatals throughout current Romance varieties, based upon

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

1.4  

7

data and maps available in the literature and upon new data, particularly on varieties of Argentine Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese. This dialectal overview is key to illustrate the continuous evolutionary thread of palatals in the history of the Romance languages. Specifically, this chapter demonstrates how recent and current variation and change patterns in many Romance varieties mirror those changes which are documented or reconstructed throughout the linguistic evolution of the Romance languages. An up-to-date dialectal snapshot, therefore, stands as one of the best means through which one can reconstruct changes that took place historically, and for which precise spoken data is ever impossible to access. Chapter 6 provides a phonetically based formal account of the diachronic and synchronic sound changes discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, following the theoretical assumptions detailed in Chapter 2 and the phonetic characterization of palatal sounds provided in Chapter 3. Specifically, the speaker-listener interaction and the constraint-based model adopted in this book provide the tools to put forth a unified proposal that not only models how and why most of the discussed sound changes could emerge in the first place, but also reveals the mechanisms through which similar change events may reoccur time and again across Romance varieties. The final chapter summarizes the findings and arguments of the book and reiterates its valuable contribution to studies in Romance and Historical Linguistics. Moreover, it organizes and provides the reader with various venues for future research, particularly with regard to current issues in theoretical approaches to sound change and the collection of new dialectal data with which previous historical accounts may be revisited.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2 Theoretical considerations

2.1 Introduction The study of sound change has received considerable direct attention from scholars since at least the nineteenth century (e.g. Paul 1880). Some researchers, however, would argue that phonetic change has been at the center of linguistic scholarship since the fourth century .., with Panini’s description of Sanskrit grammar (Solé and Recasens 2012: 1). More recently, several authors, working under different theoretical and methodological frameworks, have contributed to improving our understanding of how sounds vary and change over time, focusing on different aspects of language—notably on phonetics and phonology (e.g. Ohala 1981, 1993, 2003, 2012; Kiparsky 2003, 2008; Beddor 2009; Yu 2013, 2015; Krämer and Urek 2016; Iskarous and Kavitskaya 2018) and on sociolinguistics (e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985; Labov 1994, 2001; Gladwell 2000; Guy 2003)—and also using divergent approaches, such as Neogrammarian sound change (e.g. Hale 2003), usagebased phonology (e.g. Aski 2001; Bybee 2001, 2008, 2015), lexical diffusion (e.g. Wang 1969, 1979; Phillips 2015), among others (cf. Boersma 1998, 2003; Blevins 2004; Bermúdez-Otero 2006, 2007; Miller 2010; Hualde 2011; Solé and Recasens 2012; Yu 2013, 2015). With regard to the Romance languages, more specifically, the interest in sound change has given rise to a rich amount of philological and descriptive research to understand the evolution of each of these languages, including Spanish (e.g. Menéndez Pidal 1950, 1977; Alonso 1967, 1969; Lapesa 1981; Lloyd 1987; Ariza 1990, 1994, 2012; Penny 2000, 2002; Cano Aguilar 2004), Portuguese (e.g. Williams 1962; Castro 1991, 2004; Mattos e Silva 1991; Machado 2012; Teyssier 2014), Galician (e.g. García de Diego 1970; Ferreiro 1996), Catalan (e.g. Wheeler 1988a; Ferrando and Amorós 2011; Alsina 2016), Occitan (e.g. Oliviéri and Sauzet 2016), French (e.g. Pope 1934; Smith 2016), Rhaeto-Romance varieties (e.g. Haiman 1988; Anderson 2016), Sardinian (e.g. Jones 1988; Mensching and Remberger 2016), Italian (e.g. Rohlfs 1966; Vincent 1988; Maiden 1995), and Romanian (e.g. Maiden 2016), as well as particular language groups or the Romance family as a whole Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages. First edition. André Zampaulo. © André Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.1 

9

(e.g. Harris and Vincent 1988; Cravens 2002; Maiden et al. 2011; Recasens 2014; Ledgeway and Maiden 2016; Schmid 2016). However, upon considering these studies and the substantial amount of time spent unveiling the evolution of sounds, one may reasonably wonder why it is important for scholars to dedicate their efforts to the study of sound change in the first place. After all, today’s speakers of a given language do not know—and, arguably, do not need to know—how words were pronounced in the past. This disregard for the past was at the center of the structuralist enterprise at the beginning of the twentieth century (e.g. Saussure 1983 [1916]) and informed the initial stages of generative approaches of the 1950s and 1960s, targeting the synchronic description of “an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogeneous speech-community” (Chomsky 1965: 3). However, as Guy (2003: 398) points out, today’s speakers do know something about sound (and language) change. For example, young speakers living in an urban area of central Spain will most probably associate the pronunciation of the palatal lateral [ʎ] in a word such as ella [ˈeʎa] ‘she’ with that of older speakers of Castilian Spanish and/or of other Spanish dialects, or at least with a different way of saying this word, which they pronounce [ˈeʝa]. Likewise, television broadcasters and older speakers of Buenos Aires Spanish are likely to use the voiced palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ] in words that younger speakers now pronounce with its voiceless counterpart [ʃ] or a devoiced variant [ʒ̥]. Thus, speakers tend to display at least some degree of awareness about ongoing change events in their linguistic variety. The importance of studying sound change lies, then, in the fact that it sheds light upon the origins of synchronic patterns, and how and why these have come to exist in the first place. Metaphorically, researching the evolution of sound inventories is as relevant as studying the history of a country, since it provides us with a better understanding of the intricacies of its current state. Linguistically, the study of sound change reveals the consequences that a given change event incurs to other phonological domains. For example, the change of a sound may produce modifications in segment inventories, syllable structure, stress patterns, etc. Considering the past is crucial not only to understanding the present, but also to inform us about why and how similar change events may take place cross-linguistically and also over time within the history of the same language. The possibility of a change event to reoccur in the evolution of one language or to take place at some point in the history of another justifies regarding diachronic development as an indispensible tool to appreciate how languages work as well as how speakers shape the history of their own language(s).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

10   To understand the underpinnings of the development of palatal consonants and their current dialectal picture in the Romance languages, it is necessary to go beyond describing their historical pathways, however detailed some of them may already be portrayed in the literature. Thus, the characteristics of these sounds must be framed within an appropriate theoretical background that provides the mechanisms with which to understand their variation and change patterns, both currently and historically. This chapter introduces the assumptions of different—albeit complementary—theoretical frameworks that are deemed appropriate to the study of phonetically based palatal sound change in the Romance languages. Specifically, the present approach is defined with regard to what exactly constitutes the origins of a sound change, as opposed to its spread within a given speech community (§2.2.1). Next, the assumptions under which to investigate the constraints on the genesis of palatal sound change are provided (§2.2.2). The formal perspective that guides the present analysis is, then, described (§2.3) and is followed by a few remarks on the importance of considering the interaction among speakers and listeners during oral communication for the inception of sound change (§2.4). A characterization and exemplification of the theoretical model is, then, provided (§2.5) prior to the concluding remarks that finalize the chapter (§2.6).

2.2 The concept of sound change 2.2.1 The origins vs the spread of sound change Most linguistic approaches to sound change often consider it from a broad perspective that occasionally oversees the important details that emerge when taking a closer look into a given change event. Thus, several works in the sound change literature approach a given change generally through a comparison between an initial point A and a final point B, which is commonly illustrated by the linguistic notation “A > B”. Nevertheless, many factors come into play in the process of sound change, and the orthographic sign “>” frequently overshadows what occurs in the middle of a change event, missing the gradient nature of variation in production that is necessary for a sound change to take place. If it is right to assume that the cycle of every change event has a beginning, a period of diffusion through the lexicon, and a final stage of completion in the phonemic inventory of all speakers of a language, then it is reasonable to compartmentalize the study of the factors that characterize each step. Furthermore, if one is interested in knowing the internal causes of a given change, then one ought to explore the very first step, i.e. the very origins of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.2     

11

sound change in the interaction among speakers and listeners during oral communication. Thus, to study the origins of palatal sound change in the Romance languages, the present approach inadvertently focuses on the initiation of sound change and views it as operating at the level of the individual. The analysis put forth in the following pages will, then, inherently concentrate on the possibilities and seeds of change events, rather than on their spread through the lexicon and within speech communities, which characterizes the stage following its inception and involves a much more complex scenario with the inclusion of extralinguistic variables, such as age, gender, education, speech situation, social identification, etc. The present approach, then, centers on the actuation of sound change and explores articulatorily motivated restrictions whose interaction may have a listener form a different pronunciation norm than the one projected by the speaker. It is necessary to acknowledge, however, that not all sound changes are exclusively phonetically motivated, and other factors may also play a role in the evolution of sounds, such as language processing constraints (Frisch 2004), the functional load of a contrast within the system (Martinet 1978), frequency (Bybee 2001, 2015), morphological relations or analogy (Wanner 2006; Fertig 2015), etc. The approach described here aligns itself with Croft’s (2010) view on language change and his proposal on the essential distinction that must be made between innovation and propagation in the study of language change. For the possibility of a change event to emerge, first there needs to be systemic innovation that generates variation in the language, whereby tokens of both the original and the novel variants co-occur in the speech of a given individual and community (see also Jones 2015 for detailed description of the role of the individual and innovation in sound change). On the other hand, for a change event to be completed, tokens of the novel variant need to be propagated within the speech community at the expense of the original variant. By focusing on the constraints on innovation and how it may emerge in the interaction between the speaker and the listener, the present study departs from other scholarly works that emphasize, instead, the constraints that target the propagation of a change event—a practice generally associated with sociolinguistic work (Labov 1994, 2001).

2.2.2 The possibility of sound change By approaching sound change from the possibility of its initiation, the perspective outlined here combines well-established theoretical models in the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

12   literature. Janda (2003), for example, metaphorically correlates the actuation of sound change with the beginning of the universe, by proposing a “Big Bang” theory of sound change. In this model, phonetic restrictions play a crucial role for providing the conditions under which a change in the pronunciation norm may arise, and also for explaining similar recurring patterns of sound change in non-related languages: Insisting on the obligatory early presence of finely detailed phonetic conditioning explains why regularity holds: purely phonetic environments guarantee that a change is applicable whenever the most general type of conditions are met—and thus why grammatically or functionally based exceptions are absent from this stage. (Janda 2003: 420) cf p54

The need to focus on phonetic conditions (i.e. constraints) in the study of the possible beginnings of a change event is also embedded in the Neogrammarian model revisited and put forth by Hale (2003). In this approach, Hale compartmentalizes the historical record of a language into three filtering subsystems or modules, each having its own set of restrictions, namely, “Constraints on change,” “Constraints on diffusion,” and “Limitations of the documentary record,” which, altogether, lead to the “Historical record” of a language, as represented in Figure 2.1. Constraints on change

Constraints on diffusion

Limitations of the documentary record

Theory of change

Sociolinguistics

Philology, history, etc.

historical record

Figure 2.1 Hale’s (2003: 345) modules leading toward the historical record of a language.

While the study of sound change is carried out under the constraints that condition its possibility at the individual level (as indicated by the first module in Figure 2.1), the success of its diffusion throughout the lexicon (cf. Chen and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.2     

13

Wang 1975; Phillips 2015) and eventual phonologization (cf. Hyman 1976; Kiparsky 2015) in the inventory of all speakers of a language is determined by sociolinguistic constraints (as depicted by the second module in Figure 2.1). Philology, on the other hand, is responsible for revealing the actual documentation of a change event and provides us with tools to discover and access a given sound change in the historical record of a language (third module in Figure 2.1). Thus, while philology is responsible for offering much of the data regarding the documented evolution of a particular sound, the analysis of this evolution is grounded on claims about the first module, that is, the linguistic constraints that create the conditions for a possible sound change to occur and further spread under favorable sociolinguistic conditions. Specifically in the case of the evolution of palatal sounds in the Romance languages, much of the historical data is collected from documents written by Latin grammarians, Medieval and Modern authors, and contemporary dialectologists. The use of Hale’s compartmentalization model is, thus, crucial to frame the study of palatal sound change by understanding the conditions that may give rise to novel palatal variants in the first place. However, it is also important to point out that the arrows going through each of the three modules need not entail that an individual change event will always become the new norm and reach the inventory of all language speakers in a speech community. For example, even though a sound change may arise from the linguistic constraints in the first module, it is also possible that constraints on its diffusion may block it from spreading to all speakers in a speech community. Moreover, it may also happen that a given change event never becomes documented in the history of a language or that such documentation is lost and never found, thus never reaching the actual historical record of a language. Furthermore, sociolinguistic constraints may act at different speeds in different languages, which may produce similar change events at apparently different times, although its origins may have taken place concomitantly at the individual level. The outcomes of the delaterization process undergone by the palatal lateral consonant [ʎ] in many Romance languages illustrate these scenarios very well. While documentation for this change has been available since the tenth century for some Astur-Leonese dialects (cf. Menéndez Pidal 1950), and started to emerge in Spanish and French in late medieval times (cf. Pope 1934; Lloyd 1987), evidence for this change in Portuguese varieties has been registered only in the twentieth century (cf. Castro 1991; Aguilera 1999). Therefore, while the internal conditions for this change (e.g. its articulation and coarticulation with vowels) have been present all along in those languages from the beginning, the loss of its lateral articulation has been recorded at

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

14   different times in different languages and dialects. This indicates that, although the motivation for this change event may have always been present and constrained in the first module in Figure 2.1, constraints on its diffusion and/or documentation evidently have not taken effect at the same time and in the same language. The focus here lies, then, in exploring and understanding the internal conditions that may lead to innovation and possible sound change. To do this, a model of sound change based on its initiation phase (i.e. the first module in Figure 2.1) is developed and exemplified in the following pages. It is assumed that such initiation takes place in the communication among speakers of a linguistic variety. More precisely, it occurs in the oral communication between two individuals: a speaker and a listener. From this perspective, sound change operates at the level of the individual and is conceived as a possible formulation, by the listener, of a pronunciation norm that differs from the one intended by the speaker. This new formulation stems from the listener’s reinterpretation and reanalysis of a sound due to acoustic ambiguity in the speech signal, which is itself motivated by the speaker’s variation in production. Thus, it is understood that a sound change stands as the set of differences between the grammar of the speaker and that of the listenerturned-speaker, as subsequently reflected in statistical shifts in the use of old and novel variants within a speech community. Determined by internal linguistic constraints, the possibility of a sound change at the level of the individual is, then, envisioned to take place throughout the individual’s lifespan, beginning with child language acquisition—as children formulate linguistic hypotheses and structures that differ from the ones intended by their caregivers, which has been defined in the literature as imperfect learning or imperfect transmission across generations—and continuing in adult language development through interaction with other individuals, likely also from different speech communities.

2.3 Optimality Theory To describe the interaction of linguistic constraints in different grammars (i.e. the grammar of the speaker and that of the listener-turned-speaker) as formally accounting for sound change, the analyses in this book are couched within the constraint-based framework of Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]). This model formalizes the conflicting forces that shape the phonology of sounds. Thus, an optimal output form is selected by

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.3  

15

conflicting ranked constraints, which may or may not be violated in the conflict process. OT offers, then, an approach to characterize the phonological patterns of palatal consonants that have emerged, through sound change, in the history of the Romance languages. By illustrating the substance of which grammars are made, OT provides a formal model to depict sound change as a difference in grammars. One of the fundamental premises of OT is that an actual output form is selected from a pool of possible candidates, all of them evaluated in parallel. The basic machinery of OT consists of three main parts: G, the function that considers a given input and generates possible output candidates, C, the set of constraints that characterize grammars, and E, the function that evaluates candidates and selects the optimal output. Thus, a given input is submitted to G for the consideration of possible candidates, which are, then, evaluated by E according to the constraints present in C. To illustrate how this model works, let us consider a grammar with constraints ‘X’, ‘Y’, and ‘Z’, in which ‘X’ dominates ‘Y’ and ‘Y’ dominates ‘Z’, i.e. X >> Y >> Z. If we submit an input /I/ for evaluation under these constraints, G may produce a set of possible output candidates, say ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’. The evaluation of candidates in OT is represented in a tableau, where constraints are displayed horizontally and the optimal candidate is indicated by a pointing hand on the first column. Asterisks signal violations of a constraint, while an exclamation mark indicates that a candidate is ruled out due to a fatal violation. Shaded areas in a tableau denote that violations are irrelevant for the evaluation at hand. Table 2.1 illustrates a hypothetical evaluation of candidates ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’ for input /I/. Table 2.1 Candidate B is selected as the optimal candidate given the constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z /I/

Constraint X

A ☞B C

*! *!

Constraint Y

Constraint Z

*

*

*

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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

16   a different domination ranking, which may, then, select another optimal candidate, as illustrated in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Candidate A is selected as the optimal candidate under the constraint ranking Y >> X >> Z /I/ ☞A B C

Constraint Y

Constraint X

Constraint Z

* *! *!

* *

Table 2.2 predicts that A will be selected as the optimal candidate under the constraint ranking Y>> X >> Z, as candidates B and 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 G, C, and E, 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 [1993]). 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 . In the classical version of OT (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]) constraints are

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.3  

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 follows from 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).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

18   For example, it is well known that the palatal lateral [ʎ] 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 *[ʎ]. 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.3  

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 Stemberger 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

20   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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.4     

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; Müller and Mota 2009; Müller 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 systems” (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 change of 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: (1) 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 (1), in which no sound change takes place.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

22   Speaker /ut/

Listener /ut/

distorted by vocal tract into

[yt]

heard as

reconstructed 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 /t/, 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.

Speaker /ut/

Listener Listener-turned-speaker /y/

distorted as

[y(t)]

interpreted as

heard as

[y]

produced as

[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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.4     

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 [bõn] 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 /bõ/ instead (Pope 1934: 169). This failure in sound recognition may have come from speakers’ weak pronunciation of coda-/n/ and/or from this consonant being masked due to ambient noise. The fact is that when the listener-turnedspeaker started producing the internalized sequence /bõ/ as the variant [bõ] at the expense of the original variant [bõn], 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. Speaker /yt/

Listener Listener-turned-speaker /ut/

produced as

[yt]

heard as

reconstructed as

produced as

[yt]

[ut]

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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

24   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 [sɔrd]: “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 /ˈkwiŋkwe/ > */ˈkiŋkwe/ (cf. Italian [ˈʧiŋkwe] ‘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 */ˈkiŋkwe/ 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 */ˈkiŋkwe/. 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.4     

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 exclusively based 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).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

26   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. [Ṽ ], and (2) when the nasal consonant is present in the signal, i.e. [Ṽ N]. 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.5     

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. Table 2.3 Candidate [I] is the output of underlying representation /I/, given the constraint ranking X >> Y >> Z /I/ ☞I II III IV

Constraint X

Constraint Y

Constraint Z

* *! *! *!

* * *

*

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 /I/. 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). Table 2.4 Candidates [I] and [II] may surface as the output of underlying representation /I/, following the constraint ranking X, Y >> Z /I/ ☞I ☞II III IV

Constraint X

Constraint Y

Constraint Z

* * *! *!

* * *

*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

28   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 /I/ 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 /I/—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 original 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 /I/ 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 /II/—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 /I/ and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to that original speaker’s input /I/. 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. /I/. 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

2.6  

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 dissimilation), 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

30   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).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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; Fernández Planas 2000; Kochetov and Colantoni 2011; Rost 2011; Martínez Celdrán and Fernández 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 Change in the Romance Languages. First edition. André Zampaulo. © André Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

32     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 ɛ] and the glide [j]. 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 [j] 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 [ɛ]. While [i], [e], and [j] are present in the inventory of virtually all Romance varieties, open-mid front [ɛ] is absent from a handful of languages, including Romanian (Pană Dindelegan 2013: 7; Maiden 2016: 93) and Spanish (Hualde 2005: 52–5; Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 171–92), although it may surface dialectally as a contextual allophone of /e/ (Navarro Tomás 1991: 52–3). On the other hand, a number of varieties lack [e] 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 [ɛ], 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 ɛ], all Romance languages present a palatal glide [j], commonly labeled as “” 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 [j] in Spanish:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3.2         []

33

Figure 3.1 Electropalatograms of the palatal glide [j] (left) and the palatal vowel [i] (right) (Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 169). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonética española. Articulaciones y sonidos del español © Eugenio Martínez Celdrán y Ana María Fernández 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. F1, a function of tongue height (the higher a vowel is articulated, the lower its F1 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 [ɛ], its F1 is lower than that of [e] and [ɛ]. Indeed, Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas (2013: 175) report mean F1 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 [ˈjelo] ‘ice’) and finds a wide range of formant values. While F1 values are found in the range of over 300 to 500 mels, 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 F1 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 F1 and 1,700–1,800 Hz for F2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

34     Colantoni (2001: 32–3), on the other hand, provides mean values for [j] from other Argentine provinces, such as Córdoba, San Luis, and San Juan, and finds an average frequency of 390 Hz for F1 (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 [j] 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 [ʎ], the tongue dorsum is raised to establish contact with the palate while the tongue tip may or may not touch the upper incisors (Quilis 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 [ʎ] is 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 (Martínez Celdrán and Fernández 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; Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 141–2). Thus, [ʎ] 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 [ʎ]. Because of the lateral manner of articulation of [ʎ], 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 [lj]. The larger contact area in the production of [ʎ] is shown in the electropalatograms in Figure 3.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3.3     

35

Figure 3.2 Electropalatograms of the alveolar lateral [l] (left), the palatalized lateral [lj] (center), and the palatal lateral [ʎ] (right) (Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 141). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonética española. Articulaciones y sonidos del español © Eugenio Martínez Celdrán y Ana María Fernández 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 [ʎ] 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 [ʎ], 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 [ʎ] with that of palatal nasal [ɲ] 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 [ʎ] may be subject to coarticulatory effects: “l’activitat dorsal [in the production of [ʎ]] sigui menys resistant als efectes coarticulatoris per part dels sons adjacents.” Variation in the production of [ʎ] 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 [j], creating homonyms such as ólhos [ˈɔljʊs] ‘eyes’ and óleos [ˈɔljʊs] ‘oils,’ which are contrastive for other speakers (i.e. ólhos [ˈɔʎʊs] ‘eyes’ vs óleos [ˈɔljʊs]) (Cristófaro Silva 2009: 65). With regard to the acoustics of [ʎ] in Romance varieties, descriptions do not abound in the literature (cf. Colantoni 2004: 86). However, Quilis (1981: 281) reports that the duration of [ʎ] presents an average of 73.2 ms in Peninsular Spanish. Its F1 and F2 present mean values of 290 Hz and 2,047 Hz,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

36     respectively (Quilis 1993: 311–14), although in Brazilian Portuguese higher values have been found, i.e. 389 Hz (F1) and 2,091 Hz (F2) (Stein 2011: 10), suggesting a lower and more fronted realization than Peninsular Spanish [ʎ]. These findings (i.e. a low F1 and a high F2 for Brazilian Portuguese [ʎ]) 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 F1 of [ʎ] is often lower than the F1 of any following vowel (Quilis 1993: 314). In comparison with the formant values of the alveolar lateral /l/, for example, Quilis (1981: 286) reports that intervocalic [ʎ] 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 [l], 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 [ʎ], whose characteristics are akin to those of palatal vowels. Indeed, this represents one of the sources for the emergence of the Romance [ʎ]. On the other hand, if it is right to assume that similar acoustics results in similar perception, the coarticulation between [ʎ] 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 [ʎ] 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 [ʎi], 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3.3     

37

the production of [ʎ]) followed by a palatal vowel (from the dorsal articulation of both [ʎ] and [i]). In fact, the depalatalization of [ʎ] when followed by a palatal vowel is attested in dialects of Brazilian Portuguese, in which speakers produce /ʎi/ and /ʎɛ/ as [li] and [lɛ], respectively, e.g. filhinho [fiˈlĩɲʊ] ‘son-’, colher [kuˈlɛ] ‘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 [ɲ], 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 Tomás 1991: 132). Recent experimental studies, however, point out that the area of linguopalatal configuration of [ɲ] extends from the postalveolar region to the back of the palate, suggesting an alveolopalatal lingual articulation similar to that of [ʎ] (cf. Recasens 1990: 271–2; Fernández Planas 2009). The electropalatograms in Figure 3.3 illustrate both alveolar and palatal contact in the articulations of [ɲ] in comparison with the production of alveolar [n].

Figure 3.3 Electropalatograms of [n] (upper line) and [ɲ] (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. (Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 129). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonética española. Articulaciones y sonidos del español ©Eugenio Martínez Celdrán y Ana María Fernández Planas © Editorial Ariel. 2013

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

38     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 [ȷ̃] instead of a fully articulated [ɲ]. 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 Francoprovençal (Straka 1979: 345). Acoustically, nasals present formant patterns like vowels, but with less intensity. For Spanish nasals, for example, Machuca (1991) finds low F1 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. Thus, for example, Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas (2013: 124–5) report that Spanish alveolar [n] has its first antiformant at 1,400 Hz, while palatal [ɲ] has it at 2,730 Hz. The transition periods into neighboring vowels also differ, with palatal [ɲ] displaying the longest transition of the three nasal consonants common in Romance (i.e. [m n ɲ]), mainly due to the large linguopalatal contact area in its production. Indeed, it is common for listeners to parse [ɲ] as a sequence of an alveolar nasal and a palatal glide (i.e. [nj]), and vice versa, although [ɲ] and [nj] are acoustically (and articulatorily) different, as illustrated by the spectrogram in Figure 3.4.

5000

0 0

n

j

o

Time (s)

ɲ

o

0.767438

Figure 3.4 Spectrograms of the sequences [njo] and [ɲo] (Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 128). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonética española. Articulaciones y sonidos del español © Eugenio Martínez Celdrán y Ana María Fernández Planas © Editorial Ariel. 2013

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3.4     

39

Figure 3.4 shows that the actual palatal glide [j] in the sequence [nj] has a longer duration than the palatal articulation embedded in [ɲ], despite the fact that [ɲ] 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 [ɲ] 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 ɟ] and their fricative counterparts [ç ʝ]. 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 ɟ] are mainly found in Eastern Romance (Pană Dindelegan 2013: 10), Rhaeto-Romance (Benincà 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 /k/ in Majorcan Catalan. Its voiced counterpart [ɟ] is featured in the consonant inventory of Spanish, although many authors point out the actual occurrence of an affricate [ɟʝ]̞ instead of a true palatal plosive [ɟ] (e.g. Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 87–8). Hualde (2005: 43) describes [ɟ] and its affricate counterpart [ɟʝ]̞ as actually the same segment, but with the former being frictionless and the latter displaying “some affrication.” As for the realization of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

40     continuant variant [ʝ], some authors consider it a fricative (cf. Navarro Tomás 1991; Real Academia Española 2011: 184–5), while others treat it as an approximant [ʝ]̞ (cf. Martínez Celdrán and Fernández 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 [ʝ] with more friction than they would otherwise in a more casual or relaxed conversation, where the approximant [ʝ]̞ might be expected. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 166) provide X-ray tracings of plosives [c ɟ], as well as their fricative counterparts [ç ʝ] based on experimental data from Hungarian, as illustrated in Figure 3.5.

c

ɟ

ç

ʝ

Figure 3.5 X-ray tracings of [c ç ɟ ʝ] based on data from Hungarian Based on Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 166).

Figure 3.5 shows how linguopalatal contact comes to a full and precise occlusion in the articulation of palatal plosives, while a close approximation between articulators is observed in the production of their fricative counterparts. The similarity and differences among the fricative [ʝ], the approximant [ʝ],̞ and the glide [j] must also be addressed, since they represent different realizations found in Ibero-Romance languages such as Spanish and Asturian, and

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3.4     

41

the interaction of these segments with surrounding vowels plays an important role in the analysis laid out further in the book. In articulatory terms, the difference between these sounds lies in the fact that there is more palatal stricture (i.e. more linguopalatal contact) that, in turn, creates more obstruction during the articulation of [ʝ] and [ʝ]̞ than during that of the glide [j]. Thus, Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas (2013: 169) define [ʝ]̞ (and by extension also [ʝ]) as a true consonant, while the glide is described as a semivowel, despite the classification of both [ʝ] and [j] as consonants in the IPA consonant chart. The electropalatograms in Figure 3.6 illustrate the articulatory differences between [ʝ]̞ and [j], with a larger contact area in the articulation of [ʝ]̞ (left).

Figure 3.6 Electropalatograms of [ ʝ]̞ (left) and [j] (right) (Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 169). Reproduced with permission from Manual de fonética española. Articulaciones y sonidos del español © Eugenio Martínez Celdrán y Ana María Fernández Planas © Editorial Ariel. 2013

The subtlety in the articulation of [ɟ], [ɟʝ],̞ and [ʝ] produces different acoustic patterns, which help us to characterize and define these consonants more clearly. Quilis (1993: 224–5) indicates that the fricative [ʝ] presents a formant structure with a lower F1 than that of vowels (hence indicating a higher articulation), and a less intense F2 than that of neighboring vocalic segments. Additionally, [ʝ] presents a similar formant structure (although with less intensity) to that of palatal vowels and a lack of the noise typically found in the production of true fricative segments. With regard to the acoustic differences between [ʝ] and [j], Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas (2013: 167) provide experimental evidence to depict a subtly lower intensity in the beginning of F1 and F2 in the articulation of [ʝ] as compared to that of [j], during the production of sequences [z.ʝe] and [sje] in las hierbas ‘the grasses’ and las

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

42     siervas ‘the serves--,’ respectively. The lower intensity at the beginning of the formant structure of [ʝ] derives from more constriction between the tongue and the hard palate during its production. In the case of the palatal affricate [ɟʝ],̞ on the other hand, two acoustically different phases are rendered from its articulation: an initial silent stage followed by a brief frication during its release. Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas (2013: 60), for example, illustrate the acoustic result of the articulation of [ɟʝ]̞ in the word cónyuge ‘spouse,’ in which the initial occlusive stage is reflected in the absence of noise, while its brief fricative stage is depicted by the presence of aperiodic noise before the beginning of the formant structure of the following vowel [u]. It is also important to establish a clear distinction between the palatal affricate [ɟʝ]̞ and the palato-alveolar affricate [ʤ], although their articulatory patterns may at times produce similar acoustic results, especially in emphatic speech, as reported for Spanish (Martínez Celdrán and Fernández Planas 2013: 63). Several authors use the latter symbol indistinctively from the former (e.g. Quilis 1993; Aguilar 1999), especially within the American tradition, in which both affricates are represented with the symbol [ȷ̌]. However, the second element (i.e. the release) in the production of [ɟʝ]̞ is not the same as the second element of [ʤ]: while the former is a true palatal consonant, the latter represents a palato-alveolar segment which has [ʧ] as its voiceless counterpart and whose second segment is characterized by a considerable amount of noise and assibilation as compared to the short friction in the release of [ɟʝ].̞ Thus, there are eight sounds treated as true palatals in this book, i.e. the vowels [i e ɛ], the glide [j], and the obstruents [c ç ɟ ʝ]. The palatal affricates [cç ɟʝ]̞ are treated as variants of their plosive counterparts due to the nature of the articulatory patterns of [c ɟ]. As entailed in the preceding discussion, affricates are characterized by two stages in their articulation, i.e. occlusion and release, with the later stage producing a considerable amount of frication, or as Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 90) put it, affricates are “stops in which the release of the constriction is modified in such a way as to produce a more prolonged period of frication after the release.” Various affricates, with different places of articulation, are featured in the consonant inventories of the Romance languages. The alveolar affricates [ʦ ʣ] and their palato-alveolar counterparts [ʧ ʤ] are by far the most common, not only in Romance, but also across the rest of the world’s languages (cf. Maddieson 1984). The alveolo-palatal affricates [ʨ ʥ] and their retroflex counterparts [ʈʂ ɖʐ ], on the other hand, are restricted in the Romance-speaking world to specific varieties, such as Romansh and a few southern Italian dialects.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3.4     

43

As in the articulation of [cç ɟʝ], ̞ all the other aforementioned affricates are characterized by two stages in their articulation. The place of constriction of their first segment and the frication of their second stage, however, differ from those of the palatal affricates. The affricates [ʦ ʣ ʧ ʤ ʨ ʥ], for example, are characterized by an initial dentoalveolar occlusion, followed by a considerable amount of frication in the alveolar region (in the case of [ʦ ʣ]) and in the postalveolar region (in the case of [ʧ ʤ ʨ ʥ]). In the articulation of the retroflex affricates [ʈʂ ɖʐ ], on the other hand, the tongue tip is also curled up. As for their acoustic patterns, voiced affricates are characterized by shorter duration in comparison with their voiceless counterparts. Quilis (1981: 263), for example, reports that [ʤ] presents an average duration of 84.8 ms, which corresponds to half the duration of its voiceless counterpart [ʧ]. In the frication stage, energy concentrates at 2,184 Hz for [ʤ], which is 332 Hz lower than that of [ʧ], i.e. 2,516 Hz. Quilis (1981: 264) also notes that this difference in the concentration of energy between these affricates is due to a wider contact between the tongue dorsum and the hard palate in the articulation of voiced affricates, which tend to be more fronted than voiceless affricates. With regard to fricatives, four palatals occur in the Romance-speaking world in addition to [ʝ], i.e. the palato-alveolars [ʒ ʃ] and the alveolo-palatals [ɕ ʑ]. While the former are common in the inventory of many varieties, the latter are restricted to Occitan and a few dialects of southern Italy. Fricative sounds result from a precise tense constriction between articulators, which generates a turbulent airstream in the vocal tract. Sibilant fricatives, in particular, are coronal sounds articulated in the dental, alveolar, and postalveolar regions of the mouth. Because of this, sibilant fricatives tend to have energy concentration in high frequencies and, during their articulation, “an exactly defined shape of the vocal tract has to be held for a noticeable period of time” (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 137). The concentration of energy changes according to the point of constriction: fricatives that are realized further back from this point present, in general, energy concentration at lower frequencies. In the articulation of [ʒ] and [ʃ], for example, the tongue blade touches the postalveolar region, while the tongue dorsum is raised toward the palate and the tongue tip is lowered toward the incisors. Such articulatory complexity renders both consonants more resistant to coarticulatory effects when compared to their alveolar counterparts [z] and [s], respectively, in which constriction is produced over the dento-alveolar region and the tongue dorsum is thus free to adapt to the configuration of surrounding sounds (Recasens 1991: 267, 282). Furthermore, Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 148) point out that [ʃ] has a wider (and further back) constriction than [s], in addition to some

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

44     degree of lip rounding as opposed to alveolar [s]. In the articulation of alveolo-palatals [ɕ ʑ], on the other hand, Ladefoged and Johnson (2015: 179) characterize them as similar to their palato-alveolar counterparts [ʃ ʒ], but with significant raising of the front of the tongue. Specific issues with the articulatory patterns of [ʒ ʃ] have been raised in the literature. Regarding the voiced palato-alveolar [ʒ], Navarro Tomás (1991: 131) describes its place of articulation as being more fronted than that of [ʝ], reaching the alveolar ridge. The shape of the tongue during the articulation of these segments also differs: while it is flat for [ʒ], it is more convex for [ʝ]. However, Colantoni (2001: 45) disputes this latter characterization for [ʒ] (and [ʃ]), by arguing that in Buenos Aires Spanish “the tongue is not flat but slightly cupped”—a description shared by Recasens (1991: 281) for Catalan [ʒ]. Additionally, in Argentine Spanish the voiceless palato-alveolar [ʃ] often follows from a devoicing process undergone by [ʒ], which remarkably resembles a similar change event that took place in sixteenth-century Spanish. Such a devoicing process can be better understood once the production of voiced fricatives is taken into account, since they are not as common as their voiceless counterparts. Voiced fricatives present a tendency to devoice because they are phonetically more difficult to produce: “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, the need for turbulence conflicts with the generation of voicing, which then may lead to the devoicing of fricatives in some varieties, as was the case in sixteenth-century Spanish and is currently ongoing in Argentine Spanish (cf. Rohena-Madrazo 2011, 2013, 2015). With regard to the acoustics of fricatives, Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 173) point out the lack of a substantive number of descriptive studies, probably due to a wide range of variation in the production of these segments across the world’s languages. Nevertheless, the authors mention that [ʒ] and [ʃ] have spectral peaks at lower frequencies than their alveolar counterparts, [z] and [s]. With regard to Romance, Recasens (1991: 282) reports that the concentration of energy for the F1 of Catalan [ʃ] is found between 2,000 Hz and 3,200 Hz, and for F2, between 3,500 Hz and 4,500 Hz.

3.5 Summary and concluding remarks This chapter has provided a brief review and discussion about the main phonetic characteristics of the palatal sounds relevant to the goals to the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

3.5    

45

current study. By considering the articulatory and acoustic details of those segments, it is possible to gain better insight as to how and why their realizations vary extensively across the Romance languages. For example, the articulatory patterns of the palatal lateral may provide an understanding of its varying realizations in current Romance varieties, as well as during its evolution from Latin. Similarly, the phonetic characteristics of the voiced palatoalveolar fricative [ʒ] provide a motivation for its devoicing patterns, not only in current Argentine Spanish, but also in the evolution from Old to Modern Spanish. Thus, the relevance of phonetic information becomes evident and reveals itself to be a conditio sine qua non for an attempt to understand the phonetic motivation for the initiation of a great number of sound changes explored subsequently in this book. Nevertheless, raw phonetic detail alone does not offer a thorough explanation for palatal and other types of sound changes, since phonetic variation is intrinsic in sound production. A further mechanism is then warranted to model the origins of sound change from phonetic variation. As discussed in Chapter 2, Ohala (1981, 1989, 1993, 2003, 2012) formalizes a model according to which the interplay between the speaker and the listener-turned-speaker holds the key to the initiation of a sound change. In this framework, the listener-turned-speaker introduces a change by reinterpreting the speech signal in a different way than that intended by the original speaker, often due to acoustic ambiguity in the signal. Hence, when the former fails to filter out the variation in the original speakers’ production of sounds, a possible sound change may arise and spread in the speech community under favorable sociolinguistic conditions. The initiation of a sound change is thus conceived at the individual level, while its diffusion takes place with the inclusion of change-conducive sociolinguistic variables (e.g. gender, age, social class, networks, etc.). Few studies of Romance varieties have successfully applied phonetic information to understand the underpinnings of phonetically motivated sound change, despite not formalizing the role of that information during the speaker-listener interaction (cf. Colantoni 2001, 2004 for Argentine Spanish). Thus, a comprehensive study of the manifestation of palatal sounds in the Romance languages is necessary to provide a phonetic motivation for these sounds’ complex historical evolution and their varying synchronic patterns. These are the goals of Chapters 4 and 5, respectively.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4 Palatals in the history of the Romance languages

4.1 Introduction Tracking the origins of Romance palatals is fundamental to fully understand how their current manifestations have come to be so varied. The more insights one has into the past of those sounds, the more revealing the mechanisms of their current phonetic and phonological change processes may be, since oftentimes many synchronic processes reflect similar diachronic events in the history of those languages. This chapter traces the evolutionary pathways of palatals that emerged in the history of the Romance languages due to the effects of the palatal glide [j] (henceforth ) and palatal vowels over Latin sonorant and obstruent consonants, as well as from palatalization processes incurred by Latin consonant clusters and geminates. In addition to unveiling their evolution, this chapter also reviews the insights of, and challenges posed by, some of the previous accounts in the literature to explain the series of changes that led to the development of the aforementioned sounds. Historically documented data, as well as sound reconstructions built upon comparative evidence, are provided in the following sections based on several studies on the subject matter.¹ As will be discussed, much disagreement exists with regard to particular sound reconstructions due to the lack of available historical data, which has often generated a considerable amount of speculation by scholars. To overcome this challenge, the present chapter proposes sound reconstructions from the most plausible and

¹ Illustrative data in this chapter are retrieved from Alkire and Rosen (2010); Alonso (1961); Ariza (1990, 1994, 2012); Boyd-Bowman (1980); Castro (2006); Cravens (2002); Echenique Elizondo and Sánchez Méndez (2005); Haiman and Benincà (1992); Harris and Vincent (1988); Holt (1997, 2003b); Lafont (2004); Lapesa (1981); Lausberg (1965); Ledgeway and Maiden (2016); Lloyd (1987); Loporcaro (2011); Maiden (1995); Maiden and Parry (1997); Menéndez Pidal (1950, 1977); Müller (2015); Paden (1998); Penny (2000, 2002); Pope (1934); Posner (1996); Recasens (2014a, 2014b); Repetti (2016); Repetti and Tuttle (1987); Rohlfs (1966); Schmid and Negrinelli (2015); Teyssier (2014); Tuttle (1975, 1986); Vázquez Obrador (2011); Williams (1962); and Wireback (1997). Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages. First edition. André Zampaulo. © André Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.2     

47

phonetically grounded perspective and in agreement with similar change events throughout the Romance-speaking world and/or in the evolution of individual languages themselves. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 4.2 briefly illustrates the emergence of Latin . Section 4.3 presents the historical sources and evolutionary pathways of the palatal lateral [ʎ], while §4.4 does the same for the palatal nasal [ɲ]. Next, the emergence of the several palatal obstruents in Romance varieties is discussed in §4.5. Section 4.6 provides a summary and concluding remarks.

4.2 The emergence of Latin  A crucial development that presented numerous consequences to the consonant and vowel inventories of the Romance languages was the emergence of  in Proto-Romance. This palatal segment derived chiefly from a reduction in hiatuses, in which unstressed  and  were disyllabified and pronounced as [j], although it also developed from other sources (Kent 1932: 108; Allen 1965: 51; Ariza 2012: 27–30). Menéndez Pidal (1950, 1977) organizes the emergence of  chronologically into four main historical groups:  #1: from Latin  and ;  #2: from Latin  and ;  #3: from Latin , , , and ; and  #4: from various Latin sources, e.g. , , . The data in (1) illustrate the emergence of  in Proto-Romance. (1)  > Proto-Rom. *al[j]enu ‘foreign, alien’  > Proto-Rom. *al[j]u ‘garlic’  > Proto-Rom. *ap[j]u ‘celery’  > Proto-Rom. *aran[j]a ‘spider’  > Proto-Rom. *ar[j]a ‘threshing floor’ > Proto-Rom. *bass[j]are ‘to lower’  > Proto-Rom. *bracch[j]u ‘arm’  > Proto-Rom. *cas[j]u ‘queijo’  > Proto-Rom. *cav[j]a ‘cage’  > Proto-Rom. *cil[j]a ‘eyebrow’  > Proto-Rom. *consil[j]u ‘council’  > Proto-Rom. *cun[j]a ‘wedge’  > Proto-Rom. *exag[j]u ‘essay’  > Proto-Rom. *fag[j]a ‘beech tree’  > Proto-Rom. *ferrar[j]u ‘blacksmith’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

48          > Proto-Rom. *fil[j]u ‘son’  > Proto-Rom. *fol[j]a ‘leaf ’  > Proto-Rom. *fort[j]a ‘strength’  > Proto-Rom. *fov[j]a ‘ditch, pit’  > Proto-Rom. *fug[j]u ‘I escape’  > Proto-Rom. *glac[j]e ‘ice’  > Proto-Rom. *hab[j]a ‘there is/are-P. S.’  > Proto-Rom. *hispan[j]a ‘Spain’  > Proto-Rom. *lab[j]u ‘lip’  > Proto-Rom. *mel[j]ore ‘better’  > Proto-Rom. *minac[j]a ‘threat’  > Proto-Rom. *mul[j]ere ‘woman’  > Proto-Rom. *pal[j]a ‘straw’  > Proto-Rom. *pin[j]a ‘pineapple’  > Proto-Rom. *pod[j]u ‘hill, bench’  > Proto-Rom. *put[j]u ‘pozo’  > Proto-Rom. *rab[j]a ‘anger’  > Proto-Rom. *rad[j]are ‘to beam, shine’  > Proto-Rom. *rad[j]u ‘ray’  > Proto-Rom. *rat[j]one ‘reason’  > Proto-Rom. *rub[j]u ‘red’  > Proto-Rom. *sen[j]ore ‘sir’  > Proto-Rom. *somn[j]u ‘dream, sleep’  > Proto-Rom. *tal[j]are ‘to cutʼ  > Proto-Rom. *vindem[j]a ‘grape harvest’  > Proto-Rom. *vin[j]a ‘vineyard’  > Proto-Rom. *viril[j]a ‘groin’ The appearance of  and its interactions with surrounding consonants represent the seed of the innovation that would later uniquely characterize the sound inventory of Romance, i.e. the creation of the palatal order of consonants, including not only sounds documented in many of the languages within this family, such as the sonorants [ʎ ɲ] and the obstruents [ʦ ʣ ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ], but also consonants whose appearance in the Romance-speaking world is restricted to selected varieties, such as [ʈʂ ɖʐ c ɟ ʝ ɖ ɭ ]. The following sections illustrate the historical sources of these sounds and provide a literature review of the most relevant and intensely debated issues.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

49

4.3 The emergence of the palatal lateral [ʎ] Multiple Latin sources gave rise to the palatal lateral [ʎ] in the history of the Romance languages. Based on the documented chronological development of these multiple sources and the various results they produced in the different parts of the Romance-speaking world, it is possible to characterize the emergence of [ʎ] within two separate stages, namely, a first-stage [ʎ] (henceforth ʎ₁) which emerged already in Proto-Romance and, thus, is common to virtually all of the Romance varieties; and a second-stage [ʎ] (henceforth ʎ₂), whose scope in the Romance-speaking world is more limited and emerges in the history of Ibero-Romance varieties. The subsequent development of both palatal laterals is also important to justify their chronological differentiation. For example, ʎ₁ emerged in the history of all Romance languages and delateralized in many varieties, while in others it subsequently strengthened into an obstruent, either an affricate or a fricative. Second-stage [ʎ], on the other hand, prevailed well into some of the modern Ibero-Romance varieties and started to lose its lateral articulation in the last few centuries in many dialects, the result of which has produced a frequent merger with a coetaneous palatal glide or obstruent consonant (cf. Chapter 5). The different pathways of change for the principal sources of ʎ₁ are discussed in §4.3.1, while those of ʎ₂ are reviewed in §4.3.2. Exceptions and comparative evidence from different languages are provided to motivate the various evolutionary patterns of both of these palatal laterals.

4.3.1 First-stage [ʎ] (ʎ₁) 4.3.1.1 [-lj-] One of the consequences of the emergence of  was the palatalization of the preceding alveolar lateral [l] and the eventual emergence of ʎ1, as shown in (2). (2) Proto-Rom. *a[lj]enu > Rom. a[ʎ]enu ‘foreign, alien’ Proto-Rom. *a[lj]u > Rom. a[ʎ]u ‘garlic’ Proto-Rom. *ci[lj]a > Rom. ci[ʎ]a ‘eyebrow’ Proto-Rom. *consi[lj]u > Rom. consi[ʎ]u ‘council’ Proto-Rom. *fi[lj]u > Rom. fi[ʎ]u ‘son’ Proto-Rom. *fo[lj]a > Rom. fo[ʎ]a ‘leaf ’ Proto-Rom. *me[lj]ore > Rom. me[ʎ]ore ‘better’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

50         Proto-Rom. *mu[lj]ere > Rom. mu[ʎ]ere ‘woman’ Proto-Rom. *pa[lj]a > Rom. pa[ʎ]a ‘straw’ Proto-Rom. *ta[lj]are > Rom. ta[ʎ]are ‘to cutʼ Proto-Rom. *viri[lj]a > Rom. viri[ʎ]a ‘groin’ The emergence of ʎ₁ (< [lj]) is assumed to have taken place fairly early, since it is attested in the history of nearly all Romance languages, some of which still preserve it, as illustrated in (3). (3) Proto-Rom. *a[lj]u > Pt. a[ʎ]o, Cat. a[ʎ] ‘garlic’ Proto-Rom. *fo[lj]a > Cat. fu[ʎ]a, Pt. fo[ʎ]a ‘leaf ’ Proto-Rom. *mel[j]ore > It. mi[ʎʎ]ore, Pt. me[ʎ]or ‘better’ Proto-Rom. *mul[j]ere > OFr. moi[ʎ]er, Ara., Cat., Pt. mu[ʎ]er, Prov. mo[ʎ]er, It. mo[ʎʎ]e ‘woman, wife’ Proto-Rom. *pal[j]a > It. pa[ʎː]a, Cat., Pt. pa[ʎ]a, ‘straw’ Proto-Rom. *viri[lj]a > Pt. viri[ʎ]a ‘groin’ Equally important, however, is the subsequent evolution of this “pan-Romance” ʎ₁ (< [lj]), namely, its delateralization, which gives rise to a palatal glide [j] (and in some cases to Ø) in the history of many languages, as shown in (4). (4) Proto-Rom. *pal[j]a > Fr. pai[j]e, Ro. pa[j]e ‘straw’ Proto-Rom. *fo[lj]a > Fr. feui[j]e, Ro. foa[j]e ‘sheet, leaf ’ Proto-Rom. *mu[lj]ere > Ro. mu[j]ere, Ast., Ist-Ro. mu[j]er, Pied. (Bergamasco) moer ‘woman, wife’ Ariza (2012: 27) summarizes this evolution straightforwardly: “toda /l̬/ se convierte en /y/”.² With regard to the delateralization of ʎ₁ in the evolution of French, Pope (1934: §106c) argues that it must have occurred between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Alonso (1961: 160) further mentions a French text from 1687, which reveals the prestige of the palatal lateral pronunciation in Paris at the time, but also recognizes its increasing delateralization in the popular speech of the bourgeoisie: “ . . . dans la petite bourgeoisie de Paris on trouve beaucoup de gens . . . que pour dire bataillon, postillon, bouteille, mouillé, bouillon, et autres mots, . . . disent batayon, postiyon, boutaiye, mouyé, bouyon.” The palatal glide [j] (< ʎ₁) was also frequently deleted when in contact with a preceding palatal vowel (e.g. *fil[j]u > Fr. fils, Ro. fiu ‘son’). In other cases, however, this  strengthened into an affricate (e.g. the alveolar

² Here the symbol [l ̬] represents [ʎ], and [y] indicates the glide [j].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

51

[ʣ] in Sardinian varieties, or the palato-alveolar [ʧ] in Asturian) or a fricative (e.g. the palato-alveolar [ʒ] in Old Spanish, cf. §4.3.1.3), as shown in (5). (5) Proto-Rom. *fo[j]a > OSp. ho[ʒ]a ‘sheet, leaf ’ Proto-Rom. *me[j]or > OSp. me[ʒ]or ‘better’ Proto-Rom. *mu[j]er > Log.-Nuo. mu[ʣ]ere, OSp. mu[ʒ]er ‘woman’ Proto-Rom. *pa[j]a > Ast. pa[ʧ]a, OSp. pa[ʒ]a ‘straw’

4.3.1.2 [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] The syncope of a postonic vowel (e.g. [ŭ] > [o] > Ø) in the Latin groups -and --,³ from frequent diminutive sequences such as -, -, -, etc. (cf. Ariza 2012: 27), gave rise to the early velar + lateral consonant sequences [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] in Proto-Romance. The subsequent evolution of these groups represents one of the differences between the development of Ibero- and Gallo-Romance on one hand, and the other Romance languages. In Iberoand Gallo-Romance varieties, [-k.l-, -ɡ.l-] evolved into a palatal lateral [ʎ] which eventually merged with the same result from the evolution of [-lj-] (i.e. ʎ₁), as illustrated in (6). (6)  > Proto-Rom. ori[k.l]a > Fr. orei[j]e, Occ. aure[ʎ]a, Pt., Cat. ore[ʎ]a ‘ear’  > Proto-Rom. o[k.l]u > Fr. oe[j], Occ. ue[ʎ], Cat. u[ʎ], Ara. ue[ʎ]o, Pt. o[ʎ]o, Ast. ue[ʧ]u, ‘eye’  > Proto-Rom. re[ɡ.l]a > Occ., Cat., Pt. re[ʎ]a ‘ploughshare’ In other varieties, however, [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] present divergent evolutionary paths. For example, in Italian the voiceless plosive [k] was preserved (with gemination) and the lateral vocalized into [j], while in Romanian this segment palatalized the preceding [k] into a plosive [c]. The original Latin sequence --, on the other hand, may or may not have evolved into [-ɡ.l-] in these languages, as shown in (7). (7)  > Proto-Rom. ori[k.l]a > It. ore[kːj]o, Ro. ure[c]e ‘ear’  > Proto-Rom. o[k.l]u > Italian o[kːj]o, Ro. o[c]iu ‘eye’  > It. te[ɡol]a,4 but Ro. t̹i[ɡl]ă (< ) ‘tile’ ³ And also in --, when *[-t.l-] > [-k.l-], e.g.    in the Appendix Probi, a Late Latin document written by grammarian Probus, who recommended how some words should be pronounced and, thus, put in evidence the popular pronunciation at that time. ⁴ The syncope of [-ŭ-] (< --) also occurred in some Italian words and followed the same evolutionary pathway as [-ɡ.l-] in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance, e.g. Lat.  >  > It. ca[ʎː]o ‘rennet’ (cf. Pt. coa[ʎ]o).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

52         Based on this evidence, two main explanations have been proposed for the evolution of Latin -- and -- into ʎ₁ in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance. The most generalized and accepted account is that of Romanists and language historians such as Pope (1934), Menéndez Pidal (1950), Rohlfs (1966), Craddock (1980), Lapesa (1981), Pensado (1984), Lloyd (1987), Torreblanca (1988), Ariza (1990, 2012), Penny (2002), among others. According to this view, both velar consonants, while in coda position after the syncope of the following postonic vowel [ŭ], weakened their occlusion and fronted their articulation into *[ç] and *[ʝ], respectively, before further vocalizing into a palatal glide *[j], i.e. [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] > *[-ç.l- -ʝ.l-] > *[-j.l-]. The resulting glide [j], then, would have palatalized the following alveolar lateral [l] of the following syllable and eventually given rise to ʎ₁, in an evolutionary pathway along the lines of (8). (8)  > lente[k.l]a > *lente[ç.l]a > *lente[j.l]a > *lente[j.lj]a > lente [ʎ]a ‘lentilʼ  > nava[k.l]a > *nava[ç.l]a > *nava[j.l]a > *nava[j.lj]a > nava [ʎ]a ‘razor’  > o[k.l]o > *o[ɣ.l]o > *o[jl]o > *o[jlj]o > o[ʎ]o ‘eye’  > verme[k.l]o > *verme[ç.l]o > *verme[j.l]o > *verme[j.lj]o > verme[ʎ]o ‘red’ ( >)  > ve[k.l]o > *ve[ç.l]o > *ve[j.l]o > *ve[j.lj]o > ve[ʎ]o ‘old’  > re[ɡ.l]a > *re[ʝ.l]a > *re[j.l]a > *re[j.lj]a > re[ʎ]a ‘ploughshare’  > te[ɡ.l]a > *te[ʝ.l]a > *te[j.l]a > *te[j.lj]a > te[ʎ]a ‘tile’ The rationale for the evolutionary pathways exemplified in (8) stems from a reportedly similar evolution in Hispano- and Luso-Romance, in which other consonant groups also would have had a velar consonant in coda position that vocalized into a glide [j]. Such is the case of [-k.s-] and [-k.t-] for example, in which the velar plosive [k] developed into [j] before assibilating or affricating the following segments, as illustrated in (9). (9)  > mata[k.s]a > *mata[j.s]a > Pt. made[j.ʃ]a, OSp. made[ʃ]a ‘skein’  > a[k.s]e > *a[j.s]e > Pt. e[j.ʃ]o, OSp. e[ʃ]e ‘axis’  > la[k.t]e > *la[j.t]e > Pt. le[j.t]e, OSp. le[j.ʧ]e ‘milk’5 ⁵ Note that the vocalization of velar [k] in the group [-k.t-] did not palatalize the following dental consonant [t] in Portuguese, cf.  > la[k.t]e > *la[j.t]e > Pt. le[j.t]e. The affricate [ʧ] in current standard Brazilian Portuguese (cf. [ˈlejʧɪ] ‘milk’) derives from the raising of unstressed [e] before the affrication and eventual palatalization of the preceding dental consonant [t]. The reconstruction of this sound change is warranted by both historical evidence (Mattoso Câmara 1970; Cristófaro Silva and Oliveira Guimarães 2009) and dialects of Brazilian Portuguese in which [e] has not yet been raised or when it has, it has not yet palatalized the preceding [t], cf. leite [ˈlejte] or [ˈlejtɪ] ‘milk’, noite [ˈnojte] or [ˈnojtɪ] ‘night’, in southern and northeastern varieties of Brazilian Portuguese (Cristófaro Silva 2009).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

53

Rini (1991: 118), however, rejects the notion that a preceding  could have palatalized a following consonant, since most cases of palatalization in Romance, including the cases of assibilation and affrication, have derived from a following [j]. The author adds: “( . . . ) as a native speaker of English, I cannot say I have ever witnessed the palatalization of any consonant by a preceding , i.e., ‘I told him’ *[ai̯ tšou̯ld him], ‘exciting’ *[eksai̯tšiŋ]” (Rini 1991: 111, n. 4). The author also points out the fact that, while [-k.s-] eventually evolved into [ʃ] in Old Spanish and in [j.ʃ] in Portuguese, the same cannot be said for [-k.t-]. Although this sequence palatalized and eventually developed into Spanish [ʧ] (e.g. , ,  > Sp. he[ʧ] o ‘fact, event’, no[ʧ]e ‘night’, le[ʧ]e ‘milk’), it did not follow the same path in the history of Portuguese (e.g. , ,  >Pt. fe[j.t]o ‘event’, no[j.t] e ‘night’, le[j.t]e ‘milk’). In light of this comparative evidence regarding the (non-)palatalization of consonant groups [-k.l- -ɡ.l- -k.t- -k.s-], Rini proposes an additional step for the evolution of [-k.l-, -ɡ.l-] (and, consequently, for that of [-k.s- -k.t-]), namely, the  resulting from the vocalization of coda obstruents would have incurred first a process of metathesis, and only then would have palatalized the preceding consonant, just as it did in the case of [lj-], as illustrated in (10). (10)  > o[k.l]u > *o[ç.l]o > *o[j.l]o > *o[lj]o > o[ʎ]o ‘eye’  > re[ɡ.l]a > *re[ʝ.l]a > *re[j.l]a > *re[lj]a > re[ʎ]a ‘ploughshare’ ( >)  > ve[k.l]u > *ve[ʝ.l]o > *ve[j.l]o > *ve[lj]o > ve[ʎ]o ‘old’ To justify the metathesis of [j], Rini (1991: 119) resorts to a likely process of phonetic analogy between the intermediate stage *[-j.l-] (< [-k.l- -ɡ.l-]) and the highly frequent occurrences of existing [-lj-] (< Lat. -- and --): “Thus the development of Latin /-k.l-/, /-ɡ.l-/, and /-t.l-/, after vocalization of the syllable-final consonant, [i̯l], with metathesis to [lj] was swept up in the change of Latin primary /lj/.” In other Romance varieties, such as Romanian, Rini (1991: 119) argues that the metathesis of  did not occur because [j] never emerged in the first place: “Like the retention of voiceless stops, there was a tendency to maintain a cluster here, even if altered in form:  > It. notte, Ro. noapte. Consequently no  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] > [ʎ] (as in Cat. i[ʎ]a < *i[jʎ]a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

54         < i[jl]a < is[l]a < Lat.  ‘island’), and [jn] > [ɲ] (as in J-Sp. pe[ɲ]i <  ‘comb’). In fact, Recasens (2014a: 130) shows how progressive palatalization is especially productive in the sequence [-j.s-], rendering [jʃ] or [ʃ], such as Western Catalan re[jʃ] (cf. Cat. re[js]) ‘kings’ and European Portuguese do[jʃ] (cf. most varieties of Brazilian Portuguese do[js]) ‘two’. Wireback (1997) offers a substantially different account to explain the palatalization of [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] and the emergence of ʎ₁ from these sources in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance. According to the author’s proposal, [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] first evolved into *[-kʎ- -ɡʎ-], after which both velar consonants would have eroded due to lenition until they finally disappeared, leaving [ʎ] as a result in intervocalic position. Wireback centers his proposal basically on two arguments. First, after the syncope of [ŭ], both [k] and [ɡ] 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 [ɡl] in Latin: ( . . . ) it is unclear why /k/ and /g/ should become syllable final after syncope. Before syncope, the initial syllable structure of the Romance sequence in  ‘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 /k/ cannot remain in its original onset position now that its vocalic nucleus has been lost. At this point, the stranded /k/ 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  ‘key’,  ‘nail’, and  ‘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 /k/ remained in syllable-final position after syncope, because before syncope /k/ 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 /k/ 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 *[kʎ], then the same evolution would necessarily need to be posited for [-k.l- -ɡ.l-]. Different mechanisms would, then, account for the diverging results of [kʎ ɡʎ] throughout the Romance languages, namely, obstruent spirantization in intervocalic position and delateralization of [ʎ] 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 [kʎ] produced a heavy onset cluster in articulatory terms,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

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 /ʎ/. 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 /č/ [= tʃ]. (Wireback 1997: 71)

Wireback (1997: 81–2), then, proposes a series of four stages for the evolution of Romance [-k.l- -ɡ.l], namely: (i) regular intervocalic palatalization: /k.l/ ! [kʎ], /ɡ.l/ ! [ɡʎ]; (ii) extension of this palatalization to postconsonantal clusters in Hispano-Romance: /Ck.l/ ! [Ckʎ], /Cɡ.l/ ! [Cɡʎ]; (iii) voicing of intervocalic Romance clusters: [kʎ] ! [ɡʎ]; and (iv) merger of [ɡʎ] (< /k.l, ɡ.l/) with [ʎ] (< /lj/): [ɡʎ] > /ʎ/. A few problems characterize Wireback’s proposal for intervocalic [-kʎ- -ɡʎ-] as an initial development in Romance. For example, word-initial [kl- ɡl-] and word-medial, postconsonantal [-Ck.l- -Cɡ.l-] never palatalized in languages such as French and Catalan, e.g.  >Fr. clé, Cat. clau ‘key’;  >Fr. mâle, Cat. mascle ‘male’. If one accepts Wireback’s proposal, then one would also need to suggest the emergence of *[kʎ- ɡʎ- Ckʎ- Cɡʎ-] in these languages and then posit an additional ad hoc mechanism of depalatalization, whereby these sequences mysteriously would have gone back to their original state, i.e. Lat. [kl- ɡl- Ckl- Cɡl-] > Rom. *[kʎ- ɡʎ- Ckʎ- Cɡʎ-] > Fr., Cat. [kl- ɡl- CklCɡl-]. Given the available evidence, these additional steps of an initial [kl-, ɡl-, Ckl-, Cɡl-]-palatalization and then a subsequent [ʎ]-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- ɡl-] did not palatalize in Gallo-Romance was because wordmedial [Ckl- Cɡl-] 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.l-] palatalized into *[kʎ] (e.g.  >It. *ore[kːʎ]o > ore[kːj]o, Ro. *ure[kʎ]e > *ure[kj]e > ure[c]e ‘ear’), but the intervocalic voiced sequence [-ɡ.l-] remained unchanged or never even emerged (e.g.  > It. te[ɡol]a,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

56         Ro. t̹i[ɡl]ă ‘roof tile’). 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 [-ɡ.l-]-palatalization into [-ɡʎ-] in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance lacks its own phonetic motivation. In sum, the author’s account reveals itself circular in nature and leaves several questions unanswered. Moreover, by stipulating the reconstructed stages *[-kʎ- -ɡʎ-] and *[Ckʎ- Cɡʎ-] for necessarily all Romance varieties, it ends up having to resort to ad hoc 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- -ɡ.l-] by Menéndez Pidal (1950) and others still proves to be the simplest and most direct change pattern toward the development into ʎ₁ in 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.  > Sp. padre, Fr. père ‘father’, Lat.  > Sp. doblar, Fr. doubler), it is conceivable that at some point the velar consonant in [-k.l-] (< --) may have voiced into *[-ɡ.l-] and followed the course of the coetaneous [-ɡ.l-] (< --) in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance, spirantizing into *[ɣ.l] and eventually fronting its articulation to *[ʝ.l] and vocalizing into *[j.l]. Alternatively, assuming that both velars remained in coda position, it may also have been the case that both may have neutralized into *[ɣ.l], in the same spirit of voiced plosive codas in most current varieties of Spanish, e.g. a[ð]quirir ‘to acquire’, ri[ð]mo ‘rhythm’, dia[ɣ]nóstico ‘diagnostic’, a[ɣ]tor ‘actor’ (cf. Navarro Tomás 1991: 78–9). Be that as it may, the fact is that the evolutionary pathways of [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] did merge with those of [-lj-] in the evolution of many words in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance varieties, giving rise to ʎ₁. The question whether [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] should or should not have been syllabified as onsets (i.e. as [-kl- -ɡl-]) after the syncope of [-ŭ-] (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 -- and -(< Lat. -- and --, cf. Appendix Probi   ) should necessarily have had the exact same pronunciation as word-initial - and - (as in Lat.  ‘key’ and  ‘acorn’). Put in a different way, it may have been the case that the velar consonants of word-initial - and - were

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

57

pronounced as plosives, while the velar consonants of intervocalic -- and -- 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. glándula ‘gland’ and regla ‘rule’), but speakers from the vast majority of dialects pronounce differently according to each context, i.e. as [ɡl] word-initially, but as [ɣl] between vowels (e.g. glándula [ˈɡlan̪ dula], but regla [ˈreɣla]), even though both sequences are acceptable syllable onsets. In the particular development of Ibero- and Gallo-Romance [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] > *[ɣ.l], however, it may have been the case that the weakening of *[ɣ] 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 [ɣ] 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 -- and -- may still have surfaced phonetically, instead of disappearing altogether as orthographic  or  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 *[ɣu.l]. 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 -- and -- consistently evolved into [ʎ] in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance, while word-initial - and - 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.l-] and [-ɡ.l-] may not have had necessarily the same pronunciation as their word-initial counterparts. This motivates the hypothesis that the plosives in [-k.l- -ɡ.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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

58         Romance varieties the lack of velar lenition motivated [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] to resyllaby as [-kl-] and [-ɡl-] and, thus, present the same pronunciation as their wordinitial counterparts. Therefore, reconstructions such as  > *o[k.l]u > *o[ɣ.l]o > *o[j.l]o > *o[j.lj]o > o[ʎ]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 ʎ₁ into Old Spanish [-ʒ-] The evolutionary pathway of ʎ₁ into Old Spanish [-ʒ-] 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 Millán de la Cogolla. The appearance of [ʒ] 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 , , , and  are found to be written with various orthographic representations, such as , , , , , , and (Menéndez Pidal 1950: 58–60). For instance, a word such as Lat.  ‘woman’ gives way to OSp. mugger or mugier. Lapesa (1981: 167) also cites the case of paja ‘straw’, ojo ‘eye’, and vieju ‘old’ (< Lat. , , ). 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 [ʒ] or an affricate [ʤ]. In light of this, many speculative accounts have surfaced in the literature. Menéndez Pidal (1950: 275), for example, puts forth a hypothesis to explain the change in the pronunciation of ʎ₁, by arguing that: [l]o corriente es hallar en Castilla grafías que no pueden indicar [l ̬], sino que algún sonido que ha perdido ya su carácter de lateral, y que sin duda debemos interpretar [žˆ] o [ž]: mortagga 937, taggare 964, magguelo 979, 1044 Cardeña Cartul., págs. 330, 367, 305, 161; Uallegio 1011 Oña, Ualleijo 1057 Oña < vallı̌cǔlu; conçego 1057, Nogga 1034, Cascaihares 1011, que unidas a la grafía latinizante relias 974, y la más corriente espejo 1096, se usan mezcladas durante el siglo XII. La grafía latinizante li pudiera indicar l ̬; pero la j no puede indicar sino una evolución de l ̬ > y, o bien una [žˆ] o [ž]; hemos de aceptar esto último en vista de las otras grafías g, gg, ih.⁶

⁶ Menéndez Pidal’s phonetic symbols [l ̬], [y], [žˆ], and [ž] correspond to IPA [ʎ], [ʝ], [ɟ/ʤ], and [ʒ], respectively.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

59

Based on Menéndez Pidal’s philological research and insights, many authors working on Ibero-Romance have proposed a direct change [ʎ] > [ʒ] 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 existió un grado primitivo l̬, ¿cómo se pasó de l̬ a ž?” Before embarking into an attempt of explanation, it is worth keeping in mind what happened to the same [ʎ] 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, ʎ₁ was preserved, e.g. OPt. ouelia [oˈveʎa] ‘sheep’ and molier [moˈʎɛɾ] ‘woman’, OAra. maglolo [maˈʎolo] ‘hawthorn’, etc. (Menéndez Pidal 1950: 53–5). In Old Eastern and Central Leonese, however, the evidence suggests that ʎ₁ delateralized and evolved into a palatal fricative [ʝ], 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 Sahagún from 1171, while Lapesa (1981: 166) presents the case of paya ‘straw’, güeyu ‘eye’, and vieyu ‘old’. Moreover, Menéndez Pidal (1950: 277) confirms the almost exclusive use of for words which derived from Latin , , and . These findings have led scholars to propose the emergence of an earlier yeísmo in Old Leonese, not to be confused with the yeísmo of Modern Spanish (cf. Chapter 5), although the latter may offer valuable insights for the evolution of ʎ₁ as well. With regard to the attempts to explain the evolution of ʎ₁ into [ʒ] 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 [ʎ], claiming that “en la ll lateral hay un rehilamiento [friction] que le es propio, o sea una vibración, 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 articulación.” However, other authors endorse the hypothesis that a change from ʎ₁ to [ʒ] took place to prevent the former from merging with ʎ₂ < [pl- kl- fl- lː] (cf. §4.3.2.1). According to this view, the putative fricative component of ʎ₁, which should have been nondistinctive until then, would have emerged as distinctive between the two

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

60         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 ʎ₁ and ʎ₂ in other Ibero-Romance varieties, such as Catalan, Navarro-Aragonese, and a few dialects of Leonese, as pointed out by Lapesa (1981: 166): La evolución de la geminada /ll/ y la de los grupos /c’l/, /g’l/, /l + yod/ llegaron a un mismo resultado /l̬/ en algunas zonas del Occidente leonés (/purtielu̬ /, igual que /bielu̬ /, /uol ̬us/ ‘ojos’, /pal ̬a/ en San Ciprián de Sanabria), en navarro-aragonés (caballo, castiello, igual que viello, palla) y en catalán occidental (cavall, castell, vell, ull, palla, todos con /l̬/).

Thus, although the hypothesized change [ʎ] > [ʒ] 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 ʎ₁ in other Ibero- and Gallo-Romance languages at different periods, and also from the evolution of ʎ₂ in Spanish itself (cf. §4.3.2.1 and Chapter 5), strongly suggests an intermediate delateralized stage, whereby ʎ₁ most likely gave rise to a central palatal segment *[j] or *[ʝ], which, in turn, strengthened into [ʒ]. Granda Gutiérrez (1966) is one of the few scholars who proposed an intermediate step in the evolution of ʎ₁ into [ʒ] in Old Spanish. In fact, the author sketches a general evolution of Latin [-lj- -k.l- -ɡ.l-] and [lː] into the languages of Central and Eastern Iberia as follows: a. -lj-, -k.l-, -ɡ.l- > (ʝ/j) > ʎ (= ʎ₁), in Catalan, Navarro-Aragonese, and Mozarabic lː > ʎ (= ʎ₂) b. -lj-, -k.l-, -ɡ.l- > (ʝ/j) > ʝ > ʝ, in Southeastern Menorca and Riberas del Navia lː > ʎ (= ʎ₂) > ʝ c. -lj-, -k.l-, -ɡ.l- > (ʝ/j) > ʝ, in Western Leon and Asturias, Balearic Islands, etc. lː > ʎ (= ʎ₂) d. -lj-, -k.l-, -ɡ.l- > (ʝ/j) > ʝ > ʒ, in Castile and Central and Eastern Leon lː > ʎ (= ʎ₂) Granda Gutiérrez’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 [ʎ] from Latin [-lj- -kl- -ɡl-] and also inexplicably proposes the change *[ʝ j] > [ʎ], which is not attested in any

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

61

Romance language. With regard to the Spanish data in (d), his account does not recognize ʎ₁ as a historical stage in the evolution of Latin [-lj- -k.l- -ɡ.l-] and, instead, suggests that these sequences lost their lateral component altogether and developed a central palatal segment before giving rise to [ʒ]. Furthermore, Granda Gutiérrez fails to account for the fact that the evolution of the proposed stage *ʝ/j never merged with the coetaneous palatal plosive [ɟ] in Spanish. Indeed, this has been the main argument in the literature to justify a direct change from ʎ₁ to [ʒ]; in other words, the hypothesis that if ʎ₁ had delateralized into *[ʝ] or *[j], then it would necessarily have merged with [ɟ], as Ariza (1994: 93) states: Uno de los argumentos más sólidos en contra de una evolución de la yod segunda no nasal pálea > pál ̬a > *páya > páža era que, de haber existido el estadio [páya], se tendría que haber fundido la /y/ <  con la // < , , etc., o, como se pregunta Dámaso Alonso, por qué [mayór] no pasó a [mažor].

Alonso (1962: 84) raises the same hypothesis, but is more cautious in his evaluation and considers the possibility of an actual delateralization of ʎ₁, albeit not providing a definitive answer to the problem of how ʎ₁ became [ʒ], particularly since one will never know how exactly sounds were pronounced in the past: ( . . . ) pudo también haber causas desconocidas que, en lejana época, mantuvieron la -y- de mayo mientras se operaba la serie muller > muyer > mužer. Es posible que la -y- de mayo y la del castellano prelit. muyer no hayan sido siempre iguales; es posible que la -y- < l̬ < -lj-, etc., tuviera desde el principio algún rehilamiento. Hay aquí, como siempre, en los lingüistas, una tendencia a sentenciar. La verdad es que no sabemos. No sabemos siquiera si la pluraridad de grafías del castellano primitivo (g, gg, i, j, ih, etc.) cubría un solo sonido o una serie de palatales distintas, de las que todas sucumbieron menos ž.

Lapesa (1981: 167, n.10), on the other hand, chooses to consider the evolution of ʎ₁ together with that of ʎ₂. 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 [lː] palatalized into ʎ₂, ʎ₁ had already changed to [ʝ], [ɟ], or [ʒ]; b. In dialects where Latin [lj kl ɡl] eventually evolved into a central palatal segment, [ʎ] emerged first, but somehow was kept different from ʎ₂;

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

62         c. Latin [lj kl ɡl] evolved into either [ʝ] or [ɟ] from the start and never gave rise to ʎ₁. 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 ʎ₁ had developed a “non-distinctive fricative element” that emerged as distinctive when ʎ₂ came 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 ʎ₁ would have so as to keep it in contrast with ʎ₂, especially when no other Ibero-Romance language had a ʎ₁ 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 ʎ₁ first gave rise to a palatal glide *[j] early enough in Hispanic Latin, which evolved independently from the coetaneous [ɟ] (cf. §4.5.1 and §4.5.2). The evolution of this palatal glide *[j] (< ʎ₁), thus, entails a series of strengthening processes that eventually led this segment to assibilate into [ʒ] in Old Spanish (i.e. *[j] > *[ʝ] > [ʒ]), hence keeping the contrast with [ɟ], which, in turn, developed an intervocalic allophone [ʝ] by the time when [ʒ] (< *[ʝ] < *[j] < ʎ₁) had already emerged. This hypothesis is consistent not only with the history of ʎ₁ in other Romance languages, such as Romanian, French, Portuguese, and ItaloRomance varieties, but also with [ʎ]-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 [ʎ] (ʎ₂) 4.3.2.1 [pl- 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 [pl- 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, [pl- 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

63

Table 4.1 Evolution of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] across the Romance-speaking world L

pl

kl

fl

Eastern Romance

Romanian

pl

kj/c

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

pl

kl

fl

Piedmontese

pj

ʧ

fj

Ligurian (Genoese)

ʧ

ʧ

ʃ

Ligurian (Cinqueterrean)

ʧ

ʧ

fj

Lombard (Milanese)

pj

ʧ

fj

Lombard (Alpine)

pl

kl

fl

Venetan

pj

ʧ

fj

Emilian-Romagnol (Bolognese)

pj

ʧ

fj

Italian, Tuscan, Corsican, Romanesco, Umbrian, Marchigiano

pj

kj

fj

Italo-Romance: Dialects of northern Italy

Italo-Romance: Dialects of central and southern Italy

Abruzzo (some dialetcts)

pj/kj

kj

fj

Molisan

c

c

ʃ/ç

Pugliese and Salentino

c

c

fj

Neapolitan

kj

kj

ʃ

Sicilian

ʧ

ʧ

ʃ/ç

Sardinian

Sardinian

pɾ

kɾ

fɾ

Gallo-Romance

French

pl

kl

fl

Dialectal French (Lorrain, Bourguignon)

pl

kj/tj

fl

Francoprovençal (Chevroux)

pʧ

kʎ

fʧ

Francoprovençal (Ruffieu-en-Valromey)

pʎ

kʎ

fʎ

Occitan

pl

kl

fl

Occitan (Gascon)

pl

kl

hl

Catalan

pl

kl

fl

Ribagorzan

pʎ

kʎ

fʎ

Aragonese

pl

kl

fl

Spanish

ʎ

ʎ

ʎ

Asturian

ʎ

ʎ

ʎ

Leonese

pɾ

kɾ

fɾ

Galician

tʃ

tʃ

tʃ

Portuguese

ʃ

ʃ

ʃ

Ibero-Romance

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

64         As illustrated in Table 4.1, the Latin sequence [kl-] evolved into a palatalized velar [kj] or a palatal plosive [c] in Romanian, while [pl- fl-] remained unchanged in this language.⁷ The plosive [c] derives from the palatalization of [kj], which stems from an earlier stage [kʎ-], conserved until the fifteenth century (Pană Dindelegan 2013: 10). In Rhaeto-Romance, all three clusters are conserved in most varieties, with the exception of a few dialects of Ladin in which [pl- kl- fl-] give way to [pj- kj- fj-] (as in Fassano and Moenan) and the velar consonant in [kl-] changes its place of articulation and becomes [tl-] (as in Marebbano, Badiotto, and Gardenese). The evolution of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] becomes truly complex in Italo-Romance varieties, in which several results are attested, including [pj-], [kj-], [fj-], [c-], [ʧ-], [ʃ-], and [ç-]. In Sardinian, on the other hand, the lateral [l] is rhotacized, giving way to [pɾ- kɾ- fɾ-]. GalloRomance varieties generally preserve the original Latin clusters (cf. French and Occitan in Table 4.1), with a few exceptions, such as dialectal French (e.g. Lorrain and Bourguignon in eastern France), where - > [kj- / tj-], and Gascon, where - can also give way to [fl-/hl-]. Ibero-Romance languages present yet another set of diverging evolutionary pathways. Catalan and Aragonese mirror the results of most Gallo-Romance varieties, Leonese mirrors those found in Sardinian, and Galician presents the outcome [ʧ] (also found in many dialects of northern Italy and Sicilian), which deaffricated into [ʃ] in the history of Portuguese. In Ribagorzan, the obstruents in the original Latin clusters remained unchanged while the lateral palatalized into [ʎ], which is the same result obtained in Francoprovençal, although in the latter variety one also finds cases where [pl- fl-] became [pʧ- fʧ-]. In Spanish the obstruents were dropped, leaving [ʎ] (i.e. ʎ₂) as the result of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] at least until the seventeenth century when it started to delateralize (cf. Chapter 5). The examples in (11) illustrate many of the aforementioned evolutionary results of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] in Romance varieties. (11)  > Sic. [ʧ]aia, It. [pj]aga, Fr. [pl]aie, Sp. [ʎ]aga, Pt. [ʃ]aga ‘wound’  > It. [pj]angere, Fr. [pl]eurer, Cat. [pl]orar, Sp. [ʎ]orar, Pt. [ʃ]orar ‘to cry’  > Sic. [ʧ]ummu, Fr. [pl]omb, Fr-Prov. [pʎ]omb, Pt. [ʃ]umbo ‘lead’ 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 gave rise to a glide [j], producing the sequence [kj], e.g. chema [kjeˈma] ‘to call’ <  (Repetti 2016: 666), others state that a palatal plosive [c] is actually the consonant that emerged from the evolution of the original Latin cluster [kl-] (via delateralization of the palatal lateral in [kʎ-]), e.g. cheie [ˈceje] ‘key’ <  (Pană Dindelegan 2013: 10). Be that as it may, the plosive [c] seems to be a natural next step in the articulation of a palatalized velar [kj], given the articulatory similarities between [c] and [kj] (cf. Recasens 2014b).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

65

 > Ro. [pl]oaie, Ven. [pj]oba, Fr. [pl]uie, Cat. [pl]uja, Sp. [ʎ]uvia, Gl. [ʧ]uva, Pt. [ʃ]uva ‘rain’  > Ro. [kj]eamă, Lig. [ʧ]ama, It. [kj]ama, Sp. [ʎ]ama, Gl. [ʧ]ama, Pt. [ʃ]ama ‘call.3’  > Lad. [kl]af, Lad. (Fassan) [kj]ef, Fr-Prov. [kʎ]af, Cat., Ara. [kl]au, Sp. [ʎ]ave, Gl. [ʧ]ave, Pt. [ʃ]ave ‘key’  > Neap. [ʃ]amma, Fr-Prov. [fʧ]amna, Sp. [ʎ]ama, Pt. [ʃ]ama ‘flame’  > Ro. [fl]oare, Fri. [fl]or, Lad. (Fassan) [fj]o, Pied. [fj]ur, Lig. [ʃ]ua, It. [fj]ore, Moli. [ʃ/ç]ore, Occ. (Gascon) [hl]or, Sp., Pt. [fl]or ‘flower’ 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. [pɾ]aia ‘beach’  > Sp. [pl]aza, Pt. [pɾ]aça ‘town square’  > Sp. [pl]azo, Pt. [pɾ]azo ‘term, period’  > Sp., Pt. [pl]anta ‘plant’  > Sp. [pl]omo ‘lead’  > Sp. [kl]avo, Pt. [kɾ]avo ‘nail’  > Sp., Pt. [kl]aro ‘clear, light’  > Sp. [fl]aco ‘thin’, Pt. [fɾ]aco ‘weak’  > Sp., Pt. [fl]or ‘flower’  > Sp. [fl]ojo, Pt. [fɾ]ouxo ‘loose’ Many have been the attempts to account for the complex evolution of Latin [pl- 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

66         between velar [k] and the following lateral [l]. In other words, a palatal lateral [ʎ] 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 [pl- fl-] remain intact), Lloyd (1987) and Repetti and Tuttle (1987) hypothesize an initial set of [pl- kʎ- fl-] clusters, with the palatal lateral from [kʎ-] 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 *[kʎ-] in languages such as Spanish, they and other scholars (e.g. Ariza 2012: 115) indicate that [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] are still found in varieties of Francoprovençal and 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 Sánchez Méndez (2005: 152) report the occurrence of such clusters in Medieval Upper Aragonese, in words such as pllano ‘plain’ (< ), cllau ‘key’ (< ), fllama ‘flame’ (< ), 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. [pʎ]orá > [pj]orá ‘to cry’ (Martín Zorraquino and Fort Cañellas 1996: 300). Müller 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- ɡl-] and another containing [pj- bj- kj- ɡj-]. 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 (F1) to determine the degree of “palatality” of the lateral, under the assumption that the magnitude of F2-F1 is directly correlated with the degree of palatalization. Their results confirm the hypothesis that velar plosives favor [l]-palatalization in onset clusters more than labial plosives, as “velar + lateral and velar +  clusters may resemble each other during the first few milliseconds of the sound ( . . . ). This could not be seen in labial + lateral clusters” (Müller and Mota 2009: 1698). As for the articulatory patterns that produce [l]-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” (Müller and Mota 2009: 1698). The results from Müller 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

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- fl-] (cf. Romanian and dialectal French in Table 4.1). Once the original Latin clusters [pl- kl- fl-] become [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-], 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 [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] assimilated to [ʎ] 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 [ʎ]. Lloyd (1987: 225), on the other hand, maintains that the obstruents in [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] 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. Menéndez 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 (< ), flano (< ), aflamare (< ), among others. Indeed, Torreblanca (1990: 319–24) points out confusion of - with - and - in Leonese (e.g.  > plosa, flausa, flosa), leading the author to propose that [kʎ-] started to be first pronounced as [pʎ-]. Once [kʎ-] became [pʎ-], Old Spanish would have the sequences [pʎ- fʎ-] from the original Latin [pl- kl- fl-]. Tuttle (1975: 408–9), then, connects the simplification of [pʎ- fʎ-] into [ʎ-] 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 *[ɸ] and, then, into a glottal fricative [h], which coincided with the debuccalization of prevocalic initial [f-], as in [f] > [h] > Ø (cf.  > hijo ‘son’). Evidence for this proposed evolution of original [pl-] is found in Leonese toponyms such as Hllantada, Hlantada (< Latin ), 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 *[ɸ-] was the actual initiator of that of [f] in [fʎ-]: “( . . . ) the extension of [ɸ] (< /f/) aspiration from a prevocalic to a preconsonantal context before /ʎ/ triggered the loss of the initial obstruent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

68         in Spanish ( . . . ).” In sum, the unique evolution of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] into Spanish (and, by extention, Asturian) [ʎ-] could be reconstructed as in (13). (13) [pl- kl- fl-] > [pl- kʎ- fl-] > *[pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] > *[pʎ- fʎ-] > *[ɸʎ-] > *[hʎ-] > [ʎ-] 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 (- > [kj-]), Fassano and Moenan Ladin (-, - > [pj- kj-]), and Francoprovençal (cf. Table 4.1). In the latter variety, the case of Chevroux in eastern France is worth a few remarks. The resulting [pʧ kʎ fʧ] (< Latin [pl- kl- fl-]) reveal that the palatal glide in a likely delateralized stage of [ʎ] in the labial clusters (i.e. *[pj fj])] must have subsequently undergone strengthening (probably to an initial affricate [ɟʝ] or [ʤ]) and later devoicing into [ʧ] by voice assimilation to the preceding labial consonant. In fact, the same affricate [ʧ] is observed for [pj] in word-medial position in Old Provençal (cf. Lat.  > OProv. [ˈsapʧa] ‘know.3.’), and in the development of French it later deaffricated and gave rise to the palato-alveolar fricative [ʃ] (cf. Lat.  > Fr. [ˈsaʃ] ‘know.3.’). As for Ibero-Romance, the affricate [ʧ] also emerged in Galician and Portuguese, having subsequently deaffricated into [ʃ] in most varieties of the latter variety. Originally, the lack of obstruent lenition in the reconstructed clusters *[pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] would have facilitated a delateralization of [ʎ] into [j], i.e. *[pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] > *[pj- kj- fj-], as attested in Modern Upper Aragonese (e.g. [pʎ]orá > [pj]orá ‘to cry’ (Martín Zorraquino and Fort Cañellas 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 [cç] (cf. Chapter 3) and, eventually, [tʃ]. Assuming that [pj-] and [fj-] followed the same pathway of [kj-] by analogy, the unification stage of the three sequences is reached with [ʧ-], before deaffricating into [ʃ-] in Portuguese, as reconstructed in (14). (14)  > *[pʎ]egar > *[pj]egar > *[kj]egar > *[cç]egar > Gl., OPt. [ʧ]egar > Pt. [ʃ]egar ‘to arrive’  > *[pʎ]uva > *[pj]uva > *[kj]uva > *[cç]uva > Gl., OPt. [ʧ]uva > Pt. [ʃ]uva ‘rain’  > *[kʎ]amare > *[kj]amar > *[cç]amar > Gl., OPt. [ʧ]amar > Pt. [ʃ]amar ‘to call’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

69

 > *[kʎ]ave > *[kj]ave > *[cç]ave > Gl., OPt. [ʧ]ave, Pt. [ʃ]ave ‘key’  > *[fʎ]ama > *[fj]ama > *[kj]ama > *[cç]ama > Gl., OPt. [ʧ]ama > Pt. [ʃ]ama ‘flame’ Indeed, Repetti and Tuttle (1987: 102–6) propose that the loss of laterality in a cluster such as [kʎ-] 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 [j], the velar + plus glide sequence [kj] likely gave rise to a palatal plosive or affricate before giving rise to a palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ] (and later [ʃ] in Portuguese). Illustrative examples from different Romance varieties are provided in (15). (15)  > Ro. am[pl]u, It. am[pj]o, Fr. am[pl]e, Cat. am[pl]i, Ara. am[pl]o, Sp., Ast. an[ʧ]o, Pt. an[ʃ]o/am[pl]o ‘broad’  > Sp. con[ʧ]abar, Pt. con[ʃ]avar  > Fr. em[pl]ir, Sp. hen[ʧ]ir, Pt. en[ʃ]er ‘to fill’ ( >) * > Sp. man[ʧ]a, Pt. man[ʃ]a ‘stain’  > Sp. in[ʧ]ar, Pt. in[ʃ]ar ‘to inflate, swell’  > Ro. mas[kul], It. mas[kj]o, Fr. mâ[l]e, Sp. ma[ʧ]o, Pt. ma[ʃ]o ‘male’ Assuming that [pl kl fl] in this case also would have developed initially into *[pʎ kʎ fʎ], 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 [tʃ] after a consonant to that of word-initial [ʧ] in Galician and Old Portuguese. According to Lloyd (1987: 226), the [tʃ] resulting from *[Npʎ Nkʎ Nfʎ] was generalized to all positions in Galician and Portuguese, “while Castilian continued to preserve the palatal [ʎ] in initial position.” This argument, however, misses the fact that Latin word-initial [pl-] also gave rise to [ʧ-] in a few Spanish words, which are treated here as exceptions, as shown in (16).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

70         (16) * > Sp. [ʧ]ato ‘snub-nosed’  > * > Sp. [tʃ]opo ‘black poplar’  > Sp. [tʃ]ozo, whence [tʃ]oza ‘hut’ When taking into account the evolution of Latin [pl- kl- fl-] into [ʧ-] 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 *[Cpʎ Ckʎ Cfʎ]. 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 Galician and Portuguese, resulting in the affricate [tʃ]. 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 [ʎ-] and Galician and Old Portuguese [ʧ-] 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. ), pleno vs lleno (Lat. < ), 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 [ʎ-] or [ʧ-] (> Pt. [ʃ-]). 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 [ʎ-] (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 [ʎ] is of utmost importance because they represent most of the sources of ʎ₂. Other sources include the palatalization of Latin intervocalic geminate [lː] in Ibero- and Italo-Romance varieties and that of word-initial [l] in Catalan and some Astur-Leonese dialects, to which we now turn.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

71

4.3.2.2 [lː] As is well known, most Latin consonants also appeared in geminate forms. The different evolutionary pathways of the intervocalic lateral geminate [-lː-] 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 [lː] palatalized to [ʎ] 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[ʎ]o, Gl., Pt. ane[l] ‘ring’  > Sp. be[ʎ]o, Gl., Pt. be[l]o ‘beautiful’  > Sp. caba[ʎ]o, Gl. caba[l]o, Pt. cava[l]o ‘horse’  > Sp. cabe[ʎ]o, Pt. cabe[l]o ‘hairʼ  > Sp. casti[ʎ]o, Gl., Pt. caste[l]o ‘castle’  > Sp. cue[ʎ]o ‘neck’, Pt. co[l]o ‘lap’  > Sp. ga[ʎ]o, Gl., Pt. ga[l]o ‘rooster’  > Sp. estre[ʎ]a, Gl., Pt. estre[l]a ‘start’  > Sp. va[ʎ]e, Gl., va[l], Pt. va[l]e ‘valleyʼ In learned words, however, Spanish also presents cases of [lː]-degemination, such as Sp. vacilar ‘to hesitate’ (< ), película ‘film’ (< ) (but cf. pelleja ‘sheepskin’). Ariza (1990: 150; 2012: 203) also cites [ld] as yet another possible result from the evolution of [lː] in Spanish, as observed in learned words such as celda ‘cell’ (< , cf. Pt. cela), and rebelde ‘rebel’ (< ). Ariza’s explanation for the latter evolution focuses on the hypothesis that speakers would try to reproduce a lateral geminate [lː], 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, [ʎ] (< [lː]) depalatalizes into [l], e.g. Sp. galgo ‘greyhound’ (< ), Sp. cabalgar ‘to ride a horse’ (< ), Sp. piel ‘skin’ (< ), Sp. mil ‘thousand’ (< ). As Ariza (2012: 204) points out, the palatalization of Latin [lː] is a relatively late phenomenon. Moreover, the fact that this [ʎ] (< [lː]) merges with that which emerged from Latin [pl- kl- fl-] in Spanish motivates us to separate it chronologically from the earlier, pan-Romance [ʎ] (i.e. ʎ₁). In fact, the palatal lateral [ʎ] that results from the palatalization of Latin [lː] 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

72         Latin [-lj- -k.l- -ɡ.l-] (> ʎ₁) and that of [lː] (> ʎ₂) in many words did merge into [ʎ], which also originated from the palatalization of word-initial [l]—a development also documented in some Western Asturian dialects—as shown in (18). (18)  > Cat. mu[ʎ]er ‘woman, wife’ ( >)  > Cat. ore[ʎ]a ‘ear’  > Cat. u[ʎ] ‘eye’  > Cat. re[ʎ]a ‘ploughshare’  > Cat. cava[ʎ]o ‘horse’  > Cat. ga[ʎ]ina ‘hen’  > Cat. co[ʎ] ‘mountain pass’  > Cat. pe[ʎ] ‘skin’  > Cat. [ʎ]et ‘milk’  > Cat. [ʎ]ana ‘wool’  > Cat. [ʎ]engua ‘tongue’  > Cat. [ʎ]op ‘wolf ’  > Cat. [ʎ]oc ‘place’  > Cat. [ʎ]una ‘moon’ It is worth mentioning at this point that Latin [lː] followed another yet path in its evolution within central varieties of Ibero-Romance. In some Western Asturian and Leonese dialects, Latin [lː] (as well as word-initial [l]) gave rise to a voiceless affricate that is commonly transcribed as [ʦ] or [th] and referred to as “la [th] vaqueira”, e.g. W. Ast.-Leo. va[ʦ]e ‘valley’ (< ), W. Ast.-Leo. ga[ʦ]o ‘rooster’ (< ), W. Ast.-Leo. [ʦ]obu ‘wolf ’ (< ) (Ariza 1990: 151; Echenique Elizondo and Sánchez Méndez 2005: 397). In other Romance varieties, Latin [lː] produced different results. In RhaetoRomance and most varieties of Gallo-Romance, its degemination into [l] resembles the outcomes observed in Western Ibero-Romance, as illustrated in (19). (19)  > Fri. bie[l], Rom., Fr. be[l], Occ. bè[l] ‘beautiful-’  > Fri. cjava[l]/chava[l], Lad. ciava[l], Fr. cheva[l], Occ. cava[l] ‘horse’  > Fri. gja[l], Lad. gia[l]/ia[l], OFr., Fr-Prov. ja[l], Occ. ga[l]/ja[l] ‘rooster’  > OFr. mo[l], Occ. mò[l] ‘soft’  > Fr. va[l] ‘valley’  > Fr. vi[l] ‘town’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

73

However, the original lateral geminate [lː] did not evolve to [l] in all GalloRomance dialects. In the Occitan variety of Gascon, more precisely, [lː] follows a distinct evolutionary path toward a voiced retroflex plosive [ɖ], which then may give rise to a dento-alveolar plosive [t] or a palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ], particularly word-finally after apocope of final non-low vowels, while a rhotic [ɾ] (also found in Limousin) is the usual outcome if the consonant remains in intervocalic position, as illustrated in (20). (20)  > Gsc. anhè[t] ‘little lamb’  > Gsc. bè[t], Lim. bè[ɾ] ‘beautiful.’  > Gsc. e[t] ‘he’  > Gsc. e[ɾ]a ‘she’  > Gsc. pè[t] ‘skin’  > Gsc. pu[ʧ] ‘chicken’  > Gsc. bè[ɾ]a ‘beautiful.’  > Gsc. bu[ɾ]ir ‘to boil’  > Gsc. ga[ɾ]ina ‘hen’ A similar evolution of Latin [lː] is also observed in Upper Aragonese, a variety where the outcomes of the lateral geminate include a palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ] in the north, a dental plosive [t] in the east, as well as a palatal lateral [ʎ] in the south (Vázquez Obrador 2011: 65–100). Illustrative data are shown in (21). (21)  > Up. Ara. ba[ʧ]e, ba[ʎ]e ‘valley’  > Up. Ara. ba[t]ella ‘little valley’  > Up. Ara. bi[ʧ]a, bi[ʎ]a ‘village’ In Eastern Romance, on the other hand, the alveolar lateral [l] resulting from the degemination of Latin [lː] may also further delete in some cases, as shown in (22). (22)  > Ro. ca[l], Ist.-Ro. co, Dal. cavu[l] ‘horse’  > Ro. va[l]e ‘valley’  > Ro. ine[l], Dal. ania[l] ‘ring’  > Ro. moa[l]e, Ist.-Ro. mo[l]e, Aro. moa[l]i ‘soft’  > Ro. găină, Dal. ga[l]aina ‘hen’  > Ro. stea ‘star’ In Italo-Romance, the evolution of Latin [lː] becomes complex and often gives rise to an array of possible outcomes. The northern dialects, for example, generally display [lː]-degemination like other Romance varieties, although deletion (Ø) and a palatal glide [j] may also appear, as shown in (23).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

74         (23)  > Pied. fre[l], W. and C. Lig. fra[j], Genoese Lig. [fɾæː] ‘brother’  > Pied. cave[j] ‘hair’  > Pied. cava[l], Ven. cava[l]o ‘horse’  > Em.-Rom. ga[l], Lom. ga[l] (cf. pl.  > 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 [lː], e.g. It. cipo[lː]a ‘onion’ (< ), It. ga[lː]o ‘rooster’ (< ), It. cava[lː]o ‘horse’ (< ), although in some Tuscan vernaculars one can also find a voiced retroflex plosive [ɖː], e.g. [kaˈwaɖːə] (< ) (Gianelli and Cravens 1997: 300). The same retroflex [ɖ ] (< Lat. [lː]) also characterizes southern Corsican, e.g. [ˈiɖu] ‘him’ (< ), [ˈpeɖi] ‘skin’ (), despite the fact that young urban speakers articulate it as [dː] (Dalbera-Stefanaggi 1997: 307). In the mountains of Abruzzo and Molise (e.g. Valle d’Orte), [ɖː] is found alongside the retroflex lateral [ɭː] (e.g. [ˈjaɭːə]/[ˈjaɖːə] ‘rooster’ < ), while in Western Abruzzese a palatal glide [j] can also be found (e.g. [ɣaˈjːinə] ‘hen’ < , [ju] ‘the’ <  (Hastings 1997: 323). With regard to the southern dialects, Loporcaro (1997: 342) reports the preservation of [lː] in Polignano (e.g. [ˈɡalːə] ‘rooster’ < ), but the occurrence of dental [dː] in Pugliese, and the retroflex [ɖː] in central and southern Salentino (e.g. Lecc. [ˈiɖːu] ‘him’ < ), which is also found in northern Lucanian (e.g. [ˈraɖːa] ‘bare earth, steep crag’) (Fanciullo 1997: 350). In Neapolitan, several results may be found, including [lː ɖː d ɾ] (e.g. ga[lː]ina/ ga[ɖː]ina ‘hen’ < , cepo[dː]a ‘onion’ < , bié[ɾ]o ‘beautiful. ’ < ), while in northern Salento and most of Basilicata, one finds [dː], e.g. / >Mat. ju[dː]/ja[dː] ‘he/she’, Bar.  > cava[dː]o ‘horse’,  > Cln. cirvie[dː]u ‘brain’ (Ledgeway 2016: 254). In southern Lacania and northern Calabria, on the other hand, the retroflex plosive [ɖː] degeminated and rhotacized to [ɽ], before becoming a tap consonant [ɾ], e.g.  > *[ˈmɛlːuɾu] > [ˈmɛɾiɾu], [ˈmjeɾiɾu] ‘blackbird’, while in the rest of Calabria the usual result is [ɖː] (Trumper 1997: 358–9). Finally, Sicilian provides the most diverse scenario for the evolution of Latin [lː] in ItaloRomance. According to Ruffino (1997: 372), several retroflex outcomes may be found such as [ɖː ɖ ɭː ɖːʐ ʈːʂ ʈɽ], whose realization often depends on sociolinguistic factors, with [ɖ ] being favored by men and [ʈɽ] by women in Western Messinese varieties. The retroflex plosive [ɖː] is also characteristic of

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

75

all dialects of Sardinian, e.g.  > bidda [ˈbiɖːa] ‘village’,  > puddu [ˈpuɖːu] ‘rooster’ (Mensching and Remberger 2016: 270). Table 4.2 summarizes the various outcomes of Latin [lː] across the Romance varieties. Table 4.2 Evolution of Latin [lː] across the Romance-speaking world L

lː

Eastern Romance

Romanian

l, Ø

Rhaeto-Romance

Friulian

l

Ladin

l

Romansh

l

Piedmontese

l

Ligurian (Genoese)

l

Lombard (Milanese)

l

Venetan

l

Italo-Romance: Dialects of northern Italy

Italo-Romance: Dialects of central and southern Italy

Emilian-Romagnol

l

Italian, Tuscan

lː

Corsican

ɖː

Abruzzese and Molisan

ɖː, ɭː

Pugliese and Salentino

ɖː, dː

Neapolitan

lː, ɖː, d, ɾ

Calabrian

ɖː, ɾ

Sicilian

ɖː ɖ ɭː ɖːʐ

Sardinian

Sardinian

ɖː

Gallo-Romance

French

l

Ibero-Romance

Francoprovençal

l

Occitan

l

Occitan (Gascon)

t, ʧ, ɾ

Catalan

ʎ

Aragonese

ʎ, t, ʧ

Spanish

ʎ

Astur-Leonese

ʎ, ʦ

Galician

l

Portuguese

l

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

76         Most accounts of the evolutionary pathways of Latin [lː] focus on its palatalization, although its retroflexion has also received considerable attention (e.g. Catalán 1954; Rholfs 1977; Celata 2006; Vázquez Obrador 2011: 75–82; Müller 2015; and references therein). Lloyd (1987: 243), for example, points out that [lː] displayed a higher occurrence than other Latin voiced geminates and argues that its palatalization, instead of degemination, in Spanish occurred to avoid confusion with many words that already contained simple [l]. In terms of phonetic motivation, Lloyd (1987: 243) claims that the geminate character of [lː] could have contributed for the tongue to spread out over a larger area of contact during its articulation: “Instead of greater duration [as is common with geminate consonants], the realization would then have a palatal quality which would be sufficient to distinguish the geminate from the simple counterpart.” Lloyd’s view echoes that of Straka (1979: 305), whose explanation also hints at a likely palatalization in the realization of [lː]: “( . . . ) las imágenes estomatológicas muestran nítidamente que una l enérgica da un contacto representando aproximadamente algo intermedio entre la l ordinaria y la l palatal.” With regard to [lː]-degemination, a functional motivation might help to explain its evolution in some Romance. For example, Latin intervocalic [l] was lost in the evolution of Portuguese, as shown in (24). (24)  > Pt. sair ‘to leave’  > Pt. dor ‘pain’  > Pt. névoa ‘fog’  > Pt. quente ‘hot’  > Pt. céu ‘sky’ From a functional viewpoint, once the simple intervocalic [l] was deleted, the geminate [lː] was free to degeminate and replace the former as the new [l] (e.g.  > Pt. ga[l]inha ‘hen’,  > cava[l]o ‘horse’,  > pe[l]e ‘skin’, etc.). In Romanian, the rhoticization of Latin intervocalic [l] may have left the door open for [lː] to degeminate into [l] (e.g.  > Ro. du[ɾ]ere ‘pain’,  > Ro. ce[ɾ] ‘sky’, etc.). However, in French, Latin [l] remains despite the degemination of [lː] (e.g.  > Fr. dou[l]eur ‘pain’,  > cie[l] ‘sky’, etc.). With regard to the Spanish data, a functional motivation seems appropriate and complementary to the phonetic motivation for the palatalization of [lː], i.e. the retention of [l] favored the palatalization in the articulation of its geminate counterpart, which eventually evolved into [ʎ]. However, as illustrated in Table 4.2, the degrees of [lː]-palatalization (or lack thereof) led to different evolutionary pathways across the Romance-speaking

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.3       [ʎ]

77

world, including the emergence of retroflex results, particularly in the dialects of southern Italy, southern Corsica, Sardinian, Gascon, and varieties of Upper Aragonese and Western Astur-Leonese. While the particular mechanisms that led Latin [lː] to produce the many different retroflex outcomes have not yet been thoroughly and convincingly explained, a few hypotheses have been proposed in the literature and are worth considering so as to reconstruct the most likely evolutionary path from a phonetically grounded perspective. Vázquez Obrador (2011: 76–8), for example, proposes that the inherent variability in the production of [lː] contributed to have its fate follow two directions, namely: (i) an articulatory emphasis on the tongue dorsum against the hard palate, which produced results such as [ʎ] in Spanish and Catalan; and (ii) an articulatory emphasis on the tongue tip and blade, whose retroflex movement produced outcomes such as [ɖ] in Upper Aragonese, Gascon, dialectal Astur-Leonese, and the southern dialects of Italy. Within the second direction, more specifically, the production of retroflex [ɖ] would then have gone through subsequent changes in Upper Aragonese, Gascon, and AsturLeonese. Vázquez Obrador (2011: 77) hypothesizes that [ɖ] first devoiced into [ʈ] or [ʈs], and later changed its retroflex articulation toward a palato-alveolar one, rendering the affricate [ʧ]. In other areas, however, instead of more palatality, the articulation of [ʈ] gained more dentality, i.e. it eventually lost its retroflexion in favor of a fronted articulation, rendering the dento-alveolar [t]. Müller (2015: 231), on the other hand, considers also the role of the listener in the reinterpretation of the potentially ambiguous signal produced in the articulation of [ɖ]. More precisely, the author argues that the retroflex movement of the tongue tip is accompanied by a release in the form of flapping, which is characterized by some friction that is long enough, i.e. 20–40 ms (Celata 2006: 77–9, 98–101) to possibly be reinterpreted as an affricate (e.g. [ɖʐ ʤ ʣ]) by the listener. Furthermore, in varieties like Gascon, in which wordfinal voiced consonants tend to devoice, this affricate would eventually have resembled [ʧ], which later would have lost its fricative element and deaffricated into [t]. In cases where the outcome was the rhotic [ɾ], Müller (2015: 233) hypothesizes that the flapping movement of the tongue tip in the production of a retroflex lateral may be interpreted as an occlusion and reanalyzed as a rhotic [ɾ], which is already featured in the consonant inventory of Gascon. The tongue gesture in the production of the lateral consonant also presents some similarities to that of the rhotic, which then may add to the ambiguity in the speech signal: “aqueste son [i.e. the rhotic] pòt aver un gèst del dòrs de la lenga similar (emai pas identic) a aquel de la laterala ( . . . ), çò que favorisariá la confusion entre los dos” (Müller 2015: 233).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

78        

4.4 The emergence of the palatal nasal [ ɲ] Similar to the palatal lateral consonant, multiple Latin sources gave rise to the palatal nasal [ɲ], which is present in nearly all of the Romance languages, except Romanian. Among the main historical sources of [ɲ] are the palatalization of an alveolar nasal [n] by  and, in select varieties, the evolution of the intervocalic sequences [-mj-], [-ɡn-], and [-nɡ-], and the palatalization of the nasal geminate [nː]. The development of each of these historical sources is discussed and illustrated in the following sections.

4.4.1 [-nj-] The emergence of  in Latin palatalized the preceding alveolar [n] in the history of various Romance languages, as illustrated in (25). (25)  > Proto-Rom. *aran[j]a > Fri. ro[ɲ]e, Ven. ro[ɲ]a, It. ra[ɲː]o, Fr. arai[ɲ]ée, Occ., Cat., Sp., Ast., Gl., Pt. ara[ɲ]a ‘spider’ () > Proto-Rom. *ban[j]o > Ro. bo[ɲ], It. ba[ɲː]o, Sic. va[ɲ]u, Fri., Occ., Cat. ba[ɲ], Cor., Ast. ba[ɲ]u, Sp., Gl., Pt. ba[ɲ]o ‘bath’  > Proto-Rom. *castan[j]a > It., Sic. casta[ɲː]a; Fr. châta[ɲ]e; Occ., Cat., Ast., Sp., Gl., Pt. casta[ɲ]a ‘chestnut’  > Proto-Rom. *hispan[j]a > Ro. Spa[ɲ]a, It. Spa[ɲː]a, Occ., Cat., Sp., Gl., Pt. Espa[ɲ]a, Fr. Espa[ɲ]e, ‘Spain’  > Proto-Rom. *sen[j]ore > Ro. si[ɲ]ur, It. si[ɲː]ore, Fr. se[ɲ]eur, Ara. si[ɲ]or, Occ., Cat., Sp., Gl., Pt. se[ɲ]or ‘sir’  > Proto-Rom. *vin[j]a > It., Sic. vi[ɲː]a, Fri., Fr. vi[ɲ]e, Occ., Cat., Sp., Ast., Gl., Pt. vi[ɲ]a ‘vineyard’ In the history of certain languages, however, this pan-Romance [ɲ] underwent further change processes, more notably denasalization and frequent deletion in Romanian, as shown in (26). (26)  > Proto-Rom. *calcan[j]u > Ro. călcâ[j] ‘heel’  > Proto-Rom. *timan[j]a > Ro. tămâ[j]e ‘incense’  > Proto-Rom. *vin[j]a > Ro. vie ‘vineyard’ It is also worth mentioning that, in the history of some French words, the palatal glide did not palatalize the preceding alveolar [n], but strengthened

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.4       [ ɲ]

79

into an affricate [ʤ] instead, which later gave rise to the fricative [ʒ], as illustrated in (27). (27)  > Proto-Rom. *extran[j]u > Fr. étran[ʒ] ‘strange’  > Proto-Rom. *gran[j]a > Fr. gran[ʒ] ‘barn’  > Proto-Rom. *lan[j]a > Fr. lan[ʒ] ‘diaper’  > Proto-Rom. *lin[j]u > Fr. lin[ʒ] ‘linen’  > Proto-Rom. *somn[j]u > Fr. son[ʒ] ‘dream’ A similar case of glide fortition took place in southern varieties of ItaloRomance and Sardinian, where [j] was preceded by [m] and other labial consonants and became an affricate or fricative, agreeing in voicing with the preceding consonant. In some instances, however, the glide became the nasal [ɲ] by assimilation to the preceding [m]. The data in (28) illustrate cases of glide consonantization to an affricate, a fricative, or a nasal. (28)  > Proto-Rom. *sim[j]u > Fr. sin[ʒ] ‘monkey’  > Proto-Rom. *sim[j]a > Sic. sin[ɲː]a ‘monkey’  > Proto-Rom. *vindem[j]a > Lig. vende[ɲ]a, Egd. vindem[ʤ]a, Fr. vendan[ʒ] ‘grape harvest’  > Proto-Rom. *camb[j]are > Fr. chan[ʒ]er ‘to change’  > Proto-Rom. *tib[j]a > Fr. ti[ʒ] ‘stem’  > Proto-Rom. *rab[j]e > Egd. rab[bʤ]a, Fr. ra[ʒ] ‘rage’  > Proto-Rom. *rub[j]u > OProv. ro[bʤ]e, Fr. rou[ʒ] ‘red’  > Proto-Rom. *cav[j]a > Sic. ga[ʤː]a, Fr. ca[ʒ] ‘cage’  > Proto-Rom. *salv[j]a > Fr. sau[ʒ] ‘sage’  > Proto-Rom. *ap[j]u > Fr. a[ʃ] ‘lovage’  > Proto-Rom. *prop[j]u > Fr. pro[ʃ] ‘near, close’  > Proto-Rom. *sap[j]a > OProv. sap[ʧ]a, Fr. sa[ʃ] ‘know.3.’  > Proto-Rom. *sap[j]o > Sic. sa[ʧː]o ‘know.1’  > Proto-Rom. *uin[j]a > Log.-Sard. bin[ʣ]a, Cpd.-Sard. bin[ʤ]a ‘vineyard’ By considering the examples where an affricate emerged from  while the preceding labial had been kept (e.g.  > OProv. sap[ʧ]a ‘know.3.’), it is possible to hypothesize that the development of palato-alveolars in this case may not represent an instance of labial palatalization, but of glide fortition instead, after a failure to syllabify the glide with the labial consonant left the former in onset position, where it would, then, consonantize and strengthen to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

80         an affricate and, as seen in French, continue on to a fricative, with a concomitant loss of the labial consonant. As for the specific cases where a palatoalveolar emerged from a  in [-nj-] in French, it is likely that such sequence might have followed the same path as that of [-mj-] (and, thus, that of labials + ) by phonetic analogy.

4.4.2 [ɡn] and [nː] Another common historical source of the palatal nasal [ɲ] in many Romance languages was the evolutionary pathway of the intervocalic sequence [-ɡn-], particularly in Ibero- and Gallo-Romance, as shown in (29).⁸ (29)  > It. sde[ɲː]are, Fr. dédai[ɲ]er, Sp., Pt. desde[ɲ]ar ‘to refuse, to scorn’  > It. inse[ɲː]are, Fr. ense[ɲ]er, Ast., Sp., Cat. ense[ɲ]ar ‘to teach’  > It. le[ɲː]a, Cat. lle[ɲ]a, Occ., Ara., Sp., Pt. le[ɲ]a ‘firewood’  > It. pu[ɲː]o, Occ., Cat. pu[ɲ], Sp., Pt. pu[ɲ]o, Ast. pu[ɲ]u ‘fist’  > It. se[ɲː]o, Fr. si[ɲ], Ro., Occ., Cat. se[ɲ], Sp., Pt. se[ɲ]a ‘sign’ One of the hypotheses for the emergence of the palatal nasal from the sequence [ɡn] is based on a likely vocalization process undergone by the velar plosive in coda position, whereby [ɡ] 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 [ɡn] > [ɣn] > [ʝn] > [jnj] > [jɲ] > [ɲ]. The reconstructed  from the vocalization of coda [ɡ] is attested in many of the current dialects of ItaloRomance, particularly those spoken in Basilicata, Puglia, Campania, and Abruzzi, e.g. Ischitan [ˈlejnə] <  ‘firewood’, [ˈajnə] <  ‘lamb’, [ˈpujnə] <  ‘fist’ (Maiden 1995: 56). In fact, the vocalization of coda [ɡ] 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] (> [ʧ]), [kl] (> [ʎ]), and [ks] (> [ʃ]) (cf. §4.5.7). Some of the scholars who subscribe to this hypothesis include Menéndez 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 evolved from the Latin sequence [ŋɡl], e.g.  > Sp. se [ ɲ]ero ‘lone’,  > Sic. u[ ɲː]a, Sp., Gl., Pt. u[ ɲ]a ‘nail’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.4       [ ɲ]

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. [laʧ], Lom. [lɛʧ], Sp. le[ʧ]e ‘milk’  > Proto-Rom. *no[j]te > Pied. [nØjt], Pt. no[j]te, Lom. [noʧ], Sp. no[ʧ]e ‘night’  > Proto-Rom. *pe[j]to > Pt., Gal., Ara. pe[jt]o, Sp. pe[ʧ]o, Ast. pe[ʧ]u, Occ. pie[ʧ] ‘chest’ Another proposal for the emergence of [ɲ] from [ɡn] is based on a different hypothesis about the pronunciation of Latin . Proponents of this hypothesis maintain that Latin  was actually realized as [ŋn] in Proto-Romance and not as [ɡn], with the original velar consonant having assimilated in manner of articulation to the following nasal (cf. Tekavčić 1980: 201; Wireback 2010a; Recasens 2014a: 130; among others). The velar nasal [ŋ] would, then, have assimilated to the following alveolar nasal [n], rendering a nasal geminate which would later palatalize into [ɲ] as did the original Latin geminate [nː] (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 [ɲ] emerged from a possible gestural blending in the realization of [ŋn]: “Given that Latin /ŋn/ constituted a similar velar + alveolar consonant sequence [as the one in /kt/], it is likely that gestural blending at the midpoint of the /ŋn/ sequence, along with maintenance of blending up to the offset of /n/, played a role in the palatalization of Latin /ŋn/.” In addition to articulatory factors, Wireback (2010b: 299) claims that acoustic factors also aided in the palatalization of /ŋn/, 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 /ŋ/ to /ɲ/, which in turn created a contiguous /ɲn/ sequence that was much more susceptible to gestural blending and phonemic reanalysis than heterorganic /ŋn/.” Despite the likelihood of both hypotheses for the emergence of [ɲ] from Latin , Recasens (2014a: 130) points out the fact that it still remains uncertain how precisely palatals arose from sequences composed of velar and dento-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), Menéndez Pidal’s (1977), Maiden’s (1995), and Penny’s (2002) view and assume coda

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

82         velar weakening and eventual vocalization into [j] as the process that triggered the palatalization of the following consonant. Finally, the nasal geminate [nː] also palatalized into [ɲ] 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[ɲ], Sp., Ara. a[ɲ]o, Ast.-Leo. a[ɲ]u ‘year’  > Cat., Sp., Ast. ca[ɲ]a ‘cane’  > It. gru[ɲː]ire, Sp., Pt. gru[ɲ]ir ‘to growl’  > Cat. pa[ɲ], Sp. pa[ɲ]o ‘cloth’ Accounts of [nː]-palatalization in dialects of Ibero-Romance usually take into consideration the palatalization of the geminate lateral [lː] 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 [ɲ] and [ʎ]. 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 [nː] and [lː] took place without merger because the original intervocalic singletons [n] and [l] had been lost in the first place. While Holt’s (2003b) and Lloyd’s (1987) hypotheses account for the evolution of [nː] and [lː] 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 [nː] and [lː] degeminated and did merge in many instances with their singleton counterparts, e.g.  > lu[n]e ‘moon’ and

⁹ In Astur-Leonese, [ ɲ] also emerged from word-initial [n], e.g.  > [ ɲ]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 (cf. Cravens 2002: 93–115).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.5     

83

 > pe[n]e ‘feather’;  > vi[l]e ‘town’ and  > dou[l]eur ‘pain’. Thus, merger avoidance may not be a necessary force to favor or inhibit the palatalization or degemination of geminates [nː] and [lː]. 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 obstruents, such as [ʦ ʣ ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ c ɟ], which emerged from various Latin sources, i.e. [j dj ɡj ɡi ɡe ɡɛ ki ke kɛ ka ɡa sj s̺ tj kj kt ks pl kl fl bl ɡl 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 [j-], while the evolution of intervocalic [dj ɡj j] is detailed in §4.5.2. Next, the evolution of Latin [ɡi ɡe ɡɛ] and [ki ke kɛ] is summarized in §4.5.3, while the development of [ka ɡa] 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 ɡl]. 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  in early Latin. One of them was a reduction in hiatuses, in which unstressed  and  were realized as [j]. Penny (2002: 62) points out this  was pronounced in word- and morpheme-initial position, e.g. [j] ‘January’, [j] ‘spouse’, etc. In the development of many Romance languages, this glide was subject to fortition, which generated varying degrees of friction and, thus, rendered different evolutionary results, such as [ɟ ʣ ʤ ʒ], as illustrated in (32).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

84         (32)  > Proto-Rom. [j]ace > ORo. [ʣ]ăcea, Log. [ʣ]achire, It. [ʤ]acere, Sic. [j]àciri, OFr. [ʤ]ésir, OSp. [ɟ]azer, OOc., OPt. [ʤ] azer ‘to lie’  > Proto-Rom. [j]anuariu > Ro. [j]anuarie, Log-Sar. [ʣ]anarzu, It. [ʤ]ennaio, Sic. [j]innaru, Cor. [ɟ]ennaghju, OFr. [ʤ]anvier, OSp. [ɟ]anero, OLeo. [ɟ]eneyro, OPt. [ʤ]aneiro ‘January’  > Proto-Rom. [j]ocu > ORo. [ʤ]oc, OLig. [ʣ]êugo, Sic. [j]oco, It. [ʤ]oco, OFr. [ʤ]eu, OCat. [ʤ]oc, Proto-Sp. [ʤ]uego, OPt. [ʤ]ogo ‘game’  > Proto-Rom. [j]uniu > Ro. [j]unie, Roma. [ɟ]ün, It. [ʤ]ugno, Cor. [ɟ]ugnu, OFr. [ʤ]uin, OSp. [ʒ]unio, OPt. [ʤ]unho ‘June’  > Proto-Rom. [j]urare > ORo. [ʤ]ura, It. [ʤ]urare, OFr. [ʤ]urer, OSp. [ʒ]urar, OPt. [ʤ]urar ‘to swear’ As the examples 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 [ɟ] (e.g. Roma. [ɟ]ün, Cor. [ɟ]ugnu ‘June’), whose affricate release [ɟʝ] later evolved into a palato-alveolar affricate [ʤ], which, in some dialects, either depalatalized into [ʣ] or deaffricated into [ʒ] (cf. Loporcaro (2011: 146) for a similar viewpoint). Early attestation of some kind of fricativization of [j-] is found in Latin misspellings such as  ‘January’ (< ),  ‘deacon’ (< ),  ‘today’ (< ),  ‘just, fair’ (< ) (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 [ʒ] in most words, although a palatal plosive [ɟ] has remained until the present day before a non-back vowel, although a few cases of [ɟ] before back vowels are attested.¹⁰ The data in (33) and (34) illustrate these two evolutionary pathways.

¹⁰ A fricative [ʝ] or a glide [j] may surface phonetically when [ɟ] is preceded by a vowel, e.g. Ya lo ha comprado [ɟa lo ˈa komˈpɾaðo] ‘already bought it.3’ vs Lo ha comprado ya [lo ˈa komˈpɾaðo ˈʝa] ‘already bought it.3’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.5     

85

(33)  > Proto-Rom. [j]ocu > *[ɟ]uegu > *[ʤ]uego > OSp. [ʒ]uego ‘game’  (-) > Proto-Rom. [j]ovis > *[ɟ]ueves > *[ʤ]ueves > OSp. [ʒ]ueves ‘Thursday’  > Proto-Rom. [j]udeau > *[ɟ]udío > *[ʤ]udío > OSp. [ʒ]udío ‘Jewish’  > Proto-Rom. [j]udice > *[ɟ]uez > *[ʤ]uez > OSp. [ʒ]uez ‘judge’  > Proto-Rom. [j]ustu > *[ɟ]usto > *[ʤ]usto > OSp. [ʒ]usto ‘just’  > Proto-Rom. [j]uniu > *[ɟ]unio > *[ʤ]unio > OSp. [ʒ]uño ‘June’  > Proto-Rom. [j]unctu > *[ɟ]unto > *[ʤ]unto > OSp. [ʒ]unto ‘joined’  > Proto-Rom. [j]urare > *[ɟ]urar > *[ʤ]urar > OSp. [ʒ]urar ‘to swear’  > Proto-Rom. [j]uvene > *[ɟ]oven > *[ʤ]oven > OSp. [ʒ]oven ‘young’ (34)  > Proto-Rom. [j]a > Sp. [ɟ]a ‘already’  > Proto-Rom. [j]ace > Sp. [ɟ]ace ‘he lies’  > Proto-Rom. [j]acobe > Sp. [ɟ]agüe (vocative) ‘James’  > Proto-Rom. [j]ugu > Sp. [ɟ]ugo ‘yoke’  > Proto-Rom. [j]uncta > Sp. [ɟ]unta ‘pair of oxen’ With a handful exceptions (e.g. [ɟ]ugo ‘yoke’ and [ɟ]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 [ɟ], which remains before the non-back vowel [a]; and (ii) before back vowels, this palatal plosive develops into the affricate [ʤ], which in turn, deaffricates into [ʒ] (cf. a similar evolutionary path in Romanian, Catalan, and Portuguese: ORo., OCat. [ʤ]oc > Ro., Cat. [ʒ] oc, OPt. [ʤ]ogo > Pt. [ʒ]ogo ‘game’). To these two patterns one must add a third outcome, i.e. Ø, when [j-] is found before front vowels, e.g. Sp. enero (< -, ) ‘January’, Sp. echar (< -, ) ‘to throw out’, Sp. enebro (< *[/]) ‘juniper’, etc. While the change of [j-] to [ɟ-] represents a straightforward example of fortition (in this case, an increase of constriction between the tongue body and the palate), the eventual emergence of [ʒ] before back vowels involves a complex process whereby this segment merged with the palato-alveolar [ʒ] from the evolution of ʎ₁, cf.  > mu [ʎ]er > *mu[j]er > OSp. mu[ʒ]er (> mu[ʃ]er > Sp. mu[x]er) ‘woman’ and  > *[j]oco > *[ɟ]uego > *[ʤ]uego > OSp. [ʒ]uego (> [ʃ]uego > Sp. [x]uego) ‘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 ɡj], which are discussed further in §4.5.2.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

86         To distinguish the two different results, [ʒ] and [ɟ], 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 [ʒ] 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 [ɟ], a more prestigious pronunciation made use of [ʒ] in Old Spanish, which also echoes Malkiel’s (1983) attribution of sociolinguistic factors to the variation between [ɟ] and [ʒ] in the aforementioned words. Following Lloyd’s and Malkiel’s account, then, the palato-alveolar [ʒ] 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 /ž-/ rather than /j-/ ( . . . )” (Lloyd 1987: 250–1). Alarcos Llorach (1954: 340–1), on the other hand, offers a more general explanation, by claiming that the different outcomes [ɟ] and [ʒ] resulted from varying pronunciations of the same word within discourse. Thus, after a word ending in a consonant, Latin [j-] could have been pronounced as [ʒ-], whereas its original pronunciation would have been maintained after a word ending with a vowel, e.g. elo juez [elo jueʦ] vs elos juezes [eloz ʒueʣes] (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 Old Spanish, namely, [j-] evolved into [ɟ] before [a] and into [ʒ] before a rounded vowel, mainly [u]. Ariza (2012: 167–8) hints at a possible phonetic motivation for the emergence of [ʒ], 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 [ʒ]: “Cuando /i̯/ iba seguida de vocal velar se produjo un retraimiento lingual, lo que suponía un mayor cierre articulatorio, por lo que /i̯/ > /ž/, ya que todavía no existía /y/. Pensemos que esto también ocurre en posición intervocálica en un contorno velar:  > 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 [ɟ] and not that of a palato-alveolar [ʒ], 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.5     

87

solution for the emergence of [ʒ] 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 [ʒ-] before back vowels in Old Spanish. As formalized in Chapter 6, word-initial [j-] is proposed to have strengthened into a plosive [ɟ], whose realization included the articulation of an affricate *[ɟʝ-] before back and non-back vowels. Subsequently, *[ɟʝ-] would have fronted its articulation toward the prepalatal region before back vowels—hence acquiring sibilance and being realized as [ʤ]—due to a dissimilation process between the two close tongue body gestures, i.e. that of the consonant [ɟʝ] and that of back vowels [o u]. The eventual emergence of [ʒ-] (< [j-]) in Old Spanish, therefore, is posited to have taken the following evolutionary pathway: *[ɟʝ-] > *[ʤ] > [ʒ]. 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 [ɟʝ] before this non-back vowel.

4.5.2 [dj ɡj j] In word-medial position, Latin intervocalic [dj ɡj j] also gave rise to palatal obstruents, from a plosive [ɟ] to the affricates [ʤ] and [ʣ]. According to Castellani (1965: 113–18), however, [dj ɡj j] were all pronounced with a palatal glide [j] up to the first century , given misspellings such as ‘Aiutor’ and ‘Aiutoris’ for ,  ‘helper, assistant’. This result is maintained currently in varieties of southern Italo-Romance, as shown in (35) (Loporcaro 2011: 14–15; Repetti 2016: 660). (35)  > Sic. [ˈɔji] ‘today’  > Sic. and Cal. [ˈfuju] ‘flee.1’  > Sic. [ˈpɛju] ‘worse’ In most Romance varieties, however, this glide was subject to fortition, producing the affricates [ʣ] and [ʤ], given their similar evolutionary path and merger with the results from word-initial [j] (cf. §4.5.1), as exemplified in (36). (36)  > ORo. a[ʣ]i, It. o[ʤː]i, OPt. o[ʤː]e ‘today’  > ORo. fu[ʤ]e, It. fu[ʤː]e, OPt. fo[ʤ]e ‘flee.3’  > It. ma[ʤː]o ‘May’ Loporcaro (2011: 145) cites cases of words spelled with a for Latin  in the second century as evidence of [j]-fortition, e.g.  < 

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

88         ‘helpers’,  <  ‘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[ʤː]o ‘ray’ and ra[ʣː]o ‘rocket’ < . In many varieties, [ʣ] and [ʤ] subsequently weakened into [z] and [ʒ], respectively, cf. Ro. a[z]i, Pt. o[ʒ]e <  ‘today’; Ro. mie[z], Gen. me[z]o <  ‘core’; Ro. fu[ʒ]e, Pt. fo[ʒ]e ‘flee.3’. It is also worth pointing out, however, that fortition of intervocalic [j] (< [dj ɡj 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[ɛ] <  ‘May’; Pt. ra[j]o, Fr. ra[j]on <  ‘ray’; Pt. ensa[j]o, Fr. ess[ɛ], Ro. eseu <  ‘essay’. In other varieties, [j]-fortition did not give rise to affricates, but to a plosive [ɟ] instead. Indeed, Penny (2002: 64) argues that Latin intervocalic  was undoubtedly pronounced as a geminate [ɟː], considering remarks by Roman grammarians, as well as spellings with a double-height . This reconstructed * [ɟ] later weakened into a fricative [ʝ] in some varieties. This was the case in Spanish, in which [ʝ] is represented by the graphemes and in historical documents.¹¹ The data in (37) illustrate these series of changes.¹² (37)  > Proto-Sp. *po[ɟ]o > Sp. po[ʝ]o ‘small hill, bench’  > Proto-Sp. *ra[ɟ]ar > Sp. ra[ʝ]ar ‘to scratch, score’  > Proto-Sp. *ensa[ɟ]o > Sp. ensa[ʝ]o ‘essay’  > Proto-Sp. *fa[ɟ]a > Sp. fa[ʝ]a (later ha[ʝ]a) ‘beech tree’  > Proto-Sp. *fu[ɟ]o > Sp. fu[ʝ]o ‘I escape’  > Proto-Sp. *ma[ɟ]o > Sp. ma[ʝ]o ‘May’  > Proto-Sp. *ma[ɟ]ore > Sp. ma[ʝ]or ‘greater’ Alarcos Llorach (1954: 337) correctly points out, however, that the same result did not occur in Spanish when Latin [j] (< [dj ɡj j]) was in contact with a palatal vowel. In this case, the glide was dropped, as observed in words such as hastío <  ‘boredom’, correa <  ‘strap’ (cf. Pt. corre[j]a), peor <  ‘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 ¹¹ Note that, while [dj ɡj j] are the main intervocalic sources of the obstruent [ʝ] in Old Spanish, Ariza (2012: 130–1) also cites a few cases where this consonant emerged from [bj], e.g.  > ha[ʝ]a ‘there is/are.3..’ and  > ho[ʝ]a ‘hole, pit’. However, it is more common that a bilabial consonant is preserved in this cluster, cf. ru[βj]o ‘blond’, la[βj]o ‘lip’, llu[βj]a ‘rain’, etc. This variation is not seen with [dj ɡj], which palatalize across the board in Spanish. Ariza (2012: 130–1) adds, “Lo ‘normal’ es la conservación [of -bj-], y solo en contadas ocasiones encontramos la palatalización.” ¹² Alvar et al. (1995: 221) point out a similar palatalization of [dj] in current varieties of Andalusian Spanish, e.g. sacuyendo for sacudiendo ‘shaking’ in Berméz (Córdoba province).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.5     

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 Judeo-Spanish, Central American, and Equatoguinean Spanish varieties, where the palatal fricative [ʝ] weakens to a glide [j] and eventually deletes in contact with a neighboring palatal vowel, e.g. estrea (< estre[j]a < estre[ʝ]a) ‘star’, cae (< ca[j]e < ca[ʝ]e) ‘street’, ea (< e[j]a < e[ʝ]a) ‘she’, (cf. Chapter 5 for a full discussion and specific data and references regarding [j]-deletion when adjacent to a palatal vowel.).

4.5.3 [ɡi ɡe ɡɛ] and [ki ke kɛ] 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 [ɡi ɡe ɡɛ], their evolution mirrors that of word-initial [j] and word-medial [dj ɡj j] in many varieties, producing results such as [j], [ɟ], [ʤ], and [ʒ], as shown in (38).¹³ (38)  > Ro. [ʤ]er, It. [ʤ]elo, Fr. [ʒ]el, Cat. [ʒ], OSp. [ɟ]elo, Pt. [ʒ]elo (but Log.-Nuo. Sard. [ɡ]elo) ‘frost, ice’  > Ro. [ʤ]inere, It. [ʤ]enero, Neap. [j]enero, Sic. [j]enniru, Occ., Cat. [ʒ]endre, OSp. [ɟ]erno, Pt. [ʒ]enro (but Log.-Nuo. [ɡ]enneru) ‘son-in-law’  > It. [ʤ]inestra, Nea. [j]enesta, Cor. [ɟ]inestra, Fr. [ʒ]enêt, Cat. [ʒ] inesta, OSp. [ɟ]iniesta, Pt. [ʒ]iesta (but Log.-Nuo. [ɡ]enista) ‘broom plant’  > Ro. [ʤ]intă, It. [ʤ]ente, Fr. [ʒ]ens, Cat. [ʒ]ent, OSp. [ʒ]ente, Pt. [ʒ]ente ‘people’  > Ro. [ʤ]in[ʤ]ie, It. [ʤ]en[ʤ]iva, Fr. [ʒ]encive, Cat. [ʒ]eniva, OSp. [ɟ]encía, Pt. [ʒ]en[ʒ]iva (but Log.-Nuo. [ɡ]in[ɡ]ía) ‘gums’  > Fri. [ʤ]es, It. [ʤ]esso, Sic. [j]issu, Fr. [ʒ]ypse, Ast. [ɟ]elsu, OSp. [ɟ]esso, Pt. [ʒ]esso ‘gypsum plaster’ In some Ibero-Romance varieties, when [ɡi ɡe ɡɛ] were found in unstressed position, the resulting [ɟ] was later dropped, as illustrated in (39).¹⁴ ¹³ Additionally, the emergence of a word-initial glide [j-] deriving from the diphthongization of stressed open-mid front vowel [ˈɛ] in some languages also gave rise to [ɟ], cf.  > [j]egua > OSp. [ɟ]egua ‘mare’,  > [j]erba > OSp. [ɟ]erva ‘grass’. ¹⁴ Words such as iermano ‘brother’ from Old Spanish, jermanos, iermanos, giermanis ‘brothers’ from Leonese, and yenair ‘January’ from Mozarabic (Lloyd 1987: 248), in addition to the data in (37), support the reconstruction of a likely palatal plosive [ɟ] that emerged from the palatalization of [ɡi ɡe ɡɛ].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

90         (39)  > [ɟ]ermano > Sp. hermano, Gl. irmán, Pt. irmão ‘brother’  > [ɟ]elar > Sp. helar ‘to freeze’  > [ɟ]iniesta > Sp. hiniesta ‘broom plant’  > [ɟ]encía > Sp. encía, Gl. enxiva ‘gums’ Other Ibero-Romance languages, however, preserved the palatal segment in this case, as in Old Leonese yermanos, jermanos, iermanos [ɟeɾˈmanos] <  ‘brothers’ (Zamora Vicente 1967: 36). Penny (2002: 67) hypothesizes that the loss of the initial palatal plosive [ɟ] 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 [e], which did not diphthongize into [je] as did the stressed, open mid-front vowel [ˈɛ]. Since the sequence [ˈɟe] resulting from the diphthongization of [ˈɛ] and from the palatalization of [ˈɡe] appeared exclusively in stressed position, Old Spanish words with unstressed [ɟe] such as yenero ‘January’ (< -, ) and yermano ‘brother’ (< ) would have sounded unfitting to speakers, who regularized the sequence [ɟe] with its counterpart [e], i.e. yermano > ermano (later hermano) ‘brother’, yenero > enero ‘January’. Although an analogical motivation for the deletion of [ɟ] in this context seems plausible, so does a phonetic motivation. For example, it is conceivable that the  in [je] (< Latin [j-], e.g. -, ) and the palatal plosive [ɟ] from the palatalization of [ɡe] 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 [e]. 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 [ɟ] 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 affrication of [ɟ] into [ʤ] and, later, in some cases, the fricativization of the latter into [ʒ], which, due to its high intensity frication, is more perceptually salient than [ɟ]. Both [ʤ] and [ʒ], 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 [ɟ] in Old Spanish. Much like their voiced counterparts, the Latin sequences [ki ke kɛ] 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.5     

91

Palatalization of [ki ke kɛ] produces affricate results, i.e. either a palatoalveolar [ʧ] or an alveolar [ʦ], although from an articulatory viewpoint, it is likely that the first, immediate result of [ki ke kɛ]-palatalization would have been more likely a central palatal plosive *[c] or its affricate counterpart *[cç]. 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 [ʧ], which, in some varieties, was further fronted and gave rise to alveolar [ʦ].¹⁵ Moreover, in some areas, [ʦ] later deaffricated to [s] or fronted its articulation to [θ] (as in central and northern Castilian Spanish), while in intervocalic position it also frequently voiced to [ʣ], 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 kɛ] in Sardinian. (40)  > Proto-Rom. *[cç]ena > Aro. [ʦ]inã, Ro. [ʧ]ină, Roma. [ʧ]aina, It., Sic. [ʧ]ena, OFr. [ʦ]ène (> Fr. [s]ène), OCat. [ʦ]ena (> Cat. [s]ena), OSp. [ʦ]ena (> Cast.-Sp. [θ]ena, Sp. [s]ena), OPt. [ʦ]ẽa (> Pt. [s]eia) (but Dal. [k]aina, Sar. [k]ena) ‘dinner’  > Proto-Rom. *[cç]entu > Aro. [ʦ]entu, Ro. [ʧ]ent, Roman. (Sur.) [ʧ]ien, It., Sic. [ʧ]ento, OFr. [ʦ]ent (> Fr. [s]ent), Nor. [ʧ]ent, OCat. [ʦ]ent (> Cat. [s]ent), OSp. [ʦ]iento (> Cast.-Sp. [θ]ien, Sp. [s]ien), OPt. [ʦ]en (> Pt. [s]em) (but Dal. [ʧ]ant, Sard. [k]entu) ‘hundred’  > Proto-Rom. *dul[cç]e > Aro. dul[ʦ]i, Ro. dul[ʧ]e, Roma. dul[ʧ], It. dol[ʧ]e, Sic. du[ʧ]i, OFr. dou[ʦ] (> dou[s] > Fr. doux), OCat. dol[ʦ] (> Cat. dol[s]), OOcc. dol[s] (> Occ. do[s]), OSp. dul[ʦ]e (> Cast.-Sp. dul[θ]e, Sp. dul[s]e), OPt. do[ʦ]e (> Pt. do[s]e) (but Dal. dol[k], Sard. dur[k]e) ‘sweet’  > Proto-Rom. *vi[cç]inu > Dal. vi[ʧ]ain, Aro. vi[ʦ]in, Ro. ve[ʧ]in, ORoma. vi[ʧ]inu (> vi[ʤ]inu >Ro. vi[ʒ]in), It. vi[ʧ]ino, Sic. vi[ʧ]inu, OFr. voi[ʣ]in (> Fr. voi[z]in), OOcc. ve[ʦ]in (> ve[ʣ]in > Occ. ve[z]in), OSp. ve[ʦ]ino (> Cast.-Sp. ve[θ]ino, Sp. ve[s]ino), OPt. vi[ʣ]inno (> Pt. vi[z]inho) (but Sard. bi[k]inu) ‘neighbor’

¹⁵ As Posner (1996: 113) points out, however, it is still uncertain whether this was indeed the evolutionary path in all cases or whether [ʦ] would have changed to [ʧ] instead.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

92        

4.5.4 *[kæ ɡæ] One of the unique characteristics of the evolution of Rhaeto-Romance and northern varieties of Gallo-Romance was the palatalization of velars before Latin .¹⁶ Repetti (2016: 664) argues that Latin  must have had an anterior articulation in those varieties in this context, while Haiman and Benincà (1992: 66) explicitly consider a likely fronting of Latin [a] to *[æ] 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 médiopalatale se déplace peu à peu en avant dans la bouche; par ce déplacement se développe un son transitoire fricatif qui finit par devenir un élément indépendant, et l’explosive se trouve transformée en une affriquée, en même temps que son articulation devient de plus en plus prépalatale, et enfin dentale: carrum > karro > kjar > tʃar.

Thus, Latin  ‘dog’ would have given Rhaeto-Romance [ʧ/c]an via the intermediate step *[kæ]ne, while Latin  ‘leg’ would have evolved into Old French [ʤ]ambe hypothetically from the previous steps *[ɡæ]mbe > *[ɟ] ambe. Today’s fricative results from this evolutionary path in French derive from the deaffrication of [ʧ] and [ʤ] 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 [ʧ ʤ], while the plosives [c ɟ] appear in other varieties. The data in (41) illustrate these various patterns. (41)  > Fri. [ʧ/c]aval, Fr. [ʃ]aval (but Norm., Pic. [k]eval) ‘horse’  > Fri. [ʧ/c]an, Fr. [ʃ]ien ‘dog’  > Fr. [ʧ/c]âr, Fr. [ʃ]er, Norm. (but Pic. [k]ier) ‘costly, dear’  > Fr. [ʧ/c]osse, Fr. [ʃ]ose (but Norm., Pic. [k]ose) ‘thing’  > Fri. va[ʧ/c]e, Fr. va[ʃ]e ‘cow’  > Fr. [ʒ]aune ‘yellow’  > Fri. [ʤ/ɟ]aline, Fr. [ʒ]eline ‘hen’  > Fri. [ʤ/ɟ]ambe, Fr. [ʒ]ambe ‘leg’  > Fri. [ʤ/ɟ]at ‘cat’  > Fr. [ʤ/ɟ]olda ‘enjoy.3’  > Fr. lar[ʒ]e ‘wide.’ ¹⁶ Loporcaro (2011: 149) and Repetti (2016: 664) cite cases of velar palatalization before Latin  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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.5     

93

4.5.5 [sj] and [s̺] An additional historical source of the palato-alveolar fricative [ʃ] in many Romance languages was the palatalization of alveolar [s] by a following  or palatal vowel [i]. In some languages this palato-alveolar voiced further into [ʒ] when found in intervocalic position, while in others [s] never even palatalized or the sequence [sj] was subject to metathesis, particularly in some Ibero- and Gallo-Romance varieties, as shown in (42).¹⁷ (42)  > Fri. bu[s], Tusc. ba[ʃ]o, Lig. ba[ʒ]u, Sard. ba[s]u, Fr. bai[z]er, Cat. be[s], Sp. be[s]o, Gl. bei[ʃ]o, Pt. bei[ʒ]o ‘kiss’  > Ro. ca[ʃ], Tusc. ca[ʃ]o, Sard. ca[s]u, Sp. que[s]o, Gl. quei[ʃ]o, Pt. quei[ʒ]o ‘cheese’  > Ro. cirea[ʃ]ă, Fri. cjarie[z]e, Roma. tschare[ʃ]a, Tusc. cilie[ʒ]a, Lig. çê[ʃ]a, Ven. siré[ʃ]a, Sard. ceré[z]ia, Fr. ceri[z]e, OSp. cere[z]a, Gl. cerei[ʃ]a , Pt. cerei[ʒ]a ‘cherry’  > Ro. ro[ʃ]u, It. ro[sː]o, Fr. rou[ʒ]e, OSp. ro[ʃ]o ‘red’, Pt. ro[ʃ]o ‘purple’ Moreover, Latin syllable-initial  also gave rise to [ʃ] in 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-initial  was followed by a palatal vowel, which might have favored palatalization of [s] into [ʃ]. Additionally, in many instances, Latin  was likely pronounced as an apical segment [s̺] (rather than laminal [s]). The fact that the articulatory and acoustic patterns of [s̺] are similar to those of [ʃ] (Ladefoged and Maddieson 1996: 145–50) may, then, have contributed to -palatalization into [ʃ]. Indeed, Lloyd (1987: 266) points out both factors (i.e. the coarticulation with a following palatal vowel and an apical realization of ) as contributing to the emergence of [ʃ] from syllable-initial : “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

¹⁷ Standard Italian [ʧ ʤ] < Latin [sj] (e.g.  > It. ba[ʧ]o ‘kiss’,  > It. fa[ʤ]ano ‘pheasant’) likely represents a case of hypercorrection (cf. Maiden 1995: 50–1; Tuttle 1977: 610; Tuttle 1979: 95).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

94         Chapter 2, it is possible, then, to hypothesize that the listener-turned-speaker would have reanalyzed [s̺] as [ʃ] in these cases, at some point in medieval times. The data in (43) illustrate a handful of cases of -palatalization in different Romance varieties. (43)  > It. ve[ʃː]ica, Cat. vei[ʃ]iga, Ast., OSp., Gl. ve[ʃ]iga, Pt. be[ʃ]iga (but Ro. ve[z]ică, Fr. ve[s]ie) ‘bladder’  > Ast. pa[ʃ]aru, Ara., OSp., Gl. pa[ʃ]aro (but Ro. pa[s]ăre, It. pa[sː]ero, Pt. pá[s]aro) ‘bird, sparrow’  > Ast., OSp., Gl. [ʃ]abón (but Pt. [s]abão) ‘soap’  > Ast., OSp., Gl., Pt. [ʃ]erga ‘serge, rough cloth’  > OSp. [ʃ]ugo (but Pt. [s]uco) ‘juice’  > Gl. [ʃ]iba, OSp. [ʃ]ibia ‘cuttlefish’  > OSp. [ʃ]eringa (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 , given misspellings such as  for  and  for  (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 [ʦ], while that of [kj] most often renders [ʧ] (via *[cç]) (Maiden 1995: 52). Exceptions abound, however, particularly due to the aforementioned confusion between both sequences, which, in several cases, have rendered [ʧ] from etymological [tj], and [ʦ] 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, [ʦ] followed different paths, including deaffrication to [s], fronting to [θ], or voicing to [ʣ], which, then, rendered [z] in numerous instances. The voicing of [ʧ] into [ʤ] and occasional deaffrication of both consonants into [ʃ] and [ʒ], respectively, is also observed in some cases. A unique evolutionary pathways is that of Sardinian, where [tj kj] gave way to an affricate [tθ], spelled in medieval texts (Loporcaro 2011: 148), which nowadays is realized as [θ] in Nuorese, as a geminate [tː] in Logudorese, and as an affricate [ʦː] in Campidanese. The data in (44) illustrate the various pathways of Latin [tj kj].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.5     

95

(44)  > Ro. distan[ʦ]ă, It. distan[ʦ]a, Fr. distan[s]e, Cast.-Sp. distan[θ]ia, Sp. distan[s]ia, Pt. distân[s]ia ‘distance’  > Ro., It. for[ʦ]a, Fr. for[s]e, Cast.-Sp. fuer[θ]a, Sp. fuer[s]a, Pt. for[s]a ‘strength’  > Ro. gra[ʦ]ie, It. gra[ʦː]ia, Cal. gra[ʣː]ia, Fr. grâ[s]e, Cast.-Sp. gra[θ]ia, Sp. gra[s]ia, Pt. gra[s]a ‘grace’  > Ro. mar[t]ie, It. mar[ʦ]o, Fr. mar[s], Cast.-Sp. mar[θ]o, Sp., Pt. mar[s]o ‘May’  > Ro., It. pia[ʦ]a, Nuo. pra[θː]a, Log.-Sard. pra[tː]a, Cpd. pra[ʦː]a, Fr. pla[s]e, Cast.-Sp. pla[θ]a, Sp. pla[s]a, Pt. pra[s]a ‘open space, square’  > Ro. pu[ʦ], It. po[ʦː]o, Mil. po[s], OFr. pui[ʦ], Cast.-Sp. po[θ]o, Sp., Pt. po[s]o ‘well ()’  > Ro. ra[ʦ]iune, It. ra[ʤ]ione, Fr. rai[z]on, Cast.-Sp. ra[θ]ón, Sp. ra[s]ón, Pt. ra[z]ão ‘reason’  > Ro. se[z]on, It. sta[ʤ]one, Rml. sta[ʒ]on, Fr. sai[z]on, Cast.Sp. esta[θ]ión, Sp. esta[s]ión, Pt. esta[s]ão ‘season’  > Ro. bra[ʦ], It. bra[ʧː]o, WLom. bra[ʃ]u, Lom. bra[s], OFr. bra[ʦ], Cast.-Sp. bra[θ]o, Sp., Pt. bra[s]o ‘arm’  > It. fa[ʧː]o, Nuo-Sard. fa[θ]o, Log.-Sard. fa[tː]o, Camp.-Sard. fa[ʦː]u, OFr. fai[ʦ], Pt. fa[s]o ‘do.1.sg’  > Ro. ari[ʧ]i, It. ri[ʧː]o, Fr. héri[s]on, Cast.-Sp. eri[θ]o, Sp. eri[s]o, Pt. ouri[s]o ‘hedgehog’  > Ro. amenin[ʦ]are, It. mina[ʧː]a, Fr. mena[s]e, Cast.-Sp. amena[θ]a, Sp. amena[s]a, Pt. amea[s]a ‘threat’

4.5.7 [kt ks] 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  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)  > It. fa[tː]o, Lom. fa[ʧ], Fr. fait, Sp. he[ʧ]o, Pt. fe[jt]o ‘fact’  > It. fri[tː]o, Fr. frit, Sp., Pt. fri[t]o ‘fried’

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

96          > It. la[tː]e, OFr. [lejt], Prov. la[ʧ], Lom. le[ʧ], Sp. le[ʧ]e, Pt. le[jt]e ‘milk’  > It. no[tː]e, Pied. [nØjt], Lom. no[ʧ], Fr. nuit, Sp. no[ʧ]e, Pt. no[jt]e ‘night’  > It. pe[tː]o, Occ. pie[ʧ], Sp. pe[ʧ]o, Ast. pe[ʧ]u, Pt., Gl., Ara. pe[jt]o ‘chest’  > It. te[tː]o, Fr. toit, Sp. te[ʧ]o, Pt. te[t]o ‘roof ’  > It. o[tː]o, Fr. huit, Sp. o[ʧ]o, Pt. o[jt]o ‘eight’  > It. a[ʃː]ella, Fr. ai[s]elle, Sp., Pt. a[ks]ila ‘armpit’  > It. co[ʃː]a, Lig. co[ʃ]a, Fr. cu[js]e, Pt. co[ʃ]a ‘thighs’  > It. di[sː]i, Fr. dis, OSp. di[ʃ]e, Pt. di[s]e ‘said.1.’  > It. te[sː]ere, Fr. ti[s]er, OSp. te[ʃ]er, Pt. te[s]er ‘roof ’

4.5.8 [pl kl fl bl ɡl] and [pj bj mj vj] The strengthening of [j] when adjacent to labial consonants in French and other Gallo-Romance varieties was reviewed in §4.4.1, 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 ɡl] also produced palatal results in many instances, including [bʎ ɡʎ], [bj ɡj], [ɟ], and [ʤ], although other, non-palatal evolutionary pathways are also attested, as shown in (46).¹⁸ (46)  > Ro. [ɟ]at̹a, It. [ɡj]accio, Lig. [ʤ]aça, Fr.-Prov. (Chevroux) [j]açe, Occ., Cat. [ɡl]aç, Ast. [ʎ]az ‘ice’  > Ro. [ɟ]inda, It. [ɡj]anda, Sard. landha, Fr. [ɡl]and, Fr.-Prov. [ɡʎ]and (Ruffieu-en-Valromey), Cat. a[ɡl]à, Sp. landre, Ast. [ʎ]ande, Pt. lande ‘acorn’  > It. [ɡj]aia, Fr. [ɡl]aire, Ast. [ʎ]era, Sp. [ɡl]era ‘gravel’ * > It. [bj]anco, Lig. [ʤ]ancu, Fr.-Prov. [bʎ]anc (Ruffieu-enValromey), Fr.-Prov. (Chevroux) [bj]anc, Sp. [bl]anco, Pt. [bɾ]anco ‘white’

¹⁸ Consider [ ɲ] in Salentino as yet another possible result of [bl ɡl], e.g.  > [ ɲ]ana,  > *bleta > [ ɲ]eta (Rohlfs 1966: 241–55).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

4.6    

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.1. [lj] > a.2. [lj] > a.3. [lj] > a.4. [lj] >

ʎ1 > ʎ1 > ʎ1 > ʎ1 >

[j] > [j] > [j] > [j] >

[ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʒ] > [ʃ] [ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʣ] [ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʧ] Ø

b. [k.l ɡ.l] > [ç.l ʝ.l] > [j.l] > ʎ1 c. [pl- kl- fl-] > [pl- kʎ- fl-] >[pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] >[pʎ- fʎ-] >[ɸʎ-] >[hʎ-] >ʎ2 d.1. [lː] > ʎ2 d.2. [lː] > [ɖ] e. [nj] > [ɲ] f. [ɡ.n] > [j.n] > [j.ɲ] > [ɲ] g. [nː] > [ɲ] h.1. [(p).j], [(b).j], [(v).j], [(m).j] > [(labial C).j] >[ɟ] >[ɟʝ] >[ʤ] >[ʧ] >[ʃ] h.2. [(p).j], [(b).j], [(v).j], [(m).j] > [(labial C).j] >[ɟ] >[ɟʝ] >[ʤ] >[ʣ] i.1. [j-] > [ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʒ] i.2. [j-] > [ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʣ] j.1. [dj ɡj j] > [j] > [ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʒ] j.2. [dj ɡj j] > [j] > [ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʣ] > [z] k.1. [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ] > [ɟ] > [ɟʝ] > [ʤ] > [ʒ] k.2. [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ] > [ɟ] > [ʝ] > [j] > Ø l.1. [ke ki kɛ] > [c] > [cç] > [ʧ] > [ʦ] > [s] l.2. [ke ki kɛ] > [c] > [cç] > [ʧ] > [ʦ] > [ʣ] > [z] l.3. [ke ki kɛ] > [c] > [cç] > [ʧ] > [ʦ] > [s̪] > [θ] m. [ka ɡa] > *[kæ ɡæ] > [c ɟ] > [cç ɟʝ] > [ʧ ʤ] > [ʃ ʒ]

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

98         n.1. [tj] > n.2. [tj > n.3. [tj > n.4. [tj >

[ʦ] > [ʦ] > [ʦ] > [ʦ] >

[ʧ] > [ʤ] [s] [s̪] > [θ] [ʣ] >[z]

o.1. [kj] > [c] > [cç] > [ʧ] > [ʤ] > [ʒ] o.2. [kj] > [c] > [cç] > [ʧ] > [ʃ] 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, Menéndez Pidal (1977: 152, 159) cites the case of learned words in which Latin [-lj-] never palatalize into ʎ₁, such as peculiar ‘peculiar’, concilio ‘council’ (cf. popular concejo), etc. Furthermore, Boyd-Bowman (1980: 85) provides evidence for semi-learned words in which ʎ₁ never evolved into a palato-alveolar [ʒ] in Old Spanish; instead, it followed the same path as ʎ₂, by delateralizing starting in the sixteenth century and eventually merging with the palatal fricative [ʝ] (< [ɟ]) intervocalically, a phenomenon referred to in Modern Spanish as yeísmo (cf. Chapter 5), as illustrated in (48). (48)  > Sp. maravi[ʎ]a > maravi[ʝ]a ‘wonder’  > Sp. mura[ʎ]a > mura[ʝ]a ‘rampart’  > Sp. humi[ʎ]are > humi[ʝ]ar ‘to humiliate’ 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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. Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages. First edition. André Zampaulo. © André Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

100       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 ́ in Modern Spanish Since around the sixteenth century, the second-stage palatal lateral [ʎ] (i.e. ʎ₂ < Lat. [pl- kl- fl- lː]) has been undergoing a process of delateralization in most dialects of Spanish, the result of which frequently eliminates the contrast between [ʎ] and the coetaneous central palatal obstruents [ɟ] and [ʝ] in favor of the latter two consonants (Lipski 1989). This merger toward palatal obstruents receives the traditional label “ˊ ” and reveals itself when speakers of Spanish pronounce orthographic and typically as [ɟ] after a pause, nasal, or lateral consonants (e.g. yo [ɟo] ‘I’, lleno [ˈɟeno] ‘full’, cónyuge [ˈkoɲɟuxe] ‘spouse’, conllevar [koɲɟeˈβaɾ] ‘to entail’, el yate [eʎˈɟate] ‘the yacht’, etc.) or as [ʝ] elsewhere, particularly after or between vowels (e.g. la lluvia [laˈʝuβja] ‘the rain’, ayuntamiento [aʝun̪ taˈmjen̪ to] ‘town hall’, caballo [kaˈβaʝo] ‘horseʼ, etc.). Several authors have attempted to provide evidence of the first occurrences of ˊ in 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.3’ already in thirteenth-century documents. Lapesa (1981: 383), on the other hand, cites the sporadic case of the word ayo for hallo ‘find.1’ 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 Libro de Alexandre shows llago for yago ‘I lie down,’ whereas a glossary of El Escorial indicates llema for yema ‘egg yolk’ and papagallo for papagayo ‘parrot’ (Lloyd 1987: 344). These examples have led scholars to posit that the substitution of [ʎ] for [ɟ ʝ]—a process labeled here as ˊ—indicates “a strong reaction against the tendency toward the merger” (Lloyd 1987: 345). In the sixteenth century,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

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 ˊ 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 ayá for allá ‘over there’ in Honduras in 1528, hoyando for hollando ‘setting foot on’ in Mexico City in 1537, cogoio for cogollo ‘heart (of lettuce)’ in Cusco in 1549, allan for hayan ‘have.3..’ in Mexico City 1574, and papagallos for 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, hayarés, salla, alla, valla, yamáis for vayan, hallarés, saya, haya, vaya, llamáis. 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 ˊ. 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 ˊ. 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 ˊ 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 [ʎ] and [ʝ] (e.g. haya for halla ‘find.3’) 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 ˊ must 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

102       occurs in only thirteen words (i.e. ella, ello, llegar, llevar, llamar, calle, hallar, allí, caballero, lleno, allá, 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 [ʎ] 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 ˊ 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 ˊ 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 ˊ 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 [ʎ] until the eighteenth century in Spain: He repasado con el mayor cuidado los libros de todos los que en los siglos  y  escribieron sobre pronunciación de nuestra lengua. ( . . . ) Pero ni siquiera los andaluces (Nebrija 1517; Francisco Delicado, 1534; Cristóbal de las Casas, 1570; Juan Sánchez, 1586; Mateo Alemán, 1609; Bernardo de Aldrete, 1606 y 1614; Juan Bautista de Morales, 1623; Juan de Robles, 1631; Juan Villar, 1651, etc.) hablan en ninguna ocasión de confusiones de ll con y [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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

103

and pronunciation of [ʎ] in Spanish at the time of the war for the Kingdom of Granada, when the Moorish attempted to produce [ʎ], but ended up pronouncing it as [lj]: “En la guerra del reino de Granada, en la rebelión de los moriscos, a los aljamiados que no avían desde niños aprendido nuestra lengua i con su pronunciación, para conocerlos les hazían dezir cebolla, y el que era morisco dezía 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 doblándola con otra, las dos hazen letra propia española, como la ke suena en estas diziones: llave, llaga . . . lluvia. El portugués la suple con lh, filho; el italiano con gli, figliolo, fillolo, hixo” (Alonso 1961: 168). Data from Judeo-Spanish has often been invoked in the discussion regarding the origins of ˊ in Modern Spanish. Penny (2000: 186; 2002: 106) claims that the non-lateral results from ˊ are universal in varieties of Judeo-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 ́ 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 ˊ of Judeo-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 ˊ dialects of Judeo-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 todavía: la pronunciación real se transcribía directamente con los caracteres Raxí (rabínicos) y no podemos suponer la presión escolar de la escritura castellana. También se mantiene la ll, entre los yeístas de algunos dialectos, en ciertas palabras conservadas en los romances, como donzella, castillo ( . . . ).

However, data from Judeo-Spanish ought to be considered with caution, as the evolution of [ʎ] 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. cuchío, estrea, aquea, sía, aí, gaína (cf. Sp. cuchillo, estrella, aquella, silla, allí, gallina), which is also characteristic of several current Spanish varieties, particularly in Central and North America (cf. §5.2.3.3).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

104       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.1’, respectively (cf. a similar pattern in dialectal Brazilian Portuguese in §5.2.4). Despite the controversy involving the chronology and geographical beginnings of Spanish ˊ, scholars seem to agree that its origins are due to an articulatory, acoustic, and perceptual similarity between [ʎ] and [ʝ] (Real Academia Española 2011: 220). The diffusion of ˊ 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 ˊ pronunciation in Spain, especially since most of the surviving pockets of  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] in this country are relegated to non-urban areas (ALPI 1962; Zamora Vicente 1967; García Mouton and Moreno Fernández 1994; García Mouton and Molina Martos 2009, 2012). Seville and other cities in southern Spain have been judged as probably the most fertile region for the diffusion of ˊ, which was, then, carried over to other parts of Spain, following Andalusian immigration to the north. Yet, as Moreno Fernández (2004: 987) correctly points out, this does not mean that other regions could not have already employed a ˊ pronunciation before the contact with southern Spanish speech. Indeed, Alonso (1961: 162, 204) vehemently discards the widely shared hypothesis that the phenomenon of ˊ was entirely a product of Andalusia: ( . . . ) se ha creído que el seseo y el yeísmo han sido productos andaluces exportados e impuestos a los colonos americanos del siglo XVI. Es la opinión unánime entre los profanos, y lo es casi unánime todavía entre los filólogos, pero como mero arrastre de opinión y no como conocimiento elaborado. ( . . . ) Las zonas yeístas de Asturias, Santander, Valladolid (y otras menores y no precisadas de Castilla la Vieja), están aisladas, tanto de Andalucía como entre sí, por tierras conservadoras de la ll ( . . . ).

Lloyd (1987: 346) concludes, then, that whenever and wherever the origins of ˊ 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

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 ˊ 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 ˊ was not a widespread feature throughout all of the former colonies (cf. Ramírez Luengo 2012: 298 for the lack of ˊ in eighteenth-century Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua). It is safe to conclude, then, that the delateralization of ʎ₂ and its eventual merger with [ɟ ʝ] 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 ˊ 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 ˊ in recent times has made itself evident in many parts of Spain. Navarro Tomás (1964), for example, argues that the ˊ pronunciation spread north and reached Castile by 1930 as a variable among speakers who still distinguished between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ]. However, today it is widely recognized that most of the country is ˊ (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  throughout the country (cf. García Mouton and Molina Martos 2012). It is safe to claim, then, that while [ʎ] is more frequently pronounced in nonurban areas in the north (e.g. Alonso 1961; Chapman et al. 1983; Moreno Fernández 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, Nuño Álvarez (1996: 187) reports data revealing a predominantly ́ dialect, especially in its

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

106       central and northern areas and the capital Santander. However, cases of  are still found in southern Cantabrian towns. Additionally, the author cites other phenomena related to this process, such as a glide-like pronunciation of [ɟ ʝ] (e.g. pollo ‘chicken’ and poyo ‘stonebench’ both realized as [ˈpojo]) or its complete loss by contact with a palatal vowel (e.g. ovillo [oˈβiu] ‘ball of yarn’, traendo ‘bringing’ (cf. Sp. trayendo), leendo ‘reading’ (cf. Sp. leyendo)), particularly in the mountainous areas. Around Western Santander, Nuño Álvarez reports the occurrence of [dj] as the pronunciation of [ɟ] 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 ˊ pronunciation is gaining ground, especially in urban environments, such as Valladolid, Palencia, Ávila, and Segovia, although a few areas may still conserve , such as León and Zamora (Alonso 1961: 178). Moreno Fernández (2004: 989) and Hernández Alonso (1996: 219), on the other hand, report that [ʎ] can still be found in the city of Burgos, despite the fact that 60% of their informants no longer displayed  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ]. Moreno Fernández (2004: 989) refers to this as a partial ˊ, 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 [ʎ] surfaces more frequently in the speech of those who are older than forty years of age. In Castile-La Mancha, most cities are ˊ, while there are still a few patches of , particularly in the north of this region (García Mouton and Molina Martos 2012). Moreno Fernández (1996: 219) reports that Toledo represents the main focus of ˊ, 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 ˊ in Alarcón (Cuenca), where [ʎ] is observed not only in words with orthographic , but also in words written with , e.g. yugo [ˈʎuɣo] ‘yoke’ and yunque [ˈʎuŋke] ‘anvil’ (Moreno Fernández 2004: 986). While the fricative [ʝ] occurs frequently, Moreno Fernández (2004: 986) cites the occurrence of a velar plosive [ɡ] 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, Cáceres, and Ciudad Real), including three ˊ variants, i.e. [j], [ʝʒ], [ʒ], as well as  between [ʎ] and [ʝ], as illustrated in Figure 5.1.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

107

[ʝ3] not found [ʒ] not found [j] not found [ʝ] only all variants absence of yeísmo

Figure 5.1 ́ variants in the region of La Jara in central Spain (adapted from Paredes 2013: 80) Adapted with permission from Gómez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

Madrid has also been reported as mostly ˊ (Alonso 1961: 177; Gómez and Molina Martos 2013). However, recent dialectal studies uncover a much more complex scenario for this autonomous region, where not only [ʎ] is evidently fading, but also the palatal obstruent of ˊ areas may present multiple realizations. Ruíz Martínez (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 [ʝ] (e.g. lleva [ˈʝeβa] ‘carry.3’, gallina [gaˈʝina] ‘chicken’), a palatal affricate [ɟʝ] (e.g. llovió [ɟʝoˈβjo] ‘it rained’, ya [ɟʝa] ‘already’), a palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ] (e.g. allí [aˈʒi] ‘over there’, mayo [ˈmaʒo] ‘may’), a palato-alveolar affricate [ʤ] (e.g. llenos [ˈʤenos] ‘full-’, ayuda [aˈʤuða] ‘help’), and a palatal approximant [j] (e.g. ayuntamiento [ajun̪taˈmjen̪to] ‘city hall’) (Ruíz Martínez 2003: 169). While the fricatives correspond to more than half the realizations (55%), the glide allophone occurred in 23% of the data (Ruíz Martínez 2003: 170). To the west, in Extremadura, Alonso (1961: 177) reports the general presence of ˊ, with a few pockets of  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ], especially in the south. Álvarez Martínez (1996: 177) also reports cases of  in a few areas, such as Madroñera, which is surrounded by ́ towns (cf. also Ortés 2011 for sociolinguistic data on current  around the city of Badajoz). Regarding the realization of the palatal obstruent in ˊ areas, however, Álvarez Martínez mentions the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

108       presence of a palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ]. This ʒˊ is found mainly in southern Cáceres, as well as in northern Badajoz. Alonso (1961: 182) and Zamora Vicente (1967: 334) also comment on such a pronunciation, particularly in Mérida, providing the following examples: caballo [kaˈβaʒo] ‘horse’, mayo [ˈmaʒo] ‘May’, and silla [ˈsiʒa] ‘chair’. In southern Spain, Andalusia has traditionally been considered the epicenter of ˊ and most of its territory today is ˊ . However, such a general statement hides several cases of small areas in which speakers still practice  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ]. Zamora Vicente (1967: 311), for example, cites the presence of the palatal lateral in areas surrounding Huelva, Granada, and Jaén, while Penny (2000: 121) also reports on data from rural Seville and Cádiz. In parts of Western Andalusia, particularly in small towns around Seville, three forms of  can be found, namely, between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ], [ʎ] and [ʒ], and a third contrast, between [ɟ] and [ʒ] (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 pollo [ˈpoʎo] ‘chicken’ and poyo [ˈpoʒo] ‘stone bench’ (Emilia Alonso-Marks, personal communication). In Jerez de la Frontera, Harjus (2018: 174–6) reports not only on the characteristic ˊ of the region, but also on the incipient ʒˊ that is featured in many Andalusian dialects, with the occurrence of the palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ] in words such as [ʒ]a ‘already’, [ʒ]o ‘I’, pa[ʒ]aso ‘clown’, [ʒ]ave ‘key’, Sevi[ʒ]a ‘Seville’, ma[ʒ]o ‘May’, po[ʒ]o ‘chicken’, etc. In Harjus’ (2018) study, [ʒ] is used more often by women, speakers older than thirty years of age, and those with less formal education. Payán Sotomayor (1988: 65) also finds this fricative to be common in Cadiz, particularly in the speech of young speakers. In the Canary Islands, speakers are essentially ˊ, despite a few impressionistic reports on reminiscent areas of  (Alonso 1961: 185). With regard to the affricate [ʧ], its deaffrication into [ʃ] 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. co[ʃ]e ‘car’, mu[ʃ]o ‘much’, le[ʃ]e ‘milk’, mu[ʃ]a[ʃ]o ‘young boy’ (Harjus 2018: 154, 157; cf. also Alvar et al. 1973; Payán Sotomayor 1988; Moyá Corral and García Wiedemann 1995; Jiménez Fernández 1999: 66–9; Narbona Jiménez et al. 2011: 195–8). While the affricate [ʧ] is still used more often than [ʃ] in most Andalusian cities, Harjus (2018: 156, 160) reports that the latter is realized four times more frequently than [ʧ] in Jerez de la Frontera, and, thus, represents a defining characteristic of this city’s linguistic variety.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

109

5.2.2.2 Bilingual regions In Spain, regions where other languages have official status and coexist with Spanish also present cases of ˊ and  between the palatal lateral and palatal obstruent consonants. In the northwest, for example, Galicia is essentially ˊ 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 ˊ is widespread in Galician (particularly among young speakers), although [ʎ] is still considered to be part of the consonant inventory of this language, supposedly contrasting with the glide [j], e.g. mollo [ˈmoʎo] ‘I wet’ vs moio [ˈmojo] ‘I grind’. Indeed, Freixeiro Mato (2006: 180) cites the delateralization of [ʎ] among young speakers of Galician as the source for a new consonant that is emerging in the system, i.e. the palatal obstruent [ɟ]: “Moitos falantes novos, das vilas e das cidades principalmente, trocaron o fonema lateral palatal sonoro /ʎ/ polo fricativo mediopalatal sonoro /ɟ/, inexistente no sistema tradicional, de forma que se produce unha forte tendencia á perda do carácter lateral deste fonema: muller [muˈʎɛɾ] > [muˈɟɛɾ].” However, the author also points out that the emergent [ɟ] still maintains a contrast with the existing glide [j], despite the fact that the younger generation does not practice this : ( . . . ) este fenómeno [i.e. delateralization] non se pode confundir coa natural realización da semivogal [j] en casos como maio [ˈmajo] ou vaia [ˈbaja], que nunca deberían realizarse como mallo [ˈmæʎo] ou [ˈmæɟo], pertenecente ao verbo mallar, nin como valla [ˈbæʎa] ou [ˈbæɟa], do verbo valer, aínda que, por interferencia do español, tal confusion xa se produza entre os falantes que realizan a deslateralización, principalmente novos. (Freixeiro Mato 2006: 181)

Dubert García (2013) offers a precise and updated dialectal picture of ˊ in Galicia. The author indicates that the ́ pronunciation in the region—both in Spanish and in Galician—presents several phonetic realizations of the palatal obstruent. Among those, Dubert García (2013: 43) cites the palatal obstruent [ɟ] as the most frequent allophone, “a veces realizado como una oclusiva sin barra de explosión, [ɟ̚]”, in addition to a palatal glide [j] and fronted, affricate realizations such as [ʥ]. While the Spanish spoken in Galicia is generally characterized as ˊ, the dialectal scenario of Galician is more complex. Dubert García (2013: 50–1) characterizes the existence of three possibilities for the realization of the palatal segments in question:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

110       (i) a variety α, which is more conservative and where /ʎ/ surfaces in the speech of older speakers, particularly in rural areas, and is in contrast with a palatal glide /j/, e.g. mollo [ˈmoʎo] ‘I wet’ vs moio [ˈmojo] ‘I grind’; (ii) a variety β, which represents most of Galician speakers and distinguishes between a palatal obstruent /ɟ/, phonetically realized as [ɟ ʥ ʝ], and a glide /j/, e.g. callo [ˈkaɟo] ‘I stop talking’ vs caio [ˈkajo] ‘I fall’; and (iii) a variety ɣ, represented by younger speakers, who strengthen the glide and level it with the palatal obstruent /ɟ/, e.g. mollo [ˈmoɟo] ‘I wet’ vs moio [ˈmoɟo] ‘I grind’. In yet another study, Dubert García (1999: 74–5) also reports an ˊ pronunciation in Western Galicia, particularly in the region of Santiago de Compostela, where Galician is pronounced with a glide [j], e.g. traballas [tɾaˈβajas] ‘work.2’, palla [ˈpaja] ‘straw’, muller [muˈjɛɾ] ‘woman’. To the east, however, in the towns along the border between Galicia and Asturias, Alarcos Llorach (1996: 137) reports the co-occurrence of ˊ and  throughout the area (e.g. fiyu [ˈfiʝu] and fillo [ˈfiʎo] ‘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 ˊ (e.g. agu[ʝ]a ‘needle’, nava[ʝ]a ‘razor’, and abe[ʝ]a ‘bee’), in Sanabria (Leon) speakers still produce the palatal lateral (e.g. mu[ʎ]er ‘woman’, fi[ʎ]o ‘son’, and vie[ʎ]a ‘old’). In Asturias, the two biggest cities, Oviedo and Gijón, are predominantly ˊ (both in Spanish and in Asturian), while in the rest of the region the evolution of [ʎ] has given rise to various realizations, such as [ʎ], [ɟ], [ʝ], [ʦ], and [ʧ] (cf. Alonso 1961: 178–9; Álvarez Martínez 1996: 122; cf. also Chapter 4). In the Basque Country, Hualde (2005: 291) argues that speakers still maintain a  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] in both Basque and Spanish, particularly because in this region “the pronunciation of /ʎ/ has a very positive social consideration (at least in some circles).” Hualde goes further and claims that, for some speakers, the transfer of a ˊ 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 ˊ will likely prevail, as the younger generations are losing the  between those two consonants in both languages. In Catalonia, most speakers are ˊ in Spanish, while [ʎ] is kept in many varieties within the Catalan-speaking areas (Figure 5.2).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

111

NORTHERN

NORTHWESTERN

CENTRAL

WESTERN CATALAN EASTERN CATALAN

BALEARIC

VALENCIAN

SARDINIA

ALGUERÈS

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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

112       although this process is observed with the palatal lateral that derived from Latin [-lj- -k.l- -ɡ.l-] (i.e. ʎ₁) and not from Latin [l- -lː-] (i.e. ʎ₂), e.g.  > CCat. [əˈβɛjə] ‘bee’,  > CCat. [fuˈnoj] ‘fennel’,  > CCat. [miˈɾaj] ‘miracle’ vs  > CCat. [ˈʎeŋɡə] ‘tongue’,  > CCat. [ˈʎiβɾə] ‘book’,  > CCat. [ʎop] ‘wolf ’. In these same varieties Veny and Massanell (2015: 147) also report a tendency to devoice the palato-alveolar affricate [ʤ] into [ʧ], particularly in the speech of older speakers, e.g. forma[ʧ]e ‘cheese’, fe [ʧ]e ‘liver’, via[ʧ]e ‘trip’, etc. In Tarragona, two palatal patterns stand out, namely, the affrication of word-initial and postconsonantal palato-alveolar fricatives (e.g. [ʧ]ocolata ‘chocolate’, [ʤ]uan ‘John’, [ʤ]endre ‘son-in-law’, mar[ʧ]ar ‘march, go’) and the palatalization of the alveolar nasal [n] by a preceding glide [j] (e.g. cu[jn]a > cu[ɲ]a ‘kitchen’, fe[jn]a > fe[ɲ]a ‘task, job’, etc.) (Veny and Massanell 2015: 162). Northern varieties (e.g. rossellonès) replace the palatal lateral with a glide [j] (e.g. ca[j]ar ‘to stop talking’), delete the fricative[ʃ] 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 [ʧ] into [ʤ], e.g. borra[ʧ]o/borra[ʤ]o ‘drunk’, ma[ʧ]o/ma[ʤ]o ‘mule’, etc. (Veny and Massanell 2015: 175–6). Balearic dialects are characterized by widespread [ʎ]-delateralization into [j], although the latter segment is often deleted when in contact with a palatal vowel, e.g. palla [ˈpajə]/[ˈpaə] ‘straw’, vella [ˈveə] ‘old..’, cullera [kuˈeɾə] ‘spoon’, fulla [ˈfujə]/[ˈfuə] ‘leaf ’, fill [fij]/[fi] ‘son’, fills [fijs]/[fis] ‘sons’, conill [kuˈnij]/[kuˈni] ‘rabbit’, ull [uj] ‘eye’ (Recasens 1991: 323–4; Echenique Elizondo and Sánchez Méndez 2005: 297; Veny and Massanell 2015: 190). In Majorcan Catalan, more specifically, many varieties exhibit the stops [c] (< [k]) and [ɟ] (< [ɡ]) word finally or in contact with a front or central vowel, e.g. MCat. pac [ˈpac] ‘pay.1’, car [ca] ‘expensive’, boca [ˈbocə] ‘mouth’, esquerra [əsˈcɛrə] ‘left’, esquena [əsˈcənə] ‘back’, galta [ˈɟaltə] ‘cheek’, piga [ˈpiɟə] ‘mole’, caguetes [ciˈɟətəs] ‘diarrhea’, etc. (Veny and Massanell 2015: 201). The northwestern dialects of Pallars and Ribagorça in general preserve the palatal lateral [ʎ] (e.g. ce[ʎ]a ‘eyebrow’, re[ʎ]a ‘bars’, abe[ʎ]a ‘bee’, pa[ʎ]a ‘straw’) and the glide [j] from Latin [-dj- -ɡj- -jː- -bj-] instead of the affricate [ʤ] (e.g. [maˈjo] ‘bigger’ < Lat. , [ˈmaj] ‘May’ < Lat. , [puˈja] ‘to increase’ < Lat. , [ˈpuj] ‘stone bench’ < Lat. , [ˈroj] < Lat.  ‘red’, [koˈreja] < Lat.  ‘strap’) (Veny and Massanell 2015: 246, 256). In the dialect of Ribagorça, specifically, one finds sibilant devoicing, e.g. [ʤ] > [ʧ] (viatge [biˈaʧe] ‘trip’, germà [ʧeɾˈma] ‘brother’, gent [ʧen] ‘people’, jove [ˈʧoβe] ‘young’, taronja [taˈɾɔɲʧa] ‘orange’), [ʣ] > [ʦ] (tretze [ˈtɾeʦe] ‘thirteen’),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

113

[z]>[s] (casa [ˈkasa] ‘house’). Furthermore, as discussed in §4.3.2.1, the variety of Ribagorça presents a unique characteristic, namely the palatalization of the lateral consonant in the Latin groups [pl bl kl ɡl fl], i.e. Ribagorçan [pʎ bʎ kʎ ɡʎ fʎ], in which the palatal lateral occasionally delateralizes into [j], e.g. ploure [ˈpʎɔwɾe] < Lat.  ‘to rain’, blat [bʎat]/[bjat] < Lat.  ‘wheat’, clau [kʎaw] < Lat.  ‘nail’, regla [ˈreɡʎa] < Lat.  ‘rule’, flor [fʎɔ] < Lat.  ‘flower’ (Veny and Massanell 2015: 262). In Valencia, Segura (2003) reports that in the area of Baix Vinalopó, 84% of sixty-year-olds (and older speakers) still produce the palatal lateral [ʎ] (e.g. cava [ʎ] ‘horse’), while 98% of speakers between nine and twenty-seven years of age realize the glide (e.g. cava[j] ‘horse’). Moratal Canales (2011) finds a similar pattern in Gandía (south of Valencia), although some of the young speakers in his study still preserve [ʎ] in Catalan, but not in Spanish. With regard to obstruents, Veny and Massanell (2015: 275–6) report the occurrence of the palato-alveolar affricate [ʤ] (occasionally [ʧ]) in lieu of its fricative counterpart, e.g. pluja [ˈpluʤa]/[ˈpluʧa] ‘rain’, germà [ʤeɾˈma]]/[ʧeɾˈma] ‘brother’, etc. In Aragon the variation among [jʃ], [ʃ], and [ʧ] is noteworthy (e.g. caxa [ˈkaʃa]/[ˈkajʃa] ‘box’, baxar [baˈʃaɾ]/[bajˈʃaɾ]/[baˈʧaɾ] ‘to go down’, pexe [ˈpeʃe]/[ˈpejʃe]/[ˈpeʧe] ‘fish’), with [jʃ] being preferred in the east, the fricative [ʃ] in the west, and [ʧ] in the south of the region (Nagore Laín 2013: 26–8). In Ribagorça, the variation between an initial palatal lateral [ʎ-] (< Lat. -) and the alveolar [l-] (e.g. [ʎ]una vs [l]una ‘moon’), [ʎ]etra vs [l]etra ‘letter’) is also noted, in addition to [pʎ-]/[pl-], [kʎ-]/[kl-], [fʎ-]/[fl-] (Nagore Laín 2013: 28–30). In western varieties, on the other hand, the palatalization of [n] by a glide [j] occurs frequently (e.g. [ɲ]eto < [nj]eto ‘grandson’, [ɲ]edo < [nj]edo ‘nest’) (Nagore Laín 2013: 91).

5.2.3 Palatals in the Spanish dialects of Hispanic America and other varieties Since the sixteenth century, the development of palatals in Hispanic America and other regions of the world has followed multiple pathways and today provides a rich area to explore their mergers and contrasts in various dialects. After surveying the status of palatals in Hispanic American regions, this section provides brief comments on the status of their manifestation in other areas of the Spanish-speaking world, such as the Philippines and Equatorial Guinea.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

114      

5.2.3.1 The United States, Mexico, and Central America When summarizing the general dialectal features of the Spanish spoken in the United States, Canfield (1981: 15, 80–7) reports the occurrence of a palatal glide [j] in intervocalic position (e.g. valla [ˈbaja] ‘fence’, vaya [ˈbaja] ‘go.1.3. ...’), along the US-Mexico border. In northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, however, the glide is often dropped when in contact with a palatal vowel, e.g. capilla [kaˈpia] ‘chapel’ and ella [ˈea] ‘she’ (Canfield 1981: 80; Elias 2012). Alonso (1961: 196) also confirms the loss of the glide in the same region and in the state of Arizona, e.g. gaína ‘hen’, estrea ‘star’, biete ‘ticket’, poíto ‘little chicken’, cabeo ‘hair’, etc. The occurrence of the glide [j] and its deletion in contact with palatal vowels are also reported for northern Mexico—“from Monterrey northward and westward” (Canfield 1981: 62)—, the Yucatan Peninsula, and throughout Central America, including the Spanish varieties spoken in Belize (Cardona Ramírez 2010: 37–8), Guatemala (Utgard 2010: 76–7), El Salvador (Azcúnaga López 2010: 100–1), Honduras (Hernández Torres 2010: 128-–9), Nicaragua (Rosales Solís 2010: 146–8), and Panama (Cardona Ramírez 2010: 195–7), although obstruent realizations (e.g. [ʝ], [ɟ], [ʤ], [d]) may still surface, particularly after nasal consonants. Figures 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 illustrate the aforementioned patterns in Nicaraguan Spanish in the pronunciation of yegua ‘mare’, amarillo ‘yellow’, and inyección ‘injection’, respectively.

HONDURAS [ˈʝeɣ wa] [ˈʝeɣ wa ~ ˈjeɣ wa]

[ˈjeɣ wa]

ATLANTIC OCEAN

PACIFIC OCEAN

COSTA RICA

Figure 5.3 Variation between [ʝ] and [j] in the pronunciation of yegua ‘mare’ in Nicaragua (Rosales Solís 2013: 218). Adapted with permission from Gómez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

HONDURAS

115

[amaˈriʝo~amaˈriØo]

[amaˈriØo]

ATLANTIC OCEAN [amaˈrijo]

PACIFIC OCEAN

COSTA RICA

Figure 5.4 Variation between [ʝ], [j], and Ø in the pronunciation of amarillo ‘yellow’ in Nicaragua (Rosales Solís 2013: 219). Adapted with permission from Gómez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

HONDURAS [inʝeyˈsjon] [inje ɣˈsjon]

ATLANTIC OCEAN

PACIFIC OCEAN

COSTA RICA

Figure 5.5 Variation between [ʝ] and [j] in the pronunciation of inyección ‘injection’ in Nicaragua (Rosales Solís 2013: 220). Adapted with permission from Gómez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

116       Also throughout Central American countries, Alonso (1961: 198) and Lipski (1994: 90, 258, 265, 271, 290) report the occurrence of a hypercorrect and stigmatized insertion of [j] or [ʝ] in hiatuses beginning with [i], e.g. Maríya ‘Maria’, Daríyo ‘Dario’, díya ‘day’, teníya ‘had.1.3..’, ríyo ‘river’, feyo ‘ugly,’ etc. As for the palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ], its deaffrication into [ʃ] is attested in Nicaragua (Rosales Solís 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 Ramírez 2010: 198–200, cf. also Quesada Pachecho 1996). While most of the Mexican territory is ˊ, 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 palatoalvolar fricative [ʒ], e.g. caballo [kaˈβaʒo] ‘horse’, in Veracruz, Oaxaca, and Puebla, in contrast with a palatal fricative [ʝ], as in mayo [ˈmaʝo] ‘May’, despite the fact that the realization of [ʒ] is socially stigmatized (Lipski 1994: 279). In the Yucatán Peninsula, however, a weak glide [j] replaces palatal obstruents intervocalically, in a similar fashion to the speech of northern Mexico (Lipski 1994: 281). Martín Butragueño (2014: 395–430), however, provides the most current report on Mexican ˊ 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 [ʝ], a glide [j], an affricate [ɟʝ], word-internal deletion, and a palatal lateral [ʎ] and a palato-alveolar [ʒ] emerging postlexically, i.e. [ʎ] after [l] (as in el yerno ‘the son-in-law,’ el llavero ‘the keychain’), and [ʒ] after [s] (as in las yemas ‘the yokes’) (Martín Butragueño 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 [j] and Ø prevail, in the Northeast only [j] is significant. In Midwestern and Mideastern Mexico, three allophones are significant: [ʝ], [ʒ], and [ɟʝ], with postlexical [ʎ] occurring also in the Midwest. In the Southeast, however, only [j], postlexical [ʎ], and Ø 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 ˊ region to the north, along the US-Mexico border, and to the east in the Yucatan Peninsula; and a general ˊ 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).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

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 [ʧ] into [ʃ], as in muchacho [muˈʃaʃo] ‘young boy’, leche [ˈleʃe] ‘milk’, etc. (Moreno de Alba 1994; Martín Butragueño 2014: 303–30). Méndez (2017) reports on the variation between [ʧ] and [ʃ] in Ciudad Juárez (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 ˊ pronunciation reflects a palatal obstruent [ɟ] in phrase-initial position and a palatal fricative [ʝ] 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 ˊ, 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-.’ (Canfield 1981: 15; Lipski 1994: 212; Montes 1996: 137; Rodríguez Cadena 2008: 144, 148). In the central Andean region, however, the  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] is still attested, as indicated in Figure 5.6, particularly in rural areas, while main cities like Bogotá are ˊ today. The speech of Antioquia—represented mainly by the city of Medellín—on the other hand, presents either affricate ([ɟʝ]/[ʤ]) or fricative ([ʒ]) realizations in intervocalic position, e.g. mayo [ˈmaɟʝo]/[ˈmaʤo] ‘May,’ caballo [kaˈβaɟʝo]/[kaˈβaʒo] ‘horse’, instead of a fricative [ʝ], as is the case of most ˊ dialects (cf. Canfield 1981: 36; Leslie 2016). As for the affricate [ʧ], Caribbean Spanish presents a great amount of variation, with a tendency to deaffricate into [ʃ] (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 ˊ pronunciation of this region, e.g. valla ‘fence’ and vaya ‘go.1.3...

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

118      

Figure 5.6 D between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] in the central Andean region of Colombia (Espejo Olaya 2013: 235). Adapted with permission from Gómez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

’ realized as [ˈbaʝa]/[ˈbaja] (Canfield 1981: 15, 48–51). In the Andean region, however, two contrastive patterns are found, namely, a  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] (e.g. valla [ˈbaʎa] ‘fence’ vs vaya [ˈbaʝa]), and another  between [ʒ] and [ɟ ʝ] (e.g. valla [ˈbaʒa], vaya [ˈbaʝa]). While the former is attested in the southern Andean region (for example, in the provinces of Cañar, 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

119

Imbabura Pichincha Cotopaxi Bolivar

Tungurahua Chimborazo

[ʒeísta] zone [ ʝeísta] zone [ʎeísta] zone

Figure 5.7 D patterns and í in Ecuadorian Spanish (Gómez 2013: 237). Adapted with permission from Gómez and Molina Martos (eds.) Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. © Ibero-Americana-Vervuert 2013.

Thus, it is safe to argue that both ˊ and a two-way  characterize Ecuadorian Spanish. In addition, a group of scholars (e.g. Toscano Mateus 1953: 100–1; Córdova 1996: 192) also indicate the existence of a voiceless palato-alveolar fricative [ʃ] in central rural areas, where a  between [ʃ] and [ɟ ʝ] is reportedly observed in the speech of uneducated speakers, who may or may not be bilingual in Spanish and Quechua: [there is] un tercer fonema, esta vez fricativo sordo, es decir la variante sh (š).¹ Su presencia la encontramos frecuentemente en el lenguaje rústico con la señal de reconocer sustrato quichua, pero sin que el hablante sea necesariamente quichuahablante. Así, se oye shave ‘llave’, cashe ‘calle’, cabasho ‘caballo’. (Córdova 1996: 192) ¹ Here “š” corresponds to IPA [ʃ].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

120       Recent research suggests, however, that the  between [ʒ] and [ɟ ʝ] in the central highlands may not last for too long, as quiteño speakers younger than twenty-five years of age are now eliminating this contrast in favor of [ɟ ʝ], many times pronouncing words also with a palato-alveolar affricate [ʤ] (Haboud and De la Vega 2008: 168). The origins of the [ʒ] vs [ɟ ʝ]- 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  between [ʒ] and [ɟ ʝ] 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 [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] in both languages, in addition to also having [ʒ] 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 [ʒ] vs [ɟ ʝ]- 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 [ʒ] (pronounced in words with orthographic ) in the aforementioned areas. It is frequently assumed that [ʒ] derived from Quechua [ʎ]. As most Quechua varieties use the palatal lateral, then it is often argued that the Quechua of central highland Ecuador must have had [ʎ] in the past as well, from which [ʒ] eventually emerged. However, no proof for a direct change [ʎ] > [ʒ] 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 [ʒ] is the phonetic realization of an underlying representation /ʎ/ (Granda Gutiérrez 1992). However, as in Old Spanish, due to a lack of documented proof for the change *[ʎ] > [ʒ], a phonetically grounded reconstruction is in order, namely, one which considers the result of the delateralization of [ʎ] 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] > [ʝ] > [ʒ]), while maintaining the contrast with [ɟ]. The fact that the same  pattern between [ʒ] and [ɟ ʝ] arose in two historically and geographically different Quechua-

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

121

speaking regions such as central highland Ecuador and the Argentine province of Santiago del Estero (cf. Granda Gutiérrez 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 ˊ, although some authors still claim the existence of  between [ʎ] and [ɟ, ʝ] 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 [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] may surface in speakers’ pronunciation of the same word: “La provincia de Cautín [in the south] merece un apartado especial. Allí subsiste la /ʎ/, pero en la localidad donde se pronuncia coexiste con la [ʝ], incluso en un mismo individuo, lo que ocurre en Carahue: gallina [gaʎínæ], estrella [ehtřéʎa], Toltén: calle [káʎe], yuguillo [ɟuɣíʎo], Villarica: cebolla [seβóʎa].” A few areas in northeastern Chile have also been proposed to display a similar , 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 ɡ x] before front vowels [e i] is also a feature of Chilean dialects, frequently resulting in the palatals [c ɟ ç] respectively, e.g. quiero [ˈceɾo] ‘want.1..’, higuera [iˈɟeɾa] ‘fig tree’, gente [ˈçen̪te] ‘people’ (Wagner 1996; Flores 2016). With regard to the affricate [ʧ], its depalatalization into [ʦ] 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. ˊ is a linguistic feature of the capital city Lima and the entire coastal region, although a weak, ˊ-like pronunciation is attested throughout the coast, where [j]deletion is also observed after [i] (Canfield 1981: 15; Lipski 1994: 322; Caravedo 2013: 261). The  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] is documented 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 ˊ in the northern highlands among educated urban speakers (Lipski 1994: 319). The Amazon region, however, represents an important dialectal area, with a reported case of  between a palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ] and a central palatal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

122       obstruent [ɟ] (Caravedo 1996: 157; 2013; Calvo Pérez 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 [ʝ] or an approximant [j] by all speakers (both educated and uneducated), even in phonological contexts where a “stronger” obstruent [ɟ] would be expected, such as after nasal consonants in words like cónyuge ‘spouse’ and inyección ‘injection’ (Caravedo 1995: 133). Words with orthographic , on the other hand, present a great amount of sociophonetic variation. While uneducated speakers tend to favor an affricate [ʤ] or fricative [ʒ], educated speech tends to favor [ʝ] (cf. Caravedo 2013: 280, 283). Although Caravedo considers the phonetic realizations of as allophones of a phoneme /ʝ/ and those of as allophones of /ʎ/, the fact that a palatal lateral [ʎ] never surfaces in her study (and the author does not provide any historical background of the region) makes the existence of a phoneme /ʎ/ rather difficult to maintain. Therefore, based upon Caravedo’s (1995, 2013) data, it is possible to consider the Amazonian dialect of Peru as an area of  between “stronger” palatals (e.g. [ʤ ʒ] for ) and “weak” palatals (e.g. [j] for ).

5.2.3.5 Bolivia and Paraguay Bolivian and Paraguayan Spanish are two varieties in which most speakers practice  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] (Canfield 1981: 28, 70; Lipski 1994: 188, 307–8; Alvar 1996). However, some particularities are worth considering. In Paraguay, for example, [ɟ] is also realized as the affricates [ɟʝ] or [ʤ], even in intervocalic position, e.g. valla [ˈbaʎa] ‘fence’ and vaya [ˈbaɟʝa] ‘go.1.3... .’ (Canfield 1981: 71; Lipski 1994: 308; Palacios 2008: 286). As for Bolivian Spanish, Coello Villa (1996: 175–6) divides it into three main dialectal areas regarding the segments in question, i.e. zone A (central and southwestern highlands), zone B (northern and eastern plains), and zone C (central southern valleys). While all three areas can be generally characterized by [ʎ] vs [ɟ ʝ]-, zone B (e.g. Santa Cruz de la Sierra) and zone C (e.g. Tarija) also offer cases of an incipient ˊ (Canfield 1981: 15), since many young speakers no longer produce the palatal lateral (Terrell A. Morgan, personal communication).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

123

5.2.3.6 Argentina and Uruguay The Spanish spoken in Argentina and Uruguay is often associated with the speech of Buenos Aires and Montevideo, respectively. However, this generalization hides a complex dialectal scenario for the varieties spoken within these two countries. Lipski (1994: 170, 341) and Canfield (1981: 15) describe the manifestation of [ʒ] for words written with both and (i.e. ʒˊ) in the porteño variety spoken in the province of Buenos Aires, in southern coastal Argentina, and in most of Uruguay. However, since approximately the 1940s, [ʒ] has been undergoing a devoicing process, by which many speakers—particularly the younger generations—associate orthographic and with [ʃ], i.e. ʃˊ (Wolf and Jiménez 1979; Rohena Madrazo 2015). Thus, as Canfield (1981: 24–5) points out, words such as valla ‘fence’ and vaya ‘go.1.3....’ can be pronounced as [ˈbaʒa] or [ˈbaʃa] (in addition to [ˈbaʒa]), depending on the age of the speaker. Chang (2008: 61), for example, ̥ provides more current data on the variation between ʒˊ and ʃˊ in today’s Buenos Aires and finds that speakers born before 1945 tend to preserve the voiced allophone [ʒ], while speakers born after 1975 produce the voiceless [ʃ] exclusively, and “the middle-aged speaker born in between showed a high degree of variability between voiced and voiceless allophones” (Chang 2008: 61). King (2009), on the other hand, finds that the variation between [ʒ] and [ʃ] in Buenos Aires is also determined by the social prestige attached to each pronunciation and speakers’ general linguistic attitudes, with younger speakers choosing to use the voiced allophone [ʒ] in more formal contexts, such as a job interview, while pronouncing the voiceless allophone [ʃ] in more informal situations among peers of similar age. The origins of ʒˊ in the River Plate region of Buenos Aires and Montevideo have been the object of many studies in the phonetic, phonological, and sociolinguistic literature. For example, while Guitarte (1992) argues that [ʒ] was a general feature of porteño speech in the nineteenth century, Fontanella de Weinberg (1984, 1995) presents evidence that such a pattern emerged toward the end of the eighteenth century and carried through well into the nineteenth century, when a palatal fricative [ʝ] was also observed and, therefore, ˊ was still part of the porteño dialect. The strongest evidence Fontanella de Weinberg presents is an explicit comment from a theater critic published in the newspaper El Mensajero Argentino on 6 June 1826, in which the palato-alveolar [ʒ] used by one of the actors is heavily reprimanded:

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

124       El no dar a la ll su pronunciación verdadera también es bastante frecuente en Buenos Aires; pero no tanto que sirva de excusa a nadie, y mucho menos a los señores del teatro. Alguno hay de ellos que al pronunciar llanto, batalla y otras palabras con ll parece que pronuncia un ch medio líquido pero prolongado; y que dice chchchanto, batachcha, etc. No hallamos otro modo de escribir esta pronunciación viciosísima. (cited in Fontanella de Weinberg 1995: 2)

According to Fontanella de Weinberg (1995), this criticism reveals not only that ʒˊ was already part of popular speech, but also that it was in competition with a more prestigious ˊ pronunciation at the time. The devoicing process (i.e. ʃˊ), on the other hand, is attested between 1946 and 1949, “at which time a phonemic mutation, the change of the voiced palatal fricative /ʒ/ to a voiceless /ʃ/ took root and rapidly spread into the colloquial usage of all classes” (Honsa 1965: 278). Fernández Trinidad (2010), however, carries out a very detailed phonetic study on porteño Spanish and also confirms the existence of a third possible pronunciation, namely, that of a palato-alveolar affricate [ʤ], of which 100% of occurrences take place in initial position, both after a pause and at the beginning of a phrase, particularly with the words yo ‘I’ and ya ‘already.’ Within the phonological literature, Harris and Kaisse (1999) contribute with one of the most thorough studies to describe the phenomenon of ʒˊ (and its apparent exceptions) in porteño Spanish, by proposing a series of different underlying representations and phonological rules. The authors claim that [ʒ] is a surface reflex of an underlying vowel /i/ in the pronunciation of most ʒˊ words. For example, a word such as yate ‘yacht’ would have the underlying representation /iate/, which, after incurring syllabification and stress assignment rules, would be represented as [ˈjate]. A subsequent coronalization rule would, then, apply to the initial glide, rendering the ʒˊ pronunciation [ˈʒate]. The same rule would apply to the plural form of words ending in [j], e.g. rey [ˈrej] ‘king’, but reyes [ˈreʒes]. In other words, following plural suffixation and syllabification, the coronalization rule would apply to the form [ˈre.jes], rendering the ʒˊ pronunciation [ˈre.ʒes]. At the post-lexical level, however, the same rule would not apply for a similar sequence (e.g. el rey es [el.ˈrej.ˈes] ‘the king is’), since the glide would not be resyllabified as the onset of the following syllable in the first place. According to Harris and Kaisse’s account, exceptions to the coronalization rule can also be found at the word level. For example, words such as hiato ‘hiatus’ are not pronounced as *[ˈʒato], because they have a special underlying representation, namely, with an underlying syllabic /i./, as opposed to a

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

125

non-syllabic /i/ in the case of /iate/. Thus, starting with /i.ato/, syllabification and stress assignment would beget [i.ˈa.to]. At this stage in the derivation, coronalization would not apply, due to the absence of the glide [j] in the onset of the first syllable. Instead, a different mechanism, namely, Attach Onset, would be responsible for the form [ˈja.to] only at the end of the derivation process (Harris and Kaisse 1999: 152). The same explanation would hold for other exceptions to ʒˊ, such as parano[j]a ‘paranoia’, which would have a syllabic /i./ underlyingly, preventing coronalization from applying early in its derivation process, as opposed to tramoya [tɾaˈmoʒa] ‘plot’, with a nonsyllabic /i/ underlyingly. In general, Harris and Kaisse’s (1999) synchronic phonological account of ʒˊ (and its apparent exceptions) offers a description of the phenomenon in question, but leaves the reader in the dark as to why it happens. Furthermore, other issues arise with regard to the authors’ data and the explanatory power of their argument. For example, under the authors’ view, a word such as hielo ‘ice’ would not undergo coronalization because this rule would be blocked by a putative syllabic /i./ in the underlying representation of the word, as opposed to yendo ‘going’, which does incur coronalization after syllabification, surfacing as [ˈʒen̪do]. However, Harris and Kaisse’s proposal of different underlying representations is arbitrary in nature. In other words, because one observes the occurrence of [ʒ]endo and [j]elo, then it is automatically inferred that the answer must be found necessarily in the underlying representation of these words, so that different derivations are, then, motivated. However, as Colantoni (2001: 147) rightly points out, a pronunciation such as [ʒ]elo for hielo ‘ice’ is indeed found some varieties of Argentine Spanish—including the very dialects considered by Harris and Kaisse— especially among uneducated speakers. Using the authors’ assumptions, then, one could propose another rule or ad hoc mechanism, or even a change from syllabic /i./ to non-syllabic /i/ in the underlying representation of hielo in order to solve the problem, but this would only offer another description to fit the data, and not a convincing explanation. Thus, if the evolution of ʒˊ in Argentine Spanish is taken into consideration (cf. Fontanella de Weinberg 1987), a ʒˊ pronunciation of words such as hielo becomes entirely feasible, since it presents a similar phonetic environment to that of words such as yendo before they started to be pronounced with a palato-alveolar [ʒ] in the early nineteenth century. Put another way, assuming that hielo may be variably realized as [ˈjelo]~[ˈʝelo] (depending on factors such as speech rate, for example), the occurrence of forms with a fronted pronunciation of the palatal obstruent (e.g. [ˈʒelo]) should not be surprising, particularly when viewed

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

126       from an evolutionary standpoint. External factors such as social prestige, education, and even orthography might hold the spread of this innovative pronunciation, but not the incipience of the change. However, as Colantoni (2001: 147) argues, the fact that [ˈʒelo] can already be found in the speech of the lower classes indicates that it may become the norm in the future. Under the theoretical assumptions of the present volume, then, words such as hielo, hiato, etc., ought not to be considered as exceptions to ʒˊ, as they are in Harris and Kaisse’s (1999) account. Rather, these words embody the very seed from which the phenomenon of ʒˊ itself may arise during the interaction between speaker and listener, and perhaps eventually spread and become one day the norm in most dialects of Argentine Spanish. In other parts of Argentina, however, other palatal sound patterns are attested. For instance, Canfield (1981: 25) and Lipski (1994: 172) indicate the occurrence of ˊ in Western Argentina, particularly in the city of Mendoza. In the northeastern provinces of Misiones and Corrientes, as well as in parts of Formosa and Chaco, along the border with Paraguay, the  between [ʎ] and [ɟ ʝ] is attested for almost all speakers (Canfield 1981: 15; Lipski 1994: 171). However, Colantoni (2004) documents the current delateralization of [ʎ] and the emergence of the glide [j] in this region— especially in Corrientes—by which some speakers’ speech present, then, a  between [j] (for orthographic ) and [ɟ ʝ] (for orthographic ), e.g. calló [kaˈjo] ‘stopped talking.3’ and cayó [kaˈɟo] ‘fall.3’. A unique  between [ʒ] and [j] is often cited for the speech of the province of Santiago del Estero (Vidal de Battini 1964: 122), although descriptions of this variety are often based upon impressionistic data and, thus, need to be corroborated from an experimental perspective (cf. §5.2.3.6.1). Finally, Thun and Elizaincín (2000) provide the most detailed study concerning the realization of palatal obstruents in Uruguayan Spanish. The linguistic atlas composed by the authors confirms the advance of the voiceless palato-alveolar fricative [ʃ] in Uruguayan Spanish, particularly in the speech of women and young speakers, while its voiced counterpart [ʒ] still prevails in a few areas. A palatal lateral [ʎ] and a palatal fricative [ʝ] are stylistically conditioned and sporadically found, mainly during reading tasks.

5.2.3.6.1 Palatal glides and palato-alveolar fricatives in Santiago del Estero, Argentina Unlike most varieties of Argentine Spanish, the speech of the northern province of Santiago del Estero is often cited for a  between a palatal glide [j] (or sometimes as a weak palatal fricative [ʝ]) and a voiced

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

127

palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ], e.g. vaya [ˈbaja] ‘go.1.3....’ vs valla [ˈbaʒa] ‘fence’ (Vidal de Battini 1964: 121; Honsa 1965: 281; Zamora Vicente 1967: 77, 403; Canfield 1981: 12, 15, 23–4; Lipski 1994: 172–3; Colantoni and Hualde 2013: 22). Yet, remarkably, this reported contrast has been proposed in descriptive studies based upon impressionistic data and/or individual testimonials (e.g. Honsa 1965; Lullo 1965; Ávila 1980) and repeated in subsequent comprehensive studies (e.g. Canfield 1981; Lipski 1994). To date, linguists have yet to confirm or refute the nature of this contrast experimentally and, thus, provide precise information on the phonetic, phonological, and social characteristics of this contrast in Santiago del Estero Spanish (henceforth ‘SES’). This section fills this gap by reporting on the results of three experiments conducted with twenty-one native speakers of this variety. Contrary to the traditional view, results suggest that the reported contrast between palatal glides and palatoalveolar fricatives is no longer present in the speech of the provincial capital, who now present a ʒˊ pronunciation. However, remains of the former contrast are still observed in two specific lexical items, namely, the subject pronoun yo ‘I’ and the adverb ya ‘already’, where is indeed pronounced more frequently as a palatal glide [j] than as a palato-alveolar fricative. 5.2.3.6.1.1 Previous studies on Santiago del Estero Spanish (SES) Santiago del Estero constitutes an inland province in northern Argentina with more than 800,000 inhabitants (Censo Nacional 2010). Its homonymous capital, founded in 1553, is the oldest city in the country. While its population is often described as bilingual (Quechua/Spanish), recent studies point out that only one fifth (i.e. 160,000) of its residents actually speak Quechua throughout fourteen of its twenty-seven districts (Alderetes and Albarracín 2004: 84). For this reason, much of the research on the speech of Santiago del Estero has focused on describing its variety of Quechua and the contact features that characterize the Spanish spoken in the region, particularly with respect to morphological, syntactic, and lexical features (e.g. Balmori 1959; Stark 1985; Kirtchuk 1987; Nardi 1989; Alderetes 1990, 2001; Granda Gutiérrez 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1997d, 1998, 2002; Rojas 2000; Loranzino 2003; Alderetes and Albarracín 2004; Kempas 2006, 2013). With regard to phonetics and phonology, SES is often singled out in studies of Argentine Spanish for two particular features, namely, the retention (as opposed to aspiration) of /s/ in coda position (Vidal de Battini 1964: 104; Donni de Mirande 1996: 213) and, more notably, the aforementioned contrast between [ʒ] and [j]. Regarding the latter, one of the first available descriptions is that of Lullo (1965: 27), who states that in SES, “La ‘ll’ es sonora

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

128       y se distingue netamente de la ‘y’. Decimos ‘güella’ y no ‘hueia’; ‘io’ y no ‘yo’.” It is unclear, however, if the author uses in this case to refer to a palato-alveolar fricative or, possibly, to a palatal lateral [ʎ]. Ávila (1980: 32), on the other hand, attempts to provide a more precise description, equating the pronunciation of in SES with that of in Italian (i.e. [ʤ]) or in French (i.e. [ʒ]) and the pronunciation of in SES with that of Spanish : En la zona también hay yeísmo, que es la asimilación de la ll al sonido de la y consonántica, letra que suena similar a la g italiana de Giovana o a la j francesa de Jacques. Asimismo, destacaremos que la y, aunque sea consonántica, es pronunciada en la región como si fuera i latina. Así se dice aquí: iegua, por yegua; coiuio, por coyuyo; iuto, por yuto. (Ávila 1980: 32)

These descriptions seem to suggest that in SES is associated with a palatoalveolar consonant (most likely [ʒ]), while is realized as a palatal glide [j]. Other studies on the phonetics and phonology of SES follow similar descriptions of this contrastive pronunciation of and , although none of them offers new data or a detailed experimental characterization (cf. Alonso 1961: 186; Vidal de Battini 1964: 121; Honsa 1965: 275–7; Zamora Vicente 1967: 77; Canfield 1981: 12, 15, 23; Granda Gutiérrez 1994: 131–2; Lipski 1994: 172–3; Donni de Mirande 1996: 214; Rojas 2000: 147). As for the origin of this contrast, linguists have attributed it to the extensive contact between SES and the local variety of Quechua. Rosenblat (1967: 125–6), for example, suggests that a palatal lateral [ʎ] first gave rise to [ʒ] in the speech of monolingual SES speakers, and was later carried over to the phonemic inventory of Quechua through the speech of Quechua/Spanish bilinguals. The author extends the same hypothesis to select varieties of Highland Ecuadorian Spanish, which reportedly display the same phonemic contrast found in SES. Rosenblat bases his hypothesis on the fact that the palato-alveolar fricative is observed synchronically in many parts of the Spanish-speaking world, and a similar, supposedly direct change [ʎ] > [ʒ] has also been proposed in the diachrony of Spanish (cf. Chapter 4). Nevertheless, Rosenblat (1967: 126) points out that in many southern highland Ecuadorian provinces bilingual speakers use [ʒ] in Quechua while preserving the palatal lateral [ʎ] in Spanish. Why, in this case, bilingual speakers have not replaced [ʎ] in Spanish with their [ʒ] from Quechua remains unexplained. Other scholars, such as Nardi (1976: 141) and Granda Gutiérrez (1992: 68), propose that [ʒ] would have emerged directly from a palatal lateral [ʎ] in Quechua, with the Quechua-speaking population subsequently transferring [ʒ] to their pronunciation in Spanish, both in SES and in Highland Ecuadorian

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

129

Spanish. However, neither Nardi (1976) nor Granda Gutiérrez (1992) provide a definitive explanation of how the proposed change [ʎ] > [ʒ] would have taken place in separate and unconnected varieties of Quechua in the first place, or why and how some bilingual speakers would have replaced [ʎ] with [ʒ] in both Spanish and Quechua, while others would have maintained these consonants in separate phonemic inventories. Be that as it may, the timing of the emergence of [ʒ] in the history of varieties of Quechua and Spanish in Santiago del Estero and in parts of Highland Ecuador remains uncertain and in need of further research. As for the current status of the contrastive pronunciation both palatals in SES, Lipski (1994: 172–3) hints at a possible change in progress, according to which SES speakers would be “in the process of adopting the predominant yeísta [i.e. ʒˊ] patterns of the remainder of Argentina, although speakers who exhibit the old alternation are still to be found.” Colantoni and Hualde (2013) put forth a similar argument, but acknowledge the lack of empirical studies to make any definitive claims: Poco se sabe tanto acerca de los detalles de la realización acústica de las variantes de estos fonemas como del estatus actual del mantenimiento de la oposición en los distintos estratos sociales, dada la falta de estudios experimentales y/o sociolingüísticos al respecto. Las pocas observaciones existentes coinciden en apuntar que hay signos de fusión de ambos fonemas ( . . . ). (Colantoni and Hualde 2013: 22)

The following discussion addresses this very issue by reporting on the results of an experimental study conducted with native speakers of SES. Both data and findings support Lipski’s (1994: 172–3) and Colantoni and Hualde’s (2013: 22) hypothesis of a general change toward a ʒˊ pronunciation in SES. 5.2.3.6.1.2 Experimental work Three hypotheses were tested. First, following traditional descriptions on the phonetics and phonology of SES, it was hypothesized that some speakers of this dialect would still maintain a contrastive pronunciation between a palatal glide [j] and palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ].² Second, taking into account Lipski’s (1994: 172–3) and Colantoni and Hualde’s

² Words spelled with were intentionally excluded from this study since they would never, in principle, be subject to coronalization in SES and, thus, would always be pronounced with a palatal glide. Additionally, they would not contrast with words spelled with , which is the case in other varieties of Argentine Spanish, such as the one spoken in the River Plate region (e.g. hierba [ˈjeɾβa] ‘grass’ vs yerba [ˈʃeɾβa] ‘herb’, hiendo [ˈjen̪do] ‘I slit’ vs yendo [ˈʃen̪do] ‘going’) and would always contrast with words spelled with (e.g. hiena [ˈjena] ‘hyena’ vs llena [ˈʒena]/[ˈʃena] ‘full’).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

130       (2013: 22) recent insights on the possibility of a shift toward the use of palato-alveolar fricatives in this dialect, it was hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant difference with regard to the pronunciation of both palatals by different age groups of SES speakers, with those of younger generations using palato-alveolars more often than those of older generations. Third, it was hypothesized that there would be no statistically significant difference of gender or level of education in the pronunciation of both palatal segments among SES speakers. To test these hypotheses, a production study was carried out with one dependent variable, namely, the pronunciation of and , both in onset position where coronalization is documented elsewhere in Argentine Spanish. Variants were divided into three categories: ‘palatal glides’,³ ‘voiced palato-alveolar fricatives’ (including fully and partially voiced segments),⁴ and ‘voiceless palato-alveolar fricatives’. Participants’ age, sex, and level of education were treated as independent variables. Twenty-one speakers (ten male and eleven female), all monolingual native speakers of SES, were selected to participate in the present study. They were recruited from various sites, such as the campus of a large public university, the city’s cultural center, and a local law office and hotel. The author of the study did not know any of the participants and none were offered any compensation. They were all born, raised, and lived their entire lives in the provincial capital of Santiago del Estero, with the exception of one participant who was born in Buenos Aires but was raised in Santiago del Estero from early childhood by parents and family who were also native speakers of SES. Speakers’ occupations included a broad range of professions, from university professors, students, and lawyers, to secretaries, clerks, and cleaning staff. Informants were divided into three age groups: 20–40, 41–60, and 61–80 years of age, according to either a high school-level or a university-level education, as summarized in Table 5.1.⁵

³ No palatal fricative [ʝ] was found in the data. ⁴ For the categorical purposes of this discussion, the inherent variation in the amount of voicing during the production of voiced fricatives (cf. Johnson 2013: 152–66) did not represent a separate issue in the study, and, consequently, partially voiced palato-alveolar fricatives did not constitute a phonetic variant on their own and were counted as voiced. Future studies may examine the rate of (de)voicing in the palato-alveolar fricatives of this variety and compare it to other dialects (cf. Rohena Madrazo 2015 for Buenos Aires Spanish). ⁵ The sample of speakers in Table 5.1 is skewed toward those with university-level education since most of the participants were recruited on the campus of a large public university in Santiago del Estero.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

131

Table 5.1 Speakers’ age groups and levels of education Age / Education 20–40 41–60 61–80

High School-Level

University-Level

Male

Female

Male

Female

1 2 1

1 1 1

2 1 3

2 5 1

Three experiments were designed to test the hypotheses of this study. The first was a set of fifteen questions to collect participants’ demographic information and also to create a small corpus of SES, as participants produced data while focusing on issues such as their favorite local traditions and customs or anecdotes from their childhood. Each question was presented on a separate slide on a laptop computer. Participants were alone during data collection and were instructed to read each question aloud first, and then answer it before moving on to the next question (see Appendix 1 for a list of questions used). The list of questions was used in lieu of a sociolinguistic interview to avoid the presence of the researcher on site and in order for participants to feel at ease. They were able to take as much time as they needed to elaborate freely on their answers to each question. The second experiment was phonetic in nature and constituted a sentence-reading task in which participants read thirty-three sentences aloud, twenty-two of which contained words with the target graphemes and sounds, while the remaining eleven sentences were inserted at random as distractors (see Appendix 2). Sentences were randomized first and then presented in the same order for each experiment. Each of these sentences appeared on a separate slide as well. The goal of this experiment was to obtain precise production data for the acoustic analysis of variants. Finally, in the third experiment, participants read and answered a set of four metalinguistic questions regarding the potentially contrastive meaning of four word pairs whose only orthographic difference was the presence of either or (see Appendix 3). This experiment was designed to test participants’ awareness of a possible phonemic contrast in SES, provided that and were uttered with different sounds in those word pairs. All three experiments were recorded in a quiet room with a laptop computer and a unidirectional head-mounted microphone. Recordings and target sounds were analyzed instrumentally with Praat 6.0.16 (Boersma and Weenink 2010). While both the palatal glide and palato-alveolar fricatives were found in the pronunciation of words with in onset position,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

132       only palato-alveolar fricatives were found in the production of words with . The palatal glide was identified with a clear formant structure and a relatively lower intensity with respect to the surrounding vowels, as well as displaying smooth formant transitions, as illustrated in Figure 5.8. 0.07004 0

–0.1112 5000 Hz

800 Hz 0 Hz 1

[k]

[e]

[j]

[a]

1 (3/5)

Figure 5.8 Example of [j] in que ya ‘that already’ (female subject, 29 years old)

Palato-alveolar fricatives, on the other hand, were identified through the presence of high frequency in the spectrum, with energy concentration ranging between 2,500 and 7,000 Hz (cf. Borzone de Manrique and Massone 1981; Gradoville 2011). Spectral peaks, duration, and the presence or absence of voicing (as indicated by a voice bar at the bottom of the spectrogram) were used to distinguish voiced palato-alveolars from their voiceless counterparts, with the latter displaying energy concentration at higher frequencies and having longer duration than the former, and also lacking a voice bar in 90% or more of its duration, as visually represented in the spectrogram. Figure 5.9 illustrates a voiced palato-alveolar fricative [ʒ], while Figure 5.10 shows an example of its voiceless counterpart [ʃ].⁶

⁶ Recent studies (e.g. Lang-Rigal 2015; Rohena-Madrazo 2015) employ more sophisticated analyses of voicing variability, particularly because of the gradient nature of voicing. Rohena-Madrazo (2015: 292–3), for example, shows that there is a great amount of voicing variability in the production of voiceless obstruents in Spanish and that phonologically voiceless obstruents are not always devoid of a voice bar. The present study, however, opted for a categorical approach and set the lack of a voice bar in 90% or more of the duration of palato-alveolar fricatives as the cutoff point to code the palato-alveolar fricative as “voiceless.”

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

133

Figure 5.9 Example of [ʒ] in the word castellano ‘Castilian’ (male subject, 63 years old)

Figure 5.10 Example of [ʃ] in ‘May’ (female subject, 29 years old)

5.2.3.6.1.3 Results and discussion The first hypothesis was based on available descriptions of the phonetics and phonology of SES and stated that speakers would maintain a contrast between the palatal glide [j] (orthographically represented by ) a palato-alveolar fricative (orthographically represented by ). Results from the first experiment suggest that this hypothesis

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

134      

% Response

be rejected, as a higher combined percentage of palato-alveolar fricatives (as opposed to palatal glides) was found in the pronunciation of , while a higher percentage of voiceless palato-alveolar fricatives (as opposed to voiced ones) was found in the pronunciation of , as illustrated in Figures 5.11 and 5.12, respectively. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

[j]

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

% Response

Figure 5.11 Pronunciation of in Experiment 1: Answers to demographic questions 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

Figure 5.12 Pronunciation of in Experiment 1: Answers to demographic questions

Figure 5.11 shows that in answers to the demographic questions in Experiment 1, speakers produced in onset position as a palato-alveolar fricative at a combined rate of 57.7% (N=45) (55.5% (N=25) fully or partially voiced and 44.5% (N=20) voiceless). On the other hand, palatal glides correspond to 42.3% of occurrences (N=33). With regard to , Figure 5.12 illustrates that

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

135

% Response

a voiceless variant was generally preferred over voiced variants, with voiceless variants corresponding to 67.5% of responses (N=87), and voiced to 32.5% (N=42). It is important to note, however, that all thirty-three tokens of palatal glides for in Experiment 1 appeared in the pronunciation of only two specific lexical items, namely, the adverb ya ‘already’ (N=6) and the subject pronoun yo ‘I’ (N=27). All other occurrences of in onset position in this experiment (e.g. ayudo ‘help.1’, reyes ‘kings’, mayores ‘old’, mayo ‘May’, leyenda ‘legend’, among others) were pronounced with a palato-alveolar fricative. In this case, a voiced variant was slightly preferred over voiceless realizations, with voiced variants corresponding to 55.5% of responses (N=25) for and voiceless variants to 45.5% (N=20). If one excludes the palatal glide tokens of both yo ‘I’ and ya ‘already’ in this experiment and considers the remaining occurrences of and in onset position, it is possible to ascertain the variation between (de)voiced and voiceless palato-alveolar fricatives for both graphemes in SES. Thus, the overall results from this experiment allow us to reject the hypothesis of a contrast between a palatal glide [j] and a palato-alveolar fricative in this dialect, since the majority of target words were pronounced with palato-alveolar variants. With regard to the sentence-reading task in the second experiment, results corroborate the findings of the first experiment and also reject the first hypothesis. Participants read twenty-two sentences containing words with and in onset position in all possible phonological environments (see Appendix 2), producing a total of 654 tokens (i.e. N=340 for and N=314 for ). Figures 5.13 and 5.14 summarize the overall results of the second experiment. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

[j]

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

Figure 5.13 Pronunciation of in Experiment 2: Sentence-reading task

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

% Response

136       100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

Figure 5.14 Pronunciation of in Experiment 2: Sentence-reading task

Figure 5.13 illustrates that speakers realized a palato-alveolar fricative in onset position in words with at a combined 95.8% rate (N=326), with 31.6% (N=103) of palato-alveolar occurrences identified as voiced and 68.4% (N=223) being voiceless. Palatal glides occurred in only 4.1% (N=14) of tokens, all of them being either yo ‘I’ (N=6) or ya ‘already’ (N=8). As for the realizations palato-alveolars in words with , Figure 5.14 shows that voiceless variants occurred more often than voiced ones, i.e. 70.7% (N=222) occurrences of [ʃ] and 29.3% (N=92) instances of [ʒ]. 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

Number of responses

25 20 15 10

Yes No

5 0

vaya-valla

cayó-calló 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

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 pollo ‘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 [ʒ] [ʃ ] Total

Variable

Variable

Total

28 (33.3%) 56 (66.7%) 84 (50%)

23 (27.4%) 61 (72.6%) 84 (50%)

51 (30.3%) 117 (69.7%) 168 (100%)

χ² = 0.704, p > .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 [ʒ] 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

138       Table 5.3 Participants’ age groups and distribution of variants Experiment

Age Group



Total

[j]

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

Demographic 20–40 Questions 41–60

6

3

12

4

37

62

11

4

6

14

42

77

61–80

16

24

4

28

5

77

Total

33

31

22

46

84

216

χ² = 23.193, p < .01 Sentence Reading

χ² = 49.733, p < .01

20–40

1

9

84

16

74

184

41–60

5

26

122

12

138

303

61–80

8

68

17

64

10

167

Total

14

103

223

92

222

654

χ² = 130.000, p < .01

χ² = 155.446, p < .01

With regard to the variants representing orthographic , Table 5.3 indicates an increase in the occurrence of the palatal glide from the youngest to the oldest age group: while 61–80-year-old speakers realized [j] at a 48% (N=16) and 57% (N=8) rate in the demographic questions and sentencereading task, respectively, 41–60-year-old speakers did so at 33% (N=11) and 36% (N=5) and 20–40-year-olds realized it at 18% (N=6) and 7% (N=1). Likewise, results from both experiments indicate a much higher frequency of a palato-alveolar fricative for orthographic (i.e. combining the results of voiced and voiceless variants: N=53 in the demographic questions and N=326 in the reading task) rather than a palatal glide (i.e. N=33 in the demographic questions and N=14 in the reading task). With regard to words with orthographic , results in Table 5.3 indicate that in both experiments the two younger age groups realized it more often as a voiceless [ʃ] rather than its voiced counterpart, while the opposite was observed with the oldest age group, who favored a voiced fricative [ʒ]. The same pattern was found in the sentence-reading task, suggesting a current shift toward a ʃˊ pronunciation in this dialect. The fact that all occurrences of a palatal glide (both in the interview and in the sentence-reading task) referred to yo ‘I’ or ya ‘already’ only reinforces the palato-alveolar fricatives as the general default choice in SES. This indicates that the former contrastive pronunciation between palatal glides and palato-alveolar fricatives is likely no longer observed in the speech

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

139

of the provincial capital of Santiago del Estero, except for the lexical exceptions yo ‘I’ and ya ‘already’. According to the third hypothesis tested in this study, no statistically significant difference would be found in the distribution of the variants as far as speakers’ gender and level of education. The results summarized in Table 5.4 partially refute this hypothesis since gender is shown to have a statistically significant effect on speakers’ pronunciation. Table 5.4 Participants’ gender and distribution of variants Task

Demographic Questions

Gender

[j]

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

[ʒ]

[ʃ]

Male

22

25

5

41

27

120

Female

11

6

17

5

57

96

Total

33

31

22

46

84

216

χ² = 18.919, p < .01 Sentence Reading

Total

χ² = 38.694, p < .01

Male

10

90

70

83

66

319

Female

4

13

153

9

156

335

Total

14

103

223

92

222

654

χ² = 91.027, p < .01

χ² = 95.441, p < .01

Both in the answers to the demographic questions and in the sentence-reading task, female speakers used the voiceless variant [ʃ] for orthographic more than twice as often as male speakers did (i.e. N=17 and N=153 for female speakers and N=5 and N=70 for male speakers). On the other hand, male speakers used the voiced variant [ʒ] more than four times as often as female speakers in the pronunciation of (i.e. N=25 and N= 90 for male speakers and N=6 and N=13 for female speakers). The same distribution is shown to be statistically significant in the frequency of variants for orthographic , which men pronounced more often as [ʒ] (N=41 and N=83), while women did so more often as [ʃ] (N=57 and N=156). As for the use of the palatal glide in the words yo ‘I’ and ya ‘already’, male speakers are shown to pronounce it at least twice as often as female speakers (i.e. N=22 and N=10 for men and N=11 and N=4 for women). With regard to participants’ level of education, the results in Table 5.5 indicate that this independent variable had a significant effect only on the distribution of variants for orthographic .

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

140       Table 5.5 Participants’ level of education and distribution of variants Task

Education



[ʒ]

[ʃ ]

[ʒ]

[ʃ ]

20

8

5

14

24

71

13

23

17

32

60

145

Total

33

31

22

46

84

216

High School

12

22

95

25

70

234

2

81

128

67

152

420

14

103

223

92

222

654

Demographic High School Questions University

χ² = 11.245, p < .01 Sentence Reading

Total

[j]

University Total

χ² = 27.654, p < .01

χ² = 0.050, p > .01

χ² = 0.585, p > .01

As illustrated in Table 5.5, no statistically significant difference between [ʒ] and [ʃ] was found for orthographic in either of the two experiments. However, education did have a significant effect on the distribution of variants for : while speakers with a university-level education used the voiced palato-alveolar variant [ʒ] (N=23) more often than its voiceless counterpart [ʃ] (N=17) in the answers to the demographic questions, the opposite took place in the sentence-reading task, i.e. the voiceless variant [ʃ] (N=128) occurred more often than its voiced counterpart [ʒ] (N=81). Speakers with a high school-level education also preferred voiceless [ʃ] over voiced [ʒ] in the reading task (i.e. N=95 for [ʃ], N=22 for [ʒ]), but the latter (N=8) over the former (N=5) in the answers to the demographic questions. As for the palatal glide in yo ‘I’ and ya ‘already’, results in Table 5.5 indicate that its frequency of use declines as speakers’ level of education increases, i.e. speakers with a high school-level education used it more often (N=20 in the answers to the demographic questions and N=12 in the reading task) than did participants with a university-level education (N=13 in the answers to the demographic questions and only N=2 in the reading task). The aforementioned findings counter the descriptions found in other studies of SES and lend support to Lipski’s (1994: 172–3) and Colantoni and Hualde’s (2013: 22) claims that a change toward a palato-alveolar fricative pronunciation in onset position is at a quasi-complete stage in this dialect (hypothesis 1). Thus, SES speakers—at least those from the provincial capital—seem to have joined speakers from porteño varieties of Argentine Spanish by using palato-alveolar variants in onset position in words with

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

141

orthographic and . However, as mentioned earlier, coronalization has yet to reach its full completion in SES, since traces of the former contrast are still observed, albeit exclusively in the pronunciation of yo ‘I’ and ya ‘already’, both of which were pronounced more frequently with a palatal glide [j] in the answers to the demographic questions. The fact that this variant appeared more often in the speech of participants older than sixty years of age, and that younger speakers used palato-alveolar variants instead (hypothesis 2), suggests that [j] may not be present in SES for much longer, and that future generations may eventually pronounce both yo and ya exclusively with palato-alveolar fricatives. With regard to gender and level of education (hypothesis 3), the distribution of variants follows the findings of other sociolinguistic studies of Argentine Spanish, according to which the style and sociolinguistic characteristics of informants play a significant role in determining their variants of use (Fontanella de Weinberg 1979; Wolf and Jiménez 1979; Chang 2008; King 2009; Rohena Madrazo 2011). Young speakers and highly educated women seem to be leading the change toward full coronalization and, more precisely, toward the use of the voiceless variant [ʃ], which mirrors similar findings in other studies of palato-alveolar fricative devoicing in Argentina (Wolf and Jiménez 1979; Chang 2008; Rohena-Madrazo 2008, 2013). As such, the role of these groups as linguistic innovators and leaders in spreading new linguistic variants is in accordance with the findings of much of the sociolinguistic literature. Coronalization in SES, then, could be viewed as a case of change from above (Labov 2001: 272–4), whereby a prestigious feature—the use of a palato-alveolar fricative, particularly [ʃ]—has been imported from outside the speech community (i.e. most likely from the capital city of Buenos Aires), with women adopting it at higher rates than men. Furthermore, it is important to stress the observed difference in the use of the palatal glide in the first two experiments in this study. Most occurrences of this variant surfaced during the answers to the demographic questions, in which speakers spoke in a casual style and had their attention focused on the content of their answers rather than on their speech. The sentence-reading task, on the other hand, required participants to use a formal register and, thus, focus their attention on orthography and their word pronunciation. In this case, the vast majority of occurrences of yo ‘I’, ya ‘already’ and other words with syllable-initial were pronounced with a palato-alveolar fricative, which suggests that SES speakers on the whole no longer associate a palatal glide with orthographic and that, possibly, this variant may not have the prestige that palato-alveolar fricatives do. The specific reason(s) why only yo

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

142       and ya were pronounced with a palatal glide in the answers to the demographic questions may only receive an educated speculation at this point. If the retention of [j] in the pronunciation of both words is interpreted as a case of lexical exception in phonology (cf. Guy 2007), one might speculate, for example, that in the case of yo the palatal glide could be used to express a form of local identity for some SES speakers and as a means to differentiate themselves from other Argentine Spanish speakers who pronounce it as [ʒo] or [ʃo]—in which case the pronunciation of ya with a glide might be explored as an instance of phonetic analogy due to its similar length and form with that of yo. Future sociolinguistic studies with a focus on linguistic attitudes by SES speakers will confirm or refute this hypothesis, which emerged from the following observation during fieldwork. After experiments were concluded, the investigator disclosed the goals of the project to the participants and asked them why they pronounced yo as [jo]. Two participants answered candidly, “Porque [ʒo] suena mucho como porteño” [Because [ʒo] sounds a lot like a porteño [i.e. a person from Buenos Aires]],” which is rather revealing, since they used palato-alveolar fricatives for all other words, just as porteños do.

5.2.3.7 The Philippines, Equatorial Guinea, and varieties of Judeo-Spanish The dialects of Spanish spoken in the Philippines and in Equatorial Guinea, in addition to Judeo-Spanish, compose the main varieties found outside of Spain and Hispanic America. For the Philippine dialect, especially in chabacano (a Spanish creole), Alonso (1961: 185) reports a generalized ˊ, while Quilis (1996: 238–42) describes the presence of the palatal lateral in words such as lleno [ˈʎeno] ‘full’ and calle [ˈkaʎe] ‘street’. Quilis also reports the maintenance of [ʎ] in the Spanish learned as a native language, despite its weaker realization, which resembles that of a palatalized segment [lj], e.g. calle [ˈkalje] ‘street’. This palatalized lateral is also observed in the speech of Guineans, although ˊ is widespread. Quilis (1996: 384) reports that the palatal lateral does not form part of the inventory of Guinean indigenous languages, so it represents rather a learned sound that may be delateralized, depalatalized, or even dropped when in contact with a palatal vowel: ( . . . ) cuando se pronuncia [the palatal lateral] en el español de Guinea, puede sufrir diversas modificaciones. De todas formas, la pronunciación más extendida es [y]. Otras realizaciones son: a) [lʲj]: [l] palatalizada seguida de semiconsonante: [pólʲjo] pollo, [wélʲja] huella; b) ocasionalmente, pero en muchos hablantes, se articula como [l]: [políto] pollito, [galína] gallina; c)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.2   - 

143

pocas veces, sólo [lʲ] palatalizada: [tortílʲa] tortilla. ( . . . ) Muy frecuentemente, [ʎ] o [y] en contacto con una vocal palatal, se pierde: [arðía] ardilla, [eskalería] escalerilla, [éa] ella, [kasteáno] castellano, [botéa] botella, etc.

The loss of a palatal obstruent after a palatal vowel is also a widespread feature of the ˊ pronunciation in most regions where Judeo-Spanish is still spoken today. Alonso (1961: 184–95), for example, cites the cases of cuchío, sía, aí, anío, gaína, aquea, estrea, and cabeo in the Spanish of Constantinople, and castío, frenío, mantío, bolsío, cuchío, anío, maravía in the variety spoken in Morocco. Cárdenas (2004: 14) reports the same pattern in Levantine JudeoSpanish, while Alonso (1961: 195) claims that the palatal consonant is kept in Bosnian and Bucarest Judeo-Spanish. Additionally, Penny (2000: 180) indicates that the sequence [lj] was generally merged with the palatal lateral [ʎ] before its delateralization, which produced cases such as kayenti ‘hot’ and yensu ‘canvas’ (cf. Sp. caliente and lienzo).

5.2.4 Palatals in Portuguese varieties Brazilian Portuguese presents interesting patterns of palatal allophony. Depending on the dialect, the palatal lateral [ʎ] may have five different realizations, namely: (i) a palatal lateral [ʎ] (e.g. folha [ˈfoʎɐ] ‘leaf ’); (ii) a sequence of an alveolar lateral and a palatal glide; [lj] (e.g. filho [ˈfiljʊ] ‘son’), which may be realized interchangeably with [ʎ] by some speakers; (iii) a palatal glide [j] (e.g. trabalhar [tɾabaˈja] ‘to work’, mulher [muˈjɛ] ‘woman’), which is heavily stigmatized and frequently associated with the speech of uneducated speakers of lower social classes; (iv) an alveolar lateral [l] before palatal vowels (e.g. filhinho [fiˈlĩɲʊ] ‘son-’, colher [kuˈlɛ] ‘spoon’), particularly in northeastern dialects; and (v) Ø when [j] (< [ʎ]) is preceded by [i] (e.g. milho [ˈmiu] ‘corn’, filho [ˈfiu] ‘son’) (Aguilera 1989; Giangola 2001). Thus, while in the normative pronunciation there is  between [ʎ] and [j] (e.g. telha [ˈteʎɐ] ‘roof tile’ vs teia [ˈtejɐ] ‘web’), the delateralization of [ʎ]— and the subsequent emergence of the palatal glide—produces cases of ˊ⁷ in the speech of uneducated speakers (cf. telha ‘roof tile’ and teia ‘web’ both pronounced as [ˈtejɐ]). While Amaral (1981) and Aguilera (1999) report the occurrence of the glide only in stigmatized rural dialects of southern and southeastern Brazil (also referred to as caipira dialect), Giangola (2001) ⁷ Also referred to as  in Portuguese linguistics (Aguilera 1989).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

144       registers the alveolar lateral in the northeastern state of Bahia. In this region, Freire and Marques de Lucena (2011) also observe the realization of standard [ʎ], with an increasing use of non-standard allophones [l], [j], and Ø as the level of speakers’ instruction decreases. As mentioned in Chapter 3 (§3.3), the palatal nasal [ɲ] undergoes deocclusivization in the pronunciation of many speakers of Brazilian Portuguese, rendering a nasal glide [j̃] which is not dependent on any documented social variable (Shosted and Hualde 2010; Shosted et al. 2012). With regard to obstruents, it is worth noting the presence of the palato-alveolar affricates [ʧ ʤ] instead of their fricatives counterparts [ʃ ʒ] in parts of the Midwestern state of Mato Grosso, e.g. chá [ˈʧa] ‘tea’, acha [ˈaʧɐ], peixe [ˈpeʧɪ], baixo [ˈbaʧʊ], chuva [ˈʧuvɐ], já [ˈʤa], haja [ˈaʤɐ], hoje [ˈoʤɪ], gente [ˈʤẽtɪ], etc. The typical [t d]-palatalization of southern and southeastern Brazilian Portuguese is interestingly absent from this dialect, which, then, gives rise to minimal pairs such as tia [ˈtiɐ] ‘aunt’ vs chia [ˈʧiɐ]) ‘hiss.3.’ and diz [ˈdis] ‘say.3’ vs giz [ˈʤis] ‘chalk’ (Zampaulo 2019: 154, 167). In northern and northeastern Portugal, particularly in the regions of Alto Minho and Trás-osMontes, the palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ] is also present and contrasts with its fricative counterpart [ʃ], e.g. chá [ˈʧa] ‘tea’ vs xá [ˈʃa] ‘shah’.

5.3 Palatals in Gallo-Romance In the history of French, Pope (1934: 55, 274) mentions that the palatal lateral [ʎ] (i.e. ʎ₁ < Lat. [-lj- -k.l- -ɡ.l-]) persisted well into the seventeenth century, although the first traces of its delateralization date as far back as the twelfth century (Bruña Cuevas 2003: 47–9). In the sixteenth century, the emergence of the glide [j] in the realization of [ʎ] became more frequently attested, especially in the speech of the small bourgeoisie of Paris. This palatal glide, then, became the accepted norm in French only in the nineteenth century, despite the fact that one may still find [ʎ] in varieties of Swiss and Belgian French, and in a few areas of France, such as Gap (Walter 1982: 175) and Perpignan (Bruña Cuevas 2003: 49). As evidence for the delateralization of [ʎ] in the history of French, Nyrop (1935: 356–7) mentions a text from 1836 in 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, tâ-ieur, etc. pour billard, billet, billot, rouiller, tailleur, sans s’inquiéter des avis contraires, ni des réclamations de 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.4   -  

145

north of Paris, palatalization of [z] into [ʒ], [s] into [ʃ], and [t] into [ʧ] is common before palatal vowels and glides (e.g. je disais [ʒˈdiʒɛ] ‘I said’, cinquante ans [ʃ ɛ̃kɑ̃ˈtɑ̃] ‘fifty years’, métiers [meˈʧje] ‘jobs’), along with depalatalization of former final [ʎ] (e.g. cercueil [sɛʁkœl] ‘casket’) and the nasal [ɲ] (e.g. campagne [kɑ̃ˈpan] ‘countryside’) (Dawson et al. 2016: 155). In the Auvergne region, in central France, [ʒ] devoices to [ʃ] when assimilating to a following voiceless consonant after schwa deletion, e.g. je trouve [ʃtχuv] ‘I find’, je sais pas [ʃepa] (Chabanal et al. 2016: 175). In Toulouse, in the south, Courdès-Murphy et al. (2016: 188) have registered the sequence [nj] instead of the palatal nasal [ɲ] (e.g. agneau [aˈnjo] ‘lamb’), which has also been found in Parisian French, particularly in word-medial position (Armstrong and Pooley 2010: 109–10; Hansen and Østby 2016: 414). In Rhône-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 [suˈʧjɛ̃] ‘support’, entier [ɑ̃ˈʧje] ‘whole’, dix [ʤi] ‘ten’, cadien [kɑˈʤɛ̃] ‘cajun’, moitié [moˈʧe] ‘half ’, (Dajko 2016: 311; Pustka and Vordermayer 2016: 198; Steien et al. 2016: 242). Belgian French varieties typically devoice [ʒ] into [ʃ], e.g. liège [ljɛʃ] ‘cork’ (Hambye et al. 2016: 218), while in Canadian French (particularly the varieties spoken in the provinces of Québec, Ontario, and Alberta), assibilation of [t d] into [ʦ ʣ] before [i j y ɥ] is widely attested, e.g. coutume [kʊˈʦʏm] ‘custom’, dire [ʣijʁ] ‘to say’, etc. (Reinke and Ostiguy 2016: 43; Tennant and Poiré 2016: 296; Walker and Canac-Marquis 2016: 285).

5.4 Palatals in Italo-Romance and Sardinian Standard Italian has five palatal consonants (i.e. [ʃ ʧ ʤ ʎ ɲ]) and two alveolar affricates (i.e. [ʦ ʣ]) 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 [ˈliʃːo] ‘smooth’, spugna [ˈspuɲːa] ‘sponge’, paglia [ˈpaʎːa] ‘straw’, ozio [ˈɔʦːjo] ‘idleness’, ozono [oˈʣːɔno] ‘ozone’, cf. Ledgeway 2016: 209), whereas in the south and in southern Tuscan, specifically, the palatoalveolar [ʤ] is also long (e.g. una [ʤː]ornata ‘a day’). Furthermore, [ʧ] and [ʤ] are found in complementary distribution with [ʃ] and [ʒ], respectively, which occur intervocalically, e.g. Tusc. Gigio [ˈʤiʒo] ‘Luigi.’, Tusc. cece [ˈʧeʃe] ‘chickpea’ (Ledgeway 2016: 210). The voiced fricative [ʒ] also appears between vowels in Corsican (e.g. basgiu [ˈbaʒu] ‘kiss’). Throughout northern Italy, depalatalization of sonorants [ʎ ɲ] into the sequences [lj nj] is prevalent,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

146       Nuorese Logudorese Campidanese Arborense

GALLURESE

not Sardinian

SASSARESE Sassari CATALAN Alghero

LOGUDORESE NUORESE

Nuoro

ARBORENSE

Oristano

CAMPIDANESE

Cagliari

LIGURIAN S. Pietro S. Antioco

Figure 5.16 Sardinian dialects (Mensching and Remberger 2016: 271, modified version of Virdis 1988: 905) Reproduced from Ledgeway and 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 [ˈmolje] ‘wife’, li taglia [liˈtalja] ‘them=he.cuts’, campagna [kam ˈpanja] ‘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.1’, tagliato [ˈtajːo]/[taˈjːa:to] ‘cut- ’,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.5   -   

147

meglio [ˈmejːo] ‘better’, pigliare [piˈjːaɾe] ‘to take, grab’, figlio [ˈfijːo] ‘son’, foglio [ˈfojːo], famiglia [faˈmijːa] ‘family’ (Canepari 1980: 57, 60, 62, 72, 82). In Calabria, however, [ʎː] varies between “una realizzazione standard, una intermedia e quella dialettale [ʎʎ/jj/ggj]: figlio [ˈfij:jo/ˈfig:gjo]” (Canepari 1980: 79). The same delateralization process is observed in the south, more specifically in southern Lazio, Campania, Molise, and Abruzzo (e.g. fi[jː]a ‘daughter’, cuni[jː]o ‘rabbit’, ne[jː]a ‘fog’), although this glide is strengthened to [ɟ] in the far south and in Pugliese, e.g. SCal./Lec./Sic. fi[ɟː]a, cuni[ɟː]u, ni(e)[ɟː]a (Ledgeway 2016: 254). The voiceless palatal stop [c] is also attested in many southern dialects, e.g. Bar. [ˈcatːsə] ‘square’, Cal. [ˈcaːβe] ‘key’, etc. Of the three main varieties of Sardinian (see Figure 5.16), Nuorese and Logudorese represent conservative dialectal areas with only a glide [j] as a palatal segment (except for [ʧ ʤ ɲ] in borrowings from Italian, Catalan, and Spanish). However, the affricate [ʣ] is attested in Nuorese and Logudorese, e.g. [ˈfiʣu] ‘son’, [ˈʣɛntɛ] ‘people’. Campidanese, on the other hand, does present cases of palatalization (e.g. Nuo./Log. [ˈkentu] vs Cpd. [ˈʧentu] ‘hundred’, Nuo./Log. [ɡiˈrare] vs Cpd. [ʤiˈrai] ‘turn.’ cf. Mensching and Remberger 2016: 274), while all varieties have the voiced retroflex plosive [ɖ], e.g. [ˈbiɖːa] ‘village’, [ˈpuɖːu] ‘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). Benincà and Vanelli (2016: 140) divide Friulian into three major varieties, i.e. Carnic Friulian to the north, Western Friulian, and Eastern Central Friulian (which includes the city of Udine). Although the palatal stops [c] and [ɟ] traditionally represent a unique characteristic of the Friulian consonant inventory, both consonants are now realized as the affricates [ʧ] and [ʤ], respectively, in all varieties, except in Carnia to the north (Benincà and Vanelli 2016: 143). Haiman and Benincà (1992: 37) list the palatals [ʧ ʤ ɲ] as part of the consonant system in Udine, while Carnic Friulian maintains the contrast between [c] and [ʧ] and also displays the fricatives [ʃ ʒ]. The palatal lateral [ʎ] 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 = [ʎ]) > Frl. [faˈmee] ‘family’. The palato-alveolar fricatives [ʃ ʒ] are also featured

Venetan

Friulian

Francoprovençal

Ladin

Slovenian

Gallo - Italian

Germanic dialects

Tuscan

Marebbe Ortisei

L a d i n

Bolzano

rn s te Ea

Varese Bergamo

Western Friulian Udine Pordenone

Eastern Friulian

Liventino

Gorizia

Treviso Vicenza

Brescia

Western Lombard

Vercelli

Belluno

L. Garda

Milan

Novara

en Tr

L. Iseo

Eastern Lombard Northern Piedmontese

o

Trento

L. Como

Como

t in

T r e n t i n o

L. Maggiore

Aosta

Cortina d’Ampezzo Moena

Alpine Lombard

Verona

Triestino

Central Venetan

Gulf of Venice

Venice

Padua

Trieste

Pavia Turin

South-western Piedmontese

Cuneo

Cremona

Po

Asti Alessandria

South-eastern Piedmontese

Ligurian

Mantua

Piacenza

Rovigo

Western Emilian

Po

Parma

Ferrara

ADRIATIC

Reggio nell’Emilia

Eastern Emilian

SEA

Genoa

Modena Bologna Ravenna

Savona

Imperia

LIGURIAN

Forli

Carrara

n er n a

No Tusrth c

Massa

Rom ag

Pisa

Lucca

no

lo

Gulf of Genoa

La Spezia

Rimini Pistoia Florence

San Marino

Pesaro

SEA

Figure 5.17 Dialects of northern Italy (Benincà et al. 2016: 186). Reproduced from Ledgeway and Maiden (eds.) The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, by permission of Oxford University Press. © Paola Benincà, Mair Parry, and Diego Pescarini 2016.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

Occitan

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

5.6    

149

in Ladin (in addition to [ʧ ʤ ɲ]) (Salvi 2016: 157–8), while Romansh (Surmiran) displays a unique palatal inventory, with the presence of alveolopalatals [ʨ ʥ ʑ] in addition to [ʦ ʧ ʃ ʎ ɲ] (Anderson 2016: 172). In Eastern Romance, the extinct Dalmatian had four palatal segments, i.e. [ʧ ʤ ʎ j], with the fricatives [ʃ ʒ] absent from its consonant inventory. Standard Romanian, on the other hand, lacks the palatal sonorants [ʎ ɲ] (which historically have become [j]), but presents the palato-alveolar set [ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ], the two central palatals [c ɟ] (Pană Dindelegan 2013: 10), and the alveolar affricate [ʦ], whose voiced counterpart [ʣ] is also attested dialectally, particularly in Moldovan and Aromanian (Maiden 2016: 93).

5.6 Summary and concluding remarks This chapter has provided a general dialectal picture of the behavior of palatal segments in the Romance languages. As previously discussed, these dialectal data illustrate a series of mergers, contrasts, and other change phenomena such as deletion (Ø) when in contact with palatal vowels. By organizing the general patterns of palatals in current Romance varieties, one observes how several of the evolutionary pathways taken by these sounds may reoccur in the same language or in related languages, at different historical stages and geographical areas. Thus, to fully understand and explain how palatal segments have been evolving in the Romance languages, it is crucial to bring together both the diachrony and the synchrony of these sounds. Put another way, an approach that uses current dialectal variation as a tool to understand historical evolution, and, conversely, takes into consideration the historical development of sounds to understand today’s variation, can succeed in providing a unified, evolutionary thread that accounts for why similar change events may occur more than once in the history of a language and/or in the development of related varieties. Therefore, assuming that current patterns of palatal variation and change are the result of diachronic evolution (cf. Blevins and Garrett 1998; Blevins 2004), the groundwork is now laid to propose an evolutionary formal account that allows for a simpler and more comprehensive explanation, which represents the goal of following chapter.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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

6.1 Introduction As illustrated in the previous chapters, several have been the evolutionary pathways of palatal sounds from their emergence in spoken Latin to their manifestations in current Romance. The previous discussion also demonstrates how many of those sounds underwent similar change events and how much palatal variation in today’s Romance languages helps us to understand the motivations for the beginning of most diachronic changes. By applying the theoretical assumptions on sound change guiding this book (cf. Chapter 2) and taking into account the phonetic characterization of palatal sounds (cf. Chapter 3), this chapter formalizes both reconstructed and documented changes (cf. Chapters 4 and 5) that have steered palatal evolution in the development of the Romance languages. Furthermore, the speaker-listener interaction and the constraint-based model adopted here provides us with the tools to put forth an integrated proposal that not only aims to account for how and why most of the discussed sound changes could emerge in the first place, but also reveals the mechanisms through which similar change events (e.g. [ʎ]-delateralization, [j]-fortition, [t d]-palatalization, [ʧ ʤ]-deaffrication, [ʤ ʒ]-devoicing, etc.) may reoccur time and again in the future of the aforementioned languages. This chapter is organized as follows. Section 6.2 provides a summary of the approach to sound change followed in this book as constraint reranking between the grammar of the speaker and that of the listener-turned-speaker. Section 6.3 formalizes the changes that lead to the emergence of the two palatal laterals (i.e. ʎ₁ and ʎ₂) and their divergent evolutionary pathways, as well as the rise of the palatal nasal in the history of the Romance languages. The evolution of palatal obstruents is formalized in §6.4, while concluding remarks are offered in §6.5.

Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages. First edition. André Zampaulo. © André Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.2     

151

6.2 Sound change as constraint reranking Considering the theoretical approaches discussed in Chapter 2, let us assume that a given speaker has /I₁/ as an input, and that among many possible realizations, its faithful output [O₁] (i.e. the exact same realization as /I₁/) is determined by a constraint ranking in which C₁ dominates C₂ and C₃, as in (1). (1) C₁ >> C₂ >> C₃ Under this ranking, candidates that violate C₁ will be automatically ruled out for not satisfying the most highly ranked constraint, regardless of their compliance with, or violation of, C₂ and C₃. If other candidates satisfy C₁, then the selection of the most harmonic output given the ranking in (2) will be determined according to their (non)violation of C₂. Table 6.1 illustrates this scenario. Table 6.1 Selection of [O₁] as the output of /I₁/ /I1/

C1

☞1. [O1] 2. [O2] 3. [O3]

*!

C2

C3 *

*!

*

In Table 6.1, candidate #2 violates the most highly ranked constraint C₁, and thus must be ruled out. The selection of the output of /I₁/ will, then, be determined according to the ranking of the other constraints C₂ and C₃. In Table 6.1, candidate #3 incurs one violation of C₂, while candidate #1 does not. Therefore, candidate #1, i.e. [O₁], is selected as the most harmonic output of /I₁/ given the constraint ranking in (1). As previously mentioned, candidate #1 also happens to be the faithful realization of /I₁/. Now, let us assume that there is much variation associated with the realization of /I₁/. In other words, it is likely that the same speaker or other speakers produce it in ways that are not faithful to /I₁/. In our example, let us represent these unfaithful realizations as [O₂] and [O₃]. The selection of these additional outputs is determined by a different configuration of the ranking in (1), i.e. by a reranking of constraints C₁, C₂, and C₃. The possibility of this variation in production stems from the inherent unstable character of constraint rankings, as detailed in Chapter 2. Thus, for example, if C₃ dominates both C₁ and C₂, as in (2),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

152        (2) C₃ >> C₁ >> C₂ then candidate #2, i.e. [O₂], is expected to surface as the most harmonic (albeit unfaithful) realization of /I₁/, as illustrated in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2 Selection of [O₂] as the output of /I₁/ /I1/

C1

1. [O1] ☞2. [O2] 3. [O3]

*!

C2

C3

* *!

*

In Table 6.2, both candidates #1 and #3 fatally violate the most highly ranked constraint, i.e. C₃, and are, thus, ruled out. Candidate #2, i.e. [O₂], is then selected as the output of /I₁/, given the ranking in (2) and despite the fact that it violates (now lowly ranked) C₁. Considering the inherent variation associated with the speaker’s production of /I₁/, the outputs [O₁] (i.e. the faithful realization of /I₁/, determined by the constraint ranking C₁ >> C₂ >> C₃) and [O₂] (i.e. one of the unfaithful realizations of /I₁/, determined by C₃ >> C₁ >> C₂) are, then, possible. Now, given the speaker-listener interaction during spoken communication (Ohala’s 1981, 1989, 2003, 2012; cf. Chapter 2), let us assume that the listener internalizes as their input one of the speaker’s unfaithful realizations to the original input /I₁/, e.g. [O₂]. In this case, a sound change occurs and is, thus, formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input and the faithful realization to the listener’s input, which itself represents one of the unfaithful realizations to the original speaker’s input. In other words, while the speaker has the input /I₁/ and its faithful realization [O₁] is determined by C₁ >> C₂ >> C₃, the listener has /I₂/ and its faithful realization is determined by C₃ >> C₁ >> C₂ (in the grammar of the speaker), which corresponds to the original speaker’s [O₂], i.e. an unfaithful realization to the original speaker’s input. The listener’s selection of /I₂/ is determined by Optimality Theory’s Lexicon Optimization (LO) principle (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]; Inkelas 1994; cf. Chapter 2), as defined in (3), following Ito et al. (1995). (3) Out of a set of potential inputs (e.g. /I₁/, /I₂/, /I₃/ . . . /In/), select as the underlying representation the input that is most harmonic with the output.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

153

Thus, in our example, the faithful realization to the listener’s /I₂/ is now an unfaithful realization to the speakers’ /I₁/. The constraint reranking observed in this comparison illustrates the formal approach to sound change adopted here, as schematized in (4). (4) /I₁/ > /I₂/, captured by the difference in the constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input and the listener’s interpretation of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speakers’ input, by virtue of LO. Speaker’s input: /I₁/ Faithful output: [O₁], determined by C₁ >> C₂ >> C₃. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [O₂], determined by C₃ >> C₁ >> C₂. etc. (where ‘etc.’ entails all other unfaithful outputs, e.g. [O₃].) Listener’s input: /I₂/ Faithful output: [O₂], determined by C₃ >> C₁ >> C₂ in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /I₁/.

6.3 Pathways for the emergence and evolution of palatal sonorants As illustrated in Chapter 4, one of the oldest sources for the emergence of [ʎ] and [ɲ] was the interaction of the alveolar lateral [l] and the nasal [n] with a following palatal glide [j] in Latin. Considering the articulatory characteristics of these segments, a regressive place assimilation process may take place, leading to an eventual palatalization of [l] and [n] in the sequences [lj] and [nj], respectively. If the listener fails to interpret the acoustic effect of such palatalizations as how the speaker intended it to be (i.e. two sets of two segments: [l] + [j] and [n] + [j]), the listener may eventually interpret them as one segment each, i.e. /ʎ/ and /ɲ/. This represents not only one of the mechanisms for the emergence of historical [ʎ] and [ɲ] in the Romance languages, but also a process that is still productive in languages such as Spanish and Portuguese, as suggested by regular orthographic mistakes made by native speakers, particularly with regard to the lateral segment, e.g. familla ‘family’ (cf. Sp. familia) and familha ‘family’ (Pt. família) (Lipski 1989; Stein 2011).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

154        To provide a formal account of this process, let us use the palatalization of the alveolar consonant as a model and assume the same mechanism applies to the nasal consonant. Let us assume that the interaction between [l] and [j] may be perceived by the listener as regressive place assimilation when the original target consonant [l] incurs at least some degree of gestural weakening in the speaker’s production of [lj] due to gestural blending between both segments (Browman and Goldstein 1989). Speakers’ weakening of an articulatory gesture—which may or may not lead to place assimilation—follows from the conflict between two forces, namely, ease of articulation and ease of perception (Lindblom 1983). The minimization of effort during sound production conflicts with the maintenance of redundant perceptual cues that ensure the transmission of information in spoken language. This conflict is widely attested and has been considered under various approaches in the literature (e.g. Martinet 1955; Boersma 1998; Kirchner 2001, 2004; Flemming 2002, 2004). To formalize the drive to ease articulation in the current analysis, we invoke Jun’s (2004: 70–1) constraint family W, as defined in (5). (5) W(): Conserve articulatory effort in the production of a segment. As W constraints militate for the minimization of articulatory effort, violations of these constraints are evaluated according to the effort cost incurred by the articulation of a given candidate (Kirchner 2001, 2004; Jun 2004: 70). To measure articulatory effort—and thus account for both complete and partial gestural weakening—Jun (2004: 80) proposes to subdivide W into continuous constraints that reveal the possibility of a gradient weakening of gestures, as stated in (6). (6) W()m: Do not produce an articulatory gesture whose effort cost is at least m. Assuming that the drive to weaken more effortful gestures is stronger than the drive to weaker easier ones (Kirchner 2001, 2004), the fixed ranking of constraints follows from the most effortful (i.e. complete gestures) to the least effortful, as represented in (7) (Jun 2004: 80), (7) W1x >> W0.9x >> W0.8x . . . >> W0.5x . . . >> W0.1x where 1x represents the effort cost for the complete gesture of a segment, 0.9x represents the effort cost of nine-tenths of a complete gesture, etc. The complete gesture of a segment is assumed to represent 100% of the phonetic realization of the input. For example, a phonetic realization such as [l] is

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

155

assumed to represent 100% of the input /l/, i.e. its complete gesture (Steriade 2001; Jun 2004: 71). Therefore, candidates that present the assumed complete gesture of their input will incur one violation of W1x. However, if a candidate presents only half the gesture, it will violate W0.5x once, although it will still satisfy W0.6x, W0.7x, . . . W1x. W constraints may apply to different gestures, such as tongue tip, tongue body, glottal gesture, etc. We extend Jun’s (2004) model, however, by proposing that W can also make reference to gestures in different syllabic positions, such as onset and coda, in line with positional markedness and faithfulness models well known in the OT literature (e.g. Steriade 1995; Beckman 1999; Lombardi 1999; Walker 2001). For example, candidates that present the complete gesture of their input segment in coda position will incur one violation of W1x(coda). On the other hand, if a candidate presents only half the gesture in coda position, it will violate W0.5x(coda), while still satisfying W0.6x(coda), W0.7x(coda) . . . W1x(coda). Thus, while the constraint family W represents a force toward conserving articulatory effort in gestures through a fixed ranking (cf. (7)), its gradient nature helps us to account for cases of partial gestural weakening (as opposed to complete gestural elimination), especially in cases of (partial) place assimilation. However, the drive to conserve articulatory effort conflicts with the push for maintenance of the perceptual cues of input segments. In the present model, this force is formalized in the Faithfulness constraint family P, as defined in (8). (8) P(): Preserve perceptual cues of input segments. P militates for a maximal preservation of input cues, such as those related with place of articulation, manner of articulation, voice, etc. However, the preservation of cues may also present a gradient character, which motivates the possibility of a further subdivision of P into continuous constraints, as stated in (9), (9) P()n: Preserve at least n per cent of the perceptual cues of input features where n represents a percentage between 100 (i.e. maximal preservation of input cues) and 1 (i.e. minimal preservation of input cues), as represented in (10). (10)

P₁₀₀ >> P₉₉ >> P₉₈ . . . >> P₇₅ . . . >> P₁.

For example, P100(place) requires the preservation of 100% of the place cues from an input segment (which entails their complete gesture), while P99(place), P98(place), P97(place), . . . P1(place) involve the preservation of a lower

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

156        percentage of place cues. Thus, if a candidate presents the full articulation of a segment, it will satisfy P100(place) and, consequently, all other lower-percentage P(place) constraints. However, if a candidate presents only half the original articulation of an input segment, it will satisfy P50(place), but will violate P51(place), P52(place), P53(place) . . . P100(place). Likewise, P99(voice), P98(voice) . . . P1(voice) involve the preservation of a lower percentage of voice cues.¹ In the interaction between W and P, W1x is expected to be in direct conflict with P₁₀₀, as the former militates against the complete gesture of segments, which in turn would preserve all segment cues, hence satisfying P₁₀₀. Therefore, it becomes impossible to satisfy both constraints at the same time and one of them must outrank the other. For example, in the case of regressive place assimilation, W outranks Pplace. However, because the manner cues of the input segment are maintained, this means that Pmanner must outrank both W and Pplace, as formalized in the following ranking: {P constraints for manner cues} >> W >> {P constraints for place clues} (Jun 2004: 72). Conversely, in cases where no assimilation or gestural weakening takes place, all P constraints dominate W, i.e. {P constraints for manner cues}, {P constraints for place clues} >> W. In the specific case of the interaction between [l] and [j] (and assuming the same principle applies to [n] + [j]), the regressive place assimilation targeting the first segment indicates that Ppalatal and W1x(alveolar) must outrank Palveolar. Put another way, at least some weakening of the original alveolar gesture of [l] takes place due to the gestural blending in the production of both segments, while the palatal gesture is preserved in the production of [j]. To account for the place assimilation of the target consonant [l], we infer that its original articulation undergoes partial gestural weakening, while still maintaining some degree of its original gesture, which for the present illustrative purpose may be arbitrarily set at 75% (i.e. threefourths of its original articulatory gesture). The constraint ranking in (11) motivates the partial regressive assimilation observed in the speaker’s production of /lj/ as [ʎ].

¹ Jun (2004) does not specify the nature of manner of articulation cues or if a gradient character of Pmanner would be possible. It is assumed here that a candidate with partial gestural weakening will violate Pplace, but will still keep the manner associated with its input, hence satisfying Pmanner, which will not have gradient values in the present approach. It is acknowledged, however, that this represents a fruitful area upon which further research will undoubtedly shed light.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

157

(11) P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x(alveolar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(alveolar) . . . >> P₇₅(alveolar) . . . >> W0.75x(alveolar) . . . , W1x(palatal) . . . >> W0.75x(palatal). Notice that, as the input manner is maintained, Pmanner is assumed to be highly ranked and does not appear in (11). Furthermore, because the original alveolar gesture is the one that incurs some degree of weakening, W1x(alveolar) must outrank Palveolar. On the other hand, because the palatal gesture is preserved, all Ppalatal constraints outrank Wpalatal. The ellipsis in (11) assumes lower values of the same constraint family, and so “P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . ” entails all fixed values of Ppalatal constraints, from 100 to 1. The selection of the candidate [ʎ], 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] + [j] /l/ + /j/

Articulation TT

1

TB

☞2

TT

3

Pres

Weak

100 75

1x

palatal

alveolar

Pres

alveolar

100

75

Weak

Weak

0.75x

1x 0.75x

alveolar

palatal

lat appro

lat

TB

appro

TT TB

appro

TT

Acoustic effect

*!

[lj]

[ʎ]

*

[j]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

lat

4

[l]

*!

[lj]

*!

*

*

*

*

*

TB TT 5

TB

lat ap

*

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

158        In Table 6.3, candidate #1 is ruled out for its complete tongue tip gesture, which crucially violates W₁x(alveolar). Candidates #4 and #5 are also ruled out because they not only present a full articulation of the alveolar lateral (hence violating W₁x(alveolar)), but they also do not preserve 100% of the cues of input /j/. Thus, they fatally violate P100(palatal). On the other hand, candidates #2 and #3 satisfy both Ppalatal and W₁x(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 P75(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 [ʎ], i.e. one in which all P constraints dominate all W constraints, i.e. Ppalatal, Palveolar >> Walveolar, Wpalatal. Put another way, if all P constraints—with their continuous values—were ranked higher than W 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 /l/ + /j/ (represented by candidate #1) that the speaker in underlying form. Thus, if [l] + [j] is realized as [ʎ], 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 Stemberger 1998; Morris 1998; Chapter 2). If the listener, then, interprets /ʎ/ 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 [ʎ], 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 /ʎ/ as the input by virtue of Lexicon Optimization (LO) (Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]). In the present account, the sound change /lj/ > /ʎ/ is captured by a difference in the constraint ranking between the realization that is faithful to the speaker’s input and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

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 Ppalatal, Palveolar >> Walveolar, Wpalatal. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [ʎ], determined W1x(alveolar) . . . >>

by

P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >>

P₁₀₀(alveolar) . . . >> P₇₅(alveolar) . . . >> W1x(palatal) . . . >> W0.75x(palatal). etc.

P₇₅(palatal) . . . ,

W0.75x(alveolar) . . . ,

Listener’s input: /ʎ/ Faithful output: [ʎ], determined by P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x(alveolar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(alveolar) . . . >> P₇₅(alveolar) . . . >> W0.75x(alveolar) . . . , W1x(palatal) . . . >> W0.75x(palatal) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /lj/. In the evolution of many Romance varieties, [ʎ] also emerged from [-k.l- -ɡ.l-], while [ɲ] derived from [-ɡ.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 [-k.l- -ɡ.l-] had the same fate by weakening in coda position after the syncope of the original intervocalic [u] (< Lat. -- and --), 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 Wvelar coda constraints (i.e. the drive to conserve the articulatory effort of a velar input in coda position) over P 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 Wvelar coda constraints outranked P constraints. Thus, the resulting glide in coda position [j.] must have violated at least some of the lower Wvelar coda constraints, while still complying with some P constraints. If we consider, for example, the fate of the voiced velar plosive /ɡ./ in this case (and assume that the voiceless plosive in /k.l/ had the same evolution), its eventual vocalization can be formalized as in (13).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

160        (13)

W1x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.75x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.5x(velar coda) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> P₅₀(velar) . . . >> P₂₅(velar) >> P₁₀(velar) >> W0.25x(velar coda) >> W0.10x(velar coda) >> Pplosive.

By ranking W1x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.75x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.5x(velar coda) above Pvelar, 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 Pvelar, 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 Pvelar outranks W0.25x(velar coda) and other Wvelar coda constraints of lower values. 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. Table 6.4 Weakening and eventual vocalization of /ɡ./ into [j.] /ɡ./

Articulation

Weak Pres Weak Acoustic Pres velar coda velar velar coda effect 1x 0.75x 0.5x 100 75 50 25 0.25x 0.1x plosive *

*

*!

*

*

*!

*

*

[j.]

*

*

*

Ø

*

*

*

1.

TB:

plos

[ɡ.]

2.

TB:

approx.

[ɣ.]

3.

TB:

ap.

[ɣ.]

☞4. TB: 5.

TB:

ap.

*!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*!

*

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 W1x(velar coda). Candidates #2 and #3, on the other hand, fatally violate the next two highly ranked constraints respectively, i.e. W0.75x(velar coda) and W0.5x (velar coda), and are then ruled out. Candidates #4 and #5, however, comply with W1x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.5x(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 Pvelar 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 /ɡ./, given the constraint ranking in (13).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

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 [j] 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 [j.] and not, say, a bilabial [β.], which would not preserve information about the original velar gesture. Note, moreover, that the constraint Wvelar coda applies 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.l- -k.s- -k.t- -ɡ.l- -ɡ.n-/). We follow Rini (1991), however, in assuming a subsequent metathesis stage, i.e. [j.l] > [lj], after which [lj] is free to evolve into [ʎ] along similar lines and the analysis illustrated in Table 6.3. As with the change /lj/ > /ʎ/, the emergence of /j.l/ from /ɡ.l/ can also be modeled in the speaker-listener interaction. Following our formal approach to sound change, /ɡ.l/ > /j.l/ is captured by the difference in the constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [ɡ.l]) and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /j.l/), as shown in (14). (14)

Speaker’s input: /ɡ.l/ Faithful output: [ɡ.l], determined by Pvelar, Pplosive >> Wvelar coda. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [j.l], determined by W1x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.75x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.5x(velar coda) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> P₅₀(velar) . . . >> P₂₅(velar) >> P₁₀(velar) >> W0.25x(velar coda) >> W0.10x(velar coda) >> Pplosive. etc. Listener’s input: / j.l/ Faithful output: [j.l], determined by W1x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.75x(velar coda) . . . >> W0.5x(velar coda) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> P₅₀(velar) . . . >> P₂₅(velar) >> P₁₀(velar) >> W0.25x(velar coda) >> W0.10x(velar coda) >> Pplosive in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /ɡ.l/.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

162        As the proposed metathesis stage */j.l/ > /lj/ 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 [ʎ] (i.e. ʎ₂) emerged later in the history of many varieties from Latin [lː pl- kl- fl-], while a palatal nasal [ɲ] derived from Latin [nː]. With regard to the lateral geminate /lː/ 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 /lː/ 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 [lj] emerges and may eventually become a fully articulated palatal lateral [ʎ]. Moreover, if we take into account the fact that the duration of Spanish [ʎ] is usually 33% longer than the duration of its alveolar counterpart [l] (Lavoie 2000), it is reasonable to infer that, in the palatalization process [lː] > [ʎ], 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 realizations would comply with the constraint Pduration, while the singleton [l] would violate it. A candidate whose acoustic effects is [lj] satisfies Pduration and Ppalatal, although it violates some Palveolar constraints, as per the weakening of the original tongue tip gesture from the input /lː/. The force to conserve articulatory effort during the production of geminates is formalized here as the constraint Wgeminate, which, in the present case, will penalize both the tongue tip (i.e. Wgeminate, alveolar) and the tongue body (i.e. Wgeminate, palatal) gestures. The constraint ranking in (15) determines the selection of [lj]. (15)

Pduration, Ppalatal >> W1x(geminate, alveolar) . . . >> W0.8x(geminate, alveolar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(alveolar) . . . >> P₈₀(alveolar) . . . >> W0.5x(geminate, alveolar) . . . >> W0.3x(geminate, alveolar) . . . , W1x(geminate, palatal) . . . >> W0.8x(geminate, palatal).

Under this ranking, singletons would fatally violate highly ranked Pduration, while faithful realizations to the input /lː/ would violate higher values of Wgeminate, alveolar, as illustrated in Table 6.5.

² For a different approach, see Baker’s (2004: 109–18) analysis and the implementation of his proposed C constraint, which would have given rise to [ʎ] by forcing a coarticulation between the preceding [j] and the following [l].

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

163

Table 6.5 Palatalization of /lː/ /lː/

Articulation

TT: 1. 2 ☞3.

Weak Weak Weak geminate geminate Pres Aco. Pres Pres geminate alveolar effect duration palatal alveolar alveolar palatal 1x 0.8x 100 80 0.5x 0.3x 1x 0.8x

lateral a.

TT:

lat.

[l]

TT:

lat.

[lj]

TB:

*!

[lː]

TB:

*!

*

a.

*

*

*

*

*

* *

In Table 6.5, candidate #1 fatally violates Wgeminate, alveolar by not conserving any effort in the articulation of the tongue tip gesture during the realization of the input, while the degeminated realization [l] from candidate #2 does not preserve the duration cues from /lː/ nor its palatal quality. Thus, it fatally violates the most highly ranked constraints Pduration and Ppalatal. The palatalized lateral [lj] from candidate #3 is then selected, for satisfying Pduration, Ppalatal, despite the fact that it still violates P100(alveolar) due to weakening of the tongue tip gesture. If the listener, then, interprets the palatal quality in [lj] 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 speaker’s input (i.e. [lː]) 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: /lː/ Faithful output: [lː], determined by Pduration, Ppalatal, Palveolar >> Wgeminate. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [lj], determined by Pduration, Ppalatal >> W1x(geminate, W0.8x(geminate, alveolar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(alveolar) . . . >> alveolar) . . . >> P₈₀(alveolar) . . . >> W0.5x(geminate, alveolar) . . . >> W0.3x(geminate, alveolar) . . . , W1x(geminate, palatal) . . . >> W0.8x(geminate, palatal). etc.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

164        Listener’s input: /lj/ Faithful output: [lj], determined by Pduration, Ppalatal >> W1x (geminate, alveolar) . . . >> W0.8x(geminate, alveolar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(alveolar) . . . >> P₈₀(alveolar) . . . >> W0.5x(geminate, alveolar) . . . >> W0.3x(geminate, alveolar) . . . , W1x(geminate, palatal) . . . >> W0.8x(geminate, palatal) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /lː/. Next, the sequence [lj] is free to evolve into [ʎ] along the lines and analysis illustrated in Table 6.3.³ A similar proposal may also be applied to model the palatalization of [nː] into the palatal nasal [ɲ]. As for the evolution of /lː/ into a retroflex plosive /ɖ/ in varieties of southern Italo- and Gallo-Romance, as well as in dialectal Astur-Leonese and Upper Aragonese (cf. Chapter 4), an articulatory emphasis on the tongue tip and blade likely led to a retroflex movement in the production of /lː/, the acoustic result of which may have been initially perceived as a retroflex lateral [ɭ ], and subsequently, as a plosive [ɖ]. In the present analysis, the retroflex lateral articulation is formalized by a constraint ranking whereby Wgeminate, palatal outranks Ppalatal. The emergence of a retroflex plosive [ɖ], on the other hand, will derive from a candidate that violates Pmanner, 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 H in (25)). Around the same time that [ʎ] emerged from the palatalization of [lː] 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 [ʎ] 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. [kʎ-], 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] > [kʎ] 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 ³ For a different proposal, see Baker (2004: 175), who views the palatalization of [lː] as a result of his proposed C constraint outranking his markedness constraint *P. In this case, however, Baker is not explicit as to how C works to produce a palatal gesture in the realization of /lː/. Furthermore, Baker’s proposal is unclear as to why or how *P suddenly emerges in the analysis and what its role actually is, other than making the selected candidate [ʎ] violate a given constraint.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

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 [l]. The effects of this coarticulation have been explored by Müller 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 *[kʎ-], it is assumed that this likely closure fronting of the velar plosive was too short to produce an actual palatalized velar *[kj]. 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 [klj]. In the present formal analysis, it is expected that a candidate with an output such as [klj] will satisfy top-ranked Pmanner and Pvelar, but violate other constraints related to the lateral in this complex onset. We invoke, then, the constraint Wcomplex 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 [klj] will violate at least some percentage of Wcomplex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar and at least P100(alveolar), as determined by the constraint ranking in (17). (17)

Pplosive manner, Plateral manner, P100(velar) . . . >> P75(velar) . . . >> W1x(complex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, velar) . . . >> W0.75x(complex onset, Voiceless Obst+L velar) . . . >> W1x(complex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar) . . . >> W0.75x (complex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar) . . . >> P100(alveolar) . . . >> P75(alveolar).

Note that in (17), Pplosive manner and Plateral manner are unranked in relation to each other, while Pvelar dominates Wcomplex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, velar & alveolar, which, in turn, is ranked higher than Palveolar. Table 6.6 illustrates the selection of [klj] as the output of /kl-/, given the constraint ranking in (17).⁴

⁴ In Table 6.6, top-ranked Pmanner represents the constraint that rules 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 W and Pplace 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 assimilation (i.e. Tables 6.3, 6.9, and 6.12) Pmanner is assumed to be top-ranked and does not surface in the analysis because the selection of the output is determined by W and Pplace constraints. On the other hand, in cases of progressive place assimilation (i.e. Table 6.6), Pmanner does surface to rule out candidates with complete gestural weakening. We acknowledge, however, that further research is necessary to shed light upon the overall role of Pmanner constraints in determining optimal outputs and banning candidates with complete gestural weakening.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

166        Table 6.6 Selection of [klj] as the output of /kl-/ Pres

/kl-/

Articulation

TB 1

☞2

TB TT TB

4

TT TB

5

TT

plo

Pres Place

Weak

complex onset, Voiceless Obst+L

Pres place

velar velar alveolar alveolar lat 100 75 1x 0.75x 1x 0.75x 100 75

lat.

[kl]

*

*

la

[klj]

*

*

*!

*

plo

TT

3

manner

plo

TT TB

Acou. effect

*

*

plo

*!

[k]

lat. p lat.

[l]

[kl]

*!

* * *!

*

* *

*

*

In Table 6.6, candidates #3 and #4 fatally violate the most highly ranked constraint, i.e. Pmanner. Candidate #5, on the other hand, fatally violates P100(velar), 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 Wcomplex onset, Voiceless Obst+L constraints. Candidate #2, then, emerges as the winning candidate for not violating W1x(complex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, alveolar), despite the fact that it violates Wcomplex onset, Voiceless Obst+L, velar and does not preserve 100% of the alveolar place cues. The palatal quality in [j] in the sequence [klj] is assumed to emerge from the weakening of [l] and its subsequent assimilation to [k]. Thus, if the listener interprets [klj] as intended by the speaker as /klj/, 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. /klj/), as indicated in (18). (18)

Speaker’s input: /kl/ Faithful output: [kl], determined by Pmanner >> Pplace >> Wcomplex onset, Obst+L.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

167

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [klj], determined by Pstop manner, Plateral manner, P100(velar) . . . >> P75(velar) . . . >> W1x(complex onset velar) . . . >> W0.75x(complex onset velar) . . . >> W1x(complex onset alveolar) . . . >> W0.75x(complex onset alveolar) . . . >> P100(alveolar) . . . >> P75(alveolar). etc. Listener’s input: /klj/ Faithful output: [klj], determined by Pstop manner, Plateral manner, P100(velar) . . . >> P75(velar) . . . >> W1x(complex onset velar) . . . >> W0.75x(complex onset velar) . . . >> W1x(complex onset alveolar) . . . >> W0.75x(complex onset alveolar) . . . >> P100(alveolar) . . . >> P75(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 [klj] is free to evolve into [ʎ] along similar lines and the analysis illustrated in Table 6.3, thus giving rise to the reconstructed cluster [kʎ]. As the palatalization of the lateral in the [pl- fl-] clusters is assumed to have stemmed from a systemic regularization (Tuttle 1975: 409; cf. Chapter 4) and not from precise phonetic factors (Müller and Mota 2009), we now reach the stage of the reconstructed, regularized clusters [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-]. 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 clusters into [ʎ-]. The drive for obstruent deletion in /Cʎ-/ clusters in Spanish is interpreted to have been motivated by a highly ranked constraint WCʎ-, which militates for conserving articulatory energy in the realization of clusters formed by a voiceless obstruent consonant and a palatal lateral [ʎ]. Because the obstruents were the ones that disappeared, it is inferred that all WCʎ-,obstruent constraints had to dominate WCʎ-,palatal, which, in turn, had to be outranked by Ppalatal. The ranking in (19) determines the selection of [ʎ-] as the output of /Cʎ-/ clusters. (19)

W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent) . . . >> W0.5x(Cʎ-,obstruent) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P50(palatal) . . . >> W1x(Cʎ-,palatal) . . . >> W0.5x(Cʎ-,palatal) . . . >> P100(obstruent) . . . >> P50(obstruent)

Under this ranking, all obstruents in /Cʎ-/ clusters are expected to delete, as candidates with [pʎ-], [kʎ-], or [fʎ-] would violate the most highly ranked

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

168        constraint W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent), which militates against the complete gesture of the obstruents in these clusters. Candidates with a weakened realization of these obstruents, for example, [ɸʎ-], [xʎ-], and [hʎ-] would satisfy W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent), but would fatally violate the next highly ranked constraint, W0.5x(Cʎ-,obstruent) (see Chapter 4 for the hypothesis on the possible existence of this fricative stage in the evolution of the obstruents in [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-]). The series of ellipsis in (19) indicate lower values of constraints (e.g. in “W0.5x(Cʎ-,obstruent) . . . ,” the ellipsis entails all other lower values of W(Cʎ-,obstruent), from 0.4 to 0.1). Thus, all WCʎ-,obstruent constraints must be top-ranked, which causes the full deletion of the obstruents in /Cʎ-/ clusters. A candidate with only an initial palatal lateral will emerge, Table 6.7 /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/ > [ʎ-]

/pʎ-/ 1. [pʎ]

WeakCʎ-

6.7a Presplace

WeakCʎ-

Presplace

obstruent

palatal

palatal

bilabial

1x *!

0.5x *

☞3. [ʎ] 4. [j]

1x *

0.5x *

100

*

*

* * *

*! WeakCʎ-

6.7b Presplace

obstruent 1x

1. [kʎ]

50

*!

2. [ɸʎ]

/kʎ-/

100

*!

2. [xʎ]

0.5x

WeakCʎ-

palatal 100

velar

1x

0.5x

*

*

*

*!

*

*

☞3. [ʎ] *!

4. [j] WeakCʎ/fʎ-/

obstruent 1x

1. [fʎ] 2. [hʎ]

6.7c Presplace

*!

0.5x

palatal 0.5x

*

*

*

*!

*

*

*!

50

100

50

* *

*

*

*

Presplace labiodental

1x

☞3. [ʎ] 4. [j]

WeakCʎ-

palatal 100

* *

Presplace

palatal 50

50

100

50

* *

*

*

*

Due to space restrictions, Table 6.7 only includes the phonetic symbols indicating the perceptual consequences of the articulatory gestures involved.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

169

then, as the winner. Table 6.7 illustrates how the ranking in (19) selects [ʎ-] as the output of [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-]. In Table 6.7, candidates #1 are all ruled out for fatally violating W1x(Cʎ-, obstruent), despite the fact that they comply with all P constraints. A weakened realization of the obstruents in these clusters, represented in Table 6.7 by candidates #2 (i.e. the bilabial fricative [ɸ], the velar fricative [x], and the glottal fricative [h] as per the debuccalization of /f/), satisfy W1x(Cʎ-, obstruent), but fatally violate W0.5x(Cʎ-,obstruent). Candidates #2 are, thus, ruled out. Candidates #4 comply with WCʎ-,obstruent, but are ruled out for fatally violating P100(palatal). Candidates #3, i.e. [ʎ], emerge as the winners, for satisfying all WCʎ-,obstruent and Ppalatal constraints. Thus, the changes /pʎ/ > /ʎ/, /kʎ/ > /ʎ/, and /fʎ/ > ʎ/ are formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-]) and the listener’s eventual interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /ʎ- ʎ- ʎ-/), as indicated in (20). (20)

Speaker’s input: /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/ Faithful output: [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-], determined by Pplace >> WCʎ-,obstruent >> WCʎ-,palatal Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [ʎ- ʎ- ʎ-], determined by W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent) . . . >> W0.5x(Cʎ-, obstruent) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P50(palatal) . . . >> W1x(Cʎ-,palatal) . . . >> W0.5x(Cʎ-,palatal) . . . >> P100(obstruent) . . . >> P50(obstruent). etc. Listener’s input: /ʎ- ʎ- ʎ-/ Faithful output: [ʎ- ʎ- ʎ-], determined by W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent) . . . >> W0.5x(Cʎ-,obstruent) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P50(palatal) . . . >> W1x(Cʎ-,palatal) . . . >> W0.5x(Cʎ-,palatal) . . . >> P100(obstruent) . . . >> P50(obstruent) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/.

As discussed in Chapter 4, however, [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] had a different evolution in other Romance languages: instead of being deleted, all obstruents were preserved, which pushed for the eventual delateralization of [ʎ] into [j], i.e. [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-] > [pj- kj- fj-]. In the present formal analysis, we predict that Pplace for /p k f/ must be highly ranked, as the three obstruents remained

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

170        unchanged at this stage. Next, if we consider the amount of contact between the tongue body and the palate in the articulation of [ʎ] and [j] (cf. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 in Chapter 3), a lesser degree of palatal contact is noticeable in the production of the glide. This leads us to posit that, while a candidate representing [pʎ] would have 100% of the assumed tongue body gesture of input /pʎ/, a candidate representing [pj] would have a lower percentage, say, 75%, for example. Thus, because the output [pj] would still preserve at least 75% of palatal place cues of the input, it is reasonable to rank the constraint Ppalatal place between W1x(Cʎ-palatal) and W0.75x(Cʎ-palatal), hence eliminating the chance of a full deletion of the tongue body gesture in these clusters. This ranking is indicated in (21). (21)

P100(place of the obstruent), W1x(Cʎ-,palatal) >> P100(palatal place) . . . >> P75(palatal place) . . . >> W0.75x(Cʎ-,palatal) >> W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent).

Under this ranking, all obstruents are expected to be maintained, as they comply with the most highly ranked constraint P100(place of the obstruent). A faithful realization of /ʎ/ would cause a fatal violation of the next highly ranked constraint, W1x(Cʎ-,palatal). By ranking P100(palatal place) and P75(palatal place) above W0.75x(Cʎ-,palatal), the maintenance of at least 75% of the palatal place cues of the input is ensured. Table 6.8 illustrates how the outputs [pj- kj- fj-] are selected from the constraint ranking in (19). In Table 6.8, candidates #4 all fatally violate a highly ranked constraint P100(place of the obstruent) and are, thus, ruled out. Candidates #1, on the other hand, satisfy this constraint, but violate top-ranked W1x(Cʎ-,palatal) for containing a full realization of [ʎ]. Because of this, they are also ruled out. Candidates #2 and #3 satisfy the two top-ranked constraints because they preserve the place of the obstruent and do not violate W1x(Cʎ-, palatal). However, the next ranked constraints, i.e. P100(palatal place) and P75(palatal place), become crucial in selecting the optimal output between candidates #2 and #3: while both violate P100(palatal place), candidates #2 satisfy P75(palatal place), as they preserve 75% of the palatal place cues of the input. Because of this, [pj], [kj], and [fj] emerge as the most optimal outputs of /pʎ-/, /kʎ-/, and /fʎ-/, respectively, given the constraint ranking in (19). The change /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/ > /pj- kj- fj-/ is formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [pʎ-, kʎ-, fʎ-]) and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /pj-, kj-, fj-/), as indicated in (22).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.3    

171

Table 6.8 /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/ > [pj- kj- fj-] Presplace /pʎ-/

6.8a WeakCʎ- Presplace

bilabial

palatal

100

1x *!

1. [pʎ]

palatal 100 *

☞2. [pj]

*

3. [p] 4. [ʎ]

velar

palatal

100

1x *!

1. [kʎ]

palatal 100

0.75x *

1x *

*

*

*

WeakCʎ- WeakCʎpalatal

obstruent

0.75x *

1x *

*

*

*!

*! Presplace

6.8c WeakCʎ- Presplace

labiodental

palatal

100

1x *!

1. [fʎ]

palatal 100

75

*

☞2. [fj]

*

3. [f] 4. [ʎ]

75

*

3. [k]

/fʎ-/

obstruent

*!

6.8b WeakCʎ- Presplace

☞2. [kj] 4. [ʎ]

palatal

*! Presplace

/kʎ-/

75

WeakCʎ- WeakCʎ-

WeakCʎ- WeakCʎpalatal

obstruent

0.75x *

1x *

*

*

*!

*!

Due to space restrictions, this table only includes the phonetic symbols indicating the perceptual consequences of the articulatory gestures involved.

(22)

Speaker’s input: /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/ Faithful output: [pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-], determined by Pplace Ppalatal >> WCʎ-,obstruent >> WCʎ-,palatal

of the obstruent,

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [pj- kj- fj-], determined by P100(place of the obstruent), W1x(Cʎ-, palatal) >> P100(palatal place) . . . >> P75(palatal place) . . . >> W0.75x (Cʎ-,palatal) >> W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent). etc.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

172        Listener’s input: /pj- kj- fj-/ Faithful output: [pj-, kj-, fj-], determined by P100(place of the obstruent), W1x(Cʎ-,palatal) >> P100(palatal place) . . . >> P75(palatal place) . . . >> W0.75x(Cʎ-,palatal) >> W1x(Cʎ-,obstruent) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/.

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 [tʃ ]. A phonetic motivation for the emergence of [tʃ] comes from the interaction between the velar obstruent and the palatal glide in the cluster [kj].⁵ Research shows that the palatalization of [kj] into [tʃ] is a common sound change in the languages of the world (Chang, Plauché, 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 [tʃ], i.e. [pj- kj- fj-] > [tʃ]. Although analogical processes are not formalized in the present analysis, it is worth illustrating how the palatalization process in [kj] > [tʃ] would have occurred in the first place. By considering the interaction between a velar plosive [k] and palatal glide [j], it is feasible to 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 analysis Ppalatal and W1x(kj, velar) must outrank Pvelar and Wkj, palatal constraints, 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)

P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x(kj,velar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> W0.75x(kj,velar) . . . , W1x(kj,palatal) . . . >> W0.75x((kj,palatal).

⁵ A similar scenario is envisioned for the interaction between the alveolars [t d] and the glide [j], which gives rise to the affricates [ʦ ʣ] in the history of several Romance varieties.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

173

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 Ppalatal. Candidates that preserve the velar gesture, on the other hand, will fatally violate W1x(kj,velar). The next highly ranked constraint Pvelar 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] /k/ + /j/

Articulation TB

1

☞2

3

velar 1x

appro plos

velar 100

75

*!

pl

TB TB

[cj]

*

[j]

*

[k]

*!

[kj]

*!

[kj]

*!

Weakkj

velar

palatal

0.75x

1x 0.75x

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

TB plos

TB TB

6

75

[kj]

appro

TB 5

palatal 100

appro

TB

TB 4

Presplace Weakkj Presplace Weakkj

plos

TB TB

Aco. effe.

TB

ap

pl ap

*

*

*

*

*

*

In Table 6.9, candidates #4, #5, and #6 are ruled out due to their fatal violation of P100(palatal). Candidate #1 (the faithful output), on the other hand, fatally violates top-ranked W1x(kj,velar) due to its full realization of the velar consonant /k/. Candidates #2 and #3 both satisfy W1x(kj,velar and P100 (palatal) constraints, so the winner is determined by the next ranked constraint, Pvelar. As candidate #3 does not preserve any of the velar cues of the input, it fatally violates P75(velar), which candidate #2 satisfies. Hence, [cj] emerges as the output of /kj/ given the constraint ranking in (23).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

174        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 Ppalatal, Pvelar >> Wkj, palatal, Wkj, velar. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [cj-], determined by P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x (kj,velar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> W0.75x(kj,velar) . . . , W1x(kj,palatal) . . . >> W0.75x(kj,palatal). etc. Listener’s input: /cj/ Faithful output: [cj], determined by P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x(kj,velar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> W0.75x(kj, velar) . . . , W1x(kj,palatal) . . . >> W0.75x(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 [cç], i.e. with a palatal plosive closure and a fricative release (cf. Chapter 3 for its voiced counterpart [ ɟʝ] as the actual realization of a voiced palatal plosive /ɟ/). Considering the fact that [cç-] (< /kj-/ < /kʎ-/ < /kl-/) was found in word-initial position and represented the onset of a stressed syllable, this environment likely favored a stronger pronunciation. The fronting of [cç-] toward the palato-alveolar region would have represented such pronunciation because of the inherent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

175

sibilant character of this region, in which case its realization would have resembled that of a palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ] instead. In other words, as a central palatal affricate, [cç-] was a non-sibilant segment. Its acquisition of sibilance came with the fronting of its articulation toward the palato-alveolar region, where it was realized as [ʧ]. If we consider that consonants in onset position hold great perceptual importance (Fougeron and Keating 1997; Beckman 1999), then the motivations for the strengthening of (a non-sibilant) [cç-] into (a sibilant) [ʧ-] can be modeled in the present formal approach. Indeed, Baker and Wiltshire (2003: 36–7) propose the constraint H⁶ to formalize the force toward making input onsets maximally strong, since “H is a gradient constraint that compares the sonority of different candidates ( . . . ) and militates for candidates of lesser sonority (hence greater strength) in onsets.” H is defined in (25). (25)

H: Be strong in onsets. (Baker and Wiltshire 2003: 37)

If it is right to assume that a consonant strength hierarchy represents roughly an inverted sonority hierarchy (cf. Lavoie 2000: 213), it is possible to establish a fixed gradient ranking for H. For example, if vowels have the highest sonority value and plosives have the lowest, a ranking for H would follow the order indicated in (26). (26)

Hplosives >> Haffricates >> Hfricatives >> Hnasals >> Hliquids >> Hglides >> Hvowels

The fixed ranking in (26) captures the tendency of onsets being obstruents (i.e. plosives, affricates, and fricatives). Thus, under this hierarchy, vowels are expected to be the least preferred segments in onset position, since vowels are the least “strong” of all onsets. Thus, Hvowels is the lowest-ranked of all H constraints. Plosives, on the other hand, are the most preferred segments in onset position because they are the “strongest” (i.e. the least sonorous) of all onsets, followed by affricates and fricatives. In a competition between a plosive and a fricative in onset position, for example, a candidate with a plosive consonant will prevail, as the candidate with a fricative will have violated a more highly ranked H constraint, i.e. Hplosives. Furthermore, if it is right to assume that sibilants are “stronger” segments than non-sibilants (within a sonority scale), then it is reasonable to subdivide Haffricate into Hsib-affricate and Hnon-sib-affricate, and Hfricative into Hsib-fricative and Hnon-sib-fricative, respectively. ⁶ After H from Prince and Smolensky (2004[1993]); cf. also Baković’s (1995) S .

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

176        It is important to note, however, that H may apply to onsets of different prosodic levels, i.e. in utterance-initial position (H|u: Be a strong onset utterance-initially), in word-initial position (H|w: Be a strong onset word-initially), in foot-initial position (H|f : Be a strong onset footinitially) and, lastly, in general syllable-initial position (H|: Be a strong onset), regardless of its position within the prosodic hierarchy. In the present analysis, the strengthening process [cç-] > [ʧ-] is formalized by ranking Pmanner constraints over H and Ppalatal, as indicated in (27). (27)

Pplosive, Pfricative >> Hplosive >> Hsib-affricate >> Hnon-sib-affricate . . . >> Ppalatal.

Under this ranking, any candidate which does not include the plosive or fricative manners in its realization will violate one of the two highly ranked constraints, i.e. Pplosive and Pfricative, and will then be ruled out. The next ranked constraints, i.e. Hplosive >> Hsib-affricate >> Hnon-sib-affricate . . . , will militate for the strengthening of the input, preferably as a plosive, then as a sibilant affricate, a non-sibilant affricate, and so on. The ellipsis in (27) entails the fixed H ranking indicated in (26). Table 6.10 illustrates the selection of [ʧ] as the most harmonic output, given the constraint ranking in (27). Table 6.10 /cç/ > [ʧ] /cç/

1 ☞2

Presmanner Honset Prespalatal Acoustic affricate palatal palatal Articulation effect plosive fricative plosive non- plosive fricative sib sib closure release TB plo [cç] * *! TB fric TB

p

TB

3

TB

4

TB

*

[ʧ] fric

plo

*!

[c] fri

[ç]

*!

*

* *

*

*

*

*

* *

*

In Table 6.10, candidates #3 and #4 both fatally violate both Pmanner constraints and are, then, ruled out. Candidates #1 and #2, on the other hand, satisfy Pmanner, but violate the next highly ranked constraint Hplosive. Thus, the selection of the optimal output is relegated to

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

177

Haffricate. As candidate #1 (i.e. the faithful realization to the input) fatally violates Hsib-affricate, candidate #2 emerges as the winner. Note, however, that other possible affricates such as [pç] or [pʃ] (with a bilabial stop closure) could also emerge as candidates in Table 6.10. However, as bilabial affricates are rare cross-linguistically, it is assumed that their candidacy is banned by a highly ranked markedness constraint (e.g. *B-), which, for the current purposes, has been omitted from Table 6.10. Thus, a sound change such as /cç/ > /ʧ/ is understood in terms of a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [cç]) and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /ʧ/), as indicated in (28). (28)

Speaker’s input: /cç/ Faithful output: [cç], determined by Pmanner, Ppalatal >> H Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [ʧ], determined by Pplosive, Pfricative >> Hplosive >> Hsib-affricate >> Hnon-sib-affricate . . . >> Ppalatal. etc. Listener’s input: /ʧ/ Faithful output: [ʧ], determined by Pplosive, Pfricative >> Hplosive >> Hsib-affricate >> Hnon-sib-affricate . . . >> Ppalatal in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /cç/.

The emergence of /ʧ/ 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 /NpʎV NkʎV NfʎV/ to remain unchanged. Subsequently, these obstruents were free to follow the same pathway of change as /pʎ- kʎ- fʎ-/ did in many varieties (i.e. by first evolving into /pj- kj- fj-/ and eventually giving rise to /ʧ/) 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 [ɟ] and, subsequently, as an affricate [ʤ] in many varieties. Fortition is determined by the effects of a ⁷ For a markedness-based explanation, see Holt’s (1997) proposal of the constraint /*-NCʎ-/, which would have caused [ʎ] to first devoice and then palatalize the preceding voiceless obstruent, eventually giving rise to /Nʧ/.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

178        highly ranked H|. In the present analysis, this process is motivated by ranking Ppalatal over H|, which, in turn, dominates Papproximant and W, as indicated in (29).⁸ (29)

Ppalatal >> H| plosive . . . >> H|fricative . . . >> H| glide . . . >> Papprox, W.

Given the constraint ranking in (29), the output is expected to preserve the palatal place of articulation of the input /j/, by satisfying Ppalatal. Next, the strongest segment in onset position is predicted to be a plosive, rather than a fricative or a glide, as they would violate H|plosive. Any candidate that does not preserve the manner of the input (i.e. approximant) will violate Papprox., while any weakening in the realization of the input will violate W. The selection of the palatal plosive [ɟ-] for the input /j-/ is illustrated in Table 6.11. Table 6.11 /j-/ > [ɟ] Acoustic Pres Honset|S Honset|S Honset|S Pres plosive fricative glide approx. Weak effect palatal

/j-/

Articulation

1.

TB:

approxa

[j]

*!

2.

TB:

fric

[ʝ]

*!

☞ 3. TB:

plosi

[ɟ]

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

In Table 6.11, all candidates satisfy the most highly ranked constraint Ppalatal. However, candidate #1 (i.e. the faithful realization of the input) and candidate #2 both fatally violate the next ranked constraint, H| plosive, and are thus ruled out. Candidate #3, then, emerges as the selected output of /j-/, as it satisfies H|plosive, despite incurring one violation of all the other lowly ranked constraints. In the current approach, the fortition /j-/ > /ɟ-/ is formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization of the speaker’s input (i.e. [j-]) and the listener’s

⁸ 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. /f-/ > /p-/), it is assumed that all Pmanner constraints (e.g. Pfricative, Plateral, etc.) are top-ranked, except for Papproximant, which is low-ranked in (29).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

179

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

Speaker’s input: /j-/ Faithful output: [j-], determined by Ppalatal, Pmanner >> H| plosive . . . >> H| fricative . . . >> H| glide >> W. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [ɟ-], determined by Ppalatal >> H| plosive . . . >> H| fricative . . . >> H| glide . . . >> Papprox, W. etc. Listener’s input: /ɟ-/ Faithful output: [ɟ-], determined by Ppalatal >> H| plosive . . . >> H| fricative . . . >> H| glide . . . >> Papprox, W in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /j-/.

As illustrated in Chapter 4, in many Romance varieties the palatal plosive /ɟ/ eventually evolved into the affricate /ʤ/, which, in other cases, fronted its articulation to an alveolar [ʣ] or weakened to its fricative counterpart [ʒ]. The affrication of /ɟ/ into /ʤ/ can be understood along similar lines as that of /c/ into /ʧ/, formalized in Table 6.10. In other words, the phonetic realization of /ɟ/ often renders that of a central palatal affricate [ɟʝ], whose change in place of articulation into the palato-alveolar [ʤ] is determined by the ranking Pplosive, Pfricative >> Hplosive >> Hsib-affricate >> Hnonsib-affricate . . . >> Ppalatal. The subsequent fronting of [ʤ] into [ʣ], on the other hand, is determined by top-ranking Palveolar over Ppalatal, while top-ranking Walveolar over Ppalatal generates the fricative output [ʒ]. The same constraint rerankings apply to cases where the voiceless palato-alveolar affricate [ʧ] either fronted its articulation into an alveolar [ʦ] or weakened to its fricative counterpart [ ʃ]. The palatal obstruents [ɟ] (> [ɟʝ] > [ʤ]) and [c] (> [cç] > [ʧ]) also emerged in the palatalization of velars in the sequences [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ] and [ke ki kɛ kæ], respectively. Palatalization here is interpreted as the result of partial regressive place assimilation, whereby the target segments, i.e. the velars /ɡ/ and /k/, first front their articulation toward the palate, generating the acoustic effect of the palatal plosives [ɟ] 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 /ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ/ > /ɟe ɟi ɟɛ ɟæ/. For

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

180        our purposes, let us consider the evolution of /ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ/ and assume that a similar change event took place in the development of their voiceless counterparts [ke ki kɛ kæ]. Ppalatal and another constraint that militates to conserve articulatory energy in the production of velar plosives followed by vowels—which we will call Wvelar plosive+V—are top-ranked in the present analysis. This W constraint is motivated by the fact that, in this case, the velar consonants /k ɡ/ and vowels /e i ɛ æ/ are produced with a tongue body gesture. Thus, it would be more costly to produce [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ] as opposed to [be bi bɛ bæ], 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, [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ] are also more costly than [ɡo ɡu] 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 [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ], whereas it stays in the velar area in [ɡo ɡu]. Thus, assuming that the articulation of /ɡ/ undergoes partial gestural weakening in [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ], Ppalatal and W1x(velar plosive+V, velar) must dominate Pvelar and W(velar plosive+V, palatal), as indicated in the constraint ranking in (31). (31)

P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x(velar plosive+V, velar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> W0.75x(velar plosive+V, velar) . . . , W1x(velar plosive+V, palatal) . . . >> W0.75x(velar plosive+V, palatal).

Under this ranking, all candidates with weakening of /e i ɛ æ/ are expected to be ruled out due to a fatal violation of highly ranked constraint P₁₀₀(palatal). A candidate with a full realization of the velar gesture will fatally violate topranked W1x(velar plosive+V, velar). Pvelar constraints will determine, then, the optimal output according to the percentage of preservation of input velar cues. For visual convenience, Table 6.12 illustrates how [ɟe] would be selected as an output of /ɡe/, while the same is assumed for /ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ/ > [ɟi ɟɛ ɟæ] and the production of their voiceless counterparts. In Table 6.12, candidates #4 and #5 are ruled out as they fatally violate P100(palatal). Candidate #1 (i.e. the faithful output), on the other hand, satisfies Ppalatal constraints, but fatally violates top-ranked W1x(velar plosive+V, velar). Because candidates #2 and #3 satisfy both Ppalatal and W1x(velar plosive+V, velar), the winner is determined by the next highly ranked constraint, Pvelar. 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 /ɡe/ > /ɟe/ is, then, understood in terms of a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

181

Table 6.12 Regressive place assimilation in the articulation of [ɡ] + [e] Pres

/ɡ/ + /e/

Articulation

TB 1

☞2

3

palatal 100 75

Pres

Weak

Weak

place

velar plosive+V

velar plosive+V

velar

velar

velar

palatal

1x

100 0.75

0.75x

100 75

*!

[ɡe] vowel pl

TB

vowel

TB TB

vowel

TB

velar plosive+V

plosiv

TB TB

Acou. effect

Weak

place

[ɟe]

*

[e]

*

plosiv

4

[ɡ]

*!

[ɡe]

*!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

TB TB 5

TB

plosiv vo

*

*

*

realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [ɡe]) and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /ɟe/), as formalized in (32). (32)

Speaker’s input: /ɡe/ Faithful output: [ɡe], determined by P(velar), P(palatal) >> W(velar plosive+V, velar), W(velar plosive+V, palatal) Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [ɟe-], determined by P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x(velar plosive+V, velar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> W0.75x(velar plosive+V, velar) . . . , W1x(velar plosive+V, palatal) . . . >> W0.75x(velar plosive+V, palatal). etc. Listener’s input: /ɟe/ Faithful output: [ɟe], determined by P₁₀₀(palatal) . . . >> P₇₅(palatal) . . . , W1x(velar plosive+V, velar) . . . >> P₁₀₀(velar) . . . >> P₇₅(velar) . . . >> W0.75x(velar plosive+V, velar) . . . , W1x(velar plosive

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

182        +V, palatal) . . . >>

W0.75x(velar plosive+V, palatal) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /ɡe/.

The emergence of the affricates [ɟʝ] and [ʤ] in the subsequent evolution of [ɟ] (< [ɡe ɡi ɡɛ ɡæ]), and that of [cç] and [ʧ] in the evolution of [c] (< [ke ki kɛ kæ]), is understood in similar fashion as shown in (26) and formalized in Table 6.10. As discussed in Chapter 4, however, the palatalization of /ɡe- ɡi-/ in Hispano-Romance had different outcomes according to the presence or absence of stress: while /ɟ/ has survived until the present day in Latin words with stressed /ɡe- ɡi-/, in words with unstressed /ɡe- ɡi-/, the plosive /ɟ/ eventually weakened and disappeared in Old Spanish. If we consider that: (i) in unstressed position, [ɟe ɟi] tends to be weaker and shorter in duration than stressed [ˈɟe ˈɟi], and (ii) both segments of each sequence in [ɟe ɟi] 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 /ɟe ɟi/, since the vowels [e i] would have already secured the palatal place of articulation. This reasoning motivates, then, the low ranking of a P constraint that militates for the maintenance of place of articulation cues of the palatal consonant, which is labeled here as P(place, ɟe- ɟi-, consonant). This constraint would, then, be ranked below its W counterpart, i.e. W(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed), which militates for the conservation of articulatory effort in the production of the palatal consonant in unstressed /ɟe, ɟi/.⁹ The ranking in (33) formalizes the constraint hierarchy that determines the deletion of /ɟ/ in the realization of /ɟe ɟi/. (33)

W1(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.75(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.5(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> P100(place ɟe- ɟi-, vowel) . . . >> P50(place ɟe- ɟi-, vowel) . . . >> W1(vowel, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.50(vowel, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> P100(place ɟe- ɟi-, consonant) . . . >> P50(place, ɟe- ɟi-, 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 W(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) constraints are highly ranked, above P constraints. Thus, a candidate with no palatal consonant in the onset, but with a palatal vowel, is expected to

⁹ It is assumed here that a palatal fricative [ʝ] and a palatal approximant [j] would also violate W(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) constraints, as [ʝ] and [j] would represent weakened realizations of /ɟ/. Thus, one may interpret ‘ɟ’ in ‘W(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed)’ as a cover symbol for all voiced palatal oral segments.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

183

emerge as the most optimal, given the ranking in (33). This ranking is assumed to apply to both unstressed /ɟe/ and unstressed /ɟi/. For visual convenience, Table 6.13 only illustrates how [e] is selected as the most harmonic output of unstressed /ɟe/. Table 6.13 /ɟe/ > [e] Weakɟe-, unstressed /ɟe-/ 1. [ɟe] 2. [ʝe] 3. [je] ☞ 4. [e]

palatal cons. 1x *!

0.75x *

0.5x *

Presplace, ɟe- Weakɟe-, unstressed

Presplace, ɟe-

palatal vowel

palatal cons.

1x *

0.5x *

100

*

*

*

*

*!

*

*

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

*!

5. ∅

100

*!

50

vowel

*

75

50

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

In Table 6.13, candidate #1 represents the faithful realization of the input /ɟe-/ and, thus, fatally violates W1(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed). Candidate #2, on the other hand, contains a weakened realization of the input consonant, and so it satisfies W1(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) while fatally violating the next ranked constraint, W0.75(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed). The palatal glide in candidate #3 fatally violates W0.5(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) and is, thus, ruled out. Candidate #5 satisfies all W constraints, but fatally violates P(place ɟe-, vowel). Consequently, it is also ruled out. Candidate #4 emerges as the output of /ɟe-/ for complying with all W(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) constraints, despite containing a full realization of the input vowel, thus violating the low-ranked constraint W1(vowel, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed). In the present approach, the sound change /ɟe/ > /e/ is, then, captured by the difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [ɟe-]) 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: /ɟe-/ Faithful output: [ɟe], determined by P(place, W(ɟe-, unstressed).

ɟe- ɟi-, vowel & cons.)

>>

Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [e-], determined by W1(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.75 (palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.5(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> P100

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

184        (place, ɟe- ɟi-, vowel) . . . >>

P50(place, ɟe- ɟi-, vowel) . . . >> W1(vowel, ɟe- ɟi-, . . . >> W unstressed) 0.50(vowel, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> P100(place, ɟe- ɟi-, consonant) . . . >> P50(place, ɟe-, ɟi-, consonant).

etc. Listener’s input: /e-/ Faithful output: [e], determined by W1(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.75(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.5(palatal, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> P100(place, ɟe- ɟi-, vowel) . . . >> P50(place ɟe- ɟi-, vowel) . . . >> W1(vowel, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> W0.50(vowel, ɟe- ɟi-, unstressed) . . . >> P100(place, ɟe- ɟi-, consonant) . . . >> P50(place, ɟe- ɟi-, consonant) in the grammar of the original speaker, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /ɟe-/. The Latin sequences /-dj- -ɡj-/ also gave rise to palatal obstruents. Assuming that such sequences were most likely realized as a palatal glide up to the first century  (Castellani 1965: 113–18; cf. Chapter 4), it appears safe to posit that the original voiced plosives in the sequences /-dj- -ɡj-/ had suffered extreme weakening so as not to incur palatalization by the following glide. As such, this weakening continued until both consonants eventually disappeared. Comparative evidence for this evolutionary stage is also found in current Western Romance varieties (e.g. Lat. , ,  > Pt. ma[j]o, ra[j]o, ensa[j]o, Fr. mai, ra[j]on, essai ‘May’, ‘ray’, ‘essay’), while in many other cases the glide strengthened and gave rise to a palato-alveolar [ʤ], and, subsequently, to its fricative counterpart [ʒ] (e.g. Lat. , ,  > It. ma[ʤː]o, ra[ʤː]o, sa[ʤː]o ‘May’, ‘ray’, ‘essay’; Lat.  > It. fu[ʤː]e, Pt. fo[ʒ]e) ‘flee.3’). In the present analysis, the deletion of the postvocalic voiced obstruents [d ɡ] followed by [j] is determined by the dominance of all W(Vdj, Vɡj) constraints (which militate to conserve articulatory effort in the production of postvocalic /d ɡ/) over Pplosive place constraints. W(Vdj, Vɡj) is motivated by the fact that the tongue is the active articulator in both /d/ and /ɡ/ and surrounding sounds. Thus, it would be more costly to use the same articulator in these sequences, as opposed to other postvocalic sequences involving different articulators, as is the case of postvocalic /b/, which relies on lip gestures in its production. The selection of the glide as the optimal output of /dj ɡj/ is determined by the ranking in (35). (35)

W1x(Vdj, Vɡj) . . . >> W0.75x(Vdj, Vɡj) . . . >> W0.5x(Vdj, Vɡj) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P50(palatal) . . . >> W1x(palatal) . . . >> W0.5x (palatal) . . . >> P100(plosive place) . . . >> P75(plosive place) . . . >> P50 (plosive place).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

185

Under this ranking, any candidate with a realization of postvocalic /d/ or /ɡ/ is expected to fatally violate W(Vdj, Vɡj) constraints. On the other hand, a candidate with any weakening of the following palatal segment will violate P100(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 W1x(Vdj, Vɡj) and P(palatal). As this ranking applies to /dj/ and /ɡj/, for visual convenience Table 6.14 only illustrates how [-j-] is selected as the most harmonic output of /dj/. Table 6.14 /dj/ > [j] WeakVdj, Vɡj /dj/ 1x 1. [dj] 2. [ðj]

*!

dental 0.75x 0.5x * *!

3. [ðj]

Prespalatal

Weakpalatal

100

50

dental 100 75 50

1x

0.5x

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

☞ 4. [j] 5. ∅

Presplosive place

*!

*

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 W(Vdj, Vɡj) (i.e. W1x (Vvoiced dental-j-), W0.75x(Vvoiced dental-j), and W0.5x(Vvoiced dental-j), respectively). Candidate #5, on the other hand, satisfies W(Vvoiced dental-j) constraints, but fatally violates Ppalatal. Candidate #4 emerges, then, as the output of /dj/ as it satisfies W(Vvoiced dental-j), despite violating W1x (palatal) and Pdental. 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). (36)

Speaker’s input: /dj/ Faithful output: [dj], determined by Pdental, Ppalatal >> W1x(Vdj), Wpalatal Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [j], determined by W1x(Vdj) . . . >> W0.75x(Vdj) . . . >> W0.5x (Vdj) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P50(palatal) . . . >> W1x(palatal) . . . >>

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

186        W0.5x(palatal) . . . >> P100(plosive P50(plosive place).

place) . . . >>

P75(plosive

place) . . . >>

etc. Listener’s input: /j/ Faithful output: [j], determined by W1x(Vdj) . . . >> W0.75x(Vdj) . . . >> W0.5x(Vdj) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P50(palatal) . . . >> W1x(palatal) . . . >> W0.5x(palatal) . . . >> P100(plosive place) . . . >> P75(plosive place) . . . >> P50(plosive place) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /dj/. The subsequent evolutionary pathways of this emerging glide /j/ (< /dj ɡj/) are modeled under the same analysis illustrated in Tables 6.11 and 6.10, with the fronting of [ʤ] toward [ʣ] determined by top-ranking Palveolar over Ppalatal, and the deaffrication of [ʤ] into [ʒ] generated by top-ranking Walveolar over Ppalatal. Two other common sound changes observed in many Romance varieties— both diachronically and synchronically—are the delateralization of [ʎ] into [j] and the devoicing of palato-alveolars [ʒ] and [ʤ] into [ʃ] and [ʧ], respectively. In the history of Spanish, for example, ʎ₁ delateralized into [j] and subsequently strengthened into [ʒ], which, in Medieval times, devoiced into [ʃ] before dissimilating into the velar fricative [x] (e.g. Lat.  > mu[ʎ]er > *mu[j]er > *mu[ ʝ]er > mu[ʒ]er > mu[ʃ]er > 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 [ʝ]. If we take into account the regressive place assimilation by which [ʎ] 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 [j].¹¹ In the present analysis, this scenario is formalized by top-ranking all Wʎ-alveolar (i.e. conserve articulatory effort in the alveolar gesture of [ʎ]) and Ppalatal constraints above Wʎ-palatal and Palveolar constraints. The dominance hierarchy in (37) specifies the proposed ranking.

¹⁰ Note that, in the articulation of [ʎ], 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 [ʎ] is assumed to be attached to the tongue tip gesture.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4     (37)

187

W₁x(ʎ-alveolar) . . . >> W₀.₇₅x(ʎ-alveolar) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P75(palatal) . . . >> W₁x(ʎ-palatal) . . . >> W₀.₇₅x(ʎ-palatal) . . . >> P100(alveolar) . . . >> P75(alveolar).

Under the constraint ranking in (37), candidates with alveolar gestures in the realization of /ʎ/ will be ruled out, as they fatally violate Wʎ-alveolar constraints. On the other hand, candidates with weakening of the palatal gesture violate the next highly ranked constraint P100(palatal). Thus, a candidate with the palatal glide [j] is expected to emerge as the winner, due to its compliance with the push for conserving articulatory effort in the production of the tongue tip gesture, i.e. W(ʎ-alveolar), and the maintenance of palatal place cues, i.e. Ppalatal. Table 6.15 illustrates this scenario. Table 6.15 /ʎ/ > [j] Weakʎ /ʎ/ 1

☞2

Articulation TT

[ʎ] appro

TT TB

appro

*!

*

[j]

lat

3

*!

[l] TB TT

4

TB

Presplace

palatal alveolar 1x 0.75x 100 75 *

*

*

*

*

*

*

lat

TB TT

5

Weakʎ

lat

TB

TT

Presplace

Acous. alveolar palatal effect 1x 0.75x 100 75

ap.

[lj]

*!

*

*

*

l approx

[lj]

*!

*

*

*

In Table 6.15, candidates #1, #3, and #4 all violate the most highly ranked constraint, i.e. W1x(ʎ-alveolar), for not conserving any articulatory effort in the tongue tip gesture and are, thus, ruled out. Candidate #5, on the other hand, does satisfy W1x(ʎ-alveolar), as it presents weakening of 75% of the tongue tip gesture. However, it then fatally violates the next ranked constraint, i.e. W0.75x(ʎ-alveolar). Candidate #2 emerges as the most optimal output

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

188        given the constraint ranking in (37), by presenting only the tongue body gesture and, thus, satisfying both Wʎ-alveolar and Ppalatal. In the present approach, the emergence of the glide from /ʎ/ is formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [ʎ]) and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /j/), as shown in (38). (38)

Speaker’s input: /ʎ/ Faithful output: [ʎ], determined by Palveolar, Ppalatal >> Wʎ. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [j], determined by W₁x(ʎ-alveolar) . . . >> W₀.₇₅x(ʎ-alveolar) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P75(palatal) . . . >> W₁x(ʎ-palatal) . . . >> W₀.₇₅x(ʎ-palatal) . . . >> P100(alveolar) . . . >> P75(alveolar). etc. Listener’s input: /j/¹² Faithful output: [j], determined by W₁x(ʎ-alveolar) . . . >> W₀.₇₅x (ʎ-alveolar) . . . , P100(palatal) . . . >> P75(palatal) . . . >> W₁x(ʎ-palatal) . . . >> W₀.₇₅x(ʎ-palatal) . . . >> P100(alveolar) . . . >> P75(alveolar) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /ʎ/.

After the delateralization of [ʎ], 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 [ʝ] show little difference between the two segments, with the tongue body touching the hard palate slightly more in the articulation of [ʝ] than in the production of [j]. Thus, it is likely that [ʝ] and [j] may co-exist in free variation at some point after the delateralization of [ʎ]. In the present analysis, the selection of the faithful output [j] is determined by top-ranking Ppalatal and Papproximant above all W and H constraints, as indicated in (39). (39)

Ppalatal, Papproximant >> Wpalatal

(plosive, lateral),

Hplosive,

fricative, nasal, lateral

¹² Note that, in the reconstructed evolution of [j] (< ʎ₁) in the history of Spanish, this glide remains in contrast with the coetaneous intervocalic palatal plosive /ɟ/. Support for the reconstruction of this contrast is found in current varieties of Argentine and Peruvian Spanish (i.e. in the varieties spoken in the Argentine province of Corrientes and the Amazonian region of Peru), where speakers do maintain a  between intervocalic [j] and intervocalic [ɟʝ] (cf. Chapter 5).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

189

Under the ranking 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 P constraints, as shown in Table 6.16.¹³

Table 6.16 /j/ > [j] /-j-/

Pres

palatal

Pres

approx.

Weakpalatal

Honset

plosive lateral plosive fricative nasal lateral *

☞ 1. [j] 2. [ʝ]

*!

3. [ɟ]

*!

4. [ʎ]

*!

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

* * *

*

In Table 6.16, candidates #2 through #5 all preserve the palatal place of articulation of the input /j/, but fatally violate Papproximant. Thus, the faithful output [j] in candidate #1 emerges as the winner. The selection of the fricative [ʝ], on the other hand, will be determined by the ranking of Papproximant below W and H constraints, as in (40). (40)

Ppalatal >> W palatal lateral >> Papproximant

(plosive, lateral)

>> Hplosive,

fricative, nasal,

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

Table 6.17 /j/ > [ʝ] /-j-/

Pres

palatal

Weakpalatal

Honset

1. [j]

*

☞ 2. [ʝ]

*

3. [ɟ] 4. [ʎ]

Pres

plosive lateral plosive fricative nasal lateral

*! *!

*

*!

approx.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

¹³ In Tables 6.16 and 6.17, Pnasal is assumed to be ranked above Wpalatal nasal due to the occurrence of palatal nasal consonants in onset position, e.g. Lat.  > Sp., Pt. ara[ɲ]a ‘spider’.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

190        In Table 6.17, candidates #3, #4, and #5 all fatally violate Wpalatal constraints (i.e. Wpalatal plosive, Wpalatal nasal, and Wpalatal lateral, respectively). Candidates #1 and #2, on the other hand, satisfy Wpalatal constraints, but violate Hplosive. Thus, the determination of the most harmonic output is relegated to Hfricative, 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 [ʝ] may eventually settle in favor of the fricative, which was the case in the history of Spanish. A subsequent evolution of [ʝ] into [ʒ] 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, Pmanner must outrank Hplosive and both Hsib-fricative and Hnon-sib-fricative. Assuming the fronted articulation of [ʒ] in comparison with that of [ʝ], it is reasonable to posit that the former would incur a violation of lowly ranked Pplace. The ranking in (41) indicates this scenario. (41)

Pmanner >> Hplosive >> Hsib-fricative >> Hnon-sib-fricative >> Pplace.

The constraint ranking in (39) predicts that in the fortition of /ʝ/, a palatal stop [ɟ] will be blocked from surfacing because it would fatally violate the most highly ranked constraint Pmanner. Thus, a sibilant fricative [ʒ] is expected to surface as the most harmonic output given the constraint ranking in (39), as shown in Table 6.18. Table 6.18 /ʝ/ > [ʒ] /ʝ/

Pres Honset

manner

plosive

1. [ʝ]

*

☞ 2. [ʒ]

*

3. [ɟ]

*!

Honset fricative

sib

non-sib

Pres place

*! * *

*

*

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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

191

them violate the next ranked constraint Hplosive, the selection of the winning candidate is relegated to Hfricative. Candidate #2 surfaces as the output, as it satisfies Hsib-fricative, while candidate #1 is ruled out because it fatally violates it. When the listener (re)analyzes /ʒ/ as the input from the acoustic signal, a sound change occurs. In the present approach, /ʝ/ > /ʒ/ is formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [ʝ]) and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /ʒ/), as seen in (42). (42)

Speaker’s input: /ʝ/ Faithful output: [ʝ], determined by Pmanner, Pplace >> Hplosive >> Hsib-fricative >> Hnon-sib-fricative. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [ʒ], determined by Pmanner >> Hplosive >> Hsibfricative >> Hnon-sib-fricative >> Pplace. etc. Listener’s input: /ʒ/ Faithful output: [ʒ], determined by Pmanner >> Hplosive >> Hsib-fricative >> Hnon-sib-fricative >> Pplace in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /ʝ/.

With regard to the devoicing of /ʒ/ into /ʃ/, 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 Zampaulo 2013 for comprehensive approaches), it is worth illustrating how the change /ʒ/ > /ʃ/ 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 [ʒ], 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 /ʒ/ into /ʃ/ from Old to Medieval Spanish, and a similar

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

192        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 Pvoicing, which may present gradient values in the same spirit as Pplace, as indicated in (43), (43)

P100(voicing) >> P99(voicing) >> P98(voicing) . . . >> P1(voicing)

where P100(voicing) militates for the maintenance of 100% (i.e. the maximal preservation) of the input cues for voicing, and P1(voicing) pushes for the preservation of 1% (i.e. the minimal preservation) of the input cues for voicing. As the place and manner of articulation in the change /ʒ/ > /ʃ/ are preserved— and the same is assumed for the devoicing of /ʤ/ into /ʧ/ in the history of other Romance varieties—the constraints Pplace, Pmanner, and W must be all highly ranked. It is necessary, then, to bring other constraints that conflict with Pvoicing, 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 σ[s and formalize it in (44). (44)

σ[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 Pvoicing. As the history of many Romance varieties show, the voiceless palato-alveolars /ʃ/ and /ʧ/ sometimes emerge from their respective voiced counterparts /ʒ/ and /ʤ/. In the present approach, a voiceless sibilant realization of a voiced input is motivated by top-ranking σ[s over Pvoicing, as formalized in (45). (45)

σ[s >> P100voicing . . . >> P50voicing.

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

¹⁴ See Rohena Madrazo (2015) for the completion of /ʒ/ > /ʃ/ in Buenos Aires Spanish.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

193

example, [ʃ] should emerge as the selected output of /ʒ/, given the dominance hierarchy in (45). This scenario is illustrated in Table 6.19. Table 6.19 /ʒ/ > [ʃ] /ʒ/

σ[s]

1. [ʒ]

*!

2. [ʒ]

*ǃ

☞ 3. [ʃ]

Presvoicing 100

50

* *

*

In Table 6.19, candidate #1 (i.e. fully voiced [ʒ]) and candidate #2 (i.e. devoiced [ʒ̥]) are ruled out for their fatal violation of highly ranked σ[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 σ[s, despite violating lowly ranked all Pvoicing constraints. In the present approach, the devoicing of /ʒ/ into /ʃ/ (and, by extension, that of /ʤ/ into /ʧ/) is formally captured by a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [ʒ]) and the listener’s interpretation (as input) of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. /ʃ/), as shown in (46). (46)

Speaker’s input: /ʒ/ Faithful output: [ʒ], determined by P100voicing . . . >> P50voicing>> σ[s. Other possible, unfaithful outputs: E.g. [ʃ], determined by σ[s >> P100voicing . . . >> P50voicing. etc. Listener’s grammar: /ʃ/ Faithful output: [ʃ], determined by σ[s >> P100voicing . . . >> P50voicing in the grammar of the original speaker, which represents an unfaithful realization to the speaker’s input /ʒ/.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the evolution of the obstruent [ɟ] and that of ʎ₂ started to cross paths in the history of Spanish, likely during medieval times, giving rise to í. With regard to [ɟ], its evolution suggests that it probably had already developed a weakened pronunciation (e.g. [ʝ]) ̞ 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,

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

194        Penny (2002: 78) points out that Old Spanish /d/ was pronounced as an approximant [ð̞] in words like ca[ð̞]ena ‘chain’ (< Lat. ). As for bilabial /b/ and velar /ɡ/, their respective approximant allophones [β]̞ and [ɣ]̞ are believed to have emerged by the fifteenth century also in intervocalic position, e.g. ca[β]e ‘to reap’ (< Lat. ) (Penny ̞ ‘fits’ (< Lat. ) and se[ɣ]ar ̞ 2002: 76, 97). Therefore, it is safe to claim that the effects of weakening had been established over the voiced plosives /b d ɡ ɟ/ in intervocalic position, in the passage from Old to Medieval Spanish. In the present approach, this contextual weakening effect is captured by ranking H below the highest values of WVoicedPlosive(V_V) (i.e. conserve articulatory effort in the production of voiced plosives intervocalically). However, because as the obstruent was not fully deleted, WVoicedPlosive(V_V) must have been blocked by a P constraint, namely, Pplace. The ranking in (47) formalizes the dominance hierarchy among the aforementioned constraints. (47)

Pplace >> W1xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> Hplosive >> Hfricative >> Hglide >> W0.5xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> W0.25xVoicedPlosive (V_V).

The ranking in (47) predicts that a weakened output of a voiced obstruent will necessarily preserve its place of articulation, since Pplace is the most highly ranked constraint. The second highly ranked constraint, W1xVoicedPlosive (V_V), will rule out any output with a voiced plosive realization in intervocalic position. The hierarchy of H constraints will, then, determine the degree of “strength” of the weakened output, as illustrated in Table 6.20. Table 6.20 /ɟ/ > [ʝ] /-ɟ-/

Presplace WeakVoicedPlosive Honset Honset (V_V)

palatal

fricative

* *

☞ 2. [-ʝ-] 3. [-j-] *!

Honset WeakVoicedPlosive glide

1x *!

1. [-ɟ-]

4. ∅

plosive

*

(V_V)

0.5x

0.25x

*

*

*

*

*!

*

*

*

In Table 6.20, candidate #4 (Ø) incurs a fatal violation of highly ranked Pplace and is then ruled out. Candidate #1 (i.e. the voiced palatal plosive [ɟ]) satisfies Pplace, but fatally violates W1xVoicedObst(V_V). The selection of the output of /ɟ/ is then relegated to the degree of lenition in palatal

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4    

195

constriction. As Hfricative outranks Hglide, candidate #3 is ruled out and candidate #2, i.e. [ʝ], emerges as the optimal output, despite the fact that both candidates violate Hplosive. A similar analysis applies to the voiced plosives /b d ɡ/. The emergence of [ʝ] is formalized as a difference in constraint ranking between the faithful realization to the speaker’s input (i.e. [-ɟ-]) and the listener’s interpretation and use of one of the unfaithful realizations to the speaker’s input (i.e. [-ʝ-]), as shown in (48). (48)

Speaker’s input: /ɟ/ Faithful intervocalic output: [-ɟ-], determined by Pplace >> Hplosive >> Hfricative >> Hglide >> W1xVoicedPlosive (V_V) . . . >> W0.5xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> W0.25xVoicedPlosive(V_V). Other possible, unfaithful intervocalic outputs: E.g. [-ʝ-], determined by Pplace >> W1xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> Hplosive >> Hfricative >> Hglide >> W0.5xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> W0.25xVoicedPlosive(V_V). etc. Listener’s input: /ɟ/ Faithful intervocalic output: [-ʝ-], determined by Pplace >> W1xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> Hplosive >> Hfricative >> Hglide >> W0.5xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> W0.25xVoicedPlosive (V_V) in the original speaker’s grammar, which represents an unfaithful, intervocalic realization to the speaker’s input /ɟ/.

In Modern Spanish, /ɟ/ (with its allophones [ɟ-] and [-ʝ-]) started to merge further with the evolutionary patterns of ʎ₂. The delateralization of ʎ₂ initially gave rise to *[j], in the same fashion as the evolution of ʎ₁ (cf. Table 6.15), and this palatal glide subsequently underwent fortition and merged with the evolutionary patterns of /ɟ/, namely, as a palatal plosive [ɟ] word-initially and as a palatal fricative [ʝ] intervocalically. With regard to the former, one can motivate the same evolutionary pattern as that of word-initial Latin /j-/, by the ranking of H over Pmanner and W (cf. Table 6.11). In intervocalic position, however, [-j-] (< ʎ₂) is assumed to have rapidly leveled with [-ʝ-] (< /ɟ/), 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 [-ʝ-] from ʎ₁, illustrated in Tables 6.16 and 6.17). Moreover, any attempt to strengthen these segments to an intervocalic palatal plosive was blocked by the effects of highly-ranked

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

196        W1xVoicedPlosive(V_V) over H. Thus, by the Modern Spanish period, í had already arisen in a few (mostly southern) dialects, where speakers had merged ʎ₂ with /ɟ/. However, many current varieties of Spanish still preserve ʎ₂ as such (see Chapter 5), while other dialects and other Romance languages are displaying the same evolutionary cycle of /ʎ/ once again, i.e. by giving rise to a palatal glide [j] as its first immediate evolutionary step, as formalized in Table 6.15. 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 /ʎ/, the fortition of syllable-initial /j/, the deaffrication of /ʧ ʤ/, and the palatalization of /t d/ across diachronic and synchronic varieties quickly stand out as representative processes of how synchrony frequently meets diachrony in the evolution of Romance palatals. Other changes are also shown to reoccur in the evolution of the very same language. Within Ibero-Romance, for example, the development of Argentine Spanish shows that the palatal fricative [ʝ] in the í pronunciation eventually underwent the same fortition process into [ʒ] incurred by the palatal fricative *[ʝ] that emerged from the delateralization of ʎ₁. Although [ʒ] is realized across the board in onset position in the speech of today’s ʒí speakers, an affricate pronunciation [ʤ] also surfaces word-initially (Fontanella de Weinberg 1984, 1987; Fernández Trinidad 2010). Furthermore, the current devoicing of [ʒ] in Argentine and Uruguayan Spanish follows in the footsteps of the change /ʒ/ > /ʃ/ from Old to Modern Spanish (cf. Table 6.15), whereby /ʒ/ is realized with partially voiced or totally devoiced allophones (e.g. [ʒ̥], [ʃ]), until the voiceless fricative is eventually selected and phonologized by the listener (cf. Rohena Madrazo 2015). In other Spanish dialects, further patterns have also (re)emerged since the inception of í. As discussed in Chapter 5, varieties of Spanish spoken in the United States and in Northern Mexico tend to realize [j] (< /ɟ/) in intervocalic position (e.g. ma[j]o ‘May’), and even delete this segment altogether when it is found next to a palatal vowel (e.g. ea < e[j]a ‘she’). This mirrors a similar change event in Old Spanish, e.g. Lat.  > corre[j]a > Sp. correa ‘strap’). In evolutionary terms, these sound changes represent different degrees of weakening in the realization of the intervocalic palatal obstruent. Under the present approach, a candidate with the glide [j] is selected by a constraint ranking in which Pplace is top-ranked, while WVoicedPlosive(V_V) outranks H, as indicated in (49).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.4     (49)

197

Pplace >> W1xVoicedPlosive(V_V) . . . >> W0.5xVoicedPlosive (V_V) . . . >> Hplosive >> Hfricative >> Hglide.

Under the ranking in (49), the realization of the palatal obstruent /ɟ/ is expected to be with a minimal percentage of frication, in this case less than 50%. Thus, any candidate with either a palatal plosive [ɟ] or a palatal fricative [ʝ] will fatally violate W1xVoicedPlosive(V_V) and W0.5xVoicedPlosive(V_V), respectively. A candidate with the total conservation of palatal effort, i.e. Ø, will be ruled out by highly ranked Pplace. Table 6.21 illustrates the selection of [j] as the output of intervocalic /ɟ/. Table 6.21 /ɟ/ > [-j-] /ɟ/

Presplace palatal

1. [-ɟ-] 2. [-ʝ-] ☞ 3. [-j-] 4. ∅

*!

Weak

Weak

VoicedPlosive VoicedPlosive (V_V) (V_V)

1x

0.5x

*!

* *!

Honset Honset Honset plosive

fricative

glide

*

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

In Table 6.21, candidate #1 and candidate #2 incur a fatal violation of W1xVoicedPlosive(V_V) and W0.5xVoicedPlosive(V_V), respectively. Whereas candidate #4 is ruled out for violating highly ranked Pplace, candidate #3 emerges as the optimal output for satisfying both Pplace and WVoicedPlosive(V_V) constraints. Further research on these varieties is needed, however, since WVoicedPlosiveV_V) militates for all voiced obstruents to weaken intervocalically and more data are still needed with regard to the behavior of /b d ɡ/ in the dialects where /ɟ/ lenites. The cases where the glide is deleted, on the other hand, are determined by a top-ranked W constraint that militates for the conservation of articulatory effort in the production of an intervocalic palatal consonant adjacent to a palatal vowel. We call this constraint W(Vpal)Cpal(Vpal) and motivate it since the tongue body gesture of the palatal consonant and that of the palatal vowel would be the same, hence the drive to conserve articulatory effort. Thus, if Pvowel and W(Vpal)Cpal (Vpal) outrank Pplace and H constraints, the palatal consonant is expected to delete and only the palatal vowel to emerge as the optimal output, as it does in the cases of intervocalic /j/-deletion in varieties of U.S. Spanish, in

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

198        Northern Mexican Spanish, and in Old Spanish. Table 6.22 illustrates the selection of the palatal vowel in this scenario. Table 6.22 /j/ > Ø /-e.j-/

Presvowel

Weak (Vpal)Cpal(Vpal)

1. [-e.ɟ-]

*!

2. [-e.ʝ-]

*!

3. [-e.j-]

*!

☞ 4. [-e-]

Presplace Honset Honset Honset plosive fricative glide palatal * * *

* *

*

*

*

*

*

For visual convenience, the deletion of /j/ is illustrated in the sequence /e.j/ and the same process is assumed to apply in similar cases, such as in /i.j/.

In Table 6.22, candidates #1–#3 all have a realization of the palatal consonant after the palatal vowel /e/ and, therefore, present a fatal violation of W(Vpal) Cpal(Vpal). Candidate #4 (i.e. [-e-]) emerges, then, as the optimal output, since it satisfies both top-ranked constraints Pvowel and W(Vpal)Cpal(Vpal). In other dialects, however, an intervocalic fricative allophone of /ɟ/ strengthens into the palato-alveolar [ʒ]. Such is the case in many dialects of Andalusian Spanish (cf. Chapter 5). The fortition process [ʝ] > [ʒ] illustrates a similar evolutionary pathway as the proposed [ʝ] stage (< ʎ₁) in the history of Spanish (cf. Table 6.18) and as the fricative [ʝ] from the í pronunciation of nineteenth-century Buenos Aires (cf. Chapter 5). The only difference here is that, in scattered parts of Andalusia, ʎ₂ is still preserved. Hence, a new type of  emerges, i.e. one between /ʎ/ and /ʒ/. Other dialects where ʎ₂ is still preserved (e.g. Paraguay, Northeastern Argentina, the Andes, etc.) maintain the same contrast with the palatal obstruent /ɟ/ from the Old Spanish period, with the exception of one area, i.e. the Northeastern Argentine province of Corrientes. In this region, ʎ₂ is currently undergoing delateralization, from which the palatal glide [j] is emerging, exactly as the proposed steps for ʎ₁ and ʎ₂ (cf. Table 6.15). In Corrientes Spanish, however, the emerging glide [j] contrasts with the palatal obstruent [ɟ] (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, /ɟ/ has not undergone weakening intervocalically. Corrientes Spanish /ɟ/ illustrates, then, a ranking in which Pplace and Pmanner both outrank W(Vpal)Cpal(Vpal) constraints, so that /ɟ/ is realized as [-ɟ-], hence contrasting with [-j-] (< /ʎ/).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

6.5    

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 small group of constraints (i.e. W, P, H, and σ[s) and 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-/), 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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 evolution— and, more important, how it is possible for them to reoccur in distinct periods Palatal Sound Change in the Romance Languages. First edition. André Zampaulo. © André Zampaulo 2019. First published 2019 by Oxford University Press.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

 

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 /ʎ/ 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 of laterality in the speaker’s production of /ʎ/, which is formalized by the effects of top-ranking Wʎ, alveolar and Ppalatal constraints. On the other hand, the fronting of the palatal fricative /ʝ/ into the palato-alveolar [ʒ] is captured by the outranking of H over Pplace in the speaker’s production of /ʝ/, while still preserving its fricative manner, hence crucially satisfying top-ranked Pfricative. When the listener interprets /ʒ/ as the input from the acoustic signal, the change /ʝ/ > /ʒ/ occurs. The devoicing of palato-alveolars /ʒ/ and /ʤ/ into /ʃ/ and /ʧ/, respectively, derives from the listener’s interpretation of the latter two consonants as inputs, formalized by top-ranking the constraint σ[s over Pvoicing 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. W and P) and constraints that make reference to different prosodic positions (e.g. H and σ[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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

202   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 Ruíz Martínez’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 [ʝ]-fronting and subsequent emergence of [ʒ] in Andalusian Spanish. Further research and acoustic analysis will elucidate the systematicity of the contrast between [ʒ] (< [ʝ]) and [ʎ] and testify the occurrence of this pattern of , which also falls under the predictions of the theoretical model developed here. Similarly, phonetic experiments will reveal if such pattern of  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 [ʎ]-delateralization in the Corrientes province of Argentina, and the  between the emergent glide [j] and the obstruent [ɟʝ], 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 W(ʎ, alveolar) and Ppalatal constraints. Also predicted here is the possible affrication of /ʒ/ and /ʃ/ into [ʤ] and [ʧ], respectively, by top-ranking H over P(place).

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

 

203

Indeed, Fernández Trinidad (2010) reports the occurrence of [ʤ] in phrase-initial position in Argentine Spanish. The occurrence of [ʧ] (< /ʃ/) 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. [ʃ] < /ʧ/) 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. P100(manner) >> P99(manner) >> P98(manner) . . . >> P1(manner), 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 Pmanner and its role in constraint (re)ranking with Pplace and W 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.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

APPENDICES

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

APPENDIX 1

Demographic questions Por favor, conteste las siguientes preguntas. 1. ¿Qué día es hoy? 2. ¿Cómo se llama usted? 3. ¿Qué hace? ¿Dónde trabaja? 4. ¿Cuántos años tiene? 5. ¿Dónde nació? 6. ¿Qué idiomas habla? 7. ¿En qué países y ciudades ha vivido? 8. ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva viviendo en su domicilio actual? 9. ¿Qué hace en su tiempo libre? 10. ¿Qué es lo que más le gusta de esta región? ¿Y lo que menos le gusta? 11. ¿Puede contarme una anécdota de cuando era niño/a? 12. ¿De qué forma era la vida diferente cuando era niño/a? 13. ¿Cuáles son algunas de las tradiciones de esta región? 14. En su opinión, ¿cuáles son las principales diferencias entre la gente de su región y la gente de otras zonas de Argentina? 15. ¿Cuáles son algunas de las principales fiestas de su región y cómo se celebran?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

APPENDIX 2

Sentence-reading task Por favor, lea las siguientes oraciones en voz alta. 1. Jorge llegó ayer de Buenos Aires. 2. El niño lloraba, pero ya se cayó. 3. Fue a Santiago tres veces este año. 4. Guille es el cónyuge de Iaia. 5. La presidenta cumple las leyes que le corresponden. 6. Argentina le ganó a Brasil en el Mundial de Italia. 7. Llueve mucho en aquella provincia. 8. Pasó por la calle 511 y después por Hipólito Yrigoyen. 9. ¿Querés la Coca-Cola con hielo o sin hielo? 10. Necesitó tres llaves para abrir la puerta. 11. Ya te dije que no me gustan los alfajores de esta panadería. 12. “La economía va a mejorar”, dijo la presidenta. 13. Miguel vino sin llamarme antes. 14. Ejercer un derecho conlleva a una obligación. 15. El deshielo ocurre siempre en la primavera. 16. Los reyes de España vendrán a Argentina en agosto. 17. En nuestra finca tenemos quince gallinas, tres perros y dos caballos. 18. No sé por qué no vino a la fiesta. 19. Le encanta el yogur de frutilla. 20. Le dolió mucho la inyección. 21. No quiero que le cuentes esos chistes. 22. Me compraría un yate con toda esa plata. 23. Dijo desyugar y se fue. 24. Ojalá que la economía mejore este año. 25. Llamale a tu padre y decile que venga ahora. 26. El desayuno de ese hotel es riquísimo. 27. Tuvo mala suerte con el vuelo. 28. Quiero que me traigan dos cuchillos, un tenedor y tres servilletas. 29. Yuxtaponer significa poner algo junto a otra cosa. 30. No comió nada durante el viaje. 31. Dijo que me ayudaría con ese proyecto. 32. Yo lo que quiero es tranquilidad. 33. Acá en Santiago la gente es muy amable.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

APPENDIX 3

Knowledge of potential minimal pairs Por favor, lea las siguientes preguntas en voz alta y después contéstelas según su opinión. 1. ¿Podría definir las palabras poyo y pollo? 2. Las palabras valla y vaya, ¿tienen el mismo significado? 3. ¿Hay diferencia de significado entre las palabras cayó y calló? ¿Qué significan? 4. Las palabras malla y maya, ¿tienen el mismo significado?

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

References Aguilar, Lourdes (1999). ‘Hiatus and dipthong: Acoustic cues and speech situation differences’, Speech Communication 28: 57–74. Aguilera, Vanderci de Andrade (1989). ‘O fonema /ʎ/: Realizações fonéticas, descrição e a sua comprovação na fala popular paranaense’, Semina 10: 173–8. Aguilera, Vanderci de Andrade (1999). ‘Um estudo geolingüístico da iotização no Português’, in Vanderci de Andrade Aguilera (ed.), Português no Brasil: estudos fonéticos e fonológicos. Londrina, Brazil: Universidade Estadual de Londrina, 155–79. Alarcos Llorach, Emilio (1954). ‘Resultados de Ge, i en la Península’, Archivum 4: 330–42. Alarcos Llorach, Emilio (1996). ‘Gallego-Asturiano’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 134–8. Alderetes, Jorge R. (1990). ‘Algunos aspectos morfológicos del quichua santiagueño’, Paper presented at the Primeras Jornadas de Lingüística Andina. San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina, Instituto Qheshwa Jujuymanta. Alderetes, Jorge R. (2001). El quechua de Santiago del Estero: gramática y vocabulario. Tucumán, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Alderetes, Jorge R. and Lelia Inés Albarracín (2004). ‘El quechua en Argentina: El caso de Santiago del Estero’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 167: 83–93. Alkire, Ti and Carol Rosen (2010). Romance languages: A historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, W. S. (1965). Vox latina: A guide to the pronunciation of Classical Latin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alonso, Amado (1961). Estudios lingüísticos: Temas hispanoamericanos. 2nd edn. Madrid: Gredos. Alonso, Amado (1967). De la pronunciación medieval a la moderna en español. Vol. I. Madrid: Gredos. Alonso, Amado (1969). De la pronunciación medieval a la moderna en español. Vol. II. Madrid: Gredos. Alonso, Dámaso (1962). ‘La fragmentación fonética peninsular’, Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica, Vol. I. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 85–103. ALPI (1962). Atlas lingüístico de la Península Ibérica, vol. I. Fonética. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Alsina, Alex (2016). ‘Catalan’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 363–81. Alvar, Manuel (1996). ‘Paraguay’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 196–208. Alvar, Manuel, Antonio Llorente, and Gregorio Salvador (1973). Atlas lingüístico y etnográfico de Andalucía. Granada: Universidad de Granada/Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Alvar, Manuel, Antonio Llorente, and Gregorio Salvador (1995). Textos andaluces en transcripción fonética. Madrid: Gredos. Álvarez Martínez, María Ángeles (1996). ‘Extremeño’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 171–82.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

212  Amaral, Amadeu (1981). O dialeto caipira. São Paulo: HUCITEC. Anderson, Stephen R. (2016). ‘Romansh (Rumantsch)’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 169–84. Anttila, Arto (1997). ‘Deriving variation from grammar’, in Frans Hinskens, Roeland van Hout, and W. Leo Wetzels (eds), Variation, change, and phonological theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35–68. Anttila, Arto and Young-mee Yu Cho (1998). ‘Variation and change in Optimality Theory’, Lingua 104: 31–56. Archangeli, Diana and Douglas Pulleyblank (1994). Grounded Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ariza, Manuel (1990). Manual de fonología histórica del español. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis. Ariza, Manuel (1994). Sobre fonética histórica del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Ariza, Manuel (2012). Fonología y fonética históricas del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Armstrong, Nigel and Tim Pooley (2010). Social and linguistic change in European French. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Aski, Janice M. (2001). ‘Prototype categorization and phonological split’, Diachronica 18: 205–40. Ávila, Elvio. (1980). Santiago del Estero, Indo-Hispania lingüística. Como habla el santiagueño: ensayo histórico, sociológico y de investigación lingüística. Santiago del Estero: Impresiones Arte. Azcúnaga López, Raúl Ernesto (2010). ‘Fonética del español salvadoreño’, in Miguel Ángel Quesada Pacheco (ed.), El español hablado en América Central. Nivel fonético. Madrid/ Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 83–113. Baker, Gary K. (2004). Palatal phenomena in Spanish phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida. Baker, Gary K. and Caroline R. Wiltshire (2003). ‘An OT treatment of palatal fortition in Argentinian Spanish’, in Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux and Yves Roberge (eds), Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 33–48. Baković, Eric J. (1995). ‘Strong onsets and Spanish fortition’, in Chris Giordano and Daniel Ardron (eds), Proceedings of the 6th Student Conference in Linguistics (SCIL 6). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 21–39. Balmori, Clemente Hernando (1959). ‘El quichua santiagueño’, Actas del XXXIII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. San José, Costa Rica: Lehman, 584–600. Beckman, Jill N. (1999). Positional Faithfulness: An Optimality Theoretic treatment of phonological asymmetries. New York: Garland. Beddor, Patrice Speeter (2009). ‘A coarticulatory path to sound change’, Language 85: 785–821. Beddor, Patrice Speeter (2012). ‘Perception grammars and sound change’, in Maria-Josep Solé and Daniel Recasens (eds), The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 37–55. Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Rena A. Krakow, and Louis M. Goldstein (1986). ‘Perceptual constraints and phonological change: A study of nasal vowel height’, Phonology Yearbook 3: 197–217. Benincà, Paola, Mair Parry, and Diego Pescarini (2016). ‘The dialects of northern Italy’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185–205. Benincà, Paola and Laura Vanelli (2016). ‘Friulian’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 139–53.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



213

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2006). ‘Phonological change in Optimality Theory’, in Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, 497–505. Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (2007). ‘Diachronic phonology’, in Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 497–518. Bernhardt, Barbara Handford and Joseph P. Stemberger (eds) (1998). Handbook of phonological development from the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. Bladon, Richard A. W. and Emanuela Carbonaro (1978). ‘Lateral consonants in Italian’, Journal of Italian Linguistics 3: 43–55. Blasco Ferrer, Eduardo (1988). ‘Sardisch, interne Sprachgeschichte’, in Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt (eds), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, vol. 4. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 836–53. Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press. Blevins, Juliette and Andrew Garrett (1998). ‘The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis’, Language 74: 508–56. Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional phonology: Formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. Boersma, Paul (2003). ‘The odds of eternal optimization in Optimality Theory’, in D. Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 31–66. Boersma, Paul and David Weenink (2010). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.16, retrieved 14 June 2018 from http://www.praat.org/. Borrego Nieto, Julio (1996). ‘Leonés’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 139–58. Borzone de Manrique, Ana María (1976). ‘Acoustic study of /i, u/ in the Spanish diphthong’, Language and Speech 19: 121–8. Borzone de Manrique, Ana María (1979). ‘Acoustic analysis of the Spanish diphthongs’, Phonetica 36: 194–206. Borzone de Manrique, Ana María (1980). Manual de fonética acústica. Buenos Aires: Hachette. Borzone de Manrique, Ana María and María Ignacia Massone (1981). ‘Acoustic analysis and perception of Spanish fricative consonants’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69: 1145–53. Boyd-Bowman, Peter (1980). From Latin to Romance in sound charts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bradley, Travis G. (2006). ‘Spanish complex onsets and the phonetics-phonology interface’, in Fernando Martínez-Gil and Sonia Colina (eds), Optimality-Theoretic studies in Spanish phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15–38. Bradley, Travis G. and Ann Marie Delforge (2006). ‘Systemic contrast and the diachrony of Spanish sibilant voicing’, in Randall Gess and Deborah Arteaga (eds), Historical Romance Linguistics: Retrospectives and Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 19–52. Browman, Catherine and Louis Goldstein (1989). ‘Articulatory gestures as phonological units’, Phonology 6: 201–51. Bruña Cuevas, Manuel (2003). ‘Comment présenter un phonème moribond. L’ancien l mouillé français vu par les hispanophones’, Historiographia Linguistica 30: 45–97. Bybee, Joan (2001). Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bybee, Joan (2008). ‘Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation’, in Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change. New York: Oxford University Press, 108–24.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

214  Bybee, Joan (2015). ‘Articulatory processing and frequency of use in sound change’, in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 467–84. Cagliari, Luiz Carlos (2009). Elementos de fonética do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Editora Paulistana. Calvo Pérez, Julio (2008). ‘Perú’, in Azucena Palacios (ed.), El español de América: Contactos lingüísticos en Hispanoamérica. Barcelona: Ariel, 189–212. Canepari, Luciano (1980). Italiano standard e pronunce regionali. Padova: Cleup. Canfield, Lincoln (1981). Spanish pronunciation in the Americas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cano Aguilar, Rafael (ed.) (2004). Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: Ariel. Caravedo, Rocío (1995). ‘Variación functional en el español amazónico del Perú: Las palatales sonoras’, Anuario de Lingüística Hispánica 11: 119–36. Caravedo, Rocío (1996). ‘Perú’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel, 157–76. Caravedo, Rocío (2013). ‘Yeísmo y distinción en el contexto social peruano. Reexamen de la cuestión’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 257–93. Cárdenas, John (2004). ‘Judeo-Spanish and the living museum claim: A synchronic view of a diachronic dilemma’, California Linguistic Notes 29: 1–23. Cardona Ramírez, Mauricio Andréz (2010). ‘La fonética del español en Belice’, in Miguel Ángel Quesada Pacheco (ed.), El español hablado en América Central. Nivel fonético. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 21–48. Castellani, Arrigo (1965). ‘Sulla formazione del tipo fonetico italiano. Fenomeni consonantici. I. Raddoppiamento delle consonanti diverse da “r”, “s” davanti a “i ̯” ’, SLI 5: 88–96. Castro, Ivo (1991). Curso de história da língua portuguesa. Lisboa: Universidade Aberta. Castro, Ivo (2004). Introdução à história do português: Geografia da língua. Português antigo. Lisboa: Edições Colibri. Castro, Ivo (2006). Introdução à história do português. 2nd edn. Lisbon: Edições Colibri. Catalán, Diego (1954). ‘Resultados apico-palatales y dorso-palatales de -LL-, -NN-, y de LL(< L-), NN- (< N-)’, Revista de Filología Española 38: 1–44. Celata, Chiara (2006). Analisi dei processi di retroflessione delle liquide in area romanza, con dati sperimentali dal còrso e dal siciliano. Ph.D. Dissertation. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas (2010). Available at (last accessed 19 February 2019). Chabanal, Damien, Jacques Durand, and Corinne Ratier (2016). ‘French in Auvergne (Centre): A speaker from Clermont-Ferrand’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 168–78. Chang, Charles B. (2008). ‘Variation in palatal production in Buenos Aires Spanish’, in Maurice Westmoreland and Juan Antonio Thomas (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 54–63. Chang, Steve S., Madelaine C. Plauché, and John J. Ohala (2001). ‘Markedness and consonant confusion asymmetries’, in Elizabeth Hume and Keith Johnson (eds), The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press, 79–122. Chapman, Patricia, Ana Dubra, Fernando Martínez-Gil, and Dianne Tritica (1983). ‘El yeísmo en Covarrubias’, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, ms.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



215

Chen, Matthew and William S.-Y. Wang (1975). ‘Sound change: actuation and implementation’, Language 51: 255–81. Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Clements, George Nick and Rachid Ridouane (eds) (2011). Where do phonological features come from?: Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Coello Villa, Carlos (1996). ‘Bolivia’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 169–83. Colantoni, Laura (2001). Mergers, chain shifts and dissimilatory processes: Palatals and rhotics in Argentine Spanish. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota. Colantoni, Laura (2004). ‘Reinterpreting the CV transition. Emergence of the glide as an allophone of the palatal lateral’, in Julie Auger, J. Clancy Clements, and Barbara Vance (eds), Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 83–102. Colantoni, Laura and José Ignacio Hualde (2013). ‘Introducción: Variación fonológica en el español de la Argentina’, in Laura Colantoni and Celeste Rodríguez Louro (eds), Perspectivas teóricas y experimentales sobre el español de la Argentina. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 21–35. Córdova, Carlos Joaquín (1996). ‘Ecuador’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 184–95. Coseriu, Eugenio (1973). Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del cambio lingüístico. 2nd edn. Madrid: Gredos. Courdès-Murphy, Léa, Jacques Durand, Corinne Ratier, and Nathalie Rossi-Gensane (2016). ‘French in Haute-Garonne (Midi-Pyrénées): A speaker from Toulouse’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 179–91. Craddock, Jerry R. (1980). ‘The contextual varieties of yod: An attempt at systematization’, in Edward L. Blansin and Richard V. Teschner (eds), Festschrift for Jacob Ornstein: Studies in general linguistics and sociolinguistics. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 61–8. Cravens, Thomas D. (2002). Comparative historical dialectology: Italo-Romance clues to Ibero-Romance sound change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cristófaro Silva, Thaïs (2009). Fonética e fonologia do português. São Paulo: Contexto. Cristófaro Silva, Thaïs and Daniela Oliveira Guimarães (2009). ‘Patterns of lenition in Brazilian Portuguese’, in Frank Kügler, Caroline Féry, and Ruben Van de Vijver (eds), Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology. Berlin: de Gruyter, 141–62. Croft, William (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman. Croft, William (2010). ‘The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience’, Linguistics 48: 1–48. Dajko, Nathalie (2016). ‘French in Louisiana: A speaker from Ville Platte’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 300–13. Dalbera-Stefanaggi, Marie-José (1997). ‘Corsica’, in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, 303–10. Dawson, Alain, Cyril Auran, Caroline Bouzon, Laurence Delrue, Rudy Loock, Kathleen O’Connor, and Cédric Patin (2016). ‘French in Nord (Nord-Pas-de-Calais): A speaker from La Madeleine’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 148–58.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

216  Detey, Sylvain, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds) (2016). Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Devine, Andrew M. and Lawrence D. Stephens (1977). Two studies in Latin phonology. Saratoga: Anma Libri. Donni de Mirande, Nélida (1996). ‘Argentina-Uruguay’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispanica. El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel, 209–21. Dresher, B. Elan (2015). ‘Rule-based generative historical phonology’, in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 501–21. Dubert García, Francisco (1999). Aspectos do galego de Santiago de Compostela. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Dubert García, Francisco (2013). ‘El yeísmo y el fortalecimiento de /j/ en Galicia’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/ Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 39–57. Echenique Elizondo, María Teresa and Juan Sánchez Méndez (2005). Las lenguas de un reino: Historia lingüística hispánica. Madrid: Gredos. Elcock, William D. (1960). The Romance languages. London: Faber and Faber. Elias, Vanessa (2012). ‘La elisión intervocálica en el español de Antonito, Colorado’, Paper presented at the 2012 Ohio State Conference on Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics (OSUCHiLL). Columbus, Ohio, The Ohio State University. Espejo Olaya, María Bernarda (2013). ‘Estado del yeísmo en Colombia’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/ Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 227–35. Fanciullo, Franco (1997). ‘Basilicata’, in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, 349–54. Fernández Planas, Ana María (2000). Estudio electropalatográfico de la coarticulación vocálica en estructuras VCV en castellano. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitat de Barcelona. Fernández Planas, Ana María (2009). ‘Características linguopalatales de la nasal palatalizada en español’, Estudios de fonética experimental 8: 162–74. Fernández Trinidad, Marianela (2010). ‘Variaciones fonéticas del yeísmo: Un estudio acústico en mujeres rioplatenses’, Estudios de fonética experimental 19: 263–92. Ferrando Francés, Antoni and Miquel Nicolás Amorós (2011). Historia de la llengua catalana. Barcelona: Editorial UOC. Ferreiro, Manuel (1996). Gramática histórica galega. Santiago de Compostela: Edicións Laiovento. Fertig, David (2015). ‘Analogy and morphophonological change’, in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–18. Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representation in phonology. New York: Routledge. Flemming, Edward (2004). ‘Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness’, in Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 232–76. Flores, Tanya L. (2016). ‘Velar palatalization in Chilean public speech’, Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1: 1–17. Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz (1979). Dinámica social de un cambio lingüístico: La reestructuración de las palatales en el español bonaerense. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz (1984). El español bonaerense en el siglo XVIII. Bahía Blanca, Argentina: Departamento de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional del Sur.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



217

Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz (1987). El español bonaerense: Cuatro siglos de evolución lingüística (1580–1980). Buenos Aires: Hachette. Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz (1995). ‘El rehilamiento bonaerense del siglo XIX, nuevamente considerado’, Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 43: 1–15. Fougeron, Cécile and Patricia Keating (1997). ‘Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101: 3728–40. Freire, Josenildo Barbosa and Rubens Marques de Lucena (2011). ‘Comportamento variável do segmento /ʎ/ na comunidade de Jacaraú (PB)’, in Maria José Foltran (ed.), Anais do VII Congresso Internacional da Abralin. Curitiba, Brazil: Associação Brasileira de Linguística, 3913–22. Freixeiro Mato, Xosé Ramón (2006). Gramática da lingua galega. Tomo I: Fonética e fonoloxía. Vigo: Edicións A Nosa Terra. Frisch, Stefan A. (2004). ‘Language processing and segmental OCP effects’, in Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 346–71. García de Diego, Vicente (1970). Gramática histórica española. 3rd edn. Madrid: Gredos. García Mouton, Pilar and Fernando Moreno Fernández (1994). ‘El Atlas lingüístico de Castilla-La Mancha. Materiales fonéticos de Ciudad Real y Toledo’, in Pilar García Mouton (ed.), Geolingüística. Trabajos europeos. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 110–53. García Mouton, Pilar and Isabel Molina Martos (2009). ‘Trabajos sociodialectales en la Comunidad de Madrid’, Revista de Filología Española 89: 175–86. García Mouton, Pilar and Isabel Molina Martos (2012). ‘The /ʎ/-/ʝ/ merger (yeísmo) in Central Spain: Advanced since the ALPI’, Dialectologia 3: 23–42. Gess, Randall (1996). Optimality theory in the historical phonology of French. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington. Gess, Randall (2003). ‘On reranking and explanatory adequacy in a constraint-based theory of phonological change’, in D. Eric Holt (ed), Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 67–90. Gianelli, Luciano and Thomas D. Cravens (1997). ‘Consonantal weakening’, in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, 32–40. Giangola, James P. (2001). The pronunciation of Brazilian Portuguese. Munich: Lincom Europa. Gladwell, Malcolm (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston: Little, Brown Company. Godenzzi, Juan Carlos (2013). ‘Resistencia al yeísmo en los Andes: convergencia lingüística y expresión identitaria’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 295–309. Gómez, Rosario (2013). ‘Las palatales laterales y el yeísmo/ʒeísmo en el español andino del Ecuador’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 237–56. Gómez, Rosario and Isabel Molina Martos (eds) (2013). Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert. Gradoville, Michael Stephen (2011). ‘Validity in measurements of fricative voicing: Evidence from Argentine Spanish’, in Scott M. Alvord (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Romance Phonology. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 59–74. Graham, Lamar A. (2017). ‘An Optimality-Theoretic account of the evolution of intervocalic sonorants from Latin to Spanish and Portuguese’, Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 16: 1–20.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

218  Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1966). La estructura silábica y su influencia en la evolución fonética del dominio ibero-románico. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1992). ‘Acerca del origen de un fenómeno fonético en el español andino. La realización [ž/žˆ] - [y] de la oposición /L̬/ - /Y/’, Boletín de Filología 33: 47–69. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1993). ‘Quechua y español en el noroeste argentino. Una precisión y dos interrogantes’, Lexis 17: 259–74. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1994). Español de América, español de África y hablas criollas hispánicas. Madrid: Gredos. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1997a). ‘Marginalidad o relevancia de un factor de cambio lingüístico: la transferencia por contacto. Aportaciones al tema desde el quechua santiagueño’, Revista Andina 29: 131–50. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1997b). ‘Una modalidad de transferencia lingüística por contacto. Procesos de reanálisis en el quechua de Santiago del Estero (Argentina)’, Boletín de Filología 36: 37–53. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1997c). ‘Un fenómeno de convergencia lingüística por contacto en el quechua de Santiago del Estero. El desarrollo del futuro verbal perifrástico’, Estudios Filológicos 32: 35–42. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1997d). ‘Dos rasgos del sistema casual del quechua santiagueño y sus posibles factores condicionantes’, Lexis 21: 1–15. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (1998). ‘Contacto lingüístico y tipología. Modificaciones tipológicas en la sintaxis del quechua santiagueño’, Revista Andina 31: 187–201. Granda Gutiérrez, Germán de (2002). Lingüística de contacto: español y quechua en el área andina suramericana. Valladolid: Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial, Universidad de Valladolid. Guitarte, Guillermo (1971). ‘Notas para la historia del yeísmo’, in Eugenio Coseriu and Wolf-Dieter Stempel (eds), Sprache und Geschichte. Festschrift für Harri Meier zum 65. Geburtstag. Munich: W. Fink, 179–8. Guitarte, Guillermo L. (1992). ‘Sobre la generalidad del yeísmo porteño en el siglo XIX’, Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 40: 547–74. Guy, Gregory R. (2003). ‘Variationist approaches to phonological change’, in Brian D. Joseph and Richard. D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 369–400. Guy, Gregory R. (2007). ‘Lexical exceptions in variable phonology’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13: 109–19. Haboud, Marleen and Esmeralda de la Vega (2008). ‘Ecuador’, in Azucena Palacios (ed.), El español de América: Contactos lingüísticos en Hispanoamérica. Barcelona: Ariel, 161–88. Haiman, John (1988). ‘Rhaeto-Romance’, in Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 351–90. Haiman, John and Paola Benincà (eds) (1992). The Rhaeto-Romance languages. New York: Routledge. Hale, Mark (2003). ‘Neogrammarian sound change’, in Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 343–68. Hambye, Philippe, Anne Catherine Simon, and Alice Bardiaux (2016). ‘French in Belgium: A speaker from Henri-Chapelle’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 211–22. Hansen, Anita Berit and Kathrine Asla Østby (2016). ‘Variation in the capital city of France: Paris’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 403–16.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



219

Harjus, Jannis (2018). Sociofonética andaluza y lingüística perceptive de la variación: el español hablado en Jerez de la Frontera. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/ Vervuert. Harris, James W. and Ellen M. Kaisse (1999). ‘Palatal vowels, glides and obstruents in Argentinian Spanish’, Phonology 16: 117–90. Harris, Martin and Nigel Vincent (eds) (1988). The Romance languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Hastings, Robert (1997). ‘Abruzzo and Molise’, in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, 321–9. Hayes, Bruce (1999). ‘Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding’, in Michael Darnell, Edith Moravcsik, Frederick Newmeyer, Michael Noonan, and Kathleen Wheatley (eds), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol. I: General Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 243–85. Hayes, Bruce and Donca Steriade (2004). ‘The phonetic bases of phonological markedness’, in Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1–33. Hayes, Bruce, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds) (2004). Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hernández Alonso, César (1996). ‘Castilla la Vieja’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 197–212. Hernández Torres, Ramón Augusto (2010). ‘Fonética del español de Honduras’, in Miguel Ángel Quesada Pacheco (ed.), El español hablado en América Central. Nivel fonético. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 115–36. Hidalgo Caballero, Manuel (1977). ‘Pervivencia actual de la LL en el suroeste de España’, Revista de Filología Española 59: 118–43. Holt, D. Eric (1997). The role of the listener in the historical phonology of Spanish and Portuguese: An Optimality-Theoretic account. Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgetown University. Holt, D. Eric (ed.) (2003a). Optimality Theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Holt, D. Eric (2003b). ‘The emergence of palatal sonorants and alternating diphthongs in Hispano-Romance’, in D. Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 285–305. Holt, D. Eric (2015). ‘Historical sound change in Optimality Theory: Achievements and challenges’, in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 545–62. Honsa, Vladimir (1965). ‘The phonemic systems of Argentinian Spanish’, Hispania 48: 275–83. Hualde, José Ignacio (2005). The sounds of Spanish. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hualde, José Ignacio (2011). ‘Sound change’, in Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth V. Hume, and Keren Rice (eds), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Oxford: Blackwell, 2214–35. Hyman, Larry (1976). ‘Phonologization’, in Alphonse Juilland, A. M. Devine, and Laurence D. Stephens (eds), Linguistics studies offered to Joseph Greenberg. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, 407–18. Inkelas, Sharon (1994). ‘The consequences of optimization for underspecification’, in Jill Beckman (ed.), Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistics Society 25: 287–302. Iskarous, Khalil and Darya Kavitskaya (2018). ‘Sound change and the structure of synchronic variability: Phonetic and phonological factors in Slavic palatalization’, Language 94: 43–83. Ito, Junko, Armin Mester, and Jaye Padgett (1995). ‘Licensing and redundancy: Underspecification in Optimality Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 26: 571–614.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

220  Janda, Richard D. (2003). ‘ “Phonologization” as the start of dephoneticization – Or, on sound change and its aftermath: Of extension, generalization, lexicalization, and morphologization’, in Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 401–22. Jaramillo, June A. (1986). Variation in /ch/ and second person address in the Spanish of Tomé, New Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of New Mexico. Jiménez Fernández, Rafael (1999). El andaluz. Madrid: Arco Libros. Johnson, Keith (2013). Acoustic & auditory phonetics. 3rd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Jones, Mark J. (2015). ‘Individuals, innovation, and change’, in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 400–9. Jones, Michael (1988). ‘Sardinian’, in Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 314–50. Joos, Martin (1952). ‘The medieval sibilants’, Language 28: 222–31. Jun, Jongho (2004). ‘Place assimilation’, in Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 58–86. Kania, Sonia (2010). ‘Documenting yeísmo in medieval and colonial Spanish texts’, Romance Philosophy 64: 223–34. Kavitskaya, Darya (2002). Compensatory lengthening: Phonetics, phonology, diachrony. New York: Routledge. Kempas, Ilpo (2006). Estudio sobre el uso del pretérito perfecto prehodiernal en el español peninsular y en comparación con la variedad del español argentino hablada en Santiago del Estero. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Helsinki. Kempas, Ilpo (2013). ‘Sobre la elección entre canté y he cantado en el español hablado de Santiago del Estero’, in Laura Colantoni and Celeste Rodríguez Louro (eds), Perspectivas teóricas y experimentales sobre el español de la Argentina. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 269–82. Kent, Roland (1932). The sounds of Latin: A descriptive and historical phonology. Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press. Kibler, William W. (1984). An introduction to Old French. New York: Modern Language Association of America. Kiddle, Lawrence B. (1977). ‘Sibilant turmoil in Middle Spanish’, Hispanic Review 45: 327–36. King, Christina (2009). Language attitudes toward devoicing among young adults in Buenos Aires. Honors thesis. The Ohio State University. Kiparsky, Paul (2003). ‘The phonological basis of sound change’, in Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 311–42. Kiparsky, Paul (2008). ‘Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations’, in Jeff Good (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change. New York: Oxford University Press, 23–53. Kiparsky, Paul (2015). ‘Phonologization’, in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 563–79. Kirchner, Robert (2001). An effort approach to consonant lenition. New York: Routledge. Kirchner, Robert (2004). ‘Consonant lenition’, in Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 313–45. Kirtchuk, Pablo (1987). ‘Le parler quechua de Santiago del Estero: quelques particularités’, Amerindia 12: 95–110.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



221

Kochetov, Alexei and Laura Colantoni (2011). ‘Coronal place contrasts in Argentine and Cuban Spanish: An electropalatographic study’, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41: 313–42. Krämer, Martin (2009). The phonology of Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krämer, Martin and Olga Urek (2016). ‘Perspectives on palatalization’, Glosas 1(1): 31. 1–17. Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, William (2001). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Ladefoged, Peter (2001). A course in phonetics. 4th edn. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers. Ladefoged, Peter and Keith Johnson (2015). A course in phonetics. 7th edn. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson (1996). The sounds of the world’s languages. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Lafont, Robert (2004). Éléments de phonétique de l’occitan. 2nd edn. Valence d’Albigeois: Vent Terral. Lang-Rigal, Jennifer (2015). ‘Regional variation in the devoicing of the alveopalatal fricative in Argentina’, Estudios de Fonética Experimental 24: 141–70. Lapesa, Rafael (1981). Historia de la lengua española. 9th edn. Madrid: Gredos. Lausberg, Heinrich (1965). Lingüística románica. I: Fonética. Madrid: Gredos. Lavoie, Lisa M. (2000). Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations of consonant weakening. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University. Ledgeway, Adam (2016). ‘The dialects of southern Italy’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 246–69. Ledgeway, Adam and Martin Maiden (eds) (2016). The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leslie, Thomas (2016). ‘Social and linguistic predictors of /ʝ/ in Medellín, Colombia’, unpublished manuscript. Lewis, M. Paul (ed.) (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 16th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Lindblom, Björn (1963). ‘Spectrograhic study of vowel reduction’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35: 1773–81. Lindblom, Björn (1983). ‘Economy of speech gestures’, in Peter F. MacNeilage (ed.), The production of speech. New York: Springer Verlag, 217–45. Lindblom, Björn, Randy Diehl, Sang-Hoon Park, and Giampiero Salvi. (2011). ‘Sound systems are shaped by their users: The recombination of phonetic substance’, in George Nick Clements and Rachid Ridouane (eds), Where do Phonological Features come from?: Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 67–97. Lipski, John M. (1989). ‘Spanish yeísmo and the palatal resonants: Towards a unified analysis’, Probus 2: 211–23. Lipski, John M. (1994). Latin American Spanish. New York: Longman. Lipski, John M. (2011). ‘Socio-phonological variation in Latin American Spanish’, in Manuel Díaz-Campos (ed.), The handbook of Hispanic sociolinguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 72–97. Lloyd, Paul M. (1987). From Latin to Spanish. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

222  Lombardi, Linda (1999). Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 267–302. Loporcaro, Michele (1997). ‘Puglia and Salento’, in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, 338–48. Loporcaro, Michele (2011). ‘Phonological processes’, in Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway (eds), The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages. Vol. 1: Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 109–54. Lorenzino, Gerardo Augusto (2003). ‘Bilingüismo y migración urbana: el quechua santiagueño’, in Lofti Sayahi (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the First Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA, Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 53–60. Lullo, Orestes di (1965). Elementos para un estudio del habla popular de Santiago del Estero. Santiago del Estero: Talleres Gráficos Amoroso. Machado, José Barbosa (2012). Introdução à história da língua e cultura portuguesas. Braga, Portugal: Edições Vercial. Machuca Ayuso, María Jesús (1991). ‘Acoustic description of the Spanish nasal consonants in continuous speech’, Papers of the XII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 2. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, 414–17. McMahon, April M. S. (2000). ‘The emergence of the optimal? Optimality Theory and sound change’, The Linguistic Review 17: 231–40. McMahon, April M. S. (2003). ‘When history doesn’t repeat itself: Optimality Theory and implausible sound changes’, in D. Eric Holt (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 121–68. Maddieson, Ian (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maiden, Martin (1995). A linguistic history of Italian. London: Longman. Maiden, Martin (2016). ‘Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Aromanian’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 91–125. Maiden, Martin and Mair Parry (eds) (1997). The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, Maiden, Martin, John Charles Smith, and Adam Ledgeway (eds) (2011). The Cambridge history of the Romance languages. Vol. 1: Structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malkiel, Yakov (1976). ‘In search of “penultimate” causes of language change: Studies in the avoidance of /z/ in Proto-Spanish’, in Marta Luján and Frederick Gerald Hensey (eds), Current Studies in Romance Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 27–36. Malkiel, Yakov (1983). From particular to general linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mallinson, Graham (1988). ‘Rumanian’, in Martin Harris and Nigel Vincent (eds), The Romance languages. New York: Oxford University Press, 391–419. Martín Butragueño, Pedro (2013). ‘Estructura del yeísmo en la geofrafía fónica de México’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 169–206. Martín Butragueño, Pedro (2014). Fonología variable del español de México. Vol. I: Procesos segmentales. Mexico City: El Colegio de México. Martín Zorraquino, María Antonia and María Rosa Fort Cañellas (1996). ‘La frontera Catalano-Aragonesa’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel, 293–304. Martinet, André (1955). Economie des changements phonétiques. Berne: Francke. Martinet, André (1978). ‘Function, structure and sound change’, in Phillip Baldi and Ronald N. Werth (eds), Readings in Historical Phonology. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 121–59.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



223

Martínez Celdrán, Eugenio and Ana María Fernández Planas (2013). Manual de fonética española. 2nd edn. Barcelona: Ariel. Mattos e Silva, Rosa Virgínia (1991). O português arcaico: Fonologia. São Paulo: Contexto. Mattoso-Câmara, Joaquim (1970). Estrutura da língua portuguesa. Petrópolis: Vozes. Méndez, Luis Alberto (2017). ‘The variant [ ʃ ] in the Spanish of Ciudad Juárez’, Borealis: An international journal of Hispanic linguistics 6: 243–60. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón (1950). Orígenes del español. Estado lingüístico de la Península Ibérica hasta el siglo XI. 3rd edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón (1977). Manual de gramática histórica española. 15th edn. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Mensching, Guido and Eva-Maria Remberger (2016). ‘Sardinian’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 270–91. Miller, D. Gary (2010). Language change and linguistic theory I: Approaches, methodology and sound change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy (1985). ‘Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation’, Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–84. Montes, José Joaquín (1996). ‘Colombia’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 134–45. Moratal Canales, Vicente (2011). ‘Estudio sincrónico y contrastivo sobre el yeísmo en Gandía: enfoque variacionista y sociolingüístico’, Revista Philologica Romanica 11: 135–54. Moreno de Alba, José G. (1994). La pronunciación del español de México. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico. Moreno Fernández, Francisco (1996). ‘Castilla la Nueva’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 213–32. Moreno Fernández, Francisco (2004). ‘Cambios vivos en el plano fónico del español: Variación dialectal y sociolingüística’, in Rafael Cano (ed.), Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: Ariel, 973–1009. Morris, Richard E. (1998). Stylistic variation in Spanish Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University. Moyá Corral, Juan Antonio, and Emilio J. García Wiedemann (1995). El habla de Granada y sus barrios. Granada: Universidad de Granada. Müller, Daniela (2010). ‘Phonetic factors influencing /l/-rhoticisation in Greek’, in Antonis Botinis (ed.), Proceedings of the third ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics. Athens: University of Athens, 117–20. Müller, Daniela (2011). Developments of the lateral in Occitan dialects and their Romance and cross-linguistic context. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université de Toulouse. Müller, Daniela (2015). ‘Un estudi critic d’evolucion /lː/ > /ɖ/ > /d, t, ʧ/ en gascon e en gardiòl’, in Wendy Pfeffer and Jean Thomas (eds), Nouvelles recherches en domaine occitan: approches interdisciplinaires. Turnhout: Belpols, 225–36. Müller, Daniela and Sidney Marin Mota (2009). ‘Acoustic cues of palatalisation in plosive + lateral onset clusters’, Proceedings of Interspeech 2009. Brighton: Causal Productions, 1695–8. Nagore Laín, Francho (2013). Lingüistica diatopica de l’Alto Aragón. Uesca: Publicazions d’o Consello d’a Fabla Aragonesa. Narbona Jiménez, Antonio, Rafael Cano Aguilar, and Ramón Morillo Velarde-Pérez (2011). El español hablado en Andalucía. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. Nardi, Ricardo L. J. (1976). ‘Lenguas en contacto: el substrato quechua en el noroeste argentino’, Filología 17–18: 131–50.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

224  Nardi, Ricardo L. J. (1989). ‘Aclaraciones sobre el quichua de Santiago del Estero’, Relaciones de la sociedad argentina de antropología 17: 127–37. Navarro Tomás, Tomás (1964). ‘Nuevos datos sobre el yeísmo en España’, Thesaurus 19: 1–17. Navarro Tomás, Tomás (1991). Manual de pronunciación española. 25th edn. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Nuño Álvarez, María del Pilar (1996). ‘Cantabria’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 183–96. Nyrop, Kristoffer (1935). Grammaire historique de la langue française. Tome premier: Histoire générale de la langue française: Phonétique historique. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel. Ohala, John J. (1981). ‘The listener as a source of sound change’, in Carrie S. Masek, Robert A. Hendrick, and Mary Frances Miller (eds), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, 178–203. Ohala, John J. (1989). ‘Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation’, in Leiv E. Breivik and Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds.), Language change: Contribution to the study of its causes. Berlin: de Gruyter, 173–98. Ohala, John J. (1992). ‘What’s cognitive, what’s not, in sound change’, in Gunter Kellerman and Michael D. Morrissey (eds), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 309–55. Ohala, John J. (1993). ‘The phonetics of sound change’, in Charles Jones (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives. London: Longman, 237–78. Ohala, John J. (2003). ‘Phonetics and historical phonology’, in Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 669–86. Ohala, John J. (2012). ‘The listener as a source of sound change: An update’, in María-Josep Solé and D. Recasens (eds), The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 21–35. Ohala, John J. and Deborah Feder (1994). ‘Listeners’ normalization of vowel quality is influenced by “restored” consonantal context’, Phonetica 51: 111–44. Ohala, John J., Carol J. Riordan, and Haruko Kawasaki (1978). ‘The influence of consonant environment upon identification of transitionless vowels’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64: S18. Oliviéri, Michèle and Patrick Sauzet (2016). ‘Southern Gallo-Romance (Occitan)’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 319–49. Oniga, Renato and Norma Schifano (2014). Latin: A linguistic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ortés, Elena Fernández de Molina (2011). ‘Conservación de la oposición /ʎ/ y /ʝ/ en Fuente del Maestre (Badajoz)’ Diálogo de la Lengua 3: 72–88. Paden, William Doremus (1998). An introduction to Old Occitan. New York: Modern Language Association of America. Palacios, Azucena (ed.) (2008). El español de América: Contactos lingüísticos en Hispanoamérica. Barcelona: Ariel. Pană Dindelegan, Gabriela (ed.) (2013). The grammar of Romanian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paredes, Florentino (2013). ‘Las consonantes palatales sonoras en la comarca castellanoextremeña de La Jara: historia, geografía y sociedad’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 59–92.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



225

Parodi de Teresa, Claudia (1977). ‘El yeísmo en América durante el siglo XVI’, Anuario de Letras 15: 241–8. Paul, Herman (1880). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer. Payán Sotomayor, Pedro Manuel (1988). La pronunciación del español en Cádiz. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Penny, Ralph J. (2000). Variation and change in Spanish. New York: Cambridge University Press. Penny, Ralph J. (2002). A history of the Spanish language. 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pensado, Carmen Ruiz (1984). Cronología relativa del castellano. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Phillips, Betty S. (2015). ‘Lexical diffusion in historical phonology’, in Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons (eds), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 359–73. Pope, Mildred Katharine (1934). From Latin to Modern French with special consideration of Anglo-Norman: Phonology and morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Porto Dapena, José Álvaro (1977). El gallego hablado en la comarca ferrolana. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Posner, Rebecca (1996). The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Prince, Alan S. and Paul Smolensky (2004 [1993]). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Pustka, Elissa and Martin Vordermayer (2016). ‘French in Haute-Savoie (Rhône-Alpes): A speaker from Passy’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 192–201. Quesada Pachecho, Miguel Ángel (1996). ‘Los fonemas del español de Costa Rica: aproximación dialectológica’, Lexis 20: 535–62. Quesada Pacheco, Miguel Ángel and Luis Vargas Vargas (2010). ‘Rasgos fonéticos del español de Costa Rica’, in Miguel Ángel Quesada Pacheco (ed.), El español hablado en América Central. Nivel fonético. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 155–76. Quilis, Antonio (1963). Fonética y fonología del español. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Quilis, Antonio (1981). Fonética acústica de la lengua española. Madrid: Gredos. Quilis, Antonio (1993). Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas. Madrid: Gredos. Quilis, Antonio (1996). ‘La lengua española en Guinea Ecuatorial’, in Manuel Alvar (ed.), Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 381–8. Quilis, Antonio and María Vaquero (1973). ‘Realizaciones de la /č/ en el área metropolitana de San Juan de Puerto Rico’, Revista de Filología Española 56: 1–52. Ramírez Luengo, José Luis (2012). ‘Una aportación a la historia de la lengua española en Nicaragua: algunos datos sobre el siglo XVIII’, in María Teresa García-Godoy (ed.), El español del siglo XVIII: Cambios diacrónicos en el primer español moderno. Berne: Peter Lang, 295–312. Real Academia Española (2011). Nueva gramática de la lengua española: Fonética y fonología. Morfología. Sintaxis. Madrid: Espasa Libros. Recasens, Daniel (1984). ‘V-to-C coarticulation in Catalan VCV sequences: an articulatory and acoustical study’, Journal of Phonetics 12: 61–73. Recasens, Daniel (1990). ‘The articulatory characteristics of palatal consonants’, Journal of Phonetics 18: 267–80. Recasens, Daniel (1991). Fonètica descriptiva del català. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

226  Recasens, Daniel (2011). ‘Velar and dental stop consonant softening in Romance’, Diachronica 28: 186–224. Recasens, Daniel (2013). ‘On the articulatory classification of (alveolo)palatal consonants’, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43: 1–23. Recasens, Daniel (2014a). Coarticulation and sound change in Romance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Recasens, Daniel (2014b). ‘Acoustic characteristics of (alveolo)palatal stop consonants, and velar softening’, Journal of Phonetics 42: 37–51. Recasens, Daniel and Aina Espinosa (2006). ‘Articulatory, positional and contextual characteristics of palatal consonants: Evidence from Majorcan Catalan’, Journal of Phonetics 34: 295–318. Recasens, Daniel, Edda Farnetani, Jordi Fontdevila, and Maria Dolors Pallarès (1993). ‘An electropalatographic study of alveolar and palatal consonants in Catalan and Italian’, Language and Speech 36: 341–62. Reinke, Kristin and Luc Ostiguy (2016). Le français québécois d’aujourd’hui. Berlin: de Gruyter. Repetti, Lori (2016). ‘Palatalization’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 658–68. Repetti, Lori and Edward Tuttle (1987). ‘The evolution of Latin pl, bl, fl, and cl, gl in Western Romance’, Studi Mediolatini e Volgari 33: 53–115. Rini, Joel (1991). ‘Metathesis of yod and the palatalization of Latin medial /k’l/, /g’l/, /t’l/; /ks/, /ssj/, /sj; /kt/, /ult/ in Hispano- and Luso-Romance’, in Ray Harris-Northall and Thomas D. Cravens (eds), Linguistic Studies in Medieval Spanish. Madison, WI: The Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, 109–33. Rodríguez Cadena, Yolanda (2008). ‘Colombia’, in Palacios, Azucena (ed.), El español de América: Contactos lingüísticos en Hispanoamérica. Barcelona: Ariel, 135–60. Rohena-Madrazo, Marcos (2008). ‘Buenos Aires Spanish in real time: The advancement of palatal fricative devoicing’, Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 37, Rice University, 6–9 November. Rohena-Madrazo, Marcos (2011). Sociophonetic variation in the production and perception of obstruent voicing in Buenos Aires Spanish. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University. Rohena-Madrazo, Marcos (2013). ‘Variación y cambio de sonoridad de la fricativa postalveolar del español de Buenos Aires’, in Laura Colantoni and Celeste Rodríguez Louro (eds), Perspectivas teóricas y experimentales sobre el español de la Argentina. Madrid/ Frankfurt am Main, Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 37–57. Rohena-Madrazo, Marcos (2015). ‘Diagnosing the completion of a sound change: Phonetic and phonological evidence for /ʃ/ in Buenos Aires Spanish’, Language Variation and Change 27: 287–317. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1966). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 1: Fonetica. Torino: Einaudi. Rohlfs, Gerhard (1977). Nuovo dizionario dialettale della Calabria. Ravenna: Longo. Rojas, Elena (2000). ‘El español del Noroeste’, in María Beatriz Fontanella de Weinberg (ed), El español de la Argentina y sus variedades regionales. Buenos Aires: Edicial, 139–61. Rosales Solís, María Auxiliadora (2010). ‘El español de Nicaragua’, in Miguel Ángel Quesada Pacheco (ed.), El español hablado en América Central. Nivel fonético. Madrid/ Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, 137–54. Rosales Solís, María Auxiliadora (2013). ‘El yeísmo en Nicaragua’, in Rosario Gómez and Isabel Molina Martos (eds), Variación yeísta en el mundo hispánico. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana-Vervuert, 207–23. Rosenblat, Ángel (1967). ‘Contactos interlingüísticos en el mundo hispánico: el español y las lenguas indígenas de América’, in Norbert Polussen and Jaime Sánchez Romeralo (eds),

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



227

Actas del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Hispanistas. Alicante, Spain: Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes, 109–54. Rost, Assumpció Bagudanch (2011). Variación en los procesos de palatalización de yod segunda (o como la sincronía permite la explicación de la diacronía). Ph.D. Dissertation. Universitat de Girona. Ruffino, Giovanni (1997). ‘Sicily’, in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, 365–75. Ruíz Martínez, Ana María (2003). Estudio fonético del nordeste de la Comunidad de Madrid. Unversidad de Alcalá: Servicios de Publicaciones. Saciuk, Bohdan (1980). ‘Estudio comparativo de las realizaciones fonéticas de /y/ en dos dialectos del Caribe hispánico’, in Gary E. Scavnicky (ed.), Dialectología hispanoamericana: Estudios actuales. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 16–31. Salvi, Giampaolo (2016). ‘Ladin’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 154–68. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1983 [1916]). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Schmid, Stephan (2016). ‘Segmental phonology’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 471–83. Schmid, Stephan and Stefano Negrinelli (2015). ‘Palatal obstruents in two Rhaeto-Romance varieties: acoustic analysis and sound change in progress’, paper presented at the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Glasgow, UK. 10–14 August. Segura Llopes, Carles (2003). ‘Variaciò fonètica i estandardització al País Valencià’, Noves SL: Revista de sociolingüística 3, available at: (last accessed 19 February 2019). Shosted, Ryan and José Ignacio Hualde (2010). ‘The production and provenance of palatal nasals in Portuguese and Spanish’, in Sonia Colina, Antxon Olarrea, and Ana Carvalho (eds), Selected papers from the 39th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43–62. Shosted, Ryan, José Ignacio Hualde, and Daniel Scarpace (2012). ‘Palatal complexity revisited: An electropalatographic analysis of /ɲ/ in Brazilian Portuguese with comparison to Peninsular Spanish’, Language and Speech 55: 477–502. Smith, Caroline L. (1997). ‘The devoicing of /z/ in American English: Effects of local and prosodic context’, Journal of Phonetics 25: 471–500. Smith, John Charles (2016). ‘French and northern Gallo-Romance’, in Adam Ledgeway and Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford guide to the Romance languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 292–319. Solé, Maria-Josep and Daniel Recasens (eds) (2012). The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Stark, Louisa R. (1985). ‘History of Quichua in Santiago del Estero’, in Harriet M. Klein and Louisa R. Stark (eds), South American Indian Languages: Retrospect and Prospect. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 732–52. Steien, Guri Bordal, Akissi Béatrice Boutin, and Robert Beyom (2016). ‘French in the Central African Republic: A speaker from Bangui’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 236–46. Stein, Cícero Cecote (2011). ‘O percurso acústico-articulatório da alofonia da consoante lateral palatal’, Domínios de Lingu@gem 5: 1–28. Steriade, Donca (1995). ‘Underspecification and markedness’, in John A. Goldsmith (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 114–74. Steriade, Donca (2001). The Phonology of Perceptibility Effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ms.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

228  Straka, Georges (1965). Album Phonétique. Laval, Québec: Université Laval. Straka, Georges (1979). Les sons et les mots. Paris: C. Klincksieck. Tekavčić, Pavao (1980). Grammatica storica dell’italiano, I: Fonematica. Bologna: Il Mulino. Tennant, Jeff and François Poiré (2016). ‘French in Ontario: A speaker from Hearst’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 290–9. Teyssier, Paul (2014). História da língua portuguesa. São Paulo: Martins Fontes. Thun, Harald and Adolfo Elizaincín (eds) (2000). Atlas lingüístico diatópico y diastrático del Uruguay (ADDU). Kiel: Westensee Verlag. Torreblanca, Máximo (1988). ‘La palatalización de l- inicial latina en catalán y leonés’, in Homenaje a Alonso Zamora Vicente, I. Madrid: Editorial Castalia. Torreblanca, Máximo (1990). ‘La evolución /kl-, pl-, fl-/ > /ʎ/ en español.’ Revista de filología española 70: 317–27. Toscano Mateus, Humberto (1953). El español en el Ecuador. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Trumper, John (1997). ‘Calabria and southern Basilicata’, in Martin Maiden and Mair Parry (eds), The dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge, 355–64. Tuten, Donald N. (2003). Koineization in Medieval Spanish. 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 Congresso internazionale di linguistica e filologia romanza, vol. 3. Naples and Amsterdam: Macchiaroli and John Benjamins, 87–100. Tuttle, Edward F. (1986). ‘Alpine systems of Romance sibilants’, in Günter Holtus and Kurt Ringger (eds), Raetia antiqua et moderna. W. Theodor Elwert zum 80. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 315–30. Utgård, Katrine (2010). ‘El español de Guatemala’, in Miguel Ángel Quesada Pacheco (ed.), El español hablado en América Central. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/ Vervuert, 49–82. Vasiliu, Emanuel (1968). Fonologia istorică a dialectelor dacoromâne. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România. Vázquez Obrador, Jesús (2011). Sobre fonética histórica del aragonés. Uesca: Publicazions d’o Consello d’a Fabla Aragonesa Veny, Joan and Mar Massanell (2015). Dialectologia catalana: aproximació pràctica als parlars catalans. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Vidal de Battini, Berta Elena (1964). El español de la Argentina. Buenos Aires: Consejo Nacional de Educación. 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 dialectología hispánica: El español de América. Barcelona: Ariel Lingüística, 222–9. Walker, Douglas C. and Réjean Canac-Marquis (2016). ‘French in Alberta: A speaker from Rivière-la-Paix’, in Sylvain Detey, Jacques Durand, Bernard Laks, and Chantal Lyche (eds), Varieties of spoken French. 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 HILP 5: Linguistics in Potsdam, Postdam: University of Potsdam Press, 212–32.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi



229

Walker, Rachel (2004). ‘Vowel feature licensing at a distance: Evidence from Northern Spanish language varieties’, Proceedings of WCCFL 23: 787–800. Walker, Rachel (2005). ‘Weak triggers in vowel harmony’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 917–89. Walter, Henriette (1982). Enquête phonologique et variétés régionales du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Wang, William S.-Y. (1969). ‘Competing changes as a cause of residue’, Language 45: 9–25. Wang, William S.-Y. (1979). ‘Language change – a lexical perspective’, Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 353–71. Wanner, Dieter (2006). The power of analogy: An essay on historical linguistics. 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 role of phonological structure in sound change from 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 Sánchez Miret, and Kenneth J. Wireback (eds), Experimental phonetics and sound change. Munich: Lincom, 99–114. Wireback, Kenneth J. (2010b). ‘On the palatalization of /ŋn/ in Western Romance and Italo-Romance’, Romance Philology 64: 295–306. Wolf, Clara and Elena Jiménez (1979). ‘El ensordecimiento del yeísmo porteño’, in Ana María Barrenechea (ed.), Estudios lingüísticos y dialectológicos. Buenos Aires: Hachette, 115–45. Wright, Richard (2004). ‘A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness’, in Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade (eds), Phonetically based phonology. 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 historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 410–28. Zamora Vicente, Alonso (1967). Dialectología española. 2nd edn. Madrid: Gredos. Zampaulo, André (2013). ‘Sibilant dissimilation in the history of Spanish: An informationtheoretic approach’, in Chad Howe, Sarah E. Blackwell, and Margaret Lubbers Quesada (eds), Selected Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 172–8. Zampaulo, André (2014). ‘Los caminos diacrónicos de la lateral palatal en la historia del castellano: evidencia cronológica, comparativa y dialectal para una nueva propuesta’, Revista de la Lengua Española 8: 149–74. Zampaulo, André (2015). ‘The evolution of the (alveolo)palatal lateral consonant in Spanish and Portuguese’, in Dag T. T. Haug (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2013: Selected Papers from the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69–86. Zampaulo, André (2019). Os sons do português: Uma introdução prática à fonética e à pronúncia da língua portuguesa. London: Routledge.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

Index alveolo-palatal 2, 3, 42–4, 186 analogy 11, 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 1, 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 Francoprovençal 1, 63, 66, 68, 75, 148 French 1, 8, 13, 23, 35, 38, 50, 55, 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, 93n17, 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

232  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 51n4, 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

OXFORD STUDIES IN DIACHRONIC AND HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS General Editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge Advisory Editors Cynthia L. Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of 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  1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto 8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 10 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss 12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth 14 Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen 15 Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden 16 Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen 17 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe 18 Verb Movement and Clause Structure in Old Romanian Virginia Hill and Gabriela Alboiu 19 The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan 20 Grammaticalization and the Rise of Configurationality in Indo-Aryan Uta Reinöhl 21 The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic Cycles of Alignment Change Eleanor Coghill

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

22 Portuguese Relative Clauses in Synchrony and Diachrony Adriana Cardoso 23 Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax Edited by Eric Mathieu and Robert Truswell 24 The Development of Latin Clause Structure A Study of the Extended Verb Phrase Lieven Danckaert 25 Transitive Nouns and Adjectives Evidence from Early Indo-Aryan John J. Lowe 26 Quantitative Historical Linguistics A Corpus Framework Gard B. Jenset and Barbara McGillivray 27 Gender from Latin to Romance History, Geography, Typology Michele Loporcaro 28 Clause Structure and Word Order in the History of German Edited by Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi, and Helmut Weiß 29 Word Order Change Edited by Ana Maria Martins and Adriana Cardoso 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

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/6/2019, SPi

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 André Zampaulo   Dative External Possessors in Early English Cynthia L. Allen Redevelopment of Case Systems in Indo-Aryan Miriam Butt Classical Portuguese Grammar and History Charlotte Galves, Aroldo de Andrade, Christiane Namiuti, and Maria Clara Paixão de Sousa Morphological Borrowing Francesco Gardani Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti Syntactic Features and the Limits of Syntactic Change Edited by Jóhannes Gísli Jónsson and Thórhallur Eythórsson A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τος and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Reconstructing Pre-Islamic Arabic Dialects Alexander Magidow The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth Variation and Change in Gallo-Romance Grammar Edited by Sam Wolfe and Martin Maiden