Final devoicing and vowel lengthening in the north of Italy: a representational approach

. . . . . .

Vowel length in Northern ItalyAnalysis of Friulian

Extensions and results

.

.

Final devoicing and vowel lengthening in the northof Italy

A representational approach

Pavel IosadUniversitetet i Tromsø/CASTL

[email protected]

Going Romance 24December 10th 2010

Universiteit Leiden / Academia Lugduno Batava

Pavel Iosad Final devoicing and vowel lengthening in Northern Italy 1/33

. . . . . .



Plan of talk

General context: vowel length in Northern Italy

Incomplete neutralization in Friulian final devoicingAnalysis of FriulianExtension to LombardConclusion


. . . . . .



Plan of talk

General context: vowel length in Northern ItalyIncomplete neutralization in Friulian final devoicing

Analysis of FriulianExtension to LombardConclusion


. . . . . .



Plan of talk

General context: vowel length in Northern ItalyIncomplete neutralization in Friulian final devoicingAnalysis of Friulian

Extension to LombardConclusion


. . . . . .



Plan of talk

General context: vowel length in Northern ItalyIncomplete neutralization in Friulian final devoicingAnalysis of FriulianExtension to Lombard

Conclusion


. . . . . .



Plan of talk

General context: vowel length in Northern ItalyIncomplete neutralization in Friulian final devoicingAnalysis of FriulianExtension to LombardConclusion


. . . . . .


Extensions and resultsOverviewBasic Friulian data

Outline

...1 Vowel length in Northern Italy

...2 Analysis of Friulian

...3 Extensions and results


. . . . . .



Setting the scene

Romance varieties in Northern Italy: generally Gallo-RomanceDistinctive vowel length

(1) Casale Corte Cerro (Western Lombard; Weber Wetzel 2002)a. (i) [faːl] ‘do it’

(ii) [fal] ‘mistake’(i) [puˈlit] ‘turkeys’(ii) [puˈliːt] ‘well (adv.)’

For a general overview, see Repetti (1992)


. . . . . .



Two types of long vowels I

Lexically long vowels, oen going back to compensatorylengthening due to cluster simplification

(2) Friuliana. [ˈneːre] ‘black (fem.)’b. [ˈvoːli] ‘eye’

Many cases collected by Videsott (2001)Or the origin may be in the bimoraic norm (Repetti 1992)


. . . . . .



Two types of long vowels II

Productive lengthening in (certain) oxytones

(3) Milanese (Prieto i Vives 2000; Sanga 1988)a. [føːɡ]/[føːk] ‘fire’

Diachronical disagreement: see Loporcaro (2007) for amplereferencesI tend to agree with Loporcaro (2007) that both types oflengthening have a single source, but this is irrelevant here:synchronic account only


. . . . . .



Friulian

Concentrating on Friulian here, specifically Central FriulianMany descriptions: Francescato (1966); Vanelli (1979); Baroni &Vanelli (2000); Miotti (2002); Finco (2007, 2009), to name but afewHas the second type of long vowels, and some varieties have thefirst one tooBasic idea:

ere is no neutralization in final devoicing, onlydelaryngealization of voiced obstruentsDelaryngealized obstruents fail to project a mora, so the bimoraicfoot has to be built over the vowelSimilar to how Prieto i Vives (2000) analyzes Milanese, except Ialso account for the laryngeal phonology


. . . . . .



Consonant inventory

Manner Labial Dental Alveolar Postalveolar Palatal Velar

Stop p b t d c ɟ k gFricative f v s z ʃ (ʒ)Nasal m n ɲ ŋAffricate ts dz tʃ dʒApproximant w jRhotic rLateral l

Like any old Romance inventory, except the contrast betweenpostalveolar affricates and palatal stops


. . . . . .



Vowel inventory

Front Central Back

Height Short Long Short Long Short Long

High i iː u uːMid-high e eː o oːMid-low ɛ ɛː ɔ ɔːLow a aː

e mid low vowels ([ɛ ɔ]) are rare, and disallowed in unstressedsyllablesAgain, any old Romance inventory plus vowel lengthActually, the long vowels are fairly diphthongized (Miotti 2002)and are in fact diphthongs in many dialects (Francescato 1966)


. . . . . .



Vowel lengthening I

ese data are from Baroni & Vanelli (2000); Finco (2007) is inbroad agreementUnstressed vowels are short; stressed vowels are normally short:

(4) a. [aˈmi] ‘friendb. [ˈmɛt] ‘(s)he puts’c. [canˈtade] ‘sung (fem.)’d. [ˈgust] ‘taste’e. [ˈmaŋ] ‘hand’f. [ˈbraʧ] ‘arm’


. . . . . .



Vowel lengthening II..

Stressed vowels can be long:

(5) a. [viːf] ‘alive’ (masc.)’ _C#b. [ˈspɔːrk] ‘dirty (masc.)’ _rc. [ˈneːri] ‘black’

Minimal pairs: final syllables before single consonants:

(6) a. (i) [ˈlaːt] ‘gone (masc.)’(ii) [ˈvaːl] ‘(it is) worth’

b. (i) [ˈlat] ‘milk’(ii) [ˈval] ‘valley’

Generalization: the vowel before an obstruent is lengthened if theobstruent is underlyingly voiced

(7) a. [ˈlade] ‘gone (fem.)’b. [laˈta] ‘to breastfeed’


. . . . . .



e theoretical challenge

A number of simple solutions are available in a rule-based theory,all relying on relinking a delinked moraHualde (1990): voiced consonants are moraic (unclear whetherunderlyingly or via weight-by-position), final devoicing sets themora afloat, lengthening is due to relinkingRepetti (1992): Late Latin vowels are present underlyingly,apocope creates a floating mora, a final stressed vowel captures itClassic type of counterbleeding opacity with overapplication ofvowel lengtheningeoretical goal:

Provide a parallel OT accountSolve representational issues


. . . . . .


Extensions and resultsIncomplete neutralizatione core analysis

Outline





. . . . . .



Missing pieces I

e missing piece in the puzzle is the actual laryngealneutralization of laryngeal contrastBaroni & Vanelli (2000) show quite conclusively that devoicedobstruents (though they only looked at stops) are phoneticallydifferent from true voiceless obstruents

Acoustic data do not show voicingAcoustic data show weaker bursts w. r. t. true voiceless stopsStatistically significant difference in vowel length w. r. t.word-internal stopsSignificant difference in vowel quality. Generally gradient andvery variable, but before voiceless stops the vowel inventory isbest described as [a ɔ ɛ ʊ ɪ], and before devoiced stops it is rather[ɑ o e u i]


. . . . . .



Missing pieces II

Significant difference in placement of F0 peak on the vowel:before devoiced stops, a HL tone; before voiceless stops, arelatively late H peakDevoiced stops significantly shorter than voiceless ones, about thesame duration as word-medial voiced stopsVowels before word-medial voiced stops are also lengthened,though by much less than before devoiced word-final stops:“half-long”

e length facts are broadly confirmed by Finco (2007)


. . . . . .



e pattern

e final phonetically voiceless obstruents are not the same aslexical voiceless obstruentsPhonetically: [ˈlat] vs. [ˈlaːd̥]Phonologically: I propose that final obstruents aredelaryngealized (Mascaró 1987) in the output of phonologyVoiceless stops are laryngeally specified, and this extra structureallows them to project a moraTernary contrast formalized via feature geometry, for reasons tobe explained below


. . . . . .



Representational assumptions

(8) ..×. ×. ×.

Lar

.

Lar

.

[stiff]/[voiceless]

.

Voiceless

.

Voiced

.

Devoiced

Broadly familiar (Mascaró 1987; Lombardi 1995; Avery 1996;Steriade 1997)But voiceless has most structure


. . . . . .



Analysis

Head foot must be bimoraicWeight-by-Position for laryngeally specified coda segments:WbP is an augmentation constraint

+ Laryngeally unspecified segments are not moraic by TETU

+ [F] in Friulian is [voiceless]:Markedness = structure.De Lacy (2006): whatever is preserved is more marked,neutralization is to less marked

Final devoicing: deletion of [Lar] but preservation of [vcl]


. . . . . .



OT preliminaries

M--W (Bye & de Lacy 2008): stressed syllables arebimoraicConstraints on weight, partly following Morén (2001)

*µ([seg]): (certain segment types) cannot be moraicM-µ: do not delete moraeD-µ: do not insert moraeML-µ([seg]): do not delete moraic associations (for certainsegment types)DL-µ([seg]): do not insert moraic associations (for certainsegment types)

I propose: W P[Lar]: coda segments with a Larnode should be moraic

Usually W P is not parametrized, but this isnecessary if we want to use it as a licensing constraintFor augmentation constraints in general, cf. Smith (2002)


. . . . . .



No lengthening in /at/

Final devoicing driven by *Lar/_]Wd (whatever...)Obstruent projects a moraFinal [vcl] is protected by M[vcl]

..µ. µ.

a

.

t

.

Ft

.

Lar

.

[vcl]


. . . . . .



No lengthening in /at/: OT analysis

(9) lat MW M[vcl] *Lar/_]Wd WP(Lar)

a. + laµtµ *

b. laːµµt * *!

c. laµdµ̥ *!

d. laːµµd̥ *!

e. laµdµ *! *

f. laːµµd *! * *

Loss of laryngeal contrasts impossible, so WbP decides


. . . . . .



Lengthening in /ad/

In the case of /ad/, final devoicing must happenFinal devoicing creates segments with no Lar node, so WP(Lar)is inactive, and there is no reason for VµCµ, hence lengthening

..µ. µ.

a

.

t

.

Ft

.

Lar

.

=


. . . . . .



Lengthening in /ad/: OT analysis

lad MW *µ[cons] *Lar/_]Wd M(Lar) WP(Lar)

a. laµd *! * *

b. laµdµ *! *

c. laːµµd *! *

d. laµdµ̥ *! *

e. + laːµµd̥ *

ere is no constraint that could force a mora to surface on theLar-less devoiced obstruente extra structure effectively licenses moraicity; high-ranking*µ[cons] (or *µ[obst]) is necessary anyway to preventgratuitous mora insertion


. . . . . .



Further empirical issues I

No lengthening in paroxytones: the head foot is bisyllabic, so noreason to coerce obstruent moraicity, violating *µNon-obstruents:

Vowel length contrast before [l]: best explained as distinctiveweight (Morén 2001): M-µ≫ *µ[lat]≫WP(lat)Vowels always short before [ŋ]: undominated WP[nas]Lengthening of vowels before [r] (if it is phonological): *µ[rhotic]

+ Feature descriptions are shorthands: importantly, they shouldrefer to actual pieces of structure, not to the sonority hierarchy

e affricate [dʒ] devoices, but the preceding vowel fails tolengthen:

(10) a. [vjaˈdʒa(ː)] ‘travel’b. [vjaʧ] ‘trip’ (*[vjaːʧ])


. . . . . .



Further empirical issues II

Could be a problem if, as oen assumed, the affricates are reallystops (e. g. Rubach 1994), since this behaviour is thusunexplainedCrucially, however, Friulian contrasts the postalveolar affricateswith true palatal stops, so [ʧ dʒ] must really be affricates: Iassume they have two root nodes at one level or anothere behaviour of [dʒ] is thus in line with the behaviour of otherclusters in FriulianAn even further twist: vowels can be lengthened before final [ʧ]from /dʒ/, but only in a morphological context

(11) a. [disˈtrudʒi] ‘destroy (inf.)’b. [al disˈtruːʧ] ‘destroys (3 sg.)’


. . . . . .



Further empirical issues III

e extra mora must be morphological, creating an otherwisebanned trimoraic syllableAsk me about:

Richness of the BaseClusters in generalPossible cyclic effects with the plural suffix [-s]


. . . . . .



Discussion..

Empirical advantages:Good fit with the empirical data

Explains incomplete neutralizationBaroni & Vanelli (2000) show that final voiceless obstruents arelonger: consistent with moraicity?Consistent with the behaviour of Italian borrowings

Explains the lack of productive lengthening in paroxytonesConceptual advantages:

No opacity: OT winsUnderlying weight introduced only where absolutely necessary:no apocope à la Repetti (1992) or now-you-see-it-now-you-don’tnon-surface weight à la Hualde (1990), surface phonology doesthe heavy liingShows how feature geometry reproduces markedness effects à lade Lacy (2006) (i. e. preservation of the marked, markednessreduction) without recourse to stipulative markedness hierarchies


. . . . . .



LombardWhy is there no passive voicing in Friulian?Conclusions

Outline





. . . . . .




Extension to Lombard

A similar process of productive oxytone lengthening is found inWestern Lombard

Milan (Sanga 1988; Prieto i Vives 2000, inter alia)Casale Corte Cerro (Weber Wetzel 2002)

Similar analysis of Milanese by Prieto i Vives (2000): lengtheningis due to a bimoraic requirement, the extra mora is attached tothe vowel due to HN (“if something has to be moraic, prefer avowel to a consonant”)Should rely on underlying moraicity to prevent lengtheningbefore voiceless consonants


. . . . . .




e importance of Lombard

An important difference between Lombard and Friulian is thelaryngeal phonologyIn Lombard, the devoiced obstruents are “variably” voiced:“In milanese, le consonanti finali mantengono la sonorità inmaniera variabile…o restano sonore, o passano a sorde, o hannouna realizzazione intermedia” (Sanga 1988)Hard to tell without actual phonetic data, but this suggests apassive voicing patternIf true, this is further corroboration: precisely the sort of thing tobe expected if phonological delaryngealization leads to phoneticunderspecification (Keating 1988)Further advantage over the account of Prieto i Vives (2000),where the variation remains unexplained


. . . . . .




No passive voicing in Friulian: why?

I suggest this is a matter of the interfacePassive voicing in Milanese is an enhancement strategy utilizingthe non-contrastive laryngeal dimension, specifically GlottalTension (Avery & Idsardi 2001)us, in Milanese the ⟨Lar,[F]⟩ segment is realized with GlottalWidth as the contrastive feature: for GW as voicelessness ratherthan aspiration, cf. Avery & Idsardi’s (2001) interpretation ofJapaneseIn Friulian, we can assume that GW is the primary realization ofthe contrast, so voicing is unavailable as an enhancement strategyis shows why we need to distinguish the more abstractsubstance-free phonology and the conventional, non-contrastiveimplementation aspects


. . . . . .




Conclusions

Unified analysis of final devoicing and vowel lengthening inFriulian and Western LombardTransparent analysis which explains the phonetic facts and doesnot rely excessively on lexical specificationAdvantages of substance-free phonology with feature geometry:

Markedness effects come for freeNo need for very specific phonetic detail in the phonology

Granmarcè!


Final devoicing and vowel lengthening in the north of Italy: a representational approach

Education

Transcript of Final devoicing and vowel lengthening in the north of Italy: a representational approach