Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:08:39.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntactic bases for French liaison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Yves-Charles Morin  and
Jonathan D. Kaye
Yves-Charles Morin
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal and Université du Québec a Montréal
Jonathan D. Kaye
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal and Université du Québec a Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent transformational analyses of liaison in French have postulated in one form or another a simple general syntactic basis for this phenomenon (Schane, 1968; Selkirk, 1974; Klausenburger, 1978). This contrasts with the traditional approach in which all the syntactic contexts in which liaison is obligatory, impossible, or depends on stylistic factors are painstakingly listed (Fouché, 1959; Delattre, 1947, 1955, 1956). This may appear to be due to the fact that the traditional approach lacked an appropriate syntactic theory which would unify the apparently unmotivated series of contexts in which liaison capriciously wandered. Working within the framework of the Syntactic theory, Selkirk (1974) was able to discover a small set of simple rules to account for a wide array of previously recalcitrant data. This success has sometimes been taken as an argument for the superiority of the syntactic theory, cf. Jackendoff (1977).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 291 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ågren, J. (1973). Etudes sur quelques liaisons facultatives dans le français de conversation radiophonique. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Aub-Büscher, G. (1962). Le parler rural de Ranrupt. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Bally, Ch. (1950). Linguistique générale et linguistique francaise. 2nd ed. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Baxter, A. R. W. (1975). Some aspects of naturalness in phonological theory, with special reference to Old English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. (1963). Nouveaux regards sur la langue fran¸aise. Paris: Editions sociales.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1947). La liaison en français, tendances et classification. FR 21. 148–157. (Reprinted in Delattre, 1966.)Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1955). Les facteurs de la liaison facultative en français. FR 29. 42–49. (Reprinted in Delattre, 1966.)Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1956). La fréquence des liaisons facultatives en français. FR 30.48–54. (Reprinted in Delattre, 1966.)Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1966). Studies in French and comparative phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouché, P. (1959). Traité de prononciation francaise. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Gaatone, D. (1979). Liaison et structure syllabique en français. FM 47. 312–334.Google Scholar
Godiveau, R. (1978). 1000 difficultés courantes dufrançais parlé. Paris et Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G. (1938). Le systéme grammatical de la langue fran¸aise. Paris: Bibliothéque du français moderne.Google Scholar
d'Harcourt, M. & d'Harcourt, R. (1956). Chansons folkloriques fran¸aises au Canada. Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval; Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. (1978). Recoverability, abstractness, and phonotactic constraints. In Goyvaerts, D. (ed). Phonology in the 1980's. Ghent: Story-Scientia. 469–481.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. & Morin, Y.-Ch. (1978). Il n'y a pas de règles de troncation, voyons! In Dressier, W. & Meid, W. (eds), Proceedings of the Twelfth international congress of linguists. Innsbruck: lBS.788–792.Google Scholar
Kemp, W., Pupier, P. & Yaeger, M. (1980). A linguistic and social description of final consonant cluster simplification in Montréal French. In Shuy, R. W. & Shnukal, A. (eds), Language use and the uses of language. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 12–40.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1970). French prosodics and phonotactics. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1978). Liaison 1977: the case for epenthesis, Studies in French linguistics 1.2.1–20.Google Scholar
Léon, P. (1966 a). Apparition, maintien Ct chute du ‘e’ caduc. La Linguistique 2. 111–122.Google Scholar
Léon, P. (1966 b). La prononciation du français standard. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. & Metz, G. (1973). Progressive nasal assimilation in French. Phonetica 26, 93–125.Google Scholar
Martin, Ph. (1978). Question de phonosyntaxe et de phonosémantique en fran¸ais, LInv 2.93–125.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-Ch. (1974). Régles phonologiques á domaine indéterminé: chute du cheva en français, CLUQ 4. 69–88. Montréal: Presses de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-Ch. (1976). De ces: the lexicalization of a syntactic expression. LIn 7. 706–707.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-Ch. (1979 a). La morphophonologie des pronoms clitiques en français populaire. CLUQ 9. 1–34. Montréal: Presses de l'Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-Ch. (1979 b). More remarks on French clitic order. LAn 5. 293–312.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-Ch. (1979 c). Oü sont passes less finals de l'ancien fran¸ais? To appear in Sankoff, D. (ed.) New ways of analyzing variation.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-Ch. (1979 d). Chute du e muet dans le français régional de Saint-Etienne, Recherches linguistiques à Montréal 13. 91–97.Google Scholar
Pulgram, E. (1970). Syllable, word, nexus, cursus. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, S. (1968). French phonology and morphology. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1972). The phrase phonology of English and French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cambridge, Mass: MIT.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1974). French liaison and the convention, LIn 5. 573–590.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1980). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.)Google Scholar
Tousignant, C. (1978). La liaison consonantique en français montréalais. Unpublished M.A. Dissertation, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1981). Concreteness in generative phonology: evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Van, Ameringen A. (1978). La liaison en français. Unpublished MA. dissertation, Université du Québec, Montréal.Google Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. (1976). Traduction automatique et analyse des faits prosodiques. In Leon, P., Faure, G. & Rigault, M. (eds), Prosodic feature analysis/Analyse desfaits prosodiques. Paris, Montréal, Brussels: Didier. 130–152.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1977). On clitics. Mimeo. (Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.)Google Scholar