Consonant Clusters and Sonority in the Germanic and Romance Varieties of Northern Italy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Catalogo dei prodotti della ricerca UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI VERONA DIPARTIMENTO DI CULTURE E CIVILTÀ SCUOLA DI DOTTORATO DI STUDI UMANISTICI DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN LINGUISTICA XXVIII CICLO CONSONANT CLUSTERS AND SONORITY IN THE GERMANIC AND ROMANCE VARIETIES OF NORTHERN ITALY SSD L-LIN/14 Coordinatore: Ch.ma Prof.ssa Birgit Alber Tutor: Ch.ma Prof.ssa Birgit Alber Dottoranda: Dott.ssa Marta Meneguzzo 1 CONTENTS Abstract 6 1. Introduction 7 1.1 Consonant clusters: a definition 9 1.2 Sonority 10 2. Previous literature on consonant clusters 15 3. Sources and methodology 17 3.1 Sources 17 3.2 Methodological approach 19 4. Classification of the dialects of German 21 4.1 Introduction 21 4.2 Relevant characteristics for the classification of the dialects of German 22 4.2.1 Changes affecting the consonantal system 22 4.2.2 Changes affecting the vowel system 24 4.3 General Bavarian dialect traits 26 4.3.1 Vowels 27 4.3.2 Consonants 28 4.4 South Bavarian: Tyrolean, Mòcheno, and Lusérn Cimbrian 29 4.4.1 Tyrolean 29 4.4.2 Mòcheno 35 4.4.3 Lusérn Cimbrian 42 5. Classification of the dialects of Italy 49 5.1 Introduction 49 5.2 Relevant changes from Latin vowel and consonantal systems 51 5.2.1 Changes affecting the vowel system 51 5.2.2. Changes affecting the consonantal system 53 5.3 General Northern Italian dialect traits 58 5.3.1 Vowels 58 5.3.2 Consonants 61 5.4 Venetan-Trentino, Lombardo-Trentino, and Gardenese Ladin 64 5.4.1 Venetan-Trentino 64 5.4.2 Lombardo-Trentino 68 5.4.3 Gardenese Ladin 72 6. Onsets in Germanic varieties 76 6.1 Introduction 76 6.2 Standard German 76 6.2.1 One-member onsets 76 6.2.2 Two-member onsets 78 2 6.2.3 Three-member onset clusters 85 6.3 Tyrolean dialects 86 6.3.1 One-member onsets 86 6.3.2 Two-member onsets 88 6.3.3 Three-member onset clusters 97 6.4 Mòcheno (Palai/Palù) 99 6.4.1 One-member onsets 99 6.4.2 Two-member onsets 102 6.4.3 Three-member onset clusters 109 6.5 Cimbrian (Lusérn/Luserna) 109 6.5.1 One-member onsets 110 6.5.2 Two-member onsets 112 6.5.3 Three-member onset clusters 118 6.6 Germanic onsets summarized 120 7. Onsets in Romance varieties 124 7.1 Introduction 124 7.2 Standard Italian 124 7.2.1 One-member onsets 124 7.2.2 Two-member onsets 126 7.2.3 Three-member onset clusters 134 7.3 Venetan-Trentino dialects 135 7.3.1 One-member onsets 136 7.3.2 Two-member onsets 138 7.3.3 Three-member onset clusters 146 7.4 Lombardo-Trentino dialects 147 7.4.1 One-member onsets 147 7.4.2 Two-member onsets 149 7.4.3 Three-member onset clusters 157 7.5 Gardenese Ladin 158 7.5.1 One-member onsets 158 7.5.2 Two-member onsets 161 7.5.3 Three-member onset clusters 169 7.6 Romance onsets summarized 171 8. Codas in Germanic varieties 174 8.1 Introduction 174 8.2 Standard German 174 8.2.1 One-member codas 174 8.2.2 Two-member codas 176 8.3 Tyrolean dialects 183 8.3.1 One-member codas 183 3 8.3.2 Two-member codas 186 8.4 Mòcheno (Palai) 192 8.4.1 One-member codas 193 8.4.2 Two-member codas 195 8.5 Cimbrian (Lusérn) 200 8.5.1 One-member codas 201 8.5.2 Two-member codas 203 8.6 Germanic codas summarized 211 9. Codas in Romance varieties 215 9.1 Introduction 215 9.2 Standard Italian 215 9.2.1 One-member codas 215 9.2.2 Two-member codas 218 9.3 Venetan-Trentino dialects 218 9.3.1 One-member codas 219 9.4 Lombardo-Trentino dialects 221 9.4.1 One-member codas 222 9.4.2 Two-member codas 224 9.5 Gardenese Ladin 231 9.5.1 One-member codas 232 9.5.2 Two-member codas 234 9.5.3 Three-member codas 239 9.6 Romance codas summarized 240 10. Two-member clusters: an Optimality Theory account 245 10.1 Introduction 245 10.2 Germanic and Romance SD synoptically: onset clusters and coda clusters 245 10.3 Markedness constraints and faithfulness constraints 247 10.4 OT-evaluation of onset clusters 252 10.4.1 Mori 252 10.4.2 Standard German, Standard Italian, Venetan-Trentino, Bleggio, Tret, 254 Gardenese Ladin 10.4.3 Mòcheno and Lusérn Cimbrian 256 10.4.4 Tyrolean 257 10.4.5 OT-evaluation of onset clusters summarized 259 10.5 OT-evaluation of coda clusters 260 10.5.1 Mori 260 10.5.2 Bleggio 262 10.5.3 Standard German, Tyrolean, Mòcheno, Lusérn Cimbrian, Tret, Gardenese Ladin 263 10.5.4 OT-evaluation of coda clusters summarized 265 10.6 OT-summary 266 4 11. Conclusions 268 References 275 Appendix 280 5 ABSTRACT This survey aims at describing and analysing onsets and codas – with special focus on consonant clusters – of selected Germanic and Romance varieties spoken in the language contact area of Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol. We will try to determine a) what dialects can reveal about syllable theory and the universality of the sonority scale and b) whether varieties which are in contact influence one another so as to allow for similar clusters. The corresponding standard varieties (Standard German and Standard Italian) will be taken as a reference in order to identify which similarities and, more importantly, which differences the dialects under investigation exhibit with respect to them. The collected data will reveal that, generally, the examined Germanic and Romance dialects conform to the sonority scale proposed for Standard German and Standard Italian, respectively – the only exception being found in the case of Tyrolean. It will also emerge that the investigated Germanic and Romance dialects behave differently with respect to the grammar of consonant clusters. Dialects turn out to be generally more permissive than their correspondent standard varieties since they allow for lower thresholds under which their clusters are considered as illicit in sonority-related terms. Furthermore, differences will be identified within the various Germanic and Romance dialects. Indeed, it will be shown that, on the one hand, the same grammar is shared by some varieties of the Germanic group and by some varieties of the Romance group. On the other hand, other varieties will prove to be more stringent and will display their own grammar. 6 1. INTRODUCTION The present survey focuses on syllable structure. In particular, we will concentrate on the onset and coda position of some Germanic and Romance varieties which are spoken in the administrative Italian region Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol: Tyrolean, Mòcheno, Cimbrian; Venetan-Trentino, Lombardo-Trentino, and Ladin. The study will be focused on consonant clusters. Languages differ in their phonotactics: some only allow for simple syllable margins; some others allow for both simple and complex syllable margins; and some others do not allow for any codas at all. With respect to this, we will see, for instance, that Standard Italian does not tolerate any word-final codas in comparison with Lombardo- Trentino dialects, which exhibit word-final codas of a certain complexity. The examined varieties will be discussed with regard to universal principles of sonority. The Sonority Sequencing Generalization (henceforth, SSG; Selkirk 1984a and seq.) ranks segments along a sonority hierarchy so that a rise in sonority must take place from the onset to the nucleus and decrease from the nucleus to the coda. However, although the SSG is generally observed cross-linguistically, languages seem to vary with respect to the restrictions on consonantal clustering. Furthermore, they require that the adjacent segments in a consonant cluster observe a minimum sonority distance (MSD; see Zec 2007, among others). In light of this, the MSD turns out to be more stringent than the SSG. What can dialects reveal about syllable theory and the universality of the sonority scale? Do varieties which are in contact influence one another so as to allow for similar clusters? To answer these questions, for each variety it will be determined what well-formed consonant sequences look like. In order to do this, Optimality Theory (Prince/Smolensky 2004 [1993]) will serve as our theoretical framework. It will be shown that constraints on sonority distance interact with faithfulness constraints, which require that the underlying form and the surface form be identical in their segment sequencing. Answering this question will enable us to determine how the varieties under investigation differ from one another with respect to sonority. Indeed, it will be shown that a given dialect can be more tolerant than another in allowing for lower sonority distances (SD) between the segments constituting its cluster inventory. Furthermore, this will prove that the dialects in question 7 present a slight difference in constraint-ranking, which gives rise to variation. From this perspective, a dialect can be more permissive than another if it allows for a lower threshold for sonority distances. It seems, therefore, that clusters passing the SSG might not pass the MSD, but clusters passing the MSD always pass the SSG (unless MSD= 0 or -x). Our survey is structured as follows. After providing a definition for consonant clusters, the key concept of sonority will be discussed. This will be done with the help of the SSG, requiring for clusters to rise from the onset to the nucleus and decrease from the nucleus to the coda.