Descriptive Linguistics Linguistique Descriptive

93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 153

DESCRIPTIVE LINGUISTICS LINGUISTIQUE DESCRIPTIVE

ON THE PHONOTACTICS OF FRENCH NASAL VOWELS

It is a commonplace to observe that synchronic phonologies are often a heterogeneous mixture of structures reflecting different historical processes at varying stages of completion, processes which may in fact conflict with or contradict one another. The observation that diachrony serves to provide explanations for otherwise obscure synchronic states of affairs is also frequent1. Modern Standard French provides a situation which allows us to illus- trate these two propositions in some detail. In what follows, I will exam- ine two word-level phonotactic constraints on French nasal vowels, showing first how these initially perplexing synchronic restrictions have a straightforward historical explanation. Then, I will discuss how the dynamic nature of the language, in particular how morphological productivity, phrasal phenomena and recent phonological innovations can account for a range of exceptions to these constraints in a systematic way, allowing, at least for a time, for the preservation of the initial constraints and of the general regularity of the system. The phonotactic constraints in question involve the exclusion of the Standard French nasal vowels /éˆ œˆ ©ˆ åˆ / from two contexts: they may not precede other vowels (oral or nasal), nor may they precede nasal consonants, as schematized in (1), where V = any nasal vowel and N = any of the nasal consonants /m n ñ∞/: (1) *VV *VN On the face of it, these constraints are unexpected, since there are no apparent language-specific or typological conditions which should pro- hibit them. For example, French has numerous instances of vocalic hiatus, even involving VV sequences, as seen in (2).

1 An earlier version of this paper was read at the 14th International Congress on Historical Linguistics (Vancouver, B.C., August, 1999). Parts of this work were sup- ported by a Research Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by a sabbatical fellowship from the University of Calgary; this assistance, as well as constructive comments from Pierre SWIGGERS and the journal's anonymous ref- erees, is gratefully acknowledged.

154 D. WALKER

(2) naïf /naif/ chahut /Òay/ aérien /ae™jéˆ/ chaos /kao/ aorte /a©™t/ béat /bea/ absentéisme /apsåˆ teism/ néo- /neo/ européen /ø™©peéˆ/ géant /®eåˆ/ panthéon /påˆte©ˆ/ prier /p™ie/ pliait /plié/ triangle /t™iåˆgl/ triomphe /t™iˆ©f/ boa /b©a/ cohérent /k©e™åˆ/ cohorte /k©©™t/ cohue /k©y/ coïncidence /k©éˆsidåˆs/ doué /due/ prouesse /p™ués/ cruel /k™yél/ cruauté /k™yote/ This list of forms showing vowels in hiatus could be expanded indefi- nitely through the operation of two additional productive processes in French: (i) addition of vowel-final prefixes such as afro-, anglo-, co- extra-, ré- to vowel-initial words (afro-asiatique, anglo-américain, cohabitation, extraordinaire, réexaminer), and (ii) the pronunciation of so-called read acronyms (SCULLEN 1997: 119-129) as in ANPE /aénpeø/, VO /veo/, CNRS /seéné™és/, BU /bey/, DESS /deœésés/, etc. All of these forms show that diverse word-internal sequences of vowels are common in French, with the exception of sequences involving a nasal vowel preceding another vowel2. The situation is comparable when a pre-consonantal context is consid- ered. Within words, nasal vowels may freely precede any of the French

2 One additional but marginal process adding to hiatus involves the “verlanization" of certain vowel-initial words: Anne > /nœa/, armée > /mea™/, étranger > /®eet™åˆ/, enculer > /kyleåˆ/, espagnol > /ñ©lpaés/, etc. (cf. PLÉNAT 1995: 105). A small but well-known set of exceptions to the *VV constraint is provided by words containing aspirate-h: enhardir /åâ™dir/, enharnacher /åâ™naÒe/, Panhard /påâ™/, etc. Such words are exceptional in a variety of other ways as well. 93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 155

PHONOTACTICS OF FRENCH NASAL VOWELS 155

consonants, with the exception of the nasals /m n ñ∞/: longue /l©ˆg/, rampe /™åˆp/ défunte /defœˆ t/, branle /b™åˆl/, ronge /™©ˆ®/, mince /méˆs/, genre /®åˆ™/, cinq /séˆk/, humble /œˆ bl/, etc., but never */åˆm/, */œˆ n/, */éˆñ/, */©ˆn/ and so on. Typologically and phonetically, however, the position preceding nasal consonants should be one where nasal vowels are favoured, not blocked. Finally, we may note that the adaptation of loan words conforms to both constraints, since loans normally exclude nasal vowels from both pre-vocalic and pre-nasal consonant positions. For example, São Paulo is normally /saopawlo/, not */sãopawlo/, weekend is /wikénd/, not */wikéˆnd/, mentor is /mént©™/ not */méˆnt©™/, and so on. Given the propensity of French for sequences of vowels and the con- genial environment provided by a following nasal consonant, why should these restrictions on nasal vowels occur3? An examination of the processes involved in the history of nasalization in French provides a clear and integrated explanation for each of the constraints. The answer resides in the complex interaction of the several historical phonological processes which combined to produce nasal vowels in French (and, in fact, a complex set of V - VN alternations). These processes include the nasalization of vowels preceding nasal consonants, lowering or backing of nasal vowels, loss of nasal consonants in coda position following nasalized vowels, and vowel denasalization. While we cannot hope to do justice to this rich and complex matter here4, some idea of how nasal vowels developed is crucial in understanding the current situation in SF5. Briefly, the evolution followed this general chronological path: (3) Historical processes (a) all vowels (and diphthongs) preceding nasal consonants are nasalized, with (according to a now somewhat contested tra-

3 The constraints do not operate, for example, in Midi French, where bon, pain and pente are [b©ˆ∞], [péˆ∞] and [påˆnt] respectively, nor in Haitian Creole, where we find a con- trast between pain [pe] and peine [pen], charme [Òam] and chambre [Òåˆm] (cf. POSNER 1997: 234). Further representative examples from the south of France would include dingue [déˆ∞g¢], danser [dåˆnse], attention [atåˆnsj©ˆ∞], enfin [anféˆ∞], bien [bjéˆ∞] and so on. Similar remarks can be made concerning other varieties (e.g., Walloon). The historical explanation offered here, in other words, bears only on those varieties which exclude nasal vowels from the contexts at issue. 4 Standard references for this topic include FOUCHÉ (1969), NYROP (1935), POPE (1934), RHEINFELDER (1968) and ROCHET (1976). Nasalization, both in the history of French and in general, has provided grist for many theoretical mills, particularly involving phonetically-based explanations. OHALA (1975) discusses the phonetic issues in detail, while HAJEK (1997) provides an excellent current discussion of the general theoretical questions involved. Distinguishing among any of the analytical options currently available would not affect the arguments made here. 5 See POPE (1997: 230-242, especially 241-242) for a convenient summary. 93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 156

156 D. WALKER

ditional view) the lower vowels nasalizing first and most strongly; (b) the resulting nasal vowels become lower or more back in articulation, again beginning with the lower vowels; (c) nasal consonants in coda position are deleted (along with many other coda consonants)6; (d) denasalization affects those nasal vowels where the following nasal consonant has not been deleted (i.e. where that consonant is found in onset position); If we consider typical Gallo-Romance or early Old French forms such as fin - fine or conte, first pronounced /fin/-/fin¢/, /k©nt¢/, the processes described above would have the following effects: (4) Historical derivations initial form /fin/ /fin¢/ /k©nt¢/ nasalization finfin¢ k©ˆnt¢ lowering7 féˆn -- -- loss of nasal consonant féˆ -- k©ˆt¢ denasalization -- fin¢ -- current form fæˆ fin(¢) k©ˆt(¢) It is the interaction of these processes which explains, in historical terms, the current restrictions on the distribution of nasal vowels (as well as the nature of the orthographic representation of these vowels in Modern French8). Recall that nasal vowels are normally found at the end

6 Prior to this deletion, French had moved from a word-based phonology to a phrase- based phonology, with loss of many phrase-internal word demarcation processes and the inauguration of resyllabification across word boundaries. 7 Lowering and backing also account for much of the variation in the basic vowel in many of the V - VN pairs. When nasal /éˆ/, /œˆ / and /åˆ/ correspond to oral /in/, /yn/ and /an/ respectively (fin - fine, un - une, an - année), the effects of these two processes on the nasal versus the oral vowels are evident. This situation illustrates clearly how synchronic alternations as well as restrictions on the distribution of segments arise through the interaction of historical phonological processes. 8 It is further interesting that SF orthography reflects these constraints only indirectly, the orthography being conservative in nature and more akin to the situation in the first line of (4). In order to interpret the orthography correctly, we must “apply” the processes in (4): a vowel followed by a nasal consonant at the end of words or before another consonant is nasal, and the nasal consonant is not pronounced; a vowel followed by a nasal consonant (or double nasal consonant) followed by a vowel is oral, and the nasal consonant is pronounced, as in bon /b©ˆ/, bonne /b©n/, bonté /b©ˆte/ and bonasse /b©nas/. There are, need- less to say, exceptions to these orthographic tendencies, themselves produced by further historical phenomena such as the deletion of schwa or the incorporation of loan or slang words, such as canneton /kant©ˆ/, not */kåˆt©ˆ/ (compare canton /kåˆt©ˆ/), hameçon /ams©ˆ/, not /åˆs©ˆ/, stencil /sténsil/, not /ståˆsil/; album /alb©m/, binse /bins/, clamser /klamse/, etc. Nonetheless, there are many regularities to be extracted from the structure of the French orthographic system, and these regularities often signal antecedent historical events. 93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 157

PHONOTACTICS OF FRENCH NASAL VOWELS 157

of words or before non-nasal consonants, but not before vowels or nasal consonants: VC, V#; VV, VN are perfectly regular and produced by these (or other) processes, while *VV, *VN are not. In order for VV to arise, the first vowel would have to nasalize and the nasal consonant delete, but we see in (3) and (4) that the nasal consonant does not delete when a vowel follows, because it would be syllabified with that following vowel out of the coda into a following onset position. (VNV requires denasalization of the first vowel, not nasal consonant deletion.) Secondly, in order for a VN sequence to arise, the nasal consonant would obviously need to remain, but we have seen that such consonants inevitably delete following nasal vowels, provided the vowels remain nasal. For denasalization to occur, we require the sequence VNV, i.e. V$NV. If we find V, therefore, we must have had VN$, with the N in coda position and required to delete. Hence VN is impossible9. We have here, then, a systematic historical explanation of two synchronic phonotactic constraints in Modern Standard French, an explanation provided by the interplay of a number of related historical phonological changes. We have also noted, however, that synchronic grammars are not nec- essarily homogeneous, and that they may contain sectors reflecting innovations in either expansion or regression. When we turn to violations of our word-level constraints on nasal vowels, we find at least four sources: (i) liaison, (ii) the prefixes en-/em- and in-/im-, (iii) a relatively recent and expanding process of nasal assimilation and (iv) the effects of verlan formations. These are exemplified by (i) en avril /åˆnav™il/, un enfant /œˆ nåˆfåˆ/; (ii) ennoblir /åˆn©bli™/, emmener /åˆm¢ne/10, innégotiable /éˆneg©sjabl/, immaîtrisable /éˆmet™izabl/; (iii) lendemain /låˆnméˆ/, sans demander /såˆnmåˆde/11; (iv) maison > zonmai /z©ˆme/, méchant > chanmé /Òåˆme/ and argent > gen-ar /®åˆa™/ respectively.

9 We may point out here two additional distributional constraints on nasal vowels which are also historically explicable: nasal vowels are absent in SF before /ñ/ and /j/. Historically, the palatal nasal arose in OF through various processes which required that the source of /ñ/ be followed by a vowel. But if that is the case, the following vowel removes the context needed for nasalization to occur. Hence, only oral vowels are found preceding /ñ/. As for the constraint blocking *Vj, once again /j/ can only arise historically through various diphthongization or palatalization processes in contexts which never involve a nasal consonant preceding those sources. The absence of such a consonant preceding /j/ precludes, as a result, any subsequent nasal vowel from that position. 10 These examples show en- /åˆ/ preceding nasal consonants, leading to a violation of */VN/. There are also a few instances of en- pronounced /VN/ preceding vowel-initial stems, leading to further violations: enamourer /åˆnamu™e/, enherber /åˆné™be/, enivrer /åˆniv™e/ with the sequence /åˆnV/ (compare panafricain /panaf™ikéˆ/ with the nasal-final prefix pan- /påˆ/). 11 Nasal assimilation is most favoured in a context where a voiced stop is both pre- ceded and followed by nasal segments. In these examples, the deletion of schwa brings a following nasal into contact with the stop. Other cases (illustrated below in (5)) show progressive assimilation to a single preceding nasal sound. 93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 158

158 D. WALKER

Strictly speaking, liaison does not provide a violation of the *VN constraint at the word level, inasmuch as it is a prototypically phrasal phe- nomenon, reflecting the switch from a word-oriented to a phrase-oriented phonology that took place in Old French times, reflected here in the resyllabification of word-final consonants to onset position in the following forms. The question remains, however, why denasalization in such sequences failed to occur generally12, and if this failure reflects the beginning stages of the weakening of the constraints in general. The second class of exceptions is furnished by prefixes ending in a nasal vowel: en-, bien-, non-, and others13. When such prefixes are added to vowel- initial stems, they remain nasalized, but a “liaison" consonant occurs, providing exceptions to the *VN constraint: enivrer /åˆniv™e/, bien- heureux /bjéˆnø™ø/, non-inscrit /n©ˆnéˆsk™i/, and so on. When added to consonant-initial stems, no additional consonant is inserted, but if the stem itself begins with a nasal, a similar violation is found: emma- gasiner /åˆmagazine/ (< magasin), non-moi /n©ˆmwa/, etc. Variation between V and VN occurs only with in-: inoffensif /in©fåˆsif/, intolérable /éˆt©le™abl/, innombrable /i(n)n©ˆb™abl/, immangeable /éˆmåˆ®abl/, with various forms showing irregularities, some of which (e.g., immangeable) violate *VN14. Nonetheless, I believe it is possible to view these violations as an “accidental" by-product of the productivity of the prefixes in question, tightly restricted by the morphological categories involved. When such prefixes are sporadically added to nasal-initial stems, they pose little threat to the perseverance of the general *VN constraint15. Innovations originating in less formal speech, on the other hand, may provide an indication that the constraint is weakening to a degree that will reduce it to relic status. We will consider two such sources of current change. Forms like those in (5), where we see a process of nasal assimilation affecting stops in nasal contexts16, provide clear evidence that certain informal styles no longer block VN sequences.

12 Denasalization did take place with certain morphemes, at least in certain expres- sions, although there are currently high levels of variation involving these forms as well: bon, ancien, certain, plein, prochain, bien, rien, etc. Its absence is perhaps an indication that the constraint holds with words but not across words. See also TRANEL (1981: 147- 156) for an explanation involving vowel quality and the relationships between allo- morphs. 13 TRANEL (1976) remains the fundamental reference for the study of these prefixes. 14 Although these forms may be phonologically irregular, TRANEL (1976: 346-350) discusses semantic and morphological factors (productivity, semantic transparency) which shed some light on the synchronic analysis. 15 ennui and related forms provide the only exceptions, since the historically derived status of these words in now opaque. 16 MALÉCOT (1976) and WALTER (1976: 407-410) provide relevant data and discussion. 93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 159

PHONOTACTICS OF FRENCH NASAL VOWELS 159

(5) lendemain /låˆnméˆ/< /låˆd¢méˆ/ vingt-deux /véˆndø/ < /véˆtdø/ subjonctif /syb®©ˆ∞tif/ < /syb®©ˆktif/ grande ville /g™åˆnvil/ < /g™åˆdvil/ langue populaire /låˆ∞p©pylé™/< /låˆgp©pylé™/ sans demander /såˆnmåˆde/ < /såˆd¢måˆde/ bande de voyous /båˆnd¢vwaju/ < /båˆdd¢vwaju/ longue marche /l©ˆ∞ma™Ò/< /l©ˆgma™Ò/ chambre de bonne /Òåˆmd¢b©n/ < /Òåˆb™¢d¢b©n/ on va prendre le métro /©ˆvap™åˆnl¢met™o/ < /©ˆvap™åˆd™¢l¢met™o/ une épingle de cravate /ynepéˆ∞d¢k™avat/ < /ynepéˆgl¢d¢k™avat/ en novembre /åˆn©våˆm/ < /åˆn©våˆb™¢/ Secondly, the form of slang known as verlan, a language game involving inversion of syllables (as well as various other phonological opera- tions) yields a few further examples17. The relevant items are repeated in (6). (6) maison > zonmai /z©ˆme/ méchant > chanmé /Òåˆme/ argent > gen-ar /®åˆa™/ Such forms potentially arise when a word ending in a nasal vowel and beginning with either a vowel or a nasal consonant undergoes “verlanization". Items of the first type will violate *VV; items of the second contradict *VN. Although attested forms are rare18, it is noteworthy that nei- ther denasalization or consonant epenthesis applies to the forms in (6), indicating that the *VV and *VN constraints are weakened or absent in this sociolinguistically limited context. We see, then, a core of French words which preserve, at the word level, constraints on the distribution of nasal vowels. These constraints are a clear reflection of the historical conditions under which nasal vowels arose in the history of French, and, despite their apparent idiosyn- cracy, are easily explicable in terms of the relevant historical processes. The constraints are being weakened, it would appear, by the possibility of violations at phrase level, by the productive but circumscribed use of morphemes ending in nasal vowels, and by two innovations, one assim-

17 Originally to the vernacular of the northern suburbs of Paris and used as a symbol of group membership by younger and marginalized speakers of North African immigrant communities, verlan has now become increasingly integrated into the linguistic main- stream, and gives a good indication of “le dynamisme” of contemporary phonological structure. See PLÉNAT (1995) for more detailed information. 18 It is not difficult to invent potential items showing the same effects: maman > manma /måˆma/, machin > chinma /Òéˆma/, enfant > fant-en /fåˆåˆ/, élan > lan-é /låˆe/, etc. 93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 160

160 D. WALKER

ilatory, one involving syllable inversion, arising in informal speech. French provides, then, a straightforward illustration of the potential for explaining synchronic states through the use of historical information, and a demonstration that any such synchronic state is likely to be a more or less orderly mixture of innovation and stability, a mixture which con- tains the seeds of its own eventual modification. This general situation, where the nasal constraints persist word-internally (albeit in a weakened form) but are diminished or absent in phrasal contexts, still provides evidence, pace DELATTRE (1940), for the word as a significant phonological unit in French. It also demonstrates one further way in which the apparent idiosyncracies of synchronic descriptions receive clarification when placed against their historical background.

REFERENCES

DELATTRE, Pierre. 1940. “Le mot est-il une entité phonétique en français?”. Le français moderne 8. 47-56. FOUCHÉ, Pierre. 1969. Phonétique historique du français. Volume II: Les voyelles. Volume III: Les consonnes. [2nd edition.] Paris: Klincksieck. HAJEK, John. 1997. Universals of Sound Change in Nasalization. Oxford: Black- well. MALÉCOT, André. 1972. “Progressive Nasal Assimilation in French”. Phonetica 26. 193-209. NYROP, Kristoffer. 1935. Grammaire historique de la langue française. Tome premier. Histoire générale de la langue française. Phonétique historique. [4th edition.] Copenhague: Gyldendal. OHALA, John. 1975. “Phonetic Explanations for Nasal Sound Patterns”. In: Charles FERGUSON – Larry HYMAN – John OHALA (eds.), Nasálfest. Papers from a Symposium on Nasals and Nasalization, 289-316. Stanford: Stanford University Language Universals Project. PLÉNAT, Marc. 1995. “Une approche prosodique de la morphologie du verlan”. In Jacques DURAND – Marie-Anne HINTZE (eds.), French Phonology. Morae, Syllables, Words (Lingua 95), 97-129. POPE, Mildred. 1934. From Latin to Modern French with Especial Consider- ation of Anglo-Norman. Manchester: Manchester University Press. POSNER, Rebecca. 1997. Linguistic Change in French. Oxford: Clarendon Press. RHEINFELDER, Hans. 1968. Altfranzösische Grammatik. 1. Teil: Lautlehre. Munich: Hueber. ROCHET, Bernard. 1976. The Formation and the Evolution of the French Nasal Vowels. Tübingen: Niemeyer. SCULLEN, Mary Ellen. 1997. French Prosodic Morphology: A Unified Account. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. 93345_Orbis41;05 14-09-2010 12:52 Pagina 161

PHONOTACTICS OF FRENCH NASAL VOWELS 161

TRANEL, Bernard. 1976. “A Generative Treatment of the Prefix in- of Modern French”. Language 52. 345-369. —, 1981. Concreteness in Generative Phonology. Evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press. WALTER, Henriette. 1976. La dynamique des phonèmes dans le lexique français contemporain. Paris: France Expansion.

University of Calgary. Douglas WALKER.