THE PlACEMENT OF CATAlAN IN THE ROMANCE SCHEMA

by

Barbara A. Medema

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the College of Humanities in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton) Florida August) 1971 THE PLACEMENT OF CATALAN IN THE ROMANCE SCHEMA

by

Barbara A. Medema

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate's thesis advisor, Dr. Robert L. Trammell, Department of Languages and Linguistics, and has been approved by the members of her super­ visory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of the College of Humanities and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

artment of and Linguistics)

~'3/ 71

ii ABSTRACT

Author: Barbara A. Medema

Title: The Placement of Catalan in the Romance Schema

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Degree: Master of Arts

Year: 1971

The purpose of this thesis is to present an objective overview

of the controversy concerning the placement of Catalan among the West- ern . Catalan has been classified as Ibero-Romance)

Galla-Romance) and as a member of new groupings of the various Romance

languages) such as a distinct Pyrenean group (Gascon) Aragonese) Cata-

lan) and one large group of the Western Romance languages which ex- eludes French. A critical analysis of the theories of classification

shows the Ibero-Romance theory to be the soundest. The strongest evidence for the Ibero-Romance affiliation of Catalan was obtained from linguistic comparisons of Modern Catalan and Old Castilian or other and languages of the Peninsula) excluding Modern

Castilian because it was the most innovative.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... iii

List of Maps ...... • . . . . • ......

Key to Abbreviations and Symbols ...... vi

Introduction ...... • ...... 1

Chapter 1: From Latin to Catalan .....•...... 2

Chapter 2: The Galla-Romance Grouping of Catalan 21

Chapter 3: The Ibero-Romance Grouping of Catalan 38

Chapter 4: Other Classifications of Catalan ...... 46

Chapter 5: Conclusions ...... 57

Bibliography ...... • ...... 63

iv LIST OF MAPS

Map 1 Dialects and Sub-dialects of Catalan ...... 18

Map 2 The Aragonese-Catalan Linguistic Frontier ...... 34

v KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

Arab. = Arabic

Arag. Aragonese

Berb. = Berber

Cast. Castilian

Cat. = Catalan

Fr. = French

Gasc. = Gascon

Leon. Leonese

Mallor. = Mallorquin

Moz. = Mozarabic

Prov. = Proven~al

Ptg. = Portuguese

Roum. = Roumanian

Sp. = Spanish

Latin forms are indicated in capital letters.

[ ] Brackets: used for phonetic transcriptions.

I I Slashes: used for phonemic transcriptions.

> Used in etymology to mean becomes) develops into.

< Used in etymology to mean came from) developed from.

~·~ Used in etymology to signal a conjectural form.

Used in charts to mean repeat the form to the left.

vi -1-

INTRODUCTION

The prefatory chapter of this thesis presents a brief history of in the context of the development of the Western Romance area. This knowledge of the background of Catalan will enable the reader to understand why and how the controversy concerning its classification among the Western Romance languages arose .

The theories of the Gallo-Romance affiliation of Catalan are presented in the second chapter. The theories of the Ibero-Romance affiliation of Catalan and the theories classifying Catalan other­ wise, such as a lengua puente "language bridge," and as a member of a distinct Pyrenean group, follow in subsequent chapters. Each theory is critically discussed in an effort to determine its bearing on the classification of Catalan.

In c onclusion, the strongest evidence supports the Ibero-Ro­ mance classification of Catalan. Linguistic comparisons verify the sharing of many features among the Peninsular dialects and lan­ guages and establish a basis for the Ibero-Romance group. CHAPTER 1 FROM LATIN TO CATALAN -3-

The special character of each Peninsular language) i.e.) Portu- guese) Spanish) and Catalan) results from differences in the develop- ment of common Latin material. Through the natural evolution of Vul- gar Latin) or Proto-Romance 1 ) further influenced by extra-linguistic events) the individual Romance tongues emerged.

There is no real dividing line between Latin and its divergent

Romance idioms. Romance was the term used at the close of the 5th century to designate the then unrecorded speech of the people) i.e.) the popular Latin vernacular. 2 The following sub-groupings of the Ro- mance tongues within the former Roman Empire are distinguished: Gallo-

Romance (French) Proven~al)) Ibero-Romance (Spanish) Portuguese) Cata- lan) ) Italo-Romance (Italian) dialects of Sardinia)) Rhaeto-Romance

(principally Romansch) 3) and Balkan-Romance (principally Roumanian).

A wider sub-grouping is Western Romance (Gallo-Romance) Ibero-Romance) 4 and Eastern Romance (Italo-Romance) Rhaeto-Romance) Balkan-Romance).

Although Catalan is listed as Ibero-Romance above) its affilia- tion is debated by linguists. Many agree that Catalan can easily be

1w. D. Elcock) The Romance Languages (London) 1960)) p. 21. Vulgar Latin is the accepted term that means precisely the spoken Latin of the Roman Empire. Proto-Romance is the hypothetical form of spoken Latin derived by reconstructing all the essential characteris­ tics through a comparative study of the Romance languages together with their many dialects. 2 Ibid.) p. 212.

3Robert A. Hall) Jr.) Introductory Linguistics (New York) 1967)) p. 312. This linguist groups Rhaeto-Romance dialects as Galla-Romance.

4william J. Entwistle) The (London) 1962)) p. 53. A third grouping) Central Romance) may be added) to which Standard Italian) based on the Tuscan ) would belong. -4-

identified with Galla-Romance because of its apparent likeness to Pro-

ven~al. Others believe that the smooth transition from Catalan to

Spanish through intermediate dialects proves the Ibero-Romance affili- ation of Catalan. Still others regard Catalan as independent of both

Galla-Romance and Ibero-Romance, possibly belonging to a distinct

Pyrenean group.

It is necessary to look at the simultaneous development of Cata-

lan, Spanish, and Proven~al to establish any linguistic ties in favor of either grouping. The formation of the Western Romance languages is part of the cultural and political history of and the Ibe- rian Peninsula. The early colonizers, the substratic ethnic groups, and the periods of Romanization influenced the development of Romance in these areas. It will help in understanding the various theories of the affiliation of Catalan to briefly trace the history of Cata- lonia and of the area in general.

About 1000 B.C. the Phoenicians and the Greeks arrived in .

Phoenician traders established a post at Gadir, modern Cadiz, and spread out along the southern coast. According to one theory, the

Phoenicians gave the modern name "Spain" to the largest part of the

Peninsula. They called it Span, or , meaning hidden or remote 5 land. The Greeks settled mainly along the eastern coast of Spain.

The Phocaeans, the principal colonizers for the Greeks, had their chief outpost in Spain at Emporium, the present-day site of Castellon

5 charles E. Chapman, ~History of Spain (New York, 1958), p. 8. The name Spania was applied by the Romans in the plural, Hispaniae, to the whole Peninsula. -5-

de Ampurias, in the province of Gerona, Catalonia. They were confined by the Phoenicians and their Carthaginian successors to the upper north­ east coast. The other Greek base was at Marseilles, France.

The First Punic War began as an attempt by the Roman s t o gain con­ trol of Carthaginian-held Sicily. As a result of the war, Rome replaced

Carthage as the main power in Sicily in 242 B.C. Hamilcar of the great

Barca family of Carthage, wanting a new war with Rome, proposed a more complete occupation of Spain to gain more land. He entered Spain in

236 B.C., made vast conquests, and is traditionally recognized as having founded the city of , which bears his family name. The Barcas continued to rule part of Spain like kings. They declared war on Rome in 218 B.C. , which was the outbreak of the Second Punic War. The

Romans conquered a large part of Catalonia and , but were then defeated in 211 B.C. They were able to renew the war again and finally drove the Carthaginians out of the Peninsula in 206 B.C. Each of these three early groups helped prepare the way for the shaping of the Span­ ish civilization by the Romans, whose rule lasted until the Barbarian invasions in the 5th century A.D.

The Iberian Peninsula had a somewhat heterogeneous assemblage of substratic ethnic groups. Its spoken Latin absorbed a great vari­ ety of these pre-Roman elements. Early tribes of Proto-Indo-European­ speaking peoples which entered Spain from the 9th to the 6th centuries

B.C. include the Iberians, Celts, and Ligurians. The name Iberian was used by the Greek, Scylax, in the 6th century B.C. to designate the tribes of the vicinity of the River in Northeast -6-

Spain. 6 An Iberian culture developed in Eastern and Southern Spain while the Celtic hegemony in Central and Western Spain resulted in the development of a separate culture. The Celtic and Iberian elements later mingled) forming the Celtiberian culture.

It is the theory of Humboldt in particular that the present- 7 day is the last trace of the old Iberian language.

The Iberians extended their settlements along the Mediterranean coast of Spain and into France) reaching the city of Montpellier. This fact of extension is attested in inscriptions written in a Greek-type script which appears to be partly phonetic and partly syllabic. But in this same Basque the Ligurians) of unknown origin) were found. Their settlement extended from north of the Ebro River in

Northwest Spain to the mouth of the Arno River in Italy. Place names with roots ending in -~) -~) -osc) found in the Basque province of Northern Spain) are believed to be of Ligurian origin.

There is evidence of the influence of the Iberian and Celtic tongues on the formation of the Western Romance languages. The following Celtic loan-words entered present Western Romance by way of Vulgar Latin:

French Proven<5al Catalan Spanish Portuguese

BRA CAE braies bragas CAMISIA chemise camisa CARRUM char car carro

6 Ibid.) p. 7.

7Gerhard Rohlfs) Manual de filologia hisp&nica (Bogota) 1957)) pp. 28-29. -7-

French Provenc;;al Catalan Spanish Portuguese

CAMMINUS chemin cami camino caminho CAMBIARE changer cambiar AI.AUDA alouette, alauza alosa, alondra, calhandra8 (Old Fr.) aloe alova a loa (Old. Sp.)

The present Basque language is tentatively identified with the Ibe- rian tongue. They resembled each other in vocabulary and structure.

The following Basque-Iberian loan-words found in the Latin vocabulary of Spain are still present in the Peninsular languages: PALACRA >

Sp. palacra, palacrana, Cat. palacra; ARRUGIAE > Sp. arroyo, Ptg.

-. 9 arro~o.

We have no objective proof for the substratum theory because of the lack of substantial informa.tion on the speech of the Iberians and the Celts and on the uniformity of the different tribal dialects. Thus the substratic effect on the phonology of Vulgar Latin is questionable.

Two phonological innovations are perhaps of Celtic influence: the

French~ [ y] replacing Latin U, MUROS >Fr. murs [myr]; -it- [it], Cast.

-ch- [c], replacing Latin -CT-, LECTE >Fr. lait, Cat. llet, Cast. leche, . 10 P tg., Moz., L eon., Arag. 1 e~te. Basque or Iberian influence may have modified the Castilian pronunciation ofF-, namely the change of

F- to aspirated h-and then its loss: FABULARE > Sp. hablar [ablar] . 11

Antoine Meillet explains the substratum theory in such cases as

8 Elcock, p. 183. 9 Entwistle, p. 34. 10 w·11·~ ~am J. Entwist 1 e, A spects £_Languagef ( Lon d on, 1953) , p. 59 .

11Entwistle, The Spanish Language, p. 35. -8-

these as responsible for only beginning a change of which we see the 12 final outcome.

The Latin of Iberia appears rather archaic in comparison with that of . There are important factors which influenced its development in each area. The Romanization of the Peninsula began at the end of the Jrd century B.C. At this early date, the Penin- sular Latin received many words which were later discarded in the

Latin of Rome. When Caesar began the Romanization of Gaul in the 1st century B.C., these earlier forms could not, therefore, become part of the Latin of Gaul. For example: Sp. cueva, Cat., Ptg. , ~' come from the Old Latin COVA, not the Classical Latin CAVA, which became Fr. ~; Old Latin FORMOSUS > Sp. hermosa, Ptg. fermoso, 13 Cat. form6s, while Fr. beau comes from the Classical Latin BELLUS.

There are Old Latin grammatical constructions which disappeared in

Classical Latin but survived in the Peninsular languages: the rel- ative pronoun CUIUS-A-UM > Sp. cuyo, -~, Ptg. cujo, -~; the adverb

DEMAGIS and the verbs PRECONTARI and CAMPSARE became respectively,

12 La Methode comparative en linguistique historigue (Oslo, 1925), p. 80.

13Robert A. Hall, Jr., "The Reconstruction of Proto-Romance," Language, 26 (1950), 6-27. Hall does not agree with the customary uni­ linear representation of the development of the Romance languages, i.e. , Old Latin > Classical Latin > Vulgar (Imperial) Latin > the first sta­ ges of differentiation among the Romance dialects > the later Romance languages. In applying the comparative method, he derives a quite dif­ ferent picture of the relationship of these languages to each other. He equates Vulgar Latin which is usually established on the basis of Italo-, Gallo-, and Ibero-Romance with Proto-Italo-Western Romance. He pushes Proto-Romance back far enough to include the features for which Eastern and Southern Romance give evidence. He also generalizes the term Late Latin to apply indiscriminately to all material written in Latin since Classical times. -9-

Sp. demas, preguntar, cansar, Ptg. demais, perguntar, cansar, Cat. , 14 d emes, preguntar, cansar.

Gaul was the most active center of innovations in Romania. Thus

the Latin of Gaul shows linguistic neologisms which were never received

or simply ignored by the Peninsular Latin. Examples of new word forms

are: FABULARIO *FABELLARE > Sp. hablar, Ptg. falar, while the later 15 form *PARABOLARE > Fr. parler, Cat., Prov. parlar. Other examples

are: the Latin demonstratives ISTE, IPSE, ECCU(M) ILLE used to ex-

press a triple gradation of distance became Sp. este, ese, aquel, Ptg.

este, esse, aquele, Old Cat. (still in use in the dialec t of Valencia)

est, eix , aquell, whereas the French celui-ci, celui-la reduce the

Latin triple gradation to two terms; the Latin numeral suffix which

indicates tens, -AGINTA, became the Sp., Ptg. -enta which c onserves

the Latin accent, while the Fr. -ante, Cat., Prov. -anta come from the

later Latin -ANTA with a change in stress. 16

Within the Peninsula itself there were differences in the Latin

of the various . The incoming Romans probably did not always

bring the standard Latin of literary circles. The Latin of Catalonia may have been received through the legionaries who settled there.

They brought with them a somewhat altered, uneducated speech which

contrasted with the Latin of an urban aristocracy, acquired by the

14Antonio Badia Margarit, Gramatica hist6rica catalana (Barce­ lona, 1951), p. 33. 15 w. J. Entwistle, The Spanish Language, p. 57.

16Rafael Lapesa, Historia de la lengua espanola (Madrid, 1965) , pp. 66-68. -10-

Center and West of the Peninsula. Further) Catalonia was situated in an active trade zone) thus open to neologisms that may have never reached the interior of Spain and Portugal.

After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century) but be­ fore the period of Visigothic rule in the 6th century) the Peninsula was occupied by Germanic tribes. The Swabians settled in in the northwest of the Peninsula; the Alans settled in ) Valladolid) and Catalonia in the Northeast; and the settled in the South) giving their name to the province of Valencia. These Germanic ele­ ments persisted under the rule of the new Eastern Germanic element) the .

Other racial groups in the Peninsula during the Visigothic period were the indigenous peoples of varying grades of culture) the Western

Romans) and the Byzantine Romans. The Visigoths) already somewhat

Romanized before reaching Spain) did not interfere with the develop­ ment of Peninsular Romance. This period of Visigothic rule added to the linguistic unity by perpetuating the use of Latin. Visigoths of the northeastern part of the Peninsula were absorbed by the more highly cultured and more numerous Romanized peoples. Any Visigothic linguistic influence is purely lexical, either old Germanic words borrowed by outposts and traders of the Roman Empire) or else tech­ nical terms of war and chivalry which they had borrowed from the

French. The separation of the invading Visigoths and the already established Spanish Romans was evident in Barcelona) one of the Visi­ gothic capitals. The phrase godos y romanos embraces the two separate -11-

racial elements, and the barrio g6dico was a separate section of the city. It would seem that each group would preserve its linguistic differences, but the Visigoths simply became more and more Romanized.

The language of a later Visigothic capital, Toledo, contained traces of the present East and West languages, i.e., Catalan and

Galician, respectively; these phonological features contrast with the

Castilian pronunciation in the following pairs of words: 11 [l] vs.

Cast. i [x], FILIU > fillo, Cast. hijo; frequent diphthongizing before yod, OCULU > uello, Cast. ojo; conservation of Latin F, FACERE > fazer,

Cast. hacer; -it- [kt] vs. Cast. -ch- [c], MULTU > muito, Cast. mucho;

E- [z] vs. Cast. elimination of E-, JENUARIU > genairo, Cast. enero. 17

The Visigothic rule united Spain and Southern France for more than three and a half centuries. The Visigoths occupied all of the region between the and the during the 5th century with their power centered in . This political union reinforced the cultural ties between , the Roman capital of Southern Gaul, and , the Roman capital of Northeast Spain. The Visigoths lost Southern Gaul to the in a battle at Vouille in 501. They later retook , the southwest part of Gaul, and held it until 711. This region of France was further influenced by a Basque invasion at the end of the 6th century.

The Arab invasion of Spain began in 711, and at the end of three years, the had conquered the whole Peninsula. Their occupation also extended into part of Southern France which included Narbonne.

17R. Menendez Pidal, Origenes del espanol (Madrid, 1964), p. 503. -12-

When the Arabs occupied what is now the northern part of Catalonia) the indigenous population for the most part remained and continued to speak their own Romance. A few fled across the Pyrenees to settle.

The Arab linguistic influence was predominantly lexical. It was almost comparable in its impact to that of the Frankish influence on the language of Gaul. These lexical items also created a new stress pattern in Castilian. While the French always adopted foreign words to their own accentual system) the Mozarabs) the Spanish Christians living in Mos- lem territory) assimilated the Arabic words complete with their Arabic stress. A new range of paroxytones ending in a consonant was created) e.g. ) azucar. These contrasted with the paroxytones ending in a vowel in- herited from Vulgar Latin) e.g.) bueno) digo. The number of oxytones increased) e.g.) algod6n) azafran) and many of them had a vocalic ending) e.g.) albala) alfoli. Proparoxytones) which the Vulgar Latin of the West had eliminated) were again plentiful in the Peninsular languages: al- berchiga) alcandara) for example. 18

These Arabic lexical items) which occur in the Latin of Spain) are more plentiful in Castilian than Catalan . Instead) Catalan uses nouns of Latin origin. To the Cast. alfeizar) albacea of Arabic ori- gin correspond the Cat. doella < DOELA and marmessor < MANUMISSORE)

MANUMITTERE) respectively. 19

The Frankish kings reconquered Septimania from the Arabs

18 Elcock) p. 279.

19Francisco de B. Moll) Gramatica hist6rica catalana (Madrid) 1952)) p. 49. -13-

and penetrated further south into Catalonia. They liberated this re- gion from Arab rule in the 8th century. ) a king of the

Carolinian dynasty) extended the Frankish possessions to include the free regions between the Pyrenees and the Llobregat River. Here he established a province which was called the Marca Hispania. This province was first ruled by a number of independent counts) subject only to Frankish kings. This state of affairs did not last through the 9th century) and each count became a lord unto himself. The counts of Barcelona were recognized as some of the most noteworthy among them. 20

As the power of the monarchy in Northeast and Northern Central

Spain was weakening) feudalism was implanting itself. The counties of Catalonia acknowledged the ruler of Barcelona as overlord. Ramon

Berenguer I) the count from 1035-1076) held Barcelona) Gerona) and two other counties. He extended his frontiers in 1076 into the

County of ) and he laid the foundations for later Cata- lonian power in Southern France through marriage alliances with the princes of that region. By the end of his reign) he had united five

Catalonian counties and other territories under his rule. His ter- ritorial gains included almost as much land in Southern France as in

Spain. This Occitan-Catalan state deepened the cultural ties between 21 Northeast Spain and Southern France and drew Catalonia away from Spain.

20 Edouard Bourciez) Elements de linguistique romane (Paris) 1967)) pp. 56) 140. 21 Pierre Bee) La langue occitane (Paris) 1967)) p. 24. -14-

Leon became the capital of the Christian kingdom in the north- west of Spain early in the lOth century. The language within this kingdom became diversified) especially because of neologisms which entered Castile. The form carrera replaced carraira) carreira; 22 oro replaced~) ouro. Although Sancho the Great intervened in the wars of the Christian kingdoms and succeeded in uniting )

Aragon) Castile) Leon) and the Basque provinces of France and Spain under his authority) Galicia and the counties of Catalonia were still independent of Spanish rule. The various regions followed different traditions which led to further diversity. The Northwest followed the Visigothic tradition) while the central and eastern regions of the North) especially Navarre and Catalonia) were under constant

French influence.

In 1137) the Kingdom of was united with the County of

Barcelona by the marriage of Petronila) the daughter of Ramiro II of

Aragon) to the ) Ramon Berenguer IV. This prevented the union of Aragon and Castile for many centuries. The ambitious kings of the House of Aragon pursued their interests in Southern

France) reaching the province of Provence in 1112. But King Pedro II of the House of Aragon and Catalonia was defeated in his efforts to aid the Count of ) and his pursuits ended at the northern limits of .

Under James I) the Conqueror) Mallorca and later Minorca and

Ibiza became Catalan possessions and adopted the .

2 ~enendez Pidal) p. 504. -15-

The occupation of the country to the south up to Alicante in the province of Valencia set the southern boundary of Aragonese conquest.

The remainder of his reign was spent in pursuit of the lands to the north. He assisted the Proven~al noblemen whose continued futile resistance to the French monarchy resulted in a counterclaim by the

French to all territories of the . The treaty of

Corbeil (1258) set the northern Catalonian boundary and placed the

Southern French territories ofCerdagne, Conflent, and Roussillon under Catalonian rule. Thereafter, the and Cata­ lonia turned to the sea for territorial acquisitions. The empire at its greatest extent included Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, the Kingdom of Naples, and even the of Athens.

Catalonia and Southern France are seen developing quite closely united. The Pyrenees were in no way a barrier to communication.

During this formative period, the languages of both regions evolved in close contact with each other. When Proven~al became the literary language of the court, the naturally adopted this medium of expression for their own writing and literary works. This lasted un­ 23 til the end of the 13th century.

Under Sancho the Great of Navarre, Castile legally became a kingdom in 1035. The Castilian king, Ferdinand I (1035-1065), soon united all of Northwest Spain under his rule by overwhelming the king of Leon. His realm was divided at his death but became united again under Alfonso VI. Toledo, the former Moslem capital, was now

23 Elcock, p. 438. -16-

Alfonso's capital and served as the center for his reconquest which he pushed southward. Menendez Pidal draws a parallel between the 24 linguistic and the political changes of this era. Castile, now a great force in the Reconquest, spread its dialect southward, breaking the former Mozarab link between the linguistic regions to the East and West. This dialect, which originated in a small corner of , kept Spain relatively free of dialectal divisions in the Center and the South. Catalan to the East and Galician to the

West continued to develop separately. The Castilian dialect, because of the ascendancy of Castilian literature and culture, became rec­ ognized as standard Spanish.

At Barcelona in the lOth century, and even before, during the

Marca Hispanfu , the counts recognized Catalan as the official language of the region. The Catalonian culture was independent of those of

Proven~al and Castilian. Catalan was the language of this separate culture.

The change from Latin to Catalan is almost imperceptible because changes occur slowly and gradually with each generation; only the end product, here Modern Catalan, exhibits all the changes. The most radical changes occurred in Vulgar Latin in the 7th and 8th centuries, as evidenced in documents written in an artificial Latin that did not correspond to the everyday Latin. Beginning in the 9th century, words and whole sentences appeared in Catalan. At the end of the 12th century, when the Catalan poets were still composing in Proven~al, the

24 Menendez Pidal, p. 513. -17-

first completely Catalan literary text, les Homilies d'Organya,

appeared. From the 12th century forth, three great eras of Catalan

literature can be designated: the National Period, which lasted

until the end of the 15th century when Aragon and Castile united; the

Period of Decadence during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries; and 25 the Renaissance which began about 1833 and is still continuing today.

The present Catalan linguistic domain includes the region of

Catalonia (except for the Aran Valley where Gascon is spoken), the

old (except for some Castilian zones to the west) ,

the , the French regions of Roussillon, Conflent,

Vallespir, Capcir, and Cerdagne, which are located in the French

department of Pyrenees Orientales, the municipality of , the

city of in Sardinia, and a wide band of territory in the

eastern parts of the Spanish provinces of Huesca, Zaragoza, and Tervel.

Generally, six dialects of Catalan are recognized. They are further divided into an eastern and a western variety . (see map, P· 18)26 27 A - Eastern Catalan (Eastern dialects) Balearic Roussillonnais Catalan { Algueres (dialect of Northwest Sardinia) B - Western Catalan { Leridian (Western dialects) l Valencian

Certain phonological characteristics distinguish the eastern variety

25 Juan Corominas, Lo que s'ha de saber de la llengua catalana (Palma de Mallorca, 1954) , pp. 27-28.

26 ~ Bad1a Margarit, p. 68. 27 This dialect, spoken in Barcelona, is the closest form to literary Catalan. -18-

MAP 1 Dialec ts and

j l il ll '• :· : I ··:· ...... 'I I

fRONTUA LiNGUfS'TiCA i D. D j A L £ C TA L io. 0£ LOS' PRiNCIPAL££' SU BDIALf.CTOS fR.ONTU.A POLiTiCO- ADMiNiSTRATiVA Nums. 1 al 104 d11. l ALC. = ...· From: A. Badia Margarit, Gramatica hist6rica catalana, p. 69. -19-

from the western, especially the separate treatment of unaccented

~ ~ A and E from Latin. In the West, these two vowels are perceived as different vowels, but in the East, they are both pronounced as a neutral schwa / 8 /:28

Latin OrthograEh.Y Pronunciation of Pronunciation of West East

MANDARE manar [mana] [m8na] SENTIRE sentir [senti] [ s8nti]

The cause of this separation into an eastern and a western variety and subsequently other dialects may be a result of the Re- conquest. The settlers from the counties of Ribagorza, Pallars, and

Urgel spread the linguistic characteristics of the West; those from the counties of Gerona and Ausona continued the dialect of the East.

The Mozarab dialects of Valencia and the Balears were replaced by the western and eastern varieties of Catalan, respectively. Rous- sillon, ceded to France by the (1659), re- mained strongly Catalan, preserving many of the rather archaic forms of the medieval language. The Catalan of Alghero in Sardinia resulted 29 from the Aragonese sovereignty of the 14th century.

Catalan is considered the most unified of all the Romance languages. There are only slight differences in its spoken dialects.

But the single form of a Catalan word offered by a dictionary is not an exclusive spelling. Terra is the Catalan word for "earth," but

28 F. de B. Moll, p. 18.

29c oromlnas,. pp. 56-58. -20-

. 30 t h e f arms terre, terra a 1 so ex~st. 31 Catalan itself was once considered a dialect of Proven~al.

Although it was later regarded as an autonomous language, linguists

continued to emphasize the close linguistic relationship between

Catalan and Proven~al. Because of this Catalan-Proven~al identity ,

a controversy arose concerning the classification of Catalan as

either Ibero-Romance or Galla- Romance. This early controversy has

caused the inspection of the classification of all the Western Romance

languages in order to clarify the placement of Catalan within the

group. Each proposed theory of the classification of Catalan will

now be discussed.

30vicente Garcia de Diego, Manual de dialectologia espanola (Madrid, 1946) , p. 267. 31 Early linguists agree with Edouard Bourciez's description of Catalan, " ... tres voisin du prove~~al dont il [ le catalan] n'est que le prolongement geographique . .. " Elements, p. 288. CHAPTER 2 THE GALLO-ROMANCE CLASSIFICATION OF CATALAN -22-

Catalan is classified as a Gallo-Romance language by W. Meyer-

Lubke in his work, Das Katalanische, a comparative linguistic study 32 of Castilian, Catalan, and Proven~al. He concludes that Catalan is

Gallo-Romance because of its phonetic similarities to Proven~al.

Meyer-Lubke advances the following two important points of phonological correspondence between Catalan and Proven~al in support of the Gallo-

~ ~ Romance grouping of Catalan: (1) the stressed Latin vowels E, 0 are not diphthongized: HOSTIS > Cat., Prov. oste [6ste], Cast. huesped

[wesped] , TERRA> Cat., Prov. terra [tere], Cast. tierra [ tjerra];

(2) Catalan has a predominantly iambic rhythm (very characteristic of

Gallo-Romance) resulting from the treatment of the non-stressed final

Latin vowels -0, -E: Catalan drops the final unstressed -0 (< -U) as in esparrec < ASPARAGU, canem < CANNABU, and the final unstressed -E as in llet < LECTE, while Castilian conserves the final unstressed -0,

-E as in esparrago, canamo, leche.

In order to refute the above as evidence for the Gallo-Romance grouping of Catalan, Amado Alonso substitutes Portuguese for Catalan:

(1) HOSTIS > Ptg. h6spede, TERRA > Ptg. terra; (2) Portuguese has a 33 predominantly iambic rhythm. Further phonological features which

Meyer-Lubke uses to distinguish Castilian from Catalan are shown by

Alonso to separate Castilian from Portuguese also. For example, the change ofF- to£-, FABA >Cast . haba [ata], Cat., Ptg. fava [fava];

32 Heidelberg, 1925. 33 Estudios linguisticos: temas espanoles (Madrid, 1961), p. 42. -23-

the distinct development of -L- depending on the point of articulation

of the following vowel, PALEA > Cast. ~ [paxa], Cat. palla [pala],

Ptg. palha [ paya]; and the different reflexes of the initial clusters,

consonant + L. If Meyer-LUbke groups Catalan apart from Ibero­

Romance on these points, he is admitting a non-Ibero-Romance grouping

for Portuguese also. Thus he would be left with no Ibero-Romance

group.

Menendez Pidal agrees with this identity of Portuguese and

Catalan features and explains it as a result of the influence of the

Mozarab dialects. 34 Many of the linguistic changes that Catalan shares with Proven~al, but not with Castilian were spread by the Mozarabs

to the West of the Peninsula. For example: the diphthongization of

Latin 6, E before yod, FOLIA> Cat. fulla, Prov. folha, fuelha, Ptg.

folha, Cast. hoja, OCTO> Cat. vuit, Prov. uech, Ptg. oito, Cast. ocho. Thus these features are not unique to Catalan but are also

shared by Portuguese.

Juan Corominas states that Catalan and Portuguese are phoneti­ cally opposed to Castilian in the following ways: the light vowel quality of final -~ [ 8]; the distinction between open and closed e

[ e ,e], open and closed o [ 0 ,o]; the labiodental pronunciation of v

[ v] ; and the dark quality of 1.35

Meyer-LUbke's choice of Castilian as representative of Ibero­

Romance and of Proven~al as representative of Galla-Romance unbalances

34Menendez Pidal, Origenes, p. 496.

35corominas, p. 18. -24-

his evidence in favor of the Gallo-Romance grouping of Catalan. He

chose Proven~al) which is the closest Gallo-Romance language geo-

graphically) but he omitted Navarro-Aragonese) the closest Ibero-

Romance dialect. Thus features that the Navarro-Aragonese dialect

shares with Catalan) but not with Castilian) such as the diphthongi-

~ ~ zation of E) 0 before yod) are not invoked. In the same way) the

features of the Northern French dialects which are also character-

istic of Castilian) but not of Catalan and Proven~al) are ignored

by Meyer-Lubke. For example) the conditioned diphthongization of

~ E) 0) i.e.) everywhere except before yod) PEDE > Fr. pied) Cast. pie)

Cat. peu) Prov. ~; MOLA >Fr. meule) Cast. muela) Cat.) Prov. mola.

It follows that the treatment of these short Latin vowels is not a

criterion for differentiating Gallo- and Ibero-Romance.

Alonso criticizes Meyer-Lubke's work as being inconsistent in 36 the four following ways: (1) Meyer-Lubke says that if a Latin

sound is changed in exactly the same way by two languages) then these

two languages demonstrate linguistic interdependence. He states that

the Catalan and Castilian u < U is not evidence of linguistic inter- dependence because the ~ is only a conservation of the Latin sound

(par. 143) 37 Meyer-Lubke sees linguistic interdependence between

Proven~al and Catalan because they both conserve Latin OJ E (par. 1)

(2) Meyer-Lubke states that a single shared form is not sufficient

36 Alonso) pp. 15-37.

37These paragraph notes refer to the divisions of Meyer-Lubke's work. - 25-

proof for establishing a close relationship between two languages.

But he affirms the relationship of Catalan to Proven~al with one

example of the evolution of the Latin consonant cluster SC-, SCISARE >

Cat. escisar, Prov. escirpa, Cast. sisar (par. 14); (3) Meyer-Llibke

compares Catalan and Castilian forms only, ignoring the other Ibero-

Romance dialects and languages. To include Catalan in the Gallo-

Romance group, however, he shows the similarities of Catalan and

any dialectal form of Proven~al; (4) Meyer-Llibke shows that Catalan

and Castilian share the reductions MB > ~' AU> Q, AE > ~ (pars. 39,

1431 But since these sound changes do not reach all the Peninsular

linguistic domains, they do not serve as a basis for the Ibero-Romance

classification of Catalan. On the other hand, Meyer-LUbke states that

the Catalan-Proven~al divergence based on the pronunciations [u] -

[y] < U is not valid because the [y] pronunciation does not reach all

the Proven~al domain (par. 3). Alonso's criticisms illustrate how

Meyer-Llibke adjusted the facts to fit his desired conclusion.

Walther von Wartburg, in a criticism of Meyer-Llibke's work,

says that morphology should be considered more as a grouping cri­

terion.38 At this level Catalan and Castilian are more closely re-

lated than Catalan and Proven~al. The two-case system of Vulgar

Latin so characteristic of Galla-Romance survived in and Old Proven~al, e.g., murs, ~' ~' murs; in Ibero-Romance only the Latin accusative remained, e.g., Cat. mur, murs, Cast. muro,

38 Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, XLVIII (1928), pp. 157-161. -26-

muros. Also the inflec tional endings retained by Old Proven~al,

illui, illae, illorum < ILLUM, are missing in Catalan llur, llurs,

Cast. ~' sus.

Me y er-Lubke seems to have had a preconceived notion of a great

distinction between Catalan and Castilian, while recognizing the many

similarities between Catalan and Proven~al. In fact, in an earlier work, he referred to Catalan as a dialect of Proven~al: "Ce dernier

[ le Catalan] parler, qui n'est qu'un dialecte proven~al transporte e . , ,39 en Espagne au VIII Slec 1 e ... Because of this prior idea, h is method is, many times, unscientific and subjective.

This idea that Catalan was simply a dialect of Proven~al which

spread to Catalonia has no historical basis. During the Carolinian

rule, the native population of Catalonia retained their social au-

tonomy . This domination was only a military one and did not result

in a Frankish colonization of the Catalonian region.

Some linguists question the subordination of Catalan to Proven-

~ al because of the lack of any linguistic evidence. Garcia de Diego offers doc umentary evidence of the difference between Catalan and

Proven~a1. 40 In a document from 839 A.D., l'Acte de Consagrac i6 de la Seu d'Urgell, the phonetic and morphological systems of Pro v en ~ al and Catalan are quite clearly distinguished. This document was writ- ten before the time of any literary influence of Proven~al on Catalan.

Alonso sees no logical basis for referring to Catalan as a

39 crammaire des langues romanes (Paris, 1890), p. 14.

40 c. de Diego, Manual, p. 534. -27-

Galla-Romance language since Proven~al resembles Catalan in exactly

the same way that Catalan resembles Proven~a1. 41 Proven~al has

simply been considered the more important language for the following

reasons: early was greatly influenced by the

Proven~al troubador poetry; Proven~al had been of interest to linguists

for many years before they turned to the languages of the Peninsula;

the territory where Provencal is spoken is of greater political im­

portance to than the Catalan domain is. 42 When the linguists

approached the problem of a regrouping of the Western Romance lan­

guages) they immediately questioned the classification of Catalan as

Ibero-Romance rather than that of Proven~al as Galla-Romance.

Meyer-LUbke's historical evidence for the Galla-Romance grouping

of Catalan is also viewed with some reserve by linguists. He states

that the division of Catalan and Spanish goes back to 206 B.C.) the

time of the original Roman settlement (par. 154~ The Latin dialect

in the North of the Peninsula) modern day Catalonia) was that of an uneducated) rural class similar to Galia Narbonnese. The rest of the

Peninsula had an urban culture and spoke a rather conservative Latin dialect. This dissimilarity between the two regional Latin dialects was increased by later Germanic tribal influences in their respective settlements) i.e.) the Swabian empire in the Northwest (Galicia)) the Vandal empire in the South ()) and the later Visigothic empire with its first capital at Toledo. The effect of the separate

41 Alonso) p. 87.

42Ibid. -28-

development of these settlements could have been overcome by a

unifying ecclesiastical force. Yet the focal point of Christianiza-

tion in 1 A.D. was in the South at Baetica; Christianization did

not reach Catalonia until the 4th century A.D.

Garcia de Diego remarks that Meyer-LUbke failed to note that

the unique linguistic features of the Peninsular regions go back to

possibly 500 B.C. when the northern boundary of Catalan was estab­

lished.43 He shows the present Catalan-Proven~al linguistic frontier

to be a former ethnic frontier of pre-Roman times. The Romans recog- nized this frontier at the time of Romanization, and it has been con-

served until today by the diocese of of Southeast France. The western linguistic boundary was not set until the 4th century A.D.; the repopulation of this region during the Reconquest determined the

Catalan-Aragonese linguistic frontier.

Another theory of the culturation of the Peninsula which pro- foundly influenced linguistic development was asserted by A. Griera, . . 44 a Cata 1 an 1~ngu~st. One wave of migration coming from Southern

Italy through North affected the formation of the linguistic areas of Spanish and Portuguese; the other coming from Northern Italy through Southern Gaul helped to create the Catalan language. These waves of migration, which brought two different cultures, began in the prehistoric era and lasted until the 8th century when the Arab

43 G. de Diego, p. 34. 44 "Afro-romanic o ibero-romanic?" Boletin de dialectologia espanola, Vol. 10 (1922), 34-53. -29-

rule began; they were most influential during the time of the Roman

occupation. They determined the formation of the two linguistic

nuclei -- one in the East, Tarragonensis, and one in the South,

Baetica.

Griera uses lexical evidence of these two waves of migration as

his basis for grouping Spanish, Portuguese, Southern Italian dialects

and Roumanian as Afro-Romance, and Catalan, Proven~al, French, and

Rhaeto-Romance dialects as Galla-Romance. He thus proposes a southern

and a northern division. The following lexical items were chosen by

Griera to illustrate the influence of this African wave on Spanish: 45

(1) CICERE >Cat. ciur6, Berb. akiker, Sp. , Ptg. chicharo. (2) RUBIA> Cat. arrel ~ ~ tenyir, Berb. tarubia, Sp. roya, parasit de cereals i plantes, Roum. roiba. (3) AGARICUM or AGARICELLUM > Sp. garzo, Berb. arsel. (4) LILIUM >Cat. lliri, Basq. lili, Roum. lilice, Cast. lirio. (5) COSSUS > Cat. insect que es menja ~ grans, Berb. akuz, takuz, Sp. gusano. (6) MAGULUM > Berb. ~' Sp. mallar. (7) CUBITALE >Cat. colze, Sp. cobdal, codal, Berb. qobtal. (8) COLUMELLUS > Cat. ullal, Sp. colmillo, Berb. ticulmut. (9) MAGALIA> Berb. navala, Arab. nuvala. (10) CASED> Cat. formatge, Sp. queso, Berb. agisi. (11) NOVIA> Cat. nuvia, Berb. tenunbia, Sp. novia (12) ORCU >Cat. infern, Berb. ogur, Sp. huergo, huerco, huero.

Alonso, in a criticism of Griera's work, states that these words are more indicative of a Spanish influence on North Africa than the

reverse, as Griera asserts. The only word of this list that cannot be identified in a Catalan or a Galla-Romance form is the Spanish colmillo. Thus Griera does not succeed in proving a distinct African

influence on Spanish and Portuguese in order to separate Catalan

45 "Afro-romanic o ibero-rom~nic?" pp. 38-39. -30-

from them. 46

Griera continues with a list of forty-six words of Latin origin

whose distribution supposedly established the two groups of the Ro-

mance family. Alonso shows that forty-five of these examples exist

in Catalan or some Galla-Romance idiom. The one example, FOEDUS,

which remains is found only in Spanish, Portuguese, and the language

of Corsica, so it cannot be used as evidence for Griera's proposal of 47 Afro-Romance.

According to Alonso, Griera's method is unscientific for the

following reasons: 48 (1) Griera does not take into account the dif-

ferent phonetic forms derived from a single Latin form when he is

trying to demonstrate a relationship between two languages, e.g.,

COLUMELLUS > Sp. colmillo, Berb. ticulmut. But when he is trying to

show that two languages are not related, the different phonetic forms

from a single base are his distinguishing factors, e.g., CICERE >

Sp., Ptg. chicharo, Cat. cigr6, ciur6. (2) He pays no attention

to the differences in meaning of the derivatives of a single Latin

form when relating two languages, e.g., NATUS > Sp. nadie "no one,"

Roum. nat "boy." But the semantic difference is the separating factor many times between Catalan and Spanish derivatives from a single form,

e.g., FICUS > Sp. higo "fig," Cat. figuero "fig tree." Like Meyer-

LUbke, Griera adjusts his linguistic evidence to fit his preconceived

46 Alonso, P· so. 47 Ibid., pp. 52-56. 48 rbid., PP· 66-68. -31-

notion of an Afro-Romance and a Galla-Romance.

Alonso further proves that Griera's theory is chronologically unsound. 49 The intense Romanization of Catalonia and the Ebro Valley began in the third century B.C., a century before that of Southern

Gaul, and a century and a half before the less intense Romanization of Gaul by Caesar. The south Iberian border region and Andalucia were strongly Romanized by Latin colonies established there in the third century B.C., two hundred years before the Roman conquest of

Tangiers and Mauritania.

Proof of the southern wave of Romanization reaching Northeast

Spain, i.e., Catalonia and Aragon, is found in place names. Huesca

(OSCA) , a c ity located in Aragon, suggests the Oscans of Southern

Italy . Linguistic evidence from this same region include the reduc­ tion of -MB- to -~-, PALUMBA > Arag. paloma, COLUMBA > Cat. coloma, and the reduction of -ND- to -~-, UNDA > Arag., Cat. ona. 50

Harri Meier modifies Griera's theory by saying that we do have proof of two centers of Romanization in the Peninsula, i.e., Baetica in the South and Tarraconensis in the North. Instead of a separate

Romanization of each area, though, the two waves of migration met in the Castilian region. This region evidences some of the changes in pronunciation such as -MB- to -~-, PALUMBA >Cast. paloma, while other changes, such as -ND- to -~-, UNDA > onda, do not take place in Castilian. Portuguese is more conservative, retaining -U, AE, AU ,

49Alonso, pp. 86-87.

SOEntwistle, The Spanish Language, pp. 64, 74-75 . -32-

MB, as opposed to Castile and the more northeasternly parts of Spain, where AE > ~' AU > 2_, MB > m. 51

Although Griera agrees with Meyer-Lubke in his grouping of

Catalan as Gallo-Romance, he, too, criticizes Meyer-Lubke's method of comparison for the following reasons: 52 (1) Meyer-Lubke does not con- sistently use one dialect of Proven~al, Spanish, or Catalan. He uses examples of Catalan on the Aragonese border in some comparisons, and the Mallorquian dialect in others, e.g., Mallor. sangon6s (par. 11);

(2) Meyer-Lubke compares Old Castilian with Modern Catalan, e.g. ,

Old Cast. doze, Cat. dotze (par. 9); (3) the existence of some of

Meyer-Lubke's lexical items is questionable, e . g., Prov. mielhs, nech (par. 2), Cat. sure (par. 35), Cat. escisar (par. 14).

Griera considers Meyer-Llibke's lexical examples somewhat bookish and not part of current usage. He feels that a comparison of the present-day border languages or dialects of each group, i.e., Catalan-

Castilian, Catalan-Proven~al, would clearly show areas of linguistic agreement and disagreement. In his article, "Castella-Catala-

Proven~al," Griera lists the phonological, morphological, and lexical criteria which constitute an Aragonese-Catalan linguistic frontier and 53 a Proven~al-Catalan frontier. In the region between the Aragonese town of Binefar and the Catalan town of Tamarite, he finds thirty-two

51 A_ forrnasao~ da llngua' portuguesa. Ensaios d e Fi 1 o 1 ogia RomanicaA (Lisbon, 1948) , p. 28.

52"castella-Catala-Proven<;;al," Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, XLV (1925), 198- 216.

53Ibid. , pp. 217-254. -33-

phonological differences; between Fonz (Arag.) and Peralta (Cat.),

twenty-seven; between Montalba (Prov.) and Catllar (Cat.) , seventy­

two. The morphological differences, especially in the verb conju­

gations, are fewer at the Proven~al-Catalan frontier than at either

of the Aragonese-Catalan frontiers. The lexical items show numerous

differences at both frontiers. (See map, p. 34.)

The Proven~al-Catalan border which extends along the southern

side of the Corbieres Mountains is an old linguistic border. It was and still is formed by such phonological differences as: Prov. [ aw],

Cat. [ o] ; Prov. [ l], Cat.[±]; Prov. [n], Cat. [ n] ; Prov. [y], Cat.

[u] . Also morphological differences, such as the conservation of

the Latin two-case system (dative and accusative) in Proven~al, the

loss of it in Catalan, are present. Wartburg, who admits a close relationship between Catalan and Proven~al with some reservations, describes this border as the sharpest linguistic frontier within the Gallo-Romance domain. 54

The Catalan-Spanish border is quite different. The plain of

La Litera between Tamarite and Binefar was a popular battle site during the Reconquest. Catalan was carried southward from Tamarite in the 12th and 13th centuries at the time of the Reconquest by re­ settlers from Barcelona, Urgel, Pallars, and Ribagorza. At the same time, Aragonese was spread to such places as Binefar by

54Archivum Romanicum, VIII (1924), 487. -34-

MAP 2 The Aragonese-Catalan Linguistic Frontier

From: Sever Pop , La Dialectologie, p. 355. -35-

resettlers from the house of Aragon.55 This Aragonese-Catalan frontier continues southward as a bundle of isoglosses which serve as the. meeting place of many of the principal features distinguish- ing Spanish from Catalan. "[It crosses] the Ebro, and then de- scend[s] through the medieval Kingdom of Valencia so that the hills are held by Spanish and the coastal plain by Catalan, until they reach the sea along the River Vinalap6, which flows through Elche in

Murcia."56

The Aragonese town of Binefar, located in this Aragonese-

Catalan frontier area, differs from Catalan in sharing the following phonological features with Castilian: the loss of initial F-,

FURNU > Arag. [6rno], Cast. [jrno], the retainment of pretonic E,

SENIORE > Arag. [s€nor], Cast. [s&n0r]. They also share the fol- lowing morphological features: the definite articles, el, los, la, las, the possessive pronouns, mi, tu, su, nuestro, vuestro, and the subject pronouns, Y£, tu, el, nusotros, vusotros (Cast. nosotros, vosotros), ellos.57

To the north of Tamarite the linguistic frontier is not so sharp. Over a wide band, Catalan replaces the gradually diminishing

Aragonese characteristics. The towns of Fonz and Peralta are locat- ed in this region. In their speech, they share the following Catalan features: the conservation of Latin E, PEDE > Cat. , Arag. [ p~~J and the conservation of initial F-, FURNU > Cat. [ f6rn], Arag. [f6rno].

55 Antonio Griera, Gramatica historica del catala antic (Barce- lona, 1931), pp. 7-8. 56 Entwistle, The Spanish Language, p. 42. 57 Gr{eraL , "C as t e 11'a- Cata 1'a- P roven~a 1 , " 217-229. -36-

In many morphological features the Aragonese dialect of Fonz is more

like Castilian than Catalan. For example, the masculine and feminine

articles, ~' los, ~' las, are identical with those of Castilian;

the subject pronouns, Y£, tu, el, nusaltros, vusaltros, ellos, differ

only in the forms nosotros, vosotros from the Castilian; the numerals

are identical with those of Castilian. 58

Griera is not comparing the Catalan language as a whole to

its Aragonese neighbor; he is only studying the conditions at the

linguistic frontiers. Alonso believes that Griera's material must

be tested historically to see which items are really products of the

land where they are found and which have resulted from inter-regional

borrowings after the formation of the original dialects. 59 Border dialects are generally non-typical for just this reason; they are

continually adopting new forms from the neighboring dialect which re- duces the number of dissimilar features between the two.

Griera's purpose in his comparison was to prove the Gallo-

Romance affiliation of Catalan. Quantitatively he seems to be con-

tradicting himself, for there is a greater number of phonological dif- ferences between Catalan and Proven~al than between Catalan and

Aragonese, i.e. seventy-two as compared to twenty-seven and thirty- two differences. At the same time, though, he shows that Catalan reaches farther into the Proven~al domain than into the Aragonese

58G rlera. , "Castella.-Catala.-Proven~al , " 229-240. 59 Alonso ) Estudios lingUisticos, p. 47. -37-

domain. Roussillon, the Catalan-speaking province of southeast France whose northern boundary forms the Catalan-Proven~al linguistic fron­ tier, was politically part of Catalonia until the 17th century. At this time the French rule was extended to the Pyrenees and included

Roussillon. This region has remained linguistically independent of

France, and the Catalan-(Roussillonnais dialect)-Languedocian lin­ guistic frontier is still very sharp. CHAPTER 3 THE IBERO-ROMANCE CLASSIFICATION OF CATALAN -39-

The Ibero-Romance affiliation of Catalan was first suggested by

Menendez Pidal in his Origenes del espano1. 60 This work, appearing

only a year after the publication of Meyer-LUbke's Das Katalanisch,

prefaced the long-standing controversy over the classification of

Catalan as either Ibero- or Galla-Romance. According to Menendez

Pidal, the Romance of the East, South, Center, and West of Spain pre­

sented, in the lOth and 11th centuries, a surprising homogeneity.

The area of Castile which extended from the Upper Ebro to the Duero

separated itself linguistically from the rest of the Peninsula. With­

in the central region of Castile, an important political and social

center about 950 A.D. , many linguistic innovations originated. What

is recognized today as standard Spanish was at this time only a sep­ arate dialect with the following principal differences from the other

Peninsular dialects: an aspirate g- (which was later lost) for initial

Latin F-, FACERE > hacer; i [z] for Latin -LI-, FILIO > hijo, MULIERE > mujer; Latin G- lost before E or I, GERMANUS > ermano; ch [c] for

Latin -(C)T-, -(L)T-, NOCTE > noche, PECTUS > pecho, MULTUM > mucho;

~ [8] for Latin -SCI-, ASCIA > azada, PISCIS > ~; no diphthongization of 5, E before yod, FOLIA > hoja, OCULU > ojo. Later innovations seen in Castilian in the lOth century were as follows: reduction of the diphthongs [ we] and [je] to one form, while in Leon, Rioja, and Ara­ gon the variants [wa], [wo] (for [ we]) and [ja] (for [je]) were still in use; the monophthongization of the diphthong [ e~ ] in cases like

60The first edition was published in 1926. -40-

portill) silla) avispa. 61

A further examination of Old Castilian) i.e.) from the Middle

Ages to the 16th century) reveals a series of linguistic features that are still present in Catalan. Some linguists) therefore) do not consider the present-day differences between Castilian and Catalan fundamental ones. They try to prove the Ibero-Romance affiliation of

Catalan through its similarities to Old Castilian.

Badia Margarit emphasizes the features of syntax which are shared by Old Castilian and Catalan; he feels that such a comparison has been neglected but is of the utmost importance in establishing a close relationship between Castilian and Catalan. 62 He discusses the following features of syntax) among others: (1) Old Castilian) la lanc;;a ~quebrada "the spear has broken)" shows the agreement of the past participle with the gender of the subject. This process) which began in Latin) was lost at an early stage in Old Castilian. Yet

Catalan kept this agreement until much later) and it is still present today in the Balear and Valencian dialects. Further) Catalan is peculiar in its participle agreement when the verb complement is a third person pronoun) el) la) els) les: l'ha vist (~ llibre) "he saw it (the book)/' l'ha vista (la llibreta) "he saw it (the note- book))" els ha vistos (els llibres) "he saw them (the books))" les ha vistes (les llibretes) "he saw them (the notebooks)." The

6L Menendez Pidal) pp. 486-87.

62Fisiogn6mica Comparada de las lenguas catalana y castellana (Barcelona) 1955)) pp. 31-53. -41-

invariable Castilian participle visto is seen in the following

sentences: lo ha visto (~ libro) "he saw it (the book) ) '' la ha

visto (la libreta) ''he saw it (the notebook))" los ha visto (los

libros) "he saw them (the books))" las ha visto (las libretas) "he

saw them (the notebooks)." (2) The distinction between the copula­

tive verbs ser and estar is an idiosyncrasy of the Peninsular lan­

guages. In Old Castilian) although both were used to express tem­

porary location) ser was used predominantly) con ellos son "they are

with them." Catalan son amb ells "they are with them" still shows

the use of ~J while Castilian con ellos estan "they are with them"

shows a change to the verb estar. Only the verb ser was used in Old

Castilian to express permanent location) e.g.) ~ mio hospital) que

es s,:erca del dicho monesterio "my hospital which is near the afore­ mentioned monastery." Catalan que es (~) .£!'.££. "which is near" con­

tinues the use of serJ while Castilian que esta cerca "which is near"

shows a change to the verb estar. Old Castilian used ~with par­

ticiples which described the state of the subject or the termination

of an action) e.g.) abiertas ~ las puertas "the doors are open."

Catalan obertes son "are open" shows no change of verb) yet Castilian abiertas estan las puertas "the doors are open" shows a change to the verb estar. (3) In Old Castilian ~was generally used as the auxiliary with intransitive and reflexive verbs) e.g.) venidos son

"they have come)" es levantado "he has gotten up." In Castilian now the auxiliary is haber) e.g.) han venido "they have come)" ha levan­ tado "he has gotten up." In Catalan the auxiliary~ was used and -42-

is still used in the dialectal speech of Mallorca and Gerona, even with some transitive verbs, e.g., ~ vist el seu pare "he has seen his father." The passive voice was frequently used in Castilian and many examples are found in the Cantar del Cid, e.g., echados ~ de tierra "we were expelled from the land," el sabor que dend ~E.£!! sera olbidado "the taste that they give and it will not be forgotten."

Instead of the passive voice, Castilian now uses equivalent expressions, although the passive construction is still possible, e.g., nos echan

"we are thrown," no lo olvidare "I will not forget it." Catalan has always used the passive voice more than Castilian. It is especially prevalent today in scientific prose. The impersonal passive is il­ lustrated in the following sentence: la subscripci6 es fara efectiva la setmana que ve "the subscription will begin next week." (4) Old

Castilian used the indicative mood in a subordinate clause to express an objective reality, e.g., quando los gallos cantaran "when the cocks crow." Castilian cuando los gallos canten "when the cocks crow" shows the use of the subjunctive in a subordinate clause, although the ac­ tion actually will take place. This use of the subjunctive occurred later in Catalan, and the indicative is still used in the Balear and

Valencian dialects. (5) The Catalan pronominal adverbs, hi, en are the equivalents of the Old Castilian z, ende. Castilian has re- placed Old Cast. z by alli, alla, and ende by de ello, de alli, and de ello, de ella, according to the meaning. Badia Margarit ends his discussion of syntax with the following points: In Old Castilian the adverbs could be used as prepositions also, e.g., dentro villa -43-

"inside the country house," s;erca Valencia 11 near Valencia," delante

su mugier "in front of his wife." Catalan parallels this usage, e.g.,

dintre la casa "inside the house," davant~ president "in front of

the president." Nevertheless, Catalan commonly uses the preposition

de with the adverb, e.g., dintre de la casa "inside the house,"

davant del president 11 in front of the president"; this is also the

correct Castilian usage today, e.g., dentro de la ~"inside the house," delante de su mujer "in front of his wife."

In phonology and morphology, Badia Margarit continues to parallel

Old Castilian and Catalan. The Catalan pairs of voiceless and voiced consonants have equivalents in Old Castilian:

Old Catalan Castilian

Is zl cas; a passer cas a cas a

Its dzl potser s;ielo ---dotze plaza Is zl faixa dixo fageda coger

In Castilian, only the voiceless counterpart of each pair remains.

The Catalan[±] had an equivalent in Old Castilian. This [±] facil- itated the vocalization of Latin L: ALTERU > Old Cast. autru, Old

Cat. autre, Cast. otro. The Catalan altre comes from ALT(E)RU, ALTU, in which the group, vowel+ L + consonant, is not changed. Old

Catalan and Old Castilian distinguished lb vi in pronunciation. Al- though this distinction is still present in some dialects of Catalan, the pair lb vi is generally reduced to lbl with the conditioned -44-

allophones [ b o] .63 The morphological similarities between Old

Castilian and Catalan are: (1) the usage of the definite articles

~ ' sa < IPSE in certain dialects of Catalan, which were later re­

placed b y ~ ' la < ILLE in Castilian and other dialects of Catalan; 64

(2) the conservation of the Latin third conjugation -~RE. The Old

Castilian forms far-fer(e) , facmus-femos, feches , fech come from

the Latin third-c onjugation verb FAC~RE; Catalan fer, fern, feu par-

allel these forms. The Old Castilian forms varnos, vades and Catalan

varn, vern, vau, veu, are from VAD~RE. Castilian has lost the Latin

third-conjugation verbs by combining them with the Latin second-

conjugation; the result is the Castilian second-conjugation -er.

Catalan preserves the Latin third-conjugation verbs in an alternate

second-conjugation form -re (regular -er).

Gonzalez de la Calle also classifies Catalan as Ibero-Rornance.65

He states that Catalan is one link in the chain of Hispanic Romance

languages, i.e. , Catalan, Navarro-Aragonese, Castilian, Leonese,

Asturian, Galician-Portuguese, whose members share many linguistic

features. The continuity of this linguistic chain illustrates the

significance of each member. He criticizes Meyer-Llibke for considering

Castilian representative of Ibero-Rornance because one language in

63This distinction is present in the Balearic, Valencian, and Algueres dialects of Catalan.

64The articles ~' sa are still used in the Balearic dialect of Catalan and in the speech of the Costa Brava. All other dialects us e el, la. 65 . "Personah_dad lingUistica del idiorna catalan, " Thesaurus, Boletin del Instituto Caro y Cuervo, Vol. XIV (1959) , 1-19. -45-

isolation cannot represent the group as a whole. He says that Me yer-

LUbke makes the common error of identifying a part with the whole.

All the apparent differences between Castilian and Catalan can be reconc iled by looking for similarities between Catalan and another member of the chain. Catalan, Old Castilian, and Aragonese do not share the change of Latin F- > h- with Castilian. The Aragonese dialec t here is a link between Catalan and Castilian, allowing the latter to change gradually into Catalan. De la Calle shows that the fall of final unstressed Latin -~, characteristic of Catalan, Proven-

~ al , and French, was and is a process of Castilian, too. Old Castil- ian had such forms as nuef, noch, huest for the present Castilian forms nueve, noche, hueste. Moreover, the apocope of -~ after the consonants L, N, R, D, s, Z is common in Castilian: SOLE(M) > sol,

TEN-E > ten, AMARE > amar, AMAT-E ''(AMADE > amad, CORTENSIS > cortes ,

CRUCE(M) > cruz. Aragonese retains the -E at times, but, in the adverbial ending -ment, it a gain is the link between the Castilian

-mente and the Catalan -ment. Finally, the conservation of final unstressed -~ in Castilian, wh ich opposes it to Catalan, Proven ~ al , and French , has numerous exceptions: primer, segun, muy , don. Such forms without -£were also frequent in the old Mozarab dialects. De la Ca lle concludes that, although the Catalan vowel and consonant systems exhibit many Galla-Romance tendencies, they are still part of t he tradition of Peninsular Romance. 66

66 llp ersona l'd~ a d 1'~n g.,,u~st~ • c a d e 1 ~'d' ~oma cata 1an,' II p. 14. CHAPTER 4 OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF CATALAN -47-

Instead of trying to prove the narrow Ibero- or Galla-Romance

affiliation of Catalan, other linguists viewed this language in its

geographical setting as a bridge between the two. In many respects

Catalan occupies this middle position, sharing features with both

sides. The Catalan lexical pair oncle - tia combines French oncle

and Spanish tia. 67 In stress, Catalan demonstrates both trochaic

and iambic patterns. The former is characteristic of Spanish, the

latter of Proven~al and French. Like Castilian, Catalan conserves

the final unstressed -A, LACRIMA >Cast . lagrima, Cat. llagrima;

this creates a trochaic rhythm. Like French and Proven~al, Catalan

loses the other final unstressed vowels, SEPTE(M) > Prov. , Cat. set,

Fr. sept; this creates an iambic rhythm. 68

Pierre Fouche considers Catalan a lengua puente "language

bridge."69 He shows how Catalan deviates from many Ibero-Romance

tendencies, especially Castilian features, and, at the same time,

from many Galla-Romance features, especially Proven~al. He distin-

guishes Castilian and Catalan on the basis of the different treat- ment of the final Latin vowels, i.e., in Catalan, all the final un-

accented Latin vowels fall except -A , while in Castilian all these

Latin vowels are generally conserved . But he discusses further the

treatment of -~ and -1 to show that Castilian and Catalan do not

67 Kurt Baldinger, La formaci6n de los dominios linguisticos en la peninsula iberica (Madrid, 1963), p. 106.

68G. de la Calle, pp. 9-10.

69~ 11 Etudes de Philologie Hispanique," Revue Hispanique, LXXVII (1929), 1-171. -48-

differ radically on this point. In Castilian, the -E is retained

in a root ending in a consonant + a liquid, and when this -~ pre-

serves the stress of the Latin paroxytones; in Catalan, the -E

is retained in the latter case. For example, PATER> Cast. padre,

Cat. pare, NOBILIS >Cast., Cat. noble. The -E is retained in both

Castilian and Catalan when it preserves the stress of Latin pro-

paroxytones, e.g., TREDECE >Old Cast. tredze, Cast. trece, Cat. tretze; COMITE >Old Cast. cuende, Cast. conde, Cat. comte. Other- wise the treatment of -E follows certain phonological laws in

Castilian which are explained as follows: As the absolute final sound, the -E falls, as in MARE> mar, SOLE > sol. When the -E is followed by an S which belongs to the same word or when the -E ends a word in close relationship with the following word, it is conserved, e.g., FUSTES > fustes, DENTES> dientes, SEPTE + noun> siete, NOVE+ noun> nueve. The same rules apply to final -I under the same conditions, e.g., DIXI, VENI, AMASTI >Old Cast. dix, vin, amast, Cast. dije, vine, amaste (by analogy with the second person plural amastes). Fouche concludes that the fall of final-E occurs in the same conditions in Castilian, Catalan, and Old Proven~al.

Only the separate treatment of Latin -U in Castilian (-U > -£) dis- tinguishes it radically from Catalan (-U > 0).

Fouche also examines the unstressed Latin penultimate vowels to point out a further opposition between Castilian and Catalan. In

Castilian, the penultimate A was maintained when the final vowel of the Latin word was an A: sabana, an E: ANATE > -----anade, or an U: -49-

ORPHANU > huerfano. In Catalan, this A was dropped when the final

Latin vowel was A: GABATA > galta, and it was conserved before the

final Latin vowels E and U. In Castilian, unstressed penultimate

E and I were generally dropped, no matter what the final Latin vowel was, while in Catalan, they were usually dropped before final

A: CAMERA > cambra, FEMINA > fembra; but before final E or U, they were either conserved: VINCERE > veneer, CRESCERE > creixer, or dropped: CUCUMERE > cogombre, HOSPITE > hoste. Finally, in Castilian, the penultimate vowels ~' U were generally dropped in all cases:

ONOLA > Huelva, I(N)SULA > isla, VULTURE > buitre, ROBORE > roble,

TUMULU > tormo. In Catalan, the penultimate ~' U were dropped before the final Latin A and E: I(N)SULA > illa, ARBORE > arbre, but they were conserved before final Latin U: PISULU > peso1. 70

Another aspect of differentiation between Castilian and Catalan is accentuation. It has been previously stated that Catalan has a trochaic rhythm in such words as llagrima, where the final A is con- served. But if the final vowel is U, Castilian exhibits proparoxy- tonic stress, as in ORPHANU > huerfano, by conserving the Latin vowel as [ o] ; Catalan loses the U and exhibits paroxytonic stress as in orfe. As a result, Castilian has a greater number of proparoxytones because it conserves many Latin final vowels. 71

Fouche acknowledges similarities between Catalan and the dialects of Southern France, but he says that there are many more differences

7011Etudes de Philologie Hispanique," 92-94.

71Ibid. , p. 97. -so-

than simply the treatment of U, i.e., Cat. [u], Prov. [y] . The other

vocalic differences are: the conservation in Catalan of Latin 0

(< D), as opposed to Proven~al ~; the monophthongization of Latin

AE >[~], AU> [o] in Catalan; the absence of ~asalized vowels in

Catalan; and no diphthongization of 0, E, I in Catalan. The conso-

nantal differences in Catalan are: the palatalization of Latin

initial L before any vowel, and of Latin -LL- and -NN- or -MN-, i.e.,

[ l], [n], respectively; the velarized l [±]; the fall of [z] before

a stressed vowel or after a voiced consonant and its conservation after

a stressed vowel; the fall of final -~ in the singular form of nouns

and its conservation in the plural before -s. 72

Geographically, Catalan is spoken in both French and Spanish

regions. In. parts of the Pyrenees, common to both frontiers, Catalan

is the bridge between Galla-Romance and Ibero-Romance. Gerhard

Rohlfs refers to Aragonese, Catalan, and Gascon as Gallo-Ibero, and

says, "Surtout entre le gascon et le catalan, l'accord est beaucoup

plus etroit qu'on n'a ose le croire jusqu'a present."73

This close relationship between Gascon and Catalan is especially evident in Rohlfs' discussion on morphology and syntax. For example, in the phonological development of the Latin definite article ILLE

(ILLUM), the last is dropped, becoming Cat. ~ ' Gasc. et; another article from Latin IPSE is maintained in Cat., Gasc. ~' sa;

72 "Etudes de Philologie Hispanique," pp. 103-104.

73 "Le gascon. Etudes de philologie Pyreneenne," Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, Vol. LXXXV (1935), p. 2. -51-

the use of the preposition ~ before a direct object designating a

person is parallel, e.g., Cat. no~ aculliria ~ vas ne ~ negun altre

"He will protect you but no one else," Gasc. que cerqui! Mario

"that I am looking for Mark"; the Gascon forms lou, lous, las are

used for both the Latin dative and accusative cases; likewise, the

Catalan masculine plural form los is used for both cases, e.g.,

com los ho podries dir? "How can you tell it to them?" Gasc. que

las parlo "that I talk to them"; Catalan and Gascon always use the

definite articles with the possessive adjectives, e.g., Cat. ~ seu

pare "his father," Gasc. et mie ..J?!y "my country"; the use of de que where one would expect to find a simple que is also shared by both

languages, e.g., Cat. Jo tot d'una parlava ~ catala amb tots ells, cregut de que m'entenien tan be~ J.2. els entenia ~ ells "I was

speaking Catalan with all of them, and I thought that they under-

stood me as well as I understood them," Gasc. que~ de qu'as arrasou "I know what you have destroyed"; the stress of the Latin imperfect forms, first and second persons plural, CANTABAMUS, CAN-

TABATIS is on the preceding syllable in both, Cat. cantavem "we were singing," cantaveu "you were singing," Gasc. cantabom, cantabots. 74

Rohlfs renames the Gallo-Ibero group (Aragonese, Gascon, and

Catalan) on the basis of lexical evidence; he designates a Pyrenean group with a distinct vocabulary of Iberic origin. The pastoral way of life in the mountains created communities with similar social conditions on both sides of the Pyrenees. The specific categories

74 ~ "Le gascon. Etudes de philologie Pyreneenne," pp. 118-149. -52-

of these common lexical items are the names of indigenous plants

and animals, terminology of their way of life, description of their

land and region, and the weather. 75

Moll gives the following as examples of this Pyrenean vocabulary:

abaj6 "type of tree," gavarrera or gavernera, gavet or naret "type of

flower," gerd6 "a fruit , " paparra, isard "an animal," llagasta,

sargantana, cascarrulla, marra or marcia, segall "an animal," artiga

"term for describing the terrain," quer, xarrupar, esquerre, estal- viar. The items esquerre, estalviar, paparra, and sargantana are used throughout the Catalan-speaking regions; the others are con- fined to the most area between Ribagorza and Rosel-

1on.- 76 This indicates that Rohlfs is dealing with only a dialect of

Catalan, not the language as a whole. Thus he has not reclassified the language as a whole. He has examined the linguistic frontier of

Gascon and Catalan, and, as was pointed out previously, border lan- guages are not t ypical.

Garcia de Diego, likewise, includes a Pyrenean dialect of

Spanish in his Manual de dialectologia espanola; however, he does not study it in its entirety, excluding the French idioms. He sees evidence of a pre-Roman substratum which extended from the present

Basque territory eastward to upper Aragon and to the northeast part of Catalonia and southward to Navarra. The Iberic suffix -oi of many

Basque and Pyrenean place names appears related to the modern Basque

7511Le gascon. Etudes de philologie Pyreneenne," pp. 16-31. 76 F. de B. Moll, Gramatica, p. 41. -53-

suffix -oi "one who," which is -ui in East Aragonese and Catalan,

e.g., ardanoi "a lover of wine," Ardanuy. The corresponding ending

1n. A ragonese 1s. -ue,' e.g., A r d anue' . 77 Many place names of Aragon and

Catalonia contain Basque words, such as berri "new," in Benabarre,

Isabarre, and gorri "red," in Laguerre, Laguarres.

The Pyrenean regions of Spain and France had more in common with

each other than with their other close neighbors. Their geographical

situation freed them from linguistic influence of the Arabs, and

established a sort of nationalism between the two Pyrenean settlements.

In a later article, Garcia de Diego illustrates a linguistic

Pyrenean identity between Basque, Gascon, Aragonese, and Catalan. He

uses the following characteristics as his criteria: loss of final

~ ' no initial r due to vowel prothesis, change of intervocalic ll

to r and final 11 to ch, the reduction of mb to ~' no change of

voiceless consonants to their voiced counterparts, and the treatment 78 of the group s'n, in which s falls.

The older forms of each member of this Pyrenean group are more

indicative of a tighter relationship than the present differences

would indicate. Catalan, for example, has continued to evolve, being

in close social contact with Proven~al; it appears somewhat closer

linguistically to this Galle-Romance language than to those of the

Pyrenean group.

77 c. de Diego, Manual, p. 223.

78 "El catalan, habla hispanica pirenaica," Boletin de Filologia, Vol. XI (1950), 55-60. -54-

Alonso agrees with Rohlfs' formation of a Pyrenean group to which

Catalan belongs) but he adds Proven~alJ as he sees a sufficient number

of common and exclusive characteristics among the four -- Aragonese)

Gascon) Catalan) and Proven~al -- to justify such a grouping. An

examination of the languages contiguous to this Pyrenean group re-

veals that) while Castilian shares quite a number of linguistic ele- ments with this group) the linguistic frontier to the north of the

Pyrenean group clearly separates French from the group. Thus Alonso concludes that all the Western Romance idioms except French belong to . 1 79 a s~ng e group.

French differs from the other Western Romance languages in the

following ways: The most prominent distinguishing factor in the

phonetic evolution of the Romance languages is the Northern French

treatment of vowels according to the t ype of syllable in which they occur; in the South of France and Iberia) the type of syllable did not affect the vowel. All the stressed vowels of Vulgar Latin) except OJ have been conserved in a closed syllable in French) e.g.)

DORMIRE > dormirJ and altered in an open syllable) e.g.) AMARE > aimer. The nasalization of vowels with the subsequent loss of the nasal consonant is characteristic of French. The number of French vowels) 12 + 4 nasals) is much greater than that of any other Western

Romance language. The French consonants have undergone a more pro- found and complete transformation) e.g.) the loss of intervocalic voiced stops) PACARE > *PAGARE > ~; the palatalization of the

79 Alonso) Estudios linguisticosJ p. 105. -55-

initial velars c, G +A, e.g., C +A> ts > s as in chambre, G +A> dz > z as in jambe; the loss of S before voiced and voiceless consonants,

ISLA > isle > ile, TESTA > teste > tete, resulting in a change in

vowel quality of the preceding vowel; the treatment of final conso­

nants, especially in liaison, e.g., grand is pronounced /gra/ as an

isolated word, but in the word group grand homme, it is pronounced

/grat/; the uvular rand the merging of short and long~ into short 80 r are characteristic of French.

Alonso is measuring, in many respects, the linguistic distance between the Vulgar Latin forms and the Modern French equivalents. The

substratic influence seems to be an important consideration here as

to why French evolved further than the other Western Romance languages.

Southern Gaul and the greater part of the Peninsula were intensely

Romanized; Northern Gaul was Romanized to a much smaller degree.

Although all of Gaul had a Celtic substratum, the influence was greater in the North because of less and later Romanization. And then

the decisive era for the linguistic division of Romania was that of the invasions and the reigns of the Germanic tribes; Northern Gaul, because of the Frankish superstratum, was affected more than Southern

Gaul and Spain. Thus French developed as an innovative language in­ fluenced by a Celtic substratum and a Frankish superstratum.

Juan Corominas, another Catalan linguist, says that it is true that in certain linguistic aspects the four Romance languages,

80Alonso, Estudios lingUisticos, pp. 92-94. -56-

Portuguese) Castilian) Catalan) and Proven~al) form a group which excludes French. Shared forms are his criteria) e.g.) pintar) a f orm common to all four) but different from the French peindre.

Looking for a closer relationship among the four languages) he finds that Catalan and Proven~al form a pair as do Castilian and

Portuguese. All the Romance languages are sister languages) but

Catalan and Proven~al are twins as are Castilian and Portuguese. 81

81 Corominas) Lo que s'ha de saber de la llengua catalana) p. 20. Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS -58-

The different theories of the placement of Catalan among the

Western Romance languages result from the fact that language is a many-faceted phenomenon. Language can be discussed linguistically)

socially) culturally) politically) historically) and geographically.

Therefore) what is meant by language must be made clear before the question of classification can be approached. Otherwise) different methods of classifying a single language may support contradictory conclusions. On the other hand) these conclusions may only appear to be contradictory.

Griera seems to be contradicting himself in two articles con­ cerning the classification of Catalan. In the first) "Castella­

Catala-Proven~al)" his method is linguistic geography. Although he is trying to prove that Catalan is Gallo-Romance) he shows a greater number of phonetic similarities between Catalan and Aragonese than Catalan and Proven~al. At the same time) he shows that Catalan extends further into the Proven~al domain than the Aragonese domain.

On this basis he groups Catalan as Gallo-Romance. Yet the fact re­ mains that the linguistic frontier is sharper between Catalan and

Proven~al than Catalan and Aragonese. This seems to contradict a

Gallo-Romance grouping of Catalan. In the second article) "Afro­ romanic o ibero-romanic)" Griera discusses the separate waves of migration which brought different cultures to the areas where Spanish and Catalan are spoken. In this way) he clearly separates Catalan from all the Spanish dialects and groups it as Gallo-Romance on the basis of a shared period of culturation. -59-

Each method of classification centers on one or more aspects of language. Meyer-Lubke began with a linguistic comparison, then sup­ ported his conclusion of the Galla-Romance affiliation of Catalan with historical and cultural evidence. Griera, looking at linguistic frontiers, considered the linguistic, social, and historical aspects of Catalan. Menendez Pidal looked at the distribution of sound changes.

It does not seem that all the aspects of language should be weighed equally in classifying it. For example, Meyer-Lubke shows that the Catalan culture was very strongly influenced by that of

Southern Gaul. Although the Catalan writers adopted Proven~al as the language of literature, it is not known to what extent this affected spoken Catalan. So the cultural development of Catalan may be some­ what misleading to one looking for a clear classification of it.

The present Catalan and Proven~al linguistic domains were in close contact socially, culturally, and politically during the forma­ tive period of the separate Romance languages. The two languages ac­ quired similar forms from Latin which today distinguish Catalan and

Proven~al from Castilian. But these same Catalan forms shared with

Proven~al are found in older dialects of the Peninsula, such as

Navarro-Aragonese and Old Castilian. So were these external social, cultural, and political factors enough to profoundly change Catalan's linguistic relationship to Castilian? Menendez Pidal and de la Calle affirmed the Ibero-Romance affiliation of Catalan by pointing out that certain features such as the conservation of Latin F- are not unique

Catalan features, but are also found in certain Aragonese dialects -60-

and Portuguese. Badia Margarit established the Ibero-Romance

affiliation of Catalan through its close relationship to Old Castilian

in many features of phonology, morphology, and syntax. These relation­

ships strongly suggest that Catalan did not develop completely separated

from the other Peninsular languages.

The geographical position of the Catalan domain places the lan­

guage as a bridge between Ibero- and Galle-Romance. The Pyrenean dia­

lect of Catalan, found at the Catalan-Proven~al linguistic frontier ,

is influenced by its Languedocian neighbor and is quite different from

the central dialect spoken in Barcelona. Any dialect at a linguistic

frontier may be strongly influenced by the other language; thus such a

dialect is not enough to change the classification of the language as

a whole. Rohlfs established a Pyrenean vocabulary, but most of the

forms belong only to the Pyrenean dialect of Catalan. Likewise, these

same forms found in Aragonese are only sub-dialecta l forms , not part

of t he dialect as a whole. The Catalan roots are in Northeast Spain

and, although Catalonia extends into the Pyrenees, it is still part of

Spain. There seems to be no reason to establish a Pyrenean group a­

part from Ibero-Romance as some of the theorists have done.

All the Peninsular languages meet the following criteria for classification as Ibero-Romance: (1) they all originated in t he

Iberian Peninsula, and (2) they all share a common core of essential characteristics. For Catalan to be classified apart, it would have to have been brought into the Peninsula, perhaps as a dialect of

Proven~al, as Meyer-Lubke and Griera basically assert. But its -61-

distinctly Catalan forms and its Hispanic origin prove this not to

be the case. The common core of linguistic elements shared by all

the Ibero-Romance languages originated in Peninsular Latin. The

speech of the two centers of Romanization in the Peninsula, i.e.,

Tarraconensis in the Northeast and Baetica in the South, differed only

slightly. Greater differences are seen between the Latin of the

Peninsula and that of Gaul due to the different periods and degrees

of Romanization. Menendez Pidal speaks of a linguistic homogeneity

in the Peninsula during the lOth and 11th centuries. This indicates

that the different Peninsular dialects remained close to the original

Latin of the area. The one exception was the dialect of Castile, which underwent more and greater changes. This dialect was spread

southward during the Reconquest and disrupted the linguistic union

of the East and West. Catalan, like Portuguese and the other Penin­

sular dialects, did not change many of the early Latin forms and,

thus, appears quite different from innovative Castilian.

The evidence in support of the Ibero-Romance affiliation of

Catalan seems to be soundest. Whereas Meyer-Lubke and other propo­

nents of the Galla-Romance affiliation of Catalan considered phono­

logical evidence limited to Catalan, Castilian, and Proven~al, the proponents of the Ibero-Romance affiliation of Catalan looked at. phonological evidence from the whole Peninsula and Southern France.

In doing so, they demonstrated that in many instances where Catalan differs from Castilian, it is still similar to other Peninsular dialects or languages. The Ibero-Romance theorists also considered -62-

morphological and syntactic data, while the Gallo-Romance theorists practically ignored these areas. Although further research may shed new light on the question, at present, the Ibero-Romance clas­ sification of Catalan appears to be correct. -63-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Alonso) Amado. Estudios lingUisticos: temas espanoles. Madrid) 1961.

Badia Margarit) Antonio. Fisiogn6mia Comparada de las lenguas cata­ lana y castellana. Barcelona) 1955.

Gramatica hist6rica catalana. Barcelona) 1951.

El habla del valle de Bielsa. Barcelona) 1950.

Baldinger) Kurt. La formaci6n de los dominios lingUisticos ~ la peninsula iberica. Madrid) 1963.

Bee) Pierre. La langue occitane. Paris) 1967.

Bourciez) Edouard. Elements de linguistique romane. Paris) 1967.

Catal~n) Diego. La escuela linguistica espanola y ~ concepcion del lenguage. Madrid) 1955.

Chapman) Charles E. ~History of Spain. New York) 1958.

Corominas) Juan. Lo que s'ha de saber de la llengua catalana. Palma de Mallorca) 1954.

Elcock) W. D. The Romance Languages. London) 1960.

Entwistle) William J. Aspects of Language. London) 1953.

The Spanish Language. London) 1962.

Garcia de Diego) Vicente. Manual de dialectologia espanola. Madrid) 1946.

Griera y Gaja) Antonio. Dialectologia catalana. Barcelona) 1949.

Gramatica historica del catala antic. Barce- lona) 1931.

Hall) Robert A.) Jr. Introductory Linguistics. New York) 1967.

Iordan) Iorgu. An Introduction to . Berkeley) 1970.

Jungemann) Fredrick H. La teoria del sustrato y los dialectos hispano-romances y gascones. Madrid) 1955. -64-

Lapesa, Rafael. Historia de la lengua espanola. Madrid, 1965.

Lausberg, Heinrich. LingUistica rornanica: Torno I, Fonetica; Torno II, Morfologia. Madrid) 1965-66. ------

Meier, Harri. A forrna~ao da lingua portuguesa. Ensaios de Filologia Rornanica. Lisboa, 194~

Meillet, Antoine. Linguistique historique et linguistique generale, Tome II. Paris, 1951.

La Methode comparative en linguistique historique. Oslo, 1925.

Mendeloff, Henry. A Manual of Comparative Romance Linguistics. Washington, D.C., 1969.

Menendez Pidal, R. Origenes del espanol. Madrid, 1964.

Meyer-LUbke, w. Das Katalanische, seine Stellung zurn Spanischen und Provenzalischen, sprachwissen SChaftlich und hiStorisch dar---­ gestellt. Heidelberg, 1925 .

. Grarnrnaire des langues rornanes. Paris, 1890.

Moll y Casasnovas, Francisco de B. Grarnatica hist6rica catalana. Madrid, 1952.

Pop, Sever. La dialectologie, lere partie: Dialectologie rornane. Louvain, 1950.

Rohlfs , Gerhard. Manual de filologia hispanica. Bogota, 1957.

Watt, W. Montgomery. A History of Islamic Spain. Edinburgh, 1965.

Journals

Fouche, Pierre. "Etudes de Philologie Hispanique, " Revue Hispanique, LXXVII (1929) , 1-171.

Garcia de Diego, Vicente. "El catalan, habla hispanica pirenaica, " Boletin de Filologia, XI (1950), 55-60.

Gonzalez de la Calle, Pedro Urbano. "Personalidad lingUistica del idiorna cataLin," Thesaurus, Boletin del Institute Caro y Cuervo, XIV (1959) , 1-19. -65-

Griera y Gaja, Antonio. "Afro-romanic o ibero-romanic," Boletin de dialectologia espanola, X (1922), 34-53 .

. "Castella-Catala-Provencsal," Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, XIV (1925), 198-254 .

. "Les etudes sur la langue catalane," Archivum Romanicum, XII (1928), 530-551.

Hagedorn, Maria. "Die Stellung des Katalanischen auf der iberischen Halbinsel," Zeitschrift fUr Neusprachlichen Unterricht, XXXVIII (1938), 209-217.

Hall, Robert A., Jr. "The Reconstruction of Proto-Romance," Language, 26 (1950), 6-27.

Rohlfs, Gerhard. "Le gascon. Etudes de philologie Pyreneenne," Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, LXXXV (1935), 1-189.

Wartburg, Walther von. (A criticism of Meyer-Lubke's, Das Katalan­ ische) Zeitschrift fur Romanische Philologie, XLVIII (1928), 157-161.

. (A criticism of A. Griera's, "Afro-romanic o ibero-romanic") Archivum Romanicum, VIII (1924), 487.