Home Linguistics & Semiotics Stress domain effects in French phonology and phonological development
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Stress domain effects in French phonology and phonological development

  • Yvan Rose and Christophe dos Santos
View more publications by John Benjamins Publishing Company
Romance Linguistics 2008
This chapter is in the book Romance Linguistics 2008

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss two distinct data sets. The first comes from the allophonic process of closed-syllable laxing in Québec French, which targets final (stressed) vowels even though these vowels should in theory be syllabified in open syllables in lexical representations (e.g. lune [Öly.n(6)]; *[Öly.n(6)]). The second is found in the forms produced by a first language learner of European French, who displays an asymmetry in her production of CVC versus CVCV target (adult) forms. The former displays full preservation (with concomitant manner harmony) of both consonants (e.g. passe --> [Öpat]). The latter undergoes deletion of the initial syllable if the consonants are not manner-harmonic in the input (e.g. appétit --> [piÖti] versus tennis --> [Öni]). We argue that both patterns can be explained in an approach that draws a formal distinction between phonological representation and phonetic implementation.

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss two distinct data sets. The first comes from the allophonic process of closed-syllable laxing in Québec French, which targets final (stressed) vowels even though these vowels should in theory be syllabified in open syllables in lexical representations (e.g. lune [Öly.n(6)]; *[Öly.n(6)]). The second is found in the forms produced by a first language learner of European French, who displays an asymmetry in her production of CVC versus CVCV target (adult) forms. The former displays full preservation (with concomitant manner harmony) of both consonants (e.g. passe --> [Öpat]). The latter undergoes deletion of the initial syllable if the consonants are not manner-harmonic in the input (e.g. appétit --> [piÖti] versus tennis --> [Öni]). We argue that both patterns can be explained in an approach that draws a formal distinction between phonological representation and phonetic implementation.

Downloaded on 29.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/cilt.313.10ros/html
Scroll to top button