Search

Le premier traitement de la graphie -kkv- est donné dans un paragraphe de la Grammatik des Oskisch-Umbrischen Dialekte de Robert von Planta. L’interprétation de cette graphie n’a pas changé dans la recherche postérieure. Von Planta considère que la consonne est régulièrement géminée devant *ṷ, alors que la gémination n’est pas notée dans tous les cas, comme l’atteste akviiai à côté de dekkviarím. Bien qu’il soit claire que le groupe -(k)kv- est secondaire, son origine n’est pas expliquée. En s’appuyant sur le matériel onomastique du latin et du sabellique, nous essayons de montrer que -(k)kv- apparaît dans les dérivés des thèmes en u, suite à la syncope de la voyelle entre -k- et -v-. Etant donné que -(k)kv- est un groupe rare et inattendu de point de vue de l’osque, et que les autres cas de *-Cṷ- en sabellique ne conduisent pas à -CCṷ-, il se peut qu’une gémination systématique devant *ṷ n’ait pas lieu.

Le premier traitement de la graphie -kkv- est donné dans un paragraphe de la Grammatik des Oskisch-Umbrischen Dialekte de Robert von Planta. L’interprétation de cette graphie n’a pas changé dans la recherche postérieure. Von Planta considère que la consonne est régulièrement géminée devant *ṷ, alors que la gémination n’est pas notée dans tous les cas, comme l’atteste akviiai à côté de dekkviarím. Bien qu’il soit claire que le groupe -(k)kv- est secondaire, son origine n’est pas expliquée. En s’appuyant sur le matériel onomastique du latin et du sabellique, nous essayons de montrer que -(k)kv- apparaît dans les dérivés des thèmes en u, suite à la syncope de la voyelle entre -k- et -v-. Etant donné que -(k)kv- est un groupe rare et inattendu de point de vue de l’osque, et que les autres cas de *-Cṷ- en sabellique ne conduisent pas à -CCṷ-, il se peut qu’une gémination systématique devant *ṷ n’ait pas lieu.

This dissertation explores the phonetics and phonology of voicing and emphatic assimilation across morpheme boundaries and investigates gemination word-medially and word-finally in Rural Jordanian Arabic (RJA). The results reveal that assimilation across morpheme boundaries behaves differently from assimilation across word boundaries in RJA. Vowel duration and vowel F1 were found robust parameters to indicate voicing assimilation. Similarly, F1, F2, and F3 were also adequate correlates to indicate emphatic assimilation. Phonologically, assimilation is best accounted for through the Sonority Hierarchy, Notion of Dominance, and Obligatory Contour Principle. For gemination, consonant as well as vowel durations were found robust acoustic correlates to discriminate geminates from singletons. Phonologically short vowels in the geminate context are significantly shorter than those in singleton context, while phonologically long vowels in geminate context are significantly longer than those in singleton context. The results indicate that the proportional differences between geminates and singletons based on word position and syllable structure are significantly different. Geminates word-medially are one and a half times longer than geminates word-finally. It has also been found that there is a temporal compensation between geminate consonants and the preceding vowels. Phonologically, geminates are best accounted for through prosodic weight rather than prosodic length.

This dissertation explores the phonetics and phonology of voicing and emphatic assimilation across morpheme boundaries and investigates gemination word-medially and word-finally in Rural Jordanian Arabic (RJA). The results reveal that assimilation across morpheme boundaries behaves differently from assimilation across word boundaries in RJA. Vowel duration and vowel F1 were found robust parameters to indicate voicing assimilation. Similarly, F1, F2, and F3 were also adequate correlates to indicate emphatic assimilation. Phonologically, assimilation is best accounted for through the Sonority Hierarchy, Notion of Dominance, and Obligatory Contour Principle. For gemination, consonant as well as vowel durations were found robust acoustic correlates to discriminate geminates from singletons. Phonologically short vowels in the geminate context are significantly shorter than those in singleton context, while phonologically long vowels in geminate context are significantly longer than those in singleton context. The results indicate that the proportional differences between geminates and singletons based on word position and syllable structure are significantly different. Geminates word-medially are one and a half times longer than geminates word-finally. It has also been found that there is a temporal compensation between geminate consonants and the preceding vowels. Phonologically, geminates are best accounted for through prosodic weight rather than prosodic length.

The formation of standard Finnish male nicknames in terms of Optimality Theory (OT) is described. Formation of these nicknames is subject to phonological, morphological, segmental and prosodic restrictions and often proceeds via suffixation of a truncated, left-anchoredstem, invariably producing a disyllabic, semantically narrow nicknamewith no coda, long vowels or diphthongs. Such foot binary-restricted items never include a second syllable onset. Disyllabic names are regularly shortened (CV.CV), while mono- and trisyllabic names often become geminate nicknames (CVC.CV) through expressive marking. Geminate names lose the coda consonant in the nickname. Very long names are truncated and sometimes take an additional suffix. Nicknames and their suffixes are strictly controlled to have either mixed harmonic back (a, o, u) and neutral front vowels (e, i), or only harmonic front vowels (y, ö, ä). Curious exceptions to the rules are found with names containing a word-internal sonorant, which therefore become uniquely suffixed nicknames through a Sonorant Sequencing Principle (SSP) constraint, leading to a three-consonant cluster and a shift of the sonorant from the syllable edge (CVCC.CV). Some nicknames have a limited geographical distribution (i.e. they are dialectal only), while a few others exhibit traces of diminutive markings. The data suggest the following ranking order for nickname formation in Finnish according to OT: FtBin >> SSP for resonant-containing or RlzRed for trisyllabic >>AnchorLeftBT >> NoLong-Vowel >> NoDiphthong >> NoCoda >>MaximalityBT.

This paper presents and discusses regular correspondences between Uralic geminate items and Yukaghiric with proposed sound change laws and new and some modified older cognate suggestions (twenty-four nouns and eight verbs). Geminate items were found to contain surprisingly stable, relatively unchanging vowels in Yukaghiric in regard to the Proto-Uralic form. The results suggest that degemination – taking place in all cases except in a few forms that can otherwise be explained – was an early process in Yukaghiric and occurred after or while many vowel changes had already taken place in the Yukaghiric vocabulary. The data shows that the relationship between Uralic and Yukaghiric is more extensive than previously believed. Some very early possible sound changes are discussed. Furthermore, a correspondence to Proto-Uralic *-ü- has been found in Late Proto-Yukaghiric *-ö-. Also, it is shown that the early suffixation in Yukaghir to Uralic-like stems has produced several modern words through grammaticalization.

Docherty et alii have "noted that several sociolinguistic accounts have shown a sharp distinction between the social trajectories for glottal replacement as opposed to glottal reinforcement, which have normally been treated by phonologists as aspects of 'the same thing'. It may therefore not always be appropriate to treat the two phenomena as manifestations of a single process or as points on a single continuum (presumably along which speakers move through time). From the speaker’s point of view (as manifested by different patterns of speaker behaviour) they appear as independent phenomena" (1997: 307).

Docherty et alii have "noted that several sociolinguistic accounts have shown a sharp distinction between the social trajectories for glottal replacement as opposed to glottal reinforcement, which have normally been treated by phonologists as aspects of 'the same thing'. It may therefore not always be appropriate to treat the two phenomena as manifestations of a single process or as points on a single continuum (presumably along which speakers move through time). From the speaker’s point of view (as manifested by different patterns of speaker behaviour) they appear as independent phenomena" (1997: 307).