Multivariable reanalysis and phonological split

Aski, Janice M.

doi:10.1075/cilt.215.04ask

Cited by 1 publication

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The expected outcomes, or the majority of the developments of each cluster, are /kj/ > /(t)tw/ and /tj/ > /(t)ts/ both intervocalically, where the outcome is long, and postconsonantally, where it is short: /tj/ > /(t)ts/ <zz, z> /kj/ > /(t)tw/ <cci, cce, ci, ce> PUTEU > pozzo "a well" GLACIU > ghiaccio "ice" SCORTEA > scorza "bark, rind" URCEU > orcio "oil jar" However, each cluster also has numerous exceptions of the opposite development: /kj/ > /(t)ts/ and /tj/ > /(t)tw/, as shown in Tables 1 and 2: 1 In Aski (2001) I demonstrate that this phonological split cannot be generated by rule, and that it can only be understood by taking into consideration phonetic detail and acoustic and perceptual factors. I present a three-phase interpretation that injects an intermediate stage into Labov's (1981Labov's ( , 1994 attempt to reconcile the neogrammarian and lexical diffusionist models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…However, this does not explain the palatal affricate outcome of /tj/. In Aski (1997Aski ( , 2001) I also point out that unexpected outcomes of /tj/ and /kj/ appear in Tuscan toponyms, which are less likely to be borrowed from other communities, since it is unlikely that speakers would borrow the name they assign to their town or city from an external source. Moreover, in several lexical items the Standard has the expected development while the Tuscan dialects have the unexpected outcomes of /tj/ and /kj/.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Doublet developments and dialectal variation in Tuscany and southern Italy serve as evidence of confusion in the perception and processing of the allophonic variants of these clusters, which ultimately resulted in unexpected outcomes. The role of grammatical/morphological conditioning in the development of verbs derived from nouns, adjectives and participles is examined and found to be more limited than I propose in Aski (2001). However, this examination will reveal why some derived verbs but not others have the unexpected development of /tj/ (> /(t)tw/).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Tekavčić (1972: 257) and Rohlfs (1966: 388), also in the neogrammarian tradition, are adamant that /tj/ > /(t)ts/ and /kj/ > /(t)tw/ are the regular Tuscan developments, and posit borrowing from Northern Italy for the exceptions to the rule. However, Aski (1997Aski ( , 2001 argues that the irregular developments are not borrowings and that the multiple outcomes developed indigenously. 4 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The phonological split of Latin /tj/ and /kj/ in Italian (Aski 2001) Attempts to isolate a rule to generate the multiple developments of Latin /tj/ and /kj/ in Italian have been unsuccessful. Moreover, approaches that isolate the regular outcomes from the irregular residue have not provided satisfactory interpretations of the exceptions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Prototype categorization and phonological split

Aski

2001

DIA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This paper examines the phonological split of Latin /tj/ and /kj/ in Italian within a cognitive, prototype framework, in which sound change is characterized as phonetically and lexically gradual. The analysis reveals that (1) the process by which speakers assign the allophonic variants produced by assimilation of the dental and velar to the following yod to their respective phonemes can be described as prototype categorization, which is argued to be the cognitive dynamic underlying lexical diffusion, (2) grammatically conditioned lexical diffusion, or the formation of cognitive schemata, in a small set of derived verbs is limited to only a few members, and is not necessarily associated with the late stages of change, as predicted by Labov (1981, 1994) and (3) the distinction between ‘innovation’ and ‘propagation’ (Croft (2000), Janda & Joseph (2001a,b)) more accurately characterizes the early and late stages of sound change than Labov’s dichotomy between neogrammarian change and lexically/grammatically conditioned lexical diffusion. Résumé Cet article étudie la scission phonologique, en italien, des sons /tj/ et /kj/ du latin. Cet article s’effectue dans un cadre cognitif et prototypique, selon lequel un changement phonologique se produit de manière graduelle, tant sur le plan phonétique que lexical. L’analyse révèle que (1) le processus par lequel les locuteurs attribuent les variantes allophoniques (produites par l’assimilation des dentales et vélaires au yod suivant) à leurs phonèmes respectifs peut être décrit comme un “prototype de catégorisation”, qui serait la dynamique cognitive à la base de la diffusion lexicale, (2) la diffusion lexicale conditionnée grammaticalement, ou la création de schèmes, dans un petit groupe de verbes dérivés, ne se limite qu’à un petit nombre de membres, et n’est pas nécessairement associée aux étapes ultérieures du changement, comme le soutient Labov, et (3) la distinction entre “innovation” et “propagation” caractérise de manière plus juste les premières étapes ainsi que les étapes ultérieures de changement phonologique que ne le fait la dichotomie entre le changement néo-grammairien et la diffusion lexicale conditionnée au niveau du lexique et de la grammaire. Zusammenfassung Im vorliegenden Aufsatz wird die phonologische Spaltung von lat. /tj/ und /kj/ im Italienischen im Rahmen einer kognitiven Prototypentheorie untersucht, derzufolge Lautwandel als sowohl phonetisch als auch lexikalisch graduell verstanden wird. Folgendes wird dadurch deutlich: (1) Der Prozeß, durch den Sprecher die allophonischen Varianten, die durch Assimilation der dentalen und velaren Konsonanten zum folgenden /j/ entstehen, den jeweiligen Phonemen zuweisen, kann als Prototypenkategorisierung beschrieben werden. Hier wird argumentiert, dass diese Kategorisierung die kognitive Dynamik sei, die der lexikalischen Diffusion zugrundeliegt. (2) Grammatikalisch bedingte lexikalische Diffusion (oder, besser gesagt, die Entstehung entsprechender kognitiver Schemata) in einer kleinen Gruppe abgeleiteter Verben beschränkt sich auf wenige Formen und ist nicht unbedingt, wie von Labov vorhergesagt, mit späten Stadien des Lautwandels verbunden. (3) Die Unterscheidung zwischen ‘Innovation’ und ‘Propagation’ erfaßt Differenzen zwischen frühen und späten Stadien des Lautwandels genauer als die Labovsche Dichotomie zwischen Lautwandel im Sinne der Junggrammatiker und lexikalisch/grammatikalisch bedingter lexikalischer Diffusion.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations