Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2022: Selected papers from the 25th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022
Edited by Holly Kennard, Emily Lindsay-Smith, Aditi Lahiri and Martin Maiden
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 369] 2025
► pp. 110–127

Dissimilatory constraints discriminate between variants in analogical change

| CNRS (Langage, Langues et Cultures d’Afrique, UMR 8135)
This study presents evidence that dissimilatory constraints act as a discriminating factor in the selection of models for analogical change within inflectional paradigms. The study compares the lexical extension of root-final /ɡ/ in preterite forms in two groups of Occitan varieties: one group with established preterite desinences in -/εɡ/-, where introducing /ɡ/-final roots creates a sequence -/ɡεɡ/-; and another group with established preterite desinences in -/εɾ/-, where introducing /ɡ/-final roots creates a sequence -/ɡεɾ/-. Incidence of root-final /ɡ/ is lower in the velar desinence group than in the rhotic desinence group, indicating that dissimilatory pressure contributes to speaker choice between available roots, alongside other factors such as existing paradigmatic relationships and lexical gang effects.
Keywords: inflectional analogy, inflectional paradigms, dissimilation, Occitan, Romance linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Historical development of Occitan preterite forms
    • 2.1Development of typical modern preterite inflection with rhotic desinences
    • 2.2Development of localised preterite inflection with velar desinences
    • 2.3Development of a characteristic phonological shape for perfectum roots
    • 2.4A series of analogical changes
  • 3.Study design
  • 4.Overview of results
  • 5.Lexemes showing no areal contrast
    • 5.1Lexemes without root allomorphy
    • 5.2Lexemes with root-final /ɡ/ in modern perfectum reflexes
    • 5.3Lexemes without root-final /ɡ/ in modern perfectum reflexes
    • 5.4Lexemes showing variation between presence and absence of root-final /ɡ/
    • 5.5Trends apparent in the data
  • 6.Lexemes showing areal contrast
    • 6.1Root-final /ɡ/ never attested in velar desinence area
    • 6.2Root-final /ɡ/ less frequent in velar desinence area
    • 6.3Interim summary
  • 7.Asymmetry, paradigmatic relationships and the direction of analogy
  • 8.Discussion and conclusions
    • 8.1Theoretical foundations
    • 8.2Dissimilatory constraints in the diachrony of Occitan preterite forms
    • 8.3Conclusions
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (26)
References
Alibèrt, Loís. 1976. Gramatica occitana segon los parlars lengadocians. Toulouse: Institut d’Estudis Occitans.Google Scholar
Anglade, Joseph. 1921. Grammaire de l’ancien provençal ou ancienne langue d’oc. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Blevins, James. 2016. Word and paradigm morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boisgontier, Jacques. 1981–1986. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc oriental. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Mary A. Brewer. 1980. Explanation in morphophonemics: Changes in Provençal and Spanish preterite forms. Lingua 52. 201–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Esher, Louise. 2015a. Morphomes and predictability in the history of Romance perfects. Diachronica 32(4). 494–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Formal asymmetries between the Romance synthetic future and conditional in the Occitan varieties of the Western Languedoc. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(2). 249–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Morphomic distribution of augments in varieties of Occitan. Revue Romane 51. 271–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021a. Hypercorrection and velar-to-labial change in Occitan preterites. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 137(1). 61–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. La diachronie du prétérit occitan à la lumière des sources textuelles. Linguistica Pragensia 31(2). 115–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021c. Perspettive comparative e storiche sulla flessione del preterito nelle parlate occitane della Provenza. Vox Romanica 80. 203–38.Google Scholar
. 2022. Overlapping subjunctive forms in Gallo — and Ibero-Romance verb paradigms. Revue Romane 57(1). 86–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feist, Timothy & Enrique Palancar. 2021. Paradigmatic restructuring and the diachrony of stem alternations in Chichimec. Language 97(1). 1–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lloret, Maria-Rosa. 2009. Changes in inflectional class as a means to repair phonology. In Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes, 22–34. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1997. La dissimilation à la lumière des pronoms clitiques en roman. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 113(4). 531–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Phonological dissimilation and clitic morphology in Italo-Romance. In Lori Repetti (ed.), Phonological theory and the dialects of Italy, 169–89. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Verb augments and meaninglessness in Romance morphology. Studi di grammatica italiana 22. 1–61.Google Scholar
. 2018. The Romance verb: Morphomic structure and diachrony. Oxford, Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2012. The dynamic lexicon. In Abigail Cohn, Cécile Fougeron & Marie Huffman (eds.), The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology, 173–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Quint, Nicolas. 1996. Grammaire du parler occitan nord-limousin marchois de Gartempe et de Saint-Sylvain-Montaigut (Creuse). Limoges: La clau lemosina.Google Scholar
Ravier, Xavier. 1978–1993. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique du Languedoc occidental. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Ronjat, Jules. 1937. Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes, vol. 3. Montpellier: Société des Langues Romanes.Google Scholar
Skårup, Povl. 1997. Morphologie élémentaire de l’ancien occitan. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Max. 2011. The evolution of a morphome in Catalan verb inflection. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds.), Morphological autonomy, 183–209. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Vies d’analogia i d’explicació en l’evolució del pretèrit feble de la conjugació-e romànica. Estudis Romànics 34. 7–36.Google Scholar