Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16: Selected papers from the 47th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Newark, Delaware
Edited by Irene Vogel
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 16] 2020
► pp. 65–76

Geminates and vowel laxing in Quebec French

| Concordia University
| Concordia University

Laxing and harmony in Quebec French (QF) high vowels shows dialectal, register and perhaps even lexical variation. A recent proposal to handle some of the data (Poliquin 2006) contains a radical innovation to phonological theory concerning long-distance segment interactions. We question the necessity of such an account by pointing out that recognition of geminate sonorants in QF can explain some puzzling forms without recourse to new devices. Our account is supported by phonetic considerations, as well as by recognizing that the alternative both under and overgenerates lax vowels in surface forms.

Keywords: vowel harmony, French, Quebec French, phonology, laxing, syllable, geminate
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Basics of Quebec French +High vowels
  • 3.Three strikes against NLNIVH in illicite
    • 3.1‘Long-distance’ is not ‘non-local’
    • 3.2NLNIVH overgenerates and undergenerates
    • 3.3Geminates to the rescue
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.16.05cue
References
Bale, Alan, and Charles Reiss
2018 Phonology: A Formal Introduction. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bale, Alan, Maxime Papillon, and Charles Reiss
2014 “Targeting Underspecified Segments: A Formal Analysis of Feature Changing and Feature Filling Rules.” Lingua 148: 240–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosworth, Yulia
2011 “Weight and Feet in Québécois.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Chandlee, Jane, and Jeffrey Heinz
2018 “Strict Locality and Phonological Maps.” Linguistic Inquiry 49: 23–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
2000 “Language as a Natural Object.” In New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, 106–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Approaching UG from Below.” In Interfaces + re-cursion = Language?: Chomsky’s Minimalism and the View from Syntax-Semantics, ed. by Uli Sauerland, and Hans-Martin Gärtner, 1–24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C., William H. Ham, and Robert J. Podesva
1999 “The Phonetic Realization of Singleton-Geminate Contrasts in Three Languages of Indonesia”. Proceedings of ICPhS 14: 587–590.Google Scholar
Hammarberg, Robert
1981 “The Cooked and the Raw”. Journal of Information Science 3: 261–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lai, Regine
2015 “Learnable vs. Unlearnable Harmony Patterns”. Linguistic Inquiry 46: 425–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, and Adrian P. Simpson
1999 “Phonetic Implemenation of Geminates in Malayalam Nouns”. ICPhS 595–599.Google Scholar
Morin, Annick
2010 “Diachrony and Synchrony of/l/Gemination in Québec French.” In Proceedings of the 2010 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, ed. by Melinda Heijl, Online Proceedings: Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar
Poliquin, Gabriel Christophe
2006 “Canadian French Vowel Harmony.” Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.
Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1976 “The Duke of York Gambit”. Journal of Linguistics 12: 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon, and Rachel Walker
2004 “A Typology of Consonant Agreement as Correspondence”. Language 80: 475–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
2007 The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Douglas C.
2001 French Sound Structure, Volume 1. University of Calgary Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar