Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T16:46:55.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competing analyses of the Vulgar Latin vowel system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Douglas C. Walker
Douglas C. Walker*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The ways in which the vowel system of Vulgar Latin (VL) differs from that of Classical Latin (CL) have been well documented. These differences arise from historical innovations including:

  • (1) the monophthongization of the diphthongs [oj] œ and [aj] œ to [ē] and respectively,

  • (2) the lowering of the short vowels to respectively, and the consequent introduction of a new phonemic degree of vowel height for the front unrounded and back rounded vowels,

  • (3) the neutralization of the phonemic CL length differences, all stressed vowels now being long whatever the length of their CL source, and all unstressed vowels being short, and

  • (4) the introduction of phonemic stress, since the position of stress is no longer synchronically predictable because of the neutralization of vowel length mentioned in (3).

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , Spring 1975 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bourciez, E. 1946 Eléments de linguistique romane. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. 1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. 1971 The monophthongization of /ae/ and the Vulgar Latin vowel system. TPS 1971.175–191.Google Scholar
Elcock, W. 1960 The Romance Languages. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Grandgent, C. 1907 An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston: Heath.Google Scholar
Hale, W. & Buck, C. 1966 A Latin Grammar. University: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Hall, R. 1950 The reconstruction of Proto-Romance. Language 26.6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. W. 1969 Spanish Phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. MS The influence of borrowing on the phonology of Spanish. UCLA.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968 Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Pp. 170–202.Google Scholar
K. Lausenburger, J. MS Latin vocalic quantity to quality: A pseudo problem? University of Washington.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1972 The internal evolution of linguistic rules. In Stoclcwell, R. and Macaulay, R. (eds.) Linguistic Change and Generative Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Pp. 101–171.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lubke, W. 1890 Grammaire des langues romanes. 4 vol. Paris: Welter, 1890–1906.Google Scholar
Schane, S. 1968 French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1973 The role of surface phonetic constraints in generative phonology. Language 49.87–106.Google Scholar
Spence, N. C. W. 1965 Quantity and quality in the vowel system of Vulgar Latin. Word 21.1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. 1972 Rule inversion. Lingua 29.209–242.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. 1968 Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Language 44.695–708.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. 1969 Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45.9–25.Google Scholar