Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:15:57.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prenominal bon and bonne in French liaison and enchaînement: An acoustic description

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2020

Adam F. McBride
Adam F. McBride*
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
*
Email: a_mcbride@byu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates the treatment of oronasal vowel /ↄ̃/ of the prenominal adjective bon (/bↄ̃/) in liaison, as produced by 19 speakers of Northern Metropolitan French. The oronasal vowel of this word has traditionally been identified as a denasalized vowel in liaison, which, when paired with the liaison consonant [n], is typically understood to be produced identically to the feminine form of the adjective bonne (/bↄn/). To verify this supposition, the adjective pair bon/bonne is produced in various contexts and word sequences by each speaker in a series of reading tasks. Six acoustic measures (i.e., A1−P0, A3−P0, center of gravity, F1 bandwidth, F2 and vowel duration) are taken for each token and the resulting data are analysed in a series of regression models. A brief acoustic description is given for the vowel /ↄ̃/ both in and out of liaison, and comparison is made between bon in liaison and the feminine bonne in prevocalic position (e.g., bon ami vs. bonne amie). Analyses indicate that 15 of the 19 speakers seem to produce bon in liaison distinctly from non-liaison bon, but not distinctly from pre-vocalic bonne, which may support suppletive analyses of adjectives in liaison.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 3 - 23
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

REFERENCES

Boersma, P. and Weenink, P. (2017). Praat (Version 6.0.24) [Software]. URL: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/download_mac.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The Emergent Lexicon. CLS 34: The Panels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 421–435.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Frequency effects on French liaison. Typological Studies in Language, 45: 337–360.10.1075/tsl.45.17bybCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2005). La liaison: Effets de fréquence et constructions. Languages, 158: 24–37.10.3917/lang.158.0024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carignan, C. (2013). When nasal is more than nasal: The oral articulation of nasal vowels in two dialects of French. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Carignan, C. (2014). An acoustic and articulatory examination of the ‘oral’ in ‘nasal’: The oral articulations of French nasal vowels are not arbitrary. Journal of Phonetics, 46: 23–33.10.1016/j.wocn.2014.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carignan, C., Shosted, R., Fu, M., Liang, Z.-P. and Sutton, B. (2015). A real-time MRI investigation of the role of lingual and pharyngeal articulation in the production of the nasal vowel system of French. Journal of Phonetics, 50: 34–51.10.1016/j.wocn.2015.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M. Y. (1995). Acoustic parameters of nasalized vowels in hearing-impaired and normal-hearing speakers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 98(5): 2443–2453.10.1121/1.414399CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, M. Y. (1997). Acoustic correlates of English and French nasalized vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(4): 2360–2370.10.1121/1.419620CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Côté, M. H. (2005). Le statut lexical des consonnes de liaison. Langages, 2: 66–78.10.3917/lang.158.0066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2011). French Liaison. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 5: 2685–2710. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1947/1966). La liaison en français, tendences et classification. In Delattre, P. (ed.), Studies in French and comparative phonetics: Selected papers in French and English. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1968). Divergences entre nasalités vocalique et consonantique en français. Word, 24(1–3): 64–72.10.1080/00437956.1968.11435515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, P. and Monnot, M. (1968). The role of duration in the identification of French nasal vowels. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 6(3): 267–288.10.1515/iral.1968.6.1-4.267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delvaux, V. (2009). Perception du contraste de nasalité vocalique en Français. Journal of French Language Studies, 19(1): 25–59.10.1017/S0959269508003566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delvaux, V., Demolin, D., Harmegnies, B., and Soquet, A. (2008). The aerodynamics of nasalization in French. Journal of Phonetics, 36(4): 578–606.10.1016/j.wocn.2008.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delvaux, V., Huet, K., Piccaluga, M., and Harmegnies, B. (2012). Inter-gestural timing in French nasal vowels: A comparative study of (liëge, tournai) northern French vs. (marseille, toulouse) southern French. In Interspeech 2012, 2683–2685.Google Scholar
Durand, J. and Lyche, C. (2008). French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(1): 33–66.10.1017/S0959269507003158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouché, P. (1959). Traité de la prononciation française, 2nd edn. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Glass, J. R. and Zue, V. W. (1985). Detection of nasalized vowels in American English. In Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, IEEE International Conference on ICASSP '85, 10: 1569–1572.Google Scholar
Gordon, M. and Ladefoged, P. (2001). Phonation types: A cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics, 29(4): 383–406.10.1006/jpho.2001.0147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattori, S., Yamamoto, K. and Fujimura, O. (1958). Nasalization of vowels in relation to nasals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 30(4): 267–274.10.1121/1.1909563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, S. and Stevens, K. N. (1985). Acoustic and perceptual correlates of the non‐nasal–nasal distinction for vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 77(4): 1560–1575.10.1121/1.391999CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henning, R. and Jongman, A. (2011). Phonetics: Transcription, production, acoustics, and perception. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V. (2013, July). The TenTen corpus family. In 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL (pp. 125–127).Google Scholar
Kiefte, M. and Kluender, K. R. (2005). The relative importance of spectral tilt in monophthongs and diphthongs. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117: 1395–1404.10.1121/1.1861158CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennes, M. (2002). Draw spectrum from selection [Praat script]. URL: http://www.helsinki.fi/∼lennes/praat-scripts/public/draw_spectrum_from_selection.praatGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., Kingston, J., Thorburn, R., Dickey, L. W. and Bartels, C. (1999). Integrality of nasalization and F1. II. Basic sensitivity and phonetic labeling measure distinct sensory and decision-rule interactions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106: 2913–2932.10.1121/1.428113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maeda, S. (1982). Acoustic correlates of vowel nasalization: A simulation study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 72: S102.10.1121/1.2019690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeda, S. (1993). Acoustics of vowel nasalization and articulatory shifts in French nasal vowels. Phonetics and Phonology, 5: 147–167.Google Scholar
Morin, Y. C. (1986). On the morphologization of word-final consonant deletion in French. In: Andersen, H. (ed), Sandhi phenomena in the langues of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 176–210.Google Scholar
Pruthi, T. and Espy-Wilson, C. Y. (2007, August). Acoustic parameters for the automatic detection of vowel nasalization. Interspeech (pp. 1925–1928).Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 1.0.136). Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL: https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar
Sampson, R. (2001). Liaison, nasal vowels and productivity. Journal of French Language Studies, 11(2): 241–258.10.1017/S0959269501000254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, M. F. (1968). The acoustics of normal and nasal vowel production. The Cleft Palate Journal, 5(2): 125–140.Google ScholarPubMed
Selkirk, E. (1974). French liaison and the X¯ notation. Linguistic Inquiry, 5(4): 573–590.Google Scholar
Shosted, R., Carignan, C. and Rong, P. (2012). Managing the distinctiveness of phonemic nasal vowels: Articulatory evidence from Hindi. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(1): 455–465.10.1121/1.3665998CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steriade, D. (1999). Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In: Authier, J.-M., Bullock, B. E., and Reed, L. A. (eds), Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 243–270.10.1075/cilt.185.18steCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., Andrede, A., and Viana, M. C. (1987). Perception of vowel nasalization in VC contexts: A cross-language study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 82.S1: S119.10.1121/1.2024621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Styler, W. (2015). On the acoustical and perceptual features of vowel nasality. PhD thesis, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1990). On suppletion and French liaison. Probus, 2(2): 169–208.10.1515/prbs.1990.2.2.169CrossRefGoogle Scholar