Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:00:56.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

French liaison in the light of corpus data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

JACQUES DURAND  and
CHANTAL LYCHE
JACQUES DURAND
Affiliation:
CLLE-ERSS UMR5263 CNRS, Maison de la Recherche, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, 5 Allées Antonio-Machado, 31058 Toulouse, France e-mail: jdurand@univ-tlse2.fr
CHANTAL LYCHE
Affiliation:
Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages, University of Oslo, Postboks 1003, Blindern, 0315 Oslo, Norway e-mail: chantal.lyche@ilos.uio.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

French liaison has long been a favourite testing ground for phonological theories, a situation which can undoubtedly be attributed to the complexity of the phenomenon, involving in particular phonology/syntax, phonology/morphology, phonology/lexicon interfaces. Dealing with liaison requires stepping into all the components of the grammar, while at the same time tackling the quick sands of variation. The data on which a number of formal analyses are based have often been a source of concern since liaison, in part because of its intrinsic variable character, requires extensive and robust data. In the wake of the results from the study of other corpora, we present here extensive results based on the PFC database (Phonologie du français contemporain: usages, variétés et structures) and point to their implications for models of linguistic structure. While we do not believe that a motivated theoretical account can be mechanically extracted from the data, we conclude that future analyses will have to take explicitly into account the results of extensive corpus work as well as sociolinguistic surveys, acquisition studies, experimental phonetics and (neuro-)psycho-linguistic investigations, including the relationship between speech and writing. As stressed in Chevrot, Fayol and Laks (2005), these analyses will have to acknowledge that French liaison is not a homogeneous locus but a multi-faceted phenomenon requiring us to accept, without demur, the crossing of disciplinary boundaries.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 1: Le français à la lumière des corpus , March 2008 , pp. 33 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Ågren, J. (1973). Enquête sur quelques liaisons facultatives dans le français de conversation radiophonique. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Armstrong, N. (2001). Social and Stylistic Variation in Spoken French: a comparative approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aub-Buscher, G. (1962). Le parler rural de Ranrupt (Bas-Rhin). Essai de dialectologie vosgienne. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Bakker, P. (1997). A language of our own: the genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Metis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O., Boyé, G. and Tseng, J. (2004). An integrated analysis of French liaison. In: Jaeger, G. (ed.), Formal Grammar 2004 Preproceedings. Nancy, France, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., Boyé, G. and Tseng, J. (2005). Sur la grammaire des consonnes latentes. Langages, 158: 89–100.Google Scholar
Borrell, M. and Billières, M. (1989). L'évolution de la norme phonétique en français contemporain. La linguistique, 25: 45–62.Google Scholar
Boula de Mareüil, P., Adda-Decker, M. and Woehrling, C. (2007). Analysis of oral and nasal vowel realisation in northern and southern French varieties <http://www.limsi.fr/Individu/mareuil/publi/1240.pdf>, 6th International Conference on Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, pp. 2221–2224.,+6th+International+Conference+on+Phonetic+Sciences,+Saarbrücken,+pp.+2221–2224.>Google Scholar
Brun, A. (1931). Le français de Marseille. Marseille: Institut historique de Provence. (Réédité en 1978, Marseille: Laffitte Reprints.)Google Scholar
Bruneau, C. (1931). Manuel de phonétique pratique. 2nd edition. Paris: Berger-Levrault.Google Scholar
Buben, V. (1935). Influence de l'orthographe sur la prononciation du français moderne. Brastilava: Faculté de Lettres de l'Université de Bratislava.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001a). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001b). Frequency effects on French liaison. In: Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 337–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2005). La liaison: effets de fréquence et constructions. Langages, 158: 24–37.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerquiglini, B. (2007). Une langue orpheline. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P., Chabanal, D. and Dugua, C. (2007). Pour un modèle de l'acquisition des liaisons basé sur l'usage: trois études de cas. Journal of French Language Studies, 17: 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P., Dugua, C. and Fayol, M. (2005). Liaison et formation des mots en français: un scénario développemental. Langages, 158: 38–52.Google Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P., Fayol, M. and Laks, B. (eds.) (2005). La liaison: de la phonologie à la cognition. Langages, 158.Google Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P. and Malderez, I. (1999). L'effet Buben: de la linguistique diachronique à l'approche cognitive (et retour). Langue française, 124: 104–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (2005). Le statut lexical des consonnes de liaison. Langages, 158: 66–78.Google Scholar
Coustenoble, H. N. and Armstrong, L. E. (1934). Studies in French Intonation. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2001). The Sounds of Contemporary French. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.Google Scholar
De Jong, D. (1988). Sociolinguistic Aspects of French Liaison. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Free University: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
De Jong, D. (1994). La sociophonologie de la liaison orléanaise. In: Lyche, C.. (ed.), French Generative Phonology: Retrospective and Perspectives, AFLS/ESRI, pp. 95–130.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1951). Principes de phonétique française à l'usage des étudiants anglo-américains. Middlebury College.Google Scholar
Delattre, P. (1966). Studies in French and Comparative Phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, F. (1973/1985). Les règles et les sons. 2nd edition, 1985. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1976). Generative phonology, dependency phonology and Southern French. Lingua e Stile, XI (1): 3–23. Also in Essex Occasional Papers, vol. 16.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1986). French liaison, floating segments and other matters in a dependency framework. In Durand, J.. (ed.), Dependency and Non-Linear Phonology. London: Croom Helm, pp. 161–201.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1988). Phénomènes de nasalité en français du midi. Phonologie de dépendance et sous-spécification. Recherches linguistiques, 17: 29–54.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1990). Generative and Non-Linear Phonology. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1993). Sociolinguistic variation and the linguist. In: Sanders, C.. (ed.) French Today: Language in its Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, J. (1995). Alternances vocaliques en français du midi et phonologie du gouvernement. Lingua, 95: 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, J. and Eychenne, J. (2004). Le schwa en français: pourquoi des corpus? In: Scheer, T.. (ed.) Usage des corpus en phonologie. Corpus, 3: 311–356.Google Scholar
Durand, J., Laks, B. and Lyche, C. (2002). La phonologie du français contemporain: usages, variétés et structure. In: Pusch, C. and Raible, W.. (eds.), Romanistische Korpuslinguistik- Korpora und gesprochene Sprache/Romance Corpus Linguistics – Corpora and Spoken Language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
Durand, J., Laks, B. and Lyche, C. (2005). Un corpus numérisé pour la phonologie du français. In: Williams, G.. (ed.), La linguistique de corpus. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 205–217.Google Scholar
Durand, J. and Lyche, C. (2003). Le projet ‘Phonologie du Français Contemporain’ (PFC) et sa méthodologie. In: Delais, E. and Durand, J.. (eds.), Corpus et variation en phonologie du français: méthodes et analyses. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail, pp. 212–276.Google Scholar
Durand, J. and Tarrier, J.-M. (2003). Enquête phonologique en Languedoc (Douzens, Aude). La Tribune Internationale des Langues Vivantes, 33: 117–127.Google Scholar
Durand, J. and Tarrier, J.-M. (to appear). Deux thèses sur la transcription et le codage d'un grand corpus oral: le cas de PFC. In: Bilger, M. (ed.) Les enjeux de la transcription de la langue parlée. Perpignan: Presses Universitaires de Perpignan.Google Scholar
Durand, M. (1936). Le genre grammatical en français parlé à Paris et dans la région parisienne. Paris: D'Artrey.Google Scholar
Encrevé, P. (1983). La liaison sans enchaînement. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 46: 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Encrevé, P. (1988). La liaison avec et sans enchaînement. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Eychenne, J. (2006). Aspects de la phonologie du schwa dans le français contemporain: optimalité, visibilité prosodique, gradience. Thèse de doctorat non publiée. Université de Toulouse 2 Le Mirail.Google Scholar
Féry, C. (2003). Liaison and syllable structure in French. Postdam, Ms.Google Scholar
Fouché, P. (1959). Traité de prononciation française. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fougeron, C., Goldman, J.-P. and Frauenfelder, U. (2001). Liaison and schwa deletion in French: an effect of lexical frequency and competition? In: Proceedings of Eurospeech 2001. Aalborg: Danemark, pp. 639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (2003/2007). La variation sociale en français. 2nd edition., 2007. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (2006). Réflexions sur les corpus oraux: que le linguiste sache ce qu'il fait. Colloque international, Phonologie du français: du social au cognitif, Paris, MSH, 7–9 décembre 2006. http://www.projet-pfc.net/?u_s=4&u_a=101&.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Hintze, M.-A. (1990). Variation and change in French linking phenomena. In: Green, J. and Ayres-Bennet, W.. (eds.), Variation and Change in French. London: Routledge, pp.61–88.Google Scholar
Green, J. and Hintze, M.-A. (2001). The maintenance of liaison in a family network. In: Hintze, M.-A., Pooley, T. and Judge, A. (eds.), French Accents: Phonological and Sociological Perspectives. London: AFLS/CILT, pp. 24–43.Google Scholar
Kaisse, H. (1985). Connected Speech. The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Klausenburger, J. (1978). Liaison 1977: the case for epenthesis. Studies in French Linguistics, 1–2: 1–20.Google Scholar
Klingler, T. (2006). PFC en terrain louisianais: défis et adaptation du protocole. Colloque international Phonologie du français contemporain: données et enjeux théoriques, Paris, MSH, 3–5 février 2006. http://www.projet-pfc.net/?u_s=4&u_a=49&.Google Scholar
Lacheret, A. and Lyche, C. (2006). Le rôle des facteurs prosodiques dans l'analyse du schwa et de la liaison. In: Simon, A.-C.. (ed.), Bulletin PFC 6, ERSS, Université de Toulouse le Mirail et CNRS, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
Lacheret, A., Lyche, C. and Morel, M. (2005). Phonological analysis of schwa and liaison within the PFC project: how determinant are the prosodic factors? In INTERSPEECH-2005, http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/interspeech_2005, pp.1437–1440.Google Scholar
Laks, B. (1983). Langage et pratiques sociales. Étude sociolinguistique d'un groupe d'adolescents. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 46, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laks, B. (2002). Description de l'oral et variation: La phonologie et la norme. L'information grammaticale, 94: 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laks, B. (2005). La liaison et l'illusion, Langages, 158: 101–126.Google Scholar
Laks, B. (to appear). Dynamiques de la liaison en français.Google Scholar
Léon, P. (1992). Phonétisme et prononciations du français avec des travaux d'application et leurs corrigés. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Lepelley, R. (1999). La Normandie dialectale. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.Google Scholar
Lyche, C. (2003). French liaison and data. CASTL kick-off Conference, Universitetet i Tromsø, October 2–4, 2003.Google Scholar
Lyche, C. (2006). Corpus en domaine francophone: la Louisiane. Ecole Thématique CNRS, Linguistique de corpus oraux, Nantes 19–24 June, 2006.Google Scholar
Lyche, C. and Girard, F. (1995). Le mot retrouvé. Lingua, 95: 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malécot, A. (1977). Introduction à la phonétique française. La Haye: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. and Walter, H. (1973). Dictionnaire de la prononciation française dans son usage réel. Paris: France Expansion.Google Scholar
Martinon, P. (1913). Comment on prononce le français. Traité complet de prononciation pratique avec les noms propres et les noms étrangers. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Milner, J.-C. and Regnault, F. (1987). Dire le vers. Court traité à l'intention des acteurs et des amateurs d'alexandrins. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (1986). On the morphologization of word-final consonant deletion in French. In: Andersen, H.. (ed.), Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 167–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (1987). French data and phonological theory. Linguistics, 25: 815–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (1990). La prononciation de [t] après quand. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 14: 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (2000). Le français de référence et les normes de prononciation. Cahiers de l'Institut de linguistique de Louvain, 26–1: 91–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (2003) [1998]. Remarks on pronominal liaison consonants in French. In: Ploch, S.. (ed.) Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 291–330.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. (2005). La liaison relève-t-elle d'une tendance à éviter les hiatus. Réflexions sur son évolution historique. Langages, 158: 8–23.Google Scholar
Morin, Y.-C. and Kaye, J. (1982). The syntactic bases for French liaison, Journal of Linguistics, 18: 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, N. and Espesser, R. (2004). Méthodes et outils pour l'analyse acoustique des systèmes vocaliques. Version 1.0. In: Eychenne, J. and Mallet, G.. (eds.), Bulletin PFC3, ERSS, 77–85.Google Scholar
Nguyen, N., Wauquier-Gravelines, S., Lancia, L. and Tuller, B. (to appear). Detection of liaison consonants in speech processing in French: experimental data and theoretical implications.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. and El Fenne, F. (1995). French verbal inflection revisited: constraints, repairs and floating consonants. Lingua, 95: 169–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passy, P. (1892). Les sons du français. Leur formation, leur combinaison, leur représentation. Paris: Firmin-Didot.Google Scholar
Pichon, E. (1938). Genre et questions connexes (sur les pas de Mlle Durand). Le français moderne, 6: 107–126.Google Scholar
Post, B. (2000). Pitch accents, liaison and the phonological phrase in French. Probus, 12: 127–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, R. (2001). Liaison, nasal vowels and productivity. Journal of French Language Studies, 11: 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, S. (1968). French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1972). The Phrase Phonology of English and French. PhD dissertation, MIT. (1980, New York: Garland).Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1998). French variable liaison: a proposed simplification. Francophonie, 17: 11–14.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (1999). Linguistic change on British and French public service radio. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Sobotta, E. (2006). Phonologie et migration. Aveyronnais et Guadeloupéens à Paris. Thèse de doctorat, LMU München/Paris X-Nanterre.Google Scholar
Spinelli, E. and Meunier, F. (2005). Le traitement cognitif de la liaison dans la reconnaissance de la parole enchaînée. Langages, 158: 79–88.Google Scholar
Steriade, D. (1999). Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In: Bullock, B., Authier, M. and Reed, L.. (eds.), Formal Perspectives in Romance Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tousignant, C. and Sankoff, D. (1979). Aspects de la compétence productive et réceptive: la liaison à Montréal. In: Thibault, P.. (ed.), Le français parlé. Etudes sociolinguistiques. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc., pp. 41–52.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1981). Concreteness in Generative Phonology: Evidence from French. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1996). French liaison and elision revisited: a unified account within Optimality Theory. In: Parodi, C., Quicoli, C., Saltarelli, M. and Zubizarreta, M. L.. (eds.), Aspects of Romance Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 433–455.Google Scholar
Tranel, B. (1999). Suppletion and OT: On the issue of the syntax/phonology interaction. In: Curtis, E., Lyle, J. and Webster, G.. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 415–429.Google Scholar
Walker, D. (2001). French Sound Structure. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Wauquier-Gravelines, S. (2005). Statut des représentations phonologiques en acquisition, traitement de la parole continue et dysphasie développementale. Dossier d'Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches (vol. 1). Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
Wauquier-Gravelines, S. and Braud, V. (2005). Proto-déterminant et acquisition de la liaison obligatoire en français. Langages, 158: 53–65.Google Scholar
Wioland, F. (1987). Prononcer les sons du français. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar