Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T18:41:37.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L’adaptation de la voyelle /y/ en /ju/ dans les emprunts en russe: un cas de palatalisation, non de biphonémicité

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Carole Paradis  and
Mélanie Thibeault
Carole Paradis
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Mélanie Thibeault
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lexical borrowings provide important clues regarding the internal structure of segments. We focus on the internal structure of the front rounded vowel /y/ and the arguments which led us to maintain that /y/ is a simple vowel. The unpacking of /y/ in /ju/ in many Russian borrowings from French, German, and several languages of the Turkish family is not the consequence of /y/ including two vowels underlyingly but the consequence of the fact that Russian allows the majority of its consonants to be palatalized. The front rounded vowel /y/ includes the feature combination [−back] ~ [+round]. When an adaptation strategy causes [—back] to delink from /y/ in Russian, [—back] is salvaged by the preceding consonant when this consonant is palatalizable, thus yielding the realization /Cju/.

Résumé

Résumé

Les emprunts lexicaux fournissent des renseignements importants sur la composition interne des phonèmes. Nous nous concentrons sur la structure de la voyelle arrondie d’avant /y/ et les arguments qui nous permettent d’avancer qu’il s’agit d’une voyelle simple. Le décompactage de la voyelle /y/ en /ju/ dans un nombre important d’emprunts russes au français, à l’allemand et aux langues turques n’est pas dû au fait que /y/ est constitué de deux phonèmes en forme sous-jacente mais au fait que le russe possède des consonnes palatalisées, dites « mouillées », et qu’il permet, par ailleurs, la palatalisation de la plupart de ses consonnes. La voyelle /y/ est constituée des traits [—arrière] et [+arrondi]. Lorsque le trait [—arrière] est dissocié de la voyelle /y/ suite à une stratégie d’adaptation en russe, ce trait est récupéré par la consonne précédente si celle-ci fait partie des consonnes qui sont palatalisables en russe, d’où la réalisation /Cju/.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 175 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2004

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

Références

Andrews, Edna. 2001. Russian. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana et Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Avanesov, Ruben. 1968. Russkoye literaturnoye proiznoshenie. Moscou: Prosveshchenie.Google Scholar
Bambi, Annie. 1998. Préservation, minimalité et seuil de tolérance dans les emprunts français en lingala. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université Laval.Google Scholar
Berk, Cybèle et Bozdemir, Michel. 1991. Dictionnaire français-turc. Paris: Éd. Dictionnaires des langues.Google Scholar
Beyer, Thomas R. 2001. Russian. In Facts about the world’s languages, sous la dir. de Gary, Jane and Rubino, Carl, 605–607. New York: Wilson Co.Google Scholar
Bright, William, dir. 1992. International encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, Nicolas et Hume, Elizabeth. 1995. The internal organisation of speech sounds. In The handbook of phonological theory, sous la dir. Goldsmith, de John, 245–306. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cubberley, Paul. 1993. The phonological dynamics of foreign borrowings in Russian. Australian Slavonic and East European Studies 7:49–74.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1988. Investigations into Polish morphology and phonology. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Evgen’eva, Anastasiia Petrovna. 1981. Slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Moscou: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Gleichen, Edward et Reynolds, John H.. 1956. Alphabets of foreign languages. Londres: Permanent committee on geographical names for British official use. [1933.]Google Scholar
Golovinsky, M. 1912. A new English-Russian and Russian-English dictionary. Philadephia: D. McKay.Google Scholar
Grappin, Pierre. 1989. Grand dictionnaire français allemand. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Hamilton, William S. 1982. On the future of soft consonants in Russian. Russian Language Journal 36:123–124.Google Scholar
Holden, Kyril. 1976. Assimilation rates of borrowings and phonological productivity. Language 52:131–147.Google Scholar
Hüttl-Worth, Gerta. 1963. Foreign words in Russian: A historical sketch, 1550–1800. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2001. Turkmen. In Facts about world’s languages, sous la dir. Garry, de Jane et Rubino, Carl, 770–772. New York: Wilson Co.Google Scholar
Jones, Lawrence G. 1959. The contextual variants of the Russian vowels. In The sound pattern of Russian, sous la dir. Halle, de Morris, 159–167. La Haye: Mouton.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene et Paradis, Carole. 2002. Addressing and disconfirming some predictions of phonetic approximation for loanword adaptation. Langues et linguistique 28:73–91.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene et Paradis, Carole. 2005. Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36:223–258.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi et Evers, Vincent. 1991. Palatalization and coronality. In Phonetics and phonology, vol. 2: The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidences, sous la dir. Paradis, de Carole et Prunet, Jean-François, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lychyk, Victor. 1994. English borrowings in recent Soviet Russian. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 29:141–156.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Edgar Nathan. 1952. Processes of adoption of French loanwords into literary Russian in the latter eighteenth century: A study in bilingualism. Thèse de doctorat, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Mazon, André. 1949. Grammaire de la langue russe. Paris: Institut d’études slaves.Google Scholar
Meechan, Marjory. 1992. Register in Khmer: The laryngeal specification of pharyngeal expansion. Mémoire de maîtrise. Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole et LaCharité, Darlene. 1997. Preservation and minimality in loanwords adaptation. Journal of linguistics 33:379–430.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole et LaCharité, Darlene. 2001. Guttural deletion in loanwords. Phonology 18:255–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole et Prunet, Jean-François. 2000. Nasal vowels as two segments: Evidence from borrowings. Language 76:324–357.Google Scholar
Plapp-Kuhn, Rosemary. 1999. Lexical Phonology and Optimality Theory: Analysis of Russian. Thèse de doctorat, University of Iowa. [Publié par UMI en 2000.]Google Scholar
Robert, Paul. 1993. Le Petit Robert. Paris: Les dictionnaires Robert.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17:39–64.Google Scholar
Russ, Charles V.J. 1994. The German language today: A linguistic introduction. Londres: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Michael. 2001. Hindi. In Facts about world’s languages, sous la dir. Garry, de Jane et Rubino, Carl, 305–309. New York: Wilson Co.Google Scholar
Sok, Phal et Morin, Yves-Charles. 2000. Adaptation par diphtongaison dans les emprunts: le cas des emprunts du khmer au français. Texte d’une communication présentée au congrès annuel de l’ACFAS, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Underhill, Robert. 2001. Turkish. In Facts about world’s languages, sous la dir. Garry, de Jane et Rubino, Carl, 305–309. New York: Wilson Co.Google Scholar
Ushakov, Dmitrii Nikolaevich. 1935-. Tolkovyĭ slovar russkogo iazyka. Moscou: Ed. Sovetskaia entsiklopediia. 4 tomes. [1935–1940]Google Scholar
Vasmer, Max. 1964. Etimologisheskii slovar’ russkovo. Moscou: Progress.Google Scholar
Veyrenc, Charles Jacques. 1970. Histoire de la langue russe. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Zasorina, L. 1977. Dictionnaire des fréquences de la langue russe. Moscou: Russkij Jazyk.Google Scholar