Analogy Among French Sounds

  • Michael L. Mazzola
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 88)


This paper examines the role of three versions of analogy: (1) analogy as structure, (2) analogy as lexical diffusion, and (3) analogy as suppletive leveling as applied to the history of French sounds from the fourth to the sixth centuries. The nineteenth-century approach relied heavily on suppletive analogy realized as allomorphic leveling. It is proposed that this form of analogy originated in ethnic idealism and, consequently, should be viewed as an implement of that idealism rather than of historical accuracy. Within this context is raised, in contrast, a distinction between structural vs. social variants in support of analogy as structure and of lexical diffusion during the period between the fall of the Empire and Charlemagne.


Social Variant Sixth Century Romance Language Language Change Sound Change 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Antila, Raimo. 2003. Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition. In Handbook of historical linguistics, ed. B. Joseph and R. Janda, 425–440. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Baigent, M., R. Leigh, and H. Lincoln. 1982. Holy blood, holy grail. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
  3. Baigent, M., R. Leigh, and H. Lincoln. 1986. The messianic legacy. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
  4. Beaune, Colette. 1991. The birth of an ideology: Myths and symbols of nation in late-medieval France. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourciez, E., and J. Bourciez. 1958. Précis de phonétique française, 9th ed. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  6. Fouché, Pierre. 1966. Phonétique historique du français, vol. II. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  7. Herman, József. 2000. Vulgar Latin. University Park: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  8. James, Edward. 1982. The origins of France: From Clovis to the Capetians 500–1000. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. James, Edward. 1988. The Franks. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Kantorowicz, E. 1997. The king’s two bodies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kiparsky, Paul, et al. 1988. Phonological change. In Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 1, ed. Frederick J. Newmeyer, 363–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 640–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Labov, William. 1981. Resolving the neogrammarian controversy. Language57(2): 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lodge, R.Anthony. 1993. From dialect to standard. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malkiel, Yakov. 1988. A tentative autobiography. Special Issue of Romance Philology1988–1989. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mazzola, Michael L. 2000. L’analyse à l’encontre de l’analogie. In Actes du XXIIe Congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, ed. A. Englebert et al., 326. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  17. Mazzola, Michael L. 2005. Social hypotheses and formal proposals. XVII International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  18. Mazzola, Michael L. 2006. Rhythm and prosodic change. In Historical Romance linguistics: Retrospective and perspectives, ed. Deborah Arteaga and Randall Gess, 97–110. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J Benjamins.Google Scholar
  19. Mazzola, Michael L. 2007. L’analyse soujacente à la diglossie. In Actes du XXIVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, ed. David Trotter, 533–539. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  20. Mazzola, Michael L. 2008. The two-norm theory as an emblem of political power and historical invention. In Latin Vulgaire – Latin Tardif VIII: Actes du VIIIe colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif, Oxford, 6–9 Septembre 2006, ed. Roger Wright, 591–599. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
  21. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1890–1906. Grammaire des langues romanes, 3 vols. Repr., Geneva: Slatkine, 1974.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1913. Historische Grammatik der Französischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Karl Winter.Google Scholar
  23. Morin, Yves-Charles. 2003. Syncope, apocope, diphtongaison et palatalisation en galloroman: problèmes de chronologie relative. In Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica, vol. I, ed. Fernando Sánchez Miret, 113–169. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  24. Muller, Henri-François. 1929. A chronology of vulgar Latin, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie LXXVIII. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  25. Neumann, Fritz. 1890. Review of Eduard Schwann. Grammatik des Altfranzösischen in Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie14: 543–586.Google Scholar
  26. Périn, Patrick, and Laure-Charlotte Feffer. 1987. Les Francs. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  27. Picknett, Lynn, and Clive Prince. 1997. The templar revelation. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  28. Pirson, Jules. 1909. Le Latin des formules mérovingiennes. Romanische ForschungenXXVI: 837–944.Google Scholar
  29. Poliakov, Léon. 1996. The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and National Ideas in Europe.Trans. Edmund Howard. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
  30. Pope, Mildred K. 1934. From Latin to modern French. Repr., Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
  31. Posner, R. 1997. Linguistic change in French. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Richter, Elise. 1934. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Romanismen: Chronologische Phonetik des Französischen bis zum Endes des 8 Jahrhunderts. Max Niemeyer: Halle.Google Scholar
  33. Straka, Georges. 1953. Observations sur la chronologie et les dates de quelques modifications phonétiques en roman. Revue des langues romanes71: 247–307.Google Scholar
  34. Straka, Georges. 1956. La dislocation linguistique de la Romania et la formation des langues romanes. Revue de linquistique romane20: 249–267.Google Scholar
  35. Straka, Georges. 1970. A propos des traitements de -icuet -icadans les proparoxytons en français. Travaux de linguistique et littérature8: 297–311.Google Scholar
  36. Strayer, Joseph R. 1957. On the medieval origins of the modern state. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Venneman, T., and T. Wilbur. 1972. Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change.Linguistische Forschungen 26. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
  38. Wood, Ian. 1994. The Merovingian kingdoms, 450–751. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Francis Cairns.Google Scholar
  40. Wright, Roger. 2002. A sociophilological study of late Latin. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northern IllinoisDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations