The sandhi phenomenon of consonant liaison in French has received a great deal of attention in pedagogical grammars as well as in more theoretical linguistic work. For the most part, theoretical studies have addressed the phonological aspects of liaison, focusing on the issue of syllabification at word boundaries or various mechanisms of deletion, insertion, or suppletion. See Klausenburger (1984) and Encreve (1988) (ch. 3) for a chronological overview of this research. Liaison is not a purely phonological phenomenon, however. The elements that trigger liaison cannot always be identified based on their phonology, and the elements targeted by liaison do not always have phonologically predictable forms. Furthermore, liaison is not necessarily realized at every word boundary where it is phonologically possible. It is subject to a wide range of lexical, syntactic, and stylistic conditions, as well as to the influence of speakers’ conscious metalinguistic knowledge about the phenomenon. This combination of factors gives rise to a very diverse and variable set of facts, a situation not fully acknowledged in most (normative) descriptions of French. This paper presents a descriptive overview of liaison, giving an idea of the scope of the phenomenon and possible approaches to its analysis. As for the contextual conditions on liaison, in many cases, the traditional notions of obligatory and prohibited liaison do not reflect speakers’ actual behavior. It turns out that general syntactic constraints cannot determine the systematic presence or absence of liaison at a given word boundary (contrary to the proposals of Selkirk (1974), for example). At best, specific constraints can be formulated to target particular classes of constructions. To express such constraints, I propose a system of
[1]
Maurice Grevisse,et al.
Le bon usage : grammaire française avec des remarques sur la langue française d'aujourd'hui
,
1959
.
[2]
Philip H. Miller,et al.
Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar
,
1992
.
[3]
Y. Morin,et al.
French data and phonological theory
,
1987
.
[4]
E. Selkirk,et al.
How abstract is French phonology
,
1973
.
[5]
BERNARD TRANEL.
ON SUPPLETION AND FRENCH LIAISON
,
1990
.
[6]
P. Fouché.
Traité de prononciation française
,
1956
.
[7]
Sanford Alvin Schane.
The phonological and morphological structure of French
,
1965
.
[8]
Y. Morin.
Remarks on prenominal liaison consonants in French
,
2003
.
[9]
Anne Abeillé,et al.
French Word Order And Lexical Weight
,
1999
.
[10]
Ivan A. Sag,et al.
French Clitic Movement Without Clitics or Movement
,
1997
.
[11]
Rule inversion, opacity, conspiracies: French liaison and elision
,
1974
.
[12]
Olivier Bonami,et al.
Suppletion and stem dependency in inflectional morphology
,
2002
.
[13]
G. Booij,et al.
The domain of liaison: theories and data
,
1987
.
[14]
J. Kaye,et al.
The syntactic bases for French liaison
,
1982,
Journal of Linguistics.
[15]
Jurgen Klausenburger.
French liaison and linguistic theory
,
1984
.
[16]
E. Selkirk.
On derived domains in sentence phonology
,
1986,
Phonology.