Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros84Locality domains on Lenition. Spi...

Locality domains on Lenition. Spirantization (Gorgia) and Voicing in Tuscan dialects1

Les domaines de la localité sur la lénition. Spirantisation (gorgia) et voisement dans les dialectes toscans.
Michela Russo

Résumés

Cet article étudie la lénition (voisement) toscane et la spirantisation (Gorgia) des occlusives sourdes latines d’un point de vue diachronique et synchronique. Les deux lénitions sont des processus postvocaliques. Premièrement, nous nous proposons d’examiner les conditions propres à la lénition romane (voisement) des occlusives, du toscan médiéval aux dialectes modernes. Deuxièmement, la lénition (voisement) toscane est comparée à la spirantisation/aspiration locale plus tardive du florentin-siénnois (Gorgia). La lénition (voisement) interagit avec la Gorgia/spirantisation toscane en relation aux paramètres positionnels et prosodiques, à l’échelle fortition/lénition, aux variations de contenu mélodique selon les contextes forts/faibles à l’intérieur du mot et en contexte phonotactique. L’article fournit une description formelle des consonnes fortes/faibles et de leurs relations avec les objets plus complexes dans lesquels les consonnes sont intégrées (la syllabe et le pied), afin de définir les conditions de localité sur la lénition et de définir la localité en phonologie.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1 Introduction

1.1Tuscan Phonology applies across word boundaries

  • 1 This article develops an invited conference I gave in Leiden (Netherlands) in 2015, as part of the (...)

1Our article deals with Tuscan lenition (Voicing and Spirantization), namely the positional treatment of voiceless Latin stops /p t k/ in intervocalic position (including environments with /r l j w/), called in phonology the weak position (V_V), in word internal position and across word boundaries. The typical (Italo–)Romance lenition of Latin stops /p t k/ groups together a set of diachronic segmental changes connected to the synchronic evolution, and it is better defined as postvocalic lenition since branching onsets also lenite (V_{ r l j w}V). Our article puts a focus on Tuscan dialects in which, since the Medieval period, we observe divergent weakening/lenition results from voiceless Latin stops /p t k/.

  • 2 Hall (1949); Contini (1961); Weinrich (19692); Giannelli and Savoia (1978), (1979–1980); Castellani (...)

2We studied two processes, the consonantal lenition/Voicing, and a postvocalic lenition process known as Tuscan Gorgia, present in most parts of Tuscany, in which voiceless Latin stops can lenite to fricatives. Gorgia is one of the most striking features of Tuscan regional Italian today, typical of the Florentine area, attested since 16th century2. As lenition (Voicing), Gorgia also occurs in wordinternal position and across word boundaries. This sound change can reach up to a laryngeal fricative /h/. Both are positional phenomena in relation to fortition / lenition segmental scales and distributional parameters.

3We explore the expansion of Florentine Gorgia into Western Tuscany, where lenition/Voicing seems much more established since Medieval time, the diachronic difference between the outcomes of lenition in Central and Western Tuscan.

4Moreover, we set the position of Tuscany within the Italo–Romance and Western Romance lenition (Voicing), establishing the relation between Tuscan lenition (Voicing and Gorgia), Western Romance and Northern GalloItalian lenition.

5In this study postvocalic lenition is treated along with the concept of locality, usually defined in phonology as a strict adjacency condition on related units (Piggott and van der Hulst 1997, van der Hulst 2018), i.e., phonological processes tend to apply locally.

  • 3 σ = syllable, C = consonant, V = vowel. The bracket [σ indicates the beginning of the constituent s (...)

6The weak position has always been described as a unitary phonological object: the intervocalic position V_V (i.e., the linear/templatic object vCv or the a–linear/hierarchical object V[σCV)3. This position refers to constituency, as it relates to an onset, but it also relates to the adjunction of a constituent (CV) to a preceding vocalic nucleus (V1(CV2)) with which it does not have a syllabic constituency relation. Thus, the postvocalic position raises the question of the locality in phonology and the relevance of syllabic constituents. We need to question whether locality is highly modular for lenition, whether we have structural or linear locality effects on the phonological lenition. In the case of a structural locality the phonology would refer to it other than through linear syllabic constituents.

7We study the relation of segmental lenition to the more complex objects in which voiceless stops and their strong/weak variants are syllabified and prosodified (syllables and the feet), in order to settle a locality domain on lenition. We describe the lenition phenomena within the framework of Government Phonology (= GP offspring and principles).

8We model lenition in the framework of the Coda Mirror Theory (Ségéral and Scheer 2001; Scheer and Zikova 2010) based on the linear Strict–CV theory (Lowenstamm 1996; Sheer 1994) as well as in the framework of a –linear models (i.e. structuralbased models of the syllable), based on a recursive conception and a ‘maximal’ hypothesis (Sauzet 1994). The latter aims at the relation between syntactic locality and phonological locality in a cyclic Syntax/Phonology interface, while the former places at its core, as its essence, the term of lateral relations. We use the a–linear model to check if a structuralbased phonology is relevant to explain the locality for Tuscan lenition. We aim through these models to set the conditions and predictions for Tuscan lenition/fortition (also depending on sandhi phenomena), based on the observation of diachronic and synchronic data.

9Finally, we also ask within a foot–based analysis if the locality conditions are only dependent on the segmental phonological substance or Tuscan lenition is footsensitive (within a quantitysensitive, leftdominant, trimoraic trochee (QSld).

10Structural patterns of lenition have already been observed in different languages. In Franconian dialects for instance, consonant Voicing depends on foot–structure and it is footsensitive (see Smith 2020; Kohnlein and Smith 2021; especially in footmedial onsets, see Honeybone 2012; 2019; Iosad 2021 for North Germanic). Thus, in these languages the locality of lenition is defined at a trochaic structured templatic level. Katz (2021) also pointed out the interactions between the consonantal lenition and prosodic structure in lenition.

11In Tuscan stress is trochaic, syllables interact with trochaic feet. In Section 3, we analyze the Tuscan foot to determine if the trochaic prosodic forms are relevant for lenition and locality at segmental level in order to establish prosodic properties for consonantal Voicing and spirantization.

12For Medieval Tuscan and Italo–Romance varieties the data shown below and in the following sections (where not otherwise indicated) have been directly selected by the author from the OVI corpus http://tlio.ovi.cnr.it/​ (dir. Paolo Squillacioti and Pär Larson, based in Florence at the OVI CNR Institute), the digital database of the Medieval vernacular Italian dialects. We illustrate on a dataset of the OVI corpus the process of lenition/Voicing of Latin stops /p t k/. We also discuss through the OVI dataset the alleged Medieval origin of Gorgia/spirantization (Section 5).

1.2 The evolution of voiceless stops in Romance and the Tuscan puzzle. The basic pattern

  • 4 Wartburg (1980) observes that the Western Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Occitan, (...)

13As it is wellknown the lenition/Voicing of singleton Latin intervocalic voiceless stops /p t k/ (with Voicing and deletion) subdivided all the Romance areas, included the ItaloRomance area, into two major zones, the Western Romance and the Eastern Romance (according to literature, Weinrich 19692: § 148, 172–174; Lausberg 19762: 299, 321, 361, 370; Varvaro 1980; Wartburg 1980; Maiden 1995; Giannelli and Cravens 1997: 32; Larson 2010; Formentin 2010; on the Voicing of coronals see already Battisti 1912)4.

  • 5 See Ascoli (1882–1885); Bertoni (1916, 1940); Merlo (1924); Devoto (1970); Devoto and Giacomelli (1 (...)

14According to some scholars, Italy is also cut down in two areas by a linguistic border that affects the whole space of Romance languages. The Northern Italian dialects show Voicing as historical outcomes, while the CentralSouthern Italian dialects should not (for the Central Italian lenition see below). More specifically, this dividing line runs right through Italy along two extremes from La Spezia to Rimini5. The Western segment of this line separates Tuscan–type dialects from Northern Italian dialects.

15Therefore, nonVoicing it is considered normal in Standard Italian words like: lupo ‘wolf’ (Lt lupu), cipolla ‘onion’ (late Lt cepulla), vita ‘life’ (Lt vita), dito ‘finger’ (Lt digitu), aceto ‘vinegar’ (Lt acetu), and so it should be in Tuscan dialects (see Rohlfs 1979, 1966 § 151, 155, 162, 163, 198, 208, 202, 260).

  • 6 The weakening of intervocalic /p t k/ below La Spezia–Rimini also includes Corsica (see Russo 2022 (...)

16However, in the Italian domain, the treatment of the voiceless intervocalic Latin stops does not always correspond to the distribution identified by Wartburg (1980), especially for Tuscany: it is not the case that South of La SpeziaRimini line the voiceless consonants have always been maintained (Clark 2003; Meyer–Lübke § 205; Giannelli and Cravens 1997; Giannelli 1976/2000, 1978, 1988, 1997; Russo 2014; Canalis 2014). The emerging situation is much more complicated. Latin /p t k/ do not remain in their initial/historical phonological underlying state throughout Tuscany (see Giannelli and Cravens 1997: 3435)6, even if some of today’s Tuscan varieties, especially central varieties, are influenced by Florentine, in owning voiceless spirants of /p t k/ (especially [ɸ θ ɣ]) as typical forms.

17The La SpeziaRimini line, as Romance and Italian isogloss, is an important point of the dialectal partition, however this line should not be understood rigidly (Bruni 1984: 290; Fanciullo 2007; Vignuzzi 2010b; Russo 2015; 2022a).

  • 7 The standard variety of Italian is based on the 14th century Florentine vernacular, based on the wr (...)

18In Medieval Tuscan dialects (crucially Standard Italian is based on the Florentine literary language of the 14th c.)7 in postvocalic positions (between two vowels or a vowel and a sonorant) we can find both a voiced stop (e.g. <fuogo> ‘fire’) and a voiceless stop (<fuoco>) ‘fire’ (see (1)). With the notation such as [ v́__v ] in (1) we indicate the phonological word stress position in order to check along all the Tuscan data the effects of stress location on intervocalic stop lenition if any (for the stress assignment making up the foot, see Section 3):

(1) Intervocalic Stop Lenition in Medieval Tuscan:

  • 8 <fuogo> (Andrea da Grosseto (+9 occ.)), <fuoco> (Fiori di filosafi).

Bifurcated outcomes (13th c.)8

V_V [ v́__v ] (Foot–Medial)

Lt focu /k/ > [g] It. fuoco ‘fire’

(a) Tuscan <fuogo> [ˈfwɔ:go] Voiced

(b) Florentine <fuoco> [ˈfwɔ:ko] Voiceless

  • 9 See Giannelli and Cravens (1997: 36): “the Italian descendants of the etymological minimal pair foc (...)

19This also happens in modern Tuscan, see below for a detailed description9. Medieval Tuscan shows bifurcated outcomes (see Giannelli and Cravens 1997): the same word with voiced and voiceless stop. In Standard Italian we can find several voiced outcomes such as <ladro> ‘thief’ from Lt latro or <spada> ‘sword’ from Lt spata. However, in the 13th c., we can find both forms: Florentine <ladro> (Brunetto Latini) and Tuscan <latro> (Laude Cortonesi).

  • 10 The line divides, from Lucca to the East part, Tuscan dialects from Northern Italian dialects.

20Yet, Tuscan dialects are part of the CentralSouthern Italo–Romance group since they are located South of the La SpeziaRimini line. At first sight, during the Medieval period they look somewhere in between Northern and CentralSouthern dialects10 or Tuscan dialects have neither Northern nor Southern features (see Giannelli 1997: 297; Pellegrini 1977).

2 Tuscan Lenition (Onset Voicing) in Medieval dialects: principles, parameters and scales

2.1 The position disjunction {#,C}__ and __{#,C}. Strength and Weakeningtype environments

  • 11 On Tuscan Voicing in a sociolinguistic perspective, see already Clark (1903).
  • 12 Izzo (1972, 1980) suggests that the geographical passage of such voicing was made through Lucca bec (...)

21Lexical restructurings found in standard Italian such as ‘ladro/thief’, ‘scudo/shield’ < Lt scutu, ‘ago/needle’ < Lt acu (see below) have led some scholars to assume Northern influences on Tuscany (see especially Castellani 1960–80; Izzo 1980; Franceschi 1965; Devoto 1951, 1970; Lüdtke 1961; Battisti 1930; Merlo 1933)11. They suggested a Northern origin through Lucca12.

22This lenition/Voicing is also encountered in Tuscan dialects allophonically in phonotactics (across word boundaries) already according to Franceschi (1965), thus it is not limited to cases of lexicalized Voicing in a small number of words.

23For Formentin (2010), various instances of Medieval Florentine Voicing, inherited from Standard Italian (lago ‘lake’, luogo ‘place’, riva ‘shore’, padre ‘father’, madre ‘mother’, strada ‘street’, etc.) are to be explained because of a 5th–6th centuries influence, from the Northern Italian linguistic type.

24The idea of capturing Tuscany in the Northern Italian Voicing domain was first challenged by Rohlfs (1966, § 151, 194212; 1979), then especially by Giannelli and Savoia (197880), Giannelli (1976/2000, 1978, 1983, 1988; Wanner and Cravens (1980); Franceschini (1983), Maiden (1995).

  • 13 Indeed, on the issue of a Latin tendency toward Voicing, it should be emphasized how it is not only (...)

25They wrote against the idea of a Northern Italian influence on Tuscan language and have supported the hypothesis of a lenition developed in Tuscany from the earliest beginnings. This path does not exclude some Northern borrowings. They are joined by Lausberg (1961, 19762), Weinrich (19692) and Tekavčić (1980: § 171) see lenition (Voicing) as an anciently extended process that also has its origins in phonotactics in late Latinity13.

26We emphasize the existence of two lenitions corresponding to two phases in the diachrony of Tuscany characterized by the copresence of a Voicingdefined lenition and a lenition Gorgia/Spirantizationdefined after the 16th century. Nevertheless, we show below that it existed a more extensive postvocalic Voicing in the Medieval period set back by Florentinization through Gorgia aspiration in the present days.

27As we show below based on firsthand data collected, Tuscan lenition (Voicing) in weak position ((V_{ r l j w}V) word internal and across boundaries) was extended into the Middle Ages even in Florence, when the Florentine Gorgia was not yet attested. Later, it was especially kept in Western Tuscany (mainly in Lucca and Pisa).

28An Element Theory study of Tuscan lenition/Gorgia in GP theoretical framework is done by Bafile (1997), who uses the loss of the privative closure edge element |ʔ| to represent lenition (see Russo and Ulfsbjorninn (2020) on Neapolitan lenition, who also used the occlusivity feature ‘edge’|ʔ| to express the loss of phonological primes in lenition processes according to positional strength).

  • 14 For Strict–CV theory, also called CVCV (or Lateral Phonology) see Lowenstamm (1996, 1999); Scheer ( (...)
  • 15 In the Coda Mirror v2 intervocalic consonants V_V are governed but unlicensed (see Scheer and Zikov (...)

29Tuscan lenition depends on positional and inherent factors. In the theory of lenition called The Coda Mirror v2 (developed within Strict–CV14 by Ségéral and Scheer 2001; Scheer and Zikova 2010; Scheer 2004 § 110) intervocalic Cs are governed (i.e., damaged) in weak positions (Scheer 2012a), as Government destroys segmental melodies, while Licensing supports the ‘health’ of segments (Ségéral and Scheer 2008: 491). Thus, Tuscan lenition–Voicing and the specific lenition–Gorgia as postvocalic processes can be represented in Strict–CV theory as the result of Proper Government and non–licensing : (+PG, –Lic)15.

30The position known as Strong Position is called by Ségéral and Scheer (2001) the Coda Mirror within the framework of Strict–CV theory as they support the idea of a shared identity among strong positions ({#, C}) mirrored in the phonological representation by the coda lenition {#, C}: the consonant located in the two strong positions is preceded in Strict–CV representation by an empty governed nucleus ({#, C}__ = ø__):

Coda Mirror (Strong Position): (+ Lic, Gvt) Fortition (ø__)

Postvocalic (Weak Position): (+Gvt, –Lic) Lenition (vCv)

31The Coda Mirror considers that there exist two weak positions, the intervocalic position (vCv) and the coda position (__{#, C}) vs. two strong positions: initial and postconsonantal ({#, C}__ = ø__).

32The two mechanisms of Government (Gvt) and Licensing (Lic) should discriminate the Coda Mirror environments ({#, C}__ = ø__) from its opposite distribution, the coda (neither licensed nor governed: (–Gvt, –Lic). This theory of lenition is called the Mirror Coda precisely because it reduces the two disjunctions of the Strong Position and the Weak coda Position ({#, C}__ vs __{#, C}) to a single symmetrical phonological object (ø__ vs __ø). According to this theory, this is a natural consequence of the lateral relations. The intervocalic (V_V) position is governed and not licensed: (+Gvt, –Lic) (according to Scheer and Zikova 2010).

33Nevertheless, an onset can be found in strong position (see the a–linear representation in (2) with syntactic bracketing)

34(2) Positional onsets (syllable-initial):

but it can also occur in weak (postvocalic) position:

Yet, lenition can modify a syllabic onset when it is in postvocalic position (… V [σ C V …) while a syllabic onset is not lenited in initial position (#[σ C V …) or after a coda… C [σ C V ...

  • 16 The context of coda in final position or before heterosyllabic consonant, ___ {C / #}, is translate (...)

35This strongly suggests that a structuralbased model of the syllable and locality (based on a ‘maximal’ hypothesis and a recursive conception of the syllable, Levin 1985; Sauzet 1994) could be relevant for Tuscan lenition. It seems to us that lenition requires that phonology refers to locality other than through linear syllabic constituents (___ {C / #} or __ø; {# / C}___ or ø __ 16) and that locality in lenition is structural (see Section 6). In an a–linear GP model, local segmental relations create hierarchical ‘chains’, whose interinterpretation/identification is constrained by the constituency (see Sauzet 1994), see below for an application of this model to Tuscan lenition.

2.2 Medieval Tuscan lenition–Voicing in postvocalic position: a shift towards reduction

36In Section § 1.2, we focused on the fact that postvocalic lenitionVoicing is generally believed do not occur below La SpeziaRimini line, used as a proposal for the subdivision of the Italo–Romance linguistic domain (see Table 1):

Table 1 Non–Voicing /p t k/ Tuscan Italian (expected below La SpeziaRimini line)

  • 17 H = Heavy (syllable), L = light (syllable), the underlined letter indicates the head of the foot, h (...)

Tuscan

SI

V_V

Latin

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ]

HL17

Flor.

lupo

lupo

[ˈlu:po]

lupu

1292 Bono Giamboni

Flor.

cipólle

cipolla

[t͡ʃiˈpolle]

cepulla

128690 Registro Cafaggio

Tusc.

vita

vita

[ˈvi:ta]

vita

123050 Giacomo da Lentini

Tusc.

fuoco

fuoco

[ˈfwɔ:ko]

focu

1268 Andrea da Grosseto (+9)

Flor.

dito

dito

[ˈdi:to]

dígitu

1275 Albertano Volg

Flor.

natúra

natura

[naˈtu:ra]

natúra

1230–50, Giacomo da Lentini

Flor.

acéto

aceto

[aˈt͡ʃe:to]

acétu

1292 Bono Giamboni

Flor.

abéte

abete

[aˈbe:te]

abéte

128690 Registro Cafaggio

37We also emphasized in Section 1.2 that the Italian descendants of the Latin focu, locu or ripa (with an intervocalic singleton Latin voiceless stops) offer examples with a striking development: Tuscan Medieval dialects, and in some cases modern ItaloTuscan (SI = Standard Italian), have bifurcated outcomes of original Latin intervocalic stps /p t k/ (Table 2):

Table 2 Medieval Tuscan bifurcated outcomes in V [σC V or vCv position

FootMedial

[v́__v]

HL (Parseft)

Voiceless

Voiced

<fuoco>

[ˈfwɔ:ko]

<fuogo>

[ˈfwɔ:go]

‘fire’

<ripa>

[ˈri:pa]

<riva>

[ˈri:va]

‘shore’

<spica>

[sˈpi:ka]

<spiga>

[sˈpi:ga]

‘ear’

<laco>

[ˈla:ko]

<lago>

[ˈla:go]

‘lake’

[v́__v]

LLL

<lacrima>

[ˈla·krima]

<lagrima>

[ˈla·grima]

‘tear’

We are dealing here with one of the longestrunning debates in historical Italian and Romance phonology.

  • 18 Marginal Tuscany is the Eastern strip from Casentino to Valdichiana, the Southern strip that includ (...)

38This Tuscan lenition–Voicing remains today in the areas of Tuscany called marginal (= Toscana marginale, see Giannelli and Savoia 1978, 1979–80; Franceschini 1983)18. All these areas have a lenition–Voicing system. The whole of Western Tuscany, around the area in which Gorgia is widespread, should be associated diachronically with lenition–sonority. In some Tuscan areas, there is an overlapping between lenition of Latin voiceless stops (Voicing and Spirantization): lenition–sonority overlaps with Gorgia–Spirantization, Gorgia–Aspiration and Gorgia–Debuccalization (i.e., stopGlottalization), see Section 4. See the map given by Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 40):

Figure 1 Map from Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 57): lenition–Voicing and Gorgia in Tuscany

Figure 1 Map from Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 57): lenition–Voicing and Gorgia in Tuscany

39One must notice on this map that Siena and Pistoia belong today to Central Tuscany.

  • 19 See Vignuzzi (2010a); D’Achille and Stefinlongo (2008); Hualde and Nadeu (2011). According to Weinr (...)

40Lenition–sonority also exists in what is known as ‘Italia Mediana’ (called lenition–sonority UmbroLaziale)19, and one might ask whether this Central Italian lenition in proximity also widespread in Tuscany.

  • 20 Please note that the dialects of Lunigiana and the Carrara area do not belong to Tuscany. They are (...)

41Moreover, in his indication of the main Italo–Romance systems, Pellegrini (1977) recognises that Ligurian Northern dialects (Northern Gallo–Italian dialects), shaped by lenition–Voicing, push towards South–East and embed some Northern areas of the Tuscan region. The region of Tuscany (as it is designated today) cedes some Northern areas to Northern Italian dialects, while some Southern Tuscan zones are included in the Italo–Romance varieties belonging to ‘Italia Mediana’. A few processes typical of Northern dialects also characterise the dialects of Lunigiana in Tuscany to the West (Maffei Bellucci 1977; Giannelli 2000)20, and to the East these processes reach the area of Ancona in the Marche region (i.e., the ‘Italia Mediana’, at least Senigallia, see Vignuzzi 2010a). This geographic situation of a complex Tuscany will be crucial to understand the lenition–Voicing patterns illustrated below.

42As we have seen in (1) and Tab. 1, 2, for the Italian word <fuoco> ‘fire’ [ˈfwɔ:ko], we find in Medieval Tuscan also occurrences with the voiced stop [ˈfwɔ:go] from Lt focu (see Tab. 3):

Table 3 Lenition–Voicing /k/ in vCv Medieval Tuscan [ˈfwɔ:go] Lt focu

μμ: σμ)UnFt

[ v́__v ]

Foot–Medial

Tuscan

fuogo

[1268 Andrea da Grosseto]

Tuscan

fuogo

[1294 Guittone Rime]

Florentine

fuogo

[13th c. Cronica fiorentina (+1)]

Pisano

fuogo

[1327 Statuti Pisani]

In terms of CVCV or StrictCV theory (Scheer 2004, see Section 2.1)), the lenition forms in Tab. 3 can be represented as in (3):

(3) Weak position vCv Intervocalic consonant

Lt focu [ˈfwɔ:go]

43In (3), the intervocalic consonant is not licensed (according to the Coda Mirror v2 principles), the strength of government damages its target /k/, something that eliminates the possibility for /k/ to be realized as such, i.e., it causes lenition. In StrictCV theory, Government (Gvt) and Licensing (Lic) are two antagonistic forces, Gvt inhibits the full melodic realization of the consonant. The consonant (the voiceless stop) is attached to a templatic position between two realized nuclei and thus, it is weakened intervocalically.

44In some cases, we have in SI a lexical restructuring of the Tuscan phonological outcome, as in the following examples of voiced/spirantized stops (captured into Italian lexicon) from Latin voiceless stops (see Fanciullo 2007: 168); the /v/ is the second stage of lenition sonority of voiceless Latin /p/ in V_V position in (4), see also Tab. 4–6:

The historical restructurings through lenition are attested quite early in Medieval Tuscan texts.

45This is the case for instance of the word list in (5). In these items, the lenited/voiced consonant has entered the Italian lexicon:

46With regard to It. <podere> (Noun in (5l)) and It. <potére> (Verb) from Lt *potere ‘can’ from potens), it is to be noted that in SI the verb (<potére>) survived with the voiceless consonant. However, in the meaning of ‘farm, land ownership’ (Noun), in SI survived the voiced consonant (It. <podere>). We also find some derivative lexemes from Lt *potere ‘can’ with the voiced consonant: podestà, poderoso ‘powerful’, see Tab. 4:

Table 4 It. potére / podére [N /V] from Lt *potere ‘can’ (from potens)

FootInitial

[ v__ v́ ]

(po[dé:re]UnFt

σμμμ σμ)UnFt

It. <podére> [N]

‘farm’

Senese

(nel) podére

1235 Lira 3

Florentine

(se ‘l) podére

1279 Testamento Capraia

Pratese

(lo) podére

128586 Conti Sinibaldo

Florentine

poderétto

130830 Libro Giotto

It. potére [V]

<podere> ‘can’

Tuscan

(lo) podére

13th c. Jacopo Mostacci

Tuscan

(e l’) podére

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Florentine

(in) podére (del)

126061 Brunetto Latini (+9)

Lucchese

non podére

1295 Guidiccioni (+9)

Senese

podere

1262 Andrea Tolomei (+1)

But also <potere> ‘can’ [V] with voiceless /t/:

Tuscan

(non) potére

1230–50 Giacomo da Lentini

Senese

potére (andare/’go’)

1262, Andrea Tolomei

47On the irregular intervocalic Voicing found in the modern Italian lexicon, especially for cases such as ‘podere’ [N] ‘agricultural fund’, flanked by ‘potere’ [V] ‘can’, where the consonants /t d/ are distributed in an unmotivated way to different syntactic categories, see the hypothesis of reactions to Voicing as an antilenition process made by Carlucci (2015); on the interpretation of some bifurcated outcomes also Contini (1961); Manni (1994); Zamboni (1987, 2000).

Table 5 Lenition–Voicing of /p/ lexical restructurings scaled /v/ (vCv)

  • 21 18 times in rhyme (Dante) e.g.: <riva/fuggiva> ‘(Impf. 3th Pers.) escaped’ (Inf. 1 v. 23 –1), <riva(...)

[ v́__v ] [ˈri:va]

Foot–Medial (HL)

μμ σμ)UnFt

It. ‘riva/shore’

Lt ripa

Tusc.

va

1294 Guittone

Flor.

va

13th c. TesoroVolg

Flor.

va

1321 Dante Commedia21

It. ‘arrivarono/(they) arrived’

Flor.

arriv­áro

126061 Brunetto Latini

Table 6 Lenition–Voicing of /p/ It. ‘póvero/poor’ (Lt pauperu) – scaled /v/ (vCv)

[ v́__v ]

[ˈpɔ·vero]

Foot–Medial (LLL)

μ σμ σμ)UnFt

Tuscan

vera

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Lucchese

vero

125253 Alta maiestà

Senese

vero

13th c. Ruggieri Apugliese

Florentine

povertádi

126061 Brunetto Latini

Florentine

povertáde

1275 Albertano volg (+33)

48Such results illustrated in the Tab. (4), (5) and (6) take us back to the development of voiceless Latin stops in Western Romance languages, to Castilian for example ‘riba/shore’ < Lt ripa, ‘escudo/shield’ < Lt scutu (moreover Italian ‘scudo’) French ‘ami/friend’ < Lt amicu (Castilian ‘amigo’), etc. (see Carlucci 2015).

Table 7 Lenition–Voicing of Lt –t [–d–] Lt. litu spata

It. lidobeach’ and spada ‘sword’

[ v́__v ] [ˈli:do]/ [sˈpa:da] Foot–Medial (HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

Florentine

do

1313 Ovidio Volg

Florentine

do

1316 Lancia

Florentine

(Quido dela) Spáda

1211 Libro conti di banchieri

Lucchese

spáde

1213 Ritmo lucchese

Tuscan

spáda

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

[v__v́] σ(da: ri)UnFt

Foot–Medial (HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

Florentine

spadári ‘swordsman’

13th c. Cronica Fiorentina

49Some of these Tuscan bifurcated lexical items have entered in Standard Italian with a voiced lexicalized stop, however in Medieval Tuscan this process appears to be of wider dimensions. Many lexemes show the voiced and the voiceless pattern. This is a case for instance of It. ‘spiga/ear (of wheat)’ Lt. spica <spiga> (as in SI) or <spica> and the derivative verb ‘spigolare/to edge’ (/k/ in V_V position):

Table 8 Lenition–Voicing of Lt –c /–k–/ [k/g] <spíga>/<spíca> ‘ear (of wheat)’

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ] [sˈpi:ga]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

Aretino

spíga

1282 Restoro

Pratese

(Bonacorso dala) Spíga

128586 Libro Sinibaldo

Florentine

spíghe

1292 Bono Giamboni

Florentine

spíga

13th c. Antidotarium Nicolai

Tuscan

spíghe

1333 Simintendi

Florentine

spigoláre ‘to edge’

1333 Ottimo

Tuscan

spíca

1314 Francesco da Barberino

Tuscan

spíca

134567 Fazio degli Uberti

Tuscan

spíca

14th15th Bibbia

50Note that some words with the lenited variant accepted by Florentine are not always accepted by all Tuscany, what we say applies to Florentine <lago> vs. the voiceless outcome <laco> in Medieval Aretino (Tab. 9), and <aco> in Medieval Senese (Tab. 29), etc. However, there is no evidence to consider <lago> ‘lake’ (Tab. 10), or <ago> ‘needle’ (Tab. 27, 28) and <luogo> ‘place’ (Tab. 10), etc. Northern Italian loans.

Table 9 Lenition/Voicing of Lt –c /–k–/ [k/g] <lago> / <laco> ‘lake’

  • 22 1 in rhyme: <un laco.....c’ha nome Bernaco> ‘a lake called Bernaco’.

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[ˈla:go]

Florentine

go

1292 Bono Giamboni (+8)

Florentine

go

13th c. Tesoro Volg (+14)

Florentine

go

1321 Dante Commedia (+4)

Tuscan

go

1294 Guittone

Senese

go

13th c. Fatti di Cesare (+3)

Senese

go

130910 Gangalardi (+33)

Pratese

go

1333 Simintendi

Aretino

go

1282 Restoro

Florentine

go

1321Dante (+3)22

  • 23 It is not Tuscan but Occitan : Flor. loghiera14th c. Pegolotti (+10) borrowed from Occitan loguièr (...)

Table 10 Lenition/Voicing of Lt –c /k/ [g] <luogo> ‘place’ < Lt locu –<–gh–> = [g]23

  • 24 Mass Plural –ora (locu + ora): a set of places (uncountable).
  • 25 +logo (+3).

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[ˈlo:go]

Tuscan

loghi

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Tuscan

logo

13th c. Laude cortonesi

Aretino

loghi

1282 Restoro

Aretino

(le) logora24

1282 Restoro (+4)

Florentine

logo

13th c. Chiaro Davanzati

Florentine

logo

13th c. Monte Andrea

Florentine

logo

13th c. Cronica fiorentina

Florentine

loghi

1338 Valerio Massimo25

Florentine

logo

1375 Chiose Falso Boccaccio

Lucchese

logo

13th c. Inghilfredi

Pisano

logho/ logo

13th c. Bestiario toscano

Pisano

ogo

138595 Francesco da Buti

Senese

logora

13th c. Fatti Cesare

Senese

logo

12981309 Stat.sen. Addizioni

Senese

logo

1339 Doc.sen. Memoria delle terre (+5)

Senese

loghi

1340 Ugurgieri

Florentine

logo

1294–1318 Doc.fior. Bolgiosi (+1)

Florentine

logo

1375 Chiose Falso Boccaccio

Table 11 Non–Voicing of Lt –c /–k–/ [–k–] <luogo> ‘place’ < Lt locu <ch> = [k]

  • 26 + loco (+184).
  • 27 Mass Plural –ora (locu + ora): a set of places (uncountable).
  • 28 <ch> = [k].
  • 29 + <locho> (+2).
  • 30 + <loco> (+9).

Lucchese

luoco, loco

13th c. Bonagiunta

Aretino

luoco

1282 Ristoro d’Arezzo (+20)26

Aretino

locora27

1282 Ristoro d’Arezzo (+3)

Senese

luoco

1288 Egidio Romano (+1)

Senese

locho28

127782 Doc.sen. Compagnia Merc.

Florentine

luocho

128197 Riccomanni

Florentine

loco

1274 Brunetto Latini

Tuscan South–eastern

luoco

1298 Questioni filosofiche(+2)29

Tuscan

luoco, luochi

1314 Francesco da Barberino

Tuscan

lochi

123050 Giacomo da Lentini30

Tuscan

locho, lochi

1294 Guittone

Pisano

loco

123031 Primaziale di Pisa

51In all the examples above and below, Medieval Tuscan lenitionVoicing responds to distributional criteria (V_V) and fits the Coda Mirror theory as in (6), all weak consonants onsets are found in postvocalic position (after a realized nucleus, V_V) and are represented in CVCV lateral phonology with no recursive properties. The targeted consonant is governed, the nuclei are contentful:

(6) Intervocalic Consonant / Tuscan lenitionVoicing

Coda Mirror v2 general Template vCv

  • 31 Tonic lengthening is blocked before heterosyllabic consonants, geminates, a liquid + consonant, s+C (...)

52In (6) we have also represented vowel length as stressed vowels in Tuscan are long (tonic lengthening31) and leftheaded; stressed V is called to license a long vowel: [ˈla:go] Lt lacus (see below for stress and positional parameters). Intervocalic stops are governed and unlicensed after short and long vowels.

53For Lt acutus (Tab. 12), the data from OVI show numerous cases of Voicing also for final intervocalic /t–/ besides /k–/ in Northern Italy (in Veneto <agudi>), but not for Tuscan. The case of <aguto/aguti> with lenition/Voicing of the velar but not the coronal /t/ is a further confirmation that the Tuscan lenition does not have the same conditions as that on Northern Italian (GalloItalian) lenition. In Tuscany the lenition of voiceless Latin stops is asymmetrical, the velar stops are the ones most involved in the intervocalic Voicing process, hence the difference between Tuscan <aguti> (only [g]) and Veneto <agudi> ([g] and [d]), see Franceschini (1983: 138) pointing to the same pattern for Lt ficātu ‘liver’; Lüdtke 1961: 66).

Table 12 It. acuto [aˈku:to] ‘sharp’ Lenition/Voicing of Lt –c /–k–/ [g] Lt acutus

Foot–Initial

[ v́__v ]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[aˈgu:to]

a(guμμ toμ)UnFt

Pisano

aguti

Doc. Pis. 12th c. Conto navale (+1)

Senese

aguti

123343 Mattasalà (+4 occ.)

Tuscan

aguto

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Florentine

aguta

1274 Brunetto Latini

Florentine

aguti

Doc. Flor. 128690 Registro Cafaggio (+16)

Florentine

agute

1292 Bono Giamboni

Florentine

agutissimi

1292 Bono Giamboni

Florentine

aguti

1292 Bono Giamboni (+ 5)

54For Tuscan <aguto> in (7) the governing relation identifies the weak position vCv as in (6). The lateral relations match the empirical facts:

(7) Lenition: intervocalic onset /k/

55Our data show an advanced lenitionVoicing also in Central Tuscan. Florentine therefore seems to have experienced a stage of Voicing (and further Weakening) that we do not find anymore today. Regarding Western Tuscan, and especially Pisano, the treatment of intervocalic occlusives has been studied by Franceschini (1983). He examined Latin documents from Lucca dating back to the Lombard period and notes some cases of intervocalic Voicing coeval with documents from Northern Italy (for /k/ <exeguta> ‘executed’, for /t/ <memedipsum> ‘It. stesso/himself’, etc.).

  • 32 See also Castellani (1988: 147); Rohlfs (1966, § 197, 266), Giannelli and Savoia (1979–80: 89); Gia (...)

56He crucially notes in the earliest vernacular texts of Western Tuscany a tendency toward Voicing, especially of the voiceless velar stop, more extensive than in Florentine. He reports the Medieval Pisano <Mighele> ‘Michael’; <oga> It. oca/goose (< Lt auca), <pogo> (< Lt paucu), <segondo> (< secundu), <siguro> (< Lt securu) common to Lucca (<pogo> also to Prato and Pistoia) (ib. 132) 32.

57Serianni (1998: 68–69) also observed that in the dialects of Western Tuscany, during the Middle Ages, a few lenited consonants were unknown in Florentine and in literary Italian. In addition to <pogo> ‘little’ < Latin paucu (Prato, Pistoia, Lucca, Pisa), <oga> ‘goose’ < Latin *avica (Pistoia, Lucca, Pisa), <Mighele> (Pisa), <duga> ‘duke’ (Lucca, Pisa) and for the labial voiceless stop <cavestro> ‘thick rope’ (Lucca, Pisa) < Latin capĭstrum.

58As for the labial voiceless stop, for Western Tuscan Franceschini (1983: 136) adds <savore> ‘flavor’ (Lt sapore), <savere> ‘knowledge’ (Lt *sapēre), <cavretto> ‘little goat’ (Lt capra), <abrile> ‘April’ < Lt aprile, as forms widespread anciently in Tuscany (but not in Northern Italian dialects), /p/ → [b] Pisano <gubbie> < Lt cop(u)lae (also with initial Voicing /k/ → [g]), Lucchese <tiebbito> < Lt tepidu, etc.

  • 33 Except for a few cases in Milanese, see Franceschini (1983: 136).

59These lexemes with lenition–sonority in Western Tuscan are crucial clues to state that lenition in Tuscany is an indigenous process, since typical Western Tuscan Medieval lexemes with the weak voiced variant are not found in Northern dialects, such as <pogo> ‘little’ < Latin paucu (Prato, Pistoia, Lucca, Pise), <oga> ‘goose’ < Latin *avica (Pistoia, Lucca, Pisa), etc. it was not possible, for example in Gallo–Italian (Northern) dialects to find the voiced consonant after the Latin diphthong au33. Moreover, with regard to <abrile> ‘April’ the development of /p/ in [b] (<tiebbito> or <abrile>) again distinguishes Tuscany from Northern dialects that always have [v] as a result of labial lenition (see French ‘avril’). Other significant clues are given by e.g. by the demostrative/deictic <codesto> ‘this’ < Lt eccu tibi iste (see Tab. 13), which was originally also unknown in Florentine (and in old Italian) with a weak variant [d] in Medieval period. It also shows Voicing of Latin /–t–/ agglutinated < Lt eccu tibi istu, see Tab. 13:

Table 13 Voicing of /–t–/ [–d–] D (Demontrative) It. codesto ‘this’ < Lt eccu tibi

Foot–Initial

[v__ v́ ] (HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt

Florentine

codésto

1335 Boccaccio Filocolo

Florentine

codésto

14th c. Tavola ritonda

Florentine

codésto

1347–94 Giovanni dalle Celle

Tuscan

codésto

1345–67 Fazio degli Uberti

Pisano

codésto

1385–95 Francesco da Buti

BUT <cotesto>

Florentine

cotésto

1292 Bono Giamboni (+7)

Florentine

cotésto

1321 Dante Commedia

Senese

cotésto

13th c. Cecco Angiolieri

60The case of ‘codesto’ is also of crucial importance, in that, it is not Northern Voicing for certain, as there are no matches outside of Tuscany. The same phenomenon is found as we have shown, with Voicing after the Latin diphthong au as in paucu ‘little’, a form that is typically Tuscan.

2.3 Voicing Pattern in Phrase–Initial Tuscan Position. A real lenition in strong environments?

  • 34 See Franceschini (1983: 133); Rohlfs (1966, § 151).

61Another clue that the Tuscan lenition–Voicing is indigenous is given by initial Voicing (phrase–initially), for example in Pisano we have since Medieval texts <gattivo> ‘bad, prisoner’ < Lt captivu, <gammello> ‘camel’ < Lt camelu. We can find the same pattern in Modern Italian in a number of cases. Indeed, some forms with initial Voicing of /k/ have entered the lexicon of Italian such as ‘gabbia/cage’ < Lt cavea, ‘gomito/elbow’ < Lt cubitu, ‘gridare/shout’ < Lt quiritare, ‘gatto/cat’ <Lt cattu, ‘grasso/fat’ < Lt crassu, even words of Greek origin such as ‘gamba/leg’, ‘gambero’shrimp, ‘golfo/gulf, etc.34

62Conversely, the phonological lenition of Northern Italian dialects does not concern the initial/strong position, whereas already in the Medieval Tuscan dialects (in the Pisano, Lucchese and Senese vernaculars) lenition–Voicing in phrase–initial position (#_ or ø__ according to the Coda Mirror) is widespread for Latin /k/ → /g/ in #_ (this initial Voicing is also common in CentralSouthern Italian vernaculars), see the lateral representation in (8):

(8)

Lenition in initial onset /k/ → /g/ <gattivo> Pisano

How is government damaging? Lt captivu

63In (8), there is a problem with the voiced onset consonant and Government [+Gvt] relation, the Coda Mirror Theory here predicts [+Gvt] on V1 from V2, after an initial empty nucleus (ø__), since the Strong sentenceinitial position should express the relation [+ Lic, Gvt] on the voiceless stop /k/ as for fortition environments, and voiceless /k/ should be kept in an undamaged status. Conversely, the onset consonant gets harmed as it were in a weak context, we get lenitionVoicing in (5) in phraseinitial position #_, this is prohibited by the symmetry of the Coda Mirror Theory: ø__ vs. __ø.

  • 35 On initial Voicing in Tuscan see also Contini (1960); Giannelli (1983: 86), Weinrich (19692: 173), (...)
  • 36 See Franceschini (1983: 137).

64Nonetheless, the initial Voicing could result from a lexical restructuring, derived from a previous postvocalic Voicing rule active already in Late Latin in external sandhi environments (see Russo 2013a)35. This tendency toward initial Voicing (in Strong Position) was widespread in the Medieval Tuscan dialects of Pisa, Lucca, Siena, and Arezzo. The overlapping of [g] from /k/ over /g/ throughout the Lucca, Pisa, Pistoia, and Prato areas have favored in many forms, albeit among oscillations and countertendencies, the phonologization of the voiced stop /g/ both in wordinternal position (V_V) and in wordinitial (#_) position36.

  • 37 According also to these authors, the initial Voicing widespread in Tuscany (mainly /k/ [g] regardl (...)

65This can be also detected from the survey conducted by Giannelli (1983: 88) for modern Tuscan dialects, who notes more phonologized voiced consonants word initial (such as gastigo ‘It. castigo/punishment’) in Pisa, Lucca and Siena than in Florence, therefore he confirms that the voiceless pronunciation is from a certain time onwards more Florentine37.

  • 38 The first to undertake a census of the voiceless stop (reversed by voiced) is Urciolo (1965).

66A reversal of the rule (Voicing > Devoicing as loss of laryngeal features: [p t k]) is also found. The preference for the preservation of voiceless stops is a “full force in fourteenth–century Florentine” (Franceschini 1983: 141)38.

  • 39 For the lexeme (and derivatives) fadiga widespread in Pisa and Lucca, reaching Siena (fadiga, sigur (...)

67In Tables (14–16) [–d–] is voiced but [–g–] in –igare is original (Lt –igáre stressed on the penult). However, an expansion of the variant with voiceless stop took place for some suffix series as in verbal morphology, such as –igare/–icare (see Tab. 17: Lt *fatiga from Lt fatigare), or nominal morphology such as –iga/–ica in <loríga> ‘armour’ from Lt lorīca (see Tab. 17) ‘It. lorica, not voiced in SI (It. lorica [loˈri:ka]), functioning as <fatiga> (Lt *fatiga). It is precisely from this form that derives the modern (not etymological: Lt –igáre) outcome in the Italian lexicon ‘faticare’ (and ‘affaticare’) ‘to tire’. On the analogical effect of suffixal sequences, see Fanciullo (2007, 2009)39; on the correspondences in ancient Tuscan such as –tore/–dore, –ate/–ade, –ute/–ude, see Larson (2010: 1530–1531). According to Aebischer (1961: 260–262), a reversal of the trend from the Voicing models to a voiceless model is triggered by the end of Lombard domination at the beginning in the ninth century (where the Lombard influence, i.e., the second Germanic consonantal mutation, would have been influential in a reversal of the rule (see Carlucci 2015)).

  • 40 We must note that the orthographical use of <h> after a velar sound /k g/, here <gh just indicated (...)

68The OVI Medieval material gives us a clear cut of the Tuscan situation with many ‘lenited’ examples found especially in Western Tuscany (Lucchese and Pisano), but also in Medieval Senese, where we find voiced /t/, such as <fadiga> issued from Latin *fatiga40:

Table 14 Lenition/Voicing of –t It. fatica Lt *fatiga, der. fatigare/ ‘to tire’ > Medieval Tuscan [–d–] in vCv

  • 41 Stat. Sen. Montagutolo (+128 occ. in Senese documents).
  • 42 +<fadighe> 75 occ. in Senese documents.
  • 43 In the context: Senese <le fadigate navi> / ‘the tired ships’.

FootInitial

[ v́__v ] = [d]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[faˈdi:ga]

Tuscan

fagha

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Tuscan

fagha

1294 Guittone (+ 1)

Senese

faga

128097 Stat.Sen.41

Senese

faga

130910 Stat.Sen. Gangalardi (+6)

Senese

fadígha

132137 Chiose Selmiane (+5)

Senese

faghe

130910 Stat.Sen. Gangalardi (+9)

Senese

fadise

130910 Stat.Sen. Gangalardi

Senese

fadigósa

1367 Colombini

Senese

fadigóso

1378 Caterina da Siena

Senese

fage

1340 (35 t.) Ciampolo Ugurgieri42

Senese

fadigáte

1340 Ciampolo Ugurgieri (4)43

Senese

fadigáto

1340 Ciampolo Ugurgieri (+1)

Lucchese

faga

1362 Stat.Lucch. Suntuario

Lucchese

faga

1376 Stat.Lucch. Corte dei Mercanti (+6)

Lucchese

faghe

1376 Stat.Lucch. Corte dei Mercanti

Exactly as we expect for instance in Western/GalloItalic Milanese or in Northern Veneziano:

Table 15 Lenition/Voicing of –t Northern dialects (Western/Gallo–Italic)

Foot– Initial

[ v́__v ] = [d]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

Milanese

(tute) fadíge

f.h. 14th c. Elucidario

Veneziano

faga

1250 Panfilo

Veneziano

faga

1308 Cedola Zulian

Table 16 Lenition/Voicing of –t Verbal forms It. ‘(af)faticare/to tire’ Lt fatigare

Senese

s’affaga, s’affadigáro

13th c. Fatti di Cesare

Senese

affadigáti, affadigáto

1340 Ugurgieri

Senese

s’affadíga

136777 Caterina da Siena (+6)

Senese

affadigár(si)

136777 Caterina da Siena (+2)

Senese

affadigándo, affadigáti

14th Neri Pagliaresi

Senese

affadigárci

1309–10 Stat.Sen.Gangalandi

Senese

fadíghino

1343 Stat.Sen. Arte della Mercanzia

Senese

si fagano

1309–10 Gangalardi

Tuscan

affaga, affadigáti

1333 Simintendi

Table 17 Voicing of /–k–/ [–g–] It. loríca ‘armour’ < Lt lorīca

Foot–Medial

[v́__ v]

HL ( σμμ σμ)UnFt

Senese

loríga

1340 Ugurgieri

69As for It. fatica/ fatigue [N] < * Lt fatiga also according to Guazzelli (1996) a lexical surviving with the voiceless non etymological variant (Lt g > /k/) in modern Italian can be interpreted diachronically as a hypercorrection. Based on the reversal functioning of pseudo–suffixes –iga (<fatica>) and –ica (<loriga>), it is quite clear that such pseudo–suffixes get underspecified for Voicing in Tuscan diachrony of lenition.

70Franceschini (1983: 133) points out hypercorrections from /g/ to [k] in loanwords such as <macagna> ‘shortcoming, flaw’ < Occitan maganhar and <macone> < Germanic <mago> ‘stomach’, present in Medieval Pisano and Lucchese, then preserved in Western Tuscan dialects. There is also retention of /k/ in initial position (despite widespread Voicing phrase–initial in #_, see below): <cabbia> ‘It. gabbia/cage’ < Lt cavea (in Medieval Lucchese, Pisano and Senese) or <callina> ‘It. gallina/hen’ < Lt gallina in Medieval Senese (ib. 134).

71We find also the expected /t/ and the devoiced [k] in many occurrences as bifurcated outcomes, most of them in Florentine, Pisano, Aretino, only a very few in Senese (Tab. 18):

Table 18 Non–Voicing < Lt *fatiga Medieval Tuscan /–t–/ (It. fatíca ‘effort’)

Tuscan

fatíca

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Tuscan

fatíca

13th c. Tomaso di Sasso

Florentine

fatícha

1273 Doc. Flor. Lasciti

Florentine

faticóso

1274 Brunetto latini

Florentine

fatíche

1271–75 Fiori di filosafi

Florentine

fatíca

1282 Restoro d’Arezzo

Pisano

fatíca

128788 Trattati Albertano

Pisano

fatícha

13th c. Bestiario toscano

Pisano

faticósa

1309 Giordano da Pisa

Pistoiese

fatíca

1320–22 Carteggio Lazzari

Pratese

fatíca

1333 Simintendi

Senese

fatíca, fatíche

1288 Egidio Romano

Senese

fatíca

1340 Ugurgieri (+1)

Florentine

si fatíchino

14th c. Libro Pietre Preziose

Florentine

faticáre, faticáto

14th c. Andrea Cappellano

72In the case of <fatica> (Tab. 18) with regard to Western Tuscan, we must note that the voiceless stop /–t–/ is preserved in Pisano vs. <fadiga> widespread in other Tuscan areas including Western Tuscany (Lucchese).

73It seems that in the modern period, Pisa is one of the three buffer areas where lenition is curbed (with Arezzo and Siena), at least for /p t/ (see also Giannelli and Savoia 197980: 92).

74As it has been shown by Marotta (2008: 241), in Pisa we find today intermediate outcomes of Gorgia–Aspiration in comparison to today Florentine/Central Gorgia outcomes. According to us, this is the consequence of the interaction between the indigenous Voicing and Gorgia–weakening Florentinization, which makes Pisa a ‘peripheral’ (Western) area in relation to Gorgia (see below).

  • 44 The voiceless result is due to a cultivated pressure of Latin (through for instance the church). Th (...)
  • 45 According to Franceschini (1983: 142), at the end of the 15th century, and with conditions that wil (...)
  • 46 The Pisan lower class speakers also retained the voiceless pronunciation of the stops /p t/, althou (...)

75As Florence’s cultural and linguistic prestige grew, Florentine language tended to establish itself throughout Tuscany. Franceschini (1983: 140) notes that in the first decades after Florence’s conquest of Pisa (in 1406), the first linguistic change that applied to Pisa was precisely that of reintroducing voiceless intervocalic stops (in later Pisano texts we find <Michele> (1468), <siconda> (1462), etc., an opposite pattern in the midfourteenth century to the one quoted before <Mighele>, <pogo>, <segondo>, <siguro> types)44. This generates a leveling of the Pisan on the Florentine45. It seems that we need to wait until the eighteenth century for the first evidence of Gorgia in the Pisa area. Franceschini (1983: 142) quotes this first evidence from the Dictionary Cateriniano of Girolamo Gigli in relation to spirantization/Gorgia in the Pisan Gorgia (p. 169). This reference points out a Pisan Gorgia more backward than the Florentine one; in Pisa it went from ‘0’ Gorgia to the deletion of the intervocalic velar stop 46. This is the reason why Franceschini (1984: 144) speaks of neutralization of the interference between the ancient Pisan lenition (Voicing) and spirantization. The spirantized variants developed in Florentine did not become stabilized for the velar stop in Pisa, or they were only adopted in a recent period.

  • 47 However, concerning /–g–/ in pagare, the Voicing comes probably before Romance (Formentin 1998: 204 (...)
  • 48 It is useless to resort to Occitan influence for Flor. <ambasciadori ‘ambassadors’ (1260–61 Brunett (...)

76From Lt /t/ [t] and [d] coexist in Medieval Tuscan dialects for many words. The intervocalic obstruent Devoicing extends to other suffix series: e.g., the suffixal analogical series also captures atore/adore from Lt atore, see Tab. 19, It. ‘amministratore/administrator’ < Lt admnistratore, It. ‘imperatore/emperor < Lt imperatore, <pagatori> < Lt pacare47 + atore, <troffadori> ‘truffatore/cheater’ (but modern Italian ‘truffatore’)48. However, the process also came to reverse Devoicing (i.e., reversal of the rule from t d to d t). This is also evidence from the ancient variation of Italian ‘corritore/corridore’ ‘runner’ with a devoiced variant, ‘corritoio/corridoio’ ‘corritor’, etc. (process parallel to that of the -igare/–icare series).

Table 19 Voicing of /–t–/ [–d–] < Lt + atore

Foot– Initial

[ v́__v ] = [d]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

…[ˈdo:ri]

(doμμ riμ)UnFt

Senese

amministratori

130910 Stat. Sen. Gangalardi

Senese

amministradori

1318 Stat. Sen. Statuto Spedale

Tuscan

inperadori

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Tuscan

pagadori

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Tuscan

troffadori

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Pisano

corridore

1337 Guido da Pisa

Florentine

corritore

1341 Libri Alfonso X

The Voicing of the stops seems to concentrate not only in Western Tuscany (especially Lucchese) but during Medieval period it is widespread in Tuscany, also in Senese and in Florentine areas (before the arrival of the Gorgia/aspiration):

  • 49 We do not find any other cases of voiced stops for this word in the other Tuscan areas.

Table 20 Voicing of /–t–/ [–d–] ‘statuto/ by–law’ < Lt. statutus PP of statuĕre ‘to establish’49

Foot– Initial

[ v́__v ] = [d]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

Sta (duμμ:toμ)UnFt

Senese

staduto

12981309 Stat.sen. Addizioni

Lucchese

staduti

1376 Stat.lucch. Mercanti Lucca (+6)

Lucchese

staduto

1376 Stat.lucch. Mercanti Lucca (+1)

Table 21 Voicing of /–t–/ [–d–] It. privato [A] < Lt. privatus, PP of privare ‘to privatize’

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ] = [d]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[priˈva:da]

Tuscan

privada

1268 Andrea da Grosseto (+2)

Tuscan

privadi

1294 Guittone

Florentine

privado

1284–87 Brunetto Latini (+1)

Florentine

privado, privade

1310 Bencivenni

Senese

privada

1298 Stat.sen. Arte della Lana

Senese

privadamente

1298 Stat.sen. Arte della Lana

Senese

privadi

1340 Doc. sen. Arte senese

Pisano

privadamente

1300 Palamedés (+ 5)

77The form with a voiced lenited onset consonant <privado> (Tab. 21) has a generally ancient Tuscan spread in Pisano, Lucchese, Senese, as well as <sollecido> (Tab. 22) in Pisano and in Senese (see Fransceschini 1983: 134).

78The paradigmatic exchanges between voiceless and voiced stops in the same (pseudo)suffixal series (see also ido/ito, Tab. 22, ada/ata, Tab. 21, etc., and other forms such as strata/strada, where –ata is the root, Tab. 25–27) triggered hypercorrective mechanisms that in some cases promoted phonologization in the lexicon of one variant (see Fanciullo 2009, 2007). Thus, such correspondences facilitate the implementation of hypercorrective drives.

Table 22 Voicing of /–t–/ [–d–] It. sollecito ‘responsive’ PP of Lt sollicitare

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ] = [d]

(LμLμLμ)UnFt

Senese

solécido

1260 Lett. Sen. Aldobrandino

Pisano

solécido

1323 Lett. Pis. Bonagiunta

79We find a very few cases with /t/ for the It. strata < *strata ‘road’ which also gives ‘strada’ in SI but most cases have the voiced stop: as today in SI: ‘strada/road’ and It. ‘stradella’ ‘small road’ (Tab. 23):

Table 23 No Voicing of /–t–/ [–t–] It. strata < *strata ‘road’

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[sˈtra:ta]

Florentine

strata

1274 Brunetto Latini

Tusc. sud–or.

strata

1298 Questioni filosofiche

Pistoiese

strata

1353 Doc. Pist.

Pistoiese

strata

1353 Doc. pist.

80The voiced stop is already well established in the lexicon (also in derived forms: ‘stradella/small road’ stratella, stratariu, ‘stradicciuola/small road’ *strata + –iciu + –eolu), see Table 23, 24, 25) :

Table 24 Voicing of /t–/ [d] It. strata < *strata ‘road’

  • 50 + strade (+ 47).
  • 51 + (larghissime) strade (+2) FPL ‘wide roads’.
  • 52 + strade (+5).

Foot–Medial

[ v́__v ]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[sˈtra:da]

Senese

strada

1309–10 Gangalandi (+111)50

Florentine

strada

1274 Brunetto Latini

Florentine

strada

1282 (larga) Bono Giamboni (+4)51

Florentine

strada

1321 Dante Commedia (+20)52

Aretino

strada

1282 Restoro (+2)

Pisano

strada

13th c. Leggenda Aurea (+2)

Pisano

strade

13th c. Bestiario (+3)

Table 25 Voicing of /t–/ [d] < stratella < stratariu < *strata + –iciu + –eolu

  • 53 As anthroponym.
  • 54 As toponyme.
  • 55 <(Bongiovani di) Stradiere>, as anthroponym.

Foot–Initial

< stratella

[v__ v́ ] (HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt

Senese

(Martino Stralle)53

1235 Lira 3

Senese

la Stralla54

1294 Doc. Sen. Giur.

Senese

ala stralla

1294 Doc. Sen. Giur.

Senese

(picciola) stralla

1340 Ugurgieri

< stratariu

Florentine

stradiere55

1279–80 Libro d’introiti

< *strata + –iciu + –eolu

[stradit͡ʃ:wɔ:la] (HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt<laem>

Florentine

Stradicciuòla

1348–63 Matteo Villani (+1)

  • 56 A similar case is It. frugare ‘to rummage’ < Lt *furicare. We find the voiced stop in Flor. 1321 <( (...)

81The orthographical <g> instead of Lt /k/ is early established under lenitionVoicing in V_V for It. pregare ‘to pray’ < Lt. precāri; this form also coexists in Tuscan with a few graphical <c>, Tab. 2656:

Table 26 It. pregare ‘to pray’ Lenition/Voicing of Lt –c /k/ [g] Lt precari

Foot–Initial

[v__v́]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[preˈga:re]

pre(gaμμ reμ)UnFt

Tuscan

pregare

13th c. Rinaldo d’Aquino

Senese

pregare

Lett. Sen. 1260, Aldobrandino

Florentine

pregare

1260–61 Brunetti Latini

Pisano

pregare

128788 Trattato di Albertano

Senese

pregare

1288 Egidio Romano

Tuscan

(n’agio) precato

13th c. Rime Panvini

Florentine

(avea) precato

13th c. Rinuccino

2.4 Some more Voicing distinctions in the reflexes from Latin to Tuscan

82The lenition–Voicing pattern is increasingly pronounced for the velar stop, in Western Tuscan more than in Florentine, although some forms with the voiced stop have a generally ancient diffusion in Tuscany, as for the It. ago ‘needle’ from < Lt. acus and <figo> ancient variant of It. ‘fico/fig’. There are numerous forms with the voiced velar stop <ago>, more than the ones with voiceless stops <aco>, see Tab. 27–29:

Table 27 Voicing of /–k–/ [–g–] <ago> < Lt. acus

Foot–Medial

[ˈa:go]

[v́__ v] (HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt

Tuscan

ago

1276 Guinizzelli

Tuscan

ago

13th c. Rime Panvini

Tuscan

ago

14th c. Uccelli (+1)

Tuscan

ago

14th c. Trattato Falconi

Tuscan

ago

1314 Fr. Barberino

Tuscan

ago

1333 Simintendi

Senese

ago

1288 Egidio Romano (+1)

Senese

ago

1340 Ugurgieri

Florentine

ago

1292 Bono Giamboni

Florentine

ago

13th c. Tenzone Davanzati

Florentine

ago

1310 Bencivenni

Florentine

ago

1315 Novellino

Florentine

ago

1321 Dante Commedia

Florentine

ago

1370 Boccaccio Decameron

Pisano

ago

1304 [Stat. Pis.] Arte della lana

Pisano

ago

1321 Arte mercatanti

Pisano

ago

14th c. Barlaam

Pisano

ago

1342 Cavalca (+1)

Pisano

ago

14th c. Ovidio

Pisano

ago

1385–95 Francesco da Buti (+13)

Pratese

ago

1330–40 Lucano Volg.

Lucchese

ago

1376 Stat. Lucch. Mercanti

Table 28 Voicing of /–k–/ [–g–] <aghi> ‘needles’ PL < Lt. acus

<gh> = <g> [–g–]

Florentine

aghi

1338 Valerio Massimo

Tusc. Occ.

aghi

14th c. Itinerarium Volg (+4)

Tuscan

aghi

14th c. Contemptu mundi

Tuscan

aghi

14th c. 15th c. BibbiaVolg

Table 29 No–Voicing of /–k–/: <aco> < Lt. acus

Florentine

aco

14th c. Tesoro Volg.

Senese

aco

1340 Ugurgieri (+1)

Senese

aco

14th c. Bestiario

Senese

aco

1378 Caterina da Siena (+1)

Tuscan

aco

14th c. 15th c. Bibbia

Aretino

aco

1282 Restoro

83For It. fico ‘fig’<figo> and <fico> Lat. ficu, we find the voiced forms early in anthroponyms, see Tab. 29; this lexeme with voiced variant is already found in Medieval Italian (1321, Dante, Commedia, Inf. 33, v. 120 [che qui riprendo dattero per figo/ Who here a date am getting for fig]). However, Dante’s example is less interesting, since it could depend on the literary text in rhyming triplets. In fact, the <figo> example in Dante (Tab. 30) is rhyming with Alberigo:

Tercets, three lines stanzas: aba 1321, Dante (Inf. 33)

v. 118 Rispuose adunque: I’ son frate Alberigo

Then he replied: I am Friar Alberigo

v. 120 che qui riprendo dattero per figo

 Who here a date am getting for fig

Table 30 Voicing of /–k–/ [–g–] Lt. ficu <figo>

  • 57 Anthroponyms.
  • 58 Anthroponyms.

Senese

figo (Iscotti)57

127782 Libro Compagnia mercantile (+6)

Pistoiese

figo (mio oste)58

12941308 [Doc.Pist.] Libro di conti

Florentine

(uno) figo

14th c. Tesoro Volg

Florentine

figo

1321 Dante Commedia

84The form <miga> < Lt mica is also found by Franceschini (1983: 132–133, n. 4) in Medieval Lucca texts. It is a Western Tuscan form as well as generally Old Tuscan. However, Franceschini reports (ib.) the retention of the voiceless consonant in <mica> and <micca> (see Figure 2) for Medieval Pisano (Western Tuscan), which is opposed to <miga> Lucchese and Boccaccio’s <miga> (Tab. 31). But he points out inversely <botteca> Lucchese vs. <bottega> Pisano and generally Tuscan (Lt apothēca).

Table 31 Voicing of /–k–/ [–g–] <miga> ‘crumb’ [N] and [Neg] = emphatic negation

Foot–Medial

[v́__ v] (HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt

[N] and [Neg] [ˈmi:ga]

< Lt mica

Florentine

miga

1339–4 Boccaccio Teseida

Florentine

(non) miga

1334 Boccaccio Diana

Florentine

miga

14th c. Tavola Ritonda (+3)

Florentine

miga

1362 Pucci

Florentine

miga

1370 Boccaccio Decameron (+3)

Lucchese

miga

13th c. Luoghi Santi

Pisano

mica

13th c. Nocco di Cenni

Pisano

mica

13th c. Leggenda aurea

Figure 2 Western Tuscan: Retention of voiceless /–k–/ Lt mica in Pisan vs. Lucchese <miga>

Figure 2 Western Tuscan: Retention of voiceless /–k–/ Lt mica in Pisan vs. Lucchese <miga>

85The form <mica> penetrates standard Italian as a negation, and it is widespread in other Northern Italian dialects during the Middle Ages already as an emphatic negation with the expected Gallo–Italian lenition–Voicing (Tab. 32):

Table 32 Voicing of /–k–/ [–g–] <miga> ‘crumb’ in Medieval Northern dialects

[Neg] = emphatic negation

< Lt mica

Veneziano

(no m’alegro) míga [Neg]

12th c. Proverbia que dicuntur

Veneziano

no fe’ míga ben [Neg]

1250 Pamphilus

Lombardo

non è míga ga... [Neg]

1274 Bescapè

Genovese

laxero’ míga [Neg]

1311 Cocito

  • 59 Only one case of voiceless [–k–]: <biconci> in Senese <due bicónci> (1294–1375 [Doc.sen.] Fonti Siena).

86Many other Tuscan lexical items show lenition–Voicing in vCv position, such as < bigóncio> ‘container’ (Tab. 33) < *bicongiu, voiced in Italian too (SI It. ‘bigoncio’) composed of bi ‘two’ and congius (It. cogno ‘Roman measure for liquids’)59, compound indicating the trace of the ancient environment of lenition–sonority across word boundaries in postvocalic position V_V:

Table 33 Voicing of /–k–/ [–g–] It. bigóncio [biˈgont͡ʃo] ‘container’ Lt. /k/ *bicongiu

  • 60 + bigo(n)gia, bigo(n)gie (+1), bigo(n)giuola (+ eolu) (+1).
  • 61 + bigoncie (+6).
  • 62 + bigo(n)gie, bigo(n)giole (+ eola).
  • 63 + bigonzi (+5).

Foot–Initial

[v__v́]

(HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt

Senese

bigónço

1233–43 Mattasalà

Pratese

bigó(n)gia (F)

1296–1305 [Doc. Prat.] Memoriale Camarlinghi (+45)60

Pratese

bigongiáio (+ ariu)

1275 [Doc.Prat.] Spese del commune di Prato

Florentine

bigóncia

1286–90 Registro Cafaggio (+4)61

Pistoiese

bigó (n)gia

1297–1303 [Doc. Pist.] Libro Mugnai62

Senese

bigónci

1301–03 [Stat.Sen.] Statuto della gabelle (+1)63

Senese

bigonzélli (+ ellu)

130910 [Stat.Sen.] Gangalardi (+6)

(9) Lt bi ‘two’ + congius – Initial Voicing #_not really Phrase–Initial

87The ancient environment of the early initial Voicing in phonotactics appears crystallized here in (9). Furthermore, in <bigóncio> the lenition–sonority is Foot–Initial with the prosodic trochaic pattern (HL) μμ σμ)UnFt as in [skoˈdɛlla], which allows us to state that lenition is needed both Foot–Initial [ v́__v ] or in Foot–Medial onset [v__v́ ], see Tab. 34.

Table 34 Lenition/Voicing of Lt –t sculla [–d–] It. ‘scodella/bowl’ [skoˈdɛlla] (vCv)

Foot–Initial

[ v́__v ]

(HL) μμ σμ)UnFt

[skoˈdɛlla]

sco(dèlμμ laμ)UnFt

Flor.

scolla

1282 Restoro

Flor.

scolle

128690 Registro Cafaggio (+7)

Flor.

scodelláio

128690 Registro Cafaggio

Flor.

scodellétta

132130 Cavalca

Flor.

scodellíno

1370 Boccaccio Decameron

Flor.

scodelliére

1390 Sacchetti Pataffio

Flor.

scodellína

14th Sacchetti

Flor.

scodellíne

13th c. Muscia

88A lenition in onset positions word– or foot–initial seems a counter–argument to the pattern where foot–medial position is considered the main target for strengthening. Foot–initial onsets may be weak in vCv position even if the trochaic foot acts as licensor of syllabic structure in Tuscan (see Section 3).

2.5 Tuscan Lenition–Voicing in Branching Onset. Branching constituents?

89Tuscan lenitionsonority of voiceless Latin stops is regular in branching onset C + r/l (Tab. 35, 36, 37) also in phonotactic environments. This also leads to the loss of supralaryngeal place and manner features, i.e., loss of stricture (or loss of elements and phonological primes), such as in Lucchese or general Tuscan <saramento> It. ‘sacramento/sacrament’ Lt  sacramentu, where /k/ Ø, with the entire delinking of melodic material, also enhanced by the lack of licensing see Tab. 35:

Table 35 Lenition of Branching Onset /k/ → Ø It. ‘sacramento/sacrament’ Lt  sacramentu

  • 64 + saramenti, saramento (+3).
  • 65 + seramento (+10).

Lucchese

saramento

1213 Ritmo lucchese

Lucchese

sarame(n)ti/ sarame(n)to (+2)

1295 Lett. Lucch. Guidiccioni

Senese

saram(en)to

1221 Doc.Sen. Inventario Ugolino

Senese

(le) saramenta

1260 Lett.Sen. Aldobrandino (+1)

Tuscan

saramento

1230 Lentini

Tuscan

saramenta

1268 Andrea da Grosseto (+3)64

Florentine

saramento

1271–75 Fiori di Filosafi

Florentine

saramento

1275 Albertano (+5)

Pratese

sarame(n)ta

1275 Doc.Prat. Spese comune di Prato (+7)

Pisano

saramento/ saramenti

1287–88 Trattati Albertano (+11)

Tuscan

(quelle) seramenta

1219 Doc. Monter. Breve Monteri (+2)

Tuscan

seram(en)to

1219 Doc monter Breve Monteri (+14)

Tuscan

seramenti

1268 Andrea da Grosseto (+2)

Tusc./Sangimignano

seramento

1334 Stat. Sang. Arte lana (+19)

Tusc./Volterra

seramento

1348–53 Lett.Volt. Belforti

Senese

seramenti

1298–1309 Stat.Sen. Arte della lana65

Senese

seraménto

1346–67 Stat.Sen. Arte della lana

90The Coda Mirror Theory v2 (2010) only covers/models the lenition of single onsets, lenition of branching onset has been dealt with in Strict–CV afterwards, especially by Brun–Trigaud and Scheer (2010), Scheer and Brun–Trigaud (2012a). In Strict–CV Theory a branching onset (obstruent + liquids) exhibits a lateral relation between melodic segments, called the Infrasegmental Government (= IG, Scheer 1999, 2004: § 14), see in (10a/b):

(10) Lenition Branhing Onset in V_V position

(a) Cr – No prediction (non–local)

91The IG circumscribes the empty nucleus that it spans and it is responsible of its emptiness, however, IG does not trigger a segmental effect. Moreover, in terms of the Coda Mirror Theory, when the branching onset is in intervocalic position, the /r/ is governed and licensed by V, which makes impossible to get a prediction within this theory about the lenition of the voiceless stops (see Brun–Trigaud and Scheer 2010; Scheer and Brun–Trigaud 2012a). This happens because in this configuration /k/ is not the local target of the lateral relations, government and licensing.

92This situation makes it hopeless to account for lenition of branching onsets in the Coda Mirror Theory as such. This fact leads Scheer and Brun–Trigaud (2012a) to consider an amended structure to justify lenition of branching onset, in which the nucleus enclosed in it governs the consonant in onset position even if this nucleus is empty:

(10) Lenition Branhing Onset in V_V position

(b) Branching Onset (amended structure, i.e. local)

  • 66 The non–locality argument also applies when the cluster Cr follows a coda in strong position (e.g. (...)

93C and /r/ are both governed and licensed in an intervocalic position. Lenition of branching onsets is considered by these authors non–local in a syntactic meaning. However, according to the CVCV theory and to the Coda Mirror principles, the new configuration in (10b) respects lateral relations66. To respect the (linear) locality principle in CV–Strict phonology V2 becomes the governor. This modifies the assumption of Lateral Phonology applied in (10a) according to which only realized nuclei can govern. Government becomes in (10b) a phonological property rather than a phonetic property. The configuration in (10) also applies to Tab. 36 and 37.

94Outside the CVCV theory and in prosodic terms, on the other hand in Tab. 34 we have a recursive foot, with a derivational suffix added (–mentu) and the main stress shifted during derivation from root on H penult (menσto)UnFt. Lenition of /kr/ affects the more embedded foot (HL : see It. [ˈsa:kro] ‘holy’), which carried the prederivational stress muted in a secondary stress in the complex word It. [ˌsakraˈmento], Tuscan lenited [ˌseraˈmento].

Table 36 Lenition/Voicing of Branching Onset /–kr–/ It. lacrima ‘tear’ Lt. lacrima

Foot–Medial

[v́__ v]

LLL (σμ σμ σμ)UnFt

Florentine

grime

126061 Brunetto Latini

Tuscan

grima / lágrime (+5)

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Tuscan

lagrimáre (+5)

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Pisano

grime

13th c. Leggenda aurea

But also <lácrima/–e>:

Lucchese

crime

13th c. Bonagiunta

Tuscan

crime

123050 Giacomo da Lentini

Senese

crime

13th c. Pietro Jacomi

Table 37 Lenition/Voicing of Branching Onset /–tr–/ Lt. patre, matre, latro

Foot–Medial

[v́__ v]

(HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt

Tuscan

dre It. padre ‘father’

13th c. Rinaldo d’Aquino

Senese

dre It. madre ‘mather’

1235 Lira 3

Florentine

dre

126061 Brunetto Latini

Florentine

dro It. ladro ‘thief’

126061 Brunetto Latini

Tuscan

dro ladróne, ladróni

1268 Andrea da Grosseto

Florentine

ladronéccio

13th c. Tesoro volg

Florentine

ladronéggio

13th c. Tesoro volg

Florentine

ladronézzo

13th c. Tesoro volg

but also <latro> /t/

Tuscan

tro

13th c. Laude cortonesi

95In Tab. 36 and 37 the lenited onsets /tr/ and /kr/ are not at the end of the scale as in Tab. 35, we do not get loss of manner articulation features and the shift moves up to the sonority scales to get the voiced lenited variants.

96In an alinear model where all segments are hierarchized, a process of syllabification structures segmental sequences, including branching onsets. In these, the sonorant in considered as a second vowel, a syllabic consonant [r̩] (see Sauzet and Brun–Trigaud 2012). The syllabification algorithm is based on the phonological sonority interpreted as a phonological prime. This approach gives to the syllabicity of the sonorant a phonological role:

(11) Branching Onset in an alinear model

Bracketing in Syntax–Phonology interface → Structural Recursion

(la)((dr̩)o) Lt latro

97In (11) the phonological syllabification shows that /r/ is syllabic and a syllabic head of a recursive syllable. The abstract syllabification of /r/ in Branching onset is ((CV)V), which means a syllable embedded recursively in a larger syllable with a higher projection node in the X–bar type of arborescent structure. In this approach, the lenition of Branching Onset is not modular as it is in Strict–CV phonology, but transversal to the grammar components.

98This approach seems more logical because it is based on the cerebrum loquens (as pointed out by Sauzet and Brun–Trigaud (2012: 162).

99Summing up, the picture we gave with Tuscan dialects up to now points out one thing: in Tuscan dialects the lenition seems an indigenous development; in other terms, the voiced consonants from Latin voiceless stops in linear vCv or alinear V [σCV) weak intervocalic environments are indigenous.

  • 67 The lenition area is a Tuscan area today where we see a smaller influence of Florentine. Florentine (...)

100The Northern Italian Medieval scripta may have played a role in favour of the lenition as an innovative pattern. However, the bifurcated outcomes suggest that the consonantal Voicing went on in Tuscany with its specific patterning and its own lenition. The lenitionVoicing of Latin voiceless stops was anciently widespread in Tuscany, especially in Western Tuscany, and this situation went on in modern dialects while interacting with GorgiaAspiration (see Section 4)67. The hypothesis of an indigenous LenitionVoicing of Tuscany does not completely excise that of Castellani (196080), Franceschi (1965), Devoto (1951), etc. who argue for the importance of Northern Italy influence as early as the Lombard period through Lucca, which was the capital of Lombard Tuscia. The forms considered Western Tuscan, fadiga, miga, ago, etc., are in the Middle Ages also Florentine. In modern times, however, such forms do not extend into areas of Florentine influence, and we still have in Southern Tuscany aco ‘needle’ with the voiceless outcome. It seems, therefore, that the Tuscan lenitionVoicing is something different from the GalloItalic lenition affecting Northern dialects, that is supposedly imported through Lucca.

101Contini (1961) had already pointed out the existence of a ring along peripheral Tuscany functioning in terms of lenition similar to what is defined Italia Mediana (Vignuzzi 2010, see above). He based his arguments particularly on initial lenition (lenited/voiced variants in #_ contexts) by establishing a relationship between the process of lenition in initial position with examples of /k/ > [g] in ancient Tuscan and CentralSouthern texts.

  • 68 Giannelli (1976, 2000), Giannelli and Savoia (1980: 76) have indeed identified in the North–Western (...)

102There are differences between Tuscan lenition and that of Western Romance lenition, but also with respect to the situation in Northern Italy, namely with respect to the Gallo–Italic lenition68. We have seen cases where, especially in Western Tuscany, where lenition–Voicing in V_V (sometimes in ‘phrase–initial’ position #_) is very expanded even under conditions different from that of Northern Italian dialects. To explain this situation, which in our opinion cannot be attributed to Northern Gallo–Italian or Western lenition, we also relied on positional phonological arguments (where positional refers to the linear string of segments in CVCV phonology and to the hierarchical segmental string in an a–linear Syntax–Phonology interface approach) with reference to strong and weak position environments to show the allophonic variation of voiceless stops within words and according to the phonotactic conditioning.

3 Parsed trochaic feet, the Stress-To-Weight principle and the lenition/fortition scale

103We explain in this section lenition (Voicing) and fortition patterns within prosodic and metrical theory and how Tuscan syllables are parsed into feet. This is to check if the trochaic Italo–Romance foot built on word stress has an influence on the lenition/fortition outcomes and scales.

3.1 Oxytonic words: Lenition/Fortition and Apocope

104Lenition is at the source of a nominal oxytonic wordclass in Medieval Tuscan Italian (and afterwards in SI), since it introduces the new Italo–Romance prosodic class stressed on last syllable (e.g. città ‘town’ < Lt civita(te)). This is displayed in Medieval texts from Tuscany where we note that lenition/apocope affect the serial suffixes ate and ute from the Latin nominal 3th and 5th declension inflectional paradigms attached to a radical.

105From Medieval Tuscan we get evidence of three orthographic representations for these inflectional series Lt ate/ute, two of them indicate lenition. In the first spelling the stressed <à> or <ú> become final when the lenition triggers the apocope of the last syllable /te/ (and /tu/); in the second spelling, lenition is just represented through the Voicing of the coronal /t/ without syllabic apocope <àde> and <úde> (e.g. see It. ‘città/town’, ‘bontà/goodness’ < Lt bonita(te), ‘eredità/inheritance’ < heredita(te), ‘virtù/virtue’ virtu(te) > <virtù> and <virtude>), see Tab. 38 and 39.

106In the former case (<virtù>), lenition and apocope create a restricted class of words with a final stress prosodic pattern in Italo–Tuscan (then in SI), e.g. stress on the final syllable, which is a marked pattern in comparison to the unmarked prosodic trochee, on which ItaloRomance and SI are considered metrically based (den Os and Kager 1986; Repetti 1991, 1992, 1998; Russo 2011, 2013a/b). Indeed, in Italian the main stress usually falls on the penult or antepenult syllable.

107Prosodically, at a glance oxytonic forms create degenerate feet, inconsistent with the metrical structure of Italian and Tuscan where trochaic feet are supposed to be at least binary, bounded and leftheaded (Marotta 2000: 192; Russo 2011, 2013a), see the s/w headmarked metrical notation developed in Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983):

108(12) s/w head-marked metrical notation (Lerdahl and Jackendoff 1983)

The constituent node of the foot is placed geometrically above the head (on the stressed rhyme).

109In standard metrical theory (Halle and Vergaud 1987) the structure of Italian and Tuscan oxytones (such as città ‘town’, virtù ‘virtue’) creates a degenerate (monosyllabic) foot (see c): a single foot consisting of a strong syllable.

  • 69 If we consider the iambic stress pattern as a lexically marked exception rather than the rule, we w (...)

Therefore, any main stress other than penult is considered marked (Fanciullo 1997; Russo 2021, 2019, 2011)69, see (13a).

(13) Oxytone words – Degenerate Foot?

(a) (tʃit.) (tá)unary-ft ‘town’ degenerate foot: (tá)

(b) ((láa.)σ (dro)σ)ftbin ‘thief’ bisyllabic trochee

110In Italian and in Medieval Tuscan the final syllable of this class is stressed, and it allows to form a degenerate foot (12c), assuming that this parsing has been exhaustive. Since the degenerate foot is stressed, the requirement that any feet have a stressed head is still satisfied.

111However, stress–final words in a supposedly trochaic system is a problem for the metrical theory: degenerate feet are not acceptable templates, repair strategies frequently restore the binary division (see Kager 1995).

112In (12a) rhymes are bipositional for stress assignment ([ˈla:dro]), i.e. there is a bimoraic constraint on the stressed syllable. Syllables receiving the primary stress are bimoraic, with the tonic syllable taking the form V: or VC. As a consequence of this, we find long vowels in stressed syllables (such as 12a) in words stressed on penult syllables. 

113If the surface–stressed open penult is obligatory foot–headed, light–headed unary feet are excluded.

Thus, words like (t͡ʃit.)(tà) ‘città’ in (13) at a glance have a structure which does not fit with the metrical structure of Italian (Nespor 1993), where a minimal binary foot size condition is expected to hold and for which a binary bound foot left–headed (i.e., left dominant) is usually postulated (Roca 1999: 666):

*

…(σ σ)<σ>]mot

114The simplest way to test for degenerate constituents is to examine monosyllables diachronically. It appears that in many cases monomoraic monosyllabic words are simply absent in Latin because this type of underlying representation is augmented by the addition of another mora/syllable.

  • 70 Trochaic parsing can ignore quantity, which is not allowed in iambic parsing. Recall, however, that (...)

115The absence of monosyllabic / monomoraic words could therefore reflect the absence of degenerate feet in the metrical system. Latin has the minimal word syndrome. Monomoraic words are absent from the non–clitic vocabulary. Allen (1973) interprets the iambic abbreviation which converted #L(H)# words like *egō ‘I’ and modō ‘only’ into égo and módo as an artifice to assign word stress while satisfying strict binarity: #L(H)# is reanalyzed into #(LL)# with automatic shortening of the heavy syllable to maintain trochacism (see Russo 2013a). The word ambō ‘both’ is not abbreviated, suggesting that (H) does not need to incorporate the final syllable since it is already a legitimate binary (bimoraic) foot (see Mester 1994)70.

116The left dominant binary foot of Latin is still at work in Italo–Tuscan (Jacobs 1994a; D’Imperio and Rosenthall 1999; Russo 2013a/b, 2019, 2021). The accent on the penult word is the unmarked pattern. The extrametrical nature of word–final syllables confines the Latin stress to antepenult and penult syllables. Latin quantitysensitive system is a system that obeys the WeighttoStress principle (if heavy then stressed, Hyde 2011a: 1061; Prince 1990): if the penult is heavy, it is stressed; otherwise, the antepenult is stressed. Tuscan also seems a quantitysensitive left dominant foot (QSld), the only innovation between the Latin and Tuscan stress systems is the oxytonic pattern.

117Binary feet can be identified as a general weight–stress parameter on the right edge of the metrical domain.

118To account for oxytonic and paroxytonic stress, Nespor (1993) proposes that Italian allows degenerate monosyllabic feet (= unary feet) in oxytonic words next to binary feet (bisyllabic trochees), which are stressed on their leftmost syllable in words like (it.)(tà) ‘town’.

  • 71 An uneven trochee is HL= μμμ ou LLL= μμμ. See Russo (2021, 2019) for an analysis of the stress Ital (...)

119Marotta (1999, 2000) shows a different approach to the structure of Italian feet: in her analysis of oxytonic and paroxytonic words such as ‘città/town’, Italo–Tuscan feet can be trochaic or iambic: (vir.tù) ‘virtue’ is an iamb (a foot consisting of an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable, here in (13) (tá), [W S] (it.)w(tà)s). A standard iamb is (L σ) or (H) (see Hyde 2011a). Thus, according to her Italian, oxytonic words do not violate the foot binarity constraint. In this frame, oxytonic words could naturally be parsed in an iambic foot, rather than a syllabic trochee or an uneven moraic trochee (LLL, HL)71:

Table 38 Lenition, Apocope and oxytonic stress: <–à(te)>/<–à(de)>/<–à> an iamb, unary feet or a trochee?

/t/ Ø

[ˈ ta:de]

(HL) (σμμ σμ)UnFt

No –Apocope

< Lt –áte

Florentine

hereditàde

1275 Albertano volg (+2)

Florentine

hereditàte

1275 Albertano volg (+2)

Pisano

hereditàde/ heredità

1309 Giordano da Pisa

Apocope

[ˈtaμ]/ [ˈtaøC]

H (σμμ)FtBin

Florentine

heredità

1284–87 Brunetto Latini

Pisano

heredità

1287–88 Albertano Volg

Senese

heredità

1309–10 Stat. Sen. Gangalandi (+22)

Lucchese

heredità

14th c. Stat.Lucch. Altopascio

Tuscan/Volt.

heredità

1348–53 Lett. Volt. Belforti (+8)

Tusc.Sud–Or.

heredità

1298 Questioni filosofiche

Table 39 Lenition, Apocope and oxytonic stress: <–à(te)>/<–à(de)>/<–à>

Moraic FtBin = μμ

[ˈtaμ]/ [ˈtaøC] H (σμμ)FtBin

á(te) Apocope

Lt < cūrĭtāte (te)Ø

Pisano

sigurtàμ

1287–88 Trattati Albertano (+3)

Pisano

sigurtàμ

1309 Giordano da Pisa

Pisano

sigurtàμ

1321 [Stat. Pis.] Ordine Mercatanti (+8)

Pisano

sigurtàμ

1327 [Stat. Pis.] Chiesa Sigerro (+2)

Pisano

sigurtàμ

1330 [Stat. Pis.] Breve Popolo (+4)

Pisano

sigurtàμ

14th c. [Stat. Pis.] Compagnia Crocione (+1)

Pisano

sigurtàμ

1322–51 [Stat. Pis.] Breve Ordine del mare di Pisa (+13)

Volterra

sigurtàμ

1348–53 [Lett. Volt.] (+4)

Senese

sigurtàμ

1367 Colombini

Tuscan

sigurtàμ

1294 Guittone (+2)

It must be noticed that in the oxytonic formation [sigurˈta] ‘safety’ Tab. 39 and 40, also /k/ is lenited to [g] in the second unstressed syllable.

Table 40 /–t–/ Lenition with No–Apocope (Stage 2) Lt < cūrĭtāte [sigurˈta:de] ‘safety’

  • 72 +(delle) sigurtadi (+3).
  • 73 + sigurtadi (+4).

/k t/ → [g d]

Lt –ate /t/ → [d]

NO Apocope

[ˈta:de]

HL (σμμ σμ)UnFt

Pisano

sigurtade

13th c. Lucidario (+3)

Pisano

sigurtade

1304 [Stat. Pis.] Arte della lana (+2)

Pisano

sigurtade

1330 [Stat. Pis.] Breve Popolo (+4)72

Pisano

sigurtade

132251 [Stat. Pis.] Ordine Pisa (+2)73

Tuscan

sigurtade

14th-15th c. Bibblia Volg.

120In Medieval ItaloTuscan (and SI) the rarest ‘iambic’ context also becomes the most productive trigger for fortition, since it triggers the initial phonological gemination called Raddoppiamento Sintattico (henceforth RS). In other words, in a W1W2 sequence, the initial consonant of W2 is a geminate if W1 ends with a stressed vowel like in (13) (tʃit.) (tá), i.e., RS to apply requires that stressed syllables have branching rhymes.

  • 74 “In quantity–sensitive languages, heavy syllables are always stressed” (Hyde 2011a: 1057).

121In an analysis based on a dominant Italian Quantity Stress left dominant system (QS–ld), QS–ld requires light syllables stressed at the end of the word to be heavy (see Hayes 1986, 1995; Prince 1990; Hyde 2011a/b)74. In this view, syntactic doubling makes lightly stressed monosyllabic feet heavy (see Russo 2013a). Thus, in this view the gemination of RS is due to an empty C–position inserted by a lexical rule to repair the malformed foot (a hypothesis we assume here, see ib.): (tʃit.)(tá)RS[pp]ulíta ‘clean town’. The binary moraic oxitonic foot (tá)RS acquire a second mora through RS of the following onset [p] and the bimoraicity prosodic constraint for oxytonic feet is satisfied through fortition (onset gemination) (μ μ)FtBin.

122The RS consonantal position is metrically predictable, in Tuscan words like città its insertion is licensed by the final stress, following the Stress–to–Weight constraint.

123Indeed, in oxytonic words cittàlike which trigger the RS conditioned by final stress, an empty consonantal position responsible for initial gemination is inserted to satisfy the stress algorithm of ItaloTuscan; in other words, the gemination process is linked to the assignment of the metrical structure In Medieval Tuscan, the RS rule triggered by stress to fulfil the foot requirement was already active, as you can see in (14):

(14) RS licensed by final stress ( Clitic Onset Gemination (μ μ)FtBin )

(a) Florentine pagolli ‘he payed them’ (1211, 1256, 134850...)

(b) Senese pagolli (1277–82)

(c) Pistoiese pagolli (1297–1303)

(d) Florentine rekolle ‘he brought them’ (1211)

  • 75 <andollo a raccomandare> = It. lo andò a raccomandare ‘went to recommend him’.

(e) Florentine andollo (2nd h. 14th )75

(f) an(døl)(lo) alinear model (øl)(lo) Chain

(g) an(docv)(lo) linear model CVCV 2 Units

124In (14f) we give a representation of RS geminate in the alinear model based on a SyntaxPhonology interface, which predicts an asymetric geminate, and in (14g) we give the representation in the linear StrictCV model, in which an empty CV triggers a full geminate. Both models share the idea of an empty final position on W1 available in Strong initial context to produce RS.

125We must notice that RS, also when it is stressconditioned, always corresponds to a Strong Position, the postcoda [C.__ ], a context where lenition is disfavoured (hence gemination/fortition). Thus, RS functions as a context of lenition inhibition (see for inhibitions/lenition factors Honeybone 2019, 2005).

126We assume here that the final stressed syllable of oxytonic words cittàlike is a binary moraic trochee left–headed (this is for all words with a final stress), with 2 moras: H= μμ FtBin (=binary foot) (Russo 2021, 2019). Moraic feet are otherwise uneven trochees in Italo–Tuscan, an UnFt (= Uneven Foot) is a foot with three moras (μμμ). Thus, if we consider Tab. 40 and (15):

(15) Oxytones H= μμ FtBin

(a) heredità → (taμμ)FtBin (Final stress)

(b) hereditàde → (taμμ:deμ)UnFt (Penult stress)

127In both cases (15a/b) feet are left–headed bounded trochees (no more than two moras in FtBin, no more than three moras in an UnFt). In both feet, stress licenses a position, vowel length in (12a) is derived to satisfy the bimoraic minimal foot, in (12b) consonantal length in the form of initial gemination of word2 onset (RS) is also required to satisfy Foot Binarity in phonotactic conditions. In ItaloTuscan the stressweight mapping operates both in wordinternal position and across word boundaries.

  • 76 See Halle and Vergnaud (1987); Halle and Idsardi (1995); Saltarelli (1995), Roca (1999, 2005, 2006) (...)

128Basically ItaloTuscan follows the (ante)penult stress pattern of Latin based on the Weight–to–Stress Principle, see (16)76:

129(16) Classical Latin stress algorithm based on the Weigt_to_Stress Principle :

by changing it to a Stress–to–Weight Principle, however it still provides a left prominent trochaic foot which is quantity sensitive, i.e., responsive to syllable structure (Russo 2013a/b, 2019, 2021). This happens with the final stress (Tab. 38 and 39), which triggers the insertion of an underspecified (empty) consonantal position and determines its integration into the metrical structure via RS fortition = initial gemination (Russo 2013a).

  • 77 The preantepenult stress of archaic Latin was replaced by a stress that falls on the prepenult sy (...)

130The Uneven Foot/Trochee is based on cardinality = 3, i.e., a maximum length of three syllables, which results from classical Latin77. In terms of metrical theory, the penult stress analyses the right edge of the prosodic domain into a binary trochee when the head constituent is heavy: a long vowel or a branching rhyme.

131In standard metrical theory Halle and Vergnaud (1987) proposed a treatment of bounded stress in Classical Latin based on extrametricality and on the Bounded parameter (= BND) (see also Halle and Idsardi (1995). The system for the computation of antepenult and penult stress is the following:

(17) Treatment of bounded stress in Classical Latin (Standard Metrical Theory)

1. The final syllable is extrametrical

2. The settings for line 0 are [+ HT, +BND, right to left, left] HT = Head Terminal

3. Place the heads of the constituents of line 0 on line 1, etc.

132In this view, the extrametrical nature of wordfinal syllables confines the Latin stress to antepenult and penult syllables. In an optimality theoretic analysis of the stress system applied to the metrical standard theory (Halle and Vergnaud 1987), we would say that Italian has preserved Latin extrametricality of the final syllable (NonFinality, see Hyde 2007, 2011b; Kager 1999).

133In our development of the standard theory replacing the syllabic trochee with a moraic trochee, the wordfinal syllable is not always extrametrical, rather it is footed in a stresswindow bearing penult and antepenult stress (see the uneven moraic trochee in (15b): (taμμ:deμ)UnFt). The extrametrical nature of wordfinal syllables/moras in ItaloTuscan only applies when the prosodic window does not respect the cardinality of 3 from the rightedge to the left (in words of more than three syllables: the trisyllabic stress window from Latin (see Roca 1999, 2006; Russo 2019, 2021). In this case the final one/two moras/syllables are left unparsed on the right edge. This gridbased nonfinality approach produces a similar pattern in word layers. It operates by inserting a boundary to the right of the rightmost element of the line 0 grid. x# line 0 when the stress is not in the final position, according to the maximum constituent construction parameter. The function of ICC (= Iterative Constituent Construction) is used here to characterize maximum ternary measures (the antepenult stress pattern), without generalization of the extrametricality as a prosodic edge parameter (Liberman and Prince 1977; Roca 2005; Hyde 2011b).

Headbased and nonfinality approach does not prohibit stress on syllablefinal moras. Head moras of a trochaic foot can be final.

  • 78 The StresstoWeight Principle recalls the Obligatory Branching Parameter within classical metrical (...)

134In Tuscan binary feet (oxytones such as (15a) <heredità> → (taμμ)FtBin) or ternary feet (such as (15b) <hereditàde> → (taμμ:deμ)UnFt)) can be identified as a general weightstress constraint on the right edge of the metrical domain. Weightsensitivity stress type avoids light syllables78.

Without extrametricality, the Tuscan pattern requires the quantitysensitive ternary uneven moraic trochee parsed at the trisyllabic domain right edge (15b): HL (taμμ:deμ)UnFt.

When the penult is light, the ternary uneven moraic foot is constructed at the right edge of the word, resulting in antepenultimate stress (LLL proparoxytonic words).

135For Tuscan Italian with this window (= 3), one must therefore admit a persistence of the Latin binary or ternary moraic foot with lefthead, where heavy syllables systematically attract the stress, according to a mirrored/symmetrical StresstoWeight Principle (stress occurs on the first mora (18), see Kager (1993), Hyde (2011a):

136(18) acts as a s/w syllable contour, the second mora being subject to initial gemination in RS contexts (W2 with a consonantal onset in a lefttoright trochaic system). The internal prominence contrast is responsible for the behavior after the heavy syllable within the parsing window and parsing iterative algorithm.

137For quantitysensitive metrical parsing we have postulated a specific rule, which assigns heavy syllables an asterisk on line 1; the analysis places a stressed syllable in the head position. This maximizes the idea that the stress reflects the projection of headed constituents.

138In Tuscan stress is also sensitive to the weight of prosodic wordfinal syllables; this confirms the trochee stress system. In oxytones <città>like, stress occupies a heavy final syllable: we have argued (Russo 2013a/b, 2019, 2021) that an empty position is lexically present in the metrical structure of the oxytonic words of Tuscan Italian /<città>C/ and that the quantitysensitive stress generates its realization to satisfy the binarity of the final foot. Rhythmic lengthening applies to increase the duration of stressed syllable. In Medieval and Modern Tuscan (as well as in SI), this causes vowel lengthening wordinternally and gemination of the following onset in RS contexts W1W2 within the prosodic word (φ). When an underlyingly light final syllable is stressed (<tà>), the syllable becomes heavy by RSlengthening. RS is a prosodic licenser for otherwise stray position; it protects the latent consonantal position <tà>C from deletion through Stray Erasure.

139We could also argue, following Kiparsky (1991), that a catalectic mora is assigned to the right edge of the radical. This catalexis would be motivated by the need to eliminate degenerate monosyllabic feet (see Jacobs 1994b; Kager 1995; Meinschaefer 2011, Russo 2013a): through a FtBin compensatory lengthening strategy (a ‘rhythmic’ lengthening) the RS is placed after the oxytones because of a catalectic mora licensed by stress, which allows its realization through initial gemination in RS contexts. This analysis eliminates the idea of monomoraic feet in the <città>like and produces the correct stress pattern which is predictable in the case of wordfinal stress. The stressed vowels of underlyingly light syllables lengthen in the Tuscan trochaic system. Rhythmic lengthening indicates weightsensitivity since stress avoids light syllables (Hyde 2006, 2011a/b).

3.2 Lenition, Stress and Foot. Evidence for prosodic conditions of lenition in Tuscan dialects?

140The hypothesis that stress triggers voicing/lenition of the following consonantal onset was made by Graziadio Isaia Ascoli (1873: 88ff., see discussion in Clark 1903, and recently Canalis 2014), and already discussed by Izzo (1972, 1980), who excluded the stress conditioning i.e., that stress play a role on lenition processes. He ascribed devoicing to a spontaneous development due to the effect of the prosodic and/or vocalic context.

141The degree of stress of adjacent syllables could affect the segmental position. Ascoli’s idea was that the tonic /a/ in the penult syllable triggers Voicing of the following onset, giving opposite pairs in SI such as (19a/b):

(19) Does tonic /a/ in the penult trigger Voicing?

UnFt: HL ((μμ)σ σ(μ)) = [ˈpa:dre] and [sˈtra:da]

(a) padre ‘father’ Voicing

strada ‘road’

UnFt: HL ((μμ)σ σ(μ)) = [maˈri:to]= ma[(ri:)(to)]UnFt and [ˈkre:ta]

(b) maríto ‘husband’ No–Voicing

creta ‘clay’

  • 79 See the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) and the implications for the theory of sonority (Clemen (...)

142According to him, lenition is an increase of sonority, indeed tonic vowels /i e/ in (19) do not trigger Voicing since these stressed vowels are different from /a/ in terms of sonority, according to the universal sonority scale: Low vowels > Mid vowels > High vowels (see Blevins 1995: 21)79.

  • 80 Moreover, according to Canalis (2014), the voiced stop appears 22.3 % of cases when the stop belong (...)

143This tendency was also recently quantitatively confirmed by Canalis (2014), who calculated in Medieval Tuscan 25.8 percent of intervocalic Voicing when the stop is preceded by /a/, but only 11.5% of Voicing when the stop is preceded by a high vowel80.

144As we have seen in Section 1 and 2, this does not completely fit our (qualitative) data found in Medieval Tuscany where lenition involves such contexts. In each Table, in the previous sections, we have indicated the stress and foot structure explained in Section 3.1. The same applies looking at Voicing in Northern Italian dialects, see (20), where lenition is also represented with orthographic <dh> or with <d> instead of /t/ (<dh> indicates a fricative stage); in Medieval texts both graphemes are used to indicate lenition:

(20) Lenition in weaker Footinternal (Voicing and loss of material Stop → Fricative)

Northern Italian dialects after a stressed high vowel (< Ascoli)

Lt maritus ‘It. mariti/husbands’ [maˈri:ti]

UnFt: HL ((μμ)σ σ(μ)) = [maˈri:ði] = ma[(ri:)(ði)]UnFt

Veneziano <maridhi> (14th c. Tristano Veneto)

Veneto <maridi> (1325 Armannino)

  • 81 According to the universal sonority scale: – Voiced fricative – Voiceless fricative – Voiced plosiv (...)

145Spirantization is also linked to lenition–Voicing here as a subtype of lenition (Honeybone 2012), voiceless stops are subject in V_V to sonorizing81, opening and deletion to zero (after a laryngeal change).

146MeyerLübke develops even more the stress theory, and interprets the stress role in determining patterns of lenition stating that the voiceless Latin stops remain voiceless when they occur after a tonic syllable (however see for instance (21):

(21) NoVoicing in posttonic syllables (MeyerLübke § 205)

voiceless consonant after the stress (It. amíco ‘friend’)?

UnFt: HL ((μμ)σ σ(μ)) = [aˈmi:ko] = a[(mi:)(ko)]UnFt

Lt amicus

(a) It. amíco [aˈmi:ko] ‘friend’

Lt caput

(b) It. cápo [ˈka:po] ‘head’

When the onset precedes the tonic vowel, we should find instead the voiced consonant as in Tab. 41.

147According to this theory this would be the reason why we get the Voicing for the examples like: It. pagáre ‘to pay’ Lt pacare or It. palla ‘pan’ Lt. patella:

Table 41 Lenition–Voicing of /t/ before the stress? Lt. palla ‘pan’ [ v__v́ ]

pa(μlμlaμ)

[ˈdɛlla]

(HμμLμ)UnFt

[v__ v́ ]

Foot–Initial

Pratese

paμlμlaμ

1288–90 [Doc. Prat.] Ragionato Cepperello

Senese

paμlμlaμ

1301–1303 [Stat. Sen.] Statuto della gabella

Senese

paμlμlaμ

1321–37 Chiose Selmiane

Florentine

paμlμlaμ

14th c. Bencivenni

Tuscan

paμlμlaμ

1333 Simintendi

148Again, it is hard to accept the idea if we have a look at data in Tuscany or in Northern Italy, where we find intervocalic Voicing in such positions (contradictions to this stress theory come even from Florentine), see Tab. 42:

Table 42 Stress does not prevent Voicing!

[v́ __v ]

(HL)UnFt

FootMedial

Cremonese

amíμμgoμ

13th c. Patecchio

Ligure

amíμμgoμ

14th c. San Gregorio

Florentine

amíμμgoμ

14th c. Sacchetti Rime

The same happens in words with antepenult stress: we find the Voicing of the onset following the stressed vowel (Tab. 43):

Table 43 < Lt pícula It. pece ‘tar’ Voicing in posttonic position

Foot–Medial

[v́__v]

(LμLμLμ)UnFt

Florentine

péμgoμlaμ

1321 Dante Commedia

Florentine

péμgoμlaμ

1321–22 JacopoAlighieri

Florentine

péμgoμlaμ

14th Pegolotti

Florentine

péμgoμlaμ

1366–72 Boccaccio Rubriche

Bolognese

péμgoμlaμ

1324–28 Jacopo della lana

Padovano

péμgoμlaμ

1390 Jacobus

In that case we have to notice that the rule fits in Tuscan Italian and in Northern Italian dialects even for prosodically similar words (see Izzo 1972), such as:

(22) Posttonic Consonantal Voicing (LLL)UnFt [ˈredina] It. redina ‘bridle’

< Lt. retinere

It. (réμdiμnaμ)

Pisano <rédina> (128788, Trattati Albertano volg)

149As we have seen in the previous section ItaloTuscan feet are moraic (bimoraic or uneven) trochees. Lenition seems to occur in all types of intervocalic position, weaker foot–medial and stronger foot–initial. Medieval data show that lenition in intervocalic vCv can occur in multiple prosodic position: in foot–internal position after a stressed long vowel VV (liμμdoμ)UnFt (HL), after a single V (réμdiμnaμ)UnFt (LLL), (ˈlaμgriμmaμ)UnFt (LLL), as well as Foot Initial [poμ(ˈdeμμreμ)UnFt] (HL), see (23):

(23) Consonant weakening (lenition) and Prosodic environment

150(a) Foot–medial weaker foot–internal [ v́__v ] (HL)

[ˈri:va] (riμμvaμ)Unft Lt ripa

[ˈla:go] (laμμgoμ)Unft Lt lacu

[ˈli:do] (liμμdoμ)Unft Lt litu

[ˈspi:ga] (spiμμgaμ)Unft Lt spica

[ˈpa:dre] (ˈpaμμdreμ)Unft Lt patre

[ˈma:dre] (ˈmaμμdreμ)Unft Lt matre

[ˈla:dro] (ˈlaμμdroμ)Unft Lt latro

151(b) As well as after unlengthened/unstressed V:

Footinitial [ v__ v́ ]

[scoμ(ˈμlμlaμ) ft]) Lt. scutélla

[poμ(ˈdeμμreμ)ft] Lt. *potere

FootMedial [ v́__v ]

[(ˈlagriμmaμ) ft] Lt. lacrima

152We did not find in Tuscan two types of intervocalic environment, a stronger [v__v́] and a weaker [ v́__v ] (see Honeybone 2012 for a typological survey) : both environments are lenis, [v__v́] (paμlμlaμ) and [ v́__v ] (amíμμgoμ). Singleton /p t k/ do not lenite only when the onset is a weak branch of a trochaic foot ((14) amis(tàμμdeμ)UnFt) but also foot initial [sco(ˈμlμlaμ)] or medial [(ˈlaμgriμmaμ)] ‘tear’. Conversely, strong Position/variants can be stressdriven through Syntactic Doubling (RS) after final stress.

153Concerning oxytonic words in Medieval Tuscan, lenition could be understood diachronically as foot shortening or predeletion, see (24); apocope is conditioned by segmental lenition, the diachronic loss of coronal in weaker footmedial [ v́__v ]) from Lt áte and úte (see Section 3.1):

154(24) Apocope conditioned by lention in [ v́__v ]

155In the process of Lenition/Apocope (24) a prosodic constraint is active: Head Foot Right (HdftR), see McCarthy (2002), Wheeler (2005): (σˈσ) (ˈσ), where ˈσ is a BinFt trochee (with a prominent mora aligned with its left edge) subject to RS gemination in phonotactic environments W1W2, on the base of the Stress–to–Weight principle (Swp).

4 The Florentine throat/Gorgia. Different patterns of lenition

156The LenitionVoicing trend (Section 14) was opposed especially in the Florentine area, to the trend of maintaining voiceless stops, which have conversely developed through Gorgia/Weakening. In this section we examine the lenitionGorgia and study its interaction with lenitionVoicing from two perspectives: to study the relationship between Western Tuscan lenition (Voicing) and its Florentinization through lenitionGorgia and to put the pieces together; to compare at phonological level the two lenition environments where occurs the consonantal strength shift from the voiceless Latin stops / p t k/ to Tuscan lenited variants.

Let us take a closer look at this difference.

4.1 Lenition–Gorgia. Distributional patterns correlated with strong and weak positions

  • 82 An important bibliography can be given on this topic, Sorianello (2010) includes several scientific (...)

157As we have already observed since the beginning of this study, next to the consonantal lenition–Voicing described in Section 1–4, in most part of Tuscany there exists a later specific intervocalic lenition/weakening process (a local well–known pronunciation) known as Tuscan Gorgia (‘throat’ from French gorge, lt. gŭrga ‘gola’/ throat) or aspiration, a typical phenomenon of pronouncing especially the dorsal /k/ as a velar fricative or as a glottal fricative82 (Giacomelli 1934; Giannelli and Savoia 1978; 1979–1980; Giannelli and Cravens 1997; Giannelli 1976/2000: 25ff.; Agostiniani and Giannelli 1983; Castellani 2000; Sorianello 2010, 2003, 2001; Kirchner 2001; Marotta 2008; Kingston 2008; Villafaña Dalcher 2008; O’ Brien 2012; Gess 2009; Russo 2015, 2022b; Ulfsbjorninn 2017).

158It is a weakening/spirantization of /p b t d k g/, realized as spirantized variants ( [ɸ β θ ð x/h ɣ]) in intervocalic position V_V and across word boundaries. To spirantize, stops are pronounced with a more open articulation between vowels, the segmental reduction can go up to laryngeal fricatives (debuccalization: h/ɦ, i.e. loss of supralaryngeal place features). This pronunciation is typical of the Florentine area.

  • 83 The rhotic (/r/ or /rr/) and the lateral alveolar become approximants: [e ˈɸaɹθe] ‘It. e parte/and (...)
  • 84 See Giannelli and Cravens (1997), Cravens (2006, 2002), Marotta (2008).
  • 85 See Sauzet (1994) ; Russo (2013a).

159We deal here mainly with voiceless stops /p t k/ which are realized as [ɸ θ x/h], see (25); instead of [h], neutralization to the glottal place of articulation, there can also be found loss ‘0’. As for lenitionVoicing, this lenition applies also if a liquid is following C (i.e., if C is in a branching onset) V_{l r j w}V. The weakening also involves deaffrication (of /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/, see Marotta 2008: 252253), fricatives and sonorants (liquids and nasals83) which are also pronounced with more open articulation in V_V weak position (Giannelli 2000: 2831). For /b d g/ we have in weak position a lenition trajectory towards the continuous variants [β ð ɣ] (Giannelli 2000: 28). As we mentioned, Gorgia/aspiration is supposed to be a positional process (but see exceptions below), it occurs wordinternally and across word boundaries, if the preceding word ends in a vowel and there is no phraseboundary between W1W284, see the StrictCV and the Coda Mirror principles applied to lenitionGorgia in (25), (25c) puts together the linear CVCV model and the a–linear structural model in representing the Strong position RS driven. The a–linear øC_ and the empty CV share the idea of an empty category ø syllabified in the onset to make it strong through RS. However, the way of integrating this phonological object into syllabification is different (the a–linear hierarchical model abandons the autosegmental framework and builds linearity through syllabification)85:

(25) Positional Gorgia. Florentine Spirantization/Aspiration in Phonotactics

Strong Position / p t k/

(+ Lic, – Gvt) : Coda Mirror

(a) ##_ [ˈka:sa] ‘the house’ (Phrase–Initial)

(b) C._ [ŋˈka:sa] ‘at home’ (Post–Consonant)

(c) øC_ or cv_ [ˈtre ˈk:a:se] ‘three houses’ (Prosodic RS)

(– Lic, + Gvt) Weak Position V_V

(d) #_ [la ˈha:sa] ‘the house’ (Postvocalic)

[di ˈɸe: ɸe] ‘of pepper’

[la ˈθu: θa] ‘the jumpsuit’

160According to the Coda Mirror v2 Theory, in (25a/b/c) the stop is licensed but ungoverned (= undamaged); this predicts a strong consonant in 3 Strong Positions, RS, phraseinitial, postconsonantal. In V_V position the voiceless stop is non licensed but governed ( Lic, + Gvt); this predicts the weak consonant.

161In (25c) [ˈtre ˈk:a:se], the RS latent consonant (øc) is licensed by the stressed monosyllable W1 (‘three’) in headed DPs made up of W1W2 in phonotactics, since the trochaic Tuscan foot need an extra mora (given by the latent consonantal position) to be fulfilled in its prominent/tonic left position. This can also be represented within the Coda Mirror Theory assuming that the trigger W1 [ˈtreCV]RS has a final [CV]RS licensed by word stress (in StrictCV stress in ‘space’). This [CV]RS is initial in W2 triggering gemination (for such analysis see for instance Russo 2013a; Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2020; Russo 2022b). The initial consonant of W2 (/k/ in ˈk:a:se]) is in strong position (# ___ or ø __) if a latent object [CV]RS /(øc) is realized in surface, see (26a/b):

(26) Prosodic RS trigger/ Fortition

(a) [ˈtre ˈk:a:se] RS[CV]RS

162(b) Coda Mirror ø _

163[ˈtre ˈk:a:se] ‘three houses’

  • 86 On the predictions made by the initial CV in CV–Strict Phonology, see Scheer (2004: § 87; Scheer 20 (...)

164The final empty CV in W1 prevents the initial consonant from behaving as if it were in V_V position ((25d) [la ˈha:sa])86 and it triggers a geminate. The floating empty consonant is syllabified with the following onset as part of a heterosyllabic geminate: the initial empty onset C receives a melodic copy of the initial consonant to its right. In the case of [ˈtre]cv the stress of the tonic W1 triggers the [RS]CV.

165In autosegmental terms, as in StrictCV phonology, the empty latent consonant in W1 is treated as a floating consonant, the occurrence of the strong consonant thus meets distributional criteria, after floating consonant (25c), after a stable consonant (25b), and phraseinitial (25a). In these three cases the initial consonant is protected by the lenition. The UR for (25b) is given in (27a/b):

(27) Fortition trajectory: Strong variant after a stable consonant

(a) Clitic P (Locative) [ŋ̩] < /Vn/

(b) Clitic P + N [ŋˈka:sa] ‘at home’

166The initial consonants of W2 phraseinitial behave like those in C._V or C#_V position (with fixed C), see (26a) and surface as strong variant [k] but there is not gemination since the final consonantal position of the (locative P) clitic is occupied by a lexical nasal. In the coda Mirror theory, the consonants in these two positions are licensed but escape the government, defined according to the CVCV theory (Ségéral and Scheer 2001, 2008; Sheer 2012a).

This CV houses the floating consonant in [ˈtre]cv. In this theory the initial consonants are strong (# ___ = ø __) because of an initial CV see (28):

(28) Strong consonant Phrase–Initial (ø __):

##_ [ˈka:sa] ‘the house’ (Phrase–Initial)

167In contrast, W1 ending in a vowel triggers Gorgia–Aspiration in cases such as (25d), see (29a/b) [la ˈha:sa], where the outcome of lenition is Debuccalization with laryngeal opening:

168(29) Gorgia–Lenition (Debuccalization)

169(a) W1 = la ‘the’ D = Definite article

170[la ˈha:sa] V_V Weak context

171(b) Gorgia Debuccalization in V_V

172The complementarity between Weak and Strong contexts, as for lenition/Voicing, shows for Syntactic Doubling that the initial CV is parametric since it depends on the kind of Word1 that precedes Word2 (whether or not its UR has a latent consonant due to stress or lexical structure).

173In intervocalic position, across word boundaries or in word–internal position, within the Coda Mirror Theory the Gorgia/weakening (as lenition–Voicing) is represented by the presence of two realized nuclei, moreover the initial consonant is governed by the vowel, thus weakened.

  • 87 The voiced stops /b d g/ are pronounced as [b d g] or as fricatives [β ð ɣ] phrase–initial or after (...)

174The three stops are replaced intervocalically by fricatives or aspirated sounds. According to Castellani (196080), coronals and the bilabial fricatives can also be aspirated with aspiration as secondary articulation87.

  • 88 Izzo made two field–trips to cover 198 localities; he combined them on a map with Giacomelli (1958) (...)

175Hall (1949), Izzo (1972, 1980), Weinrich (19692) argue that the spirantization of /p t/ is more recent than that of /k/88. Giannelli and Savoia (1979–1980) agree by arguing that in Florence the aspiration concerns /p t/ ([θ ɸ]), while the deletion concerns /k/ (the outcomes of /k/ are variables). Gorgia is part of the lenition processes affecting Tuscany, however, this local lenition is only attested from the 16th century.

  • 89 See on this also Giannelli (1976/2000). The border of the spirantization of /k/ was traced by Merlo (...)
  • 90 Especially in Viareggio, in prov. of Lucca (Versilia). This happens throughout Western Tuscany from (...)

176According to Castellani there are reasons to think that Gorgia is a recent phenomenon in Western Tuscany (in Pisa and Lucca where there is generally no spirantization)89. Western Tuscan was recently Florentinized mainly through Pistoia, Volterra and Siena. It ended up acquiring a consonantal system based on spirantization to the detriment of lenitionVoicing. This information is crucial in relation to the Medieval situation we have illustrated in the previous Sections (1–3), where we have seen that lenitionVoicing in Western Tuscany was particularly widespread in the Middle Ages. This is also confirmed by Giannelli and Savoia (197980), who reported for Western Tuscany in modern dialects a nonconstant Gorgia, a stylistic spirantization of the dorsal /k/, and the fact that in Western Tuscany it is applied the Voicing to spirantized outcomes of Gorgia, as well as the fact that this area presents cases of Voicing of the intervocalic voiceless /p t k/ stops (corresponding to the Medieval ones illustrated)90.

  • 91 Franceschini (1983: 140) points out that the earliest evidence for the Gorgia comes with certain ob (...)

177The first author who reports about aspiration in Tuscan dialects is Claudio Tolomei in 1525 (during the Renaissance, see Castellani 1952: 27, n. 2 and 196080: 204: 44; Franceschini 1983: 140)91. He referred generically to Tuscan language and the remarkable thing is that he described in 16th century the aspiration of /k/ (but also of /g t͡ʃ d͡ʒ/) conditioned by positional contexts. According to him it should have occurred in intervocalic position V_V but not in postconsonantal C._ or absolute initial #_.

178Tolomei (1525) with his Gorgia examples referred to the town where he was born, Siena. In Siena during the 16th century it was too early to talk about a Florentine influence (Castellani 196080: 205). Moreover, Rhiys in De italica pronunciatione et ortographia libellus (Padua 1569), referred to a pronunciation [x] rather than [h] of voiceless velar stops (without mentioning spirantization of dental or labials). He affirmed that such “aspiratio familiaris admodum pistoriensibus, ac Senensibus est, omnium autem familiarissima Florentinis/ The aspiration is familiar among the Pistoiese speakers and Sienese speakers, but it is most familiar among the Florentine speakers” (Izzo 1972: 20; Franceschini 1983: 142). From the Rhiys we receive information that Gorgia is attested in Florence, Pistoia and Siena, but none of these records tell us that in the 16th century it was attested in Western Tuscany, that is, in Lucca or in Pisa.

  • 92 Gorgia persists in the Italian of Florence, Siena and Pistoia, and with its own traits also in that (...)

179Indeed, Giannelli and Savoia (197980) define Gorgia as a FlorentineSenese dialectal spirantization/aspiration, they investigate how this local spirantization manages to impose itself on the Tuscan regional speech and prevails over the other type of lenition (Voicing)92.

180As we have seen already in (29b), Gorgia sound change can reach up to a laryngeal fricative /h/, as for the voiceless stops /p t k/ we have the whole sketch of intervocalic weak outcomes in (30) (see also Giannelli and Savoia 1991):

(30) Florentine Gorgia (Lenition/Spirantization)

/p t k/ [ɸ θ/h x/h] Lenited voiceless variants

(a) /t/–lenition trajectory

[ v́__v ]

[ˈdi:θo] ‘finger’

[v__ v́ ]

[la ˈθɛr:a] ‘the earth’

[v__ v́ ]

[la ˈθɾap:ola] ‘the trap’

(b) /p/lenition trajectory

[ v́__v ]

[ˈpe:ɸe] ‘pepper’

[v__ v́] and [ v́__v ]

[la ˈɸi:ɸa] ‘the pipe’

[v__ v́]

[la ˈɸɾo:da] ‘the bow’

(c) /k/lenition trajectory

[ v́__v ]

[aˈmi:xo]

[aˈmi:ho] ‘friend’

[v__ v́]

[la ˈxa:sa]

[la ˈha:sa] ‘the house’

[v__ v́]

[la ˈxɾo:t͡ʃe]

[la ˈhɾo:t͡ʃe] ‘the cross’

181Branching onset as in (30a/b/c) are also represented within the Coda Mirror Theory as we have done in Section 2.5 as separated by an empty nucleus (/tr/ (a) [la ˈθɾap:ola] (b) /br/ [la ˈɸɾo:da] or (d) /kr/ [la ˈhɾo:t͡ʃe]): CøR, R governs C (on the basis of IG = Infrasegmental Government, Scheer (2004): C is a governee, R is a governor), thus C is in a lenition position, even if it is in a complex onset.

  • 93 Stop–glottalization/lenition in Tuscan branching onset shows that this process does not affect only (...)

182It must be noted that we can have glottalization/deoralization (of supraglottal place features) in branching onset, see (31)93:

(31) /k/ – Glottalizing in Branching Onset (Gorgia) V#_rV

183Voiced stops are affected by similar processes as voiceless stops. In vCv position /b d g/ spirantize (β ð ɣ/ɦ 0); to /g/ always corresponds [ɣ ɦ]. The lenition/spirantization of voiceless stops also affects the past participle (PP) category as in (32):

  • 94 These data are reinforced by Castellani (1952: 26–27, n. 4) and Merlo (1926, 1933). According to th (...)

(32) PP category spirantization and debuccalization in posttonic position94

/t/ Lenition trajectory Glottalness

/t/ [h] t–Glottalization

[ v́__v ] HL (σμμσμ)UnFt = (daμμθoμ)UnFt

(a) [anˈda:θo] ‘gone’

[anˈda:ho] ‘gone’

(b) [vesˈti:θo] ‘dressed’

[vesˈti:ho] ‘dressed’

  • 95 « L’aspirazione della t in h è tuttavia considerata una volgarità da cui, parlando con persone di r (...)

184We have seen repeatedly in this section that Debuccalization (/t/ → [h] tGlottalization) is also a weakening/lenition process for which a consonant reduces to laryngeal consonants (it deletes oral gestures/place features). The glottalized variant of /t/ is stigmatized from a sociolinguistic point of view from the middle/upper class (according to Giacomelli 1934: 198)95.

  • 96 The change of /t/into /h/ also according to Merlo (1926: 86) depends on the posttonic position of t (...)

185We consider it in Tuscan as a subtype of lenition (Gess 2009; Kirchner 2001), alongside Gorgia spirantization and deletion. It also takes place between vowels (also a vowel and a sonorant) and it is more frequent at the end of prosodic constituents (this also corresponds to posttonic position96), at the light part of the uneven foot, see (32b) [v́__v] HL (σμμσμ)UnFt = ves(tiμμhoμ)UnFt. According to O’Brien (2012), the vocal folds are usually spread apart during [t] realization, thus [t] apart from oral gestures is similar to [h].

  • 97 It can also be found in other words such as <dret/ho> adv. and prep., old variant of It. dietro ‘be (...)

186In Tuscan dialects (mainly Florentine) the process of debuccalization of intervocalic /t/ to [h] (tGlottalization) in posttonic position has also been observed around Florence by Castellani (1952: 2627, n. 4)97.

  • 98 This is coherent with the explanation given in Kirchner (2001), within OT also in reference to the (...)

187According to Kirchner (2001), if Glottalization is well represented, deletion in contrast is disproved in the Gorgia lenition process. Kirchner (2001) and Gess (2009)’s analyses point out that even in the debuccalized/glottalized results the grammar stores the articulatory effort, what they call in OT grammar the set of constraints lazy (Kirchner 2001) or the constraint CAE = Conserve Articulatory Effort (Gess 2009). lazy is a markedness constraint for which the consonant is lenited; it selects a lenited variant with a more open constriction as ‘optimal’. This interacts with other markedness constraints, fortition constraints and the faithfulness constraint, which prevents deletion/neutralization. This suggests that during the Gorgia t–Debuccalization producing an intervocalic [h], also from the point of view of Articulatory Phonology (Browman and Goldstein 1986), the tongue still maintains the gestural movement of the surrounding vowels, even if the oral gestures (features or element primes related to continuancy) are loss98.

188However, we found the deletion of the weakGorgia variant (as predicted by Kingston 2008). The deletion of the fricative is a sentence–level process, it is more frequent in phraseinternal position (before last foot) than in phrasefinal position.

  • 99 He argues that lenition serves to increase intensity and depends on the openness of ‘flanking’ cons (...)
  • 100 Kingston (2008) supposes the following hierarchy of markedness constraints, based on the sonority s (...)

189According to Kingston (2008)’s interpretation, lenition/fortition have the purpose to convey information about the prosodic parsing of strings99. This is achieved by fortition at prosodic edges of prosodic constituents, while lenition occurs more likely inside prosodic constituents and it is generally prohibited at edges of prosodic constituents (see also Fougeron and Keating 1997). However, we have found that Gorgia–lenition t–Debuccalization is more frequent at the right–edge of prosodic constituents, while strengthening in Strong Position and Syntactic Doubling can occur at the left–edge of foot structure between W1W2 (i.e. in phonotactics). Based on his assumption Kingston (2008) introduces in an optimality theoretic grammar analysis (OT) (Prince and Smolenksy 2004 [1993]) a phonetic/prosodic faithfulness constraint specific to edges prosodic positions: Ident[Continuant]/pc[... >> Ident[Continuant] (pc = initial boundary of a Prosodic Constituent). This specific constraint is ranked higher than general faithfulness constraints (Kingston 2008) and it is related to a markedness constraint prohibiting a [–continuant] consonant from occurring in an intervocalic context, *[–Continuant ]/X_Y100.

  • 101 This was defined as follows by Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 31): “la ricorrenza della parola in corp (...)

190The lenited realization 0 is more common than laryngeal [h] for /p/, but the debuccalized/glottalized /h/ is more common for /t/. The velar voiceless stop /k/ is deleted when it occurs between identical vowels ([ˈɛrãnõ ˈʃɛ:e] ‘It. erano cieche/ (they) were blind) or before back vowels /u o ɔ a/ (Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 31, [unɑ̃ ˈβua] ‘It. (una) buca [ˈbu:ka]/(a) hole’, [le ˈɔrna] ‘It. le corna [le ˈkɔrna]), and in phraseinternal position: [ɛra ˈʃɛ:a ðɑ̃ ũn ɔ̃c:o] ‘(she) was blind in one eye’ (see Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 31)101:

(33) Gorgia Glottalization and Deletion in PhraseInternal Position:

(a) [ɛra ˈʃɛ:a | ðɑ̃ ũn ɔ̃c:o]‖ [ˈʃɛ:a] ‘blind’ k→ Ø /_ [+back]V

(she) was blind in one eye

(b) [ e ˈl a b:uˈaθo | ˈlui]‖ [b:uˈaθo] ‘pierced’ k→ Ø /_ [+back]V

it pierced he

he pierced it

When the following vowel is [back] /i e ɛ/, the realisation is more likely to be [x] or [h].

  • 102 Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 32: “la presenza dell’accento sulla seconda vocale del contesto di rico (...)

191On the contrary, when the stress falls on the second vowel in the W1W2 phonotactics Gorgia contexts (v_v́), the preferred variants are not the debuccalized/glottalized ones, but rather approximants (e.g. [x̞] in [la ˈx̞ or:e] ‘she runs’)102.

192Different variants are also conditioned by the kind of intervocalic context V_{l r}{j w}V); for instance to get ‘0’ from /k/ (complete debuccalization) with branching onsets (tautosyllabic clusters), it is also necessary for the item to be in phrase–internal position as in (34):

(34) Gorgia Plosive Deletion in PhraseInternal Position for Branching Onsets

V_{r}V

[ ʃi ˈreðe ˈɸ̞ɔx̞o] ‘It. ci crede poco ([ˈkre:de]) / (he) believes in it little’

‘In it believes little’ /k/ → Ø

Concerning a palatal variant of /k/ [ç] triggered by the prevocalic palatal glide /j/ as in [ˈçja:ve]/ [ˈça:ve]/[ˈhja:ve] ‘It. chiave [ˈca:ve]/key’, it can be also deleted in phrase–internal position, giving loss ‘0’: [la ˈja:ve di ˈhasa] ‘It. la chiave di casa/the house key’.

193Furthermore, in phrase–internal position the weak variants [h/x] can also be the spirantized/glottalized/deleted realisations of /kw/ (Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 41; Giannelli 2000: 32):

(35) Gorgia Plosive Deletion in PhraseInternal Position

V_V Across Boundaries

/kw/ ‘It. due quintali [ˈdue kwinˈtali]/two quintals’

(a) du hĩnˈtali] [h]

(b) [du ˈxĩntali] [x]

‘It. e torna qua [ˈkwa]/and come back here’

(c) ˈθornã ˈxa] [x]

(d) [e ˈθornã ˈa] [0]

In (35) it is a development that speakers from the urban classes feel as rustic, the urban usage of the middle classes involves the maintenance of [w] (Giannelli 2000: 32).

194Thus, variants may also change depending on sociolinguistic factors. The velar approximant, for example, is a conservative variant linked to age (elderly speakers) and rural groups, whereas the laryngeal variant is more common in middleclass and young speakers.

4.2 Tuscan Syntactic Doubling promotes fortition

195In fortition/lenitionGorgia contexts, consonantal onsets at the rightedge of the trochaic foot undergo strengthening. The voiceless stops /p t k/ are pronounced as such only after a consonant, in phraseinitial position (except cases of initial Voicing discussed in Section 2), or as a geminate under Syntactic Doubling (RS) at the right edge of the foot (and of the phonological word W1W2=PWd). As we have seen in Sections 3, 4, 4.1, RS applies in almost all Tuscan dialects and is triggered by oxytonic words; besides tonic monosyllables such as ‘three’ (see (26a/b)), also by the tonic pronouns ‘you’ It. tu/voi, Tuscan [ˈtu/ˈvu]: [ˈvu vveˈni:te] ‘you come’, and apocopated infinitives [veˈde lˈluj] ‘It. vedere lui/to see him’ (see Giannelli 2000: 56; Marotta 1995, 2000; Rohlfs 1968 § 612):

(36) RS after W1 Tuscan oxytonic apocopated infinives [ll]

196[veˈde lˈluj] ‘It. vedere lui/to see him’

(37) RS after W1 Tuscan tonic pronouns ‘you’ [vu]

197[ˈvu vveˈni:te] ‘you come’

198So far, we have discussed RS stress–triggered, and not yet RS lexical/syntax–triggered, where W1 are atonic, with a latent lexical consonant in their UR licensed in precisely syntactic positions to surface as geminate, such as [X1 ...[N....] → [Xøc [N , √C...]. We refer for this type of RS to Russo (2013a, 2019, 2021), Russo and Ulfsbjorninn (2017). Within this kind of RS, the RS (pro)clitics W1 cliticise on a contiguous host and must have a syntactic fixed position in the XP where they ccommand W2. We mention it to address a specific example, that of the definite article MSG that unlike Italian has a doubling effect in Tuscan and promotes fortition mirroring Gorgia–lenition in weak symmetrical environments, see below.

199Tuscan RS is also triggered by atonic cliticized (pro)clitics (on W2) with a floating C in the UR, e.g. atonic monosyllables ‘da/from’, ‘a/to’ ([amˈme] ‘It. a me/to me’), ‘se/if’ etc.

200In Tuscan this kind of RS involved in a recent period also ‘il/the’ (Lt ille), the MSG definite article (see Giannelli 2000: 3335), which shows a RS geminate in a DP sequence of W1W2: [i sˈsale] ‘il sale/the salt’, [ikˈka:ne] ‘It. il cane/the dog’ (RS ‘i’ Def MSG) vs. [i ˈha:ni] ‘It. i cani/the dog’ (Gorgia ‘i’ Def MPL). This would be represented in our a–linear hierarchical format as follows within Syntax–Phonology approach as in (38):

(38) Def D = /iøl/ MSG ‘It.il’ Lt ille RS trigger (weak atonic)

(a) [Døk [N , √C...]

(b) (i(øk))(k(a))(n(e))

(c) [ikˈka:ne]

In terms of the linear CVCV phonology and Coda Mirror Theory, we get the configuration in (39), where the template shows a delinking of the lateral from the first CV unit, in order to let the dorsal to spread on a Coda Mirror Position with an empty CV available (ø__)

(39) RS after Def D MSG

201[ikˈka:ne] ‘It. il cane/the dog’ [i]CV Def MSG (= /iøl/)

(40) Def D MPL Gorgia /Aspiration (Weakening in Initial Position)

202[i ˈha:ni] ‘It. i cani/the dog’ [i] Def MPL (= /i/)

203It must be noted in (39) and (40) that the Italo–Romance definite article always has two CV units in its UR potentially available for its spell–out (see Faust et al. 2018; Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2021; Russo 2022b). In (40), the initial consonant is preceded and followed by a filled nucleus, thus it is in intervocalic position and undergoes lenition/aspiration – Gorgia.

  • 103 Transcriptions show debuccalization/glottalization with a laryngeal [h] on this map in: Prunetta (p (...)

Glottalization is favored when V2 in V1_V2 is a vowel [+back] as in (32) and (40), see above, and Figure 3 AIS Map 1097 ‘(il cane) i cani ‘dogs’)103:

Figure 3 Glottalized [–k–] in vCv position before back vowel [i ˈha:ni] ‘i cani/the dogs’ < Lt cane AIS 1097

Figure 3 Glottalized [–k–] in vCv position before back vowel [i ˈha:ni] ‘i cani/the dogs’ < Lt cane AIS 1097

204In Tuscan dialects the lenited forms derived from Gorgia (fricativized or glottalized) in same cases can also be considered morphophonemic or morphosyntactic markers (see Gess 2009), if we regard the reverse realizations of such segments in strong contexts, phraseinitial and RS (at the left–edge of the prosodic constituent), where the closure is often associated with strong consonants triggered by the Syntactic Doubling.

4.3 Debated cases. Weakening/Aspiration Gorgia in Strong Position

205In Florence and in the near areas stops can get aspirated in strong position (this is first reported by Giacomelli 1934, confirmed later by Giannelli and Savoia 1978), i.e., Gorgia does not seem to be blocked by geminates or post–coda positions are not strong. In this section we look at the behavior of those cases with consonants occurring in the three strong positions, phrase–initial #__, after a floating øC__ (RS), post–Coda position, where the strength scale does not respect the distribution expected from the strong/weak mirror contexts. We aim to account for this unexpected disjunctive phonological identity of the alleged Coda Mirror object.

206We also connect to these reverse distributions what Castellani (1960–80: 191 [Pronuncia enfatica fiorentina] calls Emphatic Gorgia from the AIS maps (n°357 and n° 669) discussed in Section 6, where spirantized weak variants occur in the same strong contexts (post–Coda position and phrase–initial #__).

4.4 The reverse distribution: when Gorgia Post–coda is not strong

207Postcoda consonants may not be strong after sonorants. The Coda Mirror Theory predicts a strong variant in C.__ position, while a governed empty nucleus occurs between the two CøC in the sequence codaonset. The Coda Mirror object (ø__) should not be disjunctive in initial and coda position.

208We expect lenitionGorgia to apply only postvocalic in word internal position and across boundaries. In (41) you can see such special cases:

(41) Lenited Gorgia variants in Strong Position /p t/

Disjunctive context {C,#}__? Coda Mirror violated

(a) C._ [col ˈɸe: ɸe] ‘with pepper’ (Post–Coda)

[in ˈθu: θa] ‘in jumpsuit’

(b) øC_ [ˈt͡ʃɛ ˈɸ:e: ɸe] ‘there is pepper’ (Prosodic RS/geminate)

[ˈtre ˈθu: θe] ‘three jumpsuit’

209Still unexpectedly, a spirantizationGorgia process in a position other than intervocalic is also observed for the voiced stops /b d g/. The weak variant of the voiced stop (/d b g/ → [ð β ɣ]) is also found in postcoda position C._ (Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 46):

(42) C._ / d b g/ → *[ð β ɣ]! (After the Latin prefix ex > [z])

Coda Mirror violated

(a) [zðɛ̃nˈtaθo] ‘It. sdentato/ toothless’

(b) [zβuˈdɛlla] ‘It. sbudella/(he) guts’

(c) [zˈɣot͡ʃ:ola] ‘It. sgocciola/(it) drips’

C._ (After the rhotic r.C = [r.ð]

(d) [si sˈkɔa ði ˈθutto] ‘It. si scorda di tutto/(he) he forgets everything’

(e) [ˈmɔrtho] ‘It. morto/dead’

C._ (After the lateral l.C = [l.ð/th]

(f) [ˈmoltho] ‘It. molto/a lot’

C._ (After nasals N.C = [n/.C] Across the boundary

(g) [i sˈsantho] ‘It. il santo/the saint’

(h) [m phɔ ˈmɛʎʎɔ] ‘It. un pò meglio/a little better’

  • 104 In these prosodic words (Pwd), the prosodic format of the foot is an uneven trochaic foot with the (...)

The unexpected lack of gradation is found also in strong initial with an enclitic pronoun lo attached to the host104 (Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 46), see (39):

(43) Strong Position (Phraseinitial):

#_ *[ð β ɣ]! Coda Mirror violated

(a) [ˈβe:vilo ˈθe] ‘It. bevilo tu / drink it yourself’,

(b) [ˈðaʎʎelo] ‘It. daglielo/give it to him’

(c) [ˈɣrattalo] ‘It. grattalo/ scratch it’

210LenitedGorgia variants are also found in Strong positions from voiced Latin stops /b d g/, even in Syntactic Doubling positions after RS triggers such as the tonic monosyllable /ˈtrecv/ < Lt tres (Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 46):

(44) W1 /ˈtrecv/ triggers RS Geminate after ø__ Lt tres

UR / d g/ → [ðð ɣɣ ]! Coda Mirror violated

(a) [ˈtre ˈð:iθi] ‘three fingers’

(b) [ˈtre ˈd:iθi]

(c) [ˈtre ɣ:alˈletti] ‘three cockerels’

(d) [ˈtre g:alˈletti]

In all these contexts ((41)(44)) the Gorgia is not predictable based on the Coda Mirror Theory, since even the voiced obstruents do not seem positional sensitive.

211Normally we should encounter the weak variants only in postvocalic position, and the strong variants in all other contexts, phraseinitial, after a latent RS consonant (øC_) triggered by stress or by syntactic licensing, in postcoda position).

212In StrictCV theory, according to the Coda Mirror Theory in C._ context, a consonant is licensed but not governed, the following nucleus is expected to govern the empty nucleus between the two consonants. This should produce the strong consonant as an outcome, but in some cases, as in (41), (42) and (43), we find the weak consonant.

213In postconsonantal positions based on the theory of StrictCV, the consonants are preceded by a governed empty nucleus and a filled onset.

214We find the same unexpected spirantized cases in word internal strong postcoda position /r._V/ (such as in [la ˈθɔa] ‘It. la torta/the cake’) *[θ ɸ ɣ], in (45) the obstruent in this position should be protected by lenition, while the postconsonantal position is not always strong in Tuscan and we get the lenitedGorgia outcome:

(45) Weak/Spirantized variant in post–coda position

215*[θ] in C._V A real Gorgia?

216In (45), a consonant after a coda is placed in the StrictCV after an empty nucleus, as it happens with consonants in strong initial position. Its strength should come from the fact that the consonant is licensed while escaping from government. However, in the context (r._V) we have the weak variant *[θ] instead of [t], and it could be inferred that the disjunction of the Strong Position {#, C}__ is not reduced to a single context, the unique object (ø __).

  • 105 See the elementary decomposition of nasals and liquids in coda made by Russo and Ulfsbjorninn (2020 (...)

217Regarding the alleged strong context in post–coda (C._V) in (42), it does not seem that postconsonantal weakening could depend on the internal elementary structure of the segments in phonological primes105, since the weak/lenis variants in this environment can follow any coda segment { l, r, n, s/z}.

  • 106 This is for instance the opinion of Giannelli and Savoia (1978–1980: 52): “i dati pertinenti le due (...)

218A parallel phonological problem affecting the symmetry of the Strong/Weak position as described by the Coda Mirror Theory is also found with Tuscan aspirated geminates (with asymmetrical weakened on their right part), in forms such as [t͡ʃikˈkʰare] ‘to smoke a fag’ (Florentine middle class), [ˈt͡ʃeppʰo] ‘strain’, etc.106.

  • 107 « Una cosa che mi colpì vivamente nella trascrizione degli interrogatori di Firenze fu la segnalazi (...)

This aspiration was observed by Giacomelli (1934: 196 based on AIS)107, see more detailed data and discussion in Section 6 on AIS data).

219Moreover, the weakening of geminate is doubly problematic since geminates have always been defined as one feature bundle or root node attached to two structural units (Cslots) symmetrical onetotwo relationships, see (46) and (47) (but see discussion in Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2017):

(46) True Geminates – Integrity/Inalterability?

(47) Fake or bogus geminates?

220We expect geminate segmental melodies symmetrically distributed across two syllabic positions as in (46), and geminate length should resist lenition (integrity is a consequence of their representation, see Hayes 1986). The symmetry of the two positions composing the geminate under an autosegmental approach stems from an identical relation to specifications. However, in these Tuscan cases we get aspirated geminates as outcomes and in such examples positions and specifications are not in a bijective relationship. This can corroborate the insight that the representation of geminates is not even symmetrical, like that of long vowels, as suggested already by Russo and Ulfsbjorninn (2017). Aspiration on geminates has been reported in the phonological literature, see for instance the false geminates’ of Tigrinya (Kenstowicz 1994), which undergoes spirantization on their left part: /mərak + ka/ → [məraxka] ‘your calf’ (Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2017: 167). In (47) false geminates or bogus geminates are represented within Strict–CV phonology as two root nodes specified for the same segment. Another possible account is proposed by Russo and Ulfsbjorninn (2017) where geminates are not associated to two C positions in their underlying representation, but a segmental /k/ is followed by an empty CV unit in the UR of the geminate, which guarantees its inalterability, while still being available to replace at melodic level the historical geminate with postaspiration, see (48):

(48) Asymmetrical geminates F– øF from a Strict–CV perspective

221C4 is ungoverned, thus it can be realized phonetically, but without (fully) copying its melody from C3. The only possible interpretation from the UR is of a consonantal geminate CVCV. In this configuration consonantal geminates have an asymmetrical interpretation, and their representation gets closer to that of a–linear hierarchical models based on syntax (Sauzet 1994; Sauzet–Brun Trigaud 2012; Russo 2013a), where consonantal geminates should be represented by asymmetrical chains of two positions based on a partial features identification: F– øF.

222It should be noted that the geminates obtained through RS have the same format however with the specified position (the controller) on the left øF–F (in the CVCV template this would be expressed also positing the length CV on the left). However, geminates with this format, having a controller on the right, exist in languages, the controller is on the left for example in Berber, as suggested by Dell and Elmedlaoui (1985).

223All these weakenings (spirantization and aspiration) in strong positions ((41)(48), after a heterosyllabic consonant or wordinitial {C,#}__ (= ø__) are not expected on the basis of a lenition theory grounded on the positional distribution of strong and weak symmetrical contexts.

  • 108 The conclusion of these authors is that there is a widespread tendency towards spirantization throu (...)

224According to Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 50), this is connected to a diachronic development and the realisations [ɸ θ x] in strong positions from /p t k/, specific of certain areas, do not even originate in weak position, but rather they are preexisting at the Florentine Gorgia108.

For such contexts, it could also be assumed for some areas that a lexical restructuring of the Gorgia outcomes generalizes the weak variant beyond the weak contexts.

It is a reminiscent situation of the initial Voicing in Tuscan in strong position (Pisano <gattivo> < Lt captivu or Italian ‘gabbia/cage’ < Lt cavea, etc. see above in Section 2).

One might think that [ɸ β θ ð x/h ɣ] are lexically stored phonemes by Tuscan speakers that reconstruct words with the weak variant independent on the contexts in such cases.

4. 5 The mirage of Medieval Gorgia

  • 109 Merlo (ib.) does not believe at all that Gorgia is a 16th century process, he asks himself how it c (...)

225Clemente Merlo (1926, 1933) thinks that the Gorgia goes back to the Etruscan period (therefore to a preLatin substratum) and that it is early attested also according to Dante Alighieri in the De vulgari eloquentia109:

« In quolibet idiomate sunt aliqua turpia, sed pre ceteris tuscum est turpissimum/ in every language there are turpish things, but of all of them the most turpish is Tuscan ». (Dante in the De vulgari eloquentia)

  • 110 Hall (1949) affirms that aspirated sounds are recent in Tuscany, not preceding the 16th century, si (...)
  • 111 We will limit ourselves to say that opponents of the substratophile theory point out to the unlikel (...)

226This position is strongly contradicted especially by Hall (1949, 1974), Rohlfs (1930) or Izzo (1972, 1980)110. For this debate we refer the reader to the volume Fonologia etrusca e fonetica toscana edited by Luciano Agostiniani and Luciano Giannelli (1983), especially to Agostiniani (1983) and Giannelli (1983), as well as to the article of Castellani (196080: 206212; see also Alessio 1937) Precisazioni sulla gorgia toscana which contains an annotation (postilla) with review on Izzo’s book. We will not go through here on the question of the preLatin substratum111.

  • 112 Hirsch (1885: 562) for instance refers to some Senese examples from 13th –14th centuries such as: d (...)

227According to some linguists, cases of Gorgia are attested in the 13th century at least those starting from the dorsal stop /k/ (Bolelli 1951; <hosì> it. ‘così/so’ in Siena 15th c., Hirst 1884: 562)112.

  • 113 Different is the orthographical over spread of <h> noticed by Bolelli (1951) in prevocalic initial pos</h> (...)

228However, in the graphical Medieval usage, as we have already pointed out for Romance lenition in Sections 1 and 2, <ch> differentiates orthographically a velar from a palatal consonant (see data from OVI database, Tab. 8, 10, 11) and cannot indicate a laryngealization/debuccalization. In the following example both <h> and <ch> (but also <c>) indicate [k]113:

(49) No Gorgia! <h> = <ch> = [k] in Medieval Tuscan

# [σC V …

<hasa> next to <chasa> It. ‘casa/house’ (Senese)

<harta> next to <carta> It. ‘carta/paper’ (Pratese)

229Therefore, it is hard to think that in Medieval texts the graphical distinction between <h> and <ch> indicates a laryngeal sound. In V_V position, graphical <h> associated to a coronal or labial stops could indicate the lenition of stops intervocalically (see above in Northern Italian dialects <maridhi> <dh> = [ð]. However, <h> in Tuscan Italian represents graphically [k]:

230(50) No Gorgia! v<h>v = vkv

… V [σC V … *[aˈmiμμ:hoμ] (<ho> =L )

Weak branch of the Foot HL

(It is not an enough condition!)

<amico> = <amiho> (Pratese)

Correct transcription : [aˈmiμμ:koμ] <h> = <c> = [k]

No lenition at all here!

If we look at the OVI data, we find the words quoted by Hirsch (1885: 562) as Gorgia/weakening examples: e.g., diano ‘decano/dean’ which occurs essentially in Medieval Senese from 1260:

Table 44 Gallicism – Deletion of /k/ < Western Lenition

/k/ <c> → Ø

diano It. ‘decano’

Senese

1260 [Lett. Sen.]Vincenti di Aldobrandino

Senese

Diano

1262 Lettera Tolomei

Senese

1263 [Doc. Sen.] Compagnia Ugolini

But the word diano (Lt decanus) is a Gallicism (see Castellani 196080: 201) and the deletion of <c> is the result of the Western lenition.

231For the other two forms reported by Hirsh, <dihiarare> (and the derived forms) ‘declare’ and <hontenere> ‘to contain’, they look like suspicious forms. We have not found them in the corpus of Medieval dialects (the OVI database). For those two forms OVI does not show any occurrences with deleted <c>, not even for <havaliere>, we have always <ch>, <chavaliere> from Aretino, Pisano, Senese and Florentine, which also corresponds to <k>. For <contenere> only graphical <ch> is frequent in Tuscan area:

Table 45 <contenere> NO Gorgia!

hontenere ‘con’?

Doc. Sen.

1263 Compagnia Ugolini

Stat. Flor.

chontengha

1320 Notaro della Signoria

also in many other lexical forms where <ch> = [k]:

Table 46 <ch> NO Gorgia! → [k]

Lucchese

sono cho(n)tenti

1296 Guidiccioni

Tusc. Sud–Or.

la chontenzione

1298 Questioni filosofiche

232These forms are spread everywhere in Tuscany, in Pistoiese, Senese, Florentine, Lucchese, Aretino and are just graphic forms for singleton <c> = [k]. <ch> is normal before back vowels /a o u/ to differentiate graphically a velar from a palatal consonant. We did not find the form <havaliere> quoted by Hirsch (1885: 563) in OVI, but in any case, <h> would correspond to <c> = [k], and it cannot represent aspiration.

233Also, the other forms put forward by Hirsch, <hosì> for <così> ‘so’ and <halende> for <calende> ‘calends’, quoted for Medieval Senese, are not in OVI, however Castellani (196080: 203) checked the context and found that <hosì> is in initial position, which is not a context of weakening (Gorgia):

(51a) #C_ (Strong initial position) <h> = [k]

Hosì (fummo d’accordo) (Siena 1475)

The form <halende> is not either in intervocalic position, but in postcoda position:

(51b) C.C_ (Post–coda position) <h> = [k]

in halende di dicembre (Siena 1359)

234Therefore, we can think that in the texts there is no graphical distinction between <h> and <ch>. In the OVI corpus we do not find the same examples quoted by Hirsch albeit we find others very similar. The following two examples also seem to contradict lenition, since they occur again in initial position, one Phrase–Initial (Figure 4), the other in RS context W1W2, where W1 (<è> ‘is’) is a RS trigger, a tonic monosyllable (Lt est) with a final latent consonant licensed by stress already in Medieval Tuscan:

Figure (4) OVI <Harta> = [ˈkarta] Phrase–Initial (Pratese) #C_

Figure (4) OVI <Harta> = [ˈkarta] Phrase–Initial (Pratese) #C_

In Pratese initial position <harta> = <carta>: <Harta per Raneri> (Doc. Prat. 1245).

  • 114 Recall that the phonological object /Vøc/ = /Vcv/ has a floating C in Strict CV Phonology/ Lateral (...)

235In the second example, we find <h> after Word1 <è harta> in a fortition RS context (W1 = /Vøc/ = <è> ‘is’)114, where we should expect [kk] in any case: <und’è harta> (Doc. Prat. 1247):

Figure (5) OVI <è harta> = [ˈkarta] W1 = RS trigger

Figure (5) OVI <è harta> = [ˈkarta] W1 = RS trigger

Again, we can assess that graphic <h> = <ch>

236We also found in the OVI database <chasa> along with <hasa> for ‘casa/home’, thus PhraseInitial as well as in intervocalic position V_V:

Table 47 <ch> in V_V = [k]

Senese 123343

<hasa> <chasa>

Libro di Mattasala di Spinello

xxviij d. p(er) dispesa dela chasa. Ite(m) iij s. m. iij d. p(er) dispesa dela hasa.

237Other examples, such as <a haso> for <a caso> ‘randomly’, prove that <h> = [k] is a generalised spelling for all contexts, both fortition and lenition. As we know for the syntactic doubling conditions (RS), this is also a fortition context (<a> is a W1 RS trigger) where we can think the graphical <h> = graphical <ch>. In the anthroponym <Bonahorso> < bonu + adcursu, we find again the RS trigger /a(d)/ Lt ad /acv/, thus we expect the strong consonant. However, we have seen that <h> is always [k] or geminate [kk] in strong and weak contexts:

Figure (6) <h> generalized for <c> and <cc> in RS contexts W1 = <a> < Lt ad /acv/

Figure (6) &lt;h&gt; generalized for &lt;c&gt; and &lt;cc&gt; in RS contexts W1 = &lt;a&gt; &lt; Lt ad /acv/

As we see in Table 48, <h> is found in fortition contexts (PhraseInitial or RS), as well as in intervocalic contexts V_V (<Iahopo>, <di he(r)monese>):

Table 48 <h> = always [k] or [kk] in Strong and Weak Contexts

  • 115 The preposition ‘di’= Lt is not an RS trigger, since is normally an atonic monosyllable witho (...)
  • 116 With /acv/=<a> incorporated in prefixal position, see Lt ad + comandare.

Doc. Prat. 1245 

Frammento d’un libro di conti di mercanti di panni

Strong Context

/acv/=<a>

<a haso> = <a caso>

Weak Context

<di he(r)monese> (9)115

<di cremonese>

Weak Context

<Iahopo> = <Iacopo> (2)

Strong Context

<h>=<cc> = [kk]

<Bonahorsino> and <Bo[nah]orso> (2)

<h> = <cc> [kk] <ahoma(n)damolo> (17)116

  • 117 All the features attributed by Dante to the Senese in De vulgari eloquentia, survive today in Amiat (...)

238We must notice that these occurrences with <h> for <c> and <cc> are mainly found in Siena and Prato Medieval texts, <h> can even represent [k] instead of a labiovelar consonant, as in Senese <di hesti> (3) = <di questi> (13th c. Lira del Castellammontone, corpus OVI). This is a Senese form ([ˈkesti] instead of [ˈkwesti]) still alive in the province, although no longer in the Siena city117. In Senese we also find <h> in strong RS contexts with W1 = <da> ‘from’ < Lt. de +ab, which is an RS trigger in Tuscany, see Doc. Sen. 1245 <da Harteiano> = <da Carteiano> but /decv/ Lat. de +ab (Figure 7):

Figure (7) Initial onset of Word2 <h> = [k] (within an RS sequence W1W2):

Figure (7) Initial onset of Word2 &lt;h&gt; = [k] (within an RS sequence W1W2):

239As we have seen in Tab. 48, the graphical <h> can even correspond to an underlying geminate /kk/ normally transcribed with = <cc> and this <h> can also be used in the Northern Italian scripta after a consonant (see also Castellani 196080: 201 and n. 37). Also, intervocalically several examples show that the graphical <h> indicate certainly not the aspiration but only the /k/ <c>:

240(52) Pratese <h> <cc> = /kk/ Lexical geminate (Strong Context)

(a) <Riho> = <Ricco> ‘rich’

Pratese <ahomandamolo a Riho> (1245 libro di conti)

(b) Pratese <h> = <c> = /k/ <amiho> = <amico> V_V (Weak context)

Pratese <amiho badareli> (1245 libro di conti)

Pratese <Domeniho> (1245 libro di conti)

In all these examples listed above, <h> corresponds to [k].

241A use of <h> instead of a coronal should be noted in the Northern Italian scripta <h>, where we have lenition/Voicing as part of Western lenition. One might think that this <h> is a development of Lenition/Voicing → Spirantization, and that <h> could represent the Romance lenition of a singleton coronal voiceless stop /t/:

242(53) Lenition Voicing Northern Italian Dialects <h> = /t/ or /d/ ?

243(1) Lenition/Voicing

244(2) <h> Anti–hiatus!

  • 118 1300 Doc. Venez. C. Navagero.

Veneziano <viha> = <vita>118 < Lt. vita ‘life’

  • 119 1274 Pietro da Bescapè.

Lombardo <exultaho> = <esultato> ‘rejoiced’119

  • 120 1315 Cedola anonima.

Veneziano <ordenaho> = <ordinato> ‘ordered’120

  • 121 1353 Passione genovese.

Genovese <verifficaho> <verificato> ‘verified’121

  • 122 14th c. Codice Servi.

Ferrarese <staha> = <stata> ‘been’122

Voiced Stop Lenition Voicing /d/ + <h> Hiatus Resolution

  • 123 1353 Passione Genovese.

Genovese <seha>123 < Lt. sedere

245The antihiatus tendency of the orthographic <h> is evident also in the case of other voiced and voiceless obstruents subject to lenition (Voicing, Spiratization and Deletion) in V_V intervocalic position, such as for a voiced consonant as /v/ in <aveha> = <aveva> ‘(he) has’ or /d/:

(54) Lenition of voiced obstruents→ Deletion + <h> Antihiatus!

Genovese <aveha> (1353, Passione Genovese) Hiatus Resolution → <h>

246We do not find this orthographical usage in Tuscany since here <h> corresponds graphically to a dorsal voiceless stop. In Northern Italian dialects <h> can be used to represent graphically the lenition of the stop associated with a coronal stop, as it is evident from other Medieval examples localized in Northern Italy where the stops undergo lenition as we expect according to Western lenition. This is notated with <th/dh> or <d>:

(55) Lenition/Voicing: graphical <d> instead of /t/: /utu/

  • 124 1207–08 Aleppo.

Veneziano <reçevudo> ‘received’, <saipudo> ‘known’, vedudo ‘seen’124

  • 125 13th c. Patecchio.

Cremonese <cognosudo> ‘known’, <tegnudo> ‘held’, <veg[n]udo> ‘come’125

247Therefore, this graphical <h> has got a ‘ratio’. It does not show Gorgia aspiration at all in Tuscany nor Western lenition (Voicing, Spirantization and Deletion) in Northern dialects. Rather it represents in Northern Italian dialects a Hiatus Resolution after the Western Lenition at last stage: deletion of obstruents to ‘0’. We can also find this result sometimes in Tuscany, where <h> does not only represent a dorsal stop <c> = /k/, but a voiced coronal /d/ lenited graphically <h>:

(56) <h> Hiatus Resolution after Western lenition in Tuscany /d/ → [0]

Tuscan 1361 Piero da Brescia

<ahoperala> = <adoperala>

<ahoperalo > = <adoperalo>

<ahoperai> = <adoperai >

<h> is a letter that can also be used to replace the consonant which underwent lenition if it is a voiced or a voiceless obstruent in Tuscany, and especially in Northern Italian dialects, like in Genovese <verifficaho> ‘verified’. However, this <h> does not represent a spirantization of the consonant lenited but only an antihiatic segment, used for Hiatus Resolution of VV sequences.

248In the OVI corpus we can also find <ahoperato> next to <aoperato>, both represent lenition of /d/ in V_V, one with hiatus resolution (56), the other maintains the hiatus (57):

(57) Hiatus VV /d/ → ‘0’

Lucchese <aoperato> (1298 Lett. Lucch.)

Florentine <aoperato> (131012 Compagni Cronica)

Amiatino <aoperato> (1376, Doc. Amiat.)

Tuscan <aoperato> (1388 Esopo)

249Furthermore, there is no way, <h> could represent Gorgia in Tuscany during the Medieval period.

The antihiatic <h> can also intervene in Medieval texts to split a hiatus after other type of phonological lenition as the Neapolitan lenition (see Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2020):

(58) Neapolitan: Hiatus Resolution after /g/ deletion in V_V position

<drahone> ‘dragon’ (16 occ.) (14th c. HistTroya)

(59) Genovese: Hiatus Resolution after /p/ deletion in V_V position

<aseniho> ‘example’ (1311, Anonimo Cocito)

250This graphic letter <h> also comes to split two vowels in hiatus even if the separation of the two vocalic segments is in the lexicon:

(60) Hiatus Resolution <h> (No lenition at all here)

(a) Romagnolo Uno <paho> da chuorpi (1362, Doc. Imol.) = <paio> ‘a couple of body’

(b) Tuscan <aholore> (14th c. Diretano Bando) = <aulore> ‘scent’

251This graphic habit comes probably from the orthographic way to write the onset of the syllable with a consonant whenever there are two vocalic segments next to each other as it is evident in <aholore>. This graphic <h> can be also completely unmotivated again between two vowels as in: Flor. <pagahare> (= <pagare> ‘to pay’) (134850 Libro arancio).

252It is important to notice that the use of antihiatic <h> also occurs in Latin without a consonantal deletion between the two vowels in hiatus: e.g., Michael (ecclesiastical Latin). It is therefore an already accepted usage in Medieval Latin scripta.

253Although <h> for /k/ in the Medieval Senese texts or in the fifteenth and sixteenth century Florentine texts are not interpretable as representations of spirantization, however, it cannot be ruled out that the phenomenon did not develop in Medieval times.

6 Lenition Gorgia in AIS - Sprachund Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz

254In this section we complete information given in Section 4 on the areal distribution of Gorgia in today’s Tuscan dialects from the linguistic atlantography records.

  • 126 = Linguistic and Ethnographic Atlas of Italy and Southern Switzerland.

We can find the positional Gorgia represented and phonetically transcribed on the digital maps of AIS, Sprachund Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz126. We analysed the following maps (see NavigAIS online) to see how Gorgia is transcribed on the it (Maps are in annexe (61)):

(61) List of AIS the maps analysed Lt

AIS 18cp ‘il nipote, la nipote/the nephew, the niece’ nepote

AIS 21 ‘il vostro nipote, i vostri nipoti/your grandchildren’

AIS 22 ‘la vostra nipote/your granddaughter’

AIS 23 ‘le vostre nipoti/your grandchildren’

AIS 91 ‘la pelle/the skin’ pelle

AIS 92 ‘il pelo, i peli/the hairs’ pilu

AIS 97 ‘capelli/hair’ capillu

AIS 163 ‘il piede, i piedi/the foot, the feet’ pede

AIS 247 ‘ammazzatelo/kill him’ * mactiate

  • 127 Emphatic Florentine Gorgia according to Arrigo Castellani.

AIS 357 ‘lontano/far’127 * longitanu

  • 128 Emphatic Florentine Gorgia according to Arrigo Castellani.

AIS 669 ‘spogliarsi/undress’128 spoliare

AIS 1097 ‘(il cane) i cani ‘dogs’ cane

AIS 1383 ‘lupini/lupin beans’ lupinu

  • 129 See Gorgia represented in the Tuscan area for instance from the map AIS 97 ‘capelli/hair’ (Lt /–p–/ (...)

255A few studies already tried to delimit the area for the Gorgia based on the AIS129. Castellani (196080: 190) warns on the fact that the interpretation of the data in the AIS can be dangerous because of the transcriptions made, particularly for /t/ and /p/ in V_V position. According to him the same phonetic transcription [th] and [ph] is used to transcribe /t/ and /p/ spirantized (= [θ ɸ]), as well as other kinds of lenition.

  • 130 See also pt 545 Chiaveretto casent. (Subbiano, prov. Arezzo)  ø, pt 554 Cortona (prov. Arezzo)  ø

256From the AIS maps it is important to notice that around the city of Arezzo there is no Florentine spirantization (pt 544 Arezzo → Ø = [p] [t])130, however it is true that in Aretino there is a kind of spirantization with Voicing added to it (which is not exactly the Florentine/Senese Gorgia) (see Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 27):

(62) Symbolic sounds [th] and [ph] are used to transcribe /t/ and /p/ spirantized

  • 131 Similarly in AIS 21 ‘il vostro nipote, i vostri nipoti/your grandchildren’ (no Gorgia is represente (...)

AIS 18cp ‘il nipote, la nipote/the nephew, the niece’131

Florence (523) [th]

Montespèrtoli ([Flor.] prov. Florence) (532) [th]

Barberino di Mugello ([Flor.] prov. Florence) (515) [th]

Carmignano ([Flor.] prov. Florence) (522/1) [th]

Radda in Chianti Centr.Tusc. (prov. Siena) (543) [ph]

Chiusdino Volt. (prov. Siena) (551) [th]

Siena (552) [th] and [ph]

Faùglia ([Pis.] prov. Pisa) (541) [th]

257From AIS 22 ‘la vostra nipote/your granddaughter’ transcriptions, it is also evident the absence of spirantization/aspiration in Arezzo (pt 544) and in Arezzo area: (pt 545) Chiavaretto, Cortona (pt 554), but also in Pisano (pt 541, Faùglia, pt 542, Montecatini Val di Cècina), near Lucca (pt 520, Camaiore [Lucch. –Vers.].

  • 132 Volt.= Volterrese < Volterra.

258Significant is the Pisano/Senese geographical opposition: Volt. (prov. Pisa) NoSpirantization/Aspiration vs. Volt. (prov. Siena) Spirantization132.

259In AIS 23 ‘le vostre nipoti/your grandchildren’, in addition to the Arezzo area, there is not Gorgia in Western Tuscany: NoSpirantization/Aspiration in pt 520 Camaiore ([Lucch. –Vers.] prov. Lucca), pt 541 Faùglia (prov. Pisa), pt 542 Montecatini Val di Cècina Montecatini Val di Cècina (prov. Pisa).

  • 133 Paul Scheuermeier was a linguist. He was commissioned by his teachers Karl Jaberg and Jakob Jud to (...)

260According to Castellani (ib.), some transcriptions made by Paul Scheuermeier, who carried out the data collection on the field for the AIS have to be criticised133. For instance, in the map AIS 91 ‘la pelle/the skin’, if the spirantization (transcribed [–ph–]) is coherent in Florence (pt. 523) or in Siena area (pt 551, Chiusdino), it is found also at pt 544 (Arezzo). However, it is doubtful here and this transcription in Arezzo could just notice another lenition and not the typical Gorgia spirantization/aspiration. Furthermore, the Gorgia is noted for this map only in Florence and for a locality in Senese.

  • 134 It should be also pointed out that the voiced outcomes of the Gorgia ([ɣ ð β ɦ]) are not always to (...)

261In defense of Scheuermeier, we must observe that he was right to detect lenition in addition to a kind of spirantization in Aretino, as confirmed by Giannelli and Savoia (197980), the two kinds of lenition combine in Arezzo producing voiced fricatives [ɸ̬ θ̬]134.

262The same problem can be noticed in other AIS maps, as AIS 1383 ‘lupini/ lupin beans’, where the same transcription is used to represent aspiration but also other types of lenition as in Arezzo or in Pisa (59), where [ph] can just note lenition of /p/ but not spirantization:

(63) AIS 1383 ‘lupini/ lupin beans’ (problems with Scheuermeier’s transcriptions?)

All [ph]!

Firenze (523)

Siena (552)

Montecatini Val di Cècina [Volt. prov. Pisa] (542)

Castagneto Carducci (prov. Livorno) (550)

Gavorrano, Maremma Massetana (prov. Grosseto) (571)

Arezzo (544)

  • 135 See for the other transcriptions on this map: Firenze (523) [h], Incisa (prov. Firenze) (534) [th]/ (...)

263We still encounter the same problem in AIS 247 ‘ammazzatelo/kill him’ for the pt 544 Arezzo, where [th] probably note lenition of /t/, as for Chiaveretto (casent. prov. Arezzo) pt 545135.

264Furthermore, in the first two volumes of the AIS spirantization is ignored, see for instance the AIS map 163 ‘il piede, i piedi/ the foot, the feet’ (there is no Gorgia represented at all on this map).

  • 136 The Florentine emphatic aspiration is found in C.[th] map 357: Barberino di Mugello (prov. Firenze) (...)

265According to Castellani (196080: 191 [Pronuncia enfatica fiorentina], 1952: 26, n. 3; see also Giacomelli 1934) next to the positional Gorgia (called by him Gorgia di posizione) we also have an emphatic Gorgia. The positional Gorgia, is the result of intervocalic spirantization/aspiration of voiceless stops, typical of the most Tuscany we have so far examined. In addition, what he calls the emphatic Gorgia, is represented by the aspiration of obstruents (mostly stops) in strong position {#C_, C.C_}, typical of Florence and of Florentine area. We can find it on map AIS 357 ‘lontano/far’136:

Figure 8. AIS 357 ‘lontano/far’ (Emphatic Gorgia) – post–coda position/Strong position

Figure 8. AIS 357 ‘lontano/far’ (Emphatic Gorgia) – post–coda position/Strong position

266As well as on map AIS 669 ‘spogliarsi/undress’, only in Florence (pt 523 [spʰoˈʎassi]) in complex initial onset sC_, after a coda (C._V), therefore a context once again not normally suited to a positional weakening, as we discussed in Section 4.3, 4.4.

267This aspiration was observed by Giacomelli (1934: 196 based on AIS),

268As we said in Section 4.3, this aspiration was observed by Giacomelli (1934: 196) in Florence for positions other than intervocalic, in strong position and even as a secondary articulation of a geminate. We have shown the challenge of these data for the Coda Mirror Theory and for any theoretical approach to consonantal lenition/fortition, since they violate crosslinguistically validated positional symmetries, see (64):

(64) Aspirated Geminate F– øF (see (44)) AIS

(a) [t͡ʃikˈkʰare] ‘to smoke a fag’ (Map 759)

(b) [ˈt͡ʃeppʰo] ‘strain’ (Map 781)

(c) [i pˈpɛtthine] ‘It il pettine/the comb’ (Map 673)

(d) [i kˈkhɔrpo] ‘It. il corpo/the body’ (Map 677)

(e) [gratˈthati] ‘scratched’ (Map 679)

(f) [ˈmatthɔ] ‘mad’ (Map 723)

(g) [aˈve pphaˈura] ‘be afraid’ (Map 727)

In phraseinitial position (while in (60g) geminate is RSdriven, licensed by W1 stress):

(h) [spʰoˈʎassi] ‘undress’ (Map 669)

(i) [phɛttiˈnassi] ‘to comb’ (Map 672)

269Gorgia/aspiration on geminate is also reported by Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 41), see cases such as in (63), where the first full geminate with noaspiration (foot–initial) is triggered through RS licensed by W1 stress, while the second lexical geminate is aspirated (foot–medial):

(65) Aspirated Geminate F– øF (see (44)) Foot–medial

[ˈe] /ecv/ = RS trigger C.C Stress licensed in #_

(a) [l: ˈe b:ruθ:o] ‘It. è brutto [ˈɛ b:rut:o]/ (he) is ugly’

(b) [l: ˈe s:ex:o] ‘It. è secco [ˈɛ s:ekko]/(it) is dry’

270In (65) in the initial position we have full intervocalic geminates ([bb ss…]) triggered by RS (through the auxiliary verb [ˈɛ/e] W1 that acts a strong/stressed monosyllable in phonotactics), while the intervocalic geminates foot–medial are aspirated with the typical result expected for single lenited Gorgia consonants ([θ x ɸ]). This also happens foot–medial for /pp/, as in [|ˈtaɸ:alo] ‘It. tappalo [ˈtappalo]/cup it’ (ib.).

271Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 41) also confirm an unexpected Gorgia in initial position [ˈx/hu:cilo] ‘It. cucilo/sew it’, [ˈɸɔrtalo] ‘It. portalo/bring it’, as for (60h) and (60i), see (39) in Section 4.3.

  • 137 See also AIS Maps 735, 742, 747, 748, 758, 759, 766, 770, 781, 785, 786, 792, 794, 800, 806, 808, 8 (...)

272Giacomelli (1934: 196) also reports some transcriptions of Gorgia in post–coda position made by Scheuermeier for the AIS concerning the Florentine middle class137, which is a strong violation of the lenition/fortition symmetry scale discussed in Section 4.3, since it challenges the generalization of lenition/fortition positional theories:

(66) Post–coda (After l/r/N.C) See Section 4.3 (42)

(a) [ˈmoltho] ‘a lot’ (Map 703)

(b) [i sˈsantho] ‘the saint’ (Map 808)

(c) [m phɔ ˈmɛʎʎɔ] ‘a little better’ (Map 696)

(d) [ˈmɔrtho] ‘dead’ (Map 708)

273This corresponds to the examples of lenition/Gorgia of voiceless stops in postcoda reported by Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 41) especially for Florentine, as in (67):

(67) Post–coda (after r/s.C) Lenited/Spirantized *[θ] in Strong Position

(a) [la ˈθɔrθa] *[r.θ] ‘It. la torta [la ˈtɔrta]/the cake’ (See Section 4.3, (41))

(b) [la ˈʃesθa] *[s.θ] ‘It. la cesta [la ˈt͡ʃesta]/the basket

274Giacomelli (1934: 198) confirmed AIS data (gathered by Scheuermeier) with numerous control surveys. The aspiration of voiceless stop on geminate or after a coda liquid (/l r/) is only found in Florence or only rarely in other places of Tuscany.

  • 138 In addition, Massa is also involved in the ApuanGarfagnano lenition/Voicing process. In the area o (...)

275This intriguing process, namely the aspiration in strong contexts as well as on intervocalic geminates, was also noted in some areas of Tuscany by Giannelli and Savoia (1979–1980: 80), such as Versilia and Garfagnana (characterized also by a variable Voicing of voiceless Latin stops /p t k/ also in phonotactics). Up to them, this aspiration in strong contexts in those places is not related to the Florentine Gorgia, they consider it an indigenous aspiration138.

276Summing up the AIS results, the major problems are, especially with regard to the symbols [th]/[ph], that those transcriptions indicate aspiration but sometimes other types of lenition (e.g. Voicing) as we can notice in Aretino data which is an area without aspiration according to Castellani. However, according to Giannelli and Savoia (197880), in the Arezzo area there should be spirantization with Voicing [θ̬ ɸ̬ x̬] (not the Florentine Gorgia but still related to it). The transcription [th] is although unsatisfactory, since it does not distinguish between the Florentine aspiration (Gorgia) without Voicing and this particular outcome that associates Voicing with aspiration unlike Florentine Gorgia. Furthermore, in the AIS maps cases of aspiration/weakening are not captured (evidence is on maps like AIS 163 ‘il piede, i piedi/the foot, the feet’ and others).

  • 139 This fact leads Castellani (1960–80: 192 and . 10) says: « Mi risulta che il raccoglitore dell’Atla (...)

277However, it should be pointed out that the weakening/spirantization of intervocalic /t/ and /p/ varies from one place to another in Tuscany and does not reach the same degree of Gorgia as in Florence. As a result, it can escape to phonetic transcription (see Castellani 196080: 54)139.

  • 140 Bottiglioni (1926) includes Corsican and Tuscan Voicing (even that in phonotactics) in the GalloIt (...)

278The AIS data are nevertheless very useful to prove that Gorgia is less compact in Western Tuscany, as we have seen that the AIS does not offer several examples of [th] in Pisano area (see e.g., pt 530 Pisa and pt. 541 Fauglia). This is also confirmed by the Atlante linguistico etnografico italiano della Corsica of Gino Bottiglioni. If we look at pt 53 Putignano (prov. Pisa) and pt 54 Mutigliano (Lucch.Vers., prov. Lucca) we generally find the voiced/spirantized stops instead of /t/ and /p/140. It seems that the aspiration in this area only concerns the velar /k/, otherwise we find the lenitionVoicing described in Sections 13. This fact is very coherent with our Medieval lenitionVoicing data illustrated for Medieval Pisano and Lucchese typical of Western Tuscan lenition.

7 Where is Locality in Lenition?

279Returning to the a–linear model and the question of locality in phonology, let us represent the positional contexts of the Mirror Coda ø__ and vCv as follows, Tab. 49:

Table 49 Coda Mirror ø__ and vCv in a–linear model. Structural Locality (Bracketing)

Onset

Strong Position

Weak Position

# [σ C V …

… C [σ C V …

… V [σ C V …

280The weak position has always been described as a unitary object: the intervocalic position V_V (for us V [σ C V). Conversely, in the linear model of Coda Mirror, it is possible to refer to the anticoda (= Coda Mirror) as a unitary object in a specified way: iff (if and only if) a preinitial CV is given. Thus, based on this linear theory, to make out the strong position as unitary object a change of the Underlying Representation UR is required, which allows to characterize {# / C}__ as the unitary object øCv (with an empty nucleus before the onset). Nonetheless, it is the reverse disjunctive context __{# / C} that has motivated the introduction of the syllable and the coda in phonology.

281One could assume that the weak position, defined without having recourse to a disjunctive context (thus defined just as a postvocalic onset), is sufficient to describe the complementary contexts of the strong position (see Sauzet 1994).

282Lenition requires that phonology refers to locality other than through linear syllabic constituents (___ {C / #} and {C / #}__). We assume that locality is structural, see (68):

(68) Postvocalic context in Structural Locality (a–linear constituents)

283Lenition (Voicing and Gorgia) are spread in a licensing chain (nucleus onset), in the case of Tuscan lenition : (v' v° __ ) C) = (a' a°) g)… = <ago> = [ˈa:go] (Lt acu).

Conversely, the strong position is the onset insofar as it is only an onset (licensed without conditions on its content).

We have two types of structural adjacency in phonological constituents following a hierarchical model, the first one applies to lenition of postvocalic onset (the weak position) … V [σC V …:

284We proposed a novel solution to the locality problem by advancing a model in which lenition always spreads locally at a non–oriented (structural) segmental adjacency upstream of syllabic constituents’ construction.

8 Conclusions

285In this paper, we studied the relation between lenitionVoicing and Gorgia in Tuscany, precisely the relation between Tuscan lenition (Voicing) and Florentine lenition Gorgia (Spirantization/Glottalization/loss). We focused on the differences between Central and Western Tuscan lenition and on the relation between Western Tuscan lenition (Voicing) and its Florentinization through Gorgia. The typology of lenitionVoicing in the Middle Ages supports the hypothesis that lenitionVoicing was first extended throughout Tuscany, including central Tuscany, but much more settled in the Western Tuscany. This hypothesis is also supported by the remnant of lenitionVoicing found in the Central area where Gorgia/aspiration dominates today (and also from the remnants of the lenition in SI). The lenition is thus for us an endogenous process not imported by an external lenition (Gallo–Italian or Western Romance), i.e., it is not borrowed from the outside. This also catches up with Contini’s (1961) idea that spirantization developed for structural reasons as opposed to widespread lenition (Voicing) that threatened the structural balance of voiceless Latin consonants.

286This hypothesis is strengthened by instances of initial Voicing in Tuscan dialects and SI conceivable as early as Late Latin, ‘gatto/cat’, ‘grasso/fat’, ‘gamba/leg’, ‘gambero’shrimp, ‘golfo/gulf, etc.

287This trend finds further development in the Pisano, Lucchese, Sienese, and Arezzo vernaculars. There is a Tuscan internal lenition/Voicing; as argued by Contini (1961) Gorgia/spirantization is an innovation, and we still find lenition around the spirantization (Florentinized) area (see also Giannelli and Cravens 1997). LenitionVoicing has affected almost all Tuscany, although with asymmetrical lines of development and spatial differentiation that we emphasize. Lenition/Voicing in V_V has been dominant since the Middle Ages in Western Tuscany within words and across boundaries. It extended mainly with the velar stop in the area of Lucca and Pisa to Pistoia and Prato. The original condition of this lenition is phonotactics.

288We also used positional arguments to prove it. We show the allophonic variation (strong/weak) according to phonotactic conditions and the phonological input of lenition. The lenition/fortition process are almost always symmetrical, lenition (Voicing and Gorgia) are mostly found in weak contexts (V_V). There are exceptions that we discussed: aspiration (Gorgia) can also be found in strong contexts, #_, C._ (= ø__ in Strict CV), as well as in strong geminates C.C wordinternally (as it was pointed out since Giacomelli 1932), in word internal positions and in phonotactics, while in a number of cases of lenitionVoicing can also be initial (Pisano, Senese #_ <gammello> ’camel’, <gattivo> ‘bad or prisoner’, It. gabbia ‘cage’, etc.). This also shows that the two lenition systems (Voicing and Gorgia) were coexistent and competitive (as it was also pointed out by Weinrich 19692). The external influences have perhaps strengthened the lenition (Voicing) zones, while the Florentine influence pushed towards the aspiration (Gorgia).

289The area of Western Tuscany is an area where the prevailing lenition is Voicing, disrupted in the recent phase by the advancing Florentine spirantization from central Tuscany. But it is evident that Voicing persists in the Northern part and in some areas such as those of Lucca.

290We have also questioned the symmetry between the Strong/Weak position ({#, C}__ vs __{#, C}) and the symmetry/unicity of the Coda Mirror (ø__ vs __ø) within the Gorgia process and Tuscan lenition/Voicing of voiceless Latin stops. We were particularly concerned with the seemingly asymmetrical cases, since we have shown in a few areas Gorgia/weakened outcomes after a coda (such as C. _ [in ˈθu: θa] ‘in jumpsuit’, see Section 4.3). These cases do not let us to fully reduce straightforward in Tuscan the disjunctions of the coda and of the strong position in a unique symmetrical phonological object (ø__ vs __ø), the Coda Mirror. The symmetry also fails in several cases phrase–initial #– , in the phonotactic strong position triggered by Syntactic Doubling ([ˈt͡ʃɛ ˈɸ:e: ɸe] ‘there is pepper’): after a RS trigger and a latent consonant (C._ in W1W2). The double symmetry fails in a number of cases since we get the lenited geminate variant which replaced the voiceless stop in the UR. We found parallel examples of spirantized geminates also wordinternally. This goes with the fact that Florentine middle class shows aspiration sometimes even in geminates word–internally [t͡ʃikˈkʰare] ‘to smoke a fag’. Based on Russo and Ulfsbjourninn (2017), we proposed to treat spirantized geminates as asymetrical geminates CVCV units in the templatic UR (Section 4.3), not fully specified underlyingly or as a chain F– øF. and øF F in an alinear model.

291We have observed in Sections 3 and 4 that the strength of consonants across word boundaries is a phonotactic and/or prosodic property, as it depends on W1, which is either vowelfinal or consonantfinal; a latent consonant attached to it is realized under specific conditions with a morphosyntactic and prosodic variability, this empty position is syllabified with the onset of W2 under Syntactic Doubling conditions. The strong initial position is triggered either by syntax (syntactical constituency, the initial empty CV is triggered by a syntactic phase) or by prosody (wordfinal accent, i.e. footed constituency). This positional strength is symmetrical to the weak context V_V where we find the lenited variants under lenitionVoicing or Gorgia.

292We observed that Italo–Romance lenition/fortition is footsensitive regarding RS gemination (fortition) licensed by stress; for the lenition/Voicing (and Spirantization), the lenited segments are in a preferred foot–medial position but also foot–initial (in word internal position e.g. the lenited onset of penult stressed syllable), while the left edge of the foot is reserved to the strong position in phonotactics W1W2 under RS conditions. Furthermore, a few sub–types of lenition are also footsensitive, for instance, Gorgia is more likely to debuccalize in posttonic syllable in the weak right branch of the trochaic foot (to get the laryngeal sound [h]). The prosodic RS fortition/gemination is footsensitive (see Section 3), since gemination depends on the correct parsing of an uneven trochee or a binary trochaic foot, which incorporates a latent positional consonant stress–licensed across word boundaries (the QS–ld stress system licenses an empty C).

293We have concluded saying that locality in phonology refers to something other than syllabic constituents alone, this other thing is a structural adjacency in syllable–based and foot–based constituency. This structural adjacency is a minimal relationship that pre–exists the constituents (it defines the differentiated lexical accessibility of the phonic material).

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Aebischer, Paul (1961). La sonorisation des occlusives intervocaliques en Toscane au début de VIIIe siècle d’après le témoignage de quelques documents longobards. Estudis Romànics 8 : 245–263.

Agostiniani, Luciano (1992). Su alcuni aspetti del ‘rafforzamento sintattico’ in Toscana e sulla loro importanza per la qualificazione del fenomeno in generale. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica dell’Università di Firenze 3, 1992 : 1–28.

Agostiniani, Luciano and Giannelli, Luciano (1983) (eds.). Fonologia etrusca, fonetica toscana: il problema del sostrato. Firenze: Olschki. 25–60.

Agostiniani, Luciano (1983). Aspirate etrusche e gorgia toscana: valenza delle condizioni fonologiche etrusche. In Agostiniani, Luciano and Giannelli, Luciano (eds.), Fonologia etrusca, fonetica toscana: il problema del sostrato. Firenze: Olschki. 2560.

AIS = Jaberg, Karl and Jud, Jakob, 1928–1940. Sprach und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz, 8 vol., Zofingen, Ringier. NavigAIS = Digital Atlas and Navigation Software. Tisato, Graziano (Padua University). https://navigais-web.pd.istc.cnr.it/

ALEIC = Bottiglioni, Gino, 1933–1942. Atlante linguistico etnografico italiano della Corsica, 10 vol. Pise/Cagliari: Forni/Université de Cagliari.

Allen, W. Sidney (1973). Accent and rhythm. Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press.

Alessio, Giovanni (1937). Una voce toscana di origine etrusca. Studi etruschi XI: 254–262.

Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia (1873). Due recenti lettere glottologiche e una Poscritta nuova. Archivio Glottologico Italiano (AGI) 10: 1–109.

Ascoli, Graziadio Isaia (1882–1885). L’Italia dialettale. Archivio Glottologico Italiano (AGI) 8: 98–128.

Bafile, Laura (1997). La spirantizzazione toscana nell’ambito della teoria degli elementi. In Amalia Catagnoti (ed.), Studi linguistici offerti a Gabriella Giacomelli dagli amici e dagli allievi. 27–38. Padova: Unipress.

Battisti, Carlo (1912). Le dentali esplosive intervocaliche nei dialetti italiani. Halle: Niemeyer. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie.

Bertoni, Giulio (1916). Italia dialettale. Milano: Hoepli (reprint Cisalpino–Goliardica 1975).

Bertoni, Giulio (1940). Profilo linguistico d’Italia. Modena: Stem.

Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Blevins, Juliette (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory. 206–244. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bolelli, Tristano (1951). La partizione del territorio romanzo secondo una recente pubblicazione », Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, Lettere, storia e filosofia, serie 2, 20. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 255–271.

Bottiglioni, Gino (1926). La penetrazione toscana e le regioni di Pomonte nei parlari di Corsica. Italia Dialettale 2: 156210.

Browman, Catherine, and Goldstein, Louis (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology yearbook 3: 219–252.

Bruner, James Dowden (1894). The Phonology of the Pistojese Dialect. Baltimora: The Modern Language Association of America.

BrunTrigaud, Guylaine and Scheer, Tobias (2010). Lenition in branching onsets in French and in ALF dialects. In Petr Karlik (ed.), Development of Language through the Lens of Formal Linguistics. 15–28. Munich: Lincom Europa.

Calamai, Silvia (2011). Dialetti Toscani. Treccani Online. https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/dialetti-toscani_(Enciclopedia-dell'Italiano)

Canalis, Stefano (2014). The Voicing of Intervocalic Stops in Old Tuscan and Probabilistic Sound Change. Folia Linguistica Historica 35: 55–100.

Carlucci, Alessandro (2015). Sorde intervocaliche non etimologiche in varietà toscane. Tracce di resistenza a lenizione e sonorizzazione?’ Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 39: 79104.

Castellani, Arrigo (2000). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana vol.1. Introduzione. Collezione di Testi e di Studi. Bologna: il Mulino.

Castellani, Arrigo (1988). Capitoli d’un’introduzione alla grammatica storica italiana. IV: Mode settentrionali e parole d’oltremare. Studi linguistici italiani 7: 145–190.

Castellani, Arrigo (1984). Terminologia linguistica. Studi linguistici italiani 10: 153–161.

Castellani, Arrigo (1959–1960). Precisazioni sulla gorgia toscana. Firenze, Boletim de Filología 19: 242–261, republished in Castellani, A. (1980) Saggi di linguistica e filologia italiana e romanza (1946–1976). Vol. I, 189–212. Roma: Salerno Editrice.

Castellani, Arrigo (1952). Nuovi testi fiorentini del Dugento. Firenze: Sansoni.

Clark, Taggart, John (1903). L’évolution de K,T, P en italien. Romania 32: 593596.

Clements George. N. (2008). Does Sonority Have a Phonetic Basis? In Cairns, Charles E. and Eric Raimy (eds.), Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology. 165175. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Clements, George. N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In John Kingston and Mary Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech. 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Contini, Gianfranco (1961). Per un’interpretazione strutturale della cosiddetta ‘gorgia toscana’. Boletim de filologia 19: 269281.

Cravens, Thomas D. (2002). Comparative Historical Dialectology: ItaloRomance Clues to IberoRomance Sound Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cravens, Thomas D. (2006). Microvariability in Time and Space: Reconstructing the Past from the Present. In Cravens, Thomas D. (ed). Variation and Reconstruction. 16–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cravens, Thomas D. (1983). La gorgia toscana quale indebolimento centromeridionale. In Agostiniani, Luciano and Luciano Giannelli (1983) (eds.), Fonologia etrusca, fonetica toscana: il problema del sostrato. Firenze: Olschki. 115–122.

Cyran, Eugeniusz (2003). Complexity Scales and Licensing Strength in Phonology. Lublin: KUL.

D’Achille, Paolo and Antonella Stefinlongo (2008). La lenizione delle sorde a Roma tra sincronia e diacronia. In Giovanna Marcato (ed.). L’Italia dei dialetti. 183–196. Padova: Unipress.

Dell, François, and Elmedlaoui, Mohamed (1985). Syllabic Consonants and Syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7: 105–130.

Devoto, Giacomo (1970). La formazione dei dialetti italiani. In Scritti minori III. 41–65. Firenze: Le Monnier.

Devoto, Giacomo (1951). Protostoria del fiorentino. Lingua Nostra 12: 29–35.

Devoto, Giacomo and Giacomelli, Gabriella (1972). I dialetti delle regioni d’Italia. Sansoni: Firenze.

D’Imperio, Mariapaola, and Rosenthall Sam (1999). Phonetics and phonology of main stress in
Italian.
Phonology, 16, 1–28.

Durante, Marcello (1981). Dal latino all’italiano moderno. Saggio di storia linguistica e culturale. Bologna: Zanichelli.

Faust, Noam, Lampitelli, Nicola, and Ulfsbjorninn Shanti (2018). Articles of Italian Unite: Italian definite articles without allomorphy. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 63(3):1–27.

Fanciullo, Franco (2009). Recensione a Il lessico dialettale viterbese nelle testimonianze di Emilio Maggini di Francesco Petroselli. L’Italia Dialettale. 70 : 277–293.

Fanciullo, Franco (2007). Introduzione alla linguistica storica. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Fanciullo, Franco (1997). In italiano, bontà e goiventù e forme affini: vicende di uno stampo. In Günter Holtus, Johannes Kramer and Wolfgang Schweickard (eds.). Italica et Romanica. Festschrift für Max Pfister zum 65. Geburstag, II. 7179. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Figge, Udo L. (1966). Die romanische Anlautsonorisation. Bonn: Romanisches Seminar der Universität Bonn.

Formentin, Vittorio (2010). Fonetica storica. In Enciclopedia dell’Italiano, https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/fonetica-storica_%28Enciclopedia-dell%27Italiano%29/

Formentin, Vittorio (1998). Loise de Rosa: Ricordi. Roma : Salerno Editrice, 2 vol.

Fougeron, Cécile, and Keating, Patricia A. (1997). Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domain. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 3728–3740.

Franceschi, Temistocle (1965) Sulla pronuncia di e, o, s, z, nelle parole di non diretta tradizione. Turin: Giappichelli.

Franceschini, Fabrizio (1983) Sonorizzazione, lenizione, spirantizzazione nel pisano. In Luciano Agostiniani and Luciano Giannelli (eds.). Fonologia etrusca, fonetica Toscana. 131–149. Firenze: Olschki.

Franceschini, Fabrizio (1996). Tra lingua e dialetto: censura linguistica, mimesi dialettale e rappresentazioni ‘blasoniche’ nella Toscana del XV secolo. In AA.VV. La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico. Politica, Economia, Cultura, Arte. 505–608. Pisa : Pacini.

Gess, Randall (2009). Reductive sound change and the perception/production interface. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 54(2): 229–253.

Giacomelli, Raffaele (1934). Controllo fonetico per 17 punti dell’A.I.S. Archivum romanicum 18: 196–200.

Giacomelli, Raffaele (1958). Esplorazioni linguistiche in Lucchesia. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 43: 108–131.

Giannelli, Luciano and Cravens, Thomas, D. (1997). Consonantal weakening. In The Dialects of Italy, Maiden, Martin, Parry, Mair. Routledge: London and New York, 32–40.

Giannelli, Luciano (2000). Toscana. Pisa: Pacini (New updated edition).

Giannelli, Luciano (1988). Italienisch: Arealinguistik VI. Toscana. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt (eds.). Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 4 (Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch). 594–606. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Giannelli, Luciano (1997). Tuscany. In The Dialects of Italy, Maiden, Martin, Parry, Mair. Routledge: London and New Y whiplashork, 297–302.

Giannelli, Luciano (1983). Aspirate etrusche e gorgia toscana: valenze delle condizioni fonetiche dell’area toscana. In Agostiniani, Luciano and Giannelli, Luciano (1983) (eds.). Fonologia etrusca, fonetica toscana: il problema del sostrato. Firenze: Olschki. 61–102.

Giannelli, Luciano (1976). Toscana. In Michele Cortelazzo (ed.). Pisa: Pacini. Vol. 9.

Giannelli, Luciano and Leonardo Maria Savoia (1991). Restrizioni sull’esito [h] da t in fiorentino e nelle altre varietà toscane. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 20: 357.

Giannelli, Luciano, and Savoia, Leonardo M. (1979–1980). L’indebolimento consonantico in Toscana, II. Rivista italiana di dialettologia 3–4: 39–101.

Giannelli, Luciano, and Savoia, Leonardo M. (1978). L’indebolimento consonantico in Toscana, I. Rivista italiana di dialettologia 2: 25–58.

Guazzelli, Francesca (1996). Alle origini della sonorizzazione delle occlusive sorde intervocaliche. L’Italia Dialettale 49 : 7–88.

Halicki, Eric C. (2008). Accorciamenti, Hypocoristics, and Foot Structure: Against the Ternary Foot in Italian. In MendezVallejo, Catalina and De Jong, Ken (eds.) IULC Working Papers Online 7.3: 113.

Hall, Robert Jr. (1949). Gorgia Toscana. Italica 36: 64–71.

Hall, Robert Jr. (review by –1974). Tuscan and Etruscan: The Problem of Linguistic Substratum Influence in Central Italy by Herbert J. Izzo, 1972, University of Toronto Romance Series 20). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Language 50.2: 377–380.

Halle, Morris and Idsardi, William (1995). General properties of stress and metrical structure. In John Goldsmith (ed.). The handbook of phonological theory, 403–443. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halle, Morris, and Vergnaud, JeanRoger (1987). An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Harris, John (1994). English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hayes, Bruce (1985). Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 11: 429–446.

Hirsch, Ludwig (1885). Laut- und Formenlehre des Dialekts von Siena. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 9.513557.

Honeybone, Patrick (2019). Can phonotactic constraints inhibit segmental change? Arguments from lenition and syncope. Folia Linguistica Historica 40, 9–36.

Honeybone, Patrick (2012). Lenition in English. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elisabeth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. 773–787. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Honeybone, Patrick (2008). Lenition, weakening and consonantal strength: tracing concepts through the history of phonology. In Brandão De Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias and Ségéral, Philippe (eds.) Lenition and Fortition. Studies in Generative Grammar 99, Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 9–93.

Honeybone, Patrick (2005). Sharing makes us stronger: process inhibition and segmental structure. In Philip Carr, Jacques Durand and Colin Ewen (eds.). Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity: Phonological Papers in Honour of John Anderson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 167–192.

Hyde, Brett (2011a). The iambictrochaic law. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume, and Keren Rice (eds.). A Companion to Phonology. 10521077. Oxford: Wiley– Blackwell.

Hyde, Brett (2011b). Extrametricality and nonfinality. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Beth Hume, and Keren Rice (eds.) A Companion to Phonology. 10271051. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.

Hyde, Brett (2007). Nonfinality and weightsensitivity. Phonology 24: 287334.

Hyde, Brett (2006). Towards a uniform account of prominence–sensitive stress. In Eric Bakovio, Junko Itô and John McCarthy (eds.), Wondering at the natural fecundity of things: Essays in honor of Alan Prince, 139–183. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, University of California. http://repositories.cdlib.org/lrc/prince/8.

Hualde, José Ignacio and Marianna Nadeu (2011). Lenition and Phonemic Overlap in Rome Italian. Phonetica 68: 215–242.

van der Hulst, Harry (2018). Asymmetries in Vowel harmonies. A representational account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pavel Iosad (2021). Lenition and foot structure in North Germanic. Poster presented at the Fifth Edinburgh Symposium on Historical Phonology. 6th – 8th December.

Izzo, Herbert (1980). On the Voicing of Latin Intervocalic /p, t, k/ in Italian. In Izzo, Herbert (ed.). Italic and Romance: Linguistic studies in honor of Ernst Pulgram. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131–155.

Izzo, Herbert J. (1972). Tuscan and Etruscan. The problem of linguistic substratum influence in central Italy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Jacobs, Haike (2019). On the relevance of the uneven moraic trochee foot in OT: trochaic lengthening and syncope. In Jolanda SzpyraKoslowska and Marek Radomski (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology in action. Sounds MeaningCommunication. Landmarks in phonetics, phonology and cognitive linguistics, Bern: Peter Lang. 178190.

Jacobs, Haike (1994a). How optimal is Italian stress? In Reineke BokBenema and Crit Cremers (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands. 6170. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins.

Jacobs, Haike (1994b): Catalexis and Stress in Romance. Issues and Theory in Romance Linguistics. In Mazzola, Michael L. (ed.). Issues and Theory in Romance
Linguistics
. 49–65. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.

Kager, René (1999). Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kager, René (1995). Consequences of catalexis. In van der Hulst, Harry, van Weijer and Jeroen de (eds.), Leiden in Last. HIL Phonology Papers I. 269–298. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.

Kager, René (1993). Alternatives to the iambic–trochaic law. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 381–432.

Kager, René (1992). Are there any truly quantity–insensitive systems? In Laura Buszard Welcher, Lionel Lee and William Weigel (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–132. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Katz, Jonah (2021). Intervocalic lenition is not phonological: evidence from Campidanese Sardinian. Phonology 38 : 651–692.

Kenstowicz Michael (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge: Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.

Kingston, John (2008). Lenition. Selected Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology, Colantoni, Laura and Steele, Jeffrey (eds.). 1–31. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Kirchner, Robert M. (2001) An effort based approach to consonant lenition. Routledge.

Kiparsky, Paul (ms.) (1991). Catalexis. Stanford University.

Kohnlein, Bjorn, and Catharine Smith (2021). Foot–Segment Interactions in Middle High German Schwa Apocope. Conference presented at The Fifth Edinburgh Symposium on Historical Phonology.

Larson, Pär (2010). Fonologia. In Gianpaolo Salvi and Lorenzo Renzi (eds.). Grammatica dell’italiano antico. 1515–46. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Larson, Pär (1995). Glossario Diplomatico Toscano avanti il 1200 (= GDT). Firenze: Accademia della Crusca.

Lausberg, Heinrich (19762). Linguistica romanza, Milano: Feltrinelli, 2 voll. (orig. ed. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin: De Gruyter, 19561962, 3 vol.).

Lerdahl, Fred, and Jackendoff, Ray S. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. 

Levin, Juliette (1985). A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity. Doctoral dissertation. MIT. Cambridge: Masschussetts.

Liberman, Mark, and Alan Prince. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 249–336.

Loporcaro, Michele (2007). L’Appendix Probi e la fonologia del latino tardo. In Lo Monaco, Francesco and Molinelli, Piera (eds.). L’Appendix Probi. Nuove ricerche. 95–124. Firenze: Sismel edizioni del Galluzzo.

Lowenstamm, Jean (1999). The beginning of the word. In John R. Rennison and Klaus Kühnhammer (eds.). Phonologica 1996. 153–166. The Hague: Thesus.

Lowenstamm, Jean (1996). CV as the only syllable type. In Durand, Jacques and Bernard Laks (eds.). Current trends in Phonology. Models and Methods.419–441. Salford/Manchester: ESRI.

Lowenstamm, Jean (1993). Remarks on mutae cum liquida and branching onsets. In Ploch, Stefan (ed.), Living on the Edge. 28 papers in honour of Jonathan Kaye. 339–363. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lüdtke, Helmut (1961). Sul trattamento delle sorde intervocaliche nel volgare toscano. Studi di Linguistica Italiana 2: 65–68.

Maffei Bellucci, Patrizia (1977). Lunigiana. Pisa : Pacini.

Maiden, Martin (1995). A Linguistic History of Italian. Londra: Longman.

Manni, Paola (1994). Toscana. In Serianni, Luca and Trifone, Pietro (eds.). Storia della lingua italiana. Vol. 3, 294–329. Le altre lingue. Torino : Einaudi.

Marotta, Giovanna (2008). Lenition in Tuscan Italian (Gorgia Toscana). In Brandão De Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias and Ségéral, Philippe (eds.) Lenition and Fortition. Studies in Generative Grammar 99. 236–271. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Marotta, Giovanna (2006). An OT account of Tuscan Spirantization. Lingue e Linguaggio 5: 157–184.

Marotta, Giovanna (2004). Una rivisitazione acustica della gorgia toscana. In Francesco Cutugno, Massimo Pettorino and Renata Savy (eds.). Proceedings of the Congress Il parlato italiano. Napoli: D’Auria. CD–rom.

Marotta, Giovanna (2001). Non solo spiranti. La gorgia toscana nel parlato di Pisa. L’Italia dialettale 62: 2760.

Marotta, Giovanna (2000). Oxytone Infinitives in the Dialect of Pisa. In Repetti, Lori (ed.):
Phonological theory and the dialects of Italy. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 304–763.

Marotta, Giovanna (1999). Degenerate Feet nella fonologia metrica dell’italiano. In Benincà, Paola, Mioni, Alberto M. and Vanelli, Laura (eds.). Fonologia e morfologia dell’italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia. Proceedings of XXXI Congress of the Society of Italian Linguistics (SLI). 97116. Rome: Bulzoni.

Marotta, Giovanna (1995). Apocope nel parlato di Toscana. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 24: 297322.

McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meinschaefer, Judith (2011). Metrical microvariation et catalexis in Romance. Conference presented at 7. Tagung zu Phonetik und Phonologie im deutschsprachigen Raum (P&P 7), 7. und 8. Oktober 2011, Universität Osnabrück.

Merlo, Clemente (1950). Gorgia toscana e sostrato etrusco. Italica 27.3: 253–255, http://www.jstor.org/stable/476321?seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents; republished in Del sostrato delle parlate italiane, Orbis III, 1954: 1–21.

Merlo, Clemente (1941). Le consonanti sorde intervocaliche latine nel toscano. Italia dialettale 17: 229–231.

Merlo, Clemente (1933). Il sostrato etnico e i dialetti italiani. L’Italia Dialettale 9 : 1–24.

Merlo, Clemente (1926). Lazio Sannita ed Etruria latina? Italia dialettale 3: 84–93.

Merlo, Clemente (1924). L’Italia dialettale. In L’Italia dialettale 1: 12–26.

Mester, Armin (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 12. 1–61.

Migliorini, Bruno (1963). Parole nuove. Appendice di dodicimila voci al Dizionario moderno di Alfredo Panzini. Milano: Hoepli.

Muljačić, Žarko (1969). Fonologia generale e fonologia della lingua italiana. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Nespor, Marina (1993). Fonologia. Bologna: Il Mulino.

O’ Brien, Jeremy Paul (2012). An experimental approach to debuccalization and supplementary gestures. Dissertation: University of California (UC Santa Cruz) (Supervisor: Grant McGuir).

Os, Els den and Réné Kager (1986). Extrametricality and stress in Spanish and Italian. Lingua 69: 2348.

OVI = Opera del Vocabolario Italiano – C.N.R.: Accademia della Crusca. Data bank of the Tesoro della Lingua Italiana delle Origini. http://www.vocabolario.org/

Parker, Steve (2011). Sonority. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elisabeth and Keren Rice (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell. 1160–1184.

Parker, Steve (ed.) (2012). The sonority controversy. (Phonology and Phonetics 18.) Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Pellegrini, Giovan Battista (1977). Carta dei dialetti d’Italia. Pisa : Pacini.

Pellegrini, Giovan Battista (1975). I cinque sistemi linguistici dell’italo–romanzo. In Giovan Battista Pellegrini, Saggi di linguistica italiana. Storia, struttura, società. Torino: Boringhieri. 55–87.

Pellegrini, Giovan Battista (1970). La classificazione delle lingue romanze e i dialetti italiani. In Pellegrini, Giovan Battista, Saggi sul ladino dolomitico e sul friulano. Bari: Adriatica, 239268.

Piggott, Glyne, and Harry van der Hulst (1997). Locality and the nature of nasal Harmony. Lingua 103: 85112.

Pittino Calamari, Pia (1966). Il Memoriale Iacopo di Coluccino Bonavia. In Studi di filologia italiana 24: 55–428.

Prince, Alan (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization. Chicago Linguistic Society 26(2): 355–398.

Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky (2004 [1993]). Optimality Theory: Constraint
Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. [ROA537]

Repetti, Lori (2000). Uneven or moraic trochee? Evidence from Emilian and Romagnol Dialects. In Lori Repetti (ed.), Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy. 273288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Repetti, Lori (1998). Uneven Trochee in Latin. Evidence from Romance Dialects. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics (UVWPL). 95119. Università degli studi di Venezia: Centro Linguistico Interfacolta.

Repetti, Lori (1992). Vowel length in Northern Italian dialects. Probus 4: 155182.

Repetti, Lori (1991). A Moraic analysis of Raddoppiamento Fonosintattico. Rivista di Linguistica 3: 307330.

Rhys, John David (1569). Perutilis exteris nationibus de Italica pronunciatione, & orthographia libellus. Patauii: Laurent. Pasquatus excudebat, 1569.

Roca, Iggy M. (2006). The Spanish Stress Window. In Martínez–Gil, Fernando and Colina, Sonia (ed.)., Optimality–Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 239–277. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.

Roca, Iggy M. (2005). Saturation of parameter settings in Spanish stress. Phonology 22: 345–394.

Roca, Iggy (1999). Stress in the Romance Languages. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.) Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. 659811. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Roca, Iggy (1986). Secondary stress and metrical rhythm. Phonology Yearbook 3: 341370.

Rohlfs, Gerhard. (1979). Toscana dialettale delle aree marginali. Studi di Lessicografia Italiana 1: 82–262.

Rohlfs, Gerhard (1966). Fonetica. In Rohlfs, Gerhard. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Torino: Einaudi. 3 Vol., vol 1 (1st ed. Lautlehre, in Historische Grammatik der Italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten, Bern: Francke, 1949–1954. 3 Vol., vol. 1).

Rohlfs, Gerhard (1937). La struttura linguistica dell’Italia. Leipzig: H. Keller.

Rohlfs, Gerhard (1930). Vorlateinische Einflüsse in den Mundarten des heutigen Italiens ?, Germanisch–Romanische Monatsschrift 18: 37–56.

Russo, Michela (2015). Locality and the nature of Lenition: evidence from old Tuscan dialects and XVIXVII century ‘Florentine throat’. Invited conference presented at CIDSM X Italian Dialect Meeting 2015 (organized by Roberta d’Alessandro and Adam Ledgeway). Leiden U. Centre for linguistics, Netherlands 29 juin–2 juillet 2015.

Russo, Michela (2022a). Lenition and Locality in Phonology: Voicing and Gorgia in Tuscan dialects. Poster presented at The 29th Manchester Phonology Meeting, University of Manchester. 25th – 27th May 2022.

Russo, Michela (2022b). The grammar of uncountability in Southern Italo–Romance: nominal morphology and determiners. In: Nora Boneh, Daniel Harbour, Ora Matushansky et Isabelle Roy (eds.). In honor of Léa Nash. Building on Babel’s rubble. Collection Sciences du Langage. 94129. Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.

Russo Michela (2021). Prosodie et Raddoppiamento Sintattico dans les séquences à (double) enclise dans les dialectes italiens. L’Italia Dialettale, Vol. 82, 179–224.

Russo Michela (2019). Stress shift, stressed enclitics and Raddoppiamento Sintattico in Southern Italian dialects. In: Luciano Romito (ed.). Quaderni del Dipartimento di Linguistica Università della Calabria 27 (30 anni di Laboratorio di Fonetica). Roma: Aracne, 53–84.

Russo Michela (2014). Fortis et Lenis : les domaines de la fortition et lénition en italien. In Congosto Martín, María Luisa, Montero Curiel, Antonio Salvador Plans (eds.). Fonética Experimental, Educación Superior e Investigación, Vol. 1 Fonética y Fonología. 225252. Madrid: ArcoLibros, 3 Vol.

Russo Michela (2013a). Constituants phonologiques et morphologies nonconcatenatives: Geminations et metaphonies dans les langues romanes, Mémoire d’HDR, University of Toulouse 2 Le Mirail, France.

Russo Michela (2013b). La lénition romane et le redoublement syntaxique entre oralité et écriture (IXe–XIIe siècles) : évolution non linéaire du latin classique au latin parlé tardif et médiéval au roman. In Marie–Guy Boutier, Pascale Hadermann et Marieke Van Acker (eds.). Variation et changement en langue et en discours, Collection des Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique, 435–460.

Russo Michela (2011a). Footbinarity. Iambic Feet in Italian (oxytones as città, virtù) and their link with RS (Raddoppiamento Sintattico). A French parsing? Poster presented at the 7th Tagung zu Phonetik und Phonologie im deutschsprachigen Raum P&P7, 7. und 8. Oktober 2011 in Osnabrück.

Russo Michela (2011b). Liaison, assimilation et redoublement syntaxique. Le sandhi consonantique du latin à l’italoroman. In Anja Overbeck, Wolfgang Schweickard and Harald Völker (eds.). Lexikon, Varietat, Philologie Romanistische Studien, Festschrift Gunter Holtus zum 65. Geburtstag. 227242. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Russo Michela, and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn (2021). Accounting for the definite articles in Medieval Italian and Modern Dialects: No allomorphy – a common UR. In Russo, Michela (ed.). The emergence of Grammars. A Closer Look at Dialects between phonology and morphosyntax. 101 – 158. Nova Science Publishers. Inc.NY.

Russo Michela, and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn (2020). Initial lenition and strength alternations (v/b) in Neapolitan: A laryngeal Branchingness condition. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1): X. 1–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.534

Russo Michela, and Shanti Ulfsbjorninn (2017). Breaking the symmetry of geminates in diachrony and synchrony. Papers in Historical Phonology. Vol. 2. 164202. http://journals.ed.ac.uk/pihph/issue/view/150

Sabatini, Francesco (1985). L’italiano dell’uso medio: una realtà tra le varietà linguistiche italiane. In Günter Holtus and Edgar Radtke. Tübingen: Narr. 154184.

Saltarelli, Mario (1995). From Latin Metre to Romance Rhythm. In Smith, John Charles and Bentley, Delia (ed.). Selected Papers from the 12th International conference on Historical Linguistics, Manchester August 1995, vol. I : General issues and nonGermanic Languages, Series IV – Current issues in Linguistic Theory. 345360. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Sauzet, Patrick and Brun–Trigaud, Guylaine (2012). Structure syllabique et évolutions phonologiques en occitan. In Mario Barra–Jover, Guylaine Brun–Trigaud, Jean–Philippe Dalbera, Patrick Sauzet and Tobias Scheer (eds.) Études de linguistique galloromane. 161–181. Université Paris 8/Saint–Denis: PUV.

Sauzet, Patrick (1994). Extensions du modèle alinéaire en phonologie : syllabe, accent, morphologie. Mémoire d’Habilitation à Diriger les Recherches, Université Paris VII.

Scheer, Tobias and Brun–Trigaud, Guylaine (2012a). La lénition des attaques branchantes en français et dans les dialectes de l’ALF. In Mario Barra–Jover, Guylaine Brun–Trigaud, Jean–Philippe Dalbera, Patrick Sauzet and Tobias Scheer (eds.) Études de linguistique galloromane. 183–193. Université Paris 8/Saint–Denis : PUV.

Scheer, Tobias (2012b). Sandhi externe en corse et distribution du CV initial. In Oliviéri, Michèle, Brun–Trigaud, Del Giudice Philippe (eds.). La leçon des dialectes. Hommages à Jean-Philippe Dalbera. 276–291. Alessandria : Edizioni dell’Orso.

Scheer, Tobias (2012c). At the right edge of the word (again). McGill Working Papers in Linguistics. 22.1:1–29.

Scheer, Tobias, and Markéta, Zikova (2010). Coda–Mirror V2. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57.4, 411–431.

Scheer, Tobias, and Ségéral, Philippe (2008). Positional factors in lenition and fortition. In Brandão De Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias and Ségéral, Philippe (eds.) Lenition and Fortition. Studies in Generative Grammar 99. 131–172. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheer, Tobias (2004). A Lateral Theory of Phonology. Vol. 1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Scheer, Tobias (1999). A theory of consonantal interaction. Folia Linguistica 32: 201–237.

Ségéral, Philippe and Tobias Scheer (2001). La Coda-Mirror. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 96 : 107–152.

Ségéral, Philippe and Tobias Scheer (2005). What lenition and fortition tell us about Gallo-Romance Muta cum Liquida. In Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken Ivo and Haike Jacobs (eds.). Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003. 235-267. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Ségéral, Philippe and Tobias Scheer (2008). The Coda Mirror, stress and positional parameters. In Brandão De Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias and Ségéral, Philippe (eds.) Lenition and Fortition. Studies in Generative Grammar 99. 483– 518. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Serianni, Luca (1998). Lezioni di Grammatica storica italiana. Roma: Bulzoni.

Serianni, Luca (1995). Toscana, Corsica. In: Holtus, Günter/Metzeltin, Michael/Schmitt, Christian (eds.), Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 2, 135–150. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Serianni, Luca (1988). Grammatica italiana. Italiano commune e lingua letteraria. Suoni, forme, costrutti (with the collaboration of Alberto Castelvecchi). Torino: UTET.

Smith, Laura Catharine. (2020). The role of foot structure in Germanic. In Richard B. Page & Michael T. Putnam (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of Germanic linguistics, 49–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sorianello, Patrizia (2010). Gorgia (s.v.) http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/gorgia-toscana_%28Enciclopedia_dell%27Italiano%29/ (published on line 2010).

Sorianello, Patrizia (2006). Un’analisi acustica della ‘gorgia’ fiorentina. L’Italia dialettale 62: 61–94.

Sorianello, Patrizia (2003). Proprietà spettrali del rumore di frizione nel consonantismo fiorentino. In Franco Cutugno, Massimo Pettorino and Renata Savy (eds.), Proceedings of the Congress ‘Il parlato italiano’, CD–Rom. Napoli.

Sorianello, Patrizia (2001). Un’analisi acustica della ‘gorgia’ fiorentina. L’Italia dialettale 62(1), 61–94.

Tekavčić, Pavao (1980). Grammatica storica dell’italiano. 3 vol. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Tolomei, Claudio (1525). De le lettere nuovamente aggiunte libro di Adriano Franci da Siena intitolato. Il Polito: Roma.

Ulfsbjorninn, Shanti (2017). Bogus clusters and lenition in Tuscan Italian. Implications for the theory of sonority. In Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins (eds.), Sonic Signatures. Studies dedicated to John Harris. 278–296. Amsterdam / Philadelphia : John Benjamins.

Urciolo, Raphael (1965). The Intervocalic Plosives in Tuscan (-p-t-c-). Bern: Francke.

Villafaña Dalcher, Christina (2008). Phonetic, phonological, and social forces as filters: Another look at the Gorgia Toscana. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14.1 (Proceedings of the 31st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium), 83–96.

Villafaña Dalcher, Christina (2006). Consonant weakening in Florentine Italian: an acoustic study of gradient and variable sound change (PhD Thesis). Washington DC: Georgetown University.

Varvaro, Alberto (1980). Storia, problemi e metodi della linguistica romanza. Napoli: Liguori.

Vignuzzi, Ugo (2010a). Aree linguistiche (s.v.). https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/aree-linguistiche_%28Enciclopedia-dell%27Italiano%29/ (published on line 2010).

Vignuzzi, Ugo (2010b). Italia Mediana (s.v.). https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/italia-mediana_%28Enciclopedia-dell%27Italiano%29/ (published on line 2010).

Vignuzzi, Ugo (1988). Italienisch: Arealinguistik VII. Marche, Umbria, Lazio. In Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt (eds.). Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik (LRL). Vol. 4 (Italienisch, Korsisch, Sardisch). 606–642. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Wanner, Dieter and Thomas Cravens (1980). Early intervocalic voicing in Tuscan. In Elisabeth C. Traugott, Labrum, Rebecca and Susan C. Sheperd (eds.). Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 339–347.

Wartburg, Walter von (1980). Die Ausgliederung der Romanischen Sprachräume. Bern: Francke (translated in Italian La frammentazione linguistica della Romania by Alberto Varvaro). Roma: Salerno Editrice.

Wheeler, Max W. (2005) The Phonology of Catalan, (Phonology of the World’s Languages series). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weinrich, Harald (19692). Phonologische Studien zur romanischen Sprachgeschichte (Forschungen zur romanischen Philologie, ed. Harald Lausberg, vol. 6) Münster: Aschendorff, 1969, 2nd ed.

Zamboni, Alberto (2000). Alle origini dell’italiano. Dinamiche e tipologie della transizione dal latino. Roma: Carocci.

Zamboni, Alberto (1987). Tra latino e neolatino. L’evoluzione delle medie aspirate indoeuropee e le successive ristrutturazioni del consonantismo. Indogermanische Forschungen 92: 112–134.

Zec, Draga (1994). Sonority Constraints on Prosodic Structure. New York: Garland.

Zec, Draga (1995). Sonority constraints on syllable structure. Phonology 12: 85–129.

Zec, Draga (2007). The syllable. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology. 161–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haut de page

Notes

1 This article develops an invited conference I gave in Leiden (Netherlands) in 2015, as part of the Italian Dialect Meeting 2015, CIDSM X (at the invitation of Roberta d’Alessandro and Adam Ledgeway). I would like to thank Pär Larson, Director of Research (Italian National Research Council = CNR) at the Institute Opera del Vocabolario Italiano (OVI) in Florence, in charge of the Tesoro della Lingua Italiana delle Origini (TLIO), glossary of the vernacular ItaloRomance texts of the OVI, for his comments on a previous version of this paper.

2 Hall (1949); Contini (1961); Weinrich (19692); Giannelli and Savoia (1978), (1979–1980); Castellani (1960–1980); Agostiniani (1983); Cravens (1983); Giannelli (1983); Giannelli and Savoia (1991); Marotta (2004, 2008); Russo (2015, 2022b); Ulfsbjorninn (2017).

3 σ = syllable, C = consonant, V = vowel. The bracket [σ indicates the beginning of the constituent syllable CV which has ‘σ’ as maximal projection.

4 Wartburg (1980) observes that the Western Romance languages (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Occitan, FrancoProvençal, Ladin and Northern Italian) share the voicing of intervocalic Latin voiceless consonants that can go to a zero degree of realisation (loss or deletion), while CentralSouthern Italian, Veglioto and Rumanian retain the intervocalic voiceless Latin obstruents. “This traditional typology takes no account of the status of Rumanian, which has degemination but no voicing” (Giannelli–Cravens 1997: 33).

5 See Ascoli (1882–1885); Bertoni (1916, 1940); Merlo (1924); Devoto (1970); Devoto and Giacomelli (1972); and especially Wartburg ([1950]1980); Muljačić (1969); Pellegrini (1970; 1975: 5657; 1977); Tekavčić (1980: § 135); Serianni (1998: 66–69); Zamboni (2000). The La SpeziaRimini line (which crosses TuscanEmilian Apennines) identifies a bundle of isoglosses according to von Wartburg (1936 [1950]). This line has been identified on the base of AIS (= Atlante ItaloSvizzero) data. It distinguishes between Western and Eastern Romance languages.

6 The weakening of intervocalic /p t k/ below La Spezia–Rimini also includes Corsica (see Russo 2022 especially on this topic). It also involves Sardinian (see Giannelli and Cravens 1997: 39). It is an active phonological rule depending on the vCv contexts word–internally and in phonotactics (without a lexical restructuring).

7 The standard variety of Italian is based on the 14th century Florentine vernacular, based on the written literary variant elaborated by Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca and Giovanni Boccaccio (Durante 1981; Castellani 1984; Serianni 1988; Sabatini 1985).

8 <fuogo> (Andrea da Grosseto (+9 occ.)), <fuoco> (Fiori di filosafi).

9 See Giannelli and Cravens (1997: 36): “the Italian descendants of the etymological minimal pair focu(m)> fuoco ‘fire’ vs. locu(m) > luogo ‘place’ offer the most striking examples of developments which constitute an ongoing puzzle. If sound change is regular, why is it that Tuscan dialects, and thus Tuscan–derived standard Italian, have bifurcated outcomes in the reflexes of original intervocalic /p t k/”.

10 The line divides, from Lucca to the East part, Tuscan dialects from Northern Italian dialects.

11 On Tuscan Voicing in a sociolinguistic perspective, see already Clark (1903).

12 Izzo (1972, 1980) suggests that the geographical passage of such voicing was made through Lucca because of the commercial relations between Lucca and Northern Italy during the Medieval period. See discussion in Giannelli and Cravens (1997); Giannelli 2000; Russo (2014). Clemente Merlo thinks instead that the indigenous development in Tuscan Italian is the voiceless result (Izzo 1980 supports this view). He also thinks that the Voicing in Tuscany comes from a Northern influence. The hypothesis of an influence of Gallo–Italian dialects but also in general of the Western Gallo–Romance lenition on Tuscan dialects is supported by some lexical items, however it is not supported by the rich Medieval data.

13 Indeed, on the issue of a Latin tendency toward Voicing, it should be emphasized how it is not only important in explaining the lenition in Western Romance, but that it can also be taken as a starting point for Syntactic Doubling (Raddoppiamento Sintattico = RS) of assimilative origins (after function words for instance) that developed in Central and Southern Italy but also attested in other regions of Latinity in late Medieval times (Russo 2013a).

14 For Strict–CV theory, also called CVCV (or Lateral Phonology) see Lowenstamm (1996, 1999); Scheer (2004); Cyran (2003). This theoretical framework reduces syllabic constituency to a strict sequence of non–branching onsets and non–branching nuclei, rather than tree structures specific to constituent Phonology or Syntax. The syllabic government and licensing are two lateral relations that can only be expressed by phonetically realized nuclei from right to left.

15 In the Coda Mirror v2 intervocalic consonants V_V are governed but unlicensed (see Scheer and Zikova 2010). Consonants in coda __{#,C} unlicensed and ungoverned (ib.). The lateral Government and Licensing always apply from right to left (headed by realized nuclei), see Scheer 2004, § 125).

16 The context of coda in final position or before heterosyllabic consonant, ___ {C / #}, is translated, in Strict–CV phonology by __ø, while {#/C}___ is translated by ø __. An empty nucleus can only exist if it is governed.

17 H = Heavy (syllable), L = light (syllable), the underlined letter indicates the head of the foot, here a trimoraic uneven foot left headed. See Section 3 for the trochaic layered Footbased parsing in Tuscan of PWd = Prosodic words.

18 Marginal Tuscany is the Eastern strip from Casentino to Valdichiana, the Southern strip that includes the Val di Paglia, Amiata and the Orbetello area, as well as the island of Elba in the NorthWest, Versilia, Viareggio and Garfagnana (Giannelli and Savoia 1979–80: 25). Summing up the area with a lenition–Voicing system, in the four corners of Tuscany there is the greatest development of lenition–Voicing: Orbetello area and Amiata; Casentino; VersiliaGarfagnana; Elba (Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 57).

19 See Vignuzzi (2010a); D’Achille and Stefinlongo (2008); Hualde and Nadeu (2011). According to Weinrich (19692), next to a LazialeUmbraAbruzzeseMarchigiana zone with weakening, there is the central zone of Tuscany with spirantization, and a wide band between the two zones, free of weakening phenomena. However, in marginal Tuscany (= Toscana marginale), spirantization and lenition coexist. The area called ‘Italia Mediana’ is the name suggested by Migliorini (1963: 177); cf. Pellegrini 1977: 3031; Vignuzzi (2010b), for the entire Eastern and CentralSouthern Italian dialectal area of Marche, Umbria and Lazio.

20 Please note that the dialects of Lunigiana and the Carrara area do not belong to Tuscany. They are nonTuscan areas until the 19th century. The dialects of Lunigiana and the Tuscan Romagna area are dialects of the Northern Italian type (Maffei Bellucci 1977; Calamai 2011).

21 18 times in rhyme (Dante) e.g.: <riva/fuggiva> ‘(Impf. 3th Pers.) escaped’ (Inf. 1 v. 23 –1), <riva/deriva> ‘(Pres. 3th Pers.) derived’ (Inferno 7 v. 100 –1), <riva/viva> (Inferno 30 v. 18 1, Purgatorio 27 v.7 2, 14 v. 59 2 and 11 v. 49 2), <riva/auliva> ‘olive’ (Purgatorio 28 v. 4 2), <riva/appariva> ‘(Impf. 3th Pers.) appeared’ (Paradiso 23 v. 115 3). But <ripa> also has 14 forms in rhyme: Flor. <ripa> (1274–84 Ricordi/1292 Bono Giamboni/1321 Dante Commedia, etc.)

22 1 in rhyme: <un laco.....c’ha nome Bernaco> ‘a lake called Bernaco’.

23 It is not Tuscan but Occitan : Flor. loghiera14th c. Pegolotti (+10) borrowed from Occitan loguièr ‘rent’ Lt < locariu. Also < logagione>/ <logagioni> ‘rent’ < Lt locare (in Senese 1298 Stat.sen. [Arte della lana] (+1), 1318 [Stat.sen.] Statuto Spedale (+3), 1343 [Stat.sen.] Arte della Mercanzia, Pratese 1296–1305 [Doc. prat.] Memoriale Camarlinghi, 1322-51 [Stat. pis.] Breve mare, <logasione> [Stat. Sen.] 1305 Spedale Vergine, <logasioni> ib. (+2).

24 Mass Plural –ora (locu + ora): a set of places (uncountable).

25 +logo (+3).

26 + loco (+184).

27 Mass Plural –ora (locu + ora): a set of places (uncountable).

28 <ch> = [k].

29 + <locho> (+2).

30 + <loco> (+9).

31 Tonic lengthening is blocked before heterosyllabic consonants, geminates, a liquid + consonant, s+C clusters; generally Italo–Romance let only VV or VC tonic structures based on a bimoraic requirement (see Repetti 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000; Russo 2013a; Russo and Ulfsbjorninn 2017).

32 See also Castellani (1988: 147); Rohlfs (1966, § 197, 266), Giannelli and Savoia (1979–80: 89); Giannelli and Cravens (1997: 36).

33 Except for a few cases in Milanese, see Franceschini (1983: 136).

34 See Franceschini (1983: 133); Rohlfs (1966, § 151).

35 On initial Voicing in Tuscan see also Contini (1960); Giannelli (1983: 86), Weinrich (19692: 173), Carlucci (2015). Also Loporcaro (2007: 100) points out that a Voicing of the initial velar is often found in Italo–Romance outcomes such as gatto (cattus), gabbia… “C’è stata, evidentemente, variazione in fase tardolatina, come prova l’assenza di sonorizzazione nel francese chat, cage/ There was variation in the late Latin phase, as evidenced by the absence of Voicing in the French chat, cage”.

36 See Franceschini (1983: 137).

37 According also to these authors, the initial Voicing widespread in Tuscany (mainly /k/ > [g] regardless of weak contexts) indicates an ancient lenition stage common to Late Latinity, widespread beyond Western Romance. It is noteworthy that initial Voicing is also found in Northern and Southern Italo–Romance since Late Latin Period (see Russo 2013a/b; Giannelli and Cravens 1997: 36–37; Larson 1995; Aebischer 1961).

38 The first to undertake a census of the voiceless stop (reversed by voiced) is Urciolo (1965).

39 For the lexeme (and derivatives) fadiga widespread in Pisa and Lucca, reaching Siena (fadiga, siguro, segondo < securu and secundu), see Devoto (1951: 32–33).

40 We must note that the orthographical use of <h> after a velar sound /k g/, here <gh> just indicated a velar stop (here [g]). These <gh> and <ch> can alternate in Medieval Tuscan with <g> or <c> (<fadígha> and <fadíga>), but this alternation could only mean that the philological editor removed <h>. See also Tables 8 (<spighe>), 10 (<logho>, <loghi), 11 (<luocho>, <luochi>, <lochi>).

41 Stat. Sen. Montagutolo (+128 occ. in Senese documents).

42 +<fadighe> 75 occ. in Senese documents.

43 In the context: Senese <le fadigate navi> / ‘the tired ships’.

44 The voiceless result is due to a cultivated pressure of Latin (through for instance the church). The indigenous hypothesis of Western Tuscany is also supported by a geo–linguistic argument advanced by Giannelli and Savoia (1979–1980: 76): the Northern marginal Garfagnana and the Southern marginal Lunigiana predict neither Northern–like lenition/Voicing nor Southern–like lenition/Voicing, widespread in the contiguous areas toward the South.

45 According to Franceschini (1983: 142), at the end of the 15th century, and with conditions that will remain in the modern dialect, Pisan phonologizes /g–/ phrase–initially in place of /k–/ (which can also be deleted) in a number of cases; it restores intervocalic /–k–/, except in front of /w/.

46 The Pisan lower class speakers also retained the voiceless pronunciation of the stops /p t/, although in the middle class and among young people the lenited fricatives realizations are spreading (but with a spirantization less marked than in Florentine). See discussion in Franceschini (1983: 143144).

47 However, concerning /–g–/ in pagare, the Voicing comes probably before Romance (Formentin 1998: 204).

48 It is useless to resort to Occitan influence for Flor. <ambasciadori> ‘ambassadors’ (1260–61 Brunetto Latini) and sen. <a[n]basciadori> (1253, Lett. Sen., Accattapani): <ambaissador>. For this suffixal series from Lt –tore, there are no foreign loans but the Voicing is entirely indigenous in Tuscany.

49 We do not find any other cases of voiced stops for this word in the other Tuscan areas.

50 + strade (+ 47).

51 + (larghissime) strade (+2) FPL ‘wide roads’.

52 + strade (+5).

53 As anthroponym.

54 As toponyme.

55 <(Bongiovani di) Stradiere>, as anthroponym.

56 A similar case is It. frugare ‘to rummage’ < Lt *furicare. We find the voiced stop in Flor. 1321 <(mi) fruga> (Dante Commedia (+4)), <frugalitade> (1326 Valerio Massimo (+1)), <frugando> (1334 Boccaccio Caccia di Diana), <frugato> (1390 Sacchetti), Pisano <(mi) fruga> (1385/95 Francesco da Buti (+7)); there is only 1 case of <c> : Tusc. <fruca> (14th c. Tommaso di Giunta).

57 Anthroponyms.

58 Anthroponyms.

59 Only one case of voiceless [–k–]: <biconci> in Senese <due bicónci> (1294–1375 [Doc.sen.] Fonti Siena).

60 + bigo(n)gia, bigo(n)gie (+1), bigo(n)giuola (+ eolu) (+1).

61 + bigoncie (+6).

62 + bigo(n)gie, bigo(n)giole (+ eola).

63 + bigonzi (+5).

64 + saramenti, saramento (+3).

65 + seramento (+10).

66 The non–locality argument also applies when the cluster Cr follows a coda in strong position (e.g. Lt amplus), since we get two empty nuclei in a row (Brun–Trigaud and Scheer 2010: 18).

67 The lenition area is a Tuscan area today where we see a smaller influence of Florentine. Florentine pushes spirantization up to an area where we find the maximum development of lenition/Voicing in the four corners of Tuscany, see footnote 18. In the Pisan–Lucca area, lenition (Voicing) persists, as well as in Versilia, Elba with clear extensions to Corsica, where not Gorgia but Voicing lenition is found, also phonotactically in weak position (see Russo 2022b).

68 Giannelli (1976, 2000), Giannelli and Savoia (1980: 76) have indeed identified in the North–Western area of Tuscany a boundary between Gallo–Italic Voicing and Central–Southern lenition, precisely in the Northern Garfagnana and South–Lunigiana area, which does not have the Northern (Gallo–)Italian Voicing (peculiar to the remaining part of Lunigiana) despite being characterized by some Northern processes, nor the Central–Southern lenition widespread southward in Massese, Garfagnana, Versilia, where /p t k/ are voiced in V_V or voiced and spirantized (as in Elba, amiatino) [b d g]/[β ð ɣ], see below.

69 If we consider the iambic stress pattern as a lexically marked exception rather than the rule, we will say, in the terms of OT (= Optimality Theory), that the stress is subject to a Faithfulness constraint, MAX–IO–σ (Halicki 2008)́.

70 Trochaic parsing can ignore quantity, which is not allowed in iambic parsing. Recall, however, that Jacobs (1994a) presents arguments for the existence of a quantity–sensitive left dominant foot (QS) in the foot inventory; see also Kager (1992).

71 An uneven trochee is HL= μμμ ou LLL= μμμ. See Russo (2021, 2019) for an analysis of the stress Italo–Romance system as an uneven moraic trochee. See also Repetti (1991, 1992, 1998, 2000); Jacobs (1994a, 2019).

72 +(delle) sigurtadi (+3).

73 + sigurtadi (+4).

74 “In quantity–sensitive languages, heavy syllables are always stressed” (Hyde 2011a: 1057).

75 <andollo a raccomandare> = It. lo andò a raccomandare ‘went to recommend him’.

76 See Halle and Vergnaud (1987); Halle and Idsardi (1995); Saltarelli (1995), Roca (1999, 2005, 2006), Russo (2013b).

77 The preantepenult stress of archaic Latin was replaced by a stress that falls on the prepenult syllable or on the penult if the latter was heavy. This unconditioned change is illustrated by the shift from archaic Latin [fá.ci.lius] ‘easier’ to classical Latin [fa.cí.li.us]. In foursyllable words with the first three syllables light, the main stress was on the initial (quaternary system). A second prosodic change reduces the number n of syllables from n = 3 to n = 2, which leads to the stress on the penult according to the weight of the rhyme. This prosodic change moves Latin from an initial stress system (edgealigned) to a weightaligned accentual system (penult), see (Saltarelli 1995).

78 The StresstoWeight Principle recalls the Obligatory Branching Parameter within classical metrical theory (Hayes 1995). Stress cannot be attributed to a monomoraic syllable (Hyde 2011b).

79 See the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) and the implications for the theory of sonority (Clements 1990, 2008; Prince and Smolensky 2004 [1993]; Blevins 2004; Zec 1994, 1995, 2007; Parker 2011, 2012). The SSP is a way of capturing the internal organization of the syllable, since, according to it, all sounds are categorized (and ordered) on a hierarchical scale, thus /a/ is considered more sonorous of /i e/.

80 Moreover, according to Canalis (2014), the voiced stop appears 22.3 % of cases when the stop belongs to a stressed syllable or immediately follows it, but the voiced stop appears in only 8 percent of cases when the voiceless stop is between two unstressed vowels.

81 According to the universal sonority scale: – Voiced fricative – Voiceless fricative – Voiced plosive – Voiceless Plosive (Blevins 1995: 21).

82 An important bibliography can be given on this topic, Sorianello (2010) includes several scientific references. For a definition of ‘Gorgia’, see Castellani (1952: 26, n. 3), Introduction to the Nuovi Testi fiorentini del Dugento. In the 17th–18th centuries and afterwards, according to Castellani (ib.), Gorgia meant ‘il parlar coll’ovo in bocca’ (talking with the egg in the mouth), or ‘di quel parlar con la voce in gola/ of that speech with your voice in your throat’ typical Florentine or Tuscan (see also Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 54). According to Hall jr. literally ‘gargling’ (1974: 377).

83 The rhotic (/r/ or /rr/) and the lateral alveolar become approximants: [e ˈɸaɹθe] ‘It. e parte/and (he) leaves’; /n m/ become approximants [ɹ̃ β̞̃] for instance: [e ˈvɛŋgo doˈβ̞̃ani] ‘It. e vengo domani/ and I come tomorrow’, [i ˈpãɹ̃ẽ sek:o] /[i ˈpãẽ sek:o] ‘It. il pane secco/ the dry bread’ (Giannelli and Savoia 1978: 47). It is noteworthy that in Florentine, in the North–Western and North–Eastern Tuscan varieties, all fricatives resulting from Gorgia can be involved in nasalization processes ( [β̃ θ̃ ɣ̃]). This produces forms as: [la ˈβ̃aŋka] ‘It. la panca/ the bench’, etc.

84 See Giannelli and Cravens (1997), Cravens (2006, 2002), Marotta (2008).

85 See Sauzet (1994) ; Russo (2013a).

86 On the predictions made by the initial CV in CV–Strict Phonology, see Scheer (2004: § 87; Scheer 2012; Ségéral and Scheer 2008). IG = Infrasegmental Government in CV–Strict approach, /r/ establishes a government relation over C in a cluster (Scheer 1999), see above.

87 The voiced stops /b d g/ are pronounced as [b d g] or as fricatives [β ð ɣ] phrase–initial or after consonants, but as approximants [β̞ ð̞ ɣ̞ ɦ] inside and at the beginnings of words if a vowel precedes. The lenition which involves the spirantization of stops, e.g. /b/ > [β] or /t/ > [ð], is considered an opening, as well as the opening of fricatives into frictionless approximants, e.g. / β/ >[ ʋ], debuccalization, e.g. /t k/>/h/, and deletion, e.g. /h/ > [0]. The aspirated stops can alternate with the fricatives without aspiration by the same speaker.

88 Izzo made two field–trips to cover 198 localities; he combined them on a map with Giacomelli (1958)’ localities. His map has more data than the AIS maps which includes only 28 points for Tuscany.

89 See on this also Giannelli (1976/2000). The border of the spirantization of /k/ was traced by Merlo (1926): this goes to the Versilia in the North (Viareggio, Camaiore…), around a city of Lucca, Pistoia, Prato and in the East to the Mugello (Sieve valley), the Arno valley (from Pontassieve to Laterina and to Ponticino, on this side of Pratomagno (Valdarno), along a line that puts together the Ponticino and Civitella to Sinalunga, Pienza, S. Quirico, the Amiata and the Ombrone fleuve.

90 Especially in Viareggio, in prov. of Lucca (Versilia). This happens throughout Western Tuscany from Lucca to Grosseto, from the Viareggio coast to the Valdinievole, from Pisa to the Lower Valdarno up to San Miniato, from Livorno to the Valdera, from Cecina almost up to Volterra, in the Tuscan Maremma plain north of the Amiata (ib.). This picture corresponds to that of Merlo. Giacomelli (1958) also gives information about the extension of the Gorgia in Versilia and around a city of Lucca. Castellani (1960–80: 190, n. 4) points out that the Southern board of the Gorgia reaches the river Albegna.

91 Franceschini (1983: 140) points out that the earliest evidence for the Gorgia comes with certain observations by Equicola in the early sixteenth century and then more fully with Claudio Tolomei’s Polito. He cites a reference by Rocchi Ivonne (1976), Per una nuova cronologia e valutazione del Libro de natura de Amore by Mario Equicola, in Giornale Storico della Letteratura Italiana 153 (p. 577 and note 40) in which Equicola states that the Tuscan language “colla bocca patente et spumosa, nella gola con vehemente spirito insuavemente pronuntia/ with mouth open and spitting, in throat with vigorous exhalation he harshly pronounces”.

92 Gorgia persists in the Italian of Florence, Siena and Pistoia, and with its own traits also in that of Pistoia, Pisa, Livorno and Grosseto. Some marginal areas retain the other lenition, but Tuscan Gorgia has advanced in recent years in these areas too (see Giannelli and Savoia 1979–1980).

93 Stop–glottalization/lenition in Tuscan branching onset shows that this process does not affect only bogus clusters (Harris 1994 shows the reverse for English, see Ulfsbjorninn 2017 for discussion).

94 These data are reinforced by Castellani (1952: 26–27, n. 4) and Merlo (1926, 1933). According to them, the consonant /t/ in V_V position can be pronounced as a laryngeal fricative [h] in words like <staho> ‘stato/been’, <finiho> ‘finito/finished’. This happened particularly in Florence with past participles (as in (28)) inside the three suffixal classes: <–ato>, <–uto>, <–ito>. In addition, with Old Italian participles like <velluto> ‘covered with fleece’ (It. vello), bristling with hair. The glottalized form can also be found in other verbal paradigms, such as in the 2nd pers. Pres. pl. ending in –ate, –ete, –ite and it is morphologically recognisable (Castellani ib.).

95 « L’aspirazione della t in h è tuttavia considerata una volgarità da cui, parlando con persone di riguardo occorre astenersi: in tale circostanza la sostituiscono con la fricativa θ. / The aspiration of the t in h is, however, considered a vulgarity from which one should refrain when speaking to people of respect: in such circumstances, they replace it with the fricative θ ». According to Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 50) the laryngeal variants: « interessa in particolare l’uso dei ceti medi urbani e, al suo interno, specialmente i parlanti più giovani (classe di parlanti di età fino ai 40/45 anni) / particularly affects the use of the urban middle classes and, within it, especially younger speakers (speaker class aged up to 40/45) ».

96 The change of /t/into /h/ also according to Merlo (1926: 86) depends on the posttonic position of the onset /t/ and it is widespread around the city of Prato, Florence, and Siena. See also Merlo (1950: 253).

97 It can also be found in other words such as <dret/ho> adv. and prep., old variant of It. dietro ‘behind’, the form that survives in Tuscan dialects, in forms ending in <–ito> such as <marit/ho> ‘husband’, or in <–ato>, such as the Tuscan toponym <Prato>, <–ata> such as <forchettat/ha> ‘forkful’. Castellani (1952: 161) also points out the glottalized pronominal modern form [hu], for the personal pronoun It. tu ‘you’ in Pontassieve and Dicomano (Italian communes of the metropolitan city of Florence).

98 This is coherent with the explanation given in Kirchner (2001), within OT also in reference to the Tuscan Gorgia debuccalization, based on perceptual faithfulness.

99 He argues that lenition serves to increase intensity and depends on the openness of ‘flanking’ consonants not on the ‘flanking’ vowels.

100 Kingston (2008) supposes the following hierarchy of markedness constraints, based on the sonority scale: *Voiceless Stop /X_Y >> *Voiced Stop /X_Y >> ... >> *Glide/X_Y.

101 This was defined as follows by Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 31): “la ricorrenza della parola in corpo di frase favorisce la realizzazione ø / the occurrence of the word in the body of the sentence favours the realisation”.

102 Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 32: “la presenza dell’accento sulla seconda vocale del contesto di ricorrenza favorisce le varianti diverse da ø a [h]/ the presence of the stress on the second vowel within the context of occurrence favours other variants from ø to [h]” (i.e. [x θ ɸ] and approximants [x̞]).

103 Transcriptions show debuccalization/glottalization with a laryngeal [h] on this map in: Prunetta (prov. Pistoia) pt 513, Barberino di Mugello (prov. Firenze) pt 515, Firenze, pt 523 Carmignano (prov. Firenze) pt 522/1, Montespèrtoli (prov. Firenze) pt 532, Incisa (prov. Firenze) pt 534, Faùglia (prov. Pisa) pt 541, Radda in Chianti ([Centr. Tusc.] prov. Siena) pt 543 Siena pt 552, Castagneto Carducci (prov. Livorno) pt 550, Chiusdino [Volt.] prov. Siena) pt 551, Siena pt 552.

104 In these prosodic words (Pwd), the prosodic format of the foot is an uneven trochaic foot with the extrametrical enclitic: HL<σ>.

105 See the elementary decomposition of nasals and liquids in coda made by Russo and Ulfsbjorninn (2020) for Neapolitan to explain weakness in post–coda environments.

106 This is for instance the opinion of Giannelli and Savoia (1978–1980: 52): “i dati pertinenti le due posizioni, forte e debole, debbono essere integrati e non visti come giustapposti; allora rivalutando le idee di un’altra corrente di studiosi (Battisti, Merlo, Contini, Franceschi) circa l’asimmetricità dei fatti di indebolimento [...] / the data pertinent to the two positions, strong and weak, must be integrated and not seen as juxtaposed; then re–evaluating the ideas of another current of scholars (Battisti, Merlo, Contini, Franceschi) about the asymmetrical nature of the facts of weakening... [...]”.

107 « Una cosa che mi colpì vivamente nella trascrizione degli interrogatori di Firenze fu la segnalazione d’una aspirazione delle esplosive sorde in posizione non intervocalica, e con consonante lunga / One thing that struck me vividly in the transcription of the Florence field investigations was the report of an aspiration of the voiceless stops in non–intervocalic position, and with long consonants » Giacomelli (1934: 196).

108 The conclusion of these authors is that there is a widespread tendency towards spirantization throughout Tuscany, but that this tendency has developed in Florence in particular, in Siena and in Pistoia, through intermediate stages that can be observed at territorial and generational levels.

109 Merlo (ib.) does not believe at all that Gorgia is a 16th century process, he asks himself how it could be that Gorgia raises so abruptly in Florence on a mouth of « un par de beceri (= one among the boors) », and also how it could happen that it spreads with such a « prodigious rapidity ». It also asks himself why Gorgia spreads overall Tuscany but why for instance in Volterra should be more « gagliarda (galliard) » than around the city of Pisa or Livorno, and for which reasons we do not have aspirated sounds in Aretino or around Montepulciano, places closer to Florence than others. Merlo also wonders why Casentino does not have aspirated sounds even if it becomes part of Florence in 1440. According to him, all these questions depend on the differences of Etruscan substrate. Volterra for instance was one of the Etruscan major fortresses. This was also the opinion of Friedrich Diez and Hugo Schuchardt.

110 Hall (1949) affirms that aspirated sounds are recent in Tuscany, not preceding the 16th century, since Gorgia sounds are recent, and since we do not have such sounds in the Italian literary language, which, as we know, does not know aspirates consonants and such fricatives ([ɸ θ x]). There are only a few Italian lexical survivals in toponyms (Izzo 1972). In Etruscan documents we find the three letters <   > which are interpreted by the substratophiles as aspirated consonants in modern Tuscan. However, Izzo (1972) observed that we do not have any evidence of the <   > pronunciation nor that Etruscan had aspiration. Discussants of Gorgia in 16th c. are Tolomei, Del Falco, Scaliger, Giambullari, Rhys, Giorgio Bartoli, Salviati, Muzio, Cittadini (see Hall 1974). Izzo (1972) pointed out that ancient Etruria corresponds especially to Northern Latium and Southern Eastern Tuscany, an area where we do not have Gorgia.

111 We will limit ourselves to say that opponents of the substratophile theory point out to the unlikelihood that Etruscan pronunciation habit could have survived over 1500 years down to the first attestation of the Gorgia in the 16th century. Furthermore, it is noted by Giannelli and Savoia (1979–1980: 76) that spirantization is also found in areas outside the Etruscan domain, also in so–called ‘marginal’ Tuscany, in Garfagnana and Versilia where the two types of lenition overlap taking on a specific character.

112 Hirsch (1885: 562) for instance refers to some Senese examples from 13th –14th centuries such as: diano ‘decano/dean’, dihiarare ‘dichiarare/declare’, hontenere ‘to contain’, see below. Bolelli (1951: 257) gives a report of the same examples and he interprets the onset as an aspiration: « tentativo che aveva contro di sé la mancanza di una lettera per la consonante aspirata poiché h era comunemente usata come riflesso di grafie latine / attempt that had against it the lack of a letter for the aspirated consonant since h was commonly used as a reflection of Latin spellings ».

113 Different is the orthographical over spread of <h> noticed by Bolelli (1951) in prevocalic initial position. This is an etymological orthographic habit (result of the Latin writing and model: Lt haerede < herede>, <hospizio> Lt. hospitiu): Doc. Flor. <hostinato> (1311, Cancellieri di Firenze), Stat. Pis. <dicto Hospitale> (1322–1351, Ordinamenti). The graphical/etymological <h> is found in initial onset: <hosti> for <oste>, <hostaria> for <osteria>, <hospizio> for <ospizio> <herede> for <erede>, <heretici> for <eretici>, overspreads not only in Tuscany but in all Italian regions. See <hospedo>, <ospedale> in Medieval Veneziano or <hospitaliera > for <ospedaliera> in Medieval Siciliano.

114 Recall that the phonological object /Vøc/ = /Vcv/ has a floating C in Strict CV Phonology/ Lateral Phonology (Scheer 2004) and in a–linear models to indicate the UR of RS triggers, see above.

115 The preposition ‘di’= Lt is not an RS trigger, since is normally an atonic monosyllable without a final latent/etymological consonant in final position. However, see <di tterra> (Doc. Flor., 1274–84, corpus OVI). See for discussion on this monosyllable and its relation with RS, Russo (2013a/b), where a discussion is made about the secondary stress as a potential RS licensing for RS geminate in some atonic monosyllables according to the phonological phrase/word position (ˌdicv/?).

116 With /acv/=<a> incorporated in prefixal position, see Lt ad + comandare.

117 All the features attributed by Dante to the Senese in De vulgari eloquentia, survive today in Amiatino, Pär Larson p.c. For the loss of the labiovelar element and spirantization of labiovelars see also Giannelli (2000: 32).

118 1300 Doc. Venez. C. Navagero.

119 1274 Pietro da Bescapè.

120 1315 Cedola anonima.

121 1353 Passione genovese.

122 14th c. Codice Servi.

123 1353 Passione Genovese.

124 1207–08 Aleppo.

125 13th c. Patecchio.

126 = Linguistic and Ethnographic Atlas of Italy and Southern Switzerland.

127 Emphatic Florentine Gorgia according to Arrigo Castellani.

128 Emphatic Florentine Gorgia according to Arrigo Castellani.

129 See Gorgia represented in the Tuscan area for instance from the map AIS 97 ‘capelli/hair’ (Lt /–p–/) [ph]: Scansano (prov. Grosseto) pt 581 [ph], Chiusdino ([Volt.] prov. Siena) pt 551 [ph], Radda in Chianti ([Centr. Tusc. (prov. Siena) pt 543 [ph]; see also map AIS 92 ‘il pelo, i peli/the hairs’: Barberino di Mugello (prov. Firenze) pt 515 [ph], Firenze pt 523 [ph], Radda in Chianti ([Centr. Tusc.] (prov. Siena) pt 543 [ph].

130 See also pt 545 Chiaveretto casent. (Subbiano, prov. Arezzo)  ø, pt 554 Cortona (prov. Arezzo)  ø.

131 Similarly in AIS 21 ‘il vostro nipote, i vostri nipoti/your grandchildren’ (no Gorgia is represented in Pisano and Aretino): Firenze (523) [th] (SG/PL) / [ph] (SG), Montespèrtoli (prov. Firenze) (532) [th] (SG), Barberino di Mugello (prov. Firenze) (515) [ph] [th] (SG), Incisa (prov. Firenze) (534) [th] (SG), Carmignano (prov. Firenze) (522/1) [th] (SG), Radda in Chianti (Centr. Tusc.) (prov. Siena) (543) [ph] (SG), Castagneto Carducci (prov. Livorno) (550) [th] (SG), Chiusdino ([Volt.] prov. Siena) (551) [th] (SG), Siena (552) [th] (SG), Faùglia ([Pis.] prov. Pisa) (541), Arezzo (544) ø.

132 Volt.= Volterrese < Volterra.

133 Paul Scheuermeier was a linguist. He was commissioned by his teachers Karl Jaberg and Jakob Jud to take part in the drafting of the Linguistic and Ethnographic Atlas of Italy and Southern Switzerland (AIS). These problems related to the transcription of the AIS data were pointed out by Arrigo Castellani (1960–80) and already by Clemente Merlo (see Merlo 1950: 253). However, Castellani (ib.) thinks that Merlo’s judgment was exaggerated in affirming that AIS data do not correspond to reality. Furthermore, Giannelli and Savoia (1978–80) downplay the criticism of Castellani on Scheuermeier’s transcriptions and give him credit for having identified a type of Gorgia combined with lenition (Voicing) (also typical of the Central Italy = Italia Mediana), which produces voiced fricative consonants as an intermediate result between different kinds of Gorgia depending on the area of Tuscany. This result (a degree of Gorgia expressed by voiced fricatives) is coherent with the Medieval situation we have described in the Tuscan areas having lenition (Voicing).

134 It should be also pointed out that the voiced outcomes of the Gorgia ([ɣ ð β ɦ]) are not always to be traced back to the typical lenition (Voicing) of the Tuscan areas described in Section 2, but it is rather a process of local Voicing assimilation to vowels, also dependent on the stylistic context and on the speaker’s speech rate.

135 See for the other transcriptions on this map: Firenze (523) [h], Incisa (prov. Firenze) (534) [th]/ [h], Montespèrtoli (prov. Firenze) (532) [th], Carmignano (prov. Firenze) (522/1) [th], Faùglia (prov. Pisa) (541), Siena (552) [h], Radda in Chianti ([Centr. Tusc.] prov. Siena) (543) [th], Chiusdino ([Volt.] prov. Siena) (551).

136 The Florentine emphatic aspiration is found in C.[th] map 357: Barberino di Mugello (prov. Firenze) pt 515, Firenze, pt 523, Radda in Chianti ([Centr. Tusc.] prov. Siena) pt 543.

137 See also AIS Maps 735, 742, 747, 748, 758, 759, 766, 770, 781, 785, 786, 792, 794, 800, 806, 808, 809, 811, 817, 820, 822, 837, 841. About Gorgia in strong position, more data are in Giannelli and Savoia (1978–1980).

138 In addition, Massa is also involved in the ApuanGarfagnano lenition/Voicing process. In the area of Versilia, Garfagnana and Massese, where Voicing also occurs with variants of the fricative [ɣ β ð], sporadic and due to speech rate.

139 This fact leads Castellani (1960–80: 192 and . 10) says: « Mi risulta che il raccoglitore dell’Atlante linguistico italiano (ALI), il compianto Ugo Pellis, avvertiva la spirantizzazione di t et p molto meno dello Scheuermeier/ It is my understanding that the collector of the Atlante linguistico italiano (ALI), the late Ugo Pellis, felt the spirantization of t et p much less than the Scheuermeier ».

140 Bottiglioni (1926) includes Corsican and Tuscan Voicing (even that in phonotactics) in the GalloItalic lenition; for us, however, Tuscan and Corsican Voicing is indigenous (Russo 2022b).

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 4,5k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 2,3k
Titre Figure 1 Map from Giannelli and Savoia (1978: 57): lenition–Voicing and Gorgia in Tuscany
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 106k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 4,4k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 136k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 80k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 3,0k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 7,6k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 5,7k
Titre Figure 2 Western Tuscan: Retention of voiceless /–k–/ Lt mica in Pisan vs. Lucchese <miga>
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-10.png
Fichier image/png, 124k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-11.png
Fichier image/png, 21k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-12.png
Fichier image/png, 17k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-13.png
Fichier image/png, 28k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-14.png
Fichier image/png, 6,7k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-15.png
Fichier image/png, 16k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-16.png
Fichier image/png, 6,7k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-17.png
Fichier image/png, 36k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-18.png
Fichier image/png, 6,0k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-19.png
Fichier image/png, 6,9k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-20.png
Fichier image/png, 2,0k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-21.png
Fichier image/png, 8,3k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-22.png
Fichier image/png, 2,8k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-23.png
Fichier image/png, 998 octets
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-24.png
Fichier image/png, 4,6k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-25.png
Fichier image/png, 9,2k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-26.png
Fichier image/png, 8,7k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-27.png
Fichier image/png, 9,1k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-28.png
Fichier image/png, 8,9k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-29.png
Fichier image/png, 5,3k
Titre Figure 3 Glottalized [–k–] in vCv position before back vowel [i ˈha:ni] ‘i cani/the dogs’ < Lt cane AIS 1097
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 172k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-31.png
Fichier image/png, 11k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-32.png
Fichier image/png, 3,1k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-33.png
Fichier image/png, 3,5k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-34.png
Fichier image/png, 14k
Titre Figure (4) OVI <Harta> = [ˈkarta] Phrase–Initial (Pratese) #C_
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-35.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 10k
Titre Figure (5) OVI <è harta> = [ˈkarta] W1 = RS trigger
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-36.png
Fichier image/png, 1016 octets
Titre Figure (6) <h> generalized for <c> and <cc> in RS contexts W1 = <a> < Lt ad /acv/
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-37.png
Fichier image/png, 1,7k
Titre Figure (7) Initial onset of Word2 <h> = [k] (within an RS sequence W1W2):
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-38.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 10k
Titre Figure 8. AIS 357 ‘lontano/far’ (Emphatic Gorgia) – post–coda position/Strong position
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-39.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 112k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-40.png
Fichier image/png, 3,1k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/linx/docannexe/image/9107/img-41.png
Fichier image/png, 42k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Michela Russo, « Locality domains on Lenition. Spirantization (Gorgia) and Voicing in Tuscan dialects »Linx [En ligne], 84 | 2022, mis en ligne le 30 août 2022, consulté le 24 avril 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/linx/9107 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.9107

Haut de page

Auteur

Michela Russo

UJML 3 and UMR 7023 SFL CNRS/U. Paris 8

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search