Liaison (French)


Liaison is the pronunciation of a latent word-final consonant immediately before a following vowel sound. Technically, it is a type of external sandhi, which is disrupted in pausa.
In French, most written word-final consonants are no longer pronounced and are known as latent or mute. For example, the letter s in the word les is generally silent, but it is pronounced in the combination les amis'', 'the friends', due to the following word beginning with a vowel. In certain syntactic environments, liaison is impossible; in others, it is mandatory; in others still, it is possible but not mandatory and its realization is subject to wide stylistic variation.

Classification

Liaison operates in word sequences whose components are closely linked by sense, e.g., article + noun, adjective + noun, personal pronoun + verb, and so forth. This would seem to indicate liaison is primarily active in high-frequency word associations. Liaison is a form of vestigial enchainement since both involve a follow-through between a final consonant and an initial vowel. However, what is particularly distinct for both liaison and enchainement is that the final consonant in both cases re-syllabifies with the following vowel. Liaison is therefore an external sandhi phenomenon, that is, a phonological process occurring at word boundaries. Specifically, it is a form of consonant epenthesis and generally, though not always, involves resyllabification.
Like elision, it can be characterized functionally as a euphonic strategy for avoiding hiatus. This type of analysis is called a synchronic approach. This approach does not explain cases where the first word already ends in a consonant, such as telsamis, and is therefore already perfectly euphonic.
It is also possible to analyse liaison diachronically. With this approach, the liaison consonant has always been there since the days of Latin, and has merely been elided in other contexts over time. So, the s pronounced in mes amis can be seen as simply preserving the s that was always pronounced in meos amicos. Seen in this way, it is mes frères that is exceptional, having lost the s that was pronounced in meos fratres.

Realization of liaison

The silent final consonants of certain words can be pronounced, in certain syntactic contexts, when the following word begins with a vowel or non-aspirated H. Since the sound thus obtained is an ancient one, spellings that are based on the etymology of the word may not reflect the real pronunciation.
For example, final consonants are pronounced as follows in the case of liaison :
As indicated in the phonetic representations above, liaison consonants are typically realized with enchainement – that is, the originally word-final consonant is pronounced as the onset of the following syllable. Enchainement is also observed for stable word-final consonants when followed by a vowel-initial word in connected speech, as in cher ami . In both cases, enchainement can be seen as a strategy for avoiding syllables without onsets in French.

Liaison on French numerals

The numbers cinq, six, sept, huit, dix and vingt follow some different rules:
The numeral vingt is pronounced when followed by any numeral from 1 to 9; e.g. vingt-six . However, numerals from quatre-vingts to quatre-vingt-dix-neuf do not receive liaison on vingt, neither quatre-vingt-un , nor quatre-vingt-onze .
In old times, numeral neuf also had a latent f according to the latter mentioned rules, but now, f is always pronounced:

Constraints on liaison

The primary requirement for liaison at a given word boundary is of course the phonological or lexical identity of the words involved: The preceding word must supply a potential liaison consonant and the following word must be vowel-initial, and the two words must not be separated by a prosodic break. The actual realization of liaison, however, is subject to interacting syntactic, prosodic, and stylistic constraints.
Grammatical descriptions of French identify three kinds of liaison contexts: Those where liaison is mandatory, those where it is impossible, and those where it is optional. Pedagogical grammars naturally emphasize what is mandatory or forbidden, and these two categories tend to be artificially inflated by traditional prescriptive rules. Speakers' natural behavior in spontaneous speech shows that in fact relatively few contexts can be said to systematically give rise to, or fail to give rise to, liaison. Any discussion of liaison must take both descriptive and prescriptive perspectives into account, because this is an area of French grammar where speakers can consciously control their linguistic behavior out of an awareness of how their speech diverges from what is considered "correct".

Mandatory liaison

There are a small number of contexts where speakers consistently produce liaison in all speech styles, and where the absence of liaison is immediately perceived as an error of pronunciation. These are the contexts where liaison is truly mandatory:
Note that the first two contexts also require mandatory vowel elision for the relevant determiners and pronouns
The following contexts are often listed as mandatory liaison contexts, but they are more accurately characterized as contexts where liaison is frequent:
Specific instances of these combinations reveal varying tendencies. For certain lexical items, speakers may have a preference for liaison approaching that of the mandatory liaison contexts.

Liaison on inverted verbs

The consonant is obligatorily realized between the finite verb and a vowel-initial subject pronoun , elle in inversion constructions. Orthographically, the two words are joined by a hyphen, or by -t- if the verb does not end in -t or -d:
uninverted forminverted formtranslation
elle dort dort-elle she sleeps
il vend vend-il he sells
ils parlent parlent-ils they speak
on parle parle-t-on one speaks

The written linking consonant -t- is necessary for 3rd person singular verbs whose orthographic form ends in a letter other than -t or -d. This situation arises in the following cases:
The appearance of this consonant in modern French can be described as a restoration of the Latin 3rd person singular ending -t, under the influence of other French verbs that have always maintained final -t.
The earliest examples of this analogical t in writing date to the mid-15th century, although this practice was not fully accepted by grammarians until the 17th century.
When the first-person singular present tense form of the indicative or subjunctive is found in inversion, the writer must change the final e to either é or è, in order to link the two words : Parlè-je ?,, "Am I speaking?"
uninverted forminverted formtranslation
je parle parlè-je?, parlé-je I speak
je parlasse parlassè-je?, parlassé-je I might speak
j'ouvre ouvrè-je?, ouvré-je I open
j'ouvrisse ouvrissè-je?, ouvrissé-je I might open

Liaison on imperative verbs

Imperative verbs followed by en and y always acquire liaison, /z‿ɑ̃/ and /z‿i/ respectively.
conjugationtranslation
parles-en talk about it!
dors-y sleep there/here!

The imperative suffixes moi + en and moi + y give as a result m’en and m’y, and analogically toi + en and toi + y become t’en and t’y. However, in colloquial speech the expressions moi-z-en, toi-z-en; moi-z-y and toi-z-y have become widespread. The possible reason for this phonological trend is because it follows the same logic, in which all verbs ending on en and y always use the liaison /z‿/, like in parles-en /paʁlz‿ɑ̃/, vas-y /vɑz‿i/.
standard formunstandard formtranslation
donnes-en /dɔnz‿ɑ̃/-give some of it!
donnez-en /dɔnez‿ɑ̃/-give some of it!
donnons-en /dɔ.nɔ̃z‿ɑ̃/-let's give some of it!
donne-m’en /dɔn.mɑ̃/donne-moi-z-en /dɔn.mwɑ‿z‿ɑ̃/, donnes-en-moi /dɔnz‿ɑ̃.mwa/give me some of it!
donne-lui-en /dɔn.lɥi.ɑ̃/donne-lui-z-en /dɔn.lɥi‿z‿ɑ̃/, donnes-en-lui /dɔnz‿ɑ̃.lɥi/give to him/her some of it!

Impossible liaison

There are other contexts where speakers produce liaison only erratically, and perceive liaison to be ungrammatical.
In fixed expressions, singular nouns can allow liaison.
Grammars mention other contexts where liaison is "forbidden", despite the fact that speakers sometimes do produce them spontaneously.
All remaining contexts can be assumed to allow liaison optionally, although exhaustive empirical studies are not yet available. Preferences vary widely for individual examples, for individual speakers, and for different speech styles. The realization of optional liaisons is a signal of formal register, and pedagogical grammars sometimes turn this into a recommendation to produce as many optional liaisons as possible in "careful" speech. The conscious or semi-conscious application of prescriptive rules leads to errors of hypercorrection in formal speech situations.
Conversely, in informal styles, speakers will semi-consciously avoid certain optional liaisons in order not to sound "pedantic" or "stilted". Other liaisons lack this effect. For example, Ilsont attendu is less marked than tu asattendu, and neither liaison is likely to be realized in highly informal speech On the other hand, the liaison in pasencore can be either present or absent in this register.

Liaison errors

As can be seen, liaison, outlined above, is only mandatory in rare cases. The omission of such a liaison would be considered an error, not simply as taking liberties with the rule. In cases of optional liaison, the omission is common, and liaison appears only in careful speech.
On the other end, producing a liaison where one is impossible is perceived as an error. For example, pronouncing a liaison consonant instead of respecting hiatus before an aspirated h is taken to indicate an uncultivated or unsophisticated speaker. While all speakers know the rule, they may have incomplete knowledge about which words it must apply to. The effect is less noticeable with rare words, which many speakers may not spontaneously identify as aspirated h words.
Errors due to hypercorrection or euphony are also observed: a liaison is pronounced where it does not exist ainsi, or where it is impossible even by spelling, as with moi . This phenomenon is called pataquès.
In rare cases, these liaisons may be conserved by the language and become mandatory, such as in the imperative forms donne-z-en which becomes simply donnes-en "give some " or va-z-y which becomes simply vas-y "go ", where the second-person singular imperative forms normally lack final -s.
Otherwise, they are perceived in the same way as omissions of disjunction, suggesting an "uncultivated" speaker or extremely informal speech. Such an error is sometimes called cuir when the inserted consonant is, velours when it is, although dictionaries do not all agree on these terms:
The reading of poetry requires that all liaisons be used, even those of -es in the second-person singular as well as the reading of all necessary "null es". The reading of the liaisons affects the number of syllables pronounced, hence is of chief importance for the correct pronunciation of a verse. French-speakers tend as much as possible to avoid a hiatus or a succession of two consonants between two words, in a more or less artificial way.
The Académie Française considers careful pronunciation to be necessary in a formal setting. The voice is a tool of persuasion: it reflects, through a pronunciation perceived as correct, intellectual qualities, culture, self-control, and wit. However, pushed too far, the over-proliferation of liaisons can render a speech ridiculous. It has been pointed out that French politicians and speakers pronounce some liaison consonants, independently of the following word, introducing a pause or a schwa afterwards. For example, ils ont entendu is normally pronounced or, in more careful speech,. A speaker using this "politician" pronunciation would say | . One might even hear ils ont décidé pronounced | or . In the first example, we have liaison without enchainement, not the normal configuration in ordinary speech. In the second, the liaison is completely non-standard, since it introduces a liaison consonant before another consonant.

Mechanics of liaison

French liaison and enchainement are essentially the same external sandhi process, where liaison represents the fixed, grammaticalized remnants of the phenomenon before the fall of final consonants, and enchainement is the regular, modern-day continuation of the phenomenon, operating after the fall of former final consonants. The process is the movement of final consonants across word boundaries to initial position in vowel-initial words so as to better conform to the French language's preference for open syllables, i.e., V, CV, or CCV, especially where two vowels might otherwise link together. Whereas enchainement occurs in all places in a sentence, liaison is restricted to within sense units and are strictly forbidden across these intonational boundaries. This implies that liaison, like enchainement, is restricted by open juncture, and in general, resyllabified consonants maintain their articulatory traits as if not in onset position. This difference helps French-speakers distinguish between liaised consonants, pronounced as if before open juncture, and regular onset consonants, pronounced as if before closed juncture.

Medieval consonants

For example, the word grand is written grant in medieval manuscripts. The orthography of that age was more phonetic; the word was in all likeliness pronounced, with an audible final, at least until the twelfth century. When that consonant became mute, the word continued to be written grant, and then became grand by influence of its Latin etymology grandis, with a new feminine form grande. The current spelling with a final mute d allows to better show the alternation between grand and grande, as well as the lexical relation to grandeur, grandir, grandiloquent, etc. The root grand is written thus regardless of whether the d is pronounced, or mute in order for its derivatives to have a single graphic identity, which facilitates memorization and reading.
However, the ancient final of grand did not cease to be pronounced when the following word began with a vowel and belonged to the same sense unit. Effectively, the consonant was no longer pronounced at the end of the word, but at the beginning of the next. Now an initial consonant rather than a final one, it did not undergo the same sound changes, so it continued to be pronounced.
Bearing in mind that stress in French falls on the final full syllable of a word, or of a group of words when they are bound grammatically, this situation can be symbolized as follows :
This has to do with what the hearer considers to be a word. If grand homme is analyzed as, the ear in fact understands, a continuous group of phonemes whose tonic accent signals that they form a unit. It is possible to make a division as instead of. Then this will no longer be felt to be a final consonant but a pre-stress intervocalic consonant, and therefore it will resist the deletion that it would undergo if it were at the end of a stressed syllable. It can however undergo other modifications thereafter.
The written form, though, was adapted to criteria that are not phonetic, but etymological : where grand is written, is pronounced in front of certain vowels, without that being really awkward: the maintenance of the visual alternation -d ~ -de is more productive.
The other cases are explained in a similar fashion: sang, for example, was pronounced in Old French, but the final -g has replaced the -c in order to recall the Latin etymology, sanguis, and derivatives like sanguinaire, sanguin. Currently this liaison is almost never heard except sometimes in the expression "suer sang et eau". Outside those, the hiatus is tolerated.
Finally, the case of -s and -x pronounced in liaison is explained differently. One must be aware, firstly, that word-final -x is a medieval shorthand for -us . The sound noted -s and -x was a hard, which did not remain in French after the twelfth century, but which was protected from complete elision when the following word began with a vowel. However, in French, such is voiced and becomes .

Note

If the final -t of grant was kept in the Middle Ages in spite of the disappearance of the corresponding, it is because there existed, along with this form, others like grants, wherein the was heard, protected from elision by the following. The ancient orthography rendered this alternation visible before another one replaced it. Indeed, it would be false to state that the orthography of Old French did not follow usage, or that it was without rules.

Fluctuating usages

From the sixteenth century onward, it was common for grammarians who wished to describe the French language or discuss its orthography to write documents in a phonetic alphabet. From some of these documents, we can see that the liaisons have not always been pronounced as they are today.
For example, the Prayer by Gilles Vaudelin, probably representative of oral language, maybe rural, of the time, shows the absence of the following liaisons :
The linking of a word-final consonant to a vowel beginning the word immediately following it also forms a regular part of the phonetics of other languages, including Spanish, Hungarian, and Turkish. Thus, in Spanish, the phrase los hombres is pronounced, Hungarian az ember as, and Turkish nefret ettim as. In Italian, a final sound can be moved to the next syllable in enchainement, sometimes with a gemination: e.g., non ne ho mai avuti is broken into syllables as and io ci vado e lei anche is realized as.