LINGUIST List 2.707

Fri 25 Oct 1991

Disc: R-Linking

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

  • Joe Stemberger, Re: 2.692 Phonology, Pauses, R-linking
  • David Stampe, 2.681 R-linking
  • Jim Scobbie, R-linking

    Message 1: Re: 2.692 Phonology, Pauses, R-linking

    Date: Tue, 22 Oct 91 18:20 CDT
    From: Joe Stemberger <STEMBERGER%ELLVAXvx.acs.umn.edu>
    Subject: Re: 2.692 Phonology, Pauses, R-linking
    In a comment on r-linking, Geoffrey Russom states that: >My understanding is that you get r-linking primarily to avoid a hiatus >between vowels. With tense "u," there's an off-glide "w" to avoid the >hiatus, so it's not surprising to find that Ellen doesn't get r-linking >in that environment. This is assuming that [uw] occurs in English. In almost all dialects of English, whether British or North American, the vowel is actually pronounced [u:]. This has been recognized for more than 30 years by phoneticians studying English. There are SOME dialects that have [uw], but they are relatively uncommon and "nonstandard" (on both sides of the Atlantic). The reason that transcriptions with [uw] are so common is that it was the preferred transcription of the American Structuralists. They pointed out that English mid-vowels are diphthongized, so that treating the high vowels as diphthongized fit the pattern of English better than treating the high vowels as long. Such patterning is no longer of great concern to most phonologists, but [uw] and [iy] have been retained in transcriptions out of tradition. As far as r-linking goes, though, it would be useful to know whether the dialect in question is one of those relatively uncommon dialects that does in fact have a diphthong. If so, then Geoffrey Russom's comments would provide a possible explanation. But if not ... ---joe stemberger

    Message 2: 2.681 R-linking

     Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 05:43:09 -1000
    From: David Stampe <stampeuhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
    Subject: 2.681 R-linking
    Isn't "intrusive r" just an underlying /r/? That's the analysis that Patricia Donegan describes in a forthc. book on historical phonology ed. by Ch. Jones. Intrusive r occurs only in dialects of the UK, US, Oz, NZ, that that de-rhoticize /r/ to [schwa] (syllabic or not) in syllable-rimes, so that the distinction between /r/ and /schwa/ is manifested only finally before a vowel, e.g. `copper is' vs `Cuba is'. If learners miss such rare examples as these, the distribution of [r] and [schwa] will seem complementary, and it is fully accounted for by analyzing all [schwa]s as de-rhoticized allophones of /r/. On this re-analysis, the reason for "intrusive r" being heard in `Cuba[r] is', as well as in `coppe[r] is', is simply because Cuba also ends in /r/. The same analysis extends to [schwa]s that arise in some of these dialects by the centering diphthongization of low or lax vowels as in saw, pa, baa, yeah. If `saw' [s.O.schwa] is analyzed as de-rhoticized /s.O.r/, then `sawing', where de-rhoticization is blocked by the following vowel, naturally will be pronounced [s.O.r.I.eng]. In some dialects and speech styles, nonsyllabic [schwa]s are fully assimilated to certain preceding vowels, i.e. deleted. This is true both of the [schwa] from historical /r/ as in `soar' and of the [schwa] from diphthongization as in `saw'. If both are analyzed as /s.O.r/, the complete phonetic convergence of `soar' and `saw' as [s.O(:)], and `soaring' and `sawing` as [s.O.r.I.eng] is explained. (A slightly different analysis, better for speakers who pronounce etymological and intrusive r as [schwa.r] before vowels, instead of just [r], would be that [schwa] is analyzed as a diphthongal phoneme /schwa.r/, paralleling /a.r/ in `car', /a.y/ in `eye', etc. The point remains that the "intrusive r" is synchronically basic, not inserted.) The hypothesis that intrusive r is actually an underlying r seems to fit the facts better than the alternative hypotheses I know of, viz (1) Analysis of intrusive [r] as a "linking" sound (a consonant inserted to avoid vocalic hiatus). Besides not explaining why a rhotic should be used when the adjacent sounds aren't rhotic, this also does not explain why intrusive r occurs only in dialects with de-rhoticization: this is not normally a condition on "linking" sounds: for example, glottal stop is used in hiatus in English and other languages with no corresponding glottal-deletion process. (2) Analysis (e.g. by Bill Labov) of intrusive r as due to false analogy or hypercorrection: soa' : soaring :: saw : X This fails to account for the fact that intrusive r is regular, and not just randomly distributed among individual lexical items. (3) Analysis (by Theo Vennemann) of intrusive r as "rule reversal": Beside the phonetically motivated process r --> schwa / __Vowel speakers posit a complementary, distributionally motivated rule schwa --> r / __nonVowel This avoids the problems of analyses 1 and 2, but it introduces another: if the r is inserted by a phonetically unmotivated rule, why do intrusive-r speakers say that it is as difficult (some say more difficult) to avoid [r] in `I saw it' as it is to pronounce [r] in `I hear them'? The hypothesis that /r/ is already there in underlying representation would explain this: it's hard not to say /r/ in `I saw it' if /r/ is in what you're trying to say in the first place! More technically, it's well known that glottal insertion blocks the "insertion" of r: [ay sO(.schwa) ?Ed] `I saw Ed' But phonetic processes don't block rules! The hypothesis that /r/ is there to begin with avoids such problems: glottal insertion (a fortition) would apply before de-rhoticization (a lenition), and therefore it could only feed de-rhoticization: /ay sOr Ed/ [ay sO(.schwa) ?Ed] `I saw Ed' /ay hIr Ed/ [ay hI.schwa ?Ed] `I hear Ed' The /r/-as-basic hypothesis is also supported by spellings like Eeyore for (H)ee(h)aw, or Marmie for Mommie, and also by the "hypercorrect" pronunciations, in rhotic dialects under the influence of prestigious non-rhotic dialects, of idear, vehercle, chester drawers, etc. David Stampe <stampeuhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, <stampeuhccux.bitnet>

    Message 3: R-linking

     Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 12:12:05 PDT
    From: Jim Scobbie <scobbieCsli.Stanford.EDU>
    Subject: R-linking
    >From: Geoffrey Russom <EL403015brownvm.brown.edu> >Subject: Re: 2.681 R-linking >My understanding is that you get r-linking primarily to avoid a hiatus >between vowels. With tense "u," there's an off-glide "w" to avoid the >hiatus, so it's not surprising to find that Ellen doesn't get r-linking >in that environment. Linking "-r" is also sometimes present word-finally >before a pause (my British grandmother said "akapulker" for >"Acapulco" even at the end of a sentence). But a word-final "-r" after >tense "u" amounts to a final consonant cluster [wr], which is so awkward >for English speakers that epenthesis or vowel shortening would be used to >correct it. My understanding of /r/ suggests the above is correct. I wonder though if the grandmother in question was in fact rhotic. As a rhotic speaker, I lack certain diphthongs associated with glide /r/ in non-rhotic dialects. For example I have no [i] diphthong, so 'idea' has a final [r]. 'Theatre' also has an extra [r]. We hear non-rhotic television, and have to construct the appropriate forms mentally, so for years I thought Gibraltar had *no* final [r] but that Chicago *did* have a medial [r]. Silly me. Wells in his 'Accents of English' talks about this stuff at interesting length. QUERY: for those speakers who have merged /r/ and /w/... what happens about /w/-/r/ insertion. I'd love to read a description of this. Some speakers I know have the very rounded /r/, a labio-dental approximant, and it's not merged with /w/, alwight? The case I'm interested in is a real /w/ /r/ merger. -- James M. Scobbie: Dept of Linguistics, Stanford University, CA 94305-2150