LINGUIST List 2.755

Tue 05 Nov 1991

Disc: Phonology: R-linking, Invariance

Editor for this issue: <>

Directory

  • David Stampe, 2.754 R-Linking
  • , r-linking
  • Ellen Kaisse, invariance
  • , Re: 2.754 R-Linking

    Message 1: 2.754 R-Linking

     Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 05:22:35 -1000
    From: David Stampe <stampeuhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
    Subject: 2.754 R-Linking
    Then cried the American poet where she lay supine: `My name is Purrel; I was caast before swine." -- Stevie Smith The analysis seems to need spelling out in more detail: So-called linking or intrusive r is not due to a process or rule at all, but due to the reanalysis of final lax V as /Vr/. This happens because the phonetic process that changes final and codal /Vr/ (where V happens to be lax) to [V] or [V:] or [V] (details differ by dialect) removes any contrast between these V(:) and Vr except word finally before a vowel-initial word, e.g. saw Alf vs ignore Alf. However, for various reasons, the constrast is anything but clear. Glottal stop [?] can be inserted before a vowel-initial word, esp. an accented one, and since such insertions precede deletions, then, as one respondent noted, r is often deleted especially before accented vowels: ign[Or] Alf -> ign[Or] ?Alf -> ign[O:] ?Alf, exactly like s[O:] ?Alf. If the ? is deleted, since deletions are simultaneous, r-deletion occurs anyway: ign[Or] ?Alf ==> ign[O:] Alf. If no contrast is observed between the lax vowels (V or V: or V) and Vr, and if one can be predicted from the other by an exceptionless natural process like r-deletion, then in any phonological theory, there is no warrant for positing a lexical difference between them. Naturally Vr must be taken as basic, and the lax vowels as derivative. Only /Vr/, never (V or V: or V) occur in lexical representations. So words like Cuba and saw are analyzed as /kyubr/ and /sOr/. Only from a diachronic viewpoint does it seem that an r has been inserted, e.g. in saw it [sOrit]. Synchronically it simply isn't deleted before V. Respondents who argued that spellings like Eeyore or Marmie do not prove that the underlying representations have /r/ missed the point: traditional spellings like Cuba and saw are even less convincing that that they DON'T have /r/, if they are treated exactly like copper and soar. And what argument is there, except a complacent acceptance of standard pronunciation and spelling, for the assumption, against every objective principle of linguistic analysis, that r-insertion is synchronic? Why, beside the natural process Vr -> V(:) before non-V should there also be a superfluous and "crazy" rule V(:) -> Vr before V when Vr and V(:) don't even contrast in the dialects in question! To Alexis Manaster-Ramer's insistence that r-intrusion refutes "the original, and interesting, claim of [natural phonology, which] was precisely that automatic processes are exactly those which can be INDEPENDENTLY shown to be natural (phonetically motivated, found in the speech of children who ultimately lose them, attested in many different languages and at different times, etc.)", I can only reply that the equation of automatic alternations with natural processes is Alexis's own idea, and that his arguments against it seem entirely convincing.

    Message 2: r-linking

     Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 09:24:02 CST
    From: <GA3662SIUCVMB.BITNET>
    Subject: r-linking
    Let me try to take another run at the claim that David (and Patricia) are making. The claim is that there *is* no rule of r-linking. Instead there is a process of r-deletion that operates only in codas. This is a natural process not because it is automatic but because speakers of r-less dialects find it hard, if not impossible to make coda r's. When `linking r's' are heard they are not inserted, they are simply resyllabified to the onset of the next syllable. Etymologically incorrect linking r's are also underlying--words like `Cuba' and `tuber' are perfect rhymes in those dialects with `linking r-s'. In answer to Alexis let me point out what I believe to be additional evidence that r-deletion is a natural process: r-type approximants are extremely rare in the languages of the world--Maddieson's collection lists 11 alveolars and 15 retroflexes out of 317. In English (at least--someone perhaps could check for Mandarin--the only easily available language with the same sound) /r/ is the last or second-last acquired by most children, and absence often seems to be a stereotyped marker of a speech defect. Thus at least two additional tests for naturalness--rarity of a sound in general, and lateness in acquisition are met. It seems to me that, for those who have it, r-deletion meets the best test for a natural process--it's hard not to do it unless either 1) you are a linguist or 2) you make a way-back post-retroflex arrr (the way my RP-speaking uncle does when he's making fun of Amerrrricans). While I do not speak Dutch, I suspect that the coda n-deletion process in (I believe) unstressed syllables referred to by Jack Hoeksema may have the same status. Certainly loss of syllable- final n is widely attested in the languages of the world, and the situation may simply mirror that of English. Of course, the rarity and lateness of acquisition arguments don't apply here. There may well be automatic *rules* as well, but, for example a/an is a little suspicious--people are perfectly happy saying `a sofa and chairs' so it would be interesting to see how hard people find it to say `a apple'. Geoff Nathan Southern Illinois University at Carbondale GA3662SIUCVMB

    Message 3: invariance

     Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 09:22:56 -0800
    From: Ellen Kaisse <kaisseu.washington.edu>
    Subject: invariance
    One of the nicer arguments for using the same phonological feature for segments that differ noticeably among languages is Pat Keating's discussion of the feature [voice]. It's in Language, in the mid- eighties, I believe. She argues that phonologically [+voiced] segments in different languages tend to induce and undergo the same phonological processes, even if they differ appreciably in Voicing Onset Time. Thus, the [+voice] segments of a language might induce lengthening in a preceding vowel, even if these segments overlap in VOT with theVoice segments of some other language. The very same VOT in that second language, being phonologically classified as [-voice], will not induce lengthening. -ellen kaisse university of washington (kaisseu.washington.edu)

    Message 4: Re: 2.754 R-Linking

    Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:01:46 PST
    From: <rwojcikatc.boeing.com>
    Subject: Re: 2.754 R-Linking
    Alexis and I do have disagreements, but it sometimes takes a while to discover just what they are. I criticized him for claiming that Stampe's r-linking analysis had anything to do with automaticity. Alexis responded: > OBVIOUSLY, Stampe does not raise this issue, because there is no > issue. If r-linking were NOT automatic, there would be no difficultu > fitting it into the framework of Natural Phonology... Well then, the automaticity criterion is one Alexis imposed on Stampe's logic. Processes are indeed automatic, but there is no stipulation in the theory that Rules cannot be. In fact, Stampe has always put caveats on his statements about how Rules behave. Natural Phonology is a theory about Processes, not about Rules. The problem with David's position--that he doesn't have to say much about the nature of Rules--is that people judge his theory on the basis of how well they understand the dichotomy. And to understand the Rule/Process dichotomy, you need a well-grounded theory of morphonological Rules. The two go hand-in-hand, as I believe this little tempest on R-linking demonstrates. I agree with Alexis that R-linking has been used a counter-example to the naturalness of Processes: > My point was and is that Natural Phonology ceases to be a testable > theory as soon as we start claiming that a process is "natural" > the moment we discover that it is automatic... (I would use 'operation' rather than 'process' as a neutral term here.) And my point to Alexis was that *he* was the one raising this issue, not Stampe. I agree with him that others have tended to construe Natural Phonology in this way and that this has caused them to believe that a counterexample existed in these cases. > The original, and interesting, claim of this theory was > precisely that automatic processes are exactly those which can > be INDEPENDENTLY shown to be natural... > R-linking (and a number of other examples) have been cited for > years as counterexamples to this universal. There has been no > response, beyond the current proposal to emasculate the theory > by saying that we can set up whatever underlying representations > we want, so as to get the process in question to come out looking > natural... First of all, Stampe's derhoticization analysis constitutes an answer to the R-linking criticism. Alexis criticizes him for making no response for years and then blows up at him when he provides the analysis. Stampe showed how one would handle R-linking in his theory. The confusing thing about his explanation, in my mind, is what he means by "underlying". Here is my interpretation: the /r/ either exists in the lexicon or it is placed in the speech stream by an automatic morphonological operation. As I pointed out in my last note, it is possible to consider the /r/ "derived" in a morphonological sense. All Stampe is saying is that R-insertion, whether it exists or not, is not phonological. Derhoticization is phonological. -Rick Wojcik (rwojcikatc.boeing.com)