RESULTADOS Y DISCUSIÓN
4.12 Didáctica de la Filosofía
4.12.1.4 Algunas propuestas con relación a los controles de lectura
McCarthy (1993) provides an Optimality Theoretic account of the non-rhotic variety of English spoken in Boston (Eastern Massachusetts). Linking and intrusive r occur after [a, 3,3] and before a vowel initial word. McCarthy illustrates this with the following data.
(13)
a. r loss
The spa seems to be broken The spaf seems to be broken. He put the tuna down He put the tune/ down. The boat tends to yaw some. You're somewhat older. b. r Intrusion r Linking
The spar is broken. The spar is broken. He put the tunar away. He put the tuner away.
The boat'll yawr a little. You're a little older. (McCarthy 1993:170)
McCarthy assumes that /r/ is underlying in forms such as spar, tuner and are and that this underlying r is deleted when it is not followed by a vowel initial morpheme.
Intrusive r cases on, the other hand, lack underlying r and are subject to r-insertion. The picture is according to McCarthy far from straightforward however.
(14) r linking after function words
They're eating. Tom and I are eating. Tom and I were eating. One answer was...
Their answer was... He didn't give her any trouble ...for any reason... ...either apples or oranges... After all... Under any circumstances.
(McCarthy 1993:175) Although linking r can occur after function words as in (14) above, the pattern of r
intrusion is more complex.
(15) Lack of r Intrusion after Function Words a.Modal + reduced have
should have (shoulda), could have (coulda), might have (mighta).
He shoulda eaten. [Jüdo(*r) ij?3n] b.Verb + reduced to
going to (gonna), want(s) to (wanna, wantsta), ought to (oughta), have/has to (hafta, hasta),
got to (gotta), used to (useta), supposed to (supposta) I'm gonna ask Adrian [ajq gon3(*r) æsk ejdrijon]
W e're supposed to eat now. [wij 3 sspow s t3(*r) ij? now]
c.Auxiliary + reduced you
did you, should you, would you, could you Did you answer him [dic^3(*r) æ nssr im W ould you ask for me? [w3c^3(*r) æsk fs mij] d. reduced to, so, by
To add to his troubles [ts(*r) æd t3(*r)iz trsblz] to Ed [t3(*r)sd]
e. Reduced do
f.Reduced of
It was quarter of eight [it woz kwotor o(*r) ejt] a lotta apples [o bto(*r) æpolz]
(McCarthy 1993: 173) In the above examples there is no r intrusion after these function words unless they occur phrase finally.
(16) r Intrusion After Phrase-Final Function Words: I said I was gonnar and I did.
Did you or didn't you? [dic^oro didon jo] We oughtar if we're asked.
We shouldar, I guess, gotten more charcoal. If you haftar. I'll help.
(McCarthy 1993: 176)
So what is it about phrase internal function words that prohibits intrusive r? Before we consider this question we should consider the theory in which this question is being addressed. McCarthy takes an Optimality approach to this problem. In essence Optimality Theory assumes that a number of candidates are produced by GEN. The
t k e . I M f iO r - t c w f c r
selected candidate which is then the output is the one that violates^least/constraints. The goal of Optimality Theory is to determine the rankings for these constraints.'^
McCarthy argues that one of the constraints involved in the account of r-sandhi is the constraint FINAL-C.
(17) FINAL-C *V)PrWd
(McCarthy 1993: 176)
This constraint states that a prosodic word cannot end in a vowel, r-intrusion occurs to prevent violations of this constraint. But why is r intrusion impossible unless the function word is phrase final? McCarthy argues that forms such as to are recognised as proclitics. If to in to Ed has been procliticised onto Ed then it is no longer at the end of a prosodic word and so no violation arises. According to M cCarthy (1993: 177), Selkirk argues that there is one condition under which procliticisation fails to take place and that is phrase finally. She argues that procliticisation in phrase final position would violate the proper bracketing required by the prosodic hierarchy.
McCarthy posits that a second constraint is required to account for the data: (18) CODA-COND
*V rX ]a
(McCarthy 1993: 172) This constraint states that r cannot occur in a coda. But notice that these constraints make conflicting demands. FINAL C reflects the fact that words apparently like to end in consonants or glides and CODA-COND that r is banned from coda position. One of the tenets of Optimality theory is that conflicts such as this "lie at the heart of phonological description" (McCarthy (1993: 182). To resolve such a conflict one has to work out the ranking of the constraints within the system concerned.
(19) FINAL-C CODA-COND 1. wanda left *! 2. —> wandar left * 3. Homer left *! 4. —> Homer left *
The tableau in (19) gives one possible ranking of the two constraints. The solid vertical line dividing the two constraints means that FINAL-C is crucially ranked above CODA-
COND which means that any violation of FINAL-C is fatalT The ranking given in the tableau above gives rise to the selection of incorrect outputs, therefore the correct ranking of the constraints must be CODA-COND » > F IN A L -C . The tableau in (20) gives this ranking and shows that the correct outputs are selected.
(
20
) CODA-COND FINAL-C 1. —> wanda left * 2. wandar left *! 3. Homer left *! 4. —> Home/ left *Finally, in an appendix, McCarthy discusses the issue of why it is /r/ that surfaces rather than any other consonant. He considers the possibility that Gén/. produces ■ so one of the candidates for Wanda would be [wanda#] and that this empty position is spelled out phonetically. But although this would work if /r/ was the default consonant in English, McCarthy acknowledges that it is not and that a rule is required to epenthesise the /r/.’^
This in essence is the Optimality account of r-sandhi. There are a number of points to make about this account. First of all, although McCarthy appears to have tied intrusive r to the vowel set in that it appears after 'true vowel final words only', Intrusive r is treated as a different phenomenon from linking r and yet both occurrences of r are tied to the same restricted vowel set. McCarthy (1993) comments that the linking and intrusive r are
" Constraint violation is represented by * and a fatal violation is represented by !. McCarthy (1993; 190) defines 'rule' as
phonetically distinct from the r in red for example, and to account for this he assumes that this is a consequence of their junctural ambisyllabicity. But why should this guarantee that an inserted r would be identical to one type but not the other type of underlying r? We might rather expect the linking r to be identical to the prevocalic underlying r in red. The fact that, even in the case described by him, linking and intrusive r are phonetically the same actually suggests that they have more in common than McCarthy's account suggests. In addition, there is the point which McCarthy acknowledges himself: why should it be an r that is inserted in the r intrusion cases?^^
On the matter of the peculiar distribution of r intrusion, we may compare Boston English with Durham English for example. Durham English exhibits mid phrasal r intrusion (21) I'm going to have a go [am gow in?3j ava go:]
He was sensible enough to have something to eat. [i: WDZ sensibl in o f? 3 ja v som 0in?3J i:t]
driving into England [djaivin i n ?3J iggland]
This suggests that in British English function words are encliticised. In fact there is abundant evidence in British English to support encliticisation of forms such as to.
Compare going to [gowmZa] and to go [ta go] The initial t of to cannot glottal, however in going to it can. Leslie (1983) claims that the reason /t/ can glottal in the latter case is that the to has encliticised onto the preceding word. If such forms do exhibit
encliticisation then the to, for example, is prosodic word-final. In British English at least, function words such as to are e n c litic s.A lth o u g h British English varieties may differ from American varieties in terms of cliticisation, notice that in a phrase such as He was
We should not lose sight of the fact that to require a phonological rule seriously undermines Optimality Theory itself.
sensible enough to have something to eat [i; w d z sensibl inuf?9Jav sum 0in?3ji:t], the
occurrences of r intrusion are very noticeable. Could it be this salience which is the true cause of their absence in Boston English? That is, is r intrusion in such forms subject to sociolinguistic suppression in Boston English?