Keren Rice
University of Toronto
The liquids /l/ and /r/ are generally considered to bear a fixed relationship to one another, with the rhotic being more sonorant than the lateral. This relationship is often expressed as one of markedness. In this paper, I examine evidence for a universal markedness relationship between these liquids. Based on evidence from phonological processes of neutralization, epenthesis, and assimilation, I argue that there is not a fixed relationship between the liquids. Instead, which patterns as phonologically marked is determined on a language-particular basis. I further propose that this is not a property specific to liquids, but is a consequence of the nature of the contrast.
0 Introduction
The two most common liquids, generally phonemicized as /l/ and /r/, are often considered to bear a fixed relationship to one another, with the rhotic being more sonorant than the lateral (e.g., Selkirk 1982, Vennemann 1988, van der Torre 2003). This relationship is often expressed as one of markedness. In this paper, I examine evidence for a universal markedness relationship between these liquids, and I conclude that there is not a fixed relationship between them, but which patterns as phonologically marked is determined on a language-particular basis.
This paper forms part of a larger project on the role of markedness in a phonological system. Based on an investigation of a number of featural classes, it appears that emergence- of-the-unmarked diagnostics for markedness, namely neutralization and epenthesis, are in general not useful in revealing universal markedness relationships, but rather several factors intersect to determine actual phonetic output on a language-particular basis. It further appears that submergence-of-the-unmarked diagnostics, namely the patterning of targets and triggers in assimilation, are also not helpful in uncovering a single universally unmarked feature in the presence of a limited number of contrasts. In this paper, I place the patterning of liquids into this larger context.
Many diagnostics are proposed to ascertain whether a feature within a feature class patterns as marked or unmarked. To name just a few, marked features (or segments) are often characterized as less natural, more complex, more specific, less common, unexpected, not basic, and less stable, while unmarked features (or segments) are characterized as more
* Earlier version sof this paper were presented at the Workshop on Sonorants in Leiden in September 2003, at the Canadian Linguistic Association in May 2004, and at the Workshop on Liquids at the University of Toronto in July 2004. Thank you to the participants in those events for helpful questions and feedback.
natural, simpler, more general, expected, basic, and stable in comparison. In addition, marked features are often said to be implied by the unmarked feature, with unmarked features being required in an inventory if their marked counterpart is present. In terms of phonological patterning, the major topic to be discussed in this paper, marked features are considered to be subject to neutralization, unlikely to be epenthetic, and triggers of assimilation, while unmarked features are the targets of neutralization, likely to be epenthetic, and the targets of neutralization. These characteristics are discussed in more detail in Rice 1999, 2002, forthcoming; see also Avery and Rice 1989, de Lacy 2002, and Rice and Avery 2004 for general discussion. The phonological diagnostics in particular will be the focus of discussion in this paper.
1 The predictions
Assume that the phonological tests discussed in the above paragraph, neutralization, epenthesis, and target patterning, are valid diagnostics for determining the markedness relationship between features within a class. If there is a universal markedness relationship between the liquids /l/ and /r/, one would make three major predictions. First, if a single liquid is present in an inventory, it should be the unmarked one, and thus should be common cross-linguistically. Second, in an emergence-of-the-unmarked context, one liquid should occur to the exclusion of the other cross-linguistically. Thus neutralization contexts would favour one over the other, as would epenthesis. Finally, in submergence-of-the-unmarked contexts, consistent asymmetrical patterning between the liquids would be found cross- linguistically. For instance, given two segments A and B, one might expect A to assimilate but B, but not vice versa.
The remainder of the paper is devoted to testing these predictions.
2 Inventories and implication
It is often assumed that, in the absence of a contrast in an inventory, a segment with unmarked features will be present. For instance, voiceless obstruents are generally considered to be unmarked and it has often been noted that if a voiced obstruent is present in an inventory, its unvoiced counterpart is usually also present. de Lacy (2002: 287) puts this as follows: “the least marked element … can never be eliminated.” Thus, if there is a fixed markedness relationship between the liquids, one would expect that in an inventory with a single liquid, the less marked one would be present.
In examining inventories with a single liquid cross-linguistically, in some cases the liquid is phonemicized as a lateral and in some as a rhotic. The languages below are drawn from Maddieson 1984, and the numbers in parentheses represent the number assigned to the language by Maddieson.
(1) Languages with /r/ Languages with /l/
Maori (423) Polynesian Hawaiian (424) Polynesian
p t k p k /
f h
m n N m n
w r w l
Chauve (611) Central New Guinea Dani (613) Eastern New Guinea
t k p t k kw /
b d g
f s s
m n m n
w r j w l j
Based on the fact that inventories with a single liquid can have either /l/ or /r/, the conclusion can be drawn that inventories on their own provide no evidence for a fixed markedness relationship between lateral and rhotic since in some cases a rhotic is present and in others a lateral: neither is implied by the other. Nevertheless, tendencies exist. Maddieson (1984: 83) points out that “… languages having one liquid are more likely to have an r-sound (42) rather than a lateral (32). However, in a number of cases, both lateral and non-lateral allophones occur …”
The fact that different languages with a single liquid vary in which liquid is present is one indication that implication is not at work in the liquids. Another indication of this comes from the variation that is often found in the phonetic realization of a liquid in a language lacking a liquid contrast. Again citing Maddieson, “These fluctuations [between a lateral and a rhotic] appear, not unexpectedly, to be more frequent in languages with only one liquid”
(1984: 83). Maddieson is referring specifically to allophonic variation between lateral and non-lateral allophones of a liquid, and free variation is widely reported. Some examples of free variation are discussed below.
In Sentani (Papuan, Cowan 1965), the single liquid, phonemicized as /l/, varies freely between [l] and [r].
(2) Sentani (Cowan 1965)
p t k
f s
m n
w l y
Japanese has several sonorants, phonemicized as in (3). Vance (1987: 27-28) remarks that the /r/ has both rhotic and lateral pronunciations.
(3) Japanese sonorants (Mester and Itô 1989:274)
m n N
r
w y
Maori (Bauer 1993: 533) has a single liquid, a voiced lamino- or apico-alveolar tap with central or lateral release. In Hua (Papuan, Haiman 1980: 40), “The sounds /r/ and /l/ being in free variation in Hua, both will be arbitrarily represented in the orthography as /r/.”
Chamorro (Philippine; Topping 1973) is similar, where Topping reports that [r] and [l]
where in free variation prior to the introduction of Spanish loanwords. In Yimas (Papuan;
Foley 1991: 40), “The apical rhotic /r/ varies freely in most environments between an apical lateral [l] and an alveolar tap [R] (irak [ilák] ~ [iRák] ‘dance’ …). But following the dental- apical stop /t/, only the tap articulation is allowed … Elsewhere, some speakers prefer one articulation over the other but there is no hard and fast rule, both being acceptable. The [l]
articulation is most favored intervocalically and the [R] elsewhere, but this is just a tendency.” As a final example, in Balangao (Philippines, Shetler 1976: 22)): “The lateral consonant is voiced and has two allophones: [l] a lateral continuant which occurs 1) word initially, 2) contiguous to a front vowel, 3) following an alveolar consonant, 4) following a non-alveolar consonant when the preceding vowel is front … [r] a mid-central retroflexed vocoid occurring in other positions.”
Thus, both free variation and allophonic variation between a lateral and a rhotic can be found in many languages with only a single liquid.
3 Positional neutralization
In the discussion in section 2, I examined inventories in which only a single liquid occurs, and showed that a fair degree of variation is present in the realization of the liquid, both within and between languages. In this section I examine languages with positional neutralization of liquids. In such languages, the language has both a lateral and a rhotic liquid, but, in certain positions, the contrast between them is suspended.
Many scholars have considered the content of neutralization to correlate with markedness.
Perhaps the first to remark on this was Trubetzkoy 1939/1969, who argued that neutralization points to the unmarked segment within a system. While Trubetzkoy noted system dependency, others have argued that neutralized values converge cross-linguistically, all other things being equal. For instance, Ní Chiosáin and Padgett (2001: 135) suggest that
“articulatory simplicity wins under neutralization”, while de Lacy (2002: 283) says that
“Neutralization should always produce the least marked element available. … Similarly, for binary scales the least marked element should always be the target of neutralization.” Thus, the expectation if there is a universal markedness scale is that in a neutralization position, the same liquid should be found cross-linguistically.
One position in which neutralization of liquids is frequently found is directly following an obstruent. At this point, some remarks on the substance of the relationship between the liquids is in order. Many have proposed a hierarchy, sometimes called a consonantal strength hierarchy and sometimes a sonority hierarchy, that ranks the liquids with respect to each other. For instance, Vennemann (1988: 9) gives a hierarchy of consonantal strength, as shown in (4).
(4) Consonantal strength, with strongest first (Vennemann 1988: 9)
voiceless plosives - voiced plosives - voiceless fricatives - voiced fricatives - nasals - lateral liquids (l-sounds) - central liquids (r-sounds) - high vowels - mid vowels - low vowels
A similar relationship between the lateral and rhotic is noted by others. For instance, Selkirk 1982 separates these, calling the rhotic more sonorant; van der Torre 2003 treats the rhotic as more vowel-like than the lateral.
Vennemann further states what he calls the Head Law, giving it as a preference law. He characterizes linguistic structure “not as good or bad (natural or unnatural, unmarked or marked), but as better or worse.” (1988: 1)
(5) The Head Law (Vennemann 1988: 13)
A syllable head is the most preferred: (a) the closer the number of speech sounds in the head is to one, (b) the greater the Consonantal Strength value of its onset, and (c) the Consonantal Strength drops from the onset towards the Consonantal Strength of the following nucleus.
Thus, given the hierarchy, one expects that in obstruent-liquid clusters, the rhotic would be the liquid that would be expected, given that this cluster exhibits a steeper sonority cline than does the obstruent-lateral cluster. A frequent interpretation of this hierarchy is that obstruent- lateral clusters are more marked than obstruent-rhotic clusters (e.g., van der Torre 2003).
Vennemann illustrates that neutralization in historical change is in the direction of the less marked cluster in the historical development of Italian from Latin, where Latin Cl clusters developed into Cr clusters in Italian, as in (6). Note that Italian does have laterals;
Vennemann points out that words such as blu ‘blue’ were borrowed after the historical developments outlined in (6).
(6) Historical developments: Cl > Cr
The development of Italian from Latin (Vennemann 1988: 19-20)
Latin word-initial heads: Cl, Cr clusters (restrictions that are not relevant) Italian: Cr > Cr; Cl > Cr or Ci
Additionally, in a comparison between Spanish and Portuguese, Cl clusters in Spanish have Cr clusters in their Portuguese cognates.
(7) Spanish-Portuguese cognates (Vennemann 1993: 329, van der Torre 2003) Spanish Portuguese
blanco branco ‘white’
plato prato ‘plate’
However, this is not the only possible path of development. In many Portuguese-based creoles (Bhatt, personal communication, July 2004), Portuguese Cr clusters are realized as Cl clusters, as in São Tomense Portuguese-based creole, shown in (8), from Feraz 1987.
(8) Historical developments: Cr > Cl
São Tomense Portuguese-based Creole (Ferraz 1987) São Tomense Portuguese
a. blaza brasa ‘ember’ 288
fEblE febre ‘fever’ 288
klEse>ti crescente ‘crescent’ 288
otlo outro ‘another’ 289
b. mlagu magru ‘thin’ 289
klavo> carvão ‘coal’ 289
flako> falca)o ‘falcon’ 289
c. floli flor ‘flower’ 293
The forms in (8a) illustrate the replacement of the Portuguese rhotic by the lateral in the São Tomense Portuguese-based creole; those in (8b) show metathesis of the liquid as well, and the form in (8c) shows that rhotics in general are replaced by laterals.
In another language, Malayu Ambong (Indonesia; van Minde 1997), liquids contrast after certain consonants, but neutralize after others. In the neutralized context, a lateral rather than a rhotic is found.
(9) Malayu Ambong word-initial clusters (van Minde 1997) ml mr tl tr but: with /n/:
sl sr dl dr nl *nr
Thus, in surveying languages with Obstruent-Liquid clusters where no liquid contrast is found, both Obstruent-r clusters and Obstruent-l clusters occur. Again, this is not predicted by a theory in which the content of a neutralization position is universally determined.
The facts of CR clusters – where R is either a lateral or a rhotic – are confirmed in other types of neutralization. For instance, Donohue (1999: 18) discusses intervocalic neutralization in Tukang Besi (Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia). This language has both a rhotic and a lateral; Donohue comments that in the Wanci dialect in casual fast speech, /r/
and /l/ neutralize intervocalically, and can be realized as either a tap lateral or rhotic. In Fore, a Papuan language (Scott 1978), either [r] or [l] occurs as a result of intervocalic lenition of /t/. Palenquero, a Spanish-African Creole of Columbia (Piñeros 2003) also shows lenition of a coronal, in this case /d/. /d/ regularly lenites to a dental approximant or a tap and, less often, to a lateral. An example is given in (10).
(10) /yud5a/ [yula@] ~ [yuD5a@] ~ [yuRa@] ‘to help’ (Piñeros 2003: 1191)
4 Summary
In summary then, with respect to inventories and neutralization, several facts suggest that there is not a markedness relationship between a lateral and a rhotic:
• In inventories with a single liquid, that liquid can be realized as either a lateral or a rhotic, or can vary between these.
• In neutralization positions, either liquid can be chosen, depending on the language and again variation is possible.
• Within a language, the output of lenition can be either a lateral or a rhotic.
These findings do not support the position that there is a fixed markedness relationship between the liquids.
At this point, it is worth asking what the findings for neutralization show. One can imagine at least three different possibilities. First, one might conclude that markedness is not relevant for liquids, although markedness relations between features in a class may well hold in other classes. Second, one might conclude that markedness relationships do in fact exist between the liquids, but that they are not exhibited in the cases examined here for other reasons. Finally, one might conclude that markedness relations between liquids are not present in these kinds of data because neutralization is, in general, not an appropriate diagnostic for markedness. In the next section, I examine the second and third of these hypotheses.
5 Why variation? Part 1
In the discussion so far, I have compared examples from different languages and argued that it is problematic to introduce a fixed relationship between lateral and rhotic as either can be the consequence of neutralization. Smith 2003 notes a similar problem in a study of Sardinian dialects. She assumes a scale similar to the one proposed by Vennemann 1988, and argues that if a more sonorant segment can appear in an onset, then a less sonorant segment should be able to as well.
In Sestu Campidanian Sardinian, laterals can appear in word-initial onsets, but rhotics and glides are banned in this position. This is exactly as Smith predicts: laterals are less sonorant than rhotics and glides, and only the least sonorant is possible in this onset position.
The situation is different in Iglesias Campidanian Sardinian. In this dialect, liquid onsets are banned, but glides are allowed. Smith 2003 points out that this is problematic: the more sonorant glides should not be able to occur to the exclusion of the less sonorant liquids.
Smith argues that there is a structural solution to this dilemma. In particular, she claims that glides can appear either in onsets or nuclei. In the dialect where glides are allowed in word-initial position to the exclusion of the liquids, she proposes that these are nuclear glides. Thus, the dialects differ in two ways. First, glides are allowed as the first member of the nucleus in Iglesias but not, apparently, in Campidanian. Second, laterals are allowed in the onset in Campidanian but not in Iglesias. Taking structural positions into account, this apparently problematic case allows the universal markedness relations to be maintained.
It is, perhaps, possible that the introduction of structure might allow for a systematic account of the different neutralization facts in Italian and the Portuguese-based creoles. For
instance, the relationship between the consonants of the clusters in Italian and in the creoles is perhaps different. This may well be a worthwhile inquiry. I am going to suggest, however, that the failure of neutralization to yield a single liquid cross-linguistically is part of a more general syndrome, namely that, in general, neutralization is not a valid diagnostic for markedness.
In order to provide some support for this claim a brief study of some other feature classes is in order. I discuss place of articulation here; see Rice forthcoming for other classes.
With respect to place of articulation, there is fairly general agreement that, omitting laryngeals, coronal place of articulation is less marked than labial and dorsal. See, for instance, Kiparsky 1985, articles in Paradis and Prunet 1991, Lombardi 2002, and de Lacy 2002 for discussion. If one looks at word-final position as a neutralization position, in languages with a single place of articulation, it might be expected that languages would converge on coronal as the place of articulation in this position. While many languages do restrict word-final position to coronal place, this is not the only possibility. In languages that allow only a single place of articulation in nasal consonants in word-final position, some languages allow only a labial in this position; these languages include Lhasa Tibetan (Denwood 1999) and Central Eastern Tundra Nenets (Salminen 1998). Other languages allow only a coronal; these include Finnish, Koyukon (Jetté and Jones 2000), and Basque (Hualde 1991). Still others allow only a velar nasal; these include Japanese (Vance 1987), Selayarese (Mithun and Basri 1986), and Midi French. Other languages exhibit variation. For instance, in Spanish, some dialects allow only a coronal and others only a velar. In Manam (Lichtenberk 1984) and Sentani (Cowan 1965), final nasals vary between labial and velar.
While one might argue that the different places of articulation are in different structural positions (e.g., nucleus, coda, onset), each being unmarked in its position, there is not immediate evidence for this. Alternatively, one might conclude that neutralization is not a valid diagnostic for markedness relations. Similar facts exist with word-final laryngeal features, with languages differing in how word-final phonation types are restricted. Given the ubiquity of variation in this position, it is, perhaps, reasonable to conclude that in fact neutralization does not lead to a single unmarked feature within a class cross-linguistically.
Thus the failure of the liquids to show the patterning predicted if they have a universal relationship to one another is perhaps not so surprising: this failure appears to be a property of neutralization in general.
6 Epenthesis and liquids
In addition to neutralization, epenthesis is considered to be an emergence-of-the- unmarked diagnostic. Epenthesis is a good candidate for this, as epenthetic features are not present in the lexicon. Thus, to complete the study of emergence-of-the-unmarked diagnostics with respect to liquids, an examination of liquid epenthesis is in order. While liquid epenthesis is not common, it is found in some languages. I restrict the discussion here to English.
English exhibits two dialects with respect to liquid epenthesis, one with a rhotic (e.g., Boston English) and one with a lateral (e.g., Bristol English, some dialects of American English). Gick 2002: 167, in a careful study of liquid epenthesis, makes the following comment: “In both cases of intrusion, a historically unattested liquid consonant (r or l) intervenes in the hiatus between a morpheme-final nonhigh vowel and a following vowel, either across or within words. … Descriptively, the intrusive l parallels the intrusive r in
many respects;” see also Gick 1999 for discussion. While perhaps different synchronic environments for different epenthetic liquids might exist, it appears that there is simply not a fixed choice of epenthetic liquid. Just as with neutralization, this variation in epenthesis is echoed by facts of place of articulation. In looking at place of articulation in epenthesis from a cross-linguistic perspective, all potential places of articulation are possible. For instance, laryngeals are analyzed as epenthetic in languages such as Selayarese, German, and Slave (Rice 1989). Coronals are analyzed as epenthetic in languages such as Axininca Campa (Payne 1981) and Ojibwa (Piggott 1974). Velars are epenthetic in Buriat (Poppe 1960) and some Greek dialects (Newton 1972). Finally, the labial glide [w] is analyzed as epenthetic in some Balochi dialects (Elfenbein 1997). While it is possible that the different places of articulation appear in different prosodic position, it is also reasonable to conclude that epenthesis is not a valid diagnostic for the variation exhibited across languages.
7 Why variation? Part 2
Let us suppose that the variation found in the realization of a featural class in a neutralization position and in epenthesis is in fact not a consequence of structure, but that in fact these are simply subject to both within and between-language variation in realization.
Why might this be?
Battistella 1990 makes some interesting observations about the realization of an unmarked element with respect to semantic criteria. In particular, he says that
“Indeterminateness refers to the semantic criterion that marked elements are characteristically specific and determinate in meaning, while the opposed unmarked elements are characteristically indeterminate, a factor that follows from the definition of semantic markedness as having both a general meaning and a meaning opposite from that of the marked term” (Battistella 1990: 27). He further elaborates that “… whenever we have an opposition between two things, one of those things – the unmarked one – will be more broadly defined” (Battistella 1990: 4).
In neutralization cases, there is no opposition, and thus there is no marked pole to define the unmarked pole against. In the absence of this opposition, the unmarked, or the only possibility, is thus free to vary in its phonetic content: there is nothing to rein it in.
What about epenthesis? Notice that in epenthesis, a segment is inserted that is not part of the underlying representation. In this sense, it is possible to conclude that epenthetic segments are not part of the system of contrasts. Thus, an epenthetic position is similar to a neutralization position, where contrasts are suspended.
How is the phonetic realization determined in an emergence-of-the-unmarked case?
Certainly phonological factors such as structural position could be at play. However, it appears that a variety of other factors interact to determine the implementation of a liquid on a language-by-language basis. These factors most likely include ease of articulation, acoustic salience, historical developments, and social identity. For instance, the frequency of steep sonority inclines in word-initial consonants clusters is, most likely, grounded in articulation and perception. Thus, obstruent-liquid clusters are most likely to be realized with such a steep incline. However, the phonology does not force this implementation in the absence of contrast, and, on a language-particular basis, other factors can receive different weighting, leading to the possible presence of obstruent-lateral clusters instead of obstruent-rhotic clusters. There is not a phonological markedness difference between these, but a markedness difference based on other non-phonological factors.
8 Submergence of the unmarked diagnostics
In this section, I briefly examine assimilation within liquids. Asymmetric assimilation provides a good diagnostic for markedness, where certain features are subject to assimilation while others are not. To set the scene, consider assimilation in a language like Korean. The following pattern is found in Korean. (Note that in addition to the assimilations listed in (11) below, p-k can become [kk], but [k-p] sequences fail to undergo assimilation.)
(11) Korean assimilation t-p pp
t-k kk p-t pt k-t kt
An asymmetry exists: labials and velars are triggers but not targets, while coronals are targets but not triggers. From this, one can conclude that labials and velars are more marked than coronals, and coronals are less marked than labials and velars.
Consider now assimilation within liquids, turning first to assimilation in Toba Batak (Hayes 1986). In liquid-liquid sequences, if the first liquid is a rhotic, it assimilates to a following lateral. The patterns are shown in (12).
(12) Toba Batak liquid assimilation (Hayes 1986) C2
C1 r l
r rr ll
l lr ll
In Toba Batak, the following asymmetries are seen:
(13) r-l sequences: /r/ is a target (rl → ll), /l/ is a trigger l-r sequences: /l/ is not a target, /r/ is not a trigger
Based on the asymmetries, and taking assimilation asymmetries as a markedness diagnostic, one can claim that /r/ patterns as if it were less marked than /l/.
This conclusion is reinforced when one looks at assimilation in Selayarese. Here it is the triggers which require attention. In Selayarese, the final nasal of a stem assimilates to a following lateral, but not to a following rhotic, as in (14).
(14) Selayarese (Austronesian, Mithun and Basri 1986: 245)
roNgaN ‘loose’ roNgan-roNgaN ‘rather loose’
lamuN ‘grow’ lamul-lamuN ‘plantation’
The following asymmetry is present.
(15) N-r sequences: /r/ is not a trigger N-l sequences: /l/ is a trigger
Thus in Selayarese, as in Toba Batak, /r/ patterns as if it were less marked than /l/.
This is not the only pattern that is found in doing cross-linguistic surveys, however. In Hugarian, l-r sequences becomes rr while r-l sequences remain (Vago 1980).
(16) va˘r - lak va[rl]ak ‘I wait for you’ Vago 1980: 58 bal – ra ba[rr]a ‘to the left’ 36
Siptar and Törkenczy 2000 say that /l/ is deleted before /r/, with lengthening of the vowel.
They note that in a dictionary search, they found rl but not lr; l-r sequences are heteromorphemic, and they never surface as such.
In Hungarian, the asymmetry differs from that seen so far:
(17) Hungarian asymmetry
r-l sequences: /r/ is not a target, /l/ is not a trigger l-r sequences: /l/ is a target, /r/ is a trigger
/l/ patterns as if it were less marked than /r/
Italian (Defarrari 1954) shows a similarity to Hungarian in its historical development.
(18) Vulgar Latin Italian or(U)lu orlo 194 kar(O)lus karlo 194 vol(E)re varro 197 lr → rr rl → rl
In Italian, as in Hungarian, /l/ patterns as if it were less marked than /r/.
Comparing languages with respect to assimilation, the following patterns are found.
(19) Toba Batak: rl → ll, lr → lr Hungarian, Italian: rl → rl, lr → lr
Toba Batak and Selayarese suggest markedness of lateral with respect to rhotic; Hungarian and Italian suggests the reverse, namely, the rhotic is more marked. Thus it appears that no universal conclusion is possible with respect to assimilation patterning.
(It is worth noting that there are cases that suggest that /l/ is less marked than /r/, but in fact this conclusion is not justified because the necessary asymmetries do not exist. Consider the following case in Harar Oromo (Owens 1985: 22): ol + rafe →or-rafe ‘he slept up.’ The lateral assimilates to the rhotic, suggesting markedness of the rhotic with respect to the lateral. However, the only consonants that can precede a stem (here rafe) are n, d, and l, and these all assimilate. Thus, in the absence of pre-stem /r/, it is impossible to determine if the rhotic is more marked or if position is what is important here.)
9 Why variation? Part 3
Again, we must ask whether the assimilation facts described in the previous section are a property of liquids alone, or if they are a consequence of some more general principle.
Similarly to neutralization, several paths could be taken in light of the variation in assimilation targets. One could abandon markedness as a notion altogether as proposed, for instance, by Hume and Tserdanelis 2002. Alternatively, one could attribute the failure of the markedness diagnostics to give clear-cut results to liquids alone. Finally, one might argue that something deeper is going on here, with the liquids failing to show systematic asymmetries for other reasons. Here I briefly suggest through a comparison with place of articulation that the final conclusion is likely to be the correct one.
When assimilation within place of articulation is examined, several interesting properties of assimilation are revealed. Here I consider languages with no contrast, a two-way contrast, or a three-way contrast of place of articulation in target position, again taking nasals as the object of study. In languages with no place contrast in target position, assimilation may occur independent of the phonetic place of articulation of the nasal when it is not in an assimilation context. More interestingly, in languages with a two-way contrast in target position, languages differ in which place of articulation serves as target in asymmetrical place assimilation. For instance, in languages with a labial-coronal contrast, in some the coronal assimilates to the following place of articulation (e.g., some Spanish dialects, Koyra Chiini (Heath 1999), while in others, the labial is the assimilator (Seri (see de Lacy 2002)).
While the latter is rare, it is found. From this, one might think that any place of articulation is a possible target, and that no markedness relations hold between places of articulation.
However, the facts with three-way place contrasts are different. In languages with a labial, coronal, velar contrast, some have a coronal that assimilates (e.g., Korean, Yakut), while in others the velar assimilates (Chukchi, Harar Oromo). What is striking is that, given this contrast, no languages exhibit labial targets alone. Thus, while with the two-way contrast it appears that, essentially, anything goes, with the three-way contrast an interesting restriction emerges. In the liquids, we see only a two-way contrast. It is thus possible that it is the very nature of the contrast that allows for the variation. Unfortunately, richer contrasts in liquid types are not available to see if a larger contrast would make a difference, as liquids are expanded by adding additional places of articulation or quantity distinctions, but not new liquid types.
10 Summary
It is sometimes claimed that laterals and rhotics bear a fixed relationship between them.
Based on this, one might expect that if a language had only a single liquid, the choice of liquid would be shared cross-linguistically, that in emergence-of-the-unmarked situations the same liquid would arise cross-linguistically, and that in submergence-of-the-unmarked too there would be cross-linguistic convergence on which liquid would be the target and which the trigger. None of these predictions are borne out, however, when liquids are studied. It appears instead that laterals and rhotics bear an equipollent relationship to each other, with different languages making different choices between two things that are, essentially, equal for phonological purposes.
More generally, in the absence of a contrast, and in the presence of a two-way contrast, it is unclear that evidence for markedness is available, based on evidence from liquids and
from place of articulation. In the presence of a three-way contrast in place of articulation, however, it appears that markedness evidence is present. Thus, it is possible that the patterning of liquids is not something attributable strictly to liquids, but is a general consequence of the nature of at least some two-way contrasts.
References
Avery, Peter and Keren Rice. 1989. Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6. 179-2000.
Battistella, Edwin L. 1990. Markedness: the evaluative superstructure of language. Albany: SUNY Press.
Bauer, Winifred, with William Parker and Te Kareongawai Evans. 1993. Maori. London: Rougledge.
Cowan, Hendrik Karel Jan. 1965. Grammar of the Sentani language. ’S-Gravenhage Martinus Nijhof.
de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Defarrari, Harry. 1954. The phonology of Italian, Spanish, and French. Washington D.C.: Roy S.
Defarrari.lithoprinted by Edwards Brothers, Ann Arbor.
Denwood, Philip. 1999. Tibetan. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Donahue, Mark. 1999. A grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Elfenbein, Josef. 1997. Balochi phonology. In Alan S. Kaye (ed.) Phonologies of Asia and Africa. volume 2.
Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. 761-776.
Ferraz, Luiz Ivens. 1987. The liquid in the Gulf of Guinea Creoles. African Studies. 46.2. 287-295.
Foley, William A. 1991. The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gick, Bryan. 1999. A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16.1. 29-54.
Gick, Bryan. 2002. The American intrusive l. American Speech 77.2. 167-183.
Haiman, John. 1980. Hua: a Papuan language of the eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hayes, Bruce. 1986. Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 467-500.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1999. A grammar of Koyra Chiini. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hualde, José Ignacio. 1991. Basque phonology. London and New York: Routledge.
Hume, Elizabeth and George Tserdanelis. 2002. Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole.
Phonology 19.3. 441-458.
Jetté, Julius and Eliza Jones (eds.) Koyukon Athabaskan dictionary. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85-138.
Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1983. A grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Lombardi, Linda. 2002. Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology 19.2. 219-251.
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mester, Armin and Junko Itô. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65. 258-293.
Mithun, Marianne and Hasan Basri. 1986. The phonology of Selayarese. Oceanic Linguistics 25.1-2. 210-254.
Newton, Brian. 1972. The generative interpretation of dialect. A study of modern Greek phonology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ní Chiosáin, Maire and Jaye Padgett. 2001. Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In Linda Lombardi (ed.) Constraints and representations: Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 118-156.
Owens, Jonathan. 1985. A grammar of Harar Oromo. Hamburg: H. Buske.
Paradis, Carole and Jean-François Prunet (eds.). 1991. Phonetics and Phonology 2. The special status of coronals. Internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.
Piggott, Glyne. 1974. Aspects of Odawa morphophonemics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.
Payne, David L. 1981. The phonology and morphology of Axininca Campa. SIL and the University of Texas at Arlington.
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2003. Accounting for the instability of Palenquero voiced stops. Lingua 113.12.
1185-1222.
Poppe, Nicholas N. 1960. Buriat grammar. Indiana University Publications in Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 2.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University and The Hague: Mouton & Co.
Rice, Keren. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rice, Keren. 1999. Featural markedness in phonology: variation. Part 1. GLOT 4.7. 3-6. Part 2. GLOT 4.8. 3-7.
Rice, Keren. 2002. Featural markedness in phonology: variation. In Lisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma (eds.) The 2nd SOTA Book. Mouton de Gruyter. 387-427.
Rice, Keren. forthcoming. Featural markedness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rice, Keren and Peter Avery. 2004. The representational residue: The role of contrast in phonology. Paper presented at the Manchester Phonology Conference . May 2004.
Salminen, Topani. 1998. Nenets. In Daniel Abondolo (ed.) Uralic languages. 516-547.
Scott, G. 1978. The Fore language of Papua New Guinea. Pacific Linguistics B47.
Selkirk, Elisabeth 0. 1982. The syllable. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.) The structure of phonological representations (part II). Dordrecht: Foris. 337-383.
Shetler, Joanne. 1976 Notes on Balangao grammar. Language Data. Asian-Pacific Series No. 9. Huntington Beach, California: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Siptar, Peter and Miklós Törkenczy. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Jennifer L. 2003. Onset sonority constraints and subsyllabic structure. ms., University of North Carolina.
Topping, Donald. 1973. Chamorro vowel harmony. Oceanic Linguistics 7, 67-79.
Torre, Erik Jan van der. 2003. Dutch sonorants - the role of place of articulation in Dutch phonotactics. Ph.D.
dissertation. Leiden University.
Trubetzkoy, Nicholas. 1939/1969. Principles of phonology. Translated by C. A.M. Baltaxe. University of California Press.
Vago, Robert M. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
van Minde, Don. 1997. Malayu Ambong. Phonology, morphology, syntax. Research School, CNWS, Leiden:
School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies.
Vance, Timothy. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany: SUNY Press.
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
