Liquid Relationships*

Liquid relationships* 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. T W Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 24: 31–44 P L Copyright © 2005 Keren Rice KEREN RICE 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 32 LIQUID RELATIONSHIPS 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/.” 33 KEREN RICE 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.

Load more