Chapter Template
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright by Eric Russell Webb 2002 The Dissertation Committee for Eric Russell Webb Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Relational /r/: Three Case Studies in Rhotic Integrity and Variation Committee: ___________________________ Jean-Pierre Montreuil, Supervisor ___________________________ Brigitte Bauer ___________________________ David Birdsong ___________________________ Knud LamBrecht ___________________________ Mark R.V. Southern The Relational /r/: Three Case Studies in Rhotic Integrity and Variation by Eric Russell Webb, M.A., B.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May, 2002 Acknowledgements I begin, as have so many others before me, with a profound expression of gratitude to my dissertation supervisor. Jean-Pierre Montreuil served as the director of this work and deserves much of the credit for its completion. Without his consistent encouragement in moments of frustration and his contagious enthusiasm in moments of progress, this dissertation might never have seen the light of day. It has been an honor to work under his guidance during my time at the University of Texas. I also wish express my sincere gratitude to the other members of my committee: Brigitte Bauer, who has given selflessly of her time and provided useful insight; David Birdsong, who guided me through reviews and whose linguistic expertise have shaped the following pages; Knud Lambrecht, whose love of language and wealth of experience have challenged and sharpened me as a linguist; and Mark Southern, a bountiful source of ideas and a tireless sounding board for new and innovative approaches to linguistic questions. I have been privileged to work with a number of other fine linguists at the University of Texas and elsewhere. I am indebted to Bjorn Lindblom in particular, whose guidance and input were so crucial in the earlier stages of this work. For their role in my formation as a linguist and their contributions to this work, however indirect, I wish to thank Michelle Biermann Fischer, Carl Blyth, Cécile Canut-Hobe, Mark and Margy Doty, Mans Hagberg, Gudrun Ledegen, Fabrice Leroy, Mark Louden, Jean-Louis Roederer, Gudrun Stevenson, and Edo Velema. Critical financial support for my studies, in general, and for this work, iv in particular, has come from a number of sources. The Nederlandse Taalunie and the Fonds voor Neerlandistiek in Buitenland contributed generously for travel and research in the Netherlands and Flanders. The Department of French and Italian at the University of Texas and Chair Dina Sherzer have been very helpful in locating additional travel grants. More recently, I was honored with a Continuing Fellowship from the Graduate School of the University of Texas, which permitted me to concentrate on the completion of this dissertation. To all those who have placed their confidence in me, I hereby express my heartfelt thanks. It is said that any accomplishment lacking an audience of friends is of precious little worth: I am truly blessed by the wonderful individuals who constitute my audience. My fellow graduate students have laughed and studied with me, provided advice and support, and seen me through a process that appeared at times unending. Friends in North America and Europe—too numerous to list here—have provided much needed support and encouragement, as has my family. My sister Heidi, in particular, has shown remarkable steadfastness throughout my many years of graduate work and has never failed to express solidarity with and support for her little brother. To all of these people I express my love, gratitude, and hopes for a future of peace and wisdom. Last but not least, I would like to thank my partner Ronald Pluth. He taught himself Java and wrote the executables included in this dissertation; more importantly, he tolerated the ups and downs that come with sharing the life of a doctoral candidate—one as difficult as myself—and never failed to say the right thing. Without his love, an achievement of this scale would have no value. v The Relational /r/: Three Case Studies in Rhotic Integrity and Variation Publication No._____________ Eric Russell Webb, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2002 Supervisor: Jean-Pierre Montreuil This dissertation articulates a relational phonology of rhotic or r-like sounds from a functionalist perspective. The first chapter notes that no viable, phonetically motivated evidence for the classhood of rhotics has been proposed to date and advances the case for a non-structuralist approach to the question of cross- linguistic rhotic classification, i.e. one that does not begin with an assumed phonological structure, but one where structure is considered a relative, emergent property of linguistic (here, phonological) function. A second chapter presents functionalist theory and its application to phonological classhood, stating that a segment may be defined according to the articulatory and perceptual similarities and differences it presents with regard to a larger, organic whole. The third chapter consists of a phonetic description of the consonant inventories of American English, Amsterdam and Brabant Dutch, and European French, using vi native speaker tokens as the foundation for subsequent discussion. The dynamic relations of individual segments within the continuant consonant systems are described in the fourth chapter, consisting of segmental definitions resulting from the similarities and differences present within an organic system. A constraint based, OT inspired framework is employed in discussion and advancement of the segmental integrity (or definition by relational dynamic) of rhotics, in particular. Conceptual mapping of articulatory and perceptual systemic relations is also proposed. Relational definition of individual rhotics leads to the position of these segments’ phonological relational integrity or classhood, i.e. the cross-linguistic similarities between the individual relational specification of each of these sounds. A final chapter applies the relational definition of rhotics to instances of variation and shows how a relational definition of the segment contributes to a greater understanding of linguistic behavior. vii Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE. THE RHOTIC QUESTION .......................................................................... 3 1.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 1.2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW............................................................................................... 5 1.3. LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC PHONETIC STUDIES OF RHOTICS............................................ 7 1.4. LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC PHONOLOGICAL STUDIES OF RHOTICS................................ 11 1.5. ATTEMPTS TO UNIFY THE RHOTICS AS A PHONOLOGICAL CLASS ........................ 15 1.6. THE NEED FOR A RELATIONAL PHONOLOGY OF RHOTICS ..................................... 25 CHAPTER TWO. FUNCTIONALISM AND RELATIONAL GRAMMARS...................... 28 2.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 28 2.2. FUNCTIONALISM: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ......................................................... 29 2.3. FUNCTIONALIST PRINCIPLES..................................................................................... 34 2.4. FUNCTIONALIST IMPLICATIONS................................................................................ 40 2.4.1. The Articulatory Drive............................................................................................... 42 2.4.2. The Perceptual Drive................................................................................................. 46 2.5. FUNCTIONALISM AND THE RHOTIC QUESTION: THE NEED FOR A RELATIONAL PHONOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 51 CHAPTER THREE. DESCRIBING CONTINUANT CONSONANT INVENTORIES ...... 54 3.1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 54 3.2. GOALS AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 55 3.2.1. Data ........................................................................................................................... 56 3.2.2. Subjects ...................................................................................................................... 59 3.3. RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 60 3.3.1. The alveolar sibilant[s, z] ........................................................................................ 60 3.3.2. The post-alveolar (palatal) sibilants [, ] ............................................................. 73 3.3.3. The labial fricatives [f, v]......................................................................................... 81 3.3.4. Lateral [l]................................................................................................................. 90 3.3.5. English dental (interdental) fricative [, ]..........................................................