Editor for this issue: <>
David Stampe argues that intrusive-r is best treated as underlying /r/ which gets deleted in non-linking environments. I have always favoured a rule- reversal analysis, but I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence either way. The rule reversal analysis certainly fits the historical facts equally well. Once the rule r --> 0 / C or pause has been reversed to 0 ---> /[V,-hi,+back]__(#)V the extension to words with no historical /r/ is explained as a natural dropping of lexical restrictions on a rule, there is no need to assume, as Stampe suggests for the underlying /r/ analysis that speakers think /Vr/ is in complementation with V# because they don't often hear examples of historically V final words like banana, saw, paw, pa, in hiatus with a following vowel. (I'm slightly misrepresenting his argument - he takes [a:] and [O:] as /aMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue/ and /O
/, which doesn't seem at all motivated for most non-American non-rhotic dialects.) Against the rule-reversal analysis, Stampe points out that some non-rhotic speakers find it as hard to avoid intrusive-r in "I saw it" as to pronounce [r] in "I hear them". I don't know of any hard evidence on how easy speakers find it to not implement obligatory sandhi rules, whether they are phonetically motivated or not, so this seems a difficult line of argument to pursue. I don't suppose there are that many phonetically unmotivated sandhi rules in the world's languages anyway, so it would be hard to get a real grip on this anyway. Stampe points out that glottal insertion (as in "I saw [?]Ed") blocks r-insertion. [I have actually heard instances in which both intrusive-r and glottal insertion took place, but I expect they were slips of the tongue - they were on the BBC, and may have been attempts to avoid intrusive-r in words with non-historical /r/.] As Stampe points out "Phonetic processes don't block rules". I wonder if ?-insertion couldn't also be a "rule" in non-rhotic varieties. It seems to me that ?-insertion is used as an alternative to intrusive r [particularly as a way of avoiding it, as I suspect was the case in the BBC examples]. I would probably have to accept that ?-insertion is also a phonetic process in non-hiatus environments in these dialects, which will not appeal to some. There is some phonological evidence for r-insertion, however:
derived from V-reduction can also trigger r-insertion in many non-rhotic varieties. As in "The wind[
] [r] isn't broken" [hypothetical] or "See ya [r] Ian" [attested in natural speech]. We don't want to claim window and you have underlying /r/, nor to we want to have vowel reduction produce [
r], so here there seems no viable alternative to r-insertion. Stampe points to spellings such as EEyore and marmie as support for the underlying /r/ analysis. I don't think we can assume spellings necessarily directly reflect underlying representations. It would be sufficient for speakers to observe that <ore> may represent [O:] and that <ar> may represent [a:] for them to use such spellings creatively. [In fact, in non-rhotic varieties <ar> is the only unambiguous way of representing [a:] in non- prevocalic environments; so it is very useful. - I'm discounting <ah> which is pretty rare in the orthographic system, and not used at all preconsonantally .] To prove the point, we can also observe that in non-rhotic varieties final <a> (bigga, supa etc.) can be used in the orthographic representation of words in final /
/ instead of <er>. (I have observed a lot of this in Oz, where it seems to be particularly common in advertising.) Ian Smith York U
A postscript to my note re "the issue-r-is": It dawned on me that this may not actually have been a case of r-linking after "u" after all. Perhaps for speakers of this dialect "issue" has a schwa or other vowel at the end, at least in rapid speech. The spelling of "issue" and my own citation form may well have altered my perceptions (or at least my recollections) here. Does anyone know more about what the final vowel for "issue" would be for dialects that have this kind of r-linking? Thanks. NLDMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue