Editor for this issue: <>
Back in mid-November i posted a query, seeking examples of syllable-final velar stops changing into coronals (specifically, apicals), perhaps in the environment of another coronal, e.g. /l/. This query was motivated (1) by a desire to justify a proposed change in the pre-history of Uralic whereby a hypothesized plural marker *-kl had become -t in many languages (2) by arguments for the 'special (= unmarked, among other things) status of coronals', many of which were gathered together in a recent book by that title published by Academic Press. I got about a dozen responses, some of which lead to further discussion at a more personal level. Several people provided me with examples of the sort of thing i was looking for: Richard Coates of Sussex (<richardcMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecogs.sussex.ac.uk>) told me that the Modern English word 'bat', meaning 'flying mammal', derived from a Middle English form 'bakke'. Jose Ignacio Hualde of Illinois (<jihualde
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>) reports that in Basque morpheme-final velars often become /t/ in certain compounding processes ('This is a productive process to some extent', he says): beg- 'eye' + azal 'skin' = betazal 'eyelid'. One example he gave me looks as though it might involve assimilation: og- 'bread' + tarteko 'between' = otarteko 'sandwich'. More on the subject of assimilation below. Ari Pall Kristinsson of Reykjavik (<arip
ismal.hi.is>) pointed out that the Modern Icelandic middle voice marker -st is derived from an Old Norse form -sk (i ought to have realized this myself). He made reference to a book by Kjartan G. Ottosson, The Icelandic Middle Voice: the Morphological and Phonological Development, published this year by the Lund University Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, which i haven't been able to get my hands on yet. Fernando Martinez-Gil of Georgetown (<fmart
guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>) drew my attention to the change, characteristic in some Spanish dialects, of syllable-final /k/ to an interdental fricative when followed by /t/. He referred me to T. Navarro Tomas' Manual de Pronunciacion Espanola which describes this phenomenon. Many of these velar -> coronal changes (especially those noted by Kristinsson and Martinez-Gil) at least appear to be cases of assimilation, which i originally suggested was the case in the prehistory of those Uralic languages which use -t as a plural marker. Joe Stemberger of Minnesota (<ellvax
vx.cis.umn.edu>) also flat-out suggested that assimilation would account for what i was proposing, and that i didn't need to invoke the 'special status of coronals' to explain it. Some scholars, however, also noted examples of dissimilation, of changes in the opposite direction, along the line of Latin 'vetulus' -> LLatin 'vetlus' -> Italian 'vecchio'. Fran Karttunen of Texas (<LIAR457
orange.cc.utexas.edu>) noted that the lateral affricate /tl/ characteristic of Aztec is routinely borrowed into Spanish as /kl/. John D. Phillips of the National Language Research Institute, Tokyo (<jdp
tansei.cc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>) notes that the fate of word-final *-kt in the various Celtic languages provides both examples and counterexamples to the 'underspecification = coronal' hypothesis: In Welsh (and, as far as i know, the other Brythonic languages, Breton and Cornish) it evolved into a dental fricative, but in Goidelic (Irish, Manx, Scottish Gaelic) it evolved to -xt (where 'x' represents a velar fricative); in Scottish Gaelic this is now -xk, in Manx Gaelic simply -x. Spike Gildea of Oregon (<spikegil
oregon.uoregon.edu>) referred me to a recent ESCOL paper by Keren Rice of Toronto, in which she 'presented a great deal of data showing both diachronic and synchronic alternations between [velar and coronal segments], usually at the coda of a syllable, usually in the direction coronal -> velar. Unfortunately, i have so far been unable to get in touch with Keren to know what sort of data she is using or what her argument specifically claims. I would be interested in knowing how it affects the 'special status of coronals' hypothesis. A couple of people brought up what might be examples of neutralization of a velar/coronal distinction: John S. Coleman (<jsc
mbeya.research.att.com>) notes that 'Middle Chinese had distinct labial, coronal, and velar final stops that are preserved in many modern dialects (e.g. Cantonese), but which distinctions have been lost in some words in some dialects.' One example he gives has both velar and dental final stops surfacing as dentals in Hakka. However, he notes that in Mandarin, while historically labial and coronal final nasals both surface as coronals, the velar nasals are retained in word-final position. John Kingston of Massachusetts (<kingston
cs.umass.edu>) brought up a very interesting fact from Southern Bantu, in which Proto-Bantu palatal stops have evolved into lateral affricates. The stop portion of these affricates varies freely from coronal and velar. He agreed with me that this might well be an example of neutralization of the coronal/velar contrast, at least in this environment. But he also raised an acoustic point: 'Laterals tend to raise F3, and both F2 and F3 are high in coronals, but velars tend to lower F3 while leaving F2 high.' So why would the presence of a lateral induce a velar, as opposed to a coronal, manifestation of the stop. During further discussion between us, he suggested that both assimilation and dissimilation in this case might be the result of uncertainty as to where the high F3 associated with the lateral component begins: if it begins with the stop, then that stop is perceived as coronal, but if the high F3 is perceived as being characteristic specifically of the lateral then the stop will probably be perceived as a velar. He directed me to a paper by John J. Ohala, 'The Listener as a Source of Sound Change' in Carrie Masek, Robert Hendrick, & Mary Miller (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, CLS 1981, pp. 178-203, in which this theoretical issue is discussed in greater detail. Brian Joseph of OSU (<bjoseph
magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>) also suggested that, since both assimilations and dissimilations involving /kl/ and /tl/ clusters are attested, an acoustic account is probably the best explanation. Finally, a couple of remarks from the field of child language acquisition: Allan Wechsler (<acw
riverside.scrc.symbolics.com>) notes that 'coronals are acquired late ... I don't know if this argues against the status of coronals you propose.' I told him i couldn't judge of the relevance of child language-acquisition data for phonetic theory, but would pass the question on to phoneticians. He acknowledged that, although one would assume 'kids would tend to prefer "unmarked" segments in early stages of acquisition', he had no strong theoretical reason to believe this is in fact the case; other explanations of the data he mentioned are possible (e.g., if +velar is indeed a 'marked' option, perhaps at a certain point in language acquisition any word containing a velar will tend to be marked +velar as a whole, with all obstruents in it being velars). But he went on to express his suspicions of theories ranking basic points of articulation in terms of markedness. Any phoneticians out there have anything to say about this? Joe Stemberger, on the other hand, noted that young children can handle word-initial velars if they are alone, but pronounce them as alveolars if they are parts of clusters (whether they pronounce the rest of the cluster or not). He referred me to a paper by Alice T. Dyson, 'Development of Velar Consonants among Normal Two-Year-Olds', Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 29:493-498 (1986) that discusses this. I will be including a version of this summary as an appendix of my paper on the reconstruction of Dravidian and Uralic plural markers. Any further comments are welcome. ------ Dr. Steven Schaufele c/o Department of Linguistics 712 W. Washington Ave. University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 4088 Foreign Languages Building 707 S. Mathews Street 217-344-8240 Urbana, IL 61801 fcosws
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu