Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
Late last year I posted a query about r's changing to l's and vice versa, and environments favouring r or l in such changes. The following responded: Heriberto Arelino, Ken Beesley, James Fidelholtz, Spike Gildea, Luise Hercus, Frank Lichtenberk, Carl Mills, Rebecca Larch Moreton, Niels Schiller, Jane Simpson, Larry Trask, and Jeroen van der Weijer. The query arose from work Mary Laughren and I are doing about an apparent change from *r to *rl in Ngumpin-Yapa, a Pama-Nyungan subgroup in Australia. (r is a retroflex glide, distinct from the tap/flap rr also found in most Australian languages, and rl is a retroflex lateral distinct from l, an alveolar lateral; see also McGregor 1988 for an argument against treating r and rr as co-members of a "rhotic" class). It seems that the Ngumpin-Yapa r>rl change occurred in all environments except a preceding i (i/a/u 3 vowel systems are found in most of the relevant languages). In general r>l and l>r seem to be among the commonest sound changes in language, and varieties of r and l act as allophones of a single phoneme in various languages. In Australia too, the r/rl change we are working on is far from isolated, and appears to go in the opposite direction too. In the non-Pama-Nyungan language family Tangkic (Gulf of Carpentaria), for instance, proto-Tangkic *rl has been retained in Yukulta, but replaced by r in Kayardild and Lardil, except where it is a coda preceding d (in both languages), and initially (in Lardil); in Lardil, even recent loanwords are affected by this change and the situation approaches phonemic merger of r and rl (these are my own interpretations based on data from Ken Hale, Nick Evans, Sandra Keen et al). Proto-Romance *l appears as r occasionally in some Romance languages e.g. in Portuguese following bilabial stops. In Otomapean languages l systematically corresponds to r in Chichimeco. The list could go on, no doubt. As to the affinity of i and r, Jeroen van de Weijer's article (1995) comes closest to investigating the problem I had in mind with comparative data. He argues that the contrast between liquids (laterals and rhotics) is one of continuancy: l's pattern with non-continuants, and r's with continuants; as the phonological data do not appear to bear this out - there is not evidence of continuancy values spreading to neighbouring segments - he proposes a different solution, which will not be explored here as it seems to have little bearing on the present question. However the article does present a range of data which seem to be relevant. In a number of Bantu languages, according to Bhat (1976), r has a lateral allophone before either i, or front vowels in general, and in Usurufa, after i and before i,e,a. On the other hand in Maddieson's example languages (1984) the lateral allophone occurs following central and back vowels - more in accord with the Australian examples I raised. The Ganda case of r appearing after front vowels and l elsewhere, also conforms to this pattern, which is regarded by van der Weijer as "typical". Other cases show r intervocalically, l initially and/or as coda (recalling Lardil above). Kwaio was also drawn to my attention: it has l and r (alveolar flap) in complementary distribution, with r following the high vowels i and u - a somewhat different picture from the examples in van der Weijer. While the data are not uniform, there seems on balance to be a tendency for laterals to favour a preceding relatively low/back vowel environment, and rhotics a preceding relatively high/front environment across languages, paralleling the Ngumpin-Yapa situation. If so it would be good to find a reason for it, and articulatory phonetics might be one place to look. Respondents did not directly address this question and my (admittedly limited and inexpert) reading of phonetics texts did not yield much either. I suspect that high front tongue position (in the preceding vowel) acts to curb the full opening of a lateral airway. Niels Schiller who is working on phonetic variation in German /R/ provided an interesting draft paper and bibliography of which I have selected three items which may be relevant to my query for the references below, but I cannot vouch for it as I have not seen them yet. References Bhat, D.N.S. (1978) A general study of palatalization. In J.H.Greenberg ed. Universals of Human language. 47-92. Stanford UP. McGregor, W.(1988) On the status of the feature rhotic in some languages of the north-west of Australia. Aboriginal Linguistics 1: 166-187. Maddieson, I (1984) Patterns of sound. Cambridge UP. Miyawaki, K, A. Liberman, O. Fujimura, W. Strange and J. Jenkins (1975) Cross-language study of the perception of the F3 cue for [r] versus [l] in speech and nonspeech-like patterns. In G. Fant and A.Tatham eds. Auditory Analysis and perception of speech. Academic Press. Stemberger, J.P. (1983) The nature of /r/ and /l/ in English: evidence from speech errors. Journal of Phonetics. 11:139-147. van der Weijer, J. (1995) Continuancy in liquids and in obstruents. Lingua 96: 45-61. Walsh, L. (1995) The phonology of liquids. Ph.D. dissertation, U. Massachusetts Amherst.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue