Typological generalizations concerning secondary palatalization

ELSEVIER

Lingua 110 (2000) I-25 www.elsevier.nl/locate/lingua

Typological generalizations concerning secondary palatalization* T.A. Hall Zentrum fiir Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, JEgerstrasse IO/I 1, 10117 Berlin. Germany Received 9 September 1998; revised version 1 March 1999

Abstract The present study examines palatalized r-sounds, i.e. flaps, trills and approximants, from a cross-linguistic perspective. Following similar observations made by earlier linguists, it will be argued that sounds like [rj] are far more marked in the languages of the world than palatalized nonrhotics like [tj d nj 1’1,a claim that is based on the typological generalizations postulated below. That r-sounds are not stable hosts for palatalization will be attributed to a general ban on palatalized apical sounds. The present proposal derives support from the fact that sounds like [rj] are apical and that nonrhotic apical consonants, e.g. retroflex sounds like [t, s], also avoid secondary palatalization. The explanation offered here for the markedness of palatalized rhotics will be argued to be superior to the one put forth by Walsh Dickey (1997). 0 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction It has often been observed that secondary palatalization tends cross-linguistically to cooccur with certain segment types and to avoid others (e.g. Bhat, 1978). One

example of a class of sounds that typically eschews palatalization is ‘rhotics’ - a cover term I employ here that subsumes nonlateral approximants like [.r], trills like [r] and flaps like [r]. Although attested in a number of typologically diverse languages, there are good reasons to consider segments like [rj lj rj] as more marked cross-linguistically than palatalized nonrhotics like [tJ nj lj]. This generalization is stated in (1). The ‘coronal’ restriction will be explained below.’ * I would like to thank Antony Dubach Green, Ursula Kleinhenz and an anonymous Lingua referee for comments on earlier incarnations of this paper. A condensed version of the present analysis was read at the 3 1st Poznad Linguistic Meeting in Poznan, Poland on May 1, 1998. ’ For purposes of the present article I understand ‘markedness’ as foilows: (i) marked segments are generally speaking rarer in the languages of the world than their unmarked counterparts, (ii) within a sin0024-3841/00/$ - see front matter 0 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: SOO24-3841(99)00017-O

2

(1) Palatalized

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

coronal rhotics are more marked than palatalized rhotics.

coronal non-

The statement in (1) says that sounds like the ones in (2a) are marked with respect to the ones in (2b). (2) a. marked: (2) b. unmarked:

palatalized coronal rhotics: [rj .rjrj] (= apical [xj 4’ Aj]in a narrow transcription) palatalized noncoronal rhotics: [tj ni $1 (= laminal [bj r$ 1’1in a narrow transcription)

The segments in (2) have been transcribed in parentheses in a narrow transcription, which includes the IPA diacritics for apicality, i.e. articulation with the tongue tip, and laminality, i.e. articulation with the tongue blade. As I show below palatalized (coronal) rhotics are always apical as opposed to laminal, and palatalized nonrhotic coronals like the ones in (2b) are (virtually) always laminal as opposed to apical. In this article I propose that the reason the sounds in (2a) are more marked than the ones in (2b) is not that the former ones are rhotics and the latter are not, but instead that the segments in (2a) are apical and those in (2b) are laminal. Thus, the generalization I defend in the following sections is stated in (3): (3) Palatalized apicals are more marked than palatalized laminals. Crucial support that the sounds in (2a) are marked because they are apical and not because they are rhotics is that nonrhotic apical segments like the ones in (4a) are more marked than the laminal ones in (4b). retroflexes : dentals/alveolars: (4) b. palatalized nonrhotic laminals: dentals/alveolars: (4) a. palatalized nonrhotic apicals:

[tJti PI [ Lj @ 1,j] [ EJ gJ IJ]

My proposal in (3) will consequently be argued to be superior to the one made by Walsh Dickey (1997), who claims that the sounds in (2a) are marked because they are represented with an abstract (recursive) phonological feature that is never realized on the surface. This article is outlined as follows. Section 2 is devoted to the phonetics and phonology of rhotics. In section 2.1 I review the evidence that plain (i.e. nonpalatalized) rhotics are phonetically and phonologically apical and that laminal rhotics are a nonoccurring segment type. In section 2.2 I establish the markedness gle language, marked segments have a more narrow distribution than their unmarked counterparts, (iii) marked sounds are less stable historically, and (iv) the existence of a marked sound in a language implies the existence of its unmarked counterpart. In the following section it will be demonstrated that palatalized coronal rhotics fulfill all four criteria.

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

3

of palatalized rhotics with an implicational universal that predicts occurring vs. nonoccuning inventories of palatalized consonants. I argue that the markedness of palatalized rhotics is to be attributed to the generalization in (3). In section 2.3 I by compare my treatment with the one proposed by Walsh Dickey (1997) and conclude that only my analysis can explain the wide range of cross-linguistic facts. In $3 I discuss languages with palatalized nonrhotic coronal consonants like the ones in (4) and demonstrate that my claim in (3) derives support from the fact that segments like the ones in (4a) are extremely rare. My conclusions are outlined in section 4.

2. Rhotics and palatalization 2.1. Phonetics and phonology of nonpalatalized rhotics The following table lists the IPA symbols for coronal rhotic sounds, all of which are attested in human languages.2 An examination of this table reveals that coronal rhotics are attested at two places of articulation (i.e. dental/alveolar and retroflex) and three manners of articulation (i.e. flaps, trills and approximants).3 The first place of articulation subsumes both dentals and alveolars. As Maddieson (1984: 80) points out, while both places of articulation are attested for the three stricture types in (5), alveolar is preferred over dental cross-linguistically for rhotics because more languages are attested with an alveolar ‘r’ sound than with a dental ‘r’. I account for the fact that alveolar is unmarked with respect to dental below. (5) flaps: trills: approximants :

dental/alveolar Ir .I

retroflex I: r -I

In addition to the six sounds in (5) there are several segments belonging to the three stricture types in (5) that are not coronal, namely, the bilabial trill [B], and the uvular trill [R], as well as nonrhotic nonlateral approximants, i.e. labiodental [u], velar [y], labial-velar [w], labial-palatal [y], and uvular (which has no separate symbol in IPA). Since the generalizations I make in the following sections pertain to palatalized coronals, I restrict my discussion here to the sounds in (5). Some brief comments are made on noncoronal rhotics like [R] in the following sections.

’ Studieson the phonetics and phonology of rhotics include Ladefoged et al. (1977), Lindau (1985), Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: $7), Hall (1997: 44) and Walsh Dickey (1997: 93). ’ In the literature on phonetics it is usually customary to distinguish between ‘flaps’ and ‘taps’. For purposes of this article the difference between the two categories is unimportant; hence, I simply employ the term ‘flap’, which is intended to subsume both types of sound. All of the symbols in (5) belong to the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) with the exception of [E], which I employ as a symbol for a retroflex trill. (The IPA has no separate symbol for a retroflex trill.)

TA. Hall / Lingua II0 (2000) l-25

4

In contrast to rhotics, nonrhotic consonants (i.e. stops, fricatives, nasals and laterals) are attested at four places of articulation in the coronal range: ‘dental’, ‘alveolar’, ‘retroflex’, and ‘palatal’, as illustrated in (6):4 dental

(6) stops : fricatives: nasals : laterals :

alveolar

retroflex

palatal

t S _

t

t

C

S

8

8

” 1.

n

‘1

.n

1

1

A

In contrast to stops, nasals and laterals, fricatives are also attested at the postalveolar place of articulation (e.g. a). Two differences between the rhotics in (5) and the nonrhotics in (6) are important for the present article. The first difference is that segments at the palatal place of articulation are attested only in nomhotic consonants but not in flapped or trilled rhotics. Indeed, ‘palatal trills’ and ‘palatal flaps’ - if they existed at all - would be segment types that would require an amazing amount’ of articulatory effort. Since trills and flaps can only be produced if the vibrating articulator has a small mass, the implication is that places of articulation like palatal, which necessitate an articulator with a large mass, are highly unlikely. In their discussion of places of articulation for trills, Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 230) suggest that ‘palatal trills’ may be phonetically possible, noting that “a part of the tongue body may vibrate against the palatal or velar surface”. They further observe that palatal vibrations of the tongue body are sporadically produced as transitional phenomena at the release of a velar stop. However, since no nontransitional palatal flap or trill is attested in human language, I conclude that ‘palatal trills’ and ‘palatal flaps’ are nonexisting speech sounds. These gaps will be accounted for below.5 The second difference between rhotics in (5) and nonrhotics in (6) concerns dental vs. alveolar articulations. As is known, many languages, especially those indigenous to Australia, oppose dental vs. alveolar stops, fricatives, nasals and/or laterals. By contrast, no known language contrasts dental vs. alveolar r-sounds of the same stricture type, even though both dental rhotics and alveolar rhotics are attested speech sounds, as I noted above (see Hall, 1997: $4). This generalization is made explicit in (7):6

4 The fricative in the final column in (6) is referred to in the IPA system as ‘alveolopalatal’, which is a distinct place of articulation from ‘palatal’ [cl. (Polish is an example of a language with [e] and German with [F].) I have placed [c] and not [c] in the palatal column because there exists strong evidence that [c] and not [c] is the fricative counterpart to [c p ,t]. This point is discussed in detail in Recasens (1990) and Hall (1997) but is not important for purposes of this article. The reader is also referred to Hall (1997) for a survey of the literature arguing that palatals like [c p IcJ are coronal. 5 In contrast to palatal trills/flaps, palatal approximants, i.e. lj], are attested speech sounds. 6 According to Ladefoged (1982: 155) Malayalam contrasts a dental and an alveolar trill. However, Laver (1994: 220) analyses the ‘alveolar’ trill in Malayalam as retroflex. The latter interpretation is supported by Ladefoged and Maddieson’s (1996: 222) observation that the Malayalam ‘alveolar’ rhotic has a lower third formant, which is typical of (apical) retroflex sounds.

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

(7) a. possible contrast

b. impossible contrast

&I vs. [tl [:I vs. isI [:I vs. inI @Ivs. HI

[rl vs. [rl G] vs. [.I] kl vs. [[I

The generalizations expressed in (7) can be illustrated with the consonant system of the Australian language Pitta-Pitta (Dixon, 1980: 143) which I have presented in (8):

(8)

P

t

t

t

1

n 1 r

‘1P j_ /c

mn

c

k !-I

In this language, and in many others, there are phonemic contrasts between dental and alveolar stops, nasals and laterals but not among the rhotics. I hold that the lack of palatal trills/flaps and the nonexisting contrasts in (7b) make sense if two assumptions are made. The first is spelled out in (9):7 (9) Coronal flaps and trills are universally [-distributed] The feature [distributed] (proposed as a distinctive feature by Chomsky and Halle, 1968 : 3 12ff.) is defined in terms of the length of constriction on the midsaggital section on the upper surface of the tongue. Laminal sounds like [c p lo] are [+distributed] because they are articulated with a relatively long constriction on this part of the tongue. The feature value [-distributed] refers to all sounds that are articulated with a relatively short length of constriction. Thus, [-distributed] subsumes both dental/alveolar apical sounds, and retroflex segments. The latter sounds are pronounced either with the tongue tip, or with a constriction on the underside of the tongue and are thus referred to in the literature as ‘subapical’ or ‘sublaminal’. The generalization in (9) derives both phonetic and phonological support. Phoneticians often describe r-sounds as being ‘apical’, ‘ sublaminal’ or ‘subapical’ (e.g. Ladefoged et al., 1977: 49; Ladefoged, 1982: 154; Catford, 1988: 71; Ladefoged and Maddieson, 1996: 218). Phonological evidence for the generalization in (9) comes from the fact that rhotics pattern together with [-distributed] nonrhotic sounds. See Spencer (1984: 27ff.) and Hall (1997: 125-127) for discussion and examples.

The impossible contrasts in (7b) only hold when the two relevant sounds share all other features. In Toda (see 17 below) there is a contrast between [r] and [rJ], but the latter segment is palatalized and the former is not. ’ Linguists who have argued that coronal rhotics are universally [-distributed] include Spencer ( 1984) Hall (1997) and Walsh Dickey (1997).

6

TA. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) l-25

The nonexisting contrasts in (7b) fall out from the generalization in (9) and from the proposal I adopt made by previous linguists that (i) there is no phonological feature [dental] or [alveolar] and (ii) that contrasts between dentals and alveolars are always captured with [distributed] (see, for example, Chomsky and Halle, 1968: 312-313; Ladefoged, 1971: 39; Sagey, 1986; Keating, 1991; Hume, 1992; and Gnanadesikan, 1993, among others). Expressing the dental vs. alveolar contrast in terms of [distributed] derives support from the fact that (a) dental vs. alveolar oppositions like the ones in Pitta-Pitta in (8) are accompanied by apical vs. laminal contrasts, that is one of the sounds is apical and the other is laminal; and (b) languages do not appear to contrast a dental vs. an alveolar where both sounds agree in being either apical or laminal. * Ladefoged ( 197 1) and many subsequent researchers have shown that there is a strong cross-linguisitic tendency for alveolar sounds to be [-distributed] and for dentals to be [+distributed]. Note that this tendency accounts for the strong preference of alveolar rhotics over dental rhotics, as I noted above. The important point is that the absence of [alveolar] and [dental] as distinctive features and the generalization in (9) together make the prediction that contrasts like the ones in (7b) are nonoccurring. By contrast, the oppositions in (7a) are licit because no condition like (9) requires that nonrhotic coronal consonants always be [-distributed] (or [+distributed]). No palatal trills/flaps exist because palatals are laminal and laminal sounds are, by definition, [+distributed]. Since the generalization in (9) is intended to be an exceptionless statement concerning the featural composition of coronal r-sounds, palatal trills/flaps cannot exist. To my knowledge the only language that has been reliably reported to have a laminal r sound is Czech (see KuEera, 1961: 3Off.; KuEera and Monroe, 1968: 20ff.; Ladefoged, 1971: 49; Ladefoged and Maddieson, 1996: 228). This sound is rendered orthographically as i (e.g. in words like Dvo%:rik)and is transcribed below as

* The statement in (b) requires some comment. Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 42, 137ff.) note that they are not aware of any language with these contrasts among stops, nasals or fricatives. The authors do note that some speakers of Albanian contrast an apical dental [A] with an apical alveolar [l]. However, an examination of the position of the tongue body of their x-ray tracings of these sounds reveals that Q] (and not [I]) is pronounced with a retracted tongue body. What this means is that Albanian &] and [l] differ not only in terms of dentality/alveolarityy, but also in terms of the feature [back]. Recall from note 6 that the kinds of contrasts I call ‘nonoccurring’ must agree in all other features. An anonymous reviewer points out to me that !X&5 has two clicks, [I] and [ !], which are sometimes referred to as ‘apical dental’ and ‘apical alveolar’ respectively - descriptive labels that refer to the position of the tongue front just before the release of the anterior closure (Ladefoged and Maddieson, 1996: 42). However, Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 252-253) note that the ‘alveolar’ sound [ !] has a ‘varied’ place of articulation, which is often postalveolar (i.e. [-anterior], where [anterior] divides the coronal range into two in such a way that dentals and alveolars are [+anterior] and retroflexes and palatals [-anterior]). For example, in their palatograms of [6] by five speakers of !XoB only two can be classified as alveolar (i.e. [+anterior]), whereas the other three are postalveolar. What this means is that the contrast between !X& [I] and [!] does not involve two sounds that are consistently [+anterior]. My suspicion is that the !X& data do not provide a clear cut example of a contrast between an apical dental vs. an apical alveolar.

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) l-25

7

[I].9 However, there is good reason to believe that Czech [I] does not violate (9) and that (9) is, in all likelihood, exceptionless. This segment is not a true counterexample to (9) because it does not belong to one of the three stricture types in (5). Czech [I] is usually referred to in the literature as a ‘fricative trill’ (Ladefoged and Maddieson, 1996: 229) - a label which implies that it has obstruent-like properties. My usage of the term ‘rhotic’ in (5) is therefore intended to subsume only flaps, trills and approximants, i.e. sounds that by definition do not have fricative-like properties, and not fricative trills, which do.‘O 2.2. Palatalized rhotics In (10) I have provided a list of languages that have been reported to have phonemic palatalized coronal rhotics. This list includes the eight languages listed in Maddieson (1984) that have these segments as well as all additional examples known to me. I have categorized the languages into their respective families, where (lOa)( 1Od) are Indo-European and ( 1Oe)-( 101) are non-Indo-European. l’ (10) Languages with at least one phonemic palatalized coronal rhotic: a. Slavic: Bulgarian (Scatton, 1993), Sorbian (Stone, 1993), Russian (Timberlake, 1993), Ukranian (Shevelov, 1993), Polabian (Polanski, 1993) b. Baltic: Lithuanian (Semi, 1966)

’ Although Czech [I] is phonetically laminal, Spencer (1984: 28) considers this sound to be [-distributed] because he wants to say that all coronal rhotics are [-distributed]. In contrast to Spencer (and Walsh Dickey, 1997, see below), I am operating under the assumption that phonological features cannot be contradicted by phonetic facts. ‘” Another language reported with a fricative trill is the Slavic language Cassubian. According to Stone (1993: 764), this sound is as a “postalveolar fricative-trill” found “only in the speech in the older generation and mainly in the north”. Stone (1993) does not specify whether or not the Cassubian fricative trill is apical or laminal. To the best of my knowledge no phonetic or phonological information on this Cassubian sound is available. According to Campbell (1991: 1014) the language isolate Nivkh (Gilyak) has a sound he transcribes as [I], but Campbell does not comment on whether or not this segment is a fricative trill. One language claimed to have ‘laminal’ rhotic is the Dravidian language Tamil (Christdas, 1988). According to Christdas (1988: 171-172), Tamil contrasts three coronal rhotics, which she symbolizes as [r], [I] and [r]. The latter sound is retroflex and Christdas therefore treats it as [-anterior, -distributed]. [r] is alveolar and apical and consequently [+anterior, -distributed]. Christdas describes [I] as ‘considerably retracted’ and concludes that it is phonetically back, but argues that this feature plays no role in the underlying system of the language. In need of a feature other than [back] to distinguish [r] from the retroflex rhotic, Christdas concludes that the former sound must be [+distributed]. However, since Christdas does not provide phonetic evidence that this sound is laminal, my suspicion is that Tamil [r] does not violate (9). The list in (10) does not include languages in which palatalized rhotics are allophones of some other sound, e.g. Polish. I have also not included languages with ‘sequences’ of rhotic+Ij]. Such languages should only be included in (10) if one can give phonetic and phonological arguments that such rhotic+tj] sequences are actually single entities, e.g. [rl]. Whether or not my explanation for the markedness of palatalized rhotics also explains the markedness of rhotic+u] sequences is a question I leave open for further study.

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

8

C.

d. e. f.

Celtic: Irish (Mac Eoin, 1993), Scottish Gaelic (Borgstrom, (Jackson, 1955) Indo-Aryan: Kashmiri (Bhat, 1987) Uralic: Mordva (Zaicz, 1998), Nenets (Salminen, 1998), Terr nen, 1984) North Veps (Viitso, 1987) Mongolian: Daur (Wu, 1996) Witotoan: Muinane (Walton and Walton, 1967) Barbacoan Paezan: Paez (Gerdel, 1973) Niger-Kordofanian: Kwa: Igbo (Williamson, 1969); Bantu: (Kimenyi, 1980) Dravidian: Toda (Emeneau, 1984; Spajici et al., 1996) Afro-Asiatic (Chadic): Gude (Hoskinson, 1974) Hausa, (Wolff, 1993) Japanese: Japanese (Bloch, 1950; Vance, 1987)

1941), Manx

Lapp (Korho-

hg : i. j. k. 1.

Kinyarwanda

Tibiri dialect

In the languages listed in (10) three palatalized rhotics are attested: [rj], [I-‘]and [.ri]. The palatalized trill [rj] occurs in Muinane, Daur, Toda, Bulgarian, Sorbian, Ukranian and Polabian, the palatalized flap [rj] in Kashmiri, Paez, Irish, and Japanese, and the palatalized approximant [.tj] in Igbo.i* Some remarks are in order concerning the places of articulation and the three stricture types of the palatalized rhotics discussed in the previous paragraph. Concerning the place of articulation, dental/alveolar and retroflex are attested. (Palatalized retroflex rhotics are attested in Toda and Hausa.) Concerning stricture, the one obvious generalization is that palatalized approximants are more rare than palatalized trills and palatalized flaps. The paucity of palatalized approximants may in fact be purely accidental if the ‘rj’ sounds in the languages in (10) have this stricture type as an optional realization. Significantly, many traditional grammarians are often not aware of the term ‘approximant’. For example, in German phonology one realization of the one rhotic phoneme in the standard language is a uvular approximant, even though earlier phonetic descriptions of German refer to this sound consistently as a trill or fricative (e.g. Ulbrich, 1972). One can probably establish a set of ‘preferences’ (in the sense of Vennemann, 1988) for stricture types (e.g. ‘palatalized flaps are preferred over palatalized approximants’), but since such generalizations can only be made when reliable phonetic descriptions of the palatalized rhotics in (10) become available, I leave them open for further study. The generalizations I make below concerning the palatalized rhotics in (10) do not crucially depend on whether or not the relevant sound is a trill, flap or approximant. In this section I focus specifically on palatalized coronal rhotics (i.e. [rj .tj rj]), as opposed to the larger class of ‘palatalized rhotics’, which also subsumes uvular sounds (i.e. [R’]). Although the latter segment is, to the best of my knowledge, a nonoccurring speech sound, I attribute this gap not to a general prohibition on sec‘* The sources for Mordva, Nenets and Terr Lapp call the palatalized rhotic in these languages a ‘tremulant’. The sources cited above for Gude and North Veps do not specify a manner of articulation for the palatalized rhotics.

T.A. Hall1 Lingua llO(2000) 1-25

9

ondary palatalization with the entire class of rhotics, but instead to a tendency disfavoring palatalized uvulars. Thus, [R’] is marked not because it is a palatalized rhotic, but instead because it is a palatalized uvular.13 Bhat (1978), Hock (1986: 134ff.) and Walsh Dickey (1997: 102ff.) note that rsounds, as opposed to nonrhotic consonants, are not stable hosts for palatalization, a generalization that is essentially the same as the one in (1). The markedness of palatalized rhotics can be established in a number of different ways, two of which are presented in (11). (11) a. Palatalized rhotics are less frequent in phonemic systems than palatalized nonrhotics; b. In many languages rhotics either do not undergo synchronic or diachronic rules assigning secondary palatalization, or else they shift to another sound. The three linguists cited above base their claim that palatalized rhotics are marked almost exclusively on the generalization in (1 lb). For this reason, I devote much of the following discussion to an elucidation of (1 la) and turn to evidence supporting (1 lb) below. The generalization in (1 la) is confirmed by the statistics from Maddieson (1984) presented in (12). (12) a. b. c. d.

Languages Languages Languages languages 120

with at least one palatalized with at least one palatalized with at least one palatalized with at least one palatalized

rhotic phoneme: 8 lateral phoneme (including /A/): 22 nasal phoneme (including /jr/>: 115 obstruent phoneme (including /c I/J:

These statistics illustrate that palatalized rhotics are considerably less common than palatalized nasals or palatalized obstruents. Palatalized rhotics are also less frequent than palatalized laterals, even though the latter segment type is also rare.14 Obstruents are slightly more common than nasals as hosts for secondary palatalization Based on the languages in (lo), generalizations can be made concerning the kinds of palatalized consonants that can and cannot occur together in the same language. In (13) I have expressed these generalizations as a typology, which consists of four language types : I5

The Northwest Caucasian languages Ubykh and Abaza (Colarusso, 1988) are the only languages to my knowledge in which palatalized uvular stops and fricatives, i.e. [q cJ xl], are attested. I4 The statistics in (12) include palatal sounds like /c J ~1 h/ because I treat these segments (as well as /j/) as ‘inherently’ palatalized, meaning that they are marked for the feature that indicates secondary palatalization. My claim that sounds like /c J p L j/ are palatalized segments derives both phonetic and phonological support. See Recasens (1990) and Hall (1997: $2) for discussion. Is The typology in (13) and the if-then statement in (14) have been inspired by previous work on typology, e.g. the contributions contained in Greenberg (1978).

10

TA. Hall I Lingua II0 (2000) l-25

(13) a. Languages with at least one palatalized nonrhotic and no palatalized rhotics (many examples) b. Languages with at least one palatalized rhotic and at least one palatalized nonrhotic (languages in 10) C. Languages with at least one palatalized rhotic and no palatalized nomhotics (no examples) d. Languages with no palatalized consonants (some examples) Given the two segment types ‘palatalized rhotics’ and ‘palatalized nonrhotics’ there are four logically possible language types, as illustrated in (13). Many examples exist of the (13a) type, all twenty of the languages in (10) belong to the (13b) category, no language is attested of the (13~) type, and a small number of languages exist of the (13d) type (see discussion below). Two apparent examples of languages of the (13~) type will be discussed in the following paragraphs. The markedness of palatalized coronal rhotics, which is expressed in the typology in (13) by the lack of languages of the (13~) category, falls out from the absolute implicational universal in (14). (14) If a language has a palatalized rhotic, then that same language will have at least one palatalized nonrhotic. As is usual in if-then statements, the ‘if’ clause refers to the marked segment type, which in this case is the class of palatalized rhotics, and the ‘then’ clause refers to the unmarked segment type, i.e. palatalized nomhotics.‘6 Importantly, the reverse of (14) is not true, i.e. the existence of a palatalized nomhotic does not imply the existence of a palatalized rhotic in the same language, since there are many languages of the (13a) type. Note that (14) predicts that there are languages of the (13b) type and none of the (13~) category. By virtue of the fact that (13a) and (13d) type languages have no palatalized rhotics, (14) makes no prediction at all concerning their (non)existence. Since I am operating under the assumption that nonoccurring language types are ruled out by statements like the one in (14) and that if there is no statement ruling out a language type, then it should in principle exist, it follows that (13a) and (13d) type languages should occur. The examples to be discussed below demonstrate that this is the correct prediction. Examples of the typology in (13) and the implicational universal in (14) are presented in (15). A language of the (13a) type is the Uralic language Estonian in (15a), and a language of the (13b) category is the Uralic language Tundra Nenets in (15b). The hypothetical language in (15~) has a palatalized rhotic but no palatalized nonrhotics and is predicted by (14) to be nonoccurring, because it is of the (13~) type.

I6 One might object that the implicational universal in (14) cannot be evaluated as a true cross-linguistic universal because only twenty three languages are attested with at least one palatalized rhotic. Ahernatively, one could capture the markedness of palatalized rhotics with some kind of a preference law, e.g. ‘palatalized nonrhotics are preferred over palatalized rhotics’.

11

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) l-25

b. Tundra Nenets (Salminen, 1998)

(15) a. Estonian (Viitso, 1998) t tj k P

f V

m

h

ssj $

pp’

ttj

kkj q

bb’

dd

gg’ s

j

n nJ 1 1’ r

P t mn

W

k IJ

1

s’ x xj

r rJ

ts tsj dz dzj m mj n nj 9 1 1’ r rJ

9

c. nonoccurring

j

The two apparent examples of languages of the (13~) type referred to above are the Southern Amerindian language Muinane and the Dravidian language Toda. Maddieson (1984: 396) lists Muinane as a language with a palatalized alveolar trill and no other palatalized consonants, as in (16):

(16) pb

td

@P

sz

m

n r rj

c3 T& s

kg

7

X

P

The reason this language is only an apparent counterexample

to (14) is that its inventory includes three sounds that are inherently palatalized, namely /c 3 jr/. The second apparent counterexample to (14) is the Toda system in (17) (from Emeneau, 1984; Shalev et al., 1993; SpajiC et al., 1996). 1 have provided the labels for the corresponding places of articulation (according to Spajic et al., 1996) for clarity. (17)

labial dental

pb

postdental

td __

alveolar

retroflex

td

td

ts dz Y

0

s ! f

postvelar alveolar (palatal) kg ts d3

n s r

n_ 6 r.

;J

II’

W

s

x (8)

j 41

61

The system in (17) is remarkable for a number of reasons. Important for purposes of the present article is that Toda has three nonpalatalized trills and three palatalized trills, all of which contrast with each other. Based on the phonetic transcriptions in (17) one could get the impression that no palatalized nonrhotics are attested in the language and that (14) is therefore violated.

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

12

Toda is not an exception to (14) for two reasons. First, the language has /j/, which is inherently palatalized. Second, the fricative /J/, and the affricates /tJ dS/ are probably palatalized segments, even though this is not clear from the phonetic transcription. Shalev et al. (1994: 111) call Toda /J/ ‘laminal palato-alveolar’ and note that it is articulated with the tongue domed up towards the roof of the mouth with the palate. Importantly, the authors conclude that this sound “might be regarded as a palatalized consonant”, a hypothesis that derives support from the x-ray tracings of Toda 111 (i.e. rrj], T.A.H.). Shalev et al. (1994: 104) also infer from their palatographs of Toda /tJ dg/ that the body of the tongue must be raised “as in a palatalized sound”. Consider now (13d). Since I analyze palatals like [c J p li j] as inherently palatalized (see note 14), not too many languages exist with no palatalized consonants whatsoever. The main reason for this is that b] is a very common sound in the languages of the world; according to Maddieson (1984), 217 out of a possible 3 17 languages have b]. One example of a language which has no palatalized consonants at all is Maori (Bauer, 1993) which has the inventory in (18):

(18)

P

f mn

t

k

h !l

W

According to Maddieson (1984) twenty languages distributed among five language families, are like Maori in the sense that they have no palatalized consonants at all.” The implicational universal in (14) derives some additional support from languages that have rules adding the secondary palatalization feature to consonants. One hypothetical (and unattested) outcome is that the set of consonants undergoing palatalization will include all consonants except for the rhotics (see below for discussion on this point). A second (attested) outcome is that the sounds undergoing palatalization include nonrhotics and rhotics (e.g. the Kwa language Nupe, Hyman, 1970; Polish ‘surface palatalization’, Rubach, 1984; the language family Kavineiio, Bhat, 1978; the Slavic language Sorbian, Schaarschmidt, 1998; and the Austronesian language Leti, Hume et al., 1998). The significant gap is that no language is attested in which only rhotics and no nonrhotics undergo a rule assigning the secondary palatalization feature. If the first outcome described above is accidental and the third systematic, then these facts suggest that (14) not only describes phonemic systems but that it also holds for the surface, i.e. the level of phonological representation after all phonological rules have applied. Clearly, this hypothesis can only be (dis)confirmed when a significant number of typologically diverse languages with palatalizations are examined. These language families and the respective languages are: Au&o-Tai (Tsou, Roro, Kaliai, Hawaiian, Maori), Sino-Tibetan (Hakka, Amoy, Fuchow, Tiddim Chim, Garo), Indo-Pacific (Nimboran, Wantoat, Kunimaipa, Koiari, Taoripi, Nasioi, Rotokas), Macro-Siouan (Wichita), Chibcah (Mura).

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) l-25

13

The implicational universal in (14) makes no claim concerning the relationship of the number of palatalized rhotics in a single language with respect to the number of palatalized nonrhotics. The generalization is stated in (19): (19) The number of palatalized rhotics in a language is less than the number of palatalized nonrhotics in the same language. Note that (19) is not violated in the Toda system in (17). since this language has three palatalized rhotics and four palatalized (i.e. ‘inherently palatalized’) nonrhotic segments. One might object to the typology in ( 13) and the implicational universal in ( 14) because they (apparently) allow for nonoccurring phonemic systems. For example, only two languages to my knowledge have been cited with palatalized uvulars (i.e. /qJ d xJ/), namely the Northwest Caucasian languages Ubykh and Abaza (recall note 13) and yet the analysis posited above seems to allow for a language of the ( 13b) type, where the palatalized nonrhotic is a uvular, e.g. a language with /rJ/ and /qJ/ as the only palatalized segments. Since this system is nonoccurring, the typology posited above in (13) could be claimed to be too permissive. This objection is not valid because additional markedness statements (e.g. if-then statements, or preference laws) are necessary in any typology that either rule out other segment types altogether or designate them as marked. For example, all typologists require a statement to the effect that sounds like /qJ G’/ are rare. Given this statement and the implicational universal in (14), my analysis therefore makes the correct prediction that a language with /rJ/ and /qJ G’/ as the only palatalized segments would be far more marked than a language with /rJ/ and /p tJ kJ/. Up to this point I have argued that the markedness of palatalized rhotics can be deduced from (1 la). Additional evidence for the markedness of palatalized r-sounds derives from (1 lb). The latter generalization says that there are (i) languages in which palatalization rules affect all coronal consonants, including the r sounds, but the ‘r’ loses its status as an r-sound by becoming a nonrhotic, (ii) languages in which rules assigning the secondary palatalization feature affect all coronal consonants except for r-sounds, and (iii) languages with a phonemic ‘rJ’ in which this segment, as opposed to other palatalized segments, is lost at a later historical stage. In the remainder of this section I consider examples illustrating all three outcomes. Examples of (iii), i.e. languages that eliminate palatalized rhotics from their inventories at a later historical stage are discussed in Hock (1986: 134). Slavic and Celtic examples have been provided in (20). Since no list of typologically diverse languages of this type is known to me, the claim that this kind of phenomenon is common is admittedly impressionistic. (20) a. In Czech /rJ/ became /I/ and in Slovak /rJ/ was realized as /r/. In Polish /rJ/ became /I/ and later /z$ (Carlton, 1990: 236ff.). In all of these languages palatalized nonrhotic coronals were retained. In Serbo-Croat and Macedonian /rJ/ was converted into a nonpalatalized /r/, while palatalized /nJ lJ/ were retained (Hock, 1986: 134).

14

T.A. Hall /Lingua 110 (2000) l-25

(20) b. In Lewis Gaelic /rj/ surfaces as [a] (Oftedal, 1956: 129; Borgstrom, 1940: 71-72). Importantly, (11 b) can only be used to show that palatalized rhotics are marked if (a) palatalized rhotics are converted into a different sound at a later stage, and (b) palatalized nonrhotics retain their palatalization. The languages in (20) fulfill both of these conditions. No languages are known to me of the (ii) type, i.e. languages in which palatalization rules affect all coronal consonants except for an r-sound. An example of this situation would be a language in which /t d s z n l/ are realized as [tj dj sj zj nJ lj] respectively in the neighborhood of front vowels, but /r/ remains [r] and does not become [r’]. A language like the one described would therefore provide evidence for (1) if one interprets the output of palatalization to be an unmarked segment in the sense of (2). I assume that the lack of languages of the (ii) type is purely accidental. While I agree that a language like the one just described would support (I), it is important to see that they only do so if they have ‘true’ palatalizations, i.e. processes that add the secondary feature palatalization, as in (21b). Mester and It8 (1989) and Walsh Dickey (1997) observe that in some languages there are rules converting anterior coronals to the corresponding postalveolar sounds, as in (2la), but that r-sounds are inert. I refer to the two kinds of process here and below as ‘nonanteriorization’ and ‘palatalization’.‘* (21) a. Nonanteriorization: (21) b. Palatalization:

/t d s z n l/ + [g d> J 3 p ICI/_i It d s z n l/ + [tj dj sj zj nj lj]/ _ i

The important point is that only palatalizations but not nonanteriorizations support (ii) because the latter process by definition does not add the secondary palatalization feature. In languages of the (13a) type, e.g. Polish and Estonian, the following constraint, which says that palatalized rhotics are ill-formed, holds in the underlying representation. (22) *[+rhotic, -back] If there were languages like the one described in (ii) above, then (22) would hold throughout the phonology and would then block the rule of palatalization from Is In terms of features, (2la) adds [-anterior, +distributed] and (21b) [-back]. The feature [-anterior] shifts the primary place of articulation from alveolar to postalveolar and [-back] accounts for the tongue fronting that is characterized by secondary palatalization. The output segments in @la) that are inherently palatalized, i.e. [c J p I(], receive the feature [-back] by default as well. Some languages have rules that are a ‘mixture’ of nonanteriorization and palatalization. For example, in the Cariban language Carib spoken in Guyana (Walsh Dickey 1997: 106ff.) certain consonants are assigned the secondary palatalization feature [-back] after high vowels, whereas others are converted into their nonanterior equivalents, e.g. /p b t d/surface as [p’ b tj Cu]respectively, and /s/ surfaces as UJ.

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

15

applying to the rhotic. Whether or not this is a true accidental gap is a question I leave open for further study.19 Significantly, there are also languages like Polish (Rubach, 1984) and Kavineno (Bhat, 1978: 56), in which palatalization rules affect all coronals including /r/. Since neither of these languages has underlying palatalized rhotics, 1 conclude that both have the filter in (22) at the underlying level but that it does not hold at the level of phonology where palatalization holds. As I noted above, several languages have been cited in the literature in which some r-sound does not undergo nonanteriorization (e.g. Hungarian, Vago, 1980: 3940; Basque, see Iverson and OAederra, 1985: Hualde, 1991: 121ff.; the Semitic languages Amharic, Muher, and Chaha, Japanese, and Modem Greek, see Walsh Dickey, 1997: 124 and references cited therein). I claim that r-sounds are universally immune to nonanteriorizations and that no language can possibly have a rule of nonanteriorization that affects a rhotic. The inertness of rhotics to nonanteriorization cannot be a consequence of the markedness of palatalized rhotics because, in contrast to palatalization, nonanteriorization does not assign the secondary feature palatalization, but instead shifts the primary place from the alveolar-dental region to the postalveolar region. The reason rhotics are universally immune to nonanteriorization is that the output would be a postalveolar laminal rhotic, a segment that does not exist (recall 9).20 Consider now languages in which rules like the ones in (21) affect rhotics, but the rhotics become nonrhotics, i.e. (i) from above. These languages include Walpiri. in which /r/ becomes u], Carib, Polish, Southeastern Tepehuan. and Tswana. in all of which the underlying rhotic surfaces as some kind of an obstruent affricate or fricative (see Walsh Dickey, 1997). In all of these languages except for Carib. the rules are unambiguously of the nonanteriorization type. Again, languages like these do not support (1) because the rules do not assign the secondary palatalization feature. Instead, these languages support the generalization in (9) that rhotics are always [-distributed].

I9 One possible example of a language of this type is Carib. Recall from note I8 that this is a ‘mixed language. Thus, the fact that the flap/r/ surfaces as [dJ] might be explained by positing that the Carib rule is a ‘true’ palatalization and that when the flap is assigned the secondary palatalization feature the language converts it to an obstruent in response to the filter in (22). An alternative explanation is that the Carib rule is really nonanteriorization, in which case the flap becomes an obstruent because (9) has been violated. ?” According to Rubach (1993), Slovak /r/ does not undergo a rule of nonanteriorization. He accounts for this by formalizing nonanteriorization so that only [+anterior] sounds are affected and by treating /r/ as [-anterior]. This solution will not work universally because there are languages with [+anterior] rsounds that do not undergo nonanteriorization. Mester and It6 (1989) claim that the rule of palatalization affecting the mimetic vocabulary in Japanese converts /t d s z n/ to their nonanterior (distributed) counterparts but that /r/ remains inert because the output of palatalization has to be structure-preserving, i.e. an underlying segment of the language. This solution is unsatisfactory because it fails to recognize the fact that nonanterior (distributed) r-sounds occur in no human language. Thus, Mester and It6 cannot explain why no language has a posrhical rule like the one they posit for Japanese. since the output of postlexical rules can be nonphonemes.

T.A. Hall I Lingua II0 (2000) I-25

16

In the preceding paragraphs I have established the markedness of palatalized rhotics - expressed in the absolute implicational universal in (14) - on the basis of the generalization in (1 la) and concluded that this markedness is substantiated by languages like the ones described above of the (11 b) type. Let us now consider why palatalized rhotics are marked sounds. In light of the fact that coronal rhotics are [-distributed], I argue that the markedness of palatalized r-sounds is due to (3) which I have reformulated in (23) with the feature [distributed]. (23) Palatalized [-distributed] uted] sounds.

sounds are more marked than palatalized [+distrib-

That palutalized rhotics are [-distributed] sounds can be determined on the basis of some of the phonetic studies that have investigated these sounds. For example, the palatograms in Ladefoged and Maddieson (1996: 223ff.) of Russian [rJ] show that this segment is apical and palatalized. The same generalization can be made regarding the three palatalized rhotics in Toda (Ladefoged and Maddieson, 1996: 223ff.; Spajic et al., 1996). Although phonetic studies of palatalized rhotics in the remaining languages in (10) are, to the best of my knowledge, lacking, I hypothesize that these sounds are for articulatory reasons described above in section 2.1 [-distributed]. A moment’s reflection suggests that the alternative - namely, that the remaining palatalized rhotics in (10) are [+distributed] - could, in light of the exceptionless generalization in (9), probably be considered nothing less than a phonetic miracle. 2.3. The markedness of palatalized rhotics according to Walsh Dickey (1997) Walsh Dickey (1997) offers an explanation for the markedness of palatalized rhotics that differs significantly from the one that I have proposed in (22). In this section I discuss her proposal and show that only my treatment can account for the cross-linguistic facts discussed above. Walsh Dickey (1997) argues that the markedness of palatalized rhotics can be accounted for by postulating that plain rhotics are universally marked for the palatalization feature, which in her theory is the secondary feature [laminal]. Palatalized rhotics are marked twice for the palatalization feature. Representations for plain and palatalized rhotics in Walsh Dickey’s (1997) model have been presented in (24): (24) a. a plain rhotic [liquid]

b. a palatalized rhotic [liquid]

I

I

[coronal]

[coronal]

I

I

[apical]

[apical]

I

I

[laminal]

[laminal] [laminal]

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) l-25

17

The representations in (24) also include a [place] node, which is situated between [coronal] and [liquid]. In Walsh Dickey’s view all liquids, including velar laterals and uvular rhotics, are phonologically [coronal]; for this reason, she argues that [coronal] is a daughter of [liquid]. The logic behind the representation in (24a) is that if plain rhotics like [r] are phonologically palatalized segments then one can account for languages like Carib (see above) in which all coronals except for [r] are secondarily palatalized. Thus, rhotics cannot undergo palatalizations like the one in (21a) - which by definition are rules assigning the palatalization feature [laminal] - because rhotics are inherently palatalized and cannot be marked twice for the same feature value. Note, however, that this argument fails because, according to (21b), there is a segment type that can be marked twice for the palatalization feature. Walsh Dickey (1997: 120ff.) claims that the markedness of palatalized rhotics is a consequence of the recursive representation in (24b). Specifically, she writes that there is a general (violable) constraint barring quaternary structures under [place]. Since [place] dominates four features in (24b), the former representation is predicted to be more marked than the one in (24a), in which [place] dominates only three features. Ignoring the possible theoretical drawbacks of a system that allows abstract features to be recursive, the representations in (24) can be refuted on independent grounds. Walsh Dickey’s proposal is predicated on the following assumption: if a segment is blocked from undergoing an assimilation, then this segment is marked underlyingly for the feature that spreads. As I demonstrated above, the fact that rhotics are universally blocked from the processes of nonanteriorization like the one in (21a) can be accounted for in an alternative fashion. The output of nonanteriorization is a segment that is [+coronal, -anterior, +distributed]. The final feature accounts for the fact that when /s/ undergoes nonanteriorization, it is always realized as 10 in a front vowel context and not as a retroflex [s]. The reason rhotics are immune to nonanteriorization is that rhotics cannot be [+distributed], as I noted above in (9). Thus, the reason rhotics are inert is not that they are marked for the feature that spreads, but instead that they are incompatible with the output of the rule. Walsh Dickey (1997) argues that the representation in (24a) derives support from languages in which /l/ surfaces as a plain [r] or [r] when adjacent to front vowels. The six languages with such processes cited by Walsh Dickey (1997: 127) have been presented in (25):*’ (25) a. b. c. d. e.

In In In In In

Bantu /l/ surfaces as [r] in the environment of [i e]. Bamke /l/ surfaces as [r] before [il. 6ini /I/ surfaces as [r] before [i]. Ganda /I/ surfaces as [r] or [r] after [i e]. Ifugao /l/ surfaces as [r] in syllable-initial position before front vowels.

2’ One might want to determine whether or not the rules in (25) are really productive processes in the respective languages. If they are not then this is one (more) reason to doubt the inherent wisdom of using these examples in support of a theory of features that is supposed to be universal.

18

T.A. Hall / Lingua 110 (2000) l-25

f. In Toncano /l/ surfaces as [r] before front vowels. According to Walsh Dickey (1997: 127ff.) the examples in (25) can be accounted for by positing that the palatalization feature in (24a) (i.e. the secondary feature [laminal]) spreads from a front vowel onto /l/, thereby creating a plain rhotic. The examples in (25) do not provide convincing evidence that plain rhotics are represented as palatalized consonants as in (24a). The first reason to question the examples in (25) as evidence for (24a) is that there are only six languages with the rule in question and three of them (i.e. 25a, 25b, 25d) are Bantu languages. Since there are only five language families attested with this rule and hundreds - if not thousands - of languages without it, one can only conclude that this process is extremely marked. Given that the feature [laminal] in (24a) is ‘abstract’ in the sense that it never surfaces (see below), how does one conclude that the highly marked rules in (25) involve an assimilation of an abstract feature that has no phonetic reality at all? Since rules like the ones in (25) are so rare, a more likely presupposition is that a highly common (and unmarked) process like assimilation is not involved at all. This hypothesis is, in fact, corroborated by the fact that the output of each process (i.e. a tap or trill) shares no phonetic property with the environment (front vowels). A second reason to question Walsh Dickey’s claim that the processes in (25) involve assimilations is that other segment types undergo nonassimilatory changes in the neighborhood of front vocoids. Indeed, Bhat (1978) notes that the front vowel environment triggers not only tongue fronting and raising (i.e ‘palatalization’ in his terminology), but also something he refers to as ‘spirantization’. This term is difficult to define in a consistent way; however, the fact is that the ‘spirantization’ effects documented by Bhat subsume several very diverse properties. For example, many languages tend to convert plain stops into the corresponding fricatives in the neighborhood of front vowels (e.g. /t/becomes [s] before [i] in Finnic) or plain stops into the corresponding affricates (e.g. /t d/ are realized as [ts dz] before front vowels in the Akan language Fante). The cover term ‘spirantization’ also subsumes a kind of obstruentization, e.g. in Fanti /j/ surfaces as [3] before [i e]. Would one therefore conclude from these examples that the output segments, all phonetically not palatalized, are represented phonologically like palatalized sounds in order to capture the fact that they are triggered by front vowels in a handful of languages? Walsh Dickey might respond that independent evidence exists that taps and trills are marked for the same feature as front vowels (i.e. [laminal]), but, as I have shown above and will show below, this independent evidence can easily be accommodated in other ways. The processes in (25) aside, there are at least three additional problems with Walsh Dickey’s analysis. First, the representations in (24) do not account for the typology in (13) or the implicational universal in (14). Second, Walsh Dickey’s proposal does not see the incompatibility of secondary palatalization with rhotics as surface true because plain rhotics are not palatalized in the phonetic representation. Given the fact that plain rhotics like [r] are not palatalized on the surface, Walsh Dickey needs a (phonetic?) operation - present in the grammar of every language with a plain rhotic - that deletes this feature in order to account for the fact that plain

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

19

rhotics are not palatalized. Third, Walsh Dickey does not see the rarity of palatalized rhotics as a consequence of the deeper generalization in (23), namely that nondistributed consonants are impervious to tongue fronting and raising. Crucial independent evidence that it is the apicality (and not an abstract inherent palatalization feature) that accounts for the paucity of palatalized rhotics, will be presented in $3.**

3. Palatalized nonrhotic coronals In this section I argue that sounds like the ones in (4a) above, e.g. [tj ‘Ij $ nJ], are highly marked segments cross-linguistically and conclude that this markedness is to be attributed to the generalization in (23). The category I refer to below as ‘nonrhotic [-distributed] coronal consonants’ subsumes (i) retroflex consonants like [I cl_2 z,], and (ii) alveolar/dental consonants like [d d $ 5 n \I. The palatalized equivalents of these two sets of sounds have been presented in (26a) and (26b) respectively. (26) a. Palatalized retroflex sounds (e.g. [tj 4 SJz,J]) b. Palatalized anterior coronals (e.g. [\J $J ;J z,’ QJLJ]) As I noted above, many languages have palatalized anterior coronals like [tJ Q] but the unmarked articulations of these sounds is laminal and not apical, i.e. [t,J$1. The markedness of the sounds in (26) can be established on the basis of a number of criteria, two of which have been presented in (27). (27) a. Palatalized nonrhotic [-distributed] sounds are rare in phonemic systems; b. In many languages nonrhotic [-distributed] sounds either do not undergo synchronic or diachronic rules assigning secondary palatalization, or else they shift to another sound. (27a) derives empirical support from Maddieson’s (1984) study, in which no language is listed with phonemic palatalized retroflex segments. The only language to my knowledge with such sounds is the Indo-Aryan language Kashmiri, which according to Bhat (1987: 43ff.) has phonemic /t lhJ@/. Clearly, the fact that palatalized retroflex sounds occur in only one language confirms their markedness. Given some of the claims in the literature concerning the features for retroflex sounds (see below), one could argue that an alternative explanation exists for the markedness of the sounds in (26a). Several studies have recognized the strong cross-

22 Walsh Dickey (1997: 130-131) says that additional evidence for the representation in (24a) is that /r/ becomes [i] in Samothraki Greek. Again, one cannot conclude from rare rules that (24a) is correct. The following example might illustrate the problem in another way. In Bavarian German there is a tongue tip trill, i.e. [r]. This sound vocalizes to the low central vowel [e] in the syllable rhyme by an allophonic rule, but one cannot therefore conclude from this example that /r/ is [+low] simply because the output of the rule is [+low].

20

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

linguistic tendency for retroflex sounds to be phonetically and phonologically velarized (e.g. Bhat, 1974: 234ff.) - a generalization that is commonly expressed by representing plain retroflex sounds with the feature [+back] (e.g. Spencer, 1984; Smith 1988; Wilkinson, 1988; Pulleyblank, 1989). If retroflex sounds are universally [+back] then one could presumably claim that the paucity of palatalized retroflex sounds is a consequence of the fact that palatalization and velarization are incompatible, i.e. [+back] precludes [-back]. Bhat (1974) rejects equating retroflexion with velarization (i.e. ‘retraction’ in his terminology) because there is a contrast between retroflex velarized vs. retroflex nonvelarized vowels in the Dravidian language Badaga. I follow Bhat’s claim that retroflexion should not be equated with retraction because there are languages that have plain (i.e. nonvelarized) retroflex consonants (e.g. Lardil, Stevens et al., 1986). Significantly, the retroflex sounds in Lardil do not pattern phonologically as [+back] (see Wilkinson, 1988, and references cited therein). Were plain retroflex sounds universally [+back] then this feature would simply be used as a diacritic in languages like Lardil. What is more, assuming that palatalization is captured with the feature [-back], marking retroflex segments as universally [+back] cannot account for the existence of palatalized retroflex seg,ments in Kashmiri. The generalization in (27a) also subsumes palatalized anterior coronals as in (26b). To be sure, it is often difficult to know for certain whether or not a ‘t’, ‘d’, ‘tj’ or ‘dj’ in an unknown language is phonetically apical or laminal because this distinction is simply not important for most languages; hence, most grammarians simply omit mentioning whether or not ‘t’ or ‘d’ or ‘tj’ or ‘dj’ are apical or laminal in their descriptions of such sounds. My claim that segments like /ij dj # ij/ are rare in inventories can be determined by examining languages that make distinctive use of apicality and laminality in their phonemic systems, as in the Pitta-Pitta inventory in (8). Languages similar to Pitta-Pitta in the sense that they have at least one contrast between an apical vs. a laminal anterior sound (e.g. /A/ vs. /m are rare but not unheard of. A list of all such languages in Maddieson (1984) has been presented in (28): (28) Languages in Maddieson (1984) with at least one anterior apical vs. laminal contrast a. Australian: Tiwi, Nunggubuyu, Bardi, Kunjen, Aranda, Western Desert, Kariera-Ngarluma, Diyari, Arabana-Wanganura, Alawa b. Dravidian: Kota, Brahui, Malayalam c. Penutian: Nez Perce, Araucanian d. Hokan: Porno e. Yuman: Dieguefio f. Yuki: Wappo g. Niger-Kordofanian: Kadugli, Temne h. Nilo-Saharan: Temein Significantly, none of the languages in (28) has a palatalized nonrhotic although in a number of these languages other segments are palatalized.

apical,

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

21

The generalization in (27a) also derives support from the existence of languages with underlying nonpalatalized anterior coronals (e.g. /t d s z/) vs. palatalized anterior coronals (e.g. /tJ dJ sJ zJ/), in which the former sounds are apical and the latter laminal. For example, according to Catford (1977: 192) the phonemic palatalized dentialveolar consonants in Russian have a place of articulation that is slightly different from the corresponding nonpalatalized sounds. Thus, while the ‘t’ and ‘d’ in the Russian words in (29a) are apicodental their palatalized equivalents in (29b) are either ‘lamino-alveolar’ or ‘lamino-postalveolar’ : (29) a. [AOL] ‘that’

[+I

‘yes’

b. [LJobJE] ‘aunt’ [dJa#a] ‘uncle’

My impressionistic view is that many if not most of the languages that oppose palatalized vs. plain consonants are similar to Russian in that the palatalized (nonrhotic) sounds are laminal and not apical. The preceding discussion begs the question of whether or not sounds like the ones in (26), e.g. [LJ$lJ%Jz,J# AJ],are attested at all in some language. The one language to my knowledge in which sounds like these are reported is the Ring dialect of Munster Irish described by Breatnach (1947: 30-32). Breatnach writes that Irish /t d/ are pronounced with the ‘tongue tip’ and the palatalized equivalents /tJ dJ/ are also ‘tongue tip’ sounds, with secondary palatalization. The descriptions of Connacht Irish dialects by Mhac an Fhailigh (1968: 30) and De Bhaldraithe (1945: 25-26) concur in describing the latter sounds as palatalized apicals. According to 6 Cuiv (1944: 34-36) and Holmer (1962: 34-35) ‘slender’, i.e. palatalized ‘t d’ are pronounced with the tongue tip in Munster Irish dialects. The markedness of the segments in (26) derives additional support from (27b), a generalization saying that palatalized apicals avoid surfacing with secondary palatalization. This can happen in one of three ways: (i) Either the apical sound shifts to the corresponding laminal sound when palatalized; or (ii) the apical sound resists palatalization altogether; or (iii) phonemic palatalized apical sounds are lost at a later historical stage. Since only two modem languages are attested with palatalized nonrhotic apicals (i.e. Kashmiri and Irish) it is hardly surprising that no examples illustrating (iii) are known to me. In the remainder of this section 1 consider examples of (i) and (ii). Examples of(i) would be synchronic or diachronic processes like palatalization in (30a) or nonanteriorization in (30b). (30) a. /f/ -+ @I/_ i e b. I;/ + IjY _ i e As noted by Bhat (1978: 70ff.) there is a strong tendency for apical segments to become laminal when palatalized, as in (3Oa-b). An example of a language with a rule of nonanteriorization like (30b) is Basque. According to Iverson and Ofiederra (198.5) what they refer to as ‘expressive palatalization’ in Basque converts an apical sound into the corresponding nonanterior laminal segment before high vowels.

22

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

Indeed, there is an obvious phonetic reason for this shift from apical to laminal articulation in both palatalization and nonanteriorization. Since secondary palatalization is articulated with the tongue blade/front, this articulation is by definition laminal; it is therefore only natural that an apical sound like [f] shifts to a laminal [b] when palatalized. The output of nonanteriorization is universally laminal and not apical, e.g. /i/ shifts to (laminal) 111and not (apical) [s] in the neighborhood of front vocoids. Not surprisingly, Bhat notes that the most common effect of nonanteriorization (i.e. 30b) is to convert apical consonants into postalveolar (laminal) affricates, as in (29b).23 The markedness generalizations in (i)-(iii) make several predictions concerning how retroflex segments should behave when palatalized. One possible outcome is (ii), i.e. the retroflex sound resists palatalization altogether. Another possibility is (i), i.e. the retroflex segment undergoes secondary palatalization but it then shifts to another segment. I am aware of one example of a language which illustrates (ii), namely Scats Gaelic.24 In this language there are phonetically retroflexed consonants that occur, for example in word-final position. In the Lewis dialect of Scats Gaelic (Borgstrom, 1940: 76), retroflexed consonants (and the clusters they are a part of) resist palatalization altogether and simply surface as (plain) retroflexed, i.e. (ii). For example, nouns like [pa:t] ‘a poet’ and [to:rlj ‘fist’, which end in retroflex consonants surface as [pa:lJ and [tu:rl] respectively in the genitive singular, even though this class of noun usually is marked by palatalization in the genitive, e.g. [khath] ‘cat’ (nom. sg.) vs. [khathj] ‘cat’ (gen. sg.).25 Whether or not there are languages illustrating (i), or additional languages illustrating (ii) are questions I leave open for further study.

4. Conclusion The present article has examined a number of cross-linguistic generalizations concerning palatalized rhotics, all of which suggest that sounds like [rj] are highly marked. I have argued that this markedness is a consequence of the generalization that apical sounds, for obvious articulatory reasons, are not stable hosts for secondary palatalization. My claim derives independent support from the markedness of palatalized nonrhotic apicals like [$I. The analysis I have presented above has made a number of very strong claims which can in principle be falsified. For example, the typology posited in (13) and the implicational universal in (14) predict that a certain logically possibly language type,

23 It is also worth noting that in some languages retroflex consonants avoid front vowel contexts. For example, in the Southern Amerindian language Chacobo [e] cannot be. preceded or followed by [i] within a word but m can occur in when adjacent to [i] (Prost, 1967: 62). Pulleyblank (1989: 384) writes that retroflex sounds in Mandarin historically avoid front vocoid contexts. 24 I would like to thank Mark Ellison for drawing the Scats Gaelic dialects to my attention and Antony Dubach Green for providing me with the references. 25 The vowel shift from [o:] to [u:] in ‘fist’ is regular.

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) 1-25

23

i.e. one with a palatalized rhotic and no palatalized nonrhotics, is a systematic gap. One could obviously falsify this claim by uncovering examples of such languages. Although the implicational universal in (14) is intended to hold only for phonemic systems, I also made the tentative claim that it describes rule systems as well. Thus, there should in principle be languages in which palatalization rules affect all consonants except for the rhotics, but no language should have a palatalization rule that only affects the rhotics and not the nonrhotics.

References Abondolo, D. (ed.), 1998. The Uralic languages. London: Routledge. Ball, M.J. and J. Fife (eds.), 1993. The Celtic languages. London: Routledge. Bauer, W., 1993. Maori. London: Routledge. Bhat, D.N.S., 1974. Retroflexion and retraction. Journal of Phonetics 2, 233-237. Bhat, D.N.S., 1978. A general study of palatalization. In: J. Greenberg (ed.), 47-92. Bhat, R., 1987. A descriptive study of Kashmiri. Delhi: Amar Prakashan. Bloch, B., 1950. Studies in colloquial Japanese. Language 26, 86-125. Borgstrom, C.Hj., 1940. A linguistic survey of the Gaelic dialects of Scotland, vol. I: The dialects of the outer Hebrides. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. Suppl. Bind I. Oslo: Aschehoug. Borgstrom, C.Hj., 1941. A linguistic survey of the Gaelic dialects of Scotland, vol. II: The dialects of Skye and Ross-shire. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. Suppl. Bind II. Oslo: Aschehoug. Breatnach, R.B., 1947. The Irish of Ring, Co. Watertford: A phonetic study. Dublin: DIAS. Campbell, G.L., 1991. Compendium of the world’s languages. London: Routledge. Carlton, T.R., 1990. Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages. Columbus: Slavica. Catford, J.C., 1977. Fundamental problems in phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Catford, J.C., 1988. A practical introduction to phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle, 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. Christdas, P., 1988. The phonology and morphology of Tamil. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Colarusso, J., 1988. The Northwest Caucasian languages: A phonological survey. New York: Garland. Comrie, B. and G.G. Corbett (eds.), 1993. The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge. de Bhaldraithe, T., 1945. The Irish of Cois Fhairrge, Co. Galway: A phonetic study. Dublin: DIAS. Dixon, R.M.W., 1980. The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Emeneau, M.B., 1984. Toda grammar and texts. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society. Gerdel, F., 1973. Paez phonemics. Linguistics 104, 2848. Gillies, W., 1993. Scottish Gaelic. In: M.J. Ball and J. Fife (eds.), 145-227. Gnanadesikan, A.E., 1993. The feature geometry of coronal subplaces. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 16, 27-67. Greenberg, J.H. (ed.), 1978. Universals of human language, vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hajdd, P. and L. Honti, 1984. Studien zur phonologischen Beschreibung uralischer Sprachen. Budapest: Bibliotheca Uralica. Hall, T.A., 1997. The phonology of coronals. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hock, H.H., 1986. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton. Holmer, N.M., 1962. The dialects of Co. Clare, Part I. Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Hoskinson, J., 1974. Prosodies and verb stems in Gude. Linguistics 141, 17-26. Hualde, J.I., 1991. Basque phonology. London: Routledge. Hume, E., 1992. Front vowels, coronal consonants, and their interaction in nonlinear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Hume, E., J. Muller and A. van Engelenhoven, 1998. Non-moraic geminates in Leti. Phonology 14. 371-402.

24

T.A. Hall I Lingua 110 (2000) I-25

Hyman, L., 1970. How concrete is phonology? Language 46,58-76. Iverson, G.K. and M.L. Ofiederra, 1985. On Basque palatalization. Folia Linguistica 19, 5161. Jackson, K.H., 1955. Contributions to the study of Manx phonology. Edinburgh: Nelson. Keating, P., 1991. Coronal places of articulation. In: C. Paradis and J.-F. Prunet (eds.), 29-48. Kimenyi, A., 1980. A relational grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Korhonen, M., 1984. Zur zentralen Problematik der terlappischen Phonologie. In: P. Hajdd and L. Honti (eds.), 31 l-325. KuEera, H., 1961. The phonology of Czech. The Hague: Mouton. K&era, H. and G.K. Monroe, 1968. A comparative quantitative phonology of Russian, Czech and German. New York: American Elsevier. Ladefoged, P., 1971. Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ladefoged, P., 1982. A course in phonetics. New York: Harcourt. Ladefoged, P., A. Cochran and S. Disner, 1977. Laterals and trills. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 7, 46-54. Ladefoged, P. and I. Maddieson, 1996. Sounds of the world’s languages. London: Blackwell. Laver, J., 1994. Principles of phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindau, M., 1985. The story of/r/. In: V. Fromkin (ed.), Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged, 157-168. New York: Academic Press. Mac Eoin, G., 1993. Irish. In: M. J. Ball and J. Fife (eds.), 101-144. Maddieson, I., 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mester, R.A. and J. It& 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65, 258-293. Mhac an Fhailigh, E., 1968. The Irish of Erris, Co. mayo: A phonemic study. Dublin: DIAS. Murray, R. and T. Vennemann, 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic. Language 59, 514-528. Ni Chasaide, A., 1995. Irish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 25, 34-39. 6 Cuiv, B., 1944. The Irish of West Muskerry, co. Cork. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies. Oftedal, M., 1956. A linguistic survey of the Gaelic dialects of Scotland, vol. III: The Gaelic dialect of Leurbost Isle of Lewis. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap. Suppl. Bind IV. Oslo: Aschehoug. Paradis, C. and J.-F. Prunet (eds.), 1991. Phonetics and phonology. The special status of coronals. Internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press. Polanski, K., 1993. Polabian. In: B. Comrie and G.G. Corbett (eds.), 795-824. Prost, G., 1967. Phonemes of the Chacobo language. Linguistics 35, 61-65. Pulleyblank. E., 1989. The role of coronal in articulator based features. Papers from the Chicago Linguistics Society 25, 379-393. Recasens, D., 1990. The articulatory characteristics of palatal consonants. Journal of Phonetics 18, 267-280. Redei, K. (ed.), 1987. Studien zur Phonologie und Morphonologie der uralischen Sprachen. Wien: Verband der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften Gsterreichs. Rubach, J., 1984. Cyclic and lexical phonology: The structure of Polish. Dordrecht: Foris. Rubach, J., 1993. The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sagey, E., 1986. The representation of features and relations in non-linear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Salminen, T., 1998. Nenets. In: D. Abondolo (ed.), 5 16547. Scatton, E.A., 1993. Bulgarian. In: B. Comrie and G.G. Corbett (eds.): 188-248. Schaarschmidt, G., 1998. The historical phonology of the upper and lower Sorbian languages. Heidelberg: Winter. Senn, A., 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache, Band I: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter. Shalev, M., P. Ladefoged and P. Bhaskararao, 1993. Phonetics of Toda. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 64, 89-125. Shevelov, G.Y., 1993. Ukranian. In: B. Comrie and G.G. Corbett (eds.), 947-998. Smith, N., 1988. Consonantal place features. In: H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.), Features, segmental structure and harmony processes, 209-235. Dordrecht: Foris.

T.A. Hall I Lingua I IO (2000) l-25

2s

SpajiC, S., P. Ladefoged and P. Bhaskararao, 1996. The trills of Toda. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 26, l-21. Spencer, A., 1984. Eliminating the feature [lateral]. Journal of Linguistics 20, 23-43. Stevens K., S.J. Keyser and H. Kawasaki, 1986. Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In: J. Perkell and D. Klatt (eds.), Symposium on invariance and variability of speech processes, 426449. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Stone, G., 1993. Sorbian. In: B. Comrie and G.G. Corbett (eds.), 593485. Timberlake, A., 1993. Russian. In: B. Comrie and G.G. Corbett (eds.), 827-886. Ulbrich, H., 1972. Instrumental-phonetisch-auditive R-Untersuchungen im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Vago, R., 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Vance, T.. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Vennemann, T., 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton. Viitso, T.-R., 1987. North Veps phonology. In: K. Redei (ed.), 304312. Walsh Dickey, L., 1997. The phonology of liquids. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Walton, J. and J. Walton, 1967. Phonemes of Muinane. In: V. Waterhouse (ed.), Phonemic systems of Columbian languages, 3747. Norman, OK: Studies in Linguistics, University of Oklahoma. Wilkinson, K., 1988. Prosodic structure and Lardil phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2): 325-334. Williamson, K., 1969. Igbo. In: E. Dunstan (ed.), Twelve Nigerian languages, 85-96. London: Longmans Green. Wolff, H.E., 1993. Referenzgrammatik des Hausa. Miinster: LIT. Wu, C. (Ujiyediin Chuluu), 1996. Daur. Miinchen: Lincom Europa. Zaicz, G., 1998. Mordva. In: Abondolo (ed.).