What’s wrong with being a rhotic?

Alex Chabot

doi:10.5334/gjgl.618

Abstract

The class of rhotics is subject to extensive variation, and a reliable phonetic correlate has not been found. This variation is also why identifying a segment as a rhotic in an unknown language is not a trivial matter. In contrast to other phonological classes whose membership is attributed based on principled criteria, the set of rhotics is arbitrary. This article identifies two properties independent of phonetics which characterize rhotics cross-linguistically PROCEDURAL STABILITY—rhotics that are implicated in phonological processes can vary in a phonetically arbitrary manner without perturbing the process itself—and DIACHRONIC STABILITY: the phonetics of rhotics can vary in diachronic evolution without impact on their phonotactics. On the empirical side the article establishes a cross-linguistic survey of the phonetic variability of rhotics. It is also argued that the phonetic realization of a rhotic may be unpredictable and divorced from its phonological identity and this shows that languages are happy to instantiate an arbitrary phonetics-phonology relationship. Finally, it is argued that rhotics show that the interface which maps phonological objects to their phonetic instantiations is capable of handling an arbitrary relationship. Further, there is no reason to assume that this property of the interface is specific to rhotics; in principle, all phonetic and phonological categories could enter into an arbitrary relationship. This has important implications for theories which seek to impose phonetic or naturalness based constraints on phonology: it is difficult to see how the relationship between a phonetic object which has no obvious articulatory connection to its phonological representation could be considered phonetically natural. Rhotics thus provide support for the view of substance-free phonology whereby phonological objects are devoid of any reference to phonetic categories.

Highlights

The goal of this paper is two-fold: the first is to contribute to the long-standing discussion concerning the status of rhotics
I have argued that a principled set of rhotics can be identified not by using phonetic clues or phonological representations, but giving a definition of rhotics that is based on their phonological behavior: their status as sonorants, their procedural stability, and their diachronic stability
The data show that rhotics constitute an arbitrary phonetics-phonology pattern; in this case a phonological class that cannot be usefully described by making appeals to phonetic qualities, since it is a diverse class of phonetically disparate segments

Summary

Introduction

The goal of this paper is two-fold: the first is to contribute to the long-standing discussion concerning the status of rhotics. The present article argues that there may be no way of deriving rhotic unity via representational models; instead rhotics can be identified by recognizing the way they behave and the role they play within phonological systems. To this end rhotic data from several languages is presented. It is suggested that the locus of apparent phonetic naturalness outside of the phonology, as has been argued elsewhere (for example Blevins 2004; Hale & Reiss 2008) In this view it is in the interface—phonological spell-out (Scheer 2014)—where phonetic variation is found. Introducing spell-out into the phonological architecture means there is no need for establishing a specific rhotic identity in the phonology

The problem with being a rhotic

Conclusion