Re: Phonology: How to classify /l/ and /r/

En réponse à Fredrik Ekman <ekman@...>:

> I have come up with a phonology-related problem. I do not quite know
> how
> to classify /l/ and /r/. Different textbooks give them different
> labels
> and also group them with different other sounds. I realize that this
> is
> probably somewhat language specific, but there must be some underlying
> logic that I fail to understand.
>
This is because those sounds are acoustically some of the most complex there
is, and can thus be classified with other sounds depending on which feature
you're looking at. I personally like the way they are classified in the IPA
(http://www.i-foo.com/~kturtle/misc/xsamchart.gif): [r] (you use brackets for
actual sounds or phones. // is for phonemes, which are abstract entities) is a
trill, and [l] is a lateral approximant (you see: complex thing: lateral *and*
approximant). But [r] can also be classified among the rhotics, like [R], [r\],
[4], etc..., and [l] is often called a "liquid", in which case it's classified
along with [r] and [4].

> To begin with, why is it so common that the two sounds are only a
> single
> phoneme in many languages? They sound very different to me.
>
Because they are two different phonemes to you. There are probably sounds that
sound alike to you which I find extremely different. There's no real reason why
some sounds should be better differentiated than others (OK, I doubt people
will confuse [p] and [k], but it seems that [p] and [k_w] can be confused,
although they sound nothing alike to me). It just happens in some languages and
not in others. Most French people don't hear the difference between [s] and
[T], for instance, because we don't have [T] in French. You cannot use your
experience to infer that other people *should* be able to separate two sounds.

> How common is it to have more than two phonemically distinctive r/l
> sounds?
>
Well, not very common, but not very uncommon. Spanish has two r's: [r] and [4],
and they are phonemic (pero ["pe4o] means "but", but perro ["pero]
means "dog"). I think Portuguese has the same distinction. English has [l] and
[5] (velarised l), but I don't know if the difference is phonetic. Welsh has
[l] 'l' and [K] 'll' ([K] is the voiceless lateral fricative, and for people
whose L1 doesn't have it it can sound like [S] or like a voiceless [l] - or
like [Sl] :)) -).

> What other sounds could/should be grouped with them, and why?
>
If you take [r] as a trill, you group [B\] and [R\] with it, because they are
trills too. If you consider it as a rhotic, it belongs with [4], [r\], [r`],
[r\`], [R] and [R\], as well as rhotic vowels and possibly retroflex consonants
(not sure about that one). They all have some acoustic feature in common. If
you consider it as a liquid (not a precise term though), it probably belongs
with [l] and [4], as well as [j] and [w], because they are more "liquid" than
others (i.e. make less friction).

As for [l], taken as a lateral, it belongs with [K], [K\], [l`], [L] and [L\],
all laterals. As an approximant, add to the list [w], [v\], [r\], [r\`], [j],
[H] and [M\], all approximants.

And then there are the language-specific groupings, like the presence of
syllabic consonants, in which case you can sometimes group [l], [n] and [s]
together, because in some language they can be syllabic!

> I am working on a phonology with four different consonant classes:
> Fricatives, plosives, nasals and a fourth group including /r/, /l/,
> /w/
> and possibly /j/. Would that be a good idea? If so, what should it be
> called?
>
That's basically how Sanskrit classifies its consonants. As I said, the
term "liquid" fits somewhat. You can also call them "semi-consonants",
especially if they can be syllabic, or "approximants" (although [r] is not an
approximant, it's often lumped with them).

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

Take your life as a movie: do not let anybody else play the leading role.

Replies