Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 39:3 (2022) ► pp.409–448

Liquid polarity, positional contrast, and diachronic change

Clear and dark /r/ in Latin

ORCID logo | University of Sheffield
| Cambridge University
Apparently disparate sound changes in Latin, involving both vowels and consonants but sensitive to /r/, can be explained by reconstructing a positional clear/dark contrast in /r/, motivated by the seldom-mentioned “liquid polarity” effect. Examining these diachronic processes together allows us to see a larger picture, providing evidence for the reconstruction of successive past synchronic states. Latin /r/ mirrored the behaviour of Latin /l/ up to the first century BC: /l/ was dark and /r/ was clear in codas, and /r/ was dark and /l/ was underspecified for tongue body position in onsets. Darkness in /r/ was partly implemented through the selection of r-type: dark onset approximant and clear coda tap. Later, coda /r/ became an approximant like onset /r/, and subsequently both became trills, resulting in the erosion of the positional contrast and the liquid polarity effect.
Keywords: Latin, historical phonology, phonetic reconstruction, clear and dark resonance, liquid polarity, positional contrast, rhotics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Clear and dark /l/
  • 3.Prehistoric Latin: *s and *ð > /b/ when next to /r/
  • 4.Dark, approximant onset /r/
    • 4.1Rhotacism
    • 4.2Vowel reduction
    • 4.3Vowel lowering in initial syllables
    • 4.4Secondary syllabic *r̩
    • 4.5Metathesis
  • 5.Clear, tap coda /r/
    • 5.1Failure of onset /r/ phenomena
    • 5.2Pre-coronal fronting
    • 5.3Raising of /e/
    • 5.4Raising of *ō
    • 5.5Evidence for a tap
  • 6.Imperial Latin erosion of clear/dark /r/ distinction
    • 6.1Vowel lengthening
    • 6.2Imperial vowel lowering before /r/
    • 6.3Grammarians
  • 7.Liquid polarity and positional contrast
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 21 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.17032.sen
References (92)
References
Adams, James N. 1977. The Vulgar Latin of the Letters of Claudius Terentianus (P. Mich. VIII, 467 – 72 ). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
2007. The regional diversification of Latin, 200 BC – AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
AE = L’Année Épigraphique.
Allen, W. Sidney. 1989. Vox Latina. The pronunciation of Classical Latin. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barry, William J. 1997. Another r-tickle. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 271. 35–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2015. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In Patrick Honeybone & Joseph C. Salmons (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 374–399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. S. 1974. The phonology of liquid consonants. Working Papers on Language Universals 161. 73–104.Google Scholar
Bladon, R. Anthony W. & Ameen Al-Bamerni. 1976. Coarticulation resistance in English /l/. Journal of Phonetics 41. 137–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Andrew Garrett. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 741. 508–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowman, Alan & David Thomas. 1994. The Vindolanda writing tablets (Tabulae Vindolandenses II). London: British Museum Press.Google Scholar
Camodeca, Giuseppe. 1999. Tabulae Pompeianae Sulpiciorum. Edizione critica dell’archivio puteolano dei Sulpicii. Rome: Quasar.Google Scholar
Carter, Paul. 2003. Extrinsic phonetic interpretation: Spectral variation in English liquids. In J. K. Local, R. A. Ogden & R. A. Temple (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6: Phonetic Interpretation, 237–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Paul & John Local. 2007. F2 variation in Newcastle and Leeds English liquid systems. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 371. 183–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, John C. 2001. On Rs, rhotacism and paleophony. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 31(2). 171–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra. 2012. Articulatory variation of the alveolar tap and implications for sound change. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Reports 8(8). 76–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew. Y. & William. S. Wang. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51(2). 255–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CIL = 1862–. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. Berolini: Apud Georgium Reimerum & Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clackson, James & Geoffrey Horrocks. 2011. The Blackwell history of the Latin language. Malden (MA), Oxford & Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre & Donald C. Freeman. 1968. A dialect study of American r’s by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics 441. 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vaan, Michiel A. C. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward S. 2003. The relationship between coronal place and vowel backness. Phonology 201. 353–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, Naomi. 2011. Lenition. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1559–1575. Malden (MA), Oxford & Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew K. 2016. Phonological typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Tracy A. & Silke Hamann. 2010. On the cross-linguistic avoidance of rhotic plus high front vocoid sequences. Lingua 1201. 1821–1844. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, Markus. 2005. Die frühlateinischen Inschriften und ihre Datierung. Eine linguistisch-archäologisch-paläographische Untersuchung. Bremen: Hempen Verlag.Google Scholar
Hassall, Mark W. C. & Roger S. O. Tomlin. 1977. Inscriptions. Britannia 81. 426–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heid, Sebastian & Sarah Hawkins. 2000. An acoustical study of long domain /r/ and /l/ coarticulation. Proceedings of the 5th ISCA Seminar on Speech Production: Models and Data, 77–80.Google Scholar
Herman, József. 2000. Vulgar Latin. Translated by Roger Wright. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick. 2012. Lenition in English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 773–787. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huld, Martin E. 2011. Was there an Indo-European word for ‘pear’? Journal of Indo-European Studies 391. 380–394.Google Scholar
Jackson, Kenneth H. 1953. Language and history in early Britain: A chronological survey of the Brittonic languages, first to twelfth century A.D. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Juret, Abel-Claude. 1938. La phonétique latine. Second edition. Paris: Société d’Édition les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya. 2002. Compensatory lengthening: Phonetics, phonology, diachrony. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keil, Heinrich. 1855–1880. Grammatici Latini. Eight volumes1. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Kelly, John & John Local. 1989. Doing phonology: Observing, recording, interpreting. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kent, Roland G. 1932. The sounds of Latin. A descriptive and historical phonology. Baltimore: Waverly Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Ian Maddieson. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford & Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lawson, Eleanor, Jane Stuart-Smith, James M. Scobbie, Malcah Yaeger-Dror & Margaret Maclagen. 2011. Liquids. In Marianna di Paolo & Malcah Yaeger-Dror. (eds.), Sociophonetics: A student’s guide, 72–86. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leumann, Manu. 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Second edition. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona. 1985. The story of /r/. In Victoria A. Fromkin. (ed.), Phonetic Linguistics. Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged, 157–168. London: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
LIV = Helmut Rix & Martin Kümmel. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Second edition. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Maniet, Albert. 1957. L’évolution phonétique et les sons du latin ancien dans le cadre des langues indo-européennes. Third edition. Louvain & Paris: Éditions Nauwelaerts & Béatrice-Nauwelaerts.Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard. 1998. Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 2009. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Seventh edition. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar
Monteil, Pierre. 1970. Éléments de phonétique et morphologie du latin. Paris: Fac. Fernand Nathan.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Alan J. 1999. *Jocidus: an account of the Latin adjectives in -idus . In Heiner Eichner & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler, 377–419. Praha: Enigma Corporation.Google Scholar
2016. A note on Latin syllables and anaptyxis. In Andrew M. Byrd, Jessica DeLisi & Mark Wenthe (eds.), Tavet Tat Satyam: Studies in honor of Jared S. Klein on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 214–227. Ann Arbor & New York: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2003. Phonetics and historical phonology. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 669–686. Maldon (MA), Oxford & Victoria: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Maria-Josep Solé. 2010. Turbulence and phonology. In Susanne Fuchs, Martine Toda & Marzena Zygis (eds.), Turbulent sounds: An interdisciplinary guide. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 37–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OLD = P. G. W. Glare. (ed.). 1996. Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Olive, Joseph P., Alice Greenwood & John Coleman. 1993. Acoustics of American English speech: A dynamic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Painter, Robert K. 2011. Acoustic and perceptual explanations for rhotacism in Latin and Germanic. PhD dissertation, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
Parker, Holt N. 1988. Latin *sisō >serō and related rules. Glotta 661. 221–241.Google Scholar
Petolescu, Constantin C. 1985. Valerius Vivianus, Biercus. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 611. 238.Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2006. Word frequency and lexical diffusion. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pighi, Giovanni B. 1964. Lettere latine d’un soldato di Traiano. PMich 467–472. Bologna: Zanichelli Editore.Google Scholar
Powell, Jonathan G. F. 2007. A new text of the Appendix Probi. Classical Quarterly 571. 687–700. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pultrová, Lucie. 2013. On the phonetic nature of the Latin R. Eruditio Antiqua 51. 21–29.Google Scholar
Recasens, Daniel. 2006. Gradient weakening of syllable-final /s, r/ in Majorcan Catalan consonant clusters. In H. C. Yehia, D. Demolin, & R. Laboissiere (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Seminar on Speech Production, 11–18. Cefala: Belo Horizonte.Google Scholar
. 2012. Coarticulation in Catalan dark [ɫ] and the alveolar trill: General implications for sound change. Language and Speech 561. 45–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recasens, Daniel, Jordi Fontdevila & Maria Dolors Pallarès. 1995. Velarization degree and coarticulatory resistance for /l/ in Catalan and German. Journal of Phonetics 23(1,2). 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recasens, Daniel & Maria Dolors Pallarès. 1999. A study of /ɾ/ and /r/ in the light of the ‘DAC’ coarticulation model. Journal of Phonetics 271. 143–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recasens, Daniel, Maria Dolors Pallarès & Jordi Fontdevila. 1997. A model of lingual coarticulation based on articulatory constraints. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1021. 544–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
RIB = R. G. Collingwood & R. P. Wright. 1965. The Roman inscriptions of Britain. 1, Inscriptions on stone. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ritchie, James A. 1999. R-Myth-athesis: A perception-based approach at understanding some r-related sound changes. In Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr (eds.), New insights in Germanic linguistics I, 211–222. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rix, Helmut. 1995. Einige lateinische Präsensstammbildungen zur Seṭ-Wurzeln. In Wojciech Smoczyński (ed.), Kuryłowicz memorial volume. Part One, 399–408. Krakow: Universitas.Google Scholar
Romero, Joaquín & Sidney Martín. 2003. Articulatory weakening as basis of historical rhotacism. In Maria-Josep Solé, Daniel Recasens & Joaquin Romero (eds.), 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, Spain, August 3–9, 2003, 2825–2828. Barcelona: IPA.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M., Reenu Punnoose & Ghada Khattab. 2013. Articulating five liquids: A single speaker ultrasound study of Malayalam. In Lorenzo Spreafico & Alessandro Vietti (eds.), Rhotics: New data and perspectives, 99–124. Bolzano: Bozen-Bolzano University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Ranjan. 2009. Syllable and segment in Latin. D. Phil. thesis, Oxford University.
. 2012. Reconstructing phonological change: Duration and syllable structure in Latin vowel reduction. Phonology 291. 465–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Syllable and segment in Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 2002. Aerodynamic characteristics of trills and phonological patterning. Journal of Phonetics 301. 655–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Effects of syllable position on sound change: An aerodynamic study of final fricative weakening. Journal of Phonetics 381. 289–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solin, Heikki & Paola Caruso. 2014. Dai nomi alle aree sepolcrali. Memorie beneventane in epigrafi note e inedite. Oebalus. 91. 63–89.Google Scholar
Spajić, Siniša, Peter Ladefoged & Peri Bhaskararao. 1996. The trills of Toda. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 261. 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard & Osamu Fujimura. 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 211. 291–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In Elizabeth V. Hume & Keith Johnson (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 220–250. San Diego; London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2004. Phonetics and philology: Sound change in Italic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H. 1968. The pronunciation of Greek and Latin. Second edition. Groningen: Bouma’s Boekhuis N. V. Publishers.Google Scholar
Tunley, Alison. 1999. Coarticulatory influences of liquids on vowels in English. PhD dissertation, Cambridge University.
Vijūnas, Aurelijus. 2018. The mechanism for rhotacism re-visited: A typological parallel from East Asia. In Dieter Gunkel, Stephanie W. Jamison, Angelo O. Mercado & Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.), Vina diem celebrent: Studies in linguistics and philology in honor of Brent Vine, 415–425. Ann Arbor & New York: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor & New York: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
. Forthcoming. Pig, cake and sun: Observations on the iúvila inscriptions. In Satoko Hisatsugi (ed.), Die italischen Sprachen – neue Aspekte in linguistischer und philologischer Hinsicht. Zur Erinnerung an Albert Debrunner. Hamburg: Baar-Verlag.
West, Paula. 1999. Perception of distributed coarticulatory properties of English /l/ and /ɹ/. Journal of Phonetics 271. 405–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westbury, John R., Michiko Hashi & Mary J. Lindstrom. 1998. Differences among speakers in lingual articulation for American English /ɹ/. Speech Communication 261. 203–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 2011. The representation of rhotics. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 711–729. Malden (MA), Oxford & Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, David R. & Richard Pearson Wright. 1968. Roman Britain in 1967. Journal of Roman Studies 581. 176–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Richard. 2004. A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology, 34–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zair, Nicholas. 2017. The origins of urC for expected orC in Latin. Glotta 931. 255–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zawadzki, Paul A. & David P. Kuehn. 1980. A cineradiographic study of static and dynamic aspects of American English /r/. Phonetica 37(4). 253–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar