Consonant epenthesis and the problem of unnatural phonology

Bert Vaux, Harvard University

vaux@fas.harvard.edu
Yale University Linguistics Colloquium
September 16, 2002

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1. r-insertion in English..........................................................................................................................................2
1.2. Consonant insertion cross-linguistically ............................................................................................................2
2. “Natural” accounts for consonant epenthesis ............................................................................................................3
2.1. Underlying consonant ........................................................................................................................................4
2.1.1. Problems.....................................................................................................................................................4
2.2. Default segment .................................................................................................................................................6
2.2.1. Place markedness hierarchy (Lombardi 1997) ...........................................................................................6
2.3. Homorganic glide insertion (McCarthy 1997, 1999) .........................................................................................9
2.3.1. Problems.....................................................................................................................................................9
2.4. Similarity (Steriade 2000)................................................................................................................................11
2.5. Contextual markedness (Uffmann 2002) .........................................................................................................13
2.5.1. Problems...................................................................................................................................................14
3. Problems for all “natural” analyses .........................................................................................................................14
3.1. S-insertion in Dominican Spanish and English................................................................................................14
3.2. What can and can’t an OT analysis produce? ..................................................................................................14
4. Summary and conclusions .......................................................................................................................................15
References ...................................................................................................................................................................16

1. Introduction
Recent theories of phonology, most notably Optimality Theory (OT) and Articulatory Phonology
(AP), have returned to one of the leading ideas of 1970s Natural Phonology, namely that
phonological processes and constraints are synchronically well-motivated (normally by phonetic
considerations). Seemingly unnatural processes such as the insertion of r in some dialects of
English have therefore called for special explanation in these theories. Both OT and AP stand in
stark contrast on this count to rule-based theories derived from SPE, which allow rules to insert
synchronically arbitrary segments (though a formal cost is associated with each feature included
in the rule, predicting that rules inserting fewer features will be more common than rules
inserting large bundles of features).
This paper provides formal arguments and empirical evidence from a range of languages
demonstrating that the prediction of rule-based phonology is correct: a language can choose any
consonant for insertion by regular rule. This is a problem for both OT and AP, which are
specifically designed to exclude insertion of synchronically-arbitrary segments. The primary
problem for OT and AP is that a grammar arises from the confrontation of the human language
acquisition device with the arbitrary linguistic data to which it is exposed; since these data
encode layers of historical change, the resulting phonological grammar will be “unnatural” in the
words of Anderson 1981 and Hyman 2000 (cf. also Bach and Harms 1972, Hellberg 1978,
Manaster Ramer 1991, Chomsky 2000, McMahon 2000, Hale and Reiss 2000). I argue that
unnatural systems of this type are accounted for most efficiently and insightfully in a rule-driven

1
framework; existing OT implementations can be jury-rigged to account for the relevant
phenomena, but only at the cost of abandoning the central theoretical tenets that have been
claimed to give OT the advantage over derivational theories.

1.1. r-insertion in English

(1) Boston r-insertion and r-deletion
a. underlying /r/ deletes in syllable coda
b. [r] is inserted after low vowels before a vowel under certain conditions
c. spa ‘place to buy lottery tickets’ the spa closed the spa[r] is closed
spar ‘beam’ the spar closed the spar is missing

(2) linearized versions of Halle and Idsardi 1997:

a. r-deletion r → Ø / V _ ]σ
b. r-insertion Ø → r / V[-high] _ ]σ V ([-high] covers {´, A:, ç:, √)

(3) Historical source: r-deletion followed by hypercorrection (Jones 1928)

“Intrusive [r] is the result of overgeneralization in the context where linking [r] appears. Instead
of deleting underlying /r/ in most contexts, [r] is inserted in all contexts where linking [r]
appears, i.e. intervocalically after [´, A:, ç:]” (Uffmann 2002:2)

Problem: r-insertion is synchronically unexpected; seems unnatural compared to insertion of

homorganic glide or glottal stop.
• This is not really a problem in Derivational Phonology, where the form of rules is
constrained in certain ways but the content is determined (at least in part) by the data fed
into the Language Acquisition Device, which are arbitrary.
• OT on the other hand, like Natural Phonology, is built on the assumption that nothing is
arbitrary, and hence is not well suited to deal with apparent cases of arbitrariness in
synchronic phonological systems. If a segment is inserted, it should be the maximally
unmarked segment (McCarthy 1993).

Interestingly, McCarthy’s change in framework forced him to change his basic take on the facts;
cf. “Epenthesis of r is always historically secondary to deletion of r, from which it derives by
reanalysis.” (McCarthy 1993:190)

1.2. Consonant insertion cross-linguistically

(4) Empirical predictions of Optimality Theory (OT) and Derivational Phonology (DP)
i. OT requires the inserted consonant to be predictable via either markedness (Lombardi
1997, Uffmann 2002) or perceptual factors (Steriade 2000)
[/] (Lombardi 1997, Alderete et al. 1999, McCarthy 1999)
[t] (McCarthy and Prince 1993, Anttila 1994)

2
 ii. DP allows any consonant to be inserted
(informally) Ø → [g] / V_V, etc.

(5) Popular misconception:

a. “Except when their identity is determined by nearby context, epenthetic
consonants are usually /, or more rarely a coronal like t, n, or r.” (McCarthy
1999)
b. “Epenthetic consonants are usually drawn from a small set - most commonly /,
more rarely t or h. These same consonants are also common in phonemic
systems.” (Bakovic 1998)

(6) Facts of phonological consonant epenthesis (Parenthesized languages have

morphologically-conditioned insertion)
a. cases potentially attributable to confusability with Ø
/ Persian, Thai, Malay/Indonesian, etc.
h Sinhalese (Masica 189, 206), Huaripiano, Arribero Guajiro, Hanunoo
ƒ Greek
b. cases not easily analysable in terms of confusability with Ø
t Axininca, Korean, French, Maru, (Danish?)
d French aphasic
n Korean, Greek, Sanskrit, Dutch, Swiss German, (Armenian, Mongolian, English)
N Buginese (Trigo-Ferre 1988, Lombardi 1997:14)
r English, German, Uyghur, Zaraitzu Basque (Hualde and Gaminde 1998:42), (Japanese)
l Bristol, Midlands American, Motu, Polish
y Turkish, Uyghur, Greenlandic, various Indic (Masica 190), Arabic (Heath 1987:48)
w Guajiro, Greenlandic, Arabic (Heath 1987:48), Abajero Guajiro
v Marathi (Masica 190)
b Basque (Markina, Urdiain, Etxarri, Lizarraga; Hualde and Gaminde 1998:42)
S Basque (Lekeito/Deba, Zumaia; Hualde and Gaminde 1998:42)
Z Cretan and Mani Greek (Newton 1972:56), Basque dialects (Hualde and Gaminde
1998:42)
g Mongolian, Buryat
s/z French, Land Dayak, Dominican Spanish
x Land Dayak
k Maru, (Danish?)

2. “Natural” accounts for consonant epenthesis

(7) Attempts to explain away consonant epenthesis
i. underlying consonant
Natural Phonology (Stampe 1991)

3
 Articulatory Phonology (Gick 1999)
ii. default segment (Archangeli and Pulleyblank, Lombardi 1997, Alber (to appear))
iii. glide formation (Gnanadesikan 1997, McCarthy 1997, Bakovic 2000)
iv. Similarity (Steriade 1999)
v. prosodically-conditioned sonority hierarchies (Uffmann 2002)
vi. allophonic conspiracy: C and Ø in complementary distribution (van Oostendorp 2000)

(8) “According to the principles of AP, all gestures present in the phonetic output of a word
are specified in its lexical representation. Thus, while the magnitude or timing of a
gesture may vary, gestures may not be inserted.” (Gick 1999:38)

2.1. Underlying consonant

Mohanan 1985, Stampe 1991, Harris 1994, Gick 1999, etc.
Stampe’s 1991 arguments for r being underlying:
• explains why intrusive r only occurs in dialects with r-deletion. [BV: this also follows in the
hypercorrection analysis advocated here]
• r-insertion doesn’t explain why r (rather than e.g. a glide) is chosen for insertion [BV: same
response]
• hypercorrection is only random, not systematic (cf. also McCarthy 1997) [BV: there is no
reason for this to be true, and it is a stipulation rather than a fact]
• spellings like Eeyore for Heehaw, Marmie for Mommie, idear [Manaster Ramer correctly
points out that this shows nothing; it’s also exactly the sort of sporadic hypercorrection
Stampe says is possible]
• No linking [r] in Massachusetts English shoulda eaten, the Beqaa in Lebanon, suggesting
that maybe all instances of intrusive r are really linking r. (Coleman 2001) [McCarthy: these
cases involve a stronger prosodic boundary]

Harris 1994:
• intrusive [r] can occur in absolute final position, and hence can’t be argued to be
motivated by hiatus avoidance. [BV: this could be either hypercorrection or the result of a
less restricted form of the insertion rule. Both OT and DP can generate this result.]

Variant of this theory: all unexpected segments are morphologically conditioned, hence derivable
from allomorphs or special ranking (Lombardi, Steriade)

2.1.1. Problems
Evidence for the -r- being inserted rather than underlying (cf. Wells 1982:222):
(9) “There is some phonological evidence for r-insertion, however: ´ derived from V-
reduction can also trigger r-insertion in many non-rhotic varieties. As in “The wind[´] [r]
isn’t broken” [hypothetical] or “See ya [r] Ian” [attested in natural speech]. We don’t

4
 want to claim window and you have underlying /r/, nor do we want to have vowel
reduction produce [´r], so here there seems no viable alternative to r-insertion.” (Ian
Smith, quoted in Scobbie 1991) Lodge 1984:13 has examples of this: Coventry
[j´R EniTig‚] ‘you anything’, Norwich [b´® a˘/] ‘by heart’; Trudgill 1974:162 adds
Norwich [tH´® e_7i/] ‘to eat’; cf. also Wells 1982:227.)
(10) distribution of [r] is completely predictable [at least in certain environments] (Uffmann
2002:3)
(11) Nonce words, loanwords, etc. trigger r-insertion
(12) Final r analysis can’t work for Optimologists who maintain Richness of the Base:
identical forms lacking r should also be allowed, but they would produce unattested
outputs (Uffmann 2002)
(13) Doesn’t explain why (modulo Coventry/Norwich) function words systematically lack
final r, whereas nouns systematically have it (*shoulda[r] eaten, *the[r] apples; can’t be
done with level ordering, etc., because r-final function words surface with [r], e.g. for any
reason; McCarthy 1999 attributes this distribution to r-insertion being PrWd-final)
(14) Charlotte (BBC documentary maker) has r-insertion after syllabic l
(15) Lodge 1984:13—postulating r-insertion allows same URs for all dialects, and allows for
those dialects where soaring has r but sawing doesn’t (cf. also Wells 1982:225)
(16) Does not provide satisfactory account for the fact that linking r is obligatory but intrusive
r is optional in word-internal intervocalic position (sharing ~ *sha[Ø]ing vs. drawring ~
drawing (data from Wells 1999))
(17) Gick’s analysis wrongly predicts (1999:49) that non-vocalizing dialects will not have
insertion
(18) underlying contrasts between r and Ø (McCarthy 1993, Halle and Idsardi 1997)
a. Volta → Volt[ej]ic
algebra → algebr[ej]ic
b. alter → alt[´r]ation
Homer → Hom[er]ic
(19) In the Yorkshire dialect of Settrington, underlying r is retroflex and preceded by a
colored vowel; epenthetic r is post-alveolar and not preceded by anticipatory coloring (J.
French 1988:37)

Analogous problems with C-insertion in other languages

(20) avoidance/reluctance with l-insertion in Polish (kakale, etc.)
(21) Kim 1999 on Korean /-un/:
a. “Korean uses Vowel Assimilation when attaching a morpheme with a [+back, -hi]
nucleus to a morpheme without a [+back, +low] nucleus, and Consonant Insertion when
attaching a morpheme to a noun that ends with a vowel.”
Ku-yoja-NUN man-AT-saw-yo. “(I) meet her (the woman).”
Ku-nampyun-UN is-SAWT-saw-yo. “(I) am he (the husband).”

5
b. n-insertion rule also applies when Koreans speak English:
look at yourself → lukEn¯u´selpH
back yard → pENja:t

2.2. Default segment

(22) “I conclude that a glottal stop, and not some other segment, appears in the described
contexts not because of its laryngeal nature, but because it makes a good epenthetic
element. One line to pursue in this respect is the fact that glottal stops are often
considered to be placeless (cf. McCarthy 1988). This means that a glottal stop is chosen
as an epenthetic element because it requires less structure to be inserted.” (Alber, to
appear)

(23) Classic OT on epenthesis

i. The default epenthetic consonant is a coronal, preferrably [t] (Broselow 1984, Paradis
and Prunet 1991, McCarthy and Prince 1993, Anttila 1994, de Lacy (to appear))
ii. The consonant chosen for regular insertion is [/], [h], or a homorganic glide. Other
consonants are only allowed to be inserted by the activity of morphologically-conditioned
constraints. (Lombardi 1997, McCarthy 1997, 1999, Steriade 2000, Bakovic 2000)
“Except when their identity is determined by nearby context, epenthetic
consonants are usually [/], [h], or more rarely a coronal like t, n, or r.”
(McCarthy 1999, epenthesis handout, p. 3)
“Asheninca [is] one of the rare languages where something else than a laryngeal
or a glide is inserted in hiatus contexts” (Steriade 2000:43)

2.2.1. Place markedness hierarchy (Lombardi 1997)

(24) (4i) conflicts with the (apparent) fact that glottal stop is the most common epenthetic
consonant, and that a coronal is “never the general, purely syllabification-driven
epenthetic consonant of a language” (1997:1).

(25) Conventional (universal) hierarchy of place markedness: *Dorsal, *Labial >> *Coronal

(26) Lombardi’s solution

i. All segments are fully-specified in surface representations.
ii. All pharyngeals and laryngeals have a Pharyngeal Place specification.
iii. [/] is the least-marked consonant (cf. Alderete et al 1999) in the universal hierarchy
of Place markedness in (8).
iv. [/] therefore is selected as the epenthetic consonant unless other factors intervene

(27) *Dorsal, *Labial >> *Coronal >> *Pharyngeal

6
(28) Consonant epenthesis in a hypothetical language (based on Lombardi 1997:2)
/gao/ Onset Max *Lab *Cor *Phar
ga./o *
ga.to *!
ga.bo *!
ga *!
ga.o *!

(29) factors that can interact with Place markedness

a. inventory constraints (Axininca inserts [t] because it has no ///)
b. sonority constraints (to get Axininca [t] rather than [h] or [s])
c. faithfulness constraints relativized to particular morphological domains (e.g.
Gokana inserts r/n between long vowels in the 2pl subject and the logophoric)

(30) Axininca [t]-insertion with suffixes (1997:11)

/inkoma-i/ Onset */ *FricV *Cor *Phar
iNkomati * *
iNkoma/i * *! *
iNkomai **!
iNkomahi * *! *
iNkomasi * *! *

2.2.2. Problems
(31) Pharyngeal is not the least-marked Place
[/] is not the least marked consonant Steriade 2000
its presence in an inventory is not implied by the presence of other consonants
its unmarkedness is only inferred from insertion facts
in several languages epenthetic [/] is more marked than other consonants
German *[/] only outranked by *[V’]; *p/t/k etc are low-ranked
same in Axininca, where according to Lombardi [t] is inserted because
*[/] is undominated

(32) Not clear that [/] is the most common epenthetic consonant
homorganic glides are a plausible competitor
(Lombardi does not even mention homorganic glide epenthesis, nor does she state
how to derive it.)
Regardless of which is more common, given the free rankability of constraints in OT this
competition is not relevant to our theory of phonology unless we are proposing a
specific innate constraint ranking or can demonstrate that the cross-linguistic

7
 distribution of epenthetic [/] vs. other segments corresponds to the percentage of
ranking permutations that yield this output.

(33) In Lombardi’s analysis (as in McCarthy’s) it is merely an accident that l-insertion

happens in English dialects that have l-deletion, and r-insertion in dialects with r-deletion.

(34) “if glottal stop crucially violates context-free markedness constraints other than the
lowest-ranked member of the place markedness hierarchy, as this account entails, there is
no longer any reason to expect that the attested cases of coronal onset epenthesis will be
morphologically (or otherwise) restricted.”

(35) Faithfulness cannot be relevant to morphologically-conditioned coronal epenthesis

because we are dealing with epenthetic segments.

(36) “Either can be epenthetic, illustrating the emergence of the unmarked. Amharic
(Broselow 1984), Gokana (Hyman 1985), and Axininca Campa (Payne 1981) have
epenthetic coronals, while Uradhi (Crowley 1983) and Murut (Prentice 1971) have
epenthetic velars.” (Rice 1999)

(37) “Now there is evidence [from Japanese, Portugues, and Limburg Dutch] that [velar] is the
default place (i.e. phonologically absent) for sonorants (or at least for nasals) in
postvocalic position. All of this may be taken as indications that N, just like r, is a
placeless, close to empty, consonant.” (van Oostendorp 2000)

(38) One can try to save the OT analysis by arguing that the constraint system predicts a cross-
linguistic hierarchy of preference for insertion: coronals before labials, etc. It in fact
makes no such prediction in the absence of a theory of universal constraint ranking.

(39) If sonority-based hierarchies (such as the one one would need for sonority requirements
on inserted onsets) are spawned from a basic sonority hierarchy (as in the SCL paper),
you shouldn’t be able to get free ranking of the sort necessary to derive insertion of
arbitrary consonants.

(40) In Lombardi’s analysis it is merely an accident that l-insertion and r-insertion happen in
English dialects that have l-deletion and r-deletion respectively; it is also an accident that
Korean has both n-insertion and n-deletion before high front vocoids, and so on. As
Bakovic 1999 observes, “the fact that underlying /r/ is also deleted in a complementary
set of environments (and retained otherwise) is clearly relevant, as noted originally by
Vennemann 1972.”

8
 • cf. Italian aphasic who inserts the same C that he deletes (Romani and Calabrese 1998),
also Dominican Spanish, Seville Spanish, etc.

In other words, Lombardi’s model actually allows the insertion of any consonant, with or
without morphological restrictions, makes no predictions about the default choice of epenthetic
segment, and provides no explanation for the close relationship between insertion and deletion in
languages like English and Korean.

2.3. Homorganic glide insertion (McCarthy 1997, 1999)

(41) [r] as glide version of [a]/[ç]/[´] (1997:4)
cf. Daly and Martin 1972, Kahn 1976:69-70, Broadbent 1991, Scobbie 1991, Kaye 1992,
Szigetväri 1994, Gnanadesikan 1997:159-62, Ortmann 1998, Giegerich 1999, Hwangbo
1999, Baković 2000, Orgun 2001)

2.3.1. Problems
(42) If the schwa in fire → [faj´] is a vocalization of r, then spar should → *spar´, with
vocalization of the r followed by gliding spawned from the a (Halle and Idsardi 1997b:3).
(43) How to unite the MAXIO violation in spar with the Ident(r→Ø) violation in fire? DP has
unified analysis: deletion of coda r; OT must split it into two processes to avoid opacity
(Halle and Idsardi 1997b:3).
(44) It is not clear that a, ç, and ´ are pharyngeal in English.
(45) Cannot account for insertion of non-trivial segments, e.g. Turkish [y], Mongolian /g/.
(46) Treatment of l- and r-insertion as homorganic glide insertion misses the generalization
that these unexpected epenthetic segments cooccur with a synchronic rule deleting the
same segment in each dialect. It also fails to account for the fact that r-insertion
developed in England shortly after r-deletion did; according to McCarthy 1997 it is
equally plausible for r-insertion to develop before r-deletion. (Note that the OT formalism
does not actually exclude this, nor does the DP formalism; McCarthy 1997’s explicit
segregation of deletion and insertion therefore finds no motivation in his theory.)
(47) Analysis of intrusive [r] as a “linking” sound (a consonant inserted to avoid vocalic
hiatus). Besides not explaining why a rhotic should be used when the adjacent sounds
aren’t rhotic, this also does not explain why intrusive r occurs only in dialects with de-
rhoticization: this is not normally a condition on “linking” sounds: for example, glottal
stop is used in hiatus in English and other languages with no corresponding glottal-
deletion process. (Stampe 1991)
(48) How does McCarthy’s theory get the earlier stage where r-insertion only applied after
schwa? (1917 London English as described by Jones 1928, 1989; supported by Bauer p.
76: insertion after saw only appears in samples recorded in 1959 or later) Surely schwa
was not pharyngeal to the exclusion of a and ç. N.B. also it is not clear that a and ç are
pharyngeal.

9
(49) doesn’t get r-insertion after syllabic l
(50) Lodge 1984:49 “Y uses [V], [®], and [R] as links, the former being the most common. The
link only occurs after [´], [å˘] (or [ä˘]), [O˘], and [ç˘] (or [A˘]).” (Y is a speaker from
Stockport, Greater Manchester) Lodge 1984:106 Coventry speaker uses [R] (but
occasionally [®]) for linking/intrusion. Bauer p. 75: flap or approximant used for intrusive
r. **NB the glide spawning analysis can’t get flap as the inserted segment, whereas this
makes perfect sense if what one is doing is inserting the phoneme /r/, followed by the
regular allophonic realization rules for r.
(51) [Å] should spawn [w] (or maybe rounded [®W]), not [®], since it’s labial and labial is less
marked than pharyngeal.
(52) By saying that [r] is the segment we expect to be inserted after non-high vowels, we
become unable to explain l-insertion in dialects that otherwise have identical
phonological systems (Gick 1999:37)
(53) McCarthy’s theory furthermore does not account for languages that insert a non-trivial
segment that cannot be plausibly derived from the features of a neighboring vowel or
from default feature insertion, such as Turkish and Uyghur [y] and Mongolian /g/. This is
even true for some r-inserting dialects of English, which insert r after high vowels as
well; Dray 1991 notes that during the Thomas/Hill hearings, one of the senators produced
“the issue[r] is”.

(54) Mongolian
i. If the base ends in a long V or diphthong, /g/ is inserted before a suffix beginning with a long
vowel (Beffa and Hamayon 1975:43)
ii. This rule is general; no exceptions.
iii. The same is found in Buryat (San±eev et al. 1962:55).

(55) -g- ([g] in [+atr] contexts, [G] in [-atr] words; data from Rialland and Djamouri 1984)
a. ablative /-AAs/ dalai ‘sea’ → dalai[g]aas
odoo ‘now’ → odoo[g]oos ‘starting now’
dülii ‘deaf’ → dülii[g]ees
b. genitive /-IIn/ xii ‘air’ → xii[g]ii
da ‘chief’ → da[g]iin
debee ‘swampland’ → debee[g]iin
c. instr. /-AAr/ guu ‘clasp’ → guu[g]aar

(56) Uyghur (Hahn 1991:25)

a. y inserted between two vowels at morpheme boundary
oqu+Al- → [oquyal-] ‘to be able to read’
iSlä+Al- → [iSläyäl-] ‘to be able to work’
b. y inserted between CV root and C suffix

10
 yu:-b → yuyup ‘wash and…’
su:-m → süyüm ‘my liquid’

(57) optional r- and y-deletion in syllable coda (Hahn 1992:77, 79)

a. kördüm ~ ködüm ‘I saw’
bazar ~ baza ‘bazaar’
b. päyzi ~ päzi ‘gorgeous’
hoyla ~ hola ‘courtyard’
eytiN ~ etiN ‘tell!’

(58) Uyghur possessive marking (Hahn 1992:90)

a. stem b. 1st person /-m/ c. 2nd person /-N/ d. 3rd person /-(s)i/
girls q¥z-lar qizlirim qizliriN qizliri
mother /ana /anam /anaN /anisi
spring baha:(r) baharim bahariN bahari
street kotSa kotSam kotSaN kotSisi
ink siya: siyayim/siyarim siyayiN/siyariN siyasi
chicken toxu: toxuyum/toxurum toxuyuN/toxuruN toxusi

(59) /toxu:-m/ → [toxuyum] ~ [toxurum], not *[toxu:m]

(60) Problems with the underlying /y~r/ hypothesis

i. Requires systematic hypercorrection of all long-vowel roots
ii. Requires postulating y- and r-final allomorphs for every single long-vowel stem
iii. “If an inserted y or r had become an underlying segment in a given root, then such a root
would be expected to take on the allomorph -i [in the 3rd person]” (Hahn 1992:90)
iv. Forms with underlying /r/ such as bahar do not show the y~r alternation: baharim, yarim ‘my
dear’, etc.

One might object that a rule-based account of the same facts would be equally stipulative,
but this is not entirely true. Derivational Phonology is specifically designed to encode declarative
processes such as this: the language learner observes that /g/ is inserted under certain conditions
and formulates a simple insertion rule that produces the desired outputs. OT on the other hand is
forced to postulate a Byzantine ranking that does not interact with the rest of the phonological
system and is not independently motivated or verifiable; this runs counter to the fundamental
spirit of OT.

2.4. Similarity (Steriade 2000)

(61) Structure of Steriade’s account

11
• “Epenthetic segments are, frequently, those whose insertion generates the least deviation
from an auditory representation of the input.”
• “The P-map account of the choice of epenthetic segments is likewise predictable from the
existence of a context-dependent hierarchy of confusability between individual segments and
Ø. If a phonotactic constraint requires insertion of a segment in some context K, then the
segment most confusable with Ø in K is predicted to be the choice of insertion” (2000:41)
• Steriade on New England r: “not surprisingly, postvocalic [r] in most varieties of American
English is an approximant hardly distinguishable from the end of a preceding low back
vowel: it may thus be the closest thing to Ø in that context.” (2000:45)
• Most common insertion options: [/], [h], homorganic glide (2000:42)
• “[/] has, with [h], a uniquely favorable property for an epenthetic consonant: it does not
possess an oral constriction and thus it will fail to induce coarticulatory changes on
neighboring vowels.” (2000:42)
• “Asheninca [is] one of the rare languages where something else than a laryngeal or a glide is
inserted in hiatus contexts” (2000:43)

(62) Advantages
• Provides an explanation for the the relation between insertion and deletion.
• Acknowledges the prevalence of homorganic glide insertion.

(63) Problems
• Does not account for epenthetic consonants that are not likely to be the most confusable with
zero (Turkish y, Mongolian g, etc.).
• Does not account well for vowel-copy epenthesis, as in Sardinian, which inserts V copy after
final C, but -e after V in monosyllable (Harris and Vincent 327). This can be attributed to the
activity of higher-ranked constraints (e.g. Ident), but if higher-ranked constraints can override
P-map effects (cf. p. 41, “this prediction is mitigated by the possible effect of conflicting
phonotactics”) then we cannot say that the P-map explains all epenthetic choices, as Steriade
claims.
• Computation of P-map is problematic—how do speakers know when they have confused two
items? Furthermore, some of the comparanda they would never even be exposed to.

(64) Guajiro, Abajero dialect (Jose Alvarez, Linguist List; Mansen and Mansen 1984)
a. long vowel sequences productively trigger [w]-insertion
atpanaa+ee+chi → atpanaa[w]eechi ‘it will be rabbit’
ke+kii+ee+shi → kekii[w]eeshi ‘he wants to have a (good) head’
b. [h] inserted after final stressed short vowels (Mansen and Mansen 1984:15)
kashi → [kaSih] ‘moon’
nüsha → [nySah] ‘his blood’
maa [ma:] ‘with you’ vs. ma [mah] ‘earth, world’

12
2.5. Contextual markedness (Uffmann 2002)
(65) Proposal:
• [/] inserted in prominent positions (first or stressed syllable)
• homorganic glide inserted between two underlyingly adjacent vowels
• Nuclei want to be maximally sonorous, margins want to be minimally sonorous
• Intervocalic contrast is minimized (intervocalic consonants are maximally sonorous)

Orgun 2001 proposes a similar theory.

(66) *M(argin)/V >> *M/glide >> *M/nasal >> *M/obstruent >> *M/laryngeal

(67) *P(eak)/lar >> *P/obs >> *P/nasal >> *P/glide >> *P/V

(68) *V_V/lar >> * V_V/obs >> * V_V/nasal >> * V_V/glide >> * V_V/V

(69) glottal stop insertion in initial position, e.g. German Elch ‘moose’
/ElC/ ONSET *M/OBS *M/LAR MAX
[ElC] *!
) [/ElC] * *
[tElC] *! *

(70) glide insertion in intervocalic position, e.g. /au/ → [awu]

/au/ ONSET *V_V/C *V_V/V MAX
[au] *!
) [awu] * *
[a/u] *! *

(71) English r-insertion

a. *G[-hi] all glides must be [+high]
b.
/pi: Iz/ ONSET *G[-HI] DEP(HIGH) *V_V/C *V_V/R *V_V/V DEP
[pi:Iz] *!
) [pijIz] * *
[pirIz] *! *
[pi/Iz] *! *
/pç: Iz/
[pç:Iz] *! *
[pçwIz] *! * *

13
 [pçFIz] *! * *
) [pçrIz] * *
[pç:/Iz] *! *

(72) “The phonetics of [r] licenses sonority-driven insertion.”

2.5.1. Problems
(73) Glottal stop inserted in non-prominent positions
(74) Homorganic glides inserted in positions other than intervocalically
(75) Segments other than glottal stop and homorganic glides inserted
(76) By grounding r-insertion phonetically (71), Uffmann predicts r-insertion in languages
without r-deletion. (There is no reason to provide synchronic phonetic grounding; the
grounding lies in the history/acquisition process.)

3. Problems for all “natural” analyses

3.1. S-insertion in Dominican Spanish and English
The generalization is straightforward: Dominican speakers (an otherwise /s/-deleting/aspirating
dialect) randomly insert /s/ in coda position, subject to constraints argued by Nunez-Cedeno in a
1988 paper to be structure-preserving. So, a speaker may say [teastro] or [teatros] or even
[teastros] for a word ‘teatro’, but not *[tesatro] and certainly not *[teatsro] or anything like that.

(77) asbogado, abosgado, abogasdo, abogados ← /abogado/ ‘lawyer’

(78) /s/-epenthesis rule (Núñez Cedeño 1988:324):
Ø → s / __ ]σ (structure-preserving)

• NB the s can’t be underlying, or it would affect stress.

• Also, by postulating a single optional rule we get all the facts; the underlying s analysis
on the other hand would require restructuring the lexical entry for every word in the
lexicon, plus several constraints and pairings to get the optionality effect

(79) cf. English disordered child speech: Bernhardt and Stemberger 1998:565 discuss case of
child who inserts s in every coda

3.2. What can and can’t an OT analysis produce?

Ways of getting insertion of random C:
• interleaving Max constraints and *C constraints
• interleaving Max and sonority profile constraints
• interleaving all 3?
• interleaving “spreading” from neighboring C’s with sonority and/or Max, Dep

14
In practice, of course, OT can generate any sort of insertion one can imagine, since there are no
formal limits on the constraints one can postulate. (McCarthy 2002 points out that this follows
from the constraints being innate.) We base our generalizations here on the assumption that the
set of constraints is reasonable in some sense yet to be defined.
Free rankability (a central tenet of OT) also wildly overgenerates; cf. Steriade 1999:
Steriade 1999 footnote: “The reader may object now that the ranking arguments presented in the
text against unmarked status for [/] follow only if we assume a single MAX C constraint.
Consider then the analysis of Asheninca on the assumption that [/] is the best C and that every C
has its own specific MAX C constraint. To describe the simple fact that [/] is generally not
tolerated in Asheninca despite the fact that it is, by hypothesis, the optimal C, one can propose
the ranking MAX [p], MAX [k], MAX [t] >>*[p], *[k], *[t] >> *[/] >> MAX [/]. Note that the
markedness constraint *[/] is ranked below all other *C constraints, but the MAX [/] is ranked
even lower, insuring that, however desirable, [/] will not surface. To describe the t-epenthesis
process, we only need to rank Onset, DEP [/], DEP [p], DEP [k] >> DEP [t]. What do we learn
from this exercise? We learn that it is possible to devise a system in which any hypothesis about
the relative markedness of segments can be made compatible with any pattern of consonant
distribution, by allowing free ranking of individual *C, MAX C and DEP C constraints. It
remains to be seen how such systems can be constrained to reflect observed limitations on sound
systems.”

Show how they get glottal stop, h, homorganic glide, inverse glide, and random C

What they can’t get:

• Uyghur y?
• insertion/deletion correlation
• uniform solution across regular and lexical cases
• Choice of y in languages that also have v/w, and vice versa (e.g. Turkish, Uhli)—there’s
simply no way to prefer one over the other, since they have identical sonority and the place
constraints have (according to most optimologists) a fixed ranking

4. Summary and conclusions

• DP provides a straightforward account for the cross-linguistic facts of consonant
epenthesis. More marked consonants can be inserted by rules resulting from
hypercorrection/reanalysis; a limited range of less-marked consonants can be inserted by
historically unmotivated rules.
• “Natural” theories of phonology such as AP and OT make a point of disallowing
insertion of synchronically arbitrary material, which is contradicted by the facts of natural
languages.

15
 • Attempts to circumvent this problem encounter fatal problems: failure to generalize
across languages, incorrect predictions within languages, unnecessary/undesirable
separation of morphophonology from phonology.
• In addition to working better on a synchronic level, the DP treatment of epenthesis is
preferable insofar as it acknowledges the role of history and the acquisition process in the
construction of grammars.
• “one fact, one explanation” (Sampson 1975): better to have insertion rule for all cases
rather than r being similar to non-high vowels in one, another being morphological, etc.

There is a reason why the DP analysis accounts for the epenthesis facts more efficiently and
insightfully than do the OT and AP analyses: it allows diachrony and the acquisition process to
play roles in the determination of the synchronic grammar. The quest to locate explanation in
functional considerations within the synchronic grammar is conceptually misguided, and leads to
fatal formal and empirical problems.

References
Alber, Birgit. to appear. Regional variation at edges: glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in Standard and
Southern varieties of German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft.
Alderete, John et alii. 1999. Reduplication with Fixed Segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 327-364.
Anttila, Arto. 1994. Consonant Gradation is Epenthesis. Abstract of talk presented at CSLI, Stanford. http://www-
csli.stanford.edu/Archive/calendar/1993-94/msg00017.html.
Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Deletion, Insertion, and Symmetrical Identity. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 7, also
available as ROA-300-0299.
Beffa, Marie-Lise and Roberte Hamayon. 1975. Éléments de grammaire mongole. Paris: Dunod.
Broselow, Ellen. 1984. Default consonants in Amharic morphology. MITWPL 7:15-32.
Coleman, John. 2001. Levels, Rules and Processes. http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/~jcoleman/rules.htm.
de Lacy, Paul. to appear. Maximal words and the Maori Passive. In Norvin Richards, ed., Proceedings of the
Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association (AFLA) VIII, Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in
Linguistics.
French, J. Peter. 1988. Word-final /r/ in a Northern English accent: an interactional account of variable production.
In Peter Auer and Aldo di Luzio, eds., Variation and convergence. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Gick, Bryan. 1999. A Gesture-Based Account of Intrusive Consonants in English. Phonology 16.1:29-54.
Hahn, Reinhard. 1992. Modern Uyghur y ~ r-insertion: Nativization through analogical extension. Acta Linguistica
Hafniensia vol. 24, 77-96. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel.
Halle, Morris and William Idsardi. 1997. r, hypercorrection, and the elsewhere condition. In Iggy Roca, ed.,
Derivations and constraints in phonology, 331-348. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Halle, Morris and William Idsardi. 1997b. Response to McCarthy 1997. [Letter of November 25, 1997]
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harris, Martin and Nigel Vincent, eds. 1988. The Romance languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

16
Holzknecht, Susanne. 1986. A morphology and grammar of Adzera. Pacific Linguistics Series A number 70, Papers
in New Guinean Linguistics number 24, D. Laycock et al., eds., pp. 77-166. Canberra: Australian National
University.
Jones, C. 1989. A history of English phonology. London: Longman.
Jones, Daniel. 1928. An English pronouncing dictionary, revised edition. (First published 1917.) London: Dent and
Sons.
Kang, Seung-man. 1997. Tensing and C-Insertion in Korean Compounds. The Secol Review: Southeastern
Conference on Linguistics. 21(2):206-22.
Lombardi, Linda. 1997. Coronal epenthesis and markedness. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics
5:156-175. Also available as ROA-245. [Her reference to Alderete et al. is to the 1996 ROA version.]
Mansen, Karis and Richard Mansen. 1984. Aprendamos Guajiro. Bogota: Editorial Townsend.
Mascaro, Joan. 1989. On the Form of Segment Deletion and Insertion Rules. Probus 1:31-61.
McCarthy, John. 1993. A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38:169-195.
McCarthy, John. 1997. Letter to Morris Halle in response to Halle and Idsardi’s paper on Boston r, November 11.
McCarthy, John. 1999. Introductory OT on CD-ROM. Available from the GLSA, University of Massachussets,
Amherst.
McCarthy, John. 1999. Appendix: A note on Boston r and the Elsewhere Condition.
www.unix.oit.umass.edu/~jjmccart/appendix.pdf.
Morgan, Terrell A. 1998. The Linguistic Parameters of /s/-Insertion in Dominican Spanish: A Case Study in
Qualitative Hypercorrection. Proceedings of the First Hispanic Linguistics Colloquium. Gutierrez-Rexach,
Javier (ed.); del Valle, Jose (ed.). 187 pp. Ohio State University. Columbus, OH; 79-96.
Newton, Brian. 1972. The generative interpretation of dialect: A study of Modern Greek phonology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Orgun, Orhan. 2001. English r-Insertion in Optimality Theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19.4:737-
749.
Ortmann, Albert. 1998. Consonant epenthesis: its distribution and phonological specification. In Wolfgang Kehrein
and Richard Wiese, eds., Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, 51-76. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Parker, Steve. 1994. Coda Epenthesis in Huariapano. International Journal of American Linguistics. 60(2):95-119.
Rialland, Anne and R. Djamouri. 1984. Harmonie vocalique, consonantique et structures de dépendance dans le mot
en mongol khalkha. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris.
Rischel, Jørgen. 1974. Topics in West Greenlandic phonology. Copenhagen: Akademisk Verlag.
Romani, Cristina and Andrea Calabrese. 1998. Syllabic constraints in the phonological errors of an aphasic patient.
Brain and Language 64.1:83-121.
San±eev, G., T. Bertagaev, and C. Cydendambaev, eds. 1962. Grammatika burjatskogo jazyka. Moscow:
Izdatel’stvo Vostoçnoj Literatury.
Stampe, David. 1991. R-linking. Linguist List 2.707. http://www.emich.edu/~linguist/issues/2/2-707.html#2.
Steriade, Donca. 2000. The Phonology of Perceptibility Effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint
organization. To appear in Phonology.
Trigo-Ferre, Loren. 1988. Derivation and Behavior of Nasal Glides. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

17
Uffmann, Christian. 2002. Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants. Toulouse Conference on English
Phonology, June 26, 2002.
Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
van Oostendorp, Marc. 2000. Hypercorrection as a conspiracy. Paper presented at Generative Grammatik des
NordenS, Potsdam, June 2, 2000.
Wells, John. 1999. Tip of the day #94: r insertion. www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/johnm/eptotd/tip94.htm.

18