Re: Rhoticity

>What *is* rhoticity?
Jesse was spot-on; rhoticity is defined in acoustic terms by a
lowered third formant. There are a variety of ways to achieve this
result; a trill, tap, uvular approximant, etc. It's what makes
rhotics such an interesting group of sounds.

>What makes a consonant rhotic?
The unhelpful answer is that if it is transcribed with an <r> it's a
rhotic. It comes down to the acoustic effect of a lower third formant.

>What characterizes a rhotic vowel?
A lowered third formant when compared with a non-rhotacized vowel.

>Is there really a relation between rhoticity and retroflexion?
Retroflexion is one way that rhotics can be articulated. In American
English, [r] can be produced by raising the tip of the tongue; this
is retroflexion. Another way that [r] can be produced is by keeping
the tip of the tongue down and bunching the tongue in a high position
(try it!). I do this demonstration with my students and many are
surprised that there are two ways to make an r-sound, and that there
is little, if any, acoustic difference between the two.

>What are some known kinds of sound changes that occur with rhotics (i.e.
>what types of sounds become rhotic, and what types of sounds come from
>rhotics)?
Jesse already mentioned the *s > r change. There are also some
interesting changes involving [l] and [r] in Romance (usually
metathesis or dissimilation). Many words which are borrowed into
languages without [r] borrow the [r] as an [l].

Dirk

--
Still searching for a sig.

--

Reply