Re: Need some help with terms: was "rhotic miscellany"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>


> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 12:14:53PM -0500, Sally Caves wrote:
>> Somebody else told me that my American "r" (in "American" and "car")
>> was probably an approximant, and he distinguished it from a
>> "retroflex."  Have I misunderstood him? (Can't remember who it was;
>> I'm trying to consolidate my responses into one big one here.)
Marcos:
> That was me.  I didn't intend to contrast "approximant" with
> "retroflex"; "approximant" is manner of articulation, while "retroflex"
> is place of articulation.  I certainly don't have a retroflexion
> in [r\], and would be surprised to find that most Americans do.
Alright, I'm doubly confused, Marcos.  PLACE of articulation?  So
retroflexion of the tongue would require it to touch the palate?  I have
always understood a "retroflex r" to mean one in which the tongue is drawn
back and the tip curled up, so, rather, MANNER of articulation.
Retroflectere: "to bend back."  The tongue pulls back and the tip curls up
towards the roof of the mouth.  If we stick strictly to the meaning of the
term itself, then I indeed do pronounce my "r"s in English retroflexively,
and so, I imagine, do millions of other Americans.  If I didn't retroflex my
tongue in pronouncing "r",  I'd be saying something like "it's hahd to pahk
the cah in the dahk."  Some Bostonians, some southerners, and most Brits
have so relaxed retroflexion that we don't hear the r at all.  Am I to drop
this term "retroflex" in the description of my use of "r" because you tell
me now that it's a place of articulation?  I've never heard it described
that way.  I have always assumed it to be what you and others call an
approximant, but one that requires the motion or manner of retroflexion.

>> What's an approximant?  A sound made where
>> the point of articulation is almost reached but isn't?
>
> Precisely.  The sounds [l], [r\], [w] and [j] (the English consonantal Y
> sound) are all approximants; there's no friction involved in producing
> them,
> because the closure isn't tight enough to produce any.  Nevertheless, the
> partial closure affects the sound of the air stream, so you can make out
> the sounds.
That's clear enough.  My confusion is why the term "retroflexion" has been
taken out of the picture here for "r", and can't be used to describe the
approximant, whereby the tongue tip curls up and back.  If what you mean by
retroflexion as a place of articulation means curling the tongue back to
touch the palette, then that's one thing.  But I had always heard it used to
mean the manner, not the POA.

In an earlier post you call it an alveolar approximant.  Say "r" and hold
it.  (You are American, I take it? :) The tip of the tongue is almost
touching the palate, not the alveolar ridge.  An alveolar approximant would
sound very strange to me.  Put your tongue close to the alveolar ridge and
don't quite touch it.  Make it end a syllable like /ka/.  Like an "l" not
quite realized.  Doesn't that sound foreign?   Retroflexion, it seems to me,
is essential to the pronunciation of "r" in American English.

Sally


P.S.
If retroflexion only means place of articulation, then the Teonaht have a
sound for it.  The tongue curls back and touches the palate.  It's expressed
by the consonant double consonant "lr": "lre," finger, "lrapa," toe.
Frequently mispronounced as a cluster, especially by yours truly.  This is
different from r', the retroflex tap, where you curl your tongue up into an
approximant palatal touch, and bring it forward against the place where
palate meets alveolar, often trilling it.

Replies