Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2014
Edited by Anita Auer and Björn Köhnlein
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 31] 2014
► pp. 145–164

Erring on the side of phonology

| Queen Margaret University
| Utrecht University
Speakers of Standard Dutch increasingly realise coda /r/ (e.g. paar) as a bunched or retroflex approximant. This coda variant is categorically distinct from onset /r/ (e.g. reizen), which is typically pronounced as a uvular trill or fricative, or an alveolar trill or tap. In this study, we investigate whether coda and onset /r/ in Dutch behave as distinct phonological categories. We present new articulatory and acoustic data on the realisation of /r/ in sandhi contexts, including the fake geminate context (e.g. paar reizen). Ultrasound data show that the presence of an onset /r/ conditions the deletion of a bunching gesture (typical of the coda /r/ realisation) from /r#r/ sequences. Nevertheless, the presence of a coda /r/ in such sequences is still acoustically traceable. We interpret these findings as a result of shared phonological identity between onset and coda /r/, and discuss them in the context of the place of allophony within models of grammar.
Keywords: Standard Dutch, Rhotics, fake geminate, sandhi, ultrasound, categorical allophony, contrast
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 10 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.31.11str
References (32)
Articulate Instruments Ltd. 2008. ultrasound stabilisation headset users manual: Revision 1.1. Edinburgh, UK: Articulate Instruments Ltd.Google Scholar
. 2010. Articulate assistant advanced ultrasound module user manual, revision 2.14. Edinburgh, UK: Articulate Instruments Ltd.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter, B. Elan Dresher & Keren D. Rice (eds.). 2008. Contrast in phonology: Theory, perception, acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. languageR: Data sets and functions with “Analyzing Linguistic Data: A practical introduction to statistics”. <[URL]> (15 January 2014)Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2009. Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.1.12. <[URL]> (15 October 2009).
Browman, Catherine P. & Louis Goldstein. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 491. 155–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. PhD diss., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre & Donald C. Freeman. 1968. A dialect study of American rs by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics 61. 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herd, Wendy, Allard Jongman & Joan Sereno. 2010. An acoustic and perceptual analysis of /t/ and /d/ flaps in American English. Journal of Phonetics 381. 504–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1980. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. & Kenneth N. Stevens. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 821. 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kingston, John & Avis H. Cohen. 1992. Extending articulatory phonology. Phonetica 491. 194–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2006. ‘Distinctive phones’ in surface representation. In Louis M. Goldstein, Douglas. H. Whalen & Catherine T. Best (eds.), Laboratory Phonology 8, 3–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lodge, Ken. 2003. A declarative treatment of the phonetics and phonology of German rhymal /r/. Lingua 1131. 931–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: A personal view. Journal of Phonetics 181. 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet, Mary Beckman & D. Robert Ladd. 2000. Conceptual foundations of phonology as a laboratory science. In Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerard Docherty (eds.), Phonological Knowledge, 273–303. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plug, Leendert & Richard Ogden. 2003. A parametric approach to the phonetics of postvocalic /r/ in Dutch. Phonetica 601. 159–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2005. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. <[URL]> (30 October 2013)Google Scholar
Ramsammy, Michael. 2013. Word-final nasal velarisation in Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 491. 215–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scobbie, James M. 2007. Interface and overlap in phonetics and phonology. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 17–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M. & Koen Sebregts. 2010. Acoustic, articulatory, and phonological perspectives on allophonic variation of /r/ in Dutch. In Rafaella Folli & Christiane Ulbrich (eds.), Interfaces in Linguistics. New Research Perspectives, 257–277. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sebregts, Koen, Evie Tops, Renée van Bezooijen, Hans van de Velde, Roeland van Hout, Roland Willemyns & Wim Zonneveld. 2003. Socio-grafische en linguïstische variatie in de uitspraak van de ‘r’. Een onderzoek in Nederlandse en Vlaamse grote steden. In Tom Koole, Jacomine Nortier & Bert Tahitu (eds.), Artikelen van de Vierde Sociolinguistische Conferentie, 375–385. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. & Samuel J. Keyser. 1989. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 651. 81–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. Journal of Phonetics 381. 10–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Samuel J. Keyser & Haruko Kawasaki. 1986. Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Joseph S. Perkell & Dennis H. Klatt (eds.), Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, 426–449. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Strycharczuk, Patrycja, Marijn van ‘t Veer, Martine Bruil & Kathrin Linke. 2013. Phonetic evidence on phonology-morphosyntax interactions. Sibilant voicing in Quito Spanish. Journal of Linguistics. Available on CJO 2013 DOI logo.Google Scholar
Turton, Danielle. 2013. An ultrasound investigation of /l/-darkening in varieties of English. Paper presented at the 23rd Manchester Phonology Meeting, University of Manchester.
Van de Velde, H. 1996. Variatie en verandering in het Gesproken Standaard-Nederlands (1935-1993). Nijmegen: KUN.Google 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
Yuan, Jiahong & Mark Liberman. 2009. Investigating /l/ variation in English through forced alignment. Tenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association , 2215–2218.
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ramsammy, Michael & Matthew King
2023. Edge strengthening and phonetic variability in Spanish /l/: an ultrasound study. Phonetica 80:3-4 ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.