Cover not available
Part of
Historical Linguistics 2022: Selected papers from the 25th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Oxford, 1–5 August 2022
Edited by Holly Kennard, Emily Lindsay-Smith, Aditi Lahiri and Martin Maiden
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 369] 2025
► pp. 50–61

The diachronic typology of retroflex vowels

This paper presents the results of a study on the possible diachronic pathways that lead to so-called rhotic or retroflex vowels. Based on a historical-comparative examination of several unrelated areal clusters and individual languages which contain retroflex vowels, in particular in the Hindu Kush area, China and California, a variety of possible sources for retroflex vowels could be identified. Ultimately these can be reduced to three separate in-paths with two different underlying mechanisms.
Keywords: retroflex vowels, rhotic vowels, sound change, diachronic typology
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Pathway 1: Lenition of apical or retroflex consonants
  • Pathway 2: Persistence of retroflexion from onset
  • Pathway 3: Retroflex vowels from front rounded vowels
  • Conclusion
  • Author queries
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (32)
References
Berman, Howard. 1982. Two phonological innovations in Ritwan. International Journal of American Linguistics 48(4). 412–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delattre, Pierre & Donald Freeman. 1968. A dialect study of American r’s by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics 6(44). 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Carlo, Pierpaolo. 2016. Retroflex vowels? Phonetics, phonology, and history of unusual sounds in Kalasha and other languages of the Hindu Kush region. Archivio per l’Antropologia e la Etnologia CXLVI. 103–20.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray Barnson. 1939. The Vowels of the Badaga language. Language 15(1). 43–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Foreword. In Paul Hockings & Christiane Pilot-Raichoor (eds.), A Badaga-English Dictionary, V–X. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Emmerick, Ronald & Edwin Pulleyblank. 1993. A Chinese text in Central Asian Brahmi script. New evidence for the pronunciation of Late Middle Chinese and Khotanese. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan. 2006. Vowel quality in Hongyan Qiang. Language and Linguistics 7(4). 731–54.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2001. Reduplication and infixation in Yurok: Morphology, semantics, and diachrony. International Journal of American Linguistics 67(3). 264–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The evolution of Algic verbal stem structure: New evidence from Yurok. In Marc Ettlinger, Nicholas Fleisher & Mischa Park-Doob (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on the Morphology of Native American Languages, 46–60. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heegård, Jan. 2015. Kalasha texts — with introductory grammar. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 47(S1). 1–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heegård, Jan & Ida Elisabeth Mørch. 2017. Kalasha dialects and a glimpse into the history of the Kalasha language. In Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen, Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, Guus Kroonen, Jenny Helena Larsson, Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead, Thomas Olander & Tobias Mosbæk Søborg (eds.), Usque ad Radices: Indo-European Studies in Honour of Birgit Anette Olsen (Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 8). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Jane. 2011. Subgrouping in Uto-Aztecan. Language Dynamics and Change 1(2). 241–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Jane & Kenneth Hill. 2019. Comparative Takic grammar. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Hill, Kenneth. 2020. Wick Miller’s Uto-Aztecan cognate sets. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
. 2021. Serrano. International Journal of American Linguistics 87(S1). S83–S104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinüber, Oskar von. 2001. Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick (Österreichische Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 467; Veröffentlichungen Der Kommission Für Sprachen Und Kulturen Südasiens 20). 2nd edn. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Horvath, Barbara. 2020. Australian English: phonology. In Kortmann, Bernd & Edgar Schneider (eds.), A Handbook of Varieties of English, 625–44. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hussain, Qandeel & Jeff Mielke. 2021. An acoustic and articulatory study of rhotic and rhotic-nasal vowels of Kalasha. Journal of Phonetics 87. 101028. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacques, Guillaume & Alexis Michaud. 2011. Approaching the historical phonology of three highly eroded Sino-Tibetan languages: Naxi, Na and Laze. Diachronica 28(4). 468–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, Sameer ud Dowla & Constanze Weise. 2013. Upper Saxon (Chemnitz dialect). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43(2). 231–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kümmel, Martin. 2008. Khotansakisch — Einführung. Lecture Script. [URL]
Langacker, Ronald. 1970. The vowels of Proto Uto-Aztecan. International Journal of American Linguistics 36(3). 169–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawson, Eleanor, Jane Stuart-Smith & Lydia Rodger. 2019. A comparison of acoustic and articulatory parameters for the GOOSE vowel across British Isles Englishes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 146(6). 4363–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee-Kim, Sang-Im. 2014. Revisiting Mandarin ‘apical vowels’: An articulatory and acoustic study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 44(3). 261–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn & Johan Sundberg. 1971. Acoustical consequences of lip, tongue, jaw, and larynx movement. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50(4). 1166–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2015. An ultrasound study of Canadian French rhotic vowels with polar smoothing spline comparisons. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 137(5). 2858–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgenstierne, Georg. 1934. Additional notes on Ashkun. Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap 7. 56–115.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2000. The historical geography of pharyngeals and laterals in the Caucasus. In Good, Jeff & Alan Yu (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Caucasian, Dravidian, and Turkic Linguistics, 1–13. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Proulx, Paul. 1984. Proto-Algic I: Phonological Sketch. International Journal of American Linguistics 50(2). 165–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Edwin. 1991. Lexicon of reconstructed pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Strand, Richard. 2008. saňu vi:ri Lexicon (Last edited 2011). [URL] (no direct link).
Trail, Ronald & Gregory Cooper. 1999. Kalasha Dictionary — with English and Urdu (Studies in Languages of Northern Pakistan). Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistani Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University.Google Scholar