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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Erring on the side of phonology

 | Queen Margaret University
 | Utrecht University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 10 November 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.31.11str
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.
References (32)
Articulate Instruments Ltd. 2008. ultrasound stabilisation headset users manual: Revision 1.1. Edinburgh, UK: Articulate Instruments Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Articulate assistant advanced ultrasound module user manual, revision 2.14. Edinburgh, UK: Articulate Instruments Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Avery, Peter, B. Elan Dresher & Keren D. Rice (eds.). 2008. Contrast in phonology: Theory, perception, acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie. 2007. The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. PhD diss., University of Toronto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre & Donald C. Freeman. 1968. A dialect study of American rs by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics 61. 29–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1980. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. & Kenneth N. Stevens. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 821. 33–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kingston, John & Avis H. Cohen. 1992. Extending articulatory phonology. Phonetica 491. 194–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Lodge, Ken. 2003. A declarative treatment of the phonetics and phonology of German rhymal /r/. Lingua 1131. 931–951. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: A personal view. Journal of Phonetics 181. 153–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Plug, Leendert & Richard Ogden. 2003. A parametric approach to the phonetics of postvocalic /r/ in Dutch. Phonetica 601. 159–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramsammy, Michael. 2013. Word-final nasal velarisation in Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 491. 215–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. & Samuel J. Keyser. 1989. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 651. 81–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. Journal of Phonetics 381. 10–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 .Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 2 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue