The violability of backness in retroflex consonants

This paper addresses remarks made by Flemming (2003) to the effect that his analysis of the interaction between retroflexion and vowel backness is superior to that of Hamann (2003b). While Hamann maintained that retrofle
This paper addresses remarks made by Flemming (2003) to the effect that his analysis of the interaction between retroflexion and vowel backness is superior to that of Hamann (2003b). While Hamann maintained that retroflex articulations are always back, Flemming adduces phonological as well as phonetic evidence to prove that retroflex consonants can be non-back and even front (i.e. palatalised). The present paper, however, shows that the phonetic evidence fails under closer scrutiny. A closer consideration of the phonological evidence shows, by making a principled distinction between articulatory and perceptual drives, that a reanalysis of Flemming’s data in terms of unviolated retroflex backness is not only possible but also simpler with respect to the number of language-specific stipulations.
show moreshow less

Download full text files

Export metadata

  • Export Bibtex
  • Export RIS

Additional Services

    Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Metadaten
Author:Silke Hamann, Paul Boersma
URN:urn:nbn:de:hebis:30-1133564
Document Type:Article
Language:English
Date of Publication (online):2009/10/01
Year of first Publication:2005
Publishing Institution:Univ.-Bibliothek Frankfurt am Main
Release Date:2009/10/01
SWD-Keyword:Phonetik ; Retroflex
Source:http://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~hamann/BoersmaHamann2005.pdf ; (in:) Rutgers Optimality Archive. - New Jersey: 2005, S. 713-0205
HeBIS PPN:219018359
Dewey Decimal Classification:400 Sprache
Sammlungen:Linguistik
Linguistic-Classification:Linguistik-Klassifikation: Phonetik/Phonologie / Phonetics/Phonology
Licence (German):License Logo Veröffentlichungsvertrag für Publikationen

$Rev: 11761 $