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 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.

Download full text files

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Author:Silke HamannORCiDGND, Paul BoersmaORCiDGND
Parent Title (German):Auch erschienen in: Rutgers Optimality Archive. - New Jersey: 2005, S. 713-1205
Document Type:Article
Year of Completion:2005
Year of first Publication:2005
Publishing Institution:Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg
Release Date:2009/10/01
GND Keyword:Phonetik; Retroflex
Page Number:28
Auch erschienen in: Rutgers Optimality Archive. - New Jersey: 2005, S. 713-1205
Source: ; (in:) Rutgers Optimality Archive. - New Jersey: 2005, S. 713-0205
Dewey Decimal Classification:4 Sprache / 40 Sprache / 400 Sprache
Linguistik-Klassifikation:Linguistik-Klassifikation: Phonetik/Phonologie / Phonetics/Phonology
Licence (German):License LogoDeutsches Urheberrecht