Talk:Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants/Archive 1

Untitled
Does this sound exist in any languages other than English? --Cotoco 19:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, though it's not a common sound. Ladefoged mentions it for Czech, though I've never heard it in that language. English typically has coarticulation (labialization and pharyngealization) which may not be present in  in other languages, so they may not sound the same. Also, the English sound is often retroflex. kwami 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize now that the Caipira accent of Portuguese (from Brazil), uniquely amongst all Portuguese accents/dialects AFAIK, also contains this sound. It is realized mostly, if not only, in syllable-end "r", before a consonant, as in "certo", "porta", "carne", etc. I wonder how it developed.--Cotoco 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in very common use in Swedish as an allophone for /r/, particularly in the dialects around Stockholm, but by now also very common in the kind Standard Swedish of that is most widely used in broadcast media.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just recalled: many dialects of Netherlandic Dutch have it as an allophone of /r/. I can't recall if it's a southern or northern thang, though. Very common in Standard Dutch according to one of my classmates who's a native speaker.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some of this information in the article perhaps? I just came to this talk page to ask about other languages, as I've always had the impression this is quite a rare sound. 86.136.1.31 01:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's in abundance in Albanian too....add that to the list! As for Dutch, I lived in Amsterdam for a while, and it's certainly used there by virtually everyone in such positions as 'haart' ('heart').Wfructose 22:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish there was more information on here besides strictly IPA classification and cross-linguistic comparative information. In English, is interesting because it is late to develop and is difficult to produce. Foreign speakers have considerable difficulty learning. requires a complex tongue posture - it's articulatory description cannot be simply reduced to place (alveolar) and manner (approximant). There are two ways of articulating ; bunching and retroflexing (a gestural term not to be confused with the IPA place of articulation). Both postures also require tongue grooving and side-bracing against the teeth. Furthermore, lip-rounding is also associated with production. Acoustically, is unique because of its extrememly compressed f1-f3, particularily because of its low f3 value. 's low f3 values result from perturbations at three locations; rounded lips, alveolar constriction, and a constriction around the velum or pharynx. These constrictions cause perturbations at velocity maxima in the third harmonic of the voice signal, causing a sharp decrease in resonant frequency to below 1000 Hz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.92.227 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not add that to the article then?! (Same goes for those who have introduced new information above). It sounds like you're sufficiently familiar with the research in this area that you could add at least a short paragraph to the article and back it up with published sources. I've tagged this article as needing attention from an expert so that someone knowledgeable in this area can incorporate the information you've supplied. 86.134.215.99 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the alveolar approximate and the retroflex approximate? I understand that retroflex implies bending the tongue. Does this mean the alveolar approximate refers to "bunching"? Or is the retroflex an allophone of the more general alveolar approximate? But people tend to categorize them as two different sounds. (see: http://web.uvic.ca/ling/resources/ipa/charts/IPAlab/IPAlab.htm)76.115.227.56 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See the note at approximant consonant as well as retroflex consonant. There is a difference, though American English speakers don't take much note of it.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  08:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sound file has a labialized r
The sound file offered as an example sounds to me a labialized alveolar approximant, not a plain ɹ. In this case I think it should be replaced, as this may be the only possible realization of the sound in English, but is nevertheless a modified consonant and does not reflect the pronounciation of the stand-alone IPA symbol ɹ. Or are my ears failing me? 201.21.210.99 08:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the history. Your ears fail you. No labialization is occurring. As far as I can tell, his lips aren't moving at all. — trlkly 06:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

f3
what the hell is f3 or f1? someone needs to clarify this.
 * See Formant. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Alveolar approximant in German
''''

Does anyone have any reference to which German dialects use the alveolar approximant in speech, and in which positions the letter "r" is actually pronounced that way? (The article on en:wikipedia has no references, specifies no dialect, and gives the example Rebe). The German article doesn't even mention German dialects, but the German article on Shibboleth says that Germans in the upper Lausitz, Siegerland and Wetterau pronounce the letter "r" as an alveolar approximant [ɹ]: "Rahm" as [ɹaːm]. als:Alveolarer Approximant isn't referenced either. It also mentions the Siegerland and gives Franz Müntefering's speech as an example, and the article also says that younger speakers have replaced it with an uvular trill. In my ears Müntefering's alveolar approximants sound close but a bit different from the English or American approximants. If anyone has a reliable reference, I'd be very grateful. ---Sluzzelin talk  08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, this Uni Stuttgart pdf file and this Uni Köln pdf file both mention the Siegerland with reference to Kohler, Klaus J. 1977. Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, page 165 in the 1995 edition. I still wasn't able to find anything on alveolar approximants in the other regions mentioned above (Upper Lausitz in Saxony and Wetterau in Hesse. ---Sluzzelin talk  15:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Off hand I could not point to any German dialect that uses the "English r" although as you noted with Mr. Müntefering there are versions that get close. German "r" sounds tend to be a bit more toward the front and even the "throaty" versions involve more tongue action than e.g a U.S. one.  (Sorry no sources, strictly OR observation.) Check out audios at  -  -   -  Lisa4edit (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's prominent in Herborn (that is, ['hɜɹ boːɹn]) - try the soundbites on this page from a village just south of Herborn. Having grown up there, I can also vouch for the Wetterau, but there it's more or less interchangeable with the trilled [r]. Check out de:Adam und die Micky's famous rendering of the Runkelroiweroppmaschin' (for the uninitiated: "Runkelrübenrupfmaschine"...) - to my ear the second /r/ (in "roiwe") is a [ɹ] in the first chorus, [r] in the second. Maybe Angr would care to transcribe the song...--Janneman (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the Uni Cologne and Waeller Platt references to the page. Since they're not academic papers I didn't use the same referencing format that has been used for the other languages' examples. Lfh (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it also occurs idiolectally, occasionally or allophonically in East Franconian, but interchangeably with the usual trilled [r], as in the Wetterau. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Received Pronunciation
Are you sure that RP uses this r? This r is used in both American and Jamaican EnglishDomsta333 (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are subtle phonetic distinctions between them, no doubt, but I haven't seen anything describing RP's as anything but an alveolar/postalveolar approximant. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  12:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does the sound sample comprise the retroflexive one? 188.146.14.238 (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
Never ever seen this except for Wikipedia. All the standard texts dealing with English phonetics I've read use the inverted r, including the vast majority of introductory books that most young people will be familiar with, as well as all the official material from the IPA. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be less dubious if we changed "vast majority" to "some"? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's worth a look to see if a source makes a claim like this. Otherwise, I would put "many."  for the English rhotic has been my experience in many linguistics articles.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  18:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of recent articles, I would say most are using the inverted r though. If I saw , I would automatically assume I'm looking at an older (pre-Unicode) text. There may be regional differences as well, I'd say US linguists are more inclined to use non-kosher modifications to the IPA. Wasn't  part of the older Americanist notation? There may well be a correlation between articles that use  and <š>. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. A quick look through articles in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, which you would think to be the first to switch to <>, shows that the more recent articles describing dialects of English use  in their consonant charts.  This includes the articles covering Liverpool English (2007), Australian English (2007), and Received Pronunciation (2004).  It is not a typographical issue, as a 2006 issue covering Jamaican Creole uses <> and it's not likely to be a conservative journal-specific policy as the 2003 articles on Tyneside English and Southern Michigan English use <>.  Of the other articles that cover dialects of English between 2000 and 2010, all of them use  (though one switches between  and <>, mostly doing the latter in example transcriptions).  I actually have a hard time finding articles that use <> elsewhere.  Of course, this is original research, but this is why I think "many" should suffice.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  13:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I question the use of  in the first place. From our own article on the IPA: "There are no letters that have context-dependent sound values..." (emphasis mine). This is a fundamental principle of the IPA, and it should be said that we are violating it. In the context of English transcription  represents an approximant; in the context of other languages it represents a trill. It may be convenient to use , but convenience is overshadowed by the underlying principles of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Inter  change  able | talk to me  00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All of Peter Ladefoged's textbooks use /r/. John C. Wells uses /r/ both in Accents of English and in the Longman Pronunciation Dictionary. Gimson and Kenyon & Knott use /r/ in their pronunciation dictionaries. The only time I've ever encountered /ɹ/ is (1) when the precise articulation of the English r-sound is the topic under discussion, especially if it's being contrasted with other r-sounds, and (2) when a Wikipedian amateur linguist is engaging in pedantic excessive precision. Angr (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Vs. Retroflex approximant
Can someone explain the difference between the alveolar and retroflex "r" sounds? Aside from the trilled r found in Scottish English, Spanish, etc., I always thought there was only one kind of rhotic r sound. Now that I think about it, however, I can detect the difference between the typical Irish r and the American r sound, but I'm not sure if this is an alveolar/retroflex distinction, or something else. Which pronunciation occurs most commonly in American English? In British English? Do some speakers use one in the initial position and the other at the ends of words?Commonparlance (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The alveolar approximant occurs with the tongue directly behind the teeth. In the retroflex approximant, the tongue is placed roughly in the middle of the mouth, beyond the alveolar ridge but before the hard palate. To get an idea of retroflex articulation, place your tongue behind your upper teeth and relax it, then lower your jaw. Your tongue should be drawn back into your mouth by the air pressure difference. The place just before the seal breaks is the place of retroflex articulation.


 * I can't testify about American vs. Irish, but I can say that the Canadian r is invariably /ɹʷ/. And I'm fairly sure that the same applies for General American, because I hear American accents all the time. Inter  change  able  22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It gets really complicated because the definition of "retroflex" involves a number of types of articulation that differ more articulation but less in acoustics. With the English rhotic, the problem is compounded by the distance of the articulators (they are further away than, say, a fricative which causes less turbulence) when producing such sounds.  This means that the English rhotic will be described by phoneticians in various ways and not just because of dialectal variation.  More than likely, characterizations of the English rhotic as "retroflex" have to do with a more retracted or postalveolar pronunciation than with any tongue curling.  The source cited in this article for the American version also states that it is pharyngealized, which means that the back of the throat is constricted as well.
 * I'm not sure of the difference between Irish and American r, though my impression is that the difference isn't so much in the location of the articulators but in how close they come together, with Irish being slightly more constricted (and therefore causing slightly more turbulence) than American English. But I could be wrong.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I live in the south-central U.S. and I'm pretty I use the labialized retroflex R. However, many people around here use a different sound (the alveolar one, I think) and I can tell the difference between them (the alveolar R sounds more "liquid", that's the best description I can think of). pʰeːnuːmuː  →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Het Gooi r
Unlike FNCD, I think the Dutch language has just two R's that are accepted by logopedists. These are /r/, an alveolar thrill and /ʀ/, a uvular trill. Singing teachers don't even tolerate the /ʀ/ to be used. The usage of the Het Gooi r is mainly caused by the children singing group Kinderen voor Kinderen and from then on, it spreads over fair parts of the Netherlands. In Belgium and in South-Africa (Afrikaans in the latter case) the /ɹ/ does not exist. We are not at the point that the Het Gooi r should be accepted. People from TV are taught or helped to get rid of the Het Gooi r and new children for Kinderen voor Kinderen will learn to get rid of it. So although the Het Gooi r is spreaded over the Netherlands, there are still views against it. Although I partly use the Het Gooi r (due to pretty fast speech), I still think (and many logopedists and singing teachers with me) that it does not belong in the Standard Dutch language, and it is part from Leiden and Het Gooi dialect.

I will leave the article as it is, for the time being, but I will undo the last undo (restoring my edit), if I have even clearer sources than I had, that states that Het Gooi r is not part of Standard Dutch. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not about the sound being accepted/acceptable or being part of Standard Dutch, but about whether it exists and where, which it does. --JorisvS (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is about existence of the Het Gooi r, then we should also add the extra vowels and long versions of the Dutch language and dialects to the table. You would go a bit too far with doing so. Twents has way more vowals than Dutch. Adding those vowels to the table would make the table unreadable. I am not against such a table but then we must create a separate Wiki article for it. Here we talk about the Dutch language and dialects don't belong there, with their vowels included. Hans Kamp (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * These tables include all kinds of dialectal vowels of English. There is no reason Dutch dialectal vowels cannot be included as long as the existence of each of the particular vowels is properly cited. The table on this page is specifically about the alveolar approximant, so information about vowels cannot go into this one. Of course it can, and should, be noted in such cases that a sound is not considered 'standard'. Moreover, Twents is not a Dutch dialect, but a Low Saxon dialect, and so would go under 'Low Saxon' in these tables, not under 'Dutch'. --JorisvS (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Acquisition
That entire section seems to be about English /r/, which is a whole other story. I think that it would serve English phonology better. Thoughts? — Lfdder (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It does seem to focus primarily on English. Is there research that could universalize the info?  We might be able to C&P to English phonology and then chop it down to the less English-specific bits. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  12:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Greek children were found to acquire [ɹ] (at the age of 2) before [ɾ] (at 4), and before all of these: [ɡ, θ, s, z, ç, x, ɣ, ʝ, ɲ, ʎ, ts, dz] ( Mennen, Ineke & Areti Okalidou (2006), "Acquisition of Greek phonology: an overview", p. 10), so even this sentence:
 * "This could explain why the alveolar approximant is one of the last sounds mastered by children, approximately at the age of four."
 * is not universally true. Is there anything left to say on the subject? — Lfdder (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There probably is, but there's no reason to wait for it before we move the section. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 13:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there probably is. ;P — Lfdder (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The two sub-sections under 'Features' would also probably be better fit for American English or General American, I think. — Lfdder (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Place of articulation
It seems more like a velar approximant to me. I can easily make the sound with my tongue nowhere near my alveolar ridge.Madeleined2 (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds retroflex and rounded to me. The sound at velar approximant sounds uvular to me. --JorisvS (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It sounds retroflex and rounded to me too. — Lfdder (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Spanish?
I doubt this consonant appears as an allophone of "s" in the position the example shows, when in fact this case of "doscientos" can be heard treating it more as an alveolar flap [ɾ], [doɾˈθje̞nto̞s], in some Andalusian dialects and also very informal speech in nearby regions. Thus, I'd suggest removing this example. Thank you. --81.184.18.191 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The 'r' of "porque" in paraguayan spanish sounds like this.¿can you add it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.228.214 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not without a source. Find one, then you can add Paraguayan Spanish yourself. If you won't know what to do, I or somebody else will help you. Peter238 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New recording
I uploaded a new recording. The previous one sounded like a retracted alveolar or postalveolar approximant, the sound that occurs in English. My recording will sound weird to English speakers, as it does to me, but that's because I've made it actually alveolar, not postalveolar. We should probably also have a recording of the postalveolar approximant. — Eru·tuon 09:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment
Wugapodes (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2015‎


 * Is this a joke? Excuse, me.  The "arlicle" has more the character of a stub, it barely contains a dozen sentences and an entire paragraph is a bullet list.  WP is supposed to contain articles, not presentation-style slides. Kbrose (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What else would you like to read here? Peter238 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As Peter238 said, what else would you like to see here? My assessment criteria are based upon the GA criteria. B-class articles are those that are just below a good article status, which I believe this article is. Going down the list:
 * Well Written: the prose, while limited, is clear and concise. It probably doesn't comply with WP:LEAD but this isn't a GA nom. It satisfies WP:LIST.
 * Verifiable with no Original Research: the article is well sourced containing both inline citations and general bibliographic citations.
 * Broad in its coverage: as a linguist, I can say that this is largely comprehensive. It covers the main aspects of a phone that one would expect: the features, the IPA grapheme, and its occurrence in languages. It does not go off on tangents, and covers almost everything there is to really say about the phone. Since my assessment is based upon the GA criteria, I also take into account WP:What the Good article criteria are not which says "Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic" and this is an appropriate size for the topic.
 * Neutral: I don't think anyone would say it is non-neutral
 * Stable: No current edit wars
 * Illustrated: While its only image is the grapheme, images are not required for GA and so I don't give them much weight in my assessments.
 * If you have constructive feedback, I'll gladly listen, but asking for an article to be of an arbitrary size when it is already comprehensive is unhelpful. Particularly since WP:STUB says "there are some subjects about which very little can be written" and points to an essay which expounds saying "A small article on a relatively small or insignificant subject is far less likely to be considered a stub than the same sized article on a far larger or more important topic." Size is an arbitrary metric and in sorting, we need to actually consider how comprehensive the coverage is rather than just how big. Wugapodes (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Maltese
Maltese is not listed here but I found a source that says some dialects realize the /r/ phoneme as a post-alveolar approximant. Here is the source: google books source. The relevant quote: "In some dialects (e.g. in Xaghra, Gozo) these are post-alveolar approximants" (Puech, 74). × Also, for what it's worth (yes I know, no original research, that's why I have the source up there), I first noticed this and got the idea to look into this more, from this video of the President of Malta speaking (note: I do not know a word of Maltese, just listening for phonetic/phonology purposes): video. From what I can tell, the president is using some kind of alveolar approximantish sound (which would mean according to the source, she is speaking some non standard dialect which is a little strange, I would guess the president in a formal address would speak in the 'standard' variety...). Monibeva (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. Peter238 (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alveolar and postalveolar approximants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211020607/http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/ell/staff/amalia-arvaniti/docs/Greek%20Phonetics%20-%20The%20State%20of%20the%20Art.pdf to http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/ell/staff/amalia-arvaniti/docs/Greek%20Phonetics%20-%20The%20State%20of%20the%20Art.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Does this symbol - ɹ - have a name?
What do you call this? An inverted R? An upside-down R? A rah (pronounced with an alveolar or post-alveolar approximant of course)? DBlomgren (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unicode and the IPA call it a "turned R", based on Pullum & Ladusaw's Phonetic Symbol Guide. See Naming conventions of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Nardog (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)