Talk:Alveolar approximant

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 /ɹ/ typically has coarticulation (labialization and pharyngealization) which may not be present in /ɹ/ 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 /ɹ/ here besides strictly IPA classification and cross-linguistic comparative information. In English, /ɹ/ is interesting because it is late to develop and is difficult to produce. Foreign speakers have considerable difficulty learning /ɹ/. /ɹ/ 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 /ɹ/; 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 /ɹ/ production. Acoustically, /ɹ/ is unique because of its extrememly compressed f1-f3, particularily because of its low f3 value. /ɹ/'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.

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#Semivowels as well as retroflex consonant. There is a difference, though American English speakers don't take much note of it. — Ƶ§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

<Partially copied from Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2009_January_10 I don't know when or if I will be able to get my hands on Kohler or any other reliable source to specify and reference the occurrence in German dialects, so, meanwhile, I'm posting this thread here. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC) >

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 [1] - [2] - [3] - 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)

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 /r/ as anything but an alveolar/postalveolar approximant. — Ƶ§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." <r> for the English rhotic has been my experience in many linguistics articles. — Ƶ§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 <r>, 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 <r> part of the older Americanist notation? There may well be a correlation between articles that use <r> 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 <ɹ>, shows that the more recent articles describing dialects of English use <r> 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 <ɹ> and it's not likely to be a conservative journal-specific policy as the 2003 articles on Tyneside English and Southern Michigan English use <ɹ>. Of the other articles that cover dialects of English between 2000 and 2010, all of them use <r> (though one switches between <r> and <ɹ>, mostly doing the latter in example transcriptions). I actually have a hard time finding articles that use <ɹ> elsewhere. Of course, this is original research, but this is why I think "many" should suffice. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I question the use of <r> 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 <r> represents an approximant; in the context of other languages it represents a trill. It may be convenient to use <r>, but convenience is overshadowed by the underlying principles of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Interchangeable|talk to me 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)