Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T18:33:41.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual-level contact limits phonological complexity: Evidence from bunched and retroflex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jeff Mielke,
Adam Baker and
Diana Archangeli
Jeff Mielke*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Adam Baker*
Affiliation:
University of North Dakota
Diana Archangeli*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona and University of Hong Kong
*
Mielke, Department of English, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8105, Raleigh, NC 27695-8105, [jimielke@ncsu.edu] [todd.baker@und.edu] (Baker) [dba@u.arizona.edu] (Archangeli)
Mielke, Department of English, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8105, Raleigh, NC 27695-8105, [jimielke@ncsu.edu] [todd.baker@und.edu] (Baker) [dba@u.arizona.edu] (Archangeli)
Mielke, Department of English, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 8105, Raleigh, NC 27695-8105, [jimielke@ncsu.edu] [todd.baker@und.edu] (Baker) [dba@u.arizona.edu] (Archangeli)
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare the complexity of idiosyncratic sound patterns involving American English /ɹ/ with the relative simplicity of clear/dark /l/-allophony patterns found in English and other languages. For /ɹ/, we report an ultrasound-based articulatory study of twenty-seven speakers of American English. Two speakers use only retroflex /ɹ/, sixteen use only bunched /ɹ/, and nine use both /ɹ/ types, with idiosyncratic allophonic distributions. These allophony patterns are covert, because the difference between bunched and retroflex /ɹ/ is not readily perceived by listeners. We compare this typology of /ɹ/-allophony patterns to clear/dark /l/-allophony patterns in seventeen languages. On the basis of the observed patterns, we show that individual-level /ɹ/ allophony and language-level /ɹ/ allophony exhibit similar phonetic grounding, but that /ɹ/-allophony patterns are considerably more complex. The low complexity of language-level /l/-allophony patterns, which are more readily perceived by listeners, is argued to be the result of individual-level contact in the development of sound patterns. More generally, we argue that familiar phonological patterns (which are relatively simple and homogeneous within communities) may arise from individual-level articulatory patterns, which may be complex and speaker-specific, by a process of koineization. We conclude that two classic properties of phonological rules, phonetic naturalness and simplicity, arise from different sources.

Keywords

rhoticlateralallophonycontactultrasoundcomplexity

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 92 , Issue 1 , March 2016, pp. 101 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alwan, Abeer A., Narayanan, Shrikanth S.; and Haker, Katherine. 1997. Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data, part II: The rhotics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101. 1078–89. DOI: 10.1121/1.417972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archangeli, Diana, Baker, Adam; and Mielke, Jeff. 2011. Categorization and features: Evidence from American English/а/. Where do phonological contrasts come from?, ed. by Clements, G. N. and Ridouane, Rachid, 173–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, and Berry, Jeff. 2010. Dark and light/l/s in Georgian. Paper presented at UltraFest V, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT, March.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, Berry, Jeff, Gorrie, Colin, Mathieu, Lionel, Schertz, Jessamyn; and Sung, Jae Hyun. 2010. Timing of tongue tip and dorsum gestures in French and Georgian/l/s. Poster presented at LabPhon 12.Google Scholar
Baker, Adam. 2005. Palatoglossatron 1.0. Tucson: University of Arizona. Online: http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~apilab/pdfs/pgman.pdf.Google Scholar
Baker, Adam, Archangeli, Diana; and Mielke, Jeff. 2011. Variability in English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Language Variation and Change 23. 347–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394511000135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgiri, H. S. 1965. Kharia: Phonology, grammar, and vocabulary. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, and Garrett, Andrew. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 74. 508–56. DOI: 10.2307/417792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2007. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Online: http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1999. The phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boyce, Suzanne, and Espy-Wilson, Carol Y.. 1997. Coarticulatory stability in American English/r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101. 3741–53. DOI: 10.1121/1.418333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Britain, David. 1997. Dialect contact and phonological reallocation: ‘Canadian raising’ in the English Fens. Language in Society 26. 15–46. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500019394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brohan, Anthony, and Mielke, Jeff. 2016. Frequent segmental alternations in P-base 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT, and Raleigh: North Carolina State University, ms.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine, and Goldstein, Louis. 1995. Gestural syllable position effects in American English. Producing speech: Contemporary issues: For Katherine Safford Harris, ed. by Bell-Berti, Fredericka and Raphael, Lawrence J., 510–20. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1998. Usage-based phonology. Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 1: General papers, ed. by Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Wheatley, Kathleen, 211–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Campbell, Fiona, Gick, Bryan, Wilson, Ian; and Vatikiotis-Bateson, Eric. 2010. Spatial and temporal properties of gestures in North American English/r/. Language and Speech 53. 49–69. DOI: 10.1177/0023830909351209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carignan, Christopher, Mielke, Jeff; and Dodsworth, Robin. 2016. Tongue trajectories in North American English short-a tensing. The future of dialects: Selected papers from Methods in Dialectology XV (Language variation 1), ed. by Côté, Marie-Hélène, Knooihuizen, Remco, and Nerbonne, John, 313–19. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1988. A practical introduction to phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, Peter; and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.) 2002. The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cook, Rev. Walter Anthony. 1974. Structure of the Mundari language. Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre. 1969. L’/r/parisien et autres sons du pharynx. The French Review 43. 522. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/386726.Google Scholar
Delattre, Pierre, and Freeman, Donald C.. 1968. A dialect study of American r’s by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics 44. 29–68. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1968.6.44.29.Google Scholar
Derrick, Donald, and Gick, Bryan. 2008. Quantitative analysis of subphonemic flap/tap variation in NAE. Canadian Acoustics 36. 162–63. Online: http://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/2088.Google Scholar
Derrick, Donald, and Gick, Bryan. 2011. Individual variation in English flaps and taps: A case of categorical phonetics. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 56. 307–19. DOI: 10.1353/cjl.2011.0024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron. 2009. Dialect boundaries and phonological change in upstate New York. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Espy-Wilson, Carol, and Boyce, Suzanne. 1994. Acoustic differences between ‘bunched’ and ‘retroflex’ variants of American English/r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 95. 2823. DOI: 10.1121/1.409691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espy-Wilson, Carol, Boyce, Suzanne, Jackson, Michel, Narayanan, Shrikanth; and Alwan, Abeer. 2000. Acoustic modeling of American English/r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108. 343–56. DOI: 10.1121/1.429469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, D. 1972. On utterance-final [ł] and [u̯] in Portuguese. Papers in linguistics and phonetics to the memory of Pierre Delattre, ed. by Valdman, Albert, 129–41. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria, and Ladefoged, Peter. 1966. Electromyography in speech research. Phonetica 15. 219–42. DOI: 10.1159/000258547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, Bryan. 1999. A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16. 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, Bryan, Campbell, Fiona, Oh, Sunyoung; and Tamburri-Watt, Linda. 2006. Toward universals in the gestural organization of syllables: A cross-linguistic study of liquids. Journal of Phonetics 34. 49–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew J. 2002. A phonetically driven account of syllable weight. Language 78. 51–80. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2002.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guenther, Frank, Espy-Wilson, Carol, Boyce, Suzanne, Matthies, Melanie, Zandipour, Majid; and Perkell, Joseph. 1999. Articulatory tradeoffs reduce acoustic variability during American English/r/production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105. 2854–65. DOI: 10.1121/1.426900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagiwara, Robert. 1995. Acoustic realizations of American/r/as produced by women and men. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 90. 1–187. Online: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8779b7gq.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark. 2003. Neogrammarian sound change. In Joseph & Janda, 343–68.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Herrity, Peter. 2000. Slovene: A comprehensive grammar. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hueber, Thomas, Aversano, Guido, Chollet, Gérard, Denby, Bruce, Dreyfus, Gérard, Oussar, Yacine, Roussel, Pierre; and Stone, Maureen. 2007. Eigentongue feature extraction for an ultrasound-based silent speech interface. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Honolulu, 1245-48. DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2007.366140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth V., and Johnson, Keith. 2001. A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. by Hume, Elizabeth V. and Johnson, Keith, 3–26. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1977. Phonologization. Linguistic studies presented to Joseph H. Greenberg, ed. by Juilland, Alphonse, 407–18. Saratoga: Anna Libri.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, C. Gunnar M.; and Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 2003. ‘Phonologization’ as the start of dephoneticization—or, on sound-change and its aftermath: Of extension, generalization, lexicalization, and morphologization. In Joseph & Janda, 401–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 2003a. On language, change, and language change—or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph & Janda, 3180.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 2003b. Reconsidering the canons of soundchange: Towards a big bang theory. Historical linguistics 2001: Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13-17 August 2001, ed. by Blake, Barry J. and Burridge, Kate, 205–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D. (eds.) 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, R. D. 1985. Normal aspects of articulation. Articulation and phonological disorders, ed. by Bernthal, John and Bankson, Nicholas, 157–68. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 2002. Koineization and accommodation. In Chambers et al., 669–702.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. The phonological basis of sound change. In Joseph & Janda, 313–42.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert. 2007. The phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Socialfactors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1957. Use of palatography. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 22. 764–74. DOI: 10.1044/jshd.2205.764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ladefoged, Peter. 1972. Phonetic prerequisites for a distinctive feature theory. Papers in linguistics and phonetics to the memory of Pierre Delattre, ed. by Valdman, Albert, 273–86. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1984. ‘Out of chaos comes order’: Physical, biological, and structural patterns in phonetics. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), Utrecht, 83–95.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1962. Acoustical characteristics of selected English consonants. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Communication Sciences Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona. 1985. The story of/r/. Phonetic linguistics: Essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged, ed. by Fromkin, Victoria A., 157–68. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lupardus, Karen Jacque. 1982. The language of the Alabama Indians. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
MacKay, Ian R. A. 1977. Tenseness in vowels: An ultrasonic study. Phonetica 34. 325–51. DOI: 10.1159/000259907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magloughlin, Lyra. 2016. Accounting for variability in North American English/ɹ/: Evidence from children’s articulation. Journal of Phonetics 54. 51–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthies, Melanie L., Guenther, Frank H., Denny, Margaret, Perkell, Joseph S., Burton, Ellen, Vick, Jennell, Lane, Harlan, Tiede, Mark; and Zandipour, Majid. 2008. Perception and production of/r/allophones improve with hearing from a cochlear implant. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124. 3191–3202. DOI: 10.1121/1.2987427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ménard, Lucie, Dupont, Sophie, Baum, Shari R.; and Aubin, Jérôme. 2009. Production and perception of French vowels by congenitally blind adults and sighted adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 126. 1406–14. DOI: 10.1121/1.3158930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ménard, Lucie, Toupin, Corinne, Baum, Shari R., Drouin, Serge, Aubin, Jérôme; and Tiede, Mark. 2013. Acoustic and articulatory analysis of French vowels produced by congenitally blind adults and sighted adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134. 2975–87. DOI: 10.1121/1.4818740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michelson, Karin Eva. 1983. A comparative study of accent in the Five Nations Iroquoian languages. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff, Baker, Adam; and Archangeli, Diana. 2010. Variability and homogeneity in American English/ɹ/allophony and/s/retraction. Laboratory phonology 10: Variation, detail, and representation, ed. by Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D’Imperio, Mariapaola, and Vallee, Nathalie, 699–719. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff, Baker, Adam, Archangeli, Diana; and Racy, Sumayya. 2005. Palatron: A technique for aligning ultrasound images of the tongue and palate. Coyote Papers: Working Papers in Linguistics, Linguistic Theory at the University of Arizona 14. 96.ndash;. 107. Online: http://coyotepapers.sbs.arizona.edu/CPXIV.htm.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675708001413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, Naomi, and Reynolds, Bill. 1997. Optimality theory and variable word-final deletion in Faetar. Language Variation and Change 9. 37–55. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394500001782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakshabandi, Nakshabandi Anwar Mohammed. 1988. A descriptive study of the phonology and morphology of the Abha dialect. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
Narayanan, Shrikanth S., Alwan, Abeer A.; and Haker, Katherine. 1997. Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and EPG data, part I: The laterals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101. 1064–77. DOI: 10.1121/1.418030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngunga, Armindo. 2000. Phonology and morphology of the Ciyao verb. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Odisho, Edward Y. 1988. Sound system of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on language and behavior) 17. 2. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes (Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs 43), ed. by Breivik, Leiv Egil and Jahr, Ernst Håkon, 173–98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1993. Sound change as nature’s speech perception experiment. Speech Communication 13. 155–61. DOI: 10.1016/0167-6393(93)90067-U.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, Darryl, and Stone, Maureen. 1998. Three-dimensional vocal tract shapes in/r/and/l/: A study of MRI, ultrasound, electropalatography, and acoustics. Phonoscope. 1. 1–13.Google Scholar
Payne, Arvilla. 1976. The acquisition of the phonological system of a second dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Payne, Arvilla. 1980. Factors controlling the acquisition of the Philadelphia dialect by out-of-state children. Locating language in time and space, vol. 1, ed. by Labov, William, 143–78. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Why phonological constraints are so coarse-grained. Language and Cognitive Processes (Special issue on spoken word access processes) 16. 69198. DOI: 10.1080/01690960143000218.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas. 1960. Buriat grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas, and Hebert, Raymond J.. 1963. Kirghiz manual. Bloomington: Indiana University, and The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pouplier, Marianne, and Hoole, Phillip. 2013. Comparing principal component analysis of ultrasound images with contour analyses in a study of tongue body control during German coronals. Paper presented at Ultrafest VI, Edinburgh, November.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2008. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Recasens, Daniel, and Espinosa, Aina. 2005. Articulatory, positional and coarticulatory characteristics for clear/l/and dark/l/: Evidence from two Catalan dialects. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35. 1–25. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100305001878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1993. The lexical phonology of Slovak. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, James E. 1989. Lealao Chinantec syntax: Studies in Chinantec languages, vol. 2. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M., Sebregts, Koen; and Stuart-Smith, Jane. 2006. From subtle to gross variation: An ultrasound tongue imaging study of Dutch and Scottish English/r/. Poster presented at LabPhon 10.Google Scholar
Shriberg, Lawrence d., and Kent, R. D.. 1995. Clinical phonetics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 1985. Koines and koineization. Language in Society 14. 357–78. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500011313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 2007. Controlled and mechanical properties in speech. Experimental approaches to phonology, ed. by Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter, and Ohala, Manjari, 302–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard, and Fujimura, Osamu. 1993. Allophonic variation in English/l/and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics 21. 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavness, Ian, Gick, Bryan, Derrick, Donald; and Fels, Sidney. 2012. Biomechanical modeling of English/r/variants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 131. EL355-EL360. DOI: 10.1121/1.3695407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1972. The quantal nature of speech: Evidence from articulatory-acoustic data. Human communication: A unified view, ed. by David, Edward E. and Denes, Peter B., 51–66. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1999. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Maureen. 2005. A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound images. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 19. 455–502. DOI: 10.1080/02699200500113558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stone, Maureen, Sonies, B., Shawker, Thomas, Weiss, G.; and Nadel, L.. 1983. Analysis of real-time ultrasound images of tongue configuration using a grid-digitizing system. Journal of Phonetics 11. 207–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiede, Mark K., Boyce, Suzanne E., Espy-Wilson, Carol Y.; and Gracco, Vincent L.. 2011. Variability of North American English/r/production in response to palatal perturbation. Speech motor control: New developments in basic and applied research, ed. by Maassen, Ben and Lieshout, Pascal van, 53–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tiede, Mark K., Boyce, Suzanne E., Holland, Christy K.; and Choe, K. Ann. 2004. A new taxonomy of American English/r/using MRI and ultrasound. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 115. 2633–34. DOI: 10.1121/1.4784878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trager, George L. 1948. Taos I: A language revisited. International Journal of American Linguistics 14. 155–60. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1263040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter (ed.) 1986. Dialects in contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Linguistic and social typology. In Chambers et al., 305–20.Google Scholar
Tschenkeli, Kita. 1958. Einführung in die Georgische Sprache, Band 1. Zürich: Amirani.Google Scholar
Twist, Alina, Baker, Adam, Mielke, Jeff; and Archangeli, Diana. 2007. Are ‘covert’/ɹ/allophones really indistinguishable? Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13. 2. Online: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol13/iss2/16/.Google Scholar
Uldall, Elizabeth. 1958. American ‘molar’ R and ‘flapped’ T. Revista do Laboratório de Fonética Experimental da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra 4. 103–6.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel, and Proctor, Michael. 2013. Articulatory overlap in English syllables with postvocalic/ɹ/. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 19. 060259. DOI: 10.1121/1.4799574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, Natasha, Fountain, Amy; and Tucker, Benjamin V.. 2009. Cues to perception of reduced flaps. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 125. 3317–27. DOI: 10.1121/1.3097773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William; and Herzog, Marvin. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Directions for historical linguistics, ed. by Lehmann, Winfred and Malkiel, Yakov, 95–105. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Westbury, John R. 1994. X-ray microbeam speech production database users handbook. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Westbury, John r., Hashi, Michiko; and Lindstrom, Mary J.. 1998. Differences among speakers in lingual articulation for American English/ɹ/. Speech Communication 26. 203–26. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-6393(98)00058-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wodzinski, Sylvie m., and Frisch, Stefan A.. 2006. Ultrasound study of velar-vowel coarticulation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120. 3373–74. DOI: 10.1121/1.4781580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, Jiahong, and Liberman, Mark. 2008. Speaker identification on the SCOTUS corpus. Proceedings of Acoustics ’08, 5687–90.Google Scholar
Zawadski, Paul A., and Kuehn, D. P.. 1980. A cineradiographic study of static and dynamic aspects of American English/r/. Phonetica 37. 253–66. DOI: 10.1159/000259995.Google Scholar
Zhou, Xinhui. 2009. An MRI-based articulatory and acoustic study of American English liquid sounds/r/and/l/. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation.Google Scholar
Zhou, Xinhui, Espy-Wilson, Carol Y., Boyce, Suzanne, Tiede, Mark, Holland, Christy; and Choe, Ann. 2008. A magnetic resonance imaging-based articulatory and acoustic study of ‘retroflex’ and ‘bunched’ American English/r/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123. 4466–81. DOI: 10.1121/1.2902168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmermann, J. 1858. A grammatical sketch and vocabulary of the Akra- or Gã-language. Stuttgart: Gregg.Google Scholar