Rhoticization

[anteallach]

Isn't part of the confusion down to there being two main types of American English /r/ (and NURSE vowel) one of which (the "bunched" one) isn't very well described by standard phonetic terminology?

If you're looking for syllabic coronal approximants functioning as stressed vowels, there are apparently some Scandinavian dialects where /i/ has turned into one.

[Travis B.]

Isn't part of the confusion down to there being two main types of American English /r/ (and NURSE vowel) one of which (the "bunched" one) isn't very well described by standard phonetic terminology?

The kind I have is the bunched one, and in the end it comes down to:

• If is syllabic it is a uvular approximant without labialization.
• If it is not syllabic:
  • If it is initial or following a rounded vowel it is labialized.
  • If it comes after an alveolar or postalveolar consonant it has postalveolar coarticulation.
  • It is a uvular approximant, except on rare occasions when in the coda, where then it may be a uvular trill.

[Tropylium]

I don't know about the rest of it, but there is at least one Dravidian language with two phonemic degrees of vowel retroflexion, Badaga. (I don't know if there are others, I only know about Badaga because of the UCLA Phonetics Lab page.)

This is an interesting claim, but then the UCLA clips don't substantiate this well enough I think.
– "ụ" sounds like a fricated vowel [β̩˞].
– "ọ" sounds like a diphthong [ɔɒ˞].
– I can hear no difference in degree of retroflexion between "i˞, e˞, a˞" vs. "ị, ẹ, "ạ", only in tone and, for the second example with /a/, retroflexion of the following sibilant: [ɨ˞ː˧˥],[e˞ː˧˥], [ha˞ˑ˧su˥] (rising), [ka˞˧tːu˧] (mid) vs. [ɨ˞ˑ˦j̱u˨], [e˞ː˧˨], [kˣa˞˦ʂu˨], [pa˞ː˥wu˧] (falling).

[Vijay]

Yeah, like I said earlier, the contrast hasn't been that strong for almost a hundred years now, and currently, speakers only show retroflexion for a few vowels.

[anteallach]

Isn't part of the confusion down to there being two main types of American English /r/ (and NURSE vowel) one of which (the "bunched" one) isn't very well described by standard phonetic terminology?

The kind I have is the bunched one, and in the end it comes down to:

• If is syllabic it is a uvular approximant without labialization.
• If it is not syllabic:
  • If it is initial or following a rounded vowel it is labialized.
  • If it comes after an alveolar or postalveolar consonant it has postalveolar coarticulation.
  • It is a uvular approximant, except on rare occasions when in the coda, where then it may be a uvular trill.

It's pretty clear that the usual American English "bunched r" isn't a typical uvular approximant; if it were then it wouldn't be so hard to describe properly. (Not saying that your /r/ isn't uvular.)

John Wells's blog on the subject (which shows it isn't just an American thing) has a discussion of it which suggests that it's a dorsal approximant with a distinctive hollow formed by the tongue behind the main constriction. I can make an approximant like this in the velar area which sounds /r/-like.

[Travis B.]

It's pretty clear that the usual American English "bunched r" isn't a typical uvular approximant; if it were then it wouldn't be so hard to describe properly. (Not saying that your /r/ isn't uvular.)

John Wells's blog on the subject (which shows it isn't just an American thing) has a discussion of it which suggests that it's a dorsal approximant with a distinctive hollow formed by the tongue behind the main constriction. I can make an approximant like this in the velar area which sounds /r/-like.

Yeah, that isn't what I have by any means. I don't even know how to articulate what he describes.

[Zaarin]

Isn't part of the confusion down to there being two main types of American English /r/ (and NURSE vowel) one of which (the "bunched" one) isn't very well described by standard phonetic terminology?

The kind I have is the bunched one, and in the end it comes down to:

• If is syllabic it is a uvular approximant without labialization.
• If it is not syllabic:
  • If it is initial or following a rounded vowel it is labialized.
  • If it comes after an alveolar or postalveolar consonant it has postalveolar coarticulation.
  • It is a uvular approximant, except on rare occasions when in the coda, where then it may be a uvular trill.

It's pretty clear that the usual American English "bunched r" isn't a typical uvular approximant; if it were then it wouldn't be so hard to describe properly. (Not saying that your /r/ isn't uvular.)

John Wells's blog on the subject (which shows it isn't just an American thing) has a discussion of it which suggests that it's a dorsal approximant with a distinctive hollow formed by the tongue behind the main constriction. I can make an approximant like this in the velar area which sounds /r/-like.

Can confirm that this is precisely the nature of my bunched-R. I transcribe it as [ɹ̱ˁ]. I wish I could transfer the knowledge of how to produce that weird pharyngealized R to producing Syriac's emphatic consonants...

[Travis B.]

Can confirm that this is precisely the nature of my bunched-R. I transcribe it as [ɹ̱ˁ]. I wish I could transfer the knowledge of how to produce that weird pharyngealized R to producing Syriac's emphatic consonants...

See, with that description, I can make a pharyngealized postalveolar approximant...