Sulcalization
Phonetic feature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In articulatory phonetics, sulcalization (from Latin: sulcus 'groove') is the pronunciation of a sound with a deep, longitudinal concavity (groove) down the back of the tongue (the dorsum), roughly opposite of the uvula.[1][2] This is accomplished by raising the sides of the dorsum, and leaving a hollow along the mid-line.[3][4]
This articulation has typically been associated with rhotics such as a 'bunched' or 'molar' [ɹ̈][5][6] and r-colored vowels,[7][8][9][2] as well as 'dark' or 'throaty' quality sounds,[4] either more velar-like (such as [ɫ])[3][10] or more pharyngeal-like (such as [ɒ]).[11][12]
No spoken language is known to make a phonemic distinction between sulcalized and ordinary vowels;[4] though it has been reported that for some speakers of Received Pronunciation, the vowel /ɒ/, which is normally described as rounded, is pronounced with neutral or spread lips, and is instead given its characteristic quality through a "hollowing or sulcalization of the tongue-body."[11] One scholar has also suggested that the vowel in the RP pronunciation of words like bird, typically transcribed /ɜː/, is actually a sulcal schwa, retaining the sulcality of the original rhotic consonant. Accordingly, the realization of the /ə/-element of the centring diphthongs /ɪə̯/, /ʊə̯/, /ɛə̯/ in words such as near, pure and scare, is interpreted as the product of a loss of sulcality.[9] Similarly, it has been noted that the rhotacized equivalent [ɝ] in American English is sulcalized.[8]
Grooved fricatives
Some linguists have referred to grooved fricatives, a similar but distinct articulatory concept, as sulcalized,[1][13] though this should not be confused with the more common definition described in the section above.[a] As with the more common definition of sulcalization, grooved fricatives also involve forming a groove down the center of the tongue (such as in some realizations of /s/ in the English words sit and case).[13] They contrast with slit fricatives, which are pronounced with the tongue flat.[14]
Unlike the more common definition of sulcalization, which generally refers to a posterior hollowing, grooved fricatives involve raising the sides of the tongue to focus the turbulent airstream on the teeth, producing an anterior hollowing. This results in a more intense sound, typically associated with sibilants.[14][15] Slit fricatives, with a flatter shape, have a wider and more dispersed airflow channel.[14]
J. C. Catford observed that the degree of tongue grooving differs between places of articulation as well as between languages.[16] However, no language is known to phonemically contrast fricatives based purely on the presence or absence of tongue grooving. Nonetheless, linguists sometimes make a phonetic distinction for certain fricative allophones that occur at the same place of articulation as a grooved or slit counterpart. For example, [t̞] (a lenited allophone of /t/ found in some English dialects) is commonly described as slit, to distinguish it from grooved [s].[17][18][19] Additional articulatory factors may also go into the distinction between grooved [s] and slit [t̞].[20]
Historically, the terms grooved fricative and sibilant have sometimes been treated as synonymous (and by extension, slit fricative and non-sibilant), though the reality of sibilant shapes is more complex; not all sibilants may share this feature, nor may it be unique to sibilants. For instance, /ʃ/ is widely regarded to be characterized by a convex doming of the tongue rather than a concave grooving,[21] while ultrasound imaging has shown /θ/ in English to exhibit grooving similar to /s/, despite being typically regarded as slit.[22]
See also
Notes
- Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), p. 367 appear to combine these two concepts, despite the majority of other linguists using them in different phonological and phonetic contexts, including Catford (1982), their primary reference for their description. Catford refers to the two concepts in different sections of his work, and does not treat them as synonymous.