Date:  Tue, 7 Oct 1997 21:57:19 -0400
From:  TERRY IRONS <t.irons[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]MOREHEAD-ST.EDU>
Subject: An R-full mess

Can anyone point me to recent work on post-vocalic r's? Along with the
other resonant consonants, it's probably responsible for more front and
back vowel merger/collapses than the recent earthquakes in Italy.

Actually, the point of my question comes from a recent conversation with
a student in one of my classes. In the class I interview and record each
student and ask each student to use himself as the basis for a research
project. After the recent interview session, this student was concerned
about his transcription of post-vocalic R's.  By the by, he is good at
transciption and has a good ear. He said that his r's just didn't sound
like those of the other people in the class (He also speaks French and
spent last summer in France.) In response, and I may not have used the
right terms, about which I am asking advice now, I told him that his
post-vocalic r's were tauto-syllabic, representing a CVC syllabic
structure (for the pronuncation of say, "car") whereas his classmates
were syllabifying the r, resulting in what is really a CVV syllabic
structure.

In replying, please feel free to correct my use of terminology. But I
would also like to know of work that looks at this difference, which
impressionistically seems to me to be a significant variable. CJ Bailey
comments on the difference in an ERIC paper, but I haven't found any
other discussion of any substance. Help if you can. (Bailey suggests,
if I read him correctly, that the difference is the defining variable of
regional speech in American English.)


Virtually, Terry
(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)
Terry Lynn Irons    t.irons[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]morehead-st.edu
Voice Mail:       (606) 783-5164
Snail Mail:       UPO 604 Morehead, KY 40351
(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)=(*)