ArticlePDF Available

Loose lips and tongue tips: The central role of the /r/-typical labial gesture in Anglo-English

Authors:
  • Université Paris Cité
  • Université Paris Cité

Abstract and Figures

This paper presents acoustic and articulatory data from prevocalic /r/ in the non-rhotic variety of English spoken in England, Anglo-English. Although traditional descriptions suggest that Anglo-English /r/ is produced using a tip-up tongue configuration, ultrasound data from 24 speakers show similar patterns of lingual variation to those reported in rhotic varieties, with a continuum of possible tongue shapes from bunched to retroflex. However, the number of Anglo-English speakers using exclusively tip-up variants is higher than that reported in American English across all phonetic contexts. It is generally agreed that English /r/ may be labialised, but the exact contribution of the lips has yet to be explored. Lip camera data reveal significantly more lip protrusion in bunched tongue configurations than retroflex ones. These results indicate that the differing degrees of lip protrusion may contribute to maintaining a stable acoustic output across the different tongue shapes. An articulatory-acoustic trading relation between the sublingual space and the degree of lip protrusion is proposed. Finally, we suggest that Anglo-English /r/ has a specific lip posture which differs from that of /w/. We relate the development of such a posture to Anglo-English speakers' exposure to labiodental variants and to the pressure to maintain a perceptual contrast between /r/ and /w/.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Loose lips and tongue tips: The central role of the /r/-typical labial gesture
in Anglo-English
Hannah Kinga,
, Emmanuel Ferragneb
aCLILLAC-ARP, EA 3967, Université de Paris - Paris Diderot, 8 Place Paul Ricoeur, 75013 Paris, France
bLaboratoire de Phonétique et Phonologie, UMR 7018, CNRS/Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3, 19 rue des
Bernardins, 75005 Paris, France
Abstract
This paper presents acoustic and articulatory data from prevocalic /r/ in the non-rhotic variety of English
spoken in England, Anglo-English. Although traditional descriptions suggest that Anglo-English /r/ is
produced using a tip-up tongue configuration, ultrasound data from 24 speakers show similar patterns of
lingual variation to those reported in rhotic varieties, with a continuum of possible tongue shapes from
bunched to retroflex. However, the number of Anglo-English speakers using exclusively tip-up variants is
higher than that reported in American English across all phonetic contexts. It is generally agreed that
English /r/ may be labialised, but the exact contribution of the lips has yet to be explored. Lip camera
data reveal significantly more lip protrusion in bunched tongue configurations than retroflex ones. These
results indicate that the differing degrees of lip protrusion may contribute to maintaining a stable acoustic
output across the different tongue shapes. An articulatory-acoustic trading relation between the sublingual
space and the degree of lip protrusion is proposed. Finally, we suggest that Anglo-English /r/ has a specific
lip posture which differs from that of /w/. We relate the development of such a posture to Anglo-English
speakers’ exposure to labiodental variants and to the pressure to maintain a perceptual contrast between
/r/ and /w/.
Keywords: Anglo-English, Rhotics, Articulation, Ultrasound, Lips, Labiodentalisation
1. Introduction
1.1. Tongue shape diversity
It is well-documented in rhotic varieties of English that approximant realisations of the phoneme /r/
(i.e, [ô]) may be produced with a number of different tongue shapes, which are categorised on a continuum
between two extreme configurations: retroflex, with a raised and curled-up tongue tip and a lowered tongue
body; and bunched, with a lowered tongue tip and a raised tongue body (Delattre & Freeman, 1968;
Tiede et al., 2004; Zawadzki & Kuehn, 1980). Some speakers produce one configuration exclusively, while
others present individual-level or contextually-conditioned variation (see Mielke et al., 2016, and references
therein). For example, it has been observed in American English that prevocalic /r/ is produced with higher
Corresponding author
Email address: hannah.king@univ-paris-diderot.fr (H. King)
Preprint submitted to Journal of Phonetics February 5th, 2020
degrees of retroflexion than postvocalic /r/ (Delattre & Freeman, 1968; Hagiwara, 1995; Mielke et al., 2016)
and that retroflexion is favoured by back and perhaps also by open vowels (Mielke et al., 2016; Ong &
Stone, 1998; Tiede et al., 2010). Furthermore, Westbury et al. (1998) observed that speakers with extreme
bunched tongue shapes in the word row show less extreme bunching in the word street, which suggests that
neighbouring vowels have a co-articulatory influence on bunched realisations too.
Despite the extensive literature on lingual variation in rhotic English varieties (e.g., North America:
Dediu & Moisik, 2019; Magloughlin, 2016; Mielke et al., 2016 and Scotland: Lawson et al., 2011, 2018;
Scobbie et al., 2015), the articulation of /r/ in non-rhotic varieties, particularly in the English spoken
in England, henceforth Anglo-English, remains largely unexplored. It is not yet known to what extent
prevocalic /r/ in non-rhotic Anglo-English differs from rhotic variants, although tip-up /r/ is generally more
associated with Anglo-English than rhotic Englishes. Descriptions as early as Sweet (1877) refer to tip-
up articulations as opposed to tip down ones. Jones (1972) describes the sound of /r/ as ‘the equivalent
to a weakly pronounced retroflexed @’ (p. 206). The three Anglo-English speakers presented in Delattre
& Freeman (1968) used an ‘extreme’ tip-up shape prevocalically, which differed from American English
shapes. Similarly, Ladefoged & Disner (2012) explain that many ‘BBC English speakers’ use tongue tip
raising towards the alveolar ridge, while many American English speakers bunch the body of the tongue up
(p. 121). Interestingly, bunched /r/ is rarely, if ever, mentioned as an alternative strategy in pronunciation
manuals for second language learners of English, particularly in those based on Standard Southern British
English1. These manuals strongly focus on retroflexion, encouraging learners to curl the tongue tip back and
often provide stylised midsagittal drawings indicating retroflexion (e.g., Ashton & Shepherd, 2012; Hancock,
2003; Marks, 2007; Roach, 1983; Underhill, 1994). Drawing on their experiences as voice and dialect coaches
of British English, Ashton & Shepherd (2012) go as far as to suggest that the ‘correct position’ to produce the
/r/ sound in English is with the tongue tip curled back and upwards towards the roof of the mouth (p. 48).
Despite the abundance of tip-up and retroflex descriptions in the literature on Standard Southern British
English, similar articulatory patterns to those found in rhotic English /r/ have recently been observed in
New Zealand English (Heyne et al., 2018) and in a small-scale study of Anglo-English (Lindley & Lawson,
2016).
1.2. Accompanying labial gesture
Although the vast majority of articulatory work on /r/ focuses on its lingual gesture (Docherty & Foulkes,
2001), it is generally agreed that /r/ may be labialised but the exact phonetic implementation of labialisation
is unknown. It has been observed that lip rounding is likely to occur in prevocalic and pre-stress syllable
positions in both American English (Delattre & Freeman, 1968; Mielke et al., 2016; Proctor et al., 2019;
Uldall, 1958; Zawadzki & Kuehn, 1980) and Anglo-English (Abercrombie, 1967; Jones, 1972; Scobbie, 2006),
regardless of the shape of the tongue. On the other hand, Gimson (1980) suggests that lip rounding in
Anglo-English /r/ is largely conditioned by the quality of the following vowel, with /r/ preceding rounded
vowels exhibiting more rounding than /r/ preceding non-rounded vowels. However, it has been observed that
English speakers do not always round their lips for so-called rounded vowels (Brown, 1981), and that they
1We found one mention of bunching in a teachers’ manual on American English pronunciation (Ehrlich & Avery, 2013). The
authors indicate that although there is a ‘disagreement’ regarding the characterisation of /r/ as either retroflex or bunched
which may be due to ‘dialectal differences’, they stress that retroflexion is the most useful characterisation for pedagogical
purposes.
2
use less rounding than speakers of other languages with phonologically equivalent rounded vowels, such as
French (Badin et al., 2014; Wilson, 2006). Ladefoged & Disner (2012) note that modern productions of the
vowel /u:/ have relatively spread lips in comparison to productions of the recent past, although articulatory
studies have indicated that while /u:/ remains rounded, it is no longer a back vowel (e.g., Harrington et al.,
2011; King & Ferragne, 2018; Lawson et al., 2015). Brown (1981) even goes as far as to suggest that the
main origin of lip rounding in English derives not from rounded vowels, but rounded consonants, and that
the most marked lip movement can be found in the consonants /S, tS, Z, dZ/ and /r/, although this idea
does not seem to have been developed further. English pronunciation manuals vary with their treatment
of the labial gesture. O’Connor (1967) recommends learners approach [ô] from [w], and then curl the tip of
the tongue back until it is pointing at the hard palate, which presumably supposes that the lip postures for
[ô] from [w] are identical. Others warn learners not to exaggerate rounding for /r/ because it would have
the effect of producing the percept of a [w] (e.g., Lilly & Viel, 1977; Roach, 1983). While Ehrlich & Avery
(2013) indicate that lip rounding is a possibility, Ashton & Shepherd (2012) inform learners that using their
lips to help them form the /r/ sound is ‘wrong’ and recommend learners use their fingers to hold their lips
still in order to practise using just their tongue (p. 49).
The phonetic implementation of labialisation in consonants is surprisingly rarely addressed. Indeed,
Laver (1980) explains that the label ‘labialisation’ has been used so extensively that the only appropriate
articulatory action to which the various usages refer is likely a horizontal constriction of the interlabial
space. Horizontal constriction occurs when the lip corners are compressed making the space between the lips
smaller, using the orbicularis muscle (Laver, 1980). The opposite lip posture, horizontal expansion, results
in an articulation resembling a ‘fixed, slight grin’ (Laver, 1980, p.36), i.e., lip spreading. According to Laver
(1980), horizontal constriction is the articulatory property that all rounded vowels and consonants have
in common, implying that any labial configuration without horizontal constriction would not be considered
rounded or labialised. He remarks that labial protrusion is almost always accompanied by a certain degree of
horizontal constriction of the space between the lips, although substantial lip protrusion without horizontal
constriction is physiologically possible (Laver, 1980). Horizontal constriction of the lip corners towards the
centre has been described as ‘pouting’ by Catford (Catford, 1977, 1988). Although he bases his observations
predominantly on the articulation of vowels, Catford distinguishes two types of rounding: endolabial and
exolabial, which parallel Sweet (1877)’s classification of inner and outer rounding in vowels. In endolabial
or inner rounding, which is typical of back vowels, the lip corners are brought in towards the centre (i.e.,
‘pouted’), pushing the lips forwards to form a channel between the inner surfaces of the lips. In exolabial or
outer rounding, which is typical of front vowels, the corners of the mouth are vertically compressed without
‘pouting’, leaving a slit-like elliptical shape between the lips, rather than actually round.
With regards to English /r/, the terms lip protrusion and lip rounding seem to be used interchangeably,
perhaps because, as Laver (1980) indicates, protrusion without lip rounding is rare in the world’s languages.
However, also inspired by Sweet (1877)’s articulatory account of rounding in vowels, Brown (1981) explicitly
differentiates the two: rounding restricts lip aperture by compressing the lip corners, but does not necessarily
push the lips forward, as is the case for English /w/; while protrusion pushes the lips forward, opening and
everting them to show the soft inner surfaces, as in English /S, tS, Z, dZ/ and /r/. Again like Laver (1980),
Brown (1981) essentially uses horizontal compression to define lip rounding, which is notably absent from her
description of the ‘protruded’ consonants /S, tS, Z, dZ/ and importantly for the present study, /r/. However,
3
in a very recent articulatory study on sound change triggered by American English /r/, Smith et al. (2019)
observed that /S/ lip rounding is different from /r/ lip rounding. Speakers produced /S/ with open protruded
(‘outrounded’) lips, while /r/ involved vertical movement by the upper and/or lower lip, sometimes with
a narrow lip aperture (‘inrounded’). However, both /S/ and /r/ exhibited inter-speaker variability in the
shape and area of the labial constriction.
The lips are of particular interest in Anglo-English as labiodental variants (e.g., [V]) are becoming in-
creasingly common (Docherty & Foulkes, 2001; Marsden, 2006). It is generally implied that labiodental
variants have emerged by speakers retaining the labial component of /r/ at the expense of the lingual one
(Docherty & Foulkes, 2001; Foulkes & Docherty, 2000; Jones, 1972), although there is a lack of articulatory
data. Docherty & Foulkes (2001) hypothesise that this change in progress may be the result of the heavy
visual prominence of the labial gesture for /r/, which may have led to the labial taking precedence over the
lingual articulation. Lindley & Lawson (2016) observed one English participant who produced labiodental
/r/ with no observable tongue body gesture. However, another English participant presented labiodentali-
sation accompanied by a tip-up tongue configuration, leading them to suspect that the change in progress
from [ô] to [V] may be phonetically gradient, in line with Docherty & Foulkes (2001)’s hypothesis. However,
as far as we are aware, no articulatory study has yet accounted for the exact contribution of the lips to the
production of Anglo-English /r/, and as Docherty & Foulkes (2001) note, this may result in a ‘skewed view
of the physical basis of this variant’ (p. 183).
1.3. Acoustic properties of /r/
Despite the diversity of possible tongue shapes observed for [ô], the acoustic profile of these different
tongue configurations is remarkably indistinguishable, at least with regards to the first three formants
(Espy-Wilson et al., 2000). /r/ is characterised by a low F1, a low F2, and an extremely low F3 (Mielke
et al., 2016). Formant values from American English /r/ reported in the literature across tongue shapes,
phonetic contexts and sexes range from 300-500 Hz for F1, 900-1 300 Hz for F2, and 1 300-2 000 Hz for
F3 (Delattre & Freeman, 1968; Espy-Wilson, 1992; Espy-Wilson & Boyce, 1999; Westbury et al., 1998;
Uldall, 1958; Zhou et al., 2008). In rhotic Englishes, prevocalic /r/ presents lower formant values than
postvocalic /r/, which is generally assumed to be the result of the presence of lip rounding in prevocalic
/r/ (Delattre & Freeman, 1968; Lehiste, 1962; Zawadzki & Kuehn, 1980). Beyond F3, consistent acoustic
differences have been found in higher formants in American and Scottish English; notably the difference
between F4 and F5 has been found to be larger in retroflex than in bunched /r/ (Lennon et al., 2015;
Zhou et al., 2008). This difference does not appear to be perceptibly salient as it has been shown that
American English listeners are unable to distinguish between bunched and retroflex /r/ (Twist et al., 2007).
On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that lingual variation is socially distributed in postvocalic
/r/ in certain varieties of Scottish English. Lawson et al. (2011) observed that middle-class speakers used
bunched articulations, while working-class speakers used more retroflex ones in the eastern Central Belt of
Scotland, and as a result, they argue that this articulatory variation must be in some way perceptible and
exploited by listeners to index socio-economic class. In another small-scale study, Lawson et al. (2014) asked
listeners to mimic speakers from audio recordings of middle- and working-class speakers and in some cases,
mimicry participants adapted their tongue shape for /r/. This social distribution of tongue shape variants
may have motivated sound changes, including the merger to schwa in bunchers (Lawson et al., 2013) and
derhoticisation in retroflexers (Lawson et al., 2011). However, it is still unclear what made the bunched and
4
retroflex configurations perceptibly distinct enough to result in socially distributed variation in the English
of the eastern Central Belt of Scotland.
The relationship between acoustics and the articulation of American English /r/ has received a lot
of attention. It is generally agreed that the most salient acoustic feature of /r/ is its extremely low F3.
Theoretical models have associated this low F3 with a large front cavity volume, i.e., between the palatal
constriction and the lips (Alwan et al., 1997; Fant, 1960; Stevens, 1998), although for Stevens (1998), the
various tongue configurations used for /r/ do not lower F3 but introduce an extra resonance, FR, in the
frequency range normally occupied by F2 along with a drop in amplitude of F3 proper. Espy-Wilson et al.
(2000) used MRI-derived vocal tract dimensions in American English /r/ and found that the front cavity is
indeed large enough to lower F3. Their tube models indicate that the front cavity includes a lip constriction
formed by the tapering gradient of the teeth and lips - with or without rounding - and a large volume cavity
behind it that includes sublingual space, which acts to increase the volume of the cavity. The sublingual
space is the space between the tongue tip and the lower teeth that is introduced when the tongue tip or
blade is raised towards the post-alveolar region (Hamann, 2003). Unlike tip-up /r/, the tongue tip is down
in bunched /r/ and therefore has negligible sublingual space (Zhang et al., 2003). Espy-Wilson et al. (2000)
found that the addition of a sublingual space lowers F3 by approximately 200 Hz. Differences have been
observed between the size of the front cavity in different lingual configurations. Alwan et al. (1997) used
MRI- and EPG-derived vocal tract dimensions, and in one American English speaker, the anterior cavity
was larger for retroflex /r/ than bunched (6.1 cm3and 4.5 cm3, respectively). This difference may be due
to the smaller sublingual space in bunched /r/, although Alwan et al. (1997) do not explicitly make this
suggestion.
The consistency in formant values observed for /r/ has given rise to the suggestion that trading relations
may exist between the different articulatory manoeuvres which reciprocally contribute to the lowering of
F3. Dependence on one of these articulatory manoeuvres would be accompanied by less of another, and
vice versa (Tiede et al., 2010). Guenther et al. (1999) found trading relations between palatal constriction
location, constriction degree, and constriction size for American English /r/. Alwan et al. (1997) posit a
trading relation between sublingual space for tip-up /r/ and a more posterior palatal constriction for tip-
down /r/ (as discussed in Espy-Wilson et al., 2000). Extending the front cavity - and thus increasing its
volume - could also be achieved through the addition of lip protrusion. Yet, to the best of our knowledge,
trading relations involving lip protrusion have yet to be investigated. Given the trading relations already
observed for /r/, it does not seem unlikely then that different degrees of lip protrusion may accompany
different tongue configurations. Indeed, trading relations have been observed between the lips and tongue
in other speech sounds, such as in the vowel /u:/ (Perkell et al., 1993). As a result, in line with previous
work on trading relations in /r/, we predict that bunched configurations will be accompanied by more lip
protrusion than retroflex ones, due to the smaller sublingual space in bunched /r/. To our knowledge, two
existing studies have indeed observed a positive correlation between lip protrusion and bunching in both
Anglo-English (Lindley & Lawson, 2016) and American English (Tiede et al., 2010), although both studies
were small-scale, and explanations as to why have yet to be given.
In this paper, we give a detailed articulatory account of Anglo-English prevocalic /r/ on a relatively large
scale (24 speakers). We aim to determine first and foremost whether Anglo-English /r/ can be produced
using multiple tongue shapes, as has been found in other varieties. If this is indeed the case, we will assess
5
whether different tongue shapes are accompanied by different degrees of labiality. Finally, we will compare
the labial configurations for /r/ and /w/ and will attempt to relate articulation to the change in progress
towards labiodentalisation currently underway in Anglo-English /r/.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
The data we present here come from a study comparing hyperarticulated and non-hyperarticulated
productions of /r/ (King & Ferragne, 2019). In this paper, we present data only from non-hyperarticulated
tokens. Stimuli were made up of 16 minimal pairs contrasting /r/ and /w/ word initially. /r/ and /w/
were followed by the following lexical set vowels: fleece, goose, kit, dress, trap, strut, thought,
lot. 14/16 stimuli had a coda consonant and all words were produced in isolation. As the experimental
paradigm limited the number of repetitions in the non-hyperarticulated context, only one repetition of each
stimulus was recorded per speaker. We therefore present data from 384 tokens. A complete list of stimuli is
presented in Appendix A.
Simultaneous articulatory and acoustic data were obtained using Articulate Assistant Advanced (AAA)
software (Articulate Instruments Ltd., 2014). Tongue images were recorded at a rate of circa 121 frames
per second (fps) using a high-speed SonixRP ultrasound system. Participants wore a headset to ensure the
ultrasound probe remained in a stable position relative to the head (Articulate Instruments Ltd., 2008). Two
NTSC micro-cameras were attached to the headset, capturing front and profile lip videos at a rate of circa
60 fps. An Audio-Technica AT803 microphone was also attached to the headset. Audio files were digitised
as LPCM mono files with a 22 050 Hz sampling rate and 16-bit quantization. Technical details concerning
this particular ultrasound system and associated video and audio synchronisation are described in Wrench
& Scobbie (2016). We recorded each speaker swallowing water in order to obtain an outline of the palate
(Epstein & Stone, 2005). Speakers were also recorded biting on a plastic bite plate, which was used to image
each speaker’s occlusal plane (Scobbie et al., 2011; Lawson et al., 2019). The palate and occlusal plane were
subsequently traced in AAA.
2.2. Participants
29 native speakers of Anglo-English were recorded at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh. Speakers
were recruited through advertising on the university Research Recruitment Digest communications service.
Participants self-identified as speaking with an English accent and the first author, who is a native Anglo-
English speaker, made sure that this was indeed the case by speaking to the participants prior to recording
them. Before participating, speakers signed an informed consent form and completed a background ques-
tionnaire. Ethical approval had previously been obtained from Queen Margaret University Research Ethics
Committee. Data collection sessions lasted no more than 30 minutes for which participants were financially
compensated. Some speakers’ data were excluded due to ultrasound data visualisation issues (n=4) and one
English-Punjabi bilingual was excluded because Punjabi also has retroflex consonants in its inventory. We
present data from the remaining 24 speakers (22 F, 2 M) aged between 18 and 55 (M=30.08 ±11.26) who
come from all over England (south west: n=1; south east: n=6; midlands: n=3; north west: n=7, north
east: n=7). 19 speakers had lived in Scotland for at least one year. The inclusion of the word war in the
stimuli allowed us to classify the participants as rhotic and non-rhotic. All speakers were non-rhotic apart
6
from the one speaker from the south west of England, where rhotic accents do indeed occur (Wells, 1982),
although they are reportedly becoming less rhotic (Trudgill, 1999). Incidentally, this subject is one of the
oldest speakers in the dataset (54 years old).
2.3. Acoustic analysis
The acoustic data were exported as wav files from AAA and analysed in Praat (Boersma & Weenink,
2019). Determining the point at which to segment /r/ from the following vowel is challenging. Although
Lawson et al. (2010) suggest that for postvocalic /r/, the most reliable means to determine the dividing line
between the two is by considering amplitude changes, in our prevocalic /r/ data, we observed large amounts
of amplitudinal variation both within and across speakers. We were therefore unable to find a sufficient
technique that could be applied to all speakers. As a result, /r/ and the following vowel were manually
annotated as a whole. Praat’s Burg algorithm was used to obtain formant values. Formant parameters
were manually adjusted in order to reach an optimal match between formant estimation and the underlying
spectrogram. The first three formants (F1-F3) were extracted at the point of minimal F3 for /r/ (as in
Guenther et al., 1999). Unfortunately, formants higher than F3 were too weak to be accurately tracked. F1-
F3 were also extracted at the midpoint of a steady state of the following vowel, avoiding obvious transitions
to and from the surrounding consonants.
2.4. Articulatory analysis
2.4.1. Ultrasound tongue imaging
One ultrasound frame was selected per recording depicting the maximal constriction of the anterior
lingual gesture for /r/ prior to any obvious movement into the following vowel. This was achieved by
holistically examining the raw ultrasound images one by one in a sequence. For each selected image, the
tongue contour was traced semi-automatically in AAA and manually corrected when necessary. The resulting
contours were rotated to each speaker’s individual occlusal plane, which aided tongue shape classification,
specifically with regards to the position of the tongue tip. Figure 1 depicts our rotation technique: all
contours are rotated so that the occlusal plane (blue line) tracing is horizontal.
Figure 1: Example of rotation to the occlusal plane. The tongue tip is on the right. The hard palate is traced in the top
curve. All contours are rotated so that the occlusal plane (bottom line) is horizontal.
7
Both the raw ultrasound frames and the rotated tongue contours were used to classify tongue configu-
rations for /r/ on a continuum largely inspired by the one presented in Lawson et al. (2013) for Scottish
English, which depicts four distinct shapes: Mid Bunched, Front Bunched, Front Up and Tip Up (pp. 199–
200). Our classification differs in that it includes a fifth configuration: an ‘extreme’ retroflex involving
curling up of the tongue tip, which has previously been associated with Anglo-English (as discussed in 1.1).
The classification originally proposed by Lawson et al. (2013) grouped the curled-up and the non-curled-up
tip-up /r/ together. Ultrasound images give some indication of the curling up of the tongue tip, which
is described below. However, we do not know to what extent the identification of these articulations is
constrained by speaker anatomy. In some cases, it is possible that the jaw shadow obscures the tongue
tip, which would make visualising ‘real’ retroflexion challenging. It is therefore possible that the number
of curled-up articulations is underestimated in our analysis2. The articulations of each configuration in our
classification are described below, and Figure 2 presents raw ultrasound images of typical examples of each
configuration from our dataset.
Mid Bunched (MB): the middle of the tongue is raised towards the hard palate, while the front, blade
and tip are low.
Front Bunched (FB): the front of the tongue has a distinctly bunched configuration which results in a
dip in the tongue’s surface behind the bunched section. The tip and blade remain lower than the rest
of the tongue front.
Front Up (FU): the front, blade and tip are raised and the tongue surface forms a smooth convex
curve.
Tip Up (TU): the tongue tip is pointing up resulting in a straight and steep tongue surface.
Curled Up (CU): the overall tongue shape is concave and the tip is curled up. Curling up of the tongue
tip results in a near-parallel orientation of the tongue surface to the ultrasound scanlines, producing
artefacts in the ultrasound image (Scobbie et al., 2013). We tend to observe a bright white region
above where the tongue tip is expected (Mielke et al., 2016) and a discontinuity in the tongue contour
where the tongue tip is curled up (Bakst, 2016).
In order to facilitate the task of classifying tongue configurations, the decision tree presented in Figure
3 was produced and used throughout the classification process. The first author classified tongue shapes
three times throughout the course of one year to ensure accuracy. Although discrepancies in the three
classifications were rare, such cases were reexamined and the most common configuration of the three was
selected3.
If we employ the traditional retroflex-bunched classification, the Mid and Front Bunched configurations
have a low tongue tip and the primary constriction is located between the front to mid tongue body (Lawson
et al., 2011), so we can consider them to be bunched. Although retroflexion has traditionally been described
as an articulation involving the curling up of the tongue tip (e.g., Catford, 1977), Hamann (2003) notes that
2We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this point.
3An anonymous reviewer suggested having several researchers perform the classification procedure and to calculate a measure
of inter-rater agreement. While this technique has not been implemented here, we would also recommend future studies to use
such a technique, along with the use of a decision tree, such as the one presented in Figure 3.
8
tip up
front bunched
mid bunched
curled up
front up
front up
Figure 2: Raw ultrasound frames showing typical examples of each of the five /r/ configurations. The tongue tip is on the
right side of the image. The top two images are bunched, while the bottom three are retroflex. The final retroflex
configuration exhibits curling up of the tongue with a bright white line where the tongue tip is expected.
Is the
tongue tip
up?
Yes
Is there a bright
white region
towards the
palate and/or a
discontinuity in
the tongue
contour?
Yes Curled
up
No
Is the
tongue
surface
concave?
Curled
up
No
Is the
tongue
surface
straight
and steep?
Yes Tip up
No, the
tongue
surface is
convex.
Front up
No
Is there a
distinctly
bunched
configuration,
i.e. with a dip?
Yes Front
bunched
No Mid
bunched
Yes
Figure 3: Decision tree used to classify tongue shapes into five distinct categories for /r/ from ultrasound data.
9
this property is violated by a large number of segments traditionally considered retroflex in many languages
because the tongue tip often fails to curl up. Instead, she proposes the combination of four articulatory
characteristics to define retroflex segments, namely apicality, posteriority, sublingual cavity, and retraction.
As such, any sound articulated with the tongue tip behind the alveolar region and involving a displacement of
the tongue back towards the pharynx or velum would be considered retroflex by her definition. As bunched
/r/ has also been shown to include tongue root retraction (Delattre & Freeman, 1968; Proctor et al., 2019)
and the drawing inwards of the tongue body away from the lips (Alwan et al., 1997), the main criterion we
considered to define retroflexion for /r/ is the raising of the tongue tip, which results in the addition of a
sublingual space. The tongue tip and/or tongue front are raised towards the post-alveolar region in the last
three configurations of our classification (FU, TU, CU), and so, we therefore consider them to be retroflex.
Although in some raw ultrasound images, the primary constriction (i.e., the highest point of the tongue) in
some Front Up configurations may appear to be the tongue dorsum (as in the Front Up image presented
in Figure 2), when the corresponding tongue contour is rotated to the occlusal plane, the tongue tip does
generally appear to be the primary constriction, or at least pointing up, an example of which can be observed
in Figure 1. Interestingly, the Front Up tongue shape has been considered to be bunched and not retroflex
in other classifications. For example, the equivalent ‘blade raised’ configuration described in Mielke et al.
(2016) is classified as bunched. However, the authors observe that these tokens are often ambiguous with
respect to tongue tip or tongue blade angle and they do consider classifying them as retroflex. It appears
then that the Front Up configuration lies somewhere in the middle of the bunched-retroflex continuum.
In the present study, our classification would place the variant with the highest, most curled-up tongue
tip, the Curled Up configuration, at one end of the continuum. Curled Up is followed by the Tip Up and
Front Up variants respectively. Deciphering which tongue shape is the most bunched category between Mid
Bunched and Front Bunched is less evident. Although by visualising the tongue contour tracings in speakers
who present both configurations revealed that the tongue tip is generally lower in the Mid Bunched than
the Front Bunched configuration, the Front Bunched category presents the most obvious bunching of the
tongue i.e., with a dip in the tongue surface (as can be seen in Figure 2). Furthermore, the very tip of
the tongue is not always visible from ultrasound images and so we err on the side of caution regarding the
accuracy of tongue tip tracings. It is hoped that results from this study may provide further insights into
which bunched configuration is the most extreme of the two.
2.4.2. Lip protrusion
Lip protrusion was calculated from profile lip videos in AAA. One image corresponding to a neutral lip
configuration (with the lips closed) prior to speech was visually selected per speaker. The image correspond-
ing to maximum lip protrusion was visually identified for each production of /r/ and /w/ by holistically
examining sequential video frames. Lip protrusion was measured by calculating the difference between
maximum protrusion and the speaker’s neutral lip protrusion. To obtain quantitative data, a fiducial line
(i.e., a fixed line used as a basis of reference and measure) was positioned to intersect the lip corner during
each speaker’s neutral image. This fiducial had previously been scaled (in centimetres) to a physical ruler
positioned along the mid-line of the stabilisation headset and ran parallel to the upper and lower edges of
the video pane. Each speaker was assigned one lip corner fiducial which was used for all his/her protrusion
measures. For the same neutral lip image, a line was positioned to touch the lower and upper lip edge,
intersecting the neutral lip corner fiducial. Using AAA, we calculated the distance from the origin of the
10
fiducial to where the lip edge line crossed, yielding a value (in centimetres) for the neutral lip position. We
employed the same technique to obtain values for the maximum protrusion distance for /r/ and /w/ using
the previously selected maximum protrusion images. The neutral lip distance measurement was subtracted
from the maximum protrusion distance for /r/ and for /w/ yielding final protrusion values, as depicted in
Figure 4.
neutral /r/ maximum
distance 1 distance 2
lip corner fiducial lip edge line
Figure 4: Lip protrusion measure. Distance 1 is subtracted from distance 2.
2.4.3. Lip aperture and spreading
As the frontal and profile view lip cameras were synchronised, the corresponding frontal view images to
the ones selected for the protrusion measure in the profile view (as presented in 2.4.2) were used to measure
lip aperture and spreading. Aperture and spreading were measured during maximum protrusion for /r/ and
/w/ and were compared to the values obtained during each speaker’s neutral lip setting. Lip measurements
were inspired by those presented in Garnier et al. (2012) and Mayr (2010), where spreading is measured at
the lip corners, and aperture is measured from the middle of the top lip to the middle of the bottom lip.
For lip spreading, a fiducial line was positioned to coincide with the quasi-horizontal line which is naturally
formed between the top and bottom lip when the lips are closed in a neutral position. This horizontal
fiducial ran parallel to the upper and lower edges of the video pane. A vertical line was then positioned
at each lip corner intersecting the horizontal fiducial, as presented in Figure 5. Using AAA, we calculated
the distance between the left and right lip corner along the horizontal lip fiducial in the neutral front image
and in /r/ and /w/. To quantify lip aperture, another lip fiducial was positioned to vertically dissect the
lips approximately at their mid-point at the philtrum dimple in their neutral setting. This vertical fiducial
ran parallel to the left and right edges of the video pane. A horizontal line was positioned at the vermilion
border of the outer edge of the top and bottom lip intersecting the vertical fiducial, as presented in Figure 5.
Using AAA, we calculated the distance between the top and bottom lip along the vertical lip fiducial in the
neutral front image and in /r/ and /w/. Each speaker was assigned one horizontal fiducial and one vertical
fiducial which were used for all his/her lip aperture and spreading measures. Deviations from the neutral lip
setting were measured by subtracting the measurements for the neutral lip image from the measurements
for /r/ and /w/ (as presented in Figure 5). Although AAA produced values in centimetres, unlike for our lip
protrusion measure presented in 2.4.2, no scaling device was used for the frontal lip view in our data. The
11
measurements are therefore not in world units. As a result, the values were transformed into the percentage
of change relative to each speaker’s neutral lip setting dimensions.
/r/ maximum
lip corner lines
distance 2
/r/ maximum
lip edge
lines distance 4
neutral
horizontal fiducial
distance 1
neutral
vertical
fiducial
distance 3
Figure 5: Frontal view lip measures. For lip spreading, distance 1 is subtracted from distance 2. For lip aperture, distance 3
is subtracted from distance 4.
2.4.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was implemented in R (R Core Team, 2018) using the lmer() function of the lme4
package (Bates et al., 2015) to perform a series of linear mixed-effects models. We tested the significance of
main effects to model fit using likelihood ratio tests with the mixed() function in the afex package (Singmann
et al., 2015). Model residuals were plotted to test for deviations from homoscedasticity or normality. The
lmerTest library (Kuznetsova et al., 2017) was used to calculate indications of significance within the final
models, which uses values derived from Sattherthwaite (1946)’s approximations for the degrees of freedom.
The resulting p-values are provided in the model summary tables. Plots of the predicted effects from final
models were generated with the sjPlot package (Lüdecke, 2018).
3. Results
3.1. Classification of tongue shapes
Visual classification of tongue configurations yielded the results presented in Table 1. Out of the 24
speakers, 7 produced only bunched /r/ configurations, 14 produced only retroflex, and 3 used both. Our
data therefore contradict traditional descriptions of Anglo-English /r/ in that speakers do not only produce
/r/ with a tip-up articulation. However, we observed double the number of speakers producing only retroflex
/r/ compared to speakers producing only bunched.
12
Subject code Age Sex /r/ coding Shape
05 22 F MB
bunched
08 26 F MB
17 27 F MB
10 44 M FB MB
03 22 F FB
11 29 F FB
22 23 F FB
29 18 F MB FB FU TU CU
bunched & retroflex14 23 F MB FB CU
18 23 F FB FU CU
02 22 F FU
retroflex
23 33 F TU FU
16 25 F TU FU
13 54 F TU
12 20 F CU FU
15 25 F CU TU FU
19 28 F CU TU FU
27 37 F CU TU FU
28 29 F CU TU FU
07 22 F CU TU
09 21 F CU TU
21 41 F CU TU
25 55 F CU TU
04 53 M CU
Table 1: Observed tongue configurations in twenty-four subjects divided into three categories ordered from most bunched to
most retroflex.
13
In order to discern any patterns regarding the geographical origin of speakers and their tongue con-
figuration for /r/, the map presented in Figure 6 was produced. To make any real claims concerning the
relationship between tongue shape and speaker origin, we would require more regionally-stratified data.
However, from the present dataset, we note that two subjects (08 & 21) who come from the same town in
the North West, Chester, use bunched and retroflex /r/ respectively. The only discernible pattern in our
data concerns the subjects who use both retroflex and bunched /r/, as all three come from the South East,
although other speakers from the same region were observed using either retroflex or bunched shapes. It
is interesting to note that labiodental variants have been established as an accent feature of non-standard
accents from the same region (Foulkes & Docherty, 2000). However, we stress that to make any claims
regarding the relationship between tongue shape patterns and the development of labiodental variants in
different regions would require more geographically balanced data.
Isle of Man
retroflex
retroflex & bunched
bunched
Figure 6: Map of speaker origin as a function of tongue configuration for /r/.
If we take a more detailed look at tongue configuration going beyond the simplistic retroflex-bunched
distinction, based on our classification using five distinct shapes as presented in 2.4.1, we observe 9 out of
the 24 subjects using one configuration exclusively, 6 of which are bunchers. In fact, all bunchers but one use
one tongue configuration across all contexts. The remaining 15 speakers use multiple configurations. One
buncher (speaker 10) uses the Front Bunched configuration in all vowel contexts except before the fleece
vowel, where the Mid Bunched shape is used instead. Among the 17 retroflexers in the dataset, 13 of them
use the extreme Curled Up configuration at least some of the time, which has previously been associated more
with Anglo-English than American English. However, only one speaker (speaker 04) produces this extreme
Curled Up variant exclusively, leading us to suspect that the following vowel may have a coarticulatory
influence on retroflexion in most speakers, which has also been observed in American English (as discussed
in 1.1).
In order to discern any patterns regarding tongue shape and the following vowel, we first need to establish
what constitutes a close front and a open back vowel in Anglo-English. If we agree that F2 is an acoustic
14
correlate of tongue anteriority and F1 of tongue height, vowel plots should give us some indication of the
relative frontness and openness of the vowels in the system. First and second formant values were extracted
at the midpoint of a steady state of the vowel in /r/-initial words in Hertz. Formant values were scaled
by means of Lobanov normalisation (Lobanov, 1971). Figure 7 shows ellipses to one standard deviation
from the Lobanov normalised values. One striking observation is the frontness of the goose vowel which
is a known feature of UK accents, especially in Southern British English (e.g., Ferragne & Pellegrino, 2010;
Harrington et al., 2011; Lawson et al., 2015). In terms of F2, goose is by far the most variable of all the
vowels in our dataset, with some tokens approaching the space occupied by fleece while others have an F2
closer to that of lot. As previously discussed, articulatory studies have shown that the goose vowel, while
still rounded, can no longer be considered a back vowel in many varieties of English (e.g., Harrington et al.,
2011; King & Ferragne, 2018; Lawson et al., 2015). Our formant data indicate that while some productions
of the goose vowel are fronted, others remain relatively back. This may be a result of having a large number
of subjects from the North of England in our dataset (n=16) who have previously been shown to present less
goose-fronting than southerners (Ferragne & Pellegrino, 2010; Lawson et al., 2015). The strut vowel is
also rather variable with some tokens having much higher F1 values than others, which presumably reflects
dialectal differences concerning the foot-strut split. The backest vowel of the system is thought and
the frontest is fleece. If retroflexion is favoured by back rather than front vowels, we would expect raw to
exhibit more retroflexion than reed. However, if retroflexion favours open vowels over close vowels, we would
expect /r/ preceding the trap vowel in rack to induce the most retroflexion, as it is the most open vowel
in our dataset.
F2
F1
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
TRAP
THOUGHT
DRESS
FLEECE
KIT
GOOSE
LOT
STRUT
Figure 7: Lobanov-transformed vowel plot with one standard-deviation ellipses.
To examine to what extent the following vowel affects retroflexion, we considered the data from speakers
who use at least one of the three retroflex configurations (n=17). Exclusively bunched /r/ users (n=7) were
therefore excluded from this analysis. The proportion of each of the five /r/ configurations was plotted as a
function of the following vowel in Figure 8. As predicted, the fleece vowel has the least retroflexion with less
than 3% of the tokens presenting the extreme Curled Up variant. We observe that in the speakers who use
15
both retroflex and bunched variants, the bunched tokens are only used in /r/ followed by the frontest vowels
of the system (fleece, goose, kit, dress). It may be that in these speakers, retroflexion is incompatible
with front vowels and as a result, bunched configurations are used instead. The most retroflexion was
observed preceding the lot vowel with around 75% of tokens presenting the extreme Curled Up tongue
configuration. Our data seem to be consistent with previous work on American English in that retroflexion
is favoured by open back vowels. Although the thought vowel is the backest vowel of the system, lot
favours retroflexion more, perhaps because it is more open. However, trap is more open than strut but
presents less retroflexion, perhaps because strut is generally further back. It seems then that both tongue
position and height of the neighbouring vowel affect the tongue configuration used for /r/.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
FLEECE
GOOSE
KIT
DRESS
TRAP
STRUT
THOUGHT
LOT
Lexical set
Proportion
/r/ coding
Mid Bunched
Front Bunched
Front Up
Tip Up
Curled Up
Figure 8: Proportion of /r/ tongue configurations as a function of the following vowel in retroflex users.
For visualisation purposes, Figure 9 presents tongue contour tracings for each speaker’s /r/ production
at the point of maximal constriction preceding the fleece vowel (solid line) and the lot vowel (dashed line)
ordered from most bunched to most retroflex. Asterisks correspond to speakers who were coded as using
more than one of the five tongue configurations. Even in speakers who are not considered to present multiple
tongue shapes for /r/, we observe differences in tongue position between the two contours. The tongue is
generally more anterior preceding fleece than it is preceding lot, which is almost certainly a result of
co-articulation. This observation may have an influence on the extent of accompanying lip protrusion. As
we have already noted in 1.3, extending the front cavity results in lowering of F3 for /r/. Assuming that
the front cavity is smaller for /r/ followed by the fleece vowel than it is for /r/ followed by lot, in order
to maintain a stable acoustic output for /r/ across all vowel contexts, speakers may compensate by using
varying amounts of lip protrusion. /r/ followed by the fleece vowel may exhibit more protrusion than
more open, back vowels, although we do not yet know to what extent the labial properties of neighbouring
vowels have a coarticulatory influence on the lips for /r/.
16
05 08 17 03 1110*
02
27*
14*
13
28*
22
16* 12*
07*
15* 19*
09* 21* 25*
18*
29*
23*
04
bunched
retroflex retroflex &
bunched
Figure 9: Tongue contour tracings ordered from most bunched to most retroflex for /r/ preceding the fleece (solid line) and
the lot vowel (dashed line). Speakers who use more than one of the five tongue configurations are indicated with an asterisk.
The tongue tip is at the right side of the image. The palate is traced in the top curve for each speaker.
17
3.2. The influence of tongue shape on lip protrusion
In the three speakers who produced both retroflex and bunched /r/ configurations, the bunched variants
had on average more lip protrusion than retroflex ones, as presented in the plots in Figure 10, which include
the mean and standard deviation where possible (speaker 18 only produced one bunched token). This result
therefore suggests that the degree of lip protrusion may be dependent on tongue shape, with bunched tongue
shapes exhibiting more accompanying protrusion than retroflex ones.
0
2
4
6
8
14
0
2
4
6
8
18
0
2
4
6
8
29
retroflex
bunched
Subject
Protrusion (mm)
Figure 10: Mean and standard deviation protrusion values in the three speakers who produce both retroflex and bunched
tongue configurations in millimetres.
In order to assess whether different tongue configurations are accompanied by different degrees of lip
protrusion for /r/ in all speakers, a linear mixed-effects regression analysis was performed. The fixed factors
were /r/ Coding (CU, TU, FU, FB, MB) and Vowel (fleece, goose, kit, dress, trap, strut, thought,
lot) and the random structure included by-Speaker random intercepts4. There was a statistically significant
main effect of both tongue configuration (χ2(4) = 29.74, p < 0.001) and following vowel (χ2(7) = 34.28, p <
0.001) on lip protrusion. The final model output is presented in the model summary in Table 2.
As Table 2 indicates, the bunched tongue configurations (FB and MB) are predicted to have significantly
more lip protrusion than the extreme Curled Up retroflex. Although FB is predicted to have more protrusion,
by changing the reference level to FB and rerunning the model, we found no significant difference between
FB and MB. There was no significant difference between the Curled Up retroflex and the other two retroflex
configurations (TU & FU). Figure 11 presents the predicted effects of tongue configuration for /r/ on lip
protrusion. We observe that the three retroflex configurations pattern together with the least protrusion,
as do the two remaining bunched ones, with the most protrusion. As discussed in 3.1, the Front Up
configuration seems to lie somewhere in the middle of the retroflex-bunched continuum with regards to its
lingual characteristics. However, we notice that with regards to lip protrusion, Front Up strongly patterns
with the Curled Up and Tip Up retroflex configurations. This result further justifies our decision to consider
the Front Up configuration a retroflex and not a bunched shape.
4The inclusion of by-item varying intercepts resulted in a singular fit, presumably because, given the limited dataset, the
main effect of vowel captures all the item variance, as pointed out by an anonymous reviewer.
18
Predictor Estimate Std. Error tvalue pvalue
(Intercept) 2.15 0.47 4.61 < 0.001
/r/ Coding TU -0.005 0.26 -0.02 0.99
/r/ Coding FU -0.37 0.37 -1.00 0.32
/r/ Coding FB 2.03 0.42 4.79 < 0.001
/r/ Coding MB 1.40 0.56 2.51 0.02
Vowel goose 0.13 0.26 0.51 0.61
Vowel kit -0.67 0.26 -2.60 0.01
Vowel dress -0.74 0.27 -2.75 0.01
Vowel trap -0.48 0.27 -1.80 0.08
Vowel strut -0.11 0.27 -0.39 0.70
Vowel thought 0.15 0.28 0.55 0.59
Vowel lot 0.38 0.29 1.32 0.19
Protrusion ~rCoding +Vowel + (1|Speaker)
Table 2: Output of a linear-mixed effects regression model of lip protrusion. The intercept corresponds to a CU tongue
configuration preceding the fleece vowel
.
1
2
3
4
5
CU TU FU FB MB
/r/ coding
Protrusion (mm)
Figure 11: Predicted effects of tongue configuration on lip protrusion. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.
19
With regards to the effect of the following vowel on lip protrusion for /r/, the model predicts that the
kit and dress vowels have significantly less protrusion than the fleece vowel. No significant difference
is predicted between the fleece vowel and the remaining vowels in the dataset (goose, trap, strut,
thought, lot). Figure 12 presents the predicted effects of the following vowel on protrusion in /r/.
1
2
3
FLEECE
GOOSE
KIT
DRESS
TRAP
STRUT
THOUGHT
LOT
Vowel
Protrusion (mm)
Figure 12: Predicted effects of following vowel on lip protrusion in /r/. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.
3.3. Acoustics
As our dataset contains limited data from male speakers (n=2) and as it is well established that speaker
sex influences formant values, we only consider data from the remaining female speakers (n=22) in our
acoustic analysis. Across all productions of /r/ in women, the following mean formant values and their
standard deviations (in Hz) were observed:
F1: 421.36 ±65.11
F2: 1 236.18 ±223.61
F3: 1 881.14 ±198.07
Mean formant values are consistent with the range of values observed in previous studies on /r/ in American
English (as presented in 1.3). Table 3 shows mean formant values (in Hz) according to tongue shape.
Previous research on rhotic Englishes has not found a significant difference in F3 between the different
possible tongue configurations for /r/. However, the mean formant values in our dataset do suggest that
there may be differences across tongue shapes, notably with regards to FB, which has a lower mean F3 than
the other four shapes. This difference is also apparent from the box plots of raw F3 values for each of the
five tongue configurations presented in Figure 13. The median value of FB is lower than all the other tongue
configurations and although the interquartile range is small, FB has the most outliers.
To test whether there are statistically significant differences in F3 for /r/ between the different tongue
configurations and the following vowel, we performed a linear mixed-effects analysis. The fixed factors were
20
/r/ coding F1 F2 F3
CU 435 ±71 1 158 ±212 1 851 ±184
TU 419 ±71 1 253 ±247 1 914 ±186
FU 442 ±66 1 318 ±209 1 960 ±217
FB 399 ±46 1 254 ±227 1 761 ±184
MB 411 ±54 1 279 ±147 2 026 ±116
Table 3: Mean formant values and standard deviation (in Hertz) for all tongue shapes from most retroflex to most bunched in
women.
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
CU TU FU FB MB
/r/ coding
F3 (Hz)
Figure 13: Box plots of raw F3 values for each of the five tongue configurations. The boxes (here and in all subsequent box
plots) represent the interquartile range containing the middle 50% of values. Whiskers extend to the highest and lowest
values, excluding outliers (in circles). A line across the box indicates the median.
21
/r/ Coding (CU, TU, FU, FB, MB) and Vowel (fleece, goose, kit, dress, trap, strut, thought,
lot) and the random structure included by-Speaker random intercepts. Likelihood ratio tests revealed that
there was a statistically significant effect of the following vowel on F3 (χ2(7) = 52.13, p < 0.001) but not of
tongue configuration (χ2(4) = 4.32, p = 0.36). The final model output is presented in the model summary
in Table 4. All vowels are predicted to have a significantly lower F3 than the fleece vowel. The lowest F3
values are predicted to occur in /r/ followed by the back vowels in thought and lot. Furthermore, our
results are in line with previous work on English /r/ because tongue configuration was not a statistically
significant factor, contrary to what the raw mean values would indicate. When individual variation is taken
into account, any apparent differences in F3 between tongue configurations disappear. Indeed, the model’s
marginal R2, which is the variance described only by the main effects is 25.03%. The conditional R2, which
is the variance described by the main and the random effects is much higher at 61.48%5. The model also
predicts speaker intercepts to range from 1 838 to 2 294 Hz.
Predictor Estimate Std. Error tvalue pvalue
(Intercept) 2 037.16 49.68 41.01 < 0.001
/r/ Coding TU 19.83 34.19 0.58 0.57
/r/ Coding FU 62.99 49.56 1.27 0.21
/r/ Coding FB 9.22 52.91 0.17 0.87
/r/ Coding MB 128.32 69.55 1.84 0.07
Vowel goose -151.02 36.89 -4.09
< 0.001
Vowel kit -156.63 37.35 -4.19
Vowel dress -172.31 38.36 -4.49
Vowel trap -240.69 38.22 -6.30
Vowel strut -226.11 39.14 -5.78
Vowel thought -259.69 40.45 -6.42
Vowel lot -271.39 40.99 -6.62
F3 ~rCoding +Vowel + (1|Speaker)
Table 4: Output of a linear-mixed effects regression model of F3. The intercept corresponds to a CU tongue configuration
preceding the fleece vowel
.
3.4. Labial articulation of /r/ and /w/
One speaker was excluded from this analysis because the camera angle in the frontal lip view made it
difficult to view her top lip. As lip spreading and aperture were not measured in world units, all three lip
dimensions were transformed into the percentage of change relative each speaker’s neutral lip setting. Table
5 presents mean percentage change for lip protrusion, spreading and aperture and their standard deviations
for the 23 speakers analysed according to phoneme. On average, /r/ and /w/ involve an increase in lip
protrusion and aperture compared to a neutral lip setting, although protrusion and aperture are greater in
/w/ than in /r/. The most striking difference between /r/ and /w/ lies in lip spreading. While /r/ virtually
does not change from the neutral setting (less than 0.1% on average), there is nearly 12% less spreading
in /w/ than in the neutral setting, indicating that the lips are compressed. All three dimensions exhibit
variation, which is probably due to inter-speaker differences. Lip aperture was particularly challenging to
5Conditional and marginal R2were calculated using the r.squaredGLMM() function in the MuMIn package (Barton, 2018).
22
measure as the vermilion border of the top and bottom lip is not always evident in some speakers, which
is perhaps reflected in the particularly high variability observed in this measure in comparison to the other
two. This variability can also be seen in the box plots in Figure 14.
Phoneme Protrusion Spreading Aperture
/r/13.18% ±10.25 0.07% ±3.77 16.20% ±14.92
/w/18.69% ±11.94 11.92% ±8.34 24.51% ±19.65
Table 5: Mean and standard deviation percentage changes from a neutral lip posture for lip protrusion, spreading and
aperture for /r/ and /w/.
-50
0
50
100
Protrusion Spreading Aperture
Percentage change relative to neutral
Phoneme
/r/
/w/
Figure 14: Box plots of percentages change from the neutral lip setting in protrusion, spreading and aperture for /r/ and /w/.
To test whether there are statistically significant differences between the labial posture of /r/ and /w/,
we performed a generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis with the phoneme (/r/ or /w/) as the
binary outcome variable (/r/ coded as 0, /w/ as 1). The fixed factors were percentage change from the
neutral lip setting in Protrusion, Spreading and Aperture, which were mean centred to improve model fit.
The random structure included by-Speaker and by-Vowel varying intercepts. Likelihood ratio tests revealed
that Spreading was the only statistically significant main predictor of phoneme (χ2(1) = 455.01, p < 0.001).
The other lip dimensions were not significant (Protrusion: χ2(1) = 0.81, p = 0.37; Aperture: χ2(1) =
1.08, p = 0.30). The final model output presented in Table 6 indicates that for an average speaker, the
log-odds of observing a /w/ are -77.39 lower when lip spreading increases. These results suggest that /w/
has significantly less spreading, i.e., more horizontal compression, than /r/.
Figure 15 presents example frontal view images of /r/ and /w/ from 12 subjects grouped according
to their tongue shape for /r/ (bunched or retroflex). Images were taken from productions of /r/ and
/w/ followed by the fleece vowel, i.e., from the words reed and weed. Each subject’s left hand image
corresponds to their lip posture for /r/. In nearly all subjects, the lip configurations are visibly different
for /r/ and /w/, which is consistent with Brown’s observations that their lip postures differ (Brown, 1981).
23
Predictor Estimate (log-odds) Std. Error tvalue pvalue
(Intercept) 4.66 3.60 1.29 0.20
Protrusion (centred) 5.42 6.81 0.80 0.43
Spreading (centred) -77.39 31.33 -2.47 0.02
Aperture (centred) -4.89 4.67 -1.05 0.30
Phoneme ~Protrusion +Spreading +Aperture + (1|Speaker) + (1|Item)
Table 6: Output of a linear-mixed effects logistic regression model predicting phoneme (/r/ vs. /w/) with the intercept
corresponding to /w/.
Impressionistically, horizontal contraction seems to tense the lips which results in the appearance of numerous
vertical wrinkles across the red parts of the lips. These wrinkles are generally absent or much less apparent
for /r/. Furthermore, the shape of the mouth opening generally differs for /r/ and /w/. For /r/, the lip
opening has a slit-like elliptical shape, while for /w/ the opening is smaller and circular. Visualising the
data therefore indicates that /r/ has a lip posture which corresponds to Catford’s description of exolabial
articulations, while /w/ is closer to endolabial ones (as discussed in 1.2). We note that speaker 04, a
retroflexer, is the only speaker whose lip configurations for /r/ and /w/ are somewhat similar: both have
a small circular lip opening with a certain degree of wrinkling of the lip surface. Incidentally, this subject
uses the most amount of horizontal contraction on average for /r/ according to our quantitative analysis,
although horizontal compression was still larger for /w/.
02 04 15
16 21 27
/r/ /w/ /r/ /w/ /r/ /w/
03 08 10
11 14 22
/r/ /w/ /r/ /w/ /r/ /w/
retroflexers
bunchers
Figure 15: Frontal view lip images from 6 bunchers and 6 retroflexers for /r/ (left image) and /w/ (right image). Images were
taken from /r/ and /w/ productions followed by the fleece vowel
24
3.5. Summary of results
Putting together the various analyses from this section, the following findings emerge. Firstly, Anglo-
English /r/ may be produced with a range of tongue shapes from curled-up retroflex (CU) to tip down
bunched (MB), although retroflexion is more common than bunching. 3 subjects who come from the South
East of England produce both retroflex and bunched configurations, while the remaining 21 subjects who
come from all over England use either retroflex or bunched shapes. Given the lack of geographically-stratified
data presented here, we cannot comment on any potential regional patterns regarding tongue shape for /r/.
In retroflex users, our results suggest that the degree of retroflexion is related to the quality of the following
vowel. The close front fleece vowel, appears to be the least compatible with retroflexion, contrary to
the open back lot vowel. In the three speakers who presented both retroflex and bunched tongue shapes,
bunching was only utilised in conjunction with the frontest vowels of the system. Although speakers who use
exclusively bunched shapes tend to have acquired one distinct tongue shape for /r/, one speaker produces a
different, arguably more bunched tongue shape (with an even lower tongue tip) in the context of /r/ followed
by the fleece vowel. Furthermore, tongue contour tracings revealed that even in speakers who use one
distinct shape for /r/, the following vowel has a co-articulatory influence because the tongue is generally
more anterior for /r/ followed by the front fleece vowel than /r/ followed by the back lot vowel.
Our analysis suggests that the degree of lip protrusion for /r/ may be related to both tongue shape and
the following vowel. According to our statistical analysis, bunched tongue shapes have significantly more lip
protrusion. Productions of /r/ followed by the rounded vowels in lot,thought and goose are predicted
to have the most lip protrusion of all the vowels, suggesting there is a co-articulatory influence of the labial
properties of the following vowel on /r/. However, no significant difference in lip protrusion is predicted
between /r/ followed by the fleece vowel and /r/ followed by the rounded vowels in lot,thought and
goose, which is unexpected given that the fleece vowel is non-rounded. Finally, our results suggest that
what distinguishes the lip posture for /r/ from that of /w/ is the degree of horizontal compression at the lip
corners. While the lip corner dimension for /r/ does not vary on average from that of a neutral lip posture,
the space between the lip corners decreases by nearly 12% on average for /w/, indicating a contraction of the
lip corners compared to a neutral lip setting. Lip protrusion and lip aperture were not significant predictors
of phoneme, /r/ versus /w/. Qualitatively, frontal lip images indicate that /r/ is generally produced with
exolabial rounding while /w/ is endolabial.
4. Discussion
4.1. Articulation of Anglo-English /r/
As is the case for English /r/ in other varieties, Anglo-English presents a range of possible tongue shapes
for /r/ from Mid Bunched to Curled Up retroflex. However, the production of Anglo-English /r/ differs from
the results from recent studies on American English in that retroflexion is much more common in Anglo-
English. For example, out of 27 subjects, Mielke et al. (2016) only observed 2 producing exclusively retroflex
tokens in both pre- and post-vocalic /r/, compared to our 14/24 subjects in prevocalic /r/. Although their
classification would consider our Front Up configuration to be bunched and not retroflex, if we do the same,
our Anglo-English data still have far more exclusively retroflex users (25%) than the American English data
(<8%). The difference in results may also reflect the fact that our data are limited to word-initial /r/,
25
whereas Mielke et al. (2016) also included prevocalic /r/ in onset clusters. However, Mielke et al. (2016)
observed the highest rates of retroflexion to occur in the same prevocalic syllable-initial context used in the
present study. There does therefore appear to be a difference between American English and Anglo-English
/r/: Anglo-English /r/ is far more likely to be produced with retroflexion.
More frequent retroflexion has also been observed in non-rhotic New Zealand English. In a large-scale
ultrasound study of 62 New Zealand English speakers, nearly 20% of subjects produced exclusively retroflex
tongue shapes (Heyne et al., 2018). Like Mielke et al. (2016), Heyne et al. (2018) also considered the
equivalent of our Front Up classification to be bunched and not retroflex. If we do the same, the percentage
of exclusively retroflex users in Anglo-English (25%) and New Zealand English (nearly 20%) are remarkably
consistent. It appears then that exclusively retroflex tongue shapes are up to three times more frequent in
non-rhotic than in rhotic Englishes. Heyne et al. (2018) speculate that as New Zealand English speakers very
rarely produce /r/ in postvocalic environments, where bunching is heavily favoured, speakers are less likely
to acquire bunched /r/ as an alternative articulation strategy if they have already mastered retroflexion.
Our Anglo-English data seem to support this hypothesis. Future studies could consider to what extent the
production of /r/ varies in children acquiring rhotic and non-rhotic Englishes.
Although retroflexion is generally more frequent in non-rhotic than in rhotic English speakers, the rate of
retroflexion is influenced by co-articulation with neighbouring segments. In the present study, retroflexion
is favoured by open back vowels versus close front ones, in a similar fashion to American English (Ong
& Stone, 1998; Mielke et al., 2016; Tiede et al., 2010). The incompatibility of retroflexion with close front
vowels, notably in the fleece,kit and goose vowels, is manifested through the use of less extreme retroflex
variants, i.e., less curling back of the tongue tip, less tongue tip raising, and more bunching. This shift from
extreme retroflexion towards more bunched configurations in close front vowel contexts further strengthens
the argument that the possible tongue shapes for /r/ are on a continuum rather than the initial suggestion
of dichotomous categories (Uldall, 1958). The fact that retroflexion is not compatible with close front
vowels is perhaps not surprising as it has been suggested that retroflex sounds are always produced with
a retracted tongue body (Hamann, 2002) and as a result, vowels which are also produced with a retracted
tongue body, i.e., back vowels, are more compatible. However, bunched /r/ has also been associated with a
retraction of the tongue. For example, Delattre & Freeman (1968) discuss the narrowing of the vocal tract
in the pharyngeal region and much more recently, a retraction of the tongue body towards the lower rear
pharyngeal wall was observed in all word-initial rhotics in a real-time magnetic resonance imaging study of
four native American English speakers (Proctor et al., 2019). In the present study, speakers who present both
retroflex and bunched shapes produce bunched tokens only in the context of a close front vowel, particularly
with the fleece vowel. As both retroflex and bunched configurations are retracted, retraction cannot
be the only articulatory property which makes retroflexion incompatible with front vowels. As Hamann
(2003) suggests, the tongue shape for [i] which involves the tip being tucked under the lower front teeth is
inherently incompatible with that of retroflexion. Unlike in retroflexes, the tongue tip remains relatively
low in the mouth for bunched /r/, which is perhaps why bunching is more compatible with high front
vowels than retroflexion. In one buncher (speaker 10), /r/ preceding all vowels except for the fleece vowel
were produced with a Front Bunched configuration. /r/ before fleece, however, was produced with a Mid
Bunched configuration. We observed from tongue contour tracings that the Mid Bunched configuration has
a lower tongue tip to the Front Bunched one in speakers who present both bunched shapes, which would
26
thus explain why the Mid Bunched shape with a lower tongue tip is preferred in the context of the fleece
vowel. It therefore seems natural to consider the Mid Bunched category to be the most bunched tongue
configuration, despite the fact that bunching, which is generally associated with a dip in the tongue surface,
is less apparent than in the Front Bunched shape. We therefore conclude that our continuum ranges from tip
down Mid Bunched, most compatible with high close vowels, to tip-up Curled Up retroflex, most compatible
with low open ones.
A novel finding of this study is that the degree of accompanying lip protrusion may be influenced by
tongue configuration. Bunched tongue configurations are predicted to have significantly more lip protrusion
than retroflex ones. As discussed in 1.3, retroflex consonants, by definition, include the addition of a
sublingual space, which increases the volume of the front cavity, thus lowering the third formant. Bunched
/r/ involves the tongue tip being positioned relatively low in the mouth and therefore presumably creates
less space underneath the tongue tip. The difference we observe regarding the degree of lip protrusion could
thus be a compensation strategy used by bunchers to lengthen the front cavity in order to obtain the same
sized front cavity and therefore, the same acoustic output as retroflexers. Indeed, we observed no statistically
significant difference across tongue configurations in F3.
Our analysis also indicates that the use of lip protrusion as a compensation strategy may go beyond
the bunched-retroflex distinction. Although our results generally support Gimson (1980)’s observation that
/r/ productions in the context of rounded vowels present more lip protrusion than in the context of non-
rounded vowels, labial coarticulation cannot account for the fact that in the context of the close front
fleece vowel, /r/ is predicted to have significantly more lip protrusion than in the context of the more
open non-rounded vowels such as those in kit and dress. Labial coarticulation does also not account for
the lack of a statistically significant difference in lip protrusion between /r/ followed by the fleece vowel
and the rounded vowels in lot,thought and goose. Visualising tongue contour tracings revealed that /r/
preceding the fleece vowel is generally produced with a more anterior tongue position than /r/ preceding
lot, no doubt due to lingual co-articulation. As this fronting of the tongue will presumably result in the
shortening of the front cavity, speakers may again compensate for this shortening by increasing lip protrusion,
thus extending the front cavity, regardless of underlying tongue shape. A limitation to our analysis is that
in the present dataset, place of articulation and rounding are partly confounded: the only non-rounded
back vowel is the strut vowel, which may actually be realised as the rounded [U] in speakers who do not
present the foot-strut split, i.e., in linguistic Northerners, who as it happens, make up the majority of
the dataset (n=16). Despite our reservations, compensation strategies for co-articulation with front vowels
in retroflexes have been observed in other languages. For example, the vowel /i/ was rounded preceding
retroflexes in Wembawemba, an extinct Indigenous Australian language, but not in other vowel contexts
(Flemming, 2013). It is interesting to note that despite the higher degree of lip protrusion, /r/ preceding the
fleece vowel still results in significantly higher predicted F3 values than /r/ preceding all other vowels in
the dataset. It seems then that increased lip protrusion does not necessarily result in complete compensation
for lingual co-articulation with the fleece vowel.
We stress that although our data point towards a possible articulatory compensation strategy involving
the use of lip protrusion to extend the front cavity for /r/, more articulatory data, ideally from a more
robust imaging technique which would provide vocal tract dimensions i.e., magnetic-resonance imaging, is
evidently required. Indeed, another limitation to our study is the fact that the sublingual space is not visible
27
from ultrasound data. Furthermore, there may well be a three-way trading relation between the size of the
sublingual space, palatal constriction location and degree of lip protrusion, which falls outside the scope of
this paper. Although we have focused on Anglo-English, we see no reason why the use of lip protrusion as a
compensation strategy for /r/ could not be extended to other varieties of English, which could also be the
object of further study.
Given the significant differences in lip protrusion we have observed between retroflex and bunched tongue
configurations, future studies could consider whether this difference is perceptibly salient to an interlocutor
in both the auditory and visual domains. Furthermore, although some clues may lie in higher formant values,
without the use of advanced and rather expensive instrumental techniques capable of imaging or tracking
the tongue, researchers are not yet capable of telling a bunched /r/ from a retroflex one. Visualising the lips,
however, can be accomplished with ease, and could therefore be an alternative, more cost-effective strategy.
However, we again stress the need for further research verifying our claim that bunched /r/s are inherently
more protruded than retroflexes.
4.2. Accounting for the labial gesture in Anglo-English /r/
Quantitative analysis of the profile and frontal lip images indicates that what distinguishes the lip
postures for /r/ and /w/ is the horizontal dimension (i.e., lip corner to corner) of the interlabial space. Lip
protrusion and lip aperture were not significant predictors of phoneme category, /r/ or /w/, although both
dimensions were higher on average for /w/. We observed that the horizontal dimension of the lips for /r/
remains very similar to a neutral lip posture. However, the space between the lip corners decreases by nearly
12% on average from the neutral setting for /w/. Impressionistically, Catford’s account of endolabial versus
exolabial articulations (as discussed in 1.2) seems to rather accurately describe the different lip postures we
observe for /r/ and /w/ in nearly all of our subjects. /w/ is endolabial because the lip corners are pushed to
the centre forming a round shaped opening between the lips. /r/ is exolabial because, rather than bringing
the lip corners to the centre, they are compressed vertically, which creates an elliptical shaped lip opening.
Our results therefore indicate that the lip postures for /r/ and /w/ may be phoneme specific in Anglo-
English. Although it is well-established that lip rounding and lip protrusion cause formant frequencies
to decrease because they increase the length of the vocal tract (Stevens, 1998; Vaissière, 2007), the exact
acoustic consequences of the different lip postures for /r/ and /w/ are not clear. While the main acoustic
correlate of /r/ is generally associated with a low F3 in close proximity to F2, the labio-velar approximant
/w/ is characterised by a high F3 and a low F2 (Espy-Wilson, 1992). Catford explains that front vowels are
usually exolabial, i.e., without horizontal compression, in order to avoid over-lowering the second formant
and hence preserve their front quality (Catford, 1977, p.173). Similarly, Stevens notes that in the case of a
backed tongue position, the condition of minimum F2 is achieved only if the lips are rounded and a narrow
opening is formed (Stevens, 1998, pp. 280-281). We suggest then that by limiting their use of horizontal
compression for /r/, Anglo-English speakers avoid over-lowering the second formant, thus conserving the
proximity between the second and third formant for /r/ and ensuring a maximal perceptual contrast between
/r/ and /w/.
Somewhat unexpected differences have been observed in the perception of approximants between Ameri-
can and Anglo-English listeners. In Dalcher et al. (2008), American and English participants judged whether
copy-synthesised sounds with manually adjusted formant values were more like /r/ or /w/. A significant
difference was observed for a stimulus which had a third formant typical of /r/ and second formant typical of
28
/w/. American speakers identified this stimulus as /r/ 90% of the time, while Anglo-English speakers only
identified it as /r/ 59% of the time. Dalcher et al. (2008) argue that the reason for such a disparity may be
due to Anglo-English speakers being exposed to labiodental variants without a canonically low F3, unlike
American English speakers. As a consequence, they speculate that F3 alone is no longer a sufficient cue to
distinguish /r/ from /w/ in Anglo-English and that the F2 boundary between /r/ and /w/ may have become
sharper in Anglo-English speakers. The fact that the vast majority of the Anglo-English speakers presented
in this paper use a lip configuration that potentially prevents them from over-lowering F2 (i.e., exolabially,
with very little horizontal compression) seems to support Dalcher et al. (2008)’s hypothesis. Although all
our speakers had an observable tongue body gesture with low F3 values typical of /r/, given the pressure to
differentiate /r/ and /w/ beyond F3 due to exposure to high-F3 variants, Anglo-English speakers may find
themselves in a delicate articulatory balancing act, having to make trade-offs between keeping F3 low with-
out over-lowering F2. As F2 is less of a concern, we predict that American English speakers would be freer
to use more variable, more /w/-like lip postures for /r/ in order to enhance r-saliency. The findings from a
very recent study on American English support this hypothesis. Labial postures presented in Smith et al.
(2019) were much more variable across speakers, with more instances of endolabial articulations reported
for /r/ than in our Anglo-English data.
An alternative explanation for the observed difference in labial configurations between /r/ and /w/
in Anglo-English could be that by using distinctive articulatory cues, speakers are able to enhance the
perceptual contrast between the two sounds in the visual domain. Indeed, speech has been shown to
be visually optimised in cases where pressure to maintain a phonological contrast is high. For example,
Havenhill & Do (2018) observed that in American English, the visual lip rounding cue enhances perception
of the /A/-/O/ contrast, and Traunmüller & Öhrström (2007) found that in Swedish, listeners rely on visual
cues in the perception of /i/-/y/. Future research could consider whether the different visual cues for /r/
and /w/ are perceptibly salient to Anglo-English speakers.
Finally and perhaps somewhat ironically, the lip posture we have described for /r/ in Anglo-English,
which is potentially used by speakers to enhance F3 lowering all the while avoiding over-lowering F2, seems
to share similar features to labiodental articulations. In order to protrude the lips without horizontal
compression, the lower lip is raised towards or even beyond the level of the top front teeth, which is
described as vertical compression of the lip corners by Catford (1977). The lips are also everted revealing
the soft inner surfaces, as discussed in Brown (1981). The inner surface of the lower lip is thus in close
proximity with or perhaps even touching the upper front teeth. In some speakers, the upper front teeth are
even visible during their /r/ production (e.g., speakers 02, 08, 11, 15, 21 and 22 presented in Figure 15). On
the other hand, horizontal compression of the lips corners in /w/ draws the corners of the mouth together
away from the front teeth along the occlusal plane, making contact between the lips and front teeth almost
impossible. Indeed, the teeth were never visible in any of the /w/ tokens. We speculate then that the lip
posture observed for /r/ in Anglo-English may result in the approximation of the lower lip and the top
teeth, or labiodentalisation. Labiodental variants could thus continue to emerge if the labial gesture takes
precedence over the lingual one, as suggested by Docherty & Foulkes (2001), particularly if the labial gesture
is visually prominent. As a result, like Dalcher et al. (2008), we also predict an increase in labiodental /r/
in Anglo-English.
29
5. Conclusions
Articulatory data presented in this paper have shown that Anglo-English /r/ is not only produced with
retroflexion but presents similar lingual variation to that observed in rhotic Englishes with tongue shapes
ranging from tip down bunched to curled-up retroflex. However, retroflexion is three times more frequent
in Anglo-English than American English, which may be a direct consequence of the absence of postvocalic
/r/ productions in Anglo-English, a context which reportedly favours bunching, as discussed by Heyne
et al. (2018). Although some speakers present one configuration exclusively, in others, tongue shape may
be directly related to the following vowel with tip-up variants favouring low open vowel contexts and tip
down ones favouring high close ones. A novel finding of this study is that the degree of accompanying
lip protrusion may be directly related to the size of the front cavity in Anglo-English with smaller front
cavities presenting the most lip protrusion. Tip-down tongue shapes, which have less space underneath
the tongue than tip-up ones, appear to compensate for their smaller cavity volume through increased lip
protrusion. Lingual co-articulation with neighbouring front vowels may reduce the size of the front cavity for
/r/ regardless of tongue shape, for which speakers also seem to compensate via increased lip protrusion. We
therefore conclude that lip protrusion is an articulatory mechanism used to enhance the acoustic saliency
of /r/. Pressure to maintain a perceptual contrast between /r/ and /w/ due to increased exposure to
high-F3 labiodental variants of /r/ in Anglo-English may have resulted in the development of a specific
labial gesture for /r/, which enables speakers with an observable tongue body gesture to maintain a low F3
without over-lowering F2. Over-lowering of F2 could cause perceptual uncertainty as the acoustic cue that
distinguishes a high-F3 /r/ from /w/ may be F2 (Dalcher et al., 2008). In Englishes where high-F3 variants
are not reported, the frequency of F3 remains the most prominent acoustic cue for /r/ (Dalcher et al., 2008),
which we predict allows speakers more freedom to vary the accompanying lip gesture for /r/, which may
account for the differences observed between the labial gesture in the present study and that presented in
Smith et al. (2019) on American English. Finally, in avoiding over-lowering F2 due to increased exposure to
labiodental /r/, the lip posture in speakers who do not use labiodental /r/ (i.e., with an observable tongue
body gesture) has perhaps inadvertently become more labiodental. Following Dalcher et al. (2008), we also
predict a further increase in labiodentalisation in Anglo-English /r/. The cue for /r/ in Anglo-English will
continue to shift to F2 to such an extent that speakers will attend less to F3, provoking them to retain the
labiodental component of their articulation at the expense of the lingual one.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Eleanor Lawson, Jim Scobbie, Alan Wrench, Steve Cowen and the rest of the
Clinical Audiology, Speech and Language Research Centre at Queen Margaret University for kindly allowing
us to use their facilities and for their assistance with data collection. We particularly wish to thank Eleanor
Lawson for her help with the analysis of lip camera data. We express our gratitude to Ioana Chitoran for
her invaluable input throughout this project. Finally, we thank the assistant editor, Marianne Pouplier, and
three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.
Funding sources
The first author received a travel grant from Paris Diderot University for data collection.
30
Competing interests statement
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Appendix A.
Lexical set /r/-initial /w/-initial
fleece reed weed
goose room womb
kit ring wing
dress red wed
trap rack whack
strut run won
thought raw war
lot rot what
Table A.7: Test-words and corresponding lexical sets
References
Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Alwan, A., Narayanan, S., & Haker, K. (1997). Toward articulatory-acoustic models for liquid approximants based on MRI and
EPG data. Part II. The rhotics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,101 , 1078–1089. doi:10.1121/1.418030.
Articulate Instruments Ltd. (2008). Ultrasound Stabilisation Headset Users’ Manual, Revision 1.4. Edinburgh, UK: Articulate
Instruments Ltd.
Articulate Instruments Ltd. (2014). Articulate Assistant Advanced Ultrasound Module User Manual, Revision 2.16. Edinburgh,
UK: Articulate Instruments Ltd.
Ashton, H., & Shepherd, S. (2012). Work on Your Accent. London: Collins.
Badin, P., Sawallis, T., & Lamalle, L. (2014). Comparaison des stratégies articulatoires d’un locuteur bilingue anglais-français:
Données et modèles préliminaires. In XXXièmes Journées d’Etudes Sur La Parole (JEP2014). Le Mans, France. URL:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal- 01228883.
Bakst, S. (2016). Differences in the relationship between palate shape, articulation, and acoustics of American English /r/ and
/s/. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report,12 , 216–224.
Barton, K. (2018). MuMIn: Multi-model inference. URL: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical
Software,67 , 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2019). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Version 6.0.50, Accessed March 2019 from
http://www.praat.org/.
Brown, G. (1981). Consonant rounding in British English: The status of phonetic descriptions as historical data. In R. Asher,
& E. J. Henderson (Eds.), Towards a History of Phonetics (pp. 67–76). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Catford, J. C. (1977). Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Catford, J. C. (1988). A Practical Introduction to Phonetics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Dalcher, C. V., Knight, R.-A., & Jones, M. J. (2008). Cue switching in the perception of approximants: Evidence from two
English dialects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics,Vol. 14: Iss. 2, Article 9 .
Dediu, D., & Moisik, S. R. (2019). Pushes and pulls from below: Anatomical variation, articulation and sound change. Glossa:
A Journal of General Linguistics,4(1), 1–33. doi:10.5334/gjgl.646.
Delattre, P., & Freeman, D. C. (1968). A dialect study of American r’s by x-ray motion picture. Linguistics,6, 29–68.
doi:10.1515/ling.1968.6.44.29.
31
Docherty, G. J., & Foulkes, P. (2001). Variability in (r) production - instrumental perspectives. In H. Van de Velde, & R. van
Hout (Eds.), ’R-Atics: Sociolinguistic, Phonetic and Phonological Characteristics of /r/ (pp. 173–184). Brussels, Belgium:
Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Ehrlich, S., & Avery, P. (2013). Teaching American English Pronunciation-Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford
University Press.
Epstein, M. A., & Stone, M. (2005). The tongue stops here: Ultrasound imaging of the palate. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America,118 , 2128–2131. doi:10.1121/1.2031977.
Espy-Wilson, C. Y. (1992). Acoustic measures for linguistic features distinguishing the semivowels /w j r l/ in American
English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,92 , 736–757. doi:10.1121/1.403998.
Espy-Wilson, C. Y., & Boyce, S. E. (1999). A simple tube model for American English /r/. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa,
D. Granville, & A. C. Bailey (Eds.), Proceedings from the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 2137–
2140). San Francisco, CA: University of California, Berkeley. URL: https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/
icphs-proceedings/ICPhS1999/papers/p14_2137.pdf.
Espy-Wilson, C. Y., Boyce, S. E., Jackson, M., Narayanan, S., & Alwan, A. (2000). Acoustic Modeling of American English
/r/. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,108 , 343–356. doi:10.1121/1.429469.
Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Ferragne, E., & Pellegrino, F. (2010). Formant frequencies of vowels in 13 accents of the British Isles. Journal of the International
Phonetic Association,40 , 1–34. doi:10.1017/S0025100309990247.
Flemming, E. S. (2013). Auditory Representations in Phonology. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315054803.
Foulkes, P., & Docherty, G. J. (2000). Another chapter in the story of /r/: ‘Labiodental’ variants in British English. Journal
of Sociolinguistics,4, 30–59. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00102.
Garnier, M., Ménard, L., & Richard, G. (2012). Effect of being seen on the production of visible speech cues. A pilot study on
Lombard speech. In INTERSPEECH-2012 (pp. 611–614).
Gimson, A. (1980). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London, UK: Arnold.
Guenther, F. H., Espy-Wilson, C. Y., Boyce, S. E., Matthies, M. L., Zandipour, M., & Perkell, J. S. (1999). Articulatory
tradeoffs reduce acoustic variability during American English /r/ production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America,105 , 2854–2865. doi:10.1121/1.426900.
Hagiwara, R. (1995). Acoustic realizations of American /r/ as produced by women and men. UCLA Working Papers in
Phonetics,90 , 1–187.
Hamann, S. (2002). Retroflexion and Retraction revised. ZAS working papers,28 , 13–25.
Hamann, S. (2003). The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes. Ph.D. thesis LOT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hancock, M. (2003). English Pronunciation in Use. Cambrige University Press.
Harrington, J., Kleber, F., & Reubold, U. (2011). The contributions of the lips and the tongue to the diachronic fronting of
high back vowels in Standard Southern British English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association,41 , 137–156.
doi:10.1017/S0025100310000265.
Havenhill, J., & Do, Y. (2018). Visual Speech Perception Cues Constrain Patterns of Articulatory Variation and Sound Change.
Frontiers in Psychology,9, 728. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00728.
Heyne, M., Wang, X., Derrick, D., Dorreen, K., & Watson, K. (2018). The articulation of /ô/ in New Zealand English. Journal
of the International Phonetic Association, (pp. 1–23). doi:10.1017/S0025100318000324.
Jones, D. (1972). An Outline of English Phonetics. (9th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
King, H., & Ferragne, E. (2018). /u/-fronting in English: How phonetically accurate should phonological labels be? In 16èmes
Rencontres Du Réseau Français de Phonologie. Paris, France.
King, H., & Ferragne, E. (2019). The contribution of lip protrusion to Anglo-English /r/: Evidence from hyper- and non-
hyperarticulated speech. Proceedings of Interspeech 2019, (pp. 3322–3326). doi:10.21437/Interspeech.2019-2851.
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.
Journal of Statistical Software,82 . doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13.
Ladefoged, P., & Disner, S. F. (2012). Vowels and Consonants. John Wiley & Sons.
Laver, J. (1980). The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality: Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Lawson, E., Mills, L., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2015). Variation in tongue and lip movement in the goose vowel across British Isles
Englishes. In 10th UK Language Variation and Change. York, UK.
Lawson, E., Scobbie, J. M., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2011). The social stratification of tongue shape for postvocalic /r/ in Scottish
32
English. Journal of Sociolinguistics,15 , 256–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00464.x.
Lawson, E., Scobbie, J. M., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2013). Bunched /r/ promotes vowel merger to schwar: An ultrasound tongue
imaging study of Scottish sociophonetic variation. Journal of Phonetics,41 , 198–210. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2013.01.004.
Lawson, E., Stuart-Smith, J., & Rodger, L. (2019). A comparison of acoustic and articulatory parameters for the GOOSE vowel
across British Isles Englishes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,146 , 4363–4381. doi:10.1121/1.5139215.
Lawson, E., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scobbie, J. M. (2014). A mimicry study of adaptation towards socially-salient tongue shape
variants. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics,20 , 12. URL: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/
vol20/iss2/12.
Lawson, E., Stuart-Smith, J., & Scobbie, J. M. (2018). The role of gesture delay in coda /r/ weakening: An articulatory,
auditory and acoustic study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,143 , 1646–1657. doi:10.1121/1.5027833.
Lawson, E., Stuart-Smith, J., Scobbie, J. M., Yaeger-Dror, M., & Maclagan, M. (2010). Analyzing liquids. In M. De Paolo, &
M. Yaeger-Dror (Eds.), Sociophonetics: A Student’s Guide (pp. 72–86). London, UK: Routledge.
Lehiste, I. (1962). Acoustical Characteristics of Selected English Consonants. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Com-
munication Sciences Laboratory.
Lennon, R., Smith, R., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2015). An Acoustic Investigation of Postvocalic /r/ Variants in Two Sociolects of
Glaswegian. In 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK. URL: http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/109759/.
Lilly, R., & Viel, M. (1977). La Prononciation de l’anglais: Règles Phonologiques et Exercices de Transcription. Paris, France:
Hachette.
Lindley, N., & Lawson, E. (2016). An articulatory investigation of Anglo-English prevocalic /r/. In BAAP Col loquium.
Lancaster, UK.
Lobanov, B. M. (1971). Classification of Russian Vowels Spoken by Different Speakers. The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America,49 , 606–608. doi:10.1121/1.1912396.
Lüdecke, D. (2018). sjPlot - Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1310947.
Magloughlin, L. (2016). Accounting for variability in North American English /ô/: Evidence from children’s articulation.
Journal of Phonetics,54 , 51–67. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2015.07.007.
Marks, J. (2007). English Pronunciation in Use Elementary Book with Answers, with Audio. Cambridge University Press.
Marsden, S. (2006). A sociophonetic study of labiodental /r/ in Leeds. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics,
(pp. 153–172).
Mayr, R. (2010). What exactly is a front rounded vowel? An acoustic and articulatory investigation of the nurse vowel in
South Wales English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association,40 , 93–112. doi:10.1017/S0025100309990272.
Mielke, J., Baker, A., & Archangeli, D. (2016). Individual-level contact limits phonological complexity: Evidence from bunched
and retroflex /ô/. Language,92 , 101–140. doi:10.1353/lan.2016.0019.
O’Connor, J. D. (1967). Better English Pronunciation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ong, D., & Stone, M. (1998). Three-dimensional vocal tract shapes in /r/ and /l/: A study of MRI, ultrasound, electropalatog-
raphy, and acoustics. Phonoscope,1, 1–13.
Perkell, J. S., Matthies, M. L., Svirsky, M. A., & Jordan, M. I. (1993). Trading relations between tongue-body raising and
lip rounding in production of the vowel /u/: A pilot “motor equivalence” study. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America,93 , 2948–2961. doi:10.1121/1.405814.
Proctor, M., Walker, R., Smith, C., Szalay, T., Goldstein, L., & Narayanan, S. (2019). Articulatory characterization of English
liquid-final rimes. Journal of Phonetics,77 , 100921. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100921.
R Core Team (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing
Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R- project.org/.
Roach, P. (1983). English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Sattherthwaite, F. (1946). An Approximate Distribution of Estimates of Variance Components. Biometrics Bul letin,2,
110–114. doi:10.2307/3002019.
Scobbie, J. M. (2006). (R) as a variable. In K. Brown (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. (pp. 337–344).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier volume 10. (2nd ed.).
Scobbie, J. M., Lawson, E., Cowen, S., Cleland, J., & Wrench, A. A. (2011). A common co-ordinate system for mid-sagittal
articulatory measurement. CASL Research Centre Working Paper: WP-20 , (pp. 1–6).
Scobbie, J. M., Lawson, E., Nakai, S., Cleland, J., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2015). Onset vs. coda asymmetry in the articulation
of English /r/. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of
33
Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, UK: The University of Glasgow. URL: http://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/
icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2015/Papers/ICPHS0704.pdf.
Scobbie, J. M., Punnoose, R., & Khattab, G. (2013). Articulating five liquids: A single speaker ultrasound study of Malayalam.
In L. Spreafico, & A. Vietti (Eds.), Rhotics: New Data and Perspectives (pp. 99–124). Bozen-Bolzano: BU Press.
Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., & Aust, F. (2015). afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments. R package version 0.13–145,
. URL: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex.
Smith, B. J., Mielke, J., Magloughlin, L., & Wilbanks, E. (2019). Sound change and coarticulatory variability involving English
/ô/. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics,4(1), 1–51. doi:10.5334/gjgl.650.
Stevens, K. N. (1998). Acoustic Phonetics volume 30. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Sweet, H. (1877). A Handbook of Phonetics volume 2. Clarendon Press.
Tiede, M. K., Boyce, S. E., Espy-Wilson, C. Y., & Gracco, V. L. (2010). Variability of North American English /r/ production
in response to palatal perturbation. In Speech Motor Control: New developments in basic and applied research (pp. 53–68).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199235797.003.0004.
Tiede, M. K., Boyce, S. E., Holland, C. K., & Choe, K. A. (2004). A new taxonomy of American English /r/ using MRI and
ultrasound. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,115 , 2633–2634. doi:10.1121/1.4784878.
Traunmüller, H., & Öhrström, N. (2007). Audiovisual perception of openness and lip rounding in front vowels. Journal of
Phonetics,35 , 244–258. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2006.03.002.
Trudgill, P. (1999). The Dialects of England. Blackwell.
Twist, A., Baker, A., Mielke, J., & Archangeli, D. (2007). Are "Covert" /ô/ Allophones Really Indistinguishable? University
of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics,13 , 16. URL: https://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol13/iss2/16/.
Uldall, E. (1958). American ‘molar’ R and ‘flapped’ T. Revista do Laboratório de Fonética Experimental da Faculdade de
Letras da Universidade de Coimbra,4, 103–106.
Underhill, A. (1994). Sound Foundations: Living Phonology volume The teacher development series. Oxford: Heinemann.
Vaissière, J. (2007). Area functions and articulatory modeling as a tool for investigating the articulatory, acoustic and perceptual
properties of sounds across languages. In M. Solé, P. Beddor, & M. Ohala (Eds.), Experimental Approaches to Phonology
(pp. 54–71). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wells, J. (1982). Accents of English volume 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Westbury, J. R., Hashi, M., & Lindstrom, M. J. (1998). Differences among speakers in lingual articulation for American English
/ô/. Speech Communication,26 , 203–226. doi:10.1016/S0167-6393(98)00058-2.
Wilson, I. L. (2006). Articulatory Settings of French and English Monolingual and Bilingual Speakers. PhD Thesis University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Wrench, A. A., & Scobbie, J. M. (2016). Queen Margaret University ultrasound, audio and video multichannel recording
facility (2008-2016). CASL Research Centre Working Paper: WP-24 , (pp. 1–14).
Zawadzki, P. A., & Kuehn, D. P. (1980). A cineradiographic study of static and dynamic aspects of American English /r/.
Phonetica,37 , 253–266. doi:10.1159/000259995.
Zhang, Z., Boyce, S., Espy-Wilson, C., & Tiede, M. (2003). Acoustic strategies for production of American English ’retroflex’
/r/. In M. Solé, D. Recasens, & J. Romero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences
(pp. 1125–1128). Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autònoma. URL: https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/
icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/papers/p15_1125.pdf.
Zhou, X., Espy-Wilson, C. Y., Boyce, S., Tiede, M., Holland, C., & Choe, A. (2008). A magnetic resonance imaging-based
articulatory and acoustic study of "retroflex” and "bunched” American English /r/. The Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America,123 , 4466–4481. doi:10.1121/1.2902168.
34
... Figure 9 shows GAMs fitted to each speaker's midsagittal tongue data, comparing phoneme types within different positions and vowel contexts. The most striking finding from this analysis is that the speakers appear to employ one of two distinct tongue shapes: either a bunched rhotic articulation or a tongue tip/front up (Delattre & Freeman 1968, Mielke et al. 2016, Heyne et al. 2020, King & Ferragne 2020. Figure 9 groups the speakers according to this pattern: bunched speakers are in the top row, and tip-up speakers are in the bottom row. ...
... However, we found substantial differences in articulatory strategies for rhotic production. Broadly speaking, our participants produce rhotics either with a tongue-tip/front raising gesture, or a tongue-body bunching gesture, similar to previous studies (Delattre & Freeman 1968, Lawson et al. 2011, Heyne et al. 2020, King & Ferragne 2020. We did not find these two strategies to be correlated with sociolinguistic variation in our sample, and they do not appear to have consistently different auditory realizations. ...
Article
Full-text available
Much progress has been made in the last 200 years with regard to understanding the origins and mechanisms of sound change. It is hypothesized that many sound changes originate in biomechanical constraints on speech production or in the misperception of sounds. These production and perception pressures explain a wide range of sound changes across the world’s languages, yet we also know that sound change is not inevitable. For example, similar phonological structures have undergone change in many languages yet remained stable in others. In this study, we examine how typologically unusual contrasts are maintained in the face of intense pressures, in order to uncover the potential biomechanical, perceptual, and sociolinguistic factors that facilitate the maintenance of typologically unusual contrasts. We focus on secondary articulation contrasts in Scottish Gaelic rhotics, triangulating auditory, acoustic, and articulatory data in order to better understand the maintenance of contrast in the face of multidimensional typological challenges. Here, individual-level articulatory strategies are combined with contextual prosodic information in order to maintain acoustic and auditory distinctiveness across three rhotic phonemes. We highlight the need to more comprehensively consider typologically unusual and minority languages in order to test the limits of generalizations about crosslinguistic phonetic typology.
... The lingual articulation of [ô] is well known for its substantial variability. Tongue shapes range from tip-down bunched to curled-back retroflex in rhotic Englishes, e.g., North America (Delattre and Freeman, 1968;Mielke et al., 2016;Tiede et al., 2004;Zhou et al., 2008) and Scotland (Lawson et al., 2011(Lawson et al., , 2014, and in non-rhotic Englishes, e.g., New Zealand (Heyne et al., 2018) and Anglo-English (King and Ferragne, 2020b). The different tongue shapes result in equivalent acoustic signals up to the first three formants (Zhou et al., 2008), characterized by a low F3, generally below 2 000 Hz (e.g., Boyce and Espy-Wilson, 1997;Delattre and Freeman, 1968), in proximity to F2 (e.g., O'Connor et al., 1957;Stevens, 1998). ...
... [ô] in English is often described as labialized, which can be considered an articulatory enhancement strategy, as lip protrusion contributes to F3 lowering (King and Ferragne, 2020b Measurements of the lip area acquired using an artificial neural network indicated that [ô] indeed has a more labiodental-like lip posture than [w]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates the influence of visual cues in the perception of the /r/-/w/ contrast in Anglo-English. Audio-visual perception of Anglo-English /r/ warrants attention because productions are increasingly non-lingual, labiodental (e.g., [ʋ]), possibly involving visual prominence of the lips for the post-alveolar approximant [ɹ]. Forty native speakers identified [ɹ] and [w] stimuli in four presentation modalities: auditory-only, visual-only, congruous audio-visual, and incongruous audio-visual. Auditory stimuli were presented in noise. The results indicate that native Anglo-English speakers can identify [ɹ] and [w] from visual information alone with almost perfect accuracy. Furthermore, visual cues dominate the perception of the /r/-/w/ contrast when auditory and visual cues are mismatched. However, auditory perception is ambiguous because participants tend to perceive both [ɹ] and [w] as /r/. Auditory ambiguity is related to Anglo-English listeners' exposure to acoustic variation for /r/, especially to [ʋ], which is often confused with [w]. It is suggested that a specific labial configuration for Anglo-English /r/ encodes the contrast with /w/ visually, compensating for the ambiguous auditory contrast. An audio-visual enhancement hypothesis is proposed, and the findings are discussed with regard to sound change.
... Ainsi, au l des ans, en plus du signal audio et des réponses comportementales à des expériences de perception, la diversité des données que j'ai pu collecter et analyser n'a fait que croître. Cela a commencé par l'électroencéphalographie Pota et al., 2012 ;Bedoin et al., 2019 ;Heidlmayr et al., 2021 ;Pélissier et Ferragne, 2021) et l'échographie de la langue (King et Ferragne, 2020) via le deep learning ou encore la conductance électrodermale (Rastovic et al., 2019) que j'ai d'abord utilisées moi-même pour ensuite les mettre à la disposition des étudiants. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
Since scientists’ individual epistemological preferences infallibly shape the output of their research, this thesis starts with a presentation of the author’s position with respect to a number of methodological issues pertaining to the field of contemporary phonetics. Such concepts as corpora, experimental techniques, quantitative methods, and the role of technology are discussed with the aim of making the author’s scientific values and biases more explicit. The following chapters offer a selection of research works the author has carried out since his PhD in 2008. They show an evolution from corpus-based acoustic phonetics to more experimental protocols involving a great diversity of instruments and data types. From the automatic classification and acoustic-articulatory description of British Isles accents to the development of the gradient phonemicity hypothesis; from the study of speech rhythm to psycholinguistic experiments with French learners of English, the thesis covers the main findings and highlights how this wide array of interests and methods has served two consistent goals: an agnostic approach to new puzzles, and the possibility to efficiently help students develop their own scientific identity. The final part of the thesis addresses the forthcoming paradigm shift that deep learning will bring about in many academic fields with illustrations from the author’s recent work.
... Finally, it has been demonstrated that some speakers may use different tongue shapes for rhotics in onset versus coda position [40]. Specifically, onset position is thought to be more facilitative of retroflex tongue shapes, whereas bunched tongue shapes are favored in postvocalic contexts [41,42]. These findings suggest that better outcomes might have been observed if the tactile cueing had flexibility to support multiple tongue shapes for rhotics. ...
Article
Background: Mastering the phonetics of a second language (L2) involves a component of speech-motor skill, and it has been suggested that L2 learners aiming to achieve a more native-like pronunciation could benefit from practice structured in accordance with the principles of motor learning. Participants and methods: This study investigated the influence one such principle, high versus low variability in practice, has on speech-motor learning for Korean adults seeking to acquire native-like production of English rhotics. Practice incorporated a commercially available intraoral placement device ("R Buddy," Speech Buddies Inc.). In a single-subject across-behaviors design, 8 participants were pseudorandomly assigned to practice rhotic targets in a low-variability (single word) or high-variability (multiple words) practice condition. Results: The hypothesized advantage for high-variability over low-variability practice was observed in the short-term time frame. However, long-term learning was limited in nature for both conditions. Conclusion: These results suggest that future research should incorporate high-variability practice while identifying additional manipulations to maximize the magnitude of long-term generalization learning.
Article
Full-text available
Retraction of /s/ to a more [ʃ]-like sound is a well-known sound change attested across many varieties of English for /stɹ/ words, e.g. street and strong. Despite recent sociophonetic interest in the variable, there remains disagreement over whether it represents a case of long-distance assimilation to /ɹ/ in these clusters or a two-step process involving local assimilation to an affricate derived from the sequence /tɹ/. In this paper, we investigate Manchester English and apply similar quantitative analysis to two contexts that are comparatively under-researched, but which allow us to tease apart the presence of an affricate and a rhotic: /stj/ as in student, which exhibits similar affrication of the /tj/ cluster in many varieties of British English, and /stʃ/ as in mischief. In an acoustic analysis conducted on a demographically-stratified corpus of over 115 sociolinguistic interviews, we track these three environments of /s/-retraction in apparent time and find that they change in parallel and behave in tandem with respect to the other factors conditioning variation in /s/-retraction. Based on these results, we argue that the triggering mechanisms of retraction are best modelled with direct reference to /t/-affrication and with /ɹ/ playing only an indirect, and not unique, role. Analysis of the whole sibilant space also reveals apparent-time change in the magnitude of the /s/–/ʃ/ contrast itself, highlighting the importance of contextualising this change with respect to the realisation of English sibilants more generally as these may be undergoing independent change.
Article
Full-text available
Mandarin alveolo-palatal [ɕ] is a difficult sound for learners of Chinese as a Second Language and is commonly replaced with [ʃ] by English-speaking learners. Various pedagogical instructions have been proposed in the literature: some focus on the difference in tongue height or lip configuration, while others recommend a focus on differences in both articulatory parameters. The divergent pedagogical practices may be due to researchers’ comparing “base of articulation” characteristics of Mandarin [ɕ] and English [ʃ] that reflect little individual variation. This study took a different approach by comparing the articulations of [ɕ] and [ʃ] produced by bilingual Mandarin-English speakers. The articulations were examined in terms of tongue-palate contact (using the direct linguography and palatography methods), tongue posture (using ultrasound imaging), and lip configuration (using lip videos). The results showed that the two fricatives were produced with the same linguopalatal contact patterns and tongue postures; however, different degrees of lip protrusion were observed. Therefore, we suggest that Mandarin [ɕ] can be taught as English [ʃ] with less lip protrusion.
Thesis
Full-text available
Articulatory variation is well-documented in post-alveolar approximant realisations of /r/ in rhotic Englishes, which present a diverse array of tongue configurations. However, the production of /r/ remains enigmatic, especially concerning non-rhotic Englishes and the accompanying labial gesture, both of which tend to be overlooked in the literature. This thesis attempts to account for them both, in which we consider the production and perception of /r/ in the non-rhotic variety of English spoken in England, ‘Anglo-English’. This variety is of particular interest because non-lingual labiodental articulations of /r/ are rapidly gaining currency, which may be due to the visual prominence of the lips, although a detailed phonetic description of this change in progress has yet to be undertaken. Three production and perception experiments were conducted to investigate the role of the lips in Anglo-English /r/. The results indicate that the presence of labiodental /r/ has caused auditory ambiguity with /w/ in Anglo-English. In order to maintain a perceptual contrast between /r/ and /w/, it is argued that Anglo-English speakers use their lips to enhance the perceptual saliency of /r/ in both the auditory and visual domains. The results indicate that visual cues of the speaker's lips are more prominent than the auditory ones and that these visual cues dominate the perception of the contrast when the auditory and visual cues are mismatched. The results have theoretical implications for the nature of speech perception in general, as well as for the role of visual speech cues in diachronic sound change.
Article
As existing descriptions are likely too narrow to reflect a broader range of articulatory variability in Mandarin production, this study is undertaken to explore qualitative and quantitative tongue shape analysis in Mandarin sibilants. Tongue movement data are collected from 18 adult Mandarin speakers producing six sibilants in three vowel contexts. Acoustic information is also analyzed to establish the articulatory–acoustic correspondence. In addition to the common retroflex and bunched shapes, the results discovered a humped shape (e.g., a single, posterior lingual constriction) in most of Mandarin retroflex tokens. This shape is one variant of North American English /r/, but yet identified in Mandarin production. The humped shape adds to the literature and expands existing descriptions of Mandarin retroflex tongue configurations. Despite the shape differences, the general many-to-one articulatory-acoustic mappings also holds true for Mandarin retroflexes. However, while curvature analyses based on Cartesian coordinates significantly differentiated contrastive shapes in retroflex production, these analyses were not equally reliable in separating the alveolar–retroflex distinction, likely due to individual differences. The tongue contour changes in the place contrast were instead quantified by calculations with polar coordinates. The preliminary findings on Mandarin retroflexes are discussed in terms of vocal tract morphology, with possible lip protrusion.
Article
Although substantial variability is observed in the articulatory implementation of the constriction gestures involved in /ɹ/ production, studies of articulatory-acoustic relations in /ɹ/ have largely ignored the potential for subtle variation in the implementation of these gestures to affect salient acoustic dimensions. This study examines how variation in the articulation of American English /ɹ/ influences the relative sensitivity of the third formant to variation in palatal, pharyngeal, and labial constriction degree. Simultaneously recorded articulatory and acoustic data from six speakers in the USC-TIMIT corpus was analyzed to determine how variation in the implementation of each constriction across tokens of /ɹ/ relates to variation in third formant values. Results show that third formant values are differentially affected by constriction degree for the different constrictions used to produce /ɹ/. Additionally, interspeaker variation is observed in the relative effect of different constriction gestures on third formant values, most notably in a division between speakers exhibiting relatively equal effects of palatal and pharyngeal constriction degree on F3 and speakers exhibiting a stronger palatal effect. This division among speakers mirrors interspeaker differences in mean constriction length and location, suggesting that individual differences in /ɹ/ production lead to variation in articulatory-acoustic relations.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Articulatory variation of /r/ has been widely observed in rhotic varieties of English, particularly with regards to tongue body shapes, which range from retroflex to bunched. However, little is known about the production of /r/ in modern non-rhotic varieties, particularly in Anglo-English. Although it is generally agreed that /r/ may be accompanied by lip protrusion, it is unclear whether there is a relationship between tongue shape and the accompanying degree of protrusion. We present acoustic and articulatory data (via ultrasound tongue imaging and lip videos) from Anglo-English /r/ produced in both hyper- and non-hyperarticulated speech. Hyperarticulation was elicited by engaging speakers in error resolution with a simulated “silent speech” recognition programme. Our analysis indicates that hyperarticulated /r/ induces more lip protrusion than non-hyperarticulated /r/. However, bunched /r/ variants present more protrusion than retroflex variants, regardless of hyperarticulation. Despite some methodological limitations, the use of Deep Neural Networks seems to confirm these results. An articulatory trading relation between tongue shape and accompanying lip protrusion is proposed.
Article
Full-text available
English /ɹ/ is known to exhibit covert variability, with tongue postures ranging from bunched to retroflex, as well as various degrees of lip protrusion and compression. Because of its articulatory variability, /ɹ/ is often a focal point for investigating the role of individual variation in change. In the studies reported here, we examine the coarticulatory effects of alveolar obstruents with /ɹ/, presenting data from a collection of sociolinguistic interviews involving 162 English speakers from Raleigh, North Carolina, and a pilot corpus of ultrasound and lip video from 29 additional talkers. These studies reveal a mixture of assimilatory and coarticulatory patterns. For the sound changes in progress (/tɹ/ and /dɹ/ affrication, and /stɹ/ retraction), we find increases over apparent time, but no effect of covert variability in our laboratory data, consisting mostly of younger talkers. When a sound change has already become phonologized to a new phonemic target with a correspondingly different articulatory target, the original variability is obscured. In comparison, post-lexical coarticulation of word-final /s z/ before a word-initial /ɹ/ more closely resembles /s z/ in tongue posture, with an effect of anticipatory lip-rounding that introduces a low-mid frequency spectral peak during the sibilant interval, and greater reduction in the frequency of this peak for talkers who transition more rapidly to the /ɹ/. In order to uncover the role of covert variability in a sound change, we must look to sounds that exhibit synchronically stable articulatory variability.
Article
Full-text available
This paper argues that inter-individual and inter-group variation in language acquisition, perception, processing and production, rooted in our biology, may play a largely neglected role in sound change. We begin by discussing the patterning of these differences, highlighting those related to vocal tract anatomy with a foundation in genetics and development. We use our ArtiVarK database, a large multi-ethnic sample comprising 3D intraoral optical scans, as well as structural, static and real-time MRI scans of vocal tract anatomy and speech articulation, to quantify the articulatory strategies used to produce the North American English /r/ and to statistically show that anatomical factors seem to influence these articulatory strategies. Building on work showing that these alternative articulatory strategies may have indirect coarticulatory effects, we propose two models for how biases due to variation in vocal tract anatomy may affect sound change. The first involves direct overt acoustic effects of such biases that are then reinterpreted by the hearers, while the second is based on indirect coarticulatory phenomena generated by acoustically covert biases that produce overt “at-a-distance” acoustic effects. This view implies that speaker communities might be “poised” for change because they always contain pools of “standing variation” of such biased speakers, and when factors such as the frequency of the biased speakers in the community, their positions in the communicative network or the topology of the network itself change, sound change may rapidly follow as a self-reinforcing network-level phenomenon, akin to a phase transition. Thus, inter-speaker variation in structured and dynamic communicative networks may couple the initiation and actuation of sound change.
Article
Full-text available
What are the factors that contribute to (or inhibit) diachronic sound change? While acoustically motivated sound changes are well-documented, research on the articulatory and audiovisual-perceptual aspects of sound change is limited. This paper investigates the interaction of articulatory variation and audiovisual speech perception in the Northern Cities Vowel Shift (NCVS), a pattern of sound change observed in the Great Lakes region of the United States. We focus specifically on the maintenance of the contrast between the vowels /ɑ/ and /ɔ/, both of which are fronted as a result of the NCVS. We present results from two experiments designed to test how the NCVS is produced and perceived. In the first experiment, we present data from an articulatory and acoustic analysis of the production of fronted /ɑ/ and /ɔ/. We find that some speakers distinguish /ɔ/ from /ɑ/ with a combination of both tongue position and lip rounding, while others do so using either tongue position or lip rounding alone. For speakers who distinguish /ɔ/ from /ɑ/ along only one articulatory dimension, /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ are acoustically more similar than for speakers who produce multiple articulatory distinctions. While all three groups of speakers maintain some degree of acoustic contrast between the vowels, the question is raised as to whether these articulatory strategies differ in their perceptibility. In the perception experiment, we test the hypothesis that visual speech cues play a role in maintaining contrast between the two sounds. The results of this experiment suggest that articulatory configurations in which /ɔ/ is produced with unround lips are perceptually weaker than those in which /ɔ/ is produced with rounding, even though these configurations result in acoustically similar output. We argue that these findings have implications for theories of sound change and variation in at least two respects: (1) visual cues can shape phonological systems through misperception-based sound change, and (2) phonological systems may be optimized not only for auditory but also for visual perceptibility.
Article
This study quantifies vocalic variation that cannot be measured from the acoustic signal alone and develops methods of standardisation and measurement of articulatory parameters for vowels. Articulatory-acoustic variation in the GOOSE vowel was measured across 3 regional accents of the British Isles using a total of 18 speakers from the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, and England, recorded with synchronous ultrasound tongue imaging, lip camera, and audio. Single co-temporal measures were taken of tongue-body height and backness, lip protrusion, F1, and F2. After normalisation, mixed-effects modelling identified statistically significant variations per region; tongue-body position was significantly higher and fronter for Irish and English speakers. Region was also significant for lip-protrusion measures with Scottish speakers showing significantly smaller degrees of protrusion than English speakers. However, the region was only significant for acoustic height and not for frontness. Correlational analyses of all measures showed a significant positive correlation between tongue-body height and acoustic height, a negative correlation between lip-protrusion and acoustic frontness, but no correlation between tongue-body frontness and acoustic frontness. Effectively, two distinct regional production strategies were found to result in similar normalised acoustic frontness measures for GOOSE. Scottish tongue-body positions were backer and lips less protruded, while English and Irish speakers had fronter tongue-body positions, but more protruded lips.
Article
Articulation of liquid consonants in onsets and codas by four speakers of General American English was examined using real-time MRI. Midsagittal tongue posture was compared for laterals and rhotics produced in each syllable margin, adjacent to 13 different vowels and diphthongs. Vowel articulation was examined in words without liquids, before each liquid, and after each liquid, to assess the coarticulatory influence of each segment on the others. Overall, nuclear vocalic postures were more influenced by coda rhotics than onset rhotics or laterals in either syllable margin. Laterals exhibited greater temporal and spatial independence between coronal and dorsal gestures. Rhotics were produced with a variety of speaker-specific postures, but were united by a greater degree of coarticulatory resistance to vowel context, patterns consistent with greater coarticulatory influence on adjacent vowels, and less allophonic variation across syllable positions than laterals.
Article
This paper investigates the articulation of approximant /ɹ/ in New Zealand English (NZE), and tests whether the patterns documented for rhotic varieties of English hold in a non-rhotic dialect. Midsagittal ultrasound data for 62 speakers producing 13 tokens of /ɹ/ in various phonetic environments were categorized according to the taxonomy by Delattre & Freeman (1968), and semi-automatically traced and quantified using the AAA software (Articulate Instruments Ltd. 2012) and a Modified Curvature Index (MCI; Dawson, Tiede & Whalen 2016). Twenty-five NZE speakers produced tip-down /ɹ/ exclusively, 12 tip-up /ɹ/ exclusively, and 25 produced both, partially depending on context. Those speakers who produced both variants used the most tip-down /ɹ/ in front vowel contexts, the most tip-up /ɹ/ in back vowel contexts, and varying rates in low central vowel contexts. The NZE speakers produced tip-up /ɹ/ most often in word-initial position, followed by intervocalic, then coronal, and least often in velar contexts. The results indicate that the allophonic variation patterns of /ɹ/ in NZE are similar to those of American English (Mielke, Baker & Archangeli 2010, 2016). We show that MCI values can be used to facilitate /ɹ/ gesture classification; linear mixed-effects models fit on the MCI values of manually categorized tongue contours show significant differences between all but two of Delattre & Freeman's (1968) tongue types. Overall, the results support theories of modular speech motor control with articulation strategies evolving from local rather than global optimization processes, and a mechanical model of rhotic variation (see Stavness et al. 2012).