In articulatory phonetics, sulcalization (from Latin: sulcus 'groove') is the pronunciation of a sound with a deep, longitudinal concavity (groove) down the back of the tongue (the dorsum), roughly opposite of the uvula.

Articulatory mechanism

Sulcalization is accomplished by raising the sides of the dorsum, leaving a hollow along the midline.

Some linguists extend the term sulcalization to refer more broadly to the general presence of a longitudinal concavity along the tongue midline (see § Grooved fricatives). In this sense, sulcalization is the functional inverse of lateralization: sulcalization raises the sides of the tongue to direct airflow along the midline, whereas lateralization lowers the sides of the tongue to direct airflow over the sides (blocking airflow along the midline).

However, this contrast does not necessitate mutual exclusivity; for example, the 'dark l' [ɫ] may involve both posterior dorsal sulcalization alongside its characteristic anterior coronal lateralization.

Occurrence

Sulcalization has typically been associated with rhotics such as a 'bunched' or 'molar' r [ɹ̈] and r-colored vowels, as well as 'dark' or 'throaty' quality sounds, either more velar-like (such as [ɫ]) or more pharyngeal-like (such as [ɒ]).

Vowel quality

No spoken language is known to make a phonemic distinction between sulcalized and ordinary vowels; though it has been reported that for some speakers of Received Pronunciation (RP), the vowel /ɒ/, which is normally described as rounded, is pronounced with neutral or spread lips, and is instead given its characteristic quality through a "hollowing or sulcalization of the tongue-body."

One scholar has also suggested that the vowel in the RP pronunciation of words like bird, typically transcribed /ɜː/, is actually a sulcal schwa, retaining the sulcality of the original rhotic consonant. Accordingly, the realization of the /ə/-element of the centring diphthongs /ɪə̯/, /ʊə̯/, /ɛə̯/ in words such as near, pure and scare, is interpreted as the product of a loss of sulcality. Similarly to the case of RP /ɜː/, it has been noted that the rhotacized equivalent [ɝ] in American English is strongly sulcalized.

Grooved fricatives

Palatograms of [s], which is grooved, and [θ], which is slit

Some linguists have referred to grooved fricatives, a similar but distinct articulatory concept, as sulcalized, though this should not be confused with the more common definition described in the section above. As with the more common definition of sulcalization, grooved fricatives also involve forming a groove down the center of the tongue (such as in some realizations of /s/ in the English words sit and case). They contrast with slit fricatives, which are pronounced with the tongue flat.

Grooved–slit distinction

The grooved–slit distinction primarily applies to anterior consonants. Unlike the more common definition of sulcalization, which generally refers to a posterior hollowing, grooved fricatives involve raising the sides of the tongue to focus the turbulent airstream on the teeth, producing an anterior hollowing. This results in a more intense sound, typically associated with sibilants. Slit fricatives, with a flatter shape, have a wider and more dispersed airflow channel.

Phonetic status

J. C. Catford observed that the degree of tongue grooving differs between places of articulation as well as between languages; however, no language is known to phonemically contrast fricatives based purely on the presence or absence of tongue grooving. Nonetheless, linguists sometimes make a phonetic distinction for certain fricative allophones that occur at the same place of articulation as a grooved or slit counterpart.

For example, [t̞] (a lenited allophone of /t/ found in some English dialects) is commonly described as slit, to distinguish it from grooved [s]; though it has also been noted that additional articulatory factors may go into the distinction between grooved [s] and slit [t̞].

Historically, the terms grooved fricative and sibilant have sometimes been treated as synonymous (and by extension, slit fricative and non-sibilant), though the reality of sibilant shapes is more complex; not all sibilants may share this feature, nor may it be unique to sibilants. For instance, /ʃ/ is widely regarded to be characterized by a convex doming of the tongue rather than a concave grooving, and therefore has been defined as slit; conversely, ultrasound imaging has shown /θ/ in English to exhibit grooving similar to /s/, despite being typically regarded as slit.

Transcription practices

It was once proposed for the IPA to include a diacritic to distinguish grooved and slit fricatives, but the proposal was rejected. While lacking diacritics for the feature specifically, the extIPA chart includes [θ͇] and [ð͇] to denote alveolar slit fricatives, which the authors have noted form a contrastive graphical pair with the more commonly seen [s̪] and [z̪], denoting grooved dental fricatives.

See also

Notes

Bibliography

  • Ball, Martin J.; Howard, Sara J.; Miller, Kirk (2018). "Revisions to the extIPA chart". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 48 (2): 155–164. doi:. JSTOR . S2CID .
  • Bernhardt, Barbara; Ball, Martin J. (1993). "Characteristics of Atypical Speech Currently Not Included in the Extensions to the IPA". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 23 (1): 35–38. JSTOR .
  • Catford, J. C. (1982) [1977]. . Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-85224-437-1.
  • Catford, J. C. (2001a). A Practical Introduction to Phonetics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199246359.
  • Catford, J. C. (2001b). "On Rs, Rhotacism and Paleophony". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 31 (2): 171–85. JSTOR .
  • Catford, John C.; Esling, John H. (2006). . In Brown, Keith (ed.). Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 425–442. doi:. ISBN 9780080448541.
  • Clarke, Sandra (2009) [2005]. Hickey, Raymond (ed.). . Legacies of Colonial English. Studies in English Language: 242–261. doi:. ISBN 9780521830201.
  • Erickson, Blaine (2003). "On the development of English r". In Minkova, Donka; Stockwell, Robert (eds.). Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 183–206. doi:. ISBN 978-3-11-017368-0.
  • Jones, Daniel (1976) [1967]. (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521213516.
  • Gimson, A. C. (1973a). "The Association's Alphabet". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 3 (1): 2–3. JSTOR .
  • Gimson, A. C. (1973b). "The Association's Alphabet". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 3 (2): 60–61. JSTOR .
  • King, Hannah (2020). (PDF) (Thesis). Université de Paris.
  • Lass, Roger (1984). Phonology: an introduction to basic concepts. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521237284.
  • Ladefoged, Peter; Maddieson, Ian (1996). The Sounds of the World's Languages. Oxford: Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-19815-6.
  • Lowman, G. S. (1932). "The phonetics of Albanian". Language. 8 (4): 271–293. doi:. JSTOR .
  • Mott, Brian Leonard (2011). English Phonetics and Phonology for Spanish Speakers. Universitat. Vol. 49 (2a ed.). Publicacions i Edicions, Universitat de Barcelona. p. 56. ISBN 9788447535040.
  • Nolan, Francis (1988). "2.2 Vowels". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 18 (2): 69–74. doi:. JSTOR .
  • Pandeli, Helen; Eska, Joseph F. Eska; Ball, Martin J.; Rahilly, Joan (1997). "Problems of Phonetic Transcription: The Case of the Hiberno-English Slit-t". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 27 (1/2): 65–75. doi:. JSTOR .
  • Skarnitzl, Radek; Rálišová, Diana (2023). "Phonetic variation of Irish English /t/ in the syllabic coda". Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 53 (3): 728–747. doi:.
  • Stone, Maureen; Lundberg, Andrew (1996). (PDF). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 99 (6): 3728–3737. Bibcode:. doi:. PMID . Archived from (PDF) on 2023-03-24.