# r (pronunciation)



## AnnaJDT

Hello! Quick question: don't the Germans pronounce the "r" similar to the French? (please play this sound here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_uvular_fricative)

I have always thought they do, and I thought it's such a charming feature of the German spoken langauge.

Now, I am told that German intellectuals in fact pronounce the "r" like the Italian or the Romanian do, and he who does the same is regarded as highly reputable and high class. Am I right to think the person who said so was pulling my leg??

What is amazing is that he *can* pronounce the "r" in both ways perfectly wonderful, yet he chooses to speak German with Romanian "r", even though he masters the other "r" as well. 

Would you please help me understand?


----------



## berndf

Like in French, the "r roulé" is required in classical stage pronunciation but on the other hand nobody hardly ever requires classical stage pronunciation any more. In both languages classical stage pronunciation is still most widely used in by classical singers today. Apart from that, the prescriptions of stage pronunciation are not relevant any more. Using an alveolar "r" in normal speech is not considered "intellectual" but most people would rather suspect a dialectal background as the alveolar "r" is still preserved in many dialects. The same is true in French.


----------



## AnnaJDT

So there are two types of "r", and in most situations (except for classical stage), Germans would use the... (how would I best call it?) guttural/uvular fricative "r".
Makes sense to me! It's what I've noticed most often in the few instances I was exposed to the spoken language, as well as in several online dictionaries that have "audio" functionality attached (such as: leo dict, google translate). I'll just go ahead and continue trying to replicate that superb gargling sound. It sounds so beautiful, albeit hard to reproduce, but I think I'm getting closer to it.


----------



## berndf

If it is hard then you're doing it wrong. The sound must come naturally and easily or it won't at all. Try to say it like an imperfect "g" where you don't block the airflow completely. It might help you, if you say "grrrrrrrrr". But maybe not, you have to try it. Some people also tell you the best way to learn the Italian "r" is by saying "drrrrr" or "trrrrr". For me this is the one context where I can NOT produce the "r roulé". I make the same mistake (which I know intellectually but help it) that may foreigners do when pronouncing the French/German "r": My tongue it too stiff because I am trying too hard. The tongue has to be relaxed to be able to vibrate.


----------



## Resa Reader

The way you pronounce the "r" in German depends on where you come from. Coming from Bavaria I will always roll my "r"s as the Italians do.


----------



## berndf

Resa Reader said:


> The way you pronounce the "r" in German depends on where you come from. Coming from Bavaria I will always roll my "r"s as the Italians do.


Yes, that's what I said: Usage of the rolled r is today regarded as a characteristic of dialectal (or dialect influenced) speech.


----------



## bearded

Resa Reader said:


> The way you pronounce the "r" in German depends on where you come from. Coming from Bavaria I will always roll my "r"s as the Italians do.


I think that all main answers to the OP have been given. But if I am allowed to express a marginal remark, I think it is strange that a Romanian should find the normal German r  ''a charming feature'' of  the German language.  To my ear (and why not to a Romanian's?) the Bavarian/Italian 'rolled' r is much more harmonious!  I am sure it is a question of personal taste (and I'll soon be flooded with protests...).


----------



## perpend

AnnaJDT said:


> I have always thought they do, and I thought it's such a charming feature of the German spoken language
> 
> What is amazing is that he *can* pronounce the "r" in both ways perfectly wonderful, yet he chooses to speak German with Romanian "r", even though he masters the other "r" as well.



What is not to like?


----------



## berndf

For most Germans the distinction is very minor. The phoneme /r/ has many different realizations and we usually don't care and often don't even consciously perceive which one a speaker uses.


----------



## Glockenblume

berndf said:


> For most Germans the distinction is very minor. The phoneme /r/ has many different realizations and we usually don't care and often don't even consciously perceive which one a speaker uses.


Only in chorus, it's important: Chorus leaders want the singers to pronounce an "italienisches r". It's funny because half of the chorus struggles, and the rest has no difficulties .


----------



## AnnaJDT

Thank you very much, everyone! To bearded man: I would love the Italian "r" if I was to speak Italian!  
However, when I pronounce in German (or any other language, for that instance), I would like to as much as possible blend in, sound like a native, and for me this vibrant "r" is part of what makes the German language what it is. Not employing it in speech seems to chip away from its authenticity. I suppose that's why I like it so much.

Right now I seem to be better at it if I do a bit of warming up beforehand (ra, re, ri, ro, ru, like the video suggests - now, without water!). I find it's a combination between being very relaxed, talking more soft than harsh (otherwise it sounds more like "h" than "r") and some magical parameters, I suppose. I need to keep trying until I get it to work 10/10 with no warming up. Maybe I am at 5 out of 10 (attempts) now.

Have you seen the movie "Ghost" with Patrick Swayze? A ghost teaches another ghost how to move physical objects: "I don't know *how* you focus! You just focus! You take all your emotions! All your anger, all your love, all your hate! And push it way down here into the pit of your stomach! And then let it explode, like a reactor! Pow!"

I kind of feel like that when I try to make that vibrant sound. haha.


----------



## berndf

AnnaJDT said:


> talking more soft than harsh (otherwise it sounds more like "h" than "r") and some magical parameters, I suppose.


The important difference is that [ʁ~ɣ] is voiced and [h] is unvoiced. You can actually describe [ʁ~ɣ] as the voices sibling of [x] (which in a broader sense could be seen as an allophone of /h/). If you voice the <ch> in _Dach _you get a perfect pronunciation of _dar _(expect that most Germans don't pronounce it "perfect" but pronounce it like _da_; but that is a different matter). In French by the way, [ʁ] is devoiced in certain contexts and the standard pronunciation of the German word _pocht _would be a valid realization of the French word _porte _(except that the strong aspiration of the German /p/ sounds a bit unnatural in French and you would probably aim for a pronunciation as if spelled _bocht_ in German). In German this is of course not possible as it would clash with another phoneme. Some dialects do it, though, and speakers of those dialects are sometimes subjected to mockery (e.g. when they say _Spocht_ instead of _Sport_).


----------



## bearded

@ AnnaJDT
I understand your point of view.  But aren't there in your country people - usually a minority - who cannot pronunce r correctly and use instead a defective 'German' r pronunciation? ( In Italy, this is not so uncommon, and some of my friends belong to such a minority.)  Maybe you coud imitate those, if they exist in Romania, or have one of them patiently teach you the sound.
Just as a marginal remark: there are some areas in Italy - like the city of Parma and its surroundings - where most people pronounce Italian with a German/French r. Their speech is not defective, but probably due to ancient Gaulic/French influence.


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> but probably due to ancient Gaulic/French influence.


The uvular /r/ in French is just a bit more then 300 years old. How could this be Gaulish influence???


----------



## Glockenblume

AnnaJDT said:


> I would like to as much as possible blend in, sound like a native, and for me this vibrant "r" is part of what makes the German language what it is. Not employing it in speech seems to chip away from its authenticity. I suppose that's why I like it so much.


The "Italian" r *IS* one of the authentic German pronounciations, even if it's not the most wide spread one!
It's neither defective, nor countryside, - it's one of the regional variants! It's not only used by people with not much education, but also by language teachers, politicians and so on.
An Austrian friend even told me that's the norm in Austria. She had even to make a training with a "Logopäde" (anyone who knows how to translate this word into English -thank you for editing!) because she was not able to pronounce the "Italian" r. 

By the way, the "Italian" pronounciation of the r is fully accepted by the DUDEN.


----------



## bearded

berndf said:


> The uvular /r/ in French is just a bit more then 300 years old. How could this be Gaulish influence???


OK, let's only say French influence.  On the other hand, Italian dialects in those areas have many a resemblance to French... May be it was a parallel 'evolution' in the pronunciation of r ?


----------



## berndf

bearded man said:


> OK, let's only say French influence.  On the other hand, Italian dialects in those areas have many a resemblance to French... May be it was a parallel 'evolution' in the pronunciation of r ?


As you said, the velar/uvular "r" always existed as a "defective" variant of the apical "r" in languages where the latter is mandatory. It even exists in Greek where it is a particularly serious defect because both sounds exist with phonemic contrast (as in _*ρ*άσο_ and _*γ*άλα_; I can't think of a minimal pair right now). Parallel evolution is therefore not impossible.


----------



## berndf

Glockenblume said:


> The "Italian" r *IS* one of the authentic German pronounciations, even if it's not the most wide spread one!
> It's neither defective, nor countryside, - it's one of the regional variants! It's not only used by people with not much education, but also by language teachers, politicians and so on.
> An Austrian friend even told me that's the norm in Austria. She had even to make a training with a "Logopäde" (anyone who knows how to translate this word into English -thank you for editing!) because she was not able to pronounce the "Italian" r.
> 
> By the way, the "Italian" pronounciation of the r is fully accepted by the DUDEN.


There is a certain correlation _urban=velar/uvular_ and _rural=apical_ in Austria and in Germany, though; but not in Switzerland. An exception is only Bavarian and Upper-Frankish dialects where the apical r is equally standard in rural and urban accents (and of course Munich with its high percentage of non-locals, which starts to affect also the accents of locals, is an exception to the exception). In Austria, in Viennese and Viennese influenced urban accents the velar/uvular r is my now the prevalent one. In provincial urban accents in eastern Austria, i.e. the "metropolitan area" of the country, it seems perfectly random who uses which type of "r". Sometimes even members of the same family use different "r"s. The apical "r" seems to be generally on the retreat, i.e. is more frequent with older than with younger speakers.

You would need training to pronounce the apical "r" only as an actor or classical singer.


----------



## LunaPlena

I'd just like to add that you can even find the "English" - or even  "American"? -  pronunciation of r in Germany. To be more precise, you'll  come across this phenomenon in some parts of an area called  "Westerwald". Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to post a link here as I'm a new member. But if you'd like to listen to an example, go to a video platform we all know and look for "Westerwald Dialekt", the second search result is what I'm referring to (young man in light blue shirt).  The interviewer has difficulty in understanding this guy, too, so don't  worry, you're being faced with a serious case of "Westerwälder Platt".


----------



## AnnaJDT

Thank you very much, LunaPlena. It was very interesting for me to realise there is a third version of the "r" in use currently, even though limited to the Westerwald area. I would never have guessed some Germans can speak with American "r"! I will remember that video for reference. 

Now, if you will allow me to ask, is the "Google translate" pronunciation of "er fuhr" correct? (found here if you press on the speaker: https://translate.google.com/#de/en/er fuhr) I would say it sounds like [eə fuə], the [ə] I understand it as the same as [ə] in sehen - [ze:ən].
Please advise. And if anyone knows a reliable phonetic transcript dictionary, that'd be great too, and preferable to audio materials (more precise), written rule tends to leave no doubts. 
Have a nice weekend!


----------



## berndf

AnnaJDT said:


> Now, if you will allow me to ask, is the "Google translate" pronunciation of "er fuhr" correct? (found here if you press on the speaker: https://translate.google.com/#de/en/er fuhr) I would say it sounds like [eə fuə], the [ə] I understand it as the same as [ə] in sehen - [ze:ən].


No, that is not correct. The pronunciation is [eɐ fuɐ]. German phonemically distinguishes two reduced vowel, the e-coloured [ə] and the a-coloured Schwa [ɐ]. Many minimal pairs rely on this distinction, line _eine _/ainə/ and _einer _/ainɐ/. In many other languages that know reduced vowels this distinction does not exist. For English speakers, e.g., it is notoriously difficult to hear the difference between _eine_ and _einer_. Quality-wise, the /ɐ/ vowel is very close to the short /a/ which contrary to the long /a:/ is only near-open and not fully open. Germans would therefore probably transcribe the pronunciation of _er fuhr_ with vocalized /r/s as _ea fua_.

Here you can hear the contrast between eine and einer. It would be interesting to now if you can identify the difference easily. I think you should because it is slightly exaggerated.


----------



## cuore romano

I think it's quite OK.  
I have another link here
http://www.acapela-group.com/
Try this sentence: _Der Fahrer fuhr nach Rotenburg._
and listen to Andreas.


----------



## cuore romano

bernd 

It sounds quite familiar to my Ruhrpott ears.


----------



## berndf

cuore romano said:


> bernd
> 
> It sounds quite familiar to my Ruhrpott ears.


Of course, it is within normal parameters but in real life the [ə] - [ɐ] distinction is not always as crystal clear as in this Google Translate pronunciation.


----------



## AnnaJDT

Berndf, I think I can nail the difference you refer to, and practice definitely makes better.
I have another doubt related to this. My feeling is that the site I use for phonetic transcripts is not great. 
Let's compare two words: Erfolg [ɛɐ̯ˈfɔlk] and Scherz [ʃɛrts]. From what I know, "r" before consonant is pronounced as that reduced/special sound [ɐ̯]. They point this out for Erfolg, but why not for Scherz? In "Scherz" again we have "r" before "a consonant, "z" in this case. So I was expecting, maybe, [ʃɛɐ̯ts] ??


----------



## berndf

AnnaJDT said:


> So I was expecting, maybe, [ʃɛɐ̯ts] ??


This pronunciation exists. It is just less likely in a consonant cluster than at the end of a syllable, like in _Er-folg_.
The pronunciations of my name range from [beɐnt] (with a diphthong) via [bɛɐ̯nt] (with a non-syllabic ɐ̯) to [bɛʁnt] (with a proper consonant); it is just less likely in a consonant cluster.


----------



## AnnaJDT

I made a discovery about pronouncing the German "r" (the vibrant one). I don't "practice" often but when I do, I read out loud from a text book... and it just came upon me that when I have my chin up, good posture, "hochnäsig" etc I can "nail" it almost EVERY time!
Instead, when I put my text book on my table, chin in my chest (almost), that kind of "chokes" the "r".  

This is the third great thing I discovered so far after 1) the water trick and 2) berndf's advice that if it's forced, it's not done correctly (relaxation is key).

Maybe it helps someone.


----------



## 2wrbk

AnnaJDT said:


> From what I know, "r" before consonant is pronounced as that reduced/special sound [ɐ̯]. They point this out for Erfolg, but why not for Scherz? In "Scherz" again we have "r" before "a consonant, "z" in this case. So I was expecting, maybe, [ʃɛɐ̯ts] ??


Because that's the convention. Pronunciation dictionaries (and therefore also other sources that base their transcriptions on them) don't indicate /r/-vocalization after short vowels, even though Duden itself admits that that pronunciation is very common. It used to be thought of as incorrect. Then again - decades ago, all types of /r/-vocalization were _incorrect_ according to the prescriptive standard which now is nowhere to be heard in real life.

I think that pronunciation dictionaries need to start transcribing words like _Scherz_ with [ɐ̯]. It won't blur any phonemic contrasts and will reflect the current practice of native speakers of Northern Standard German in a more accurate manner. Because let's be honest - many transcriptions found in there don't reflect southern varieties of SG very well.


----------



## 2wrbk

berndf said:


> No, that is not correct. The pronunciation is [eɐ fuɐ]. German phonemically distinguishes two reduced vowel, the e-coloured [ə] and the a-coloured Schwa [ɐ]. Many minimal pairs rely on this distinction, line _eine _/ainə/ and _einer _/ainɐ/. In many other languages that know reduced vowels this distinction does not exist. For English speakers, e.g., it is notoriously difficult to hear the difference between _eine_ and _einer_. Quality-wise, the /ɐ/ vowel is very close to the short /a/ which contrary to the long /a:/ is only near-open and not fully open. Germans would therefore probably transcribe the pronunciation of _er fuhr_ with vocalized /r/s as _ea fua_.
> 
> Here you can hear the contrast between eine and einer. It would be interesting to now if you can identify the difference easily. I think you should because it is slightly exaggerated.


We need to distinguish between syllabic and non-syllabic vowels. The latter form diphthongs, which in German can be closing and centering. Among non-syllabic vowels there's just one central vowel which is conventionally written [ɐ̯], but the actual realization may be either [ɐ̯] (closer to /a/) or [ə̯] (closer to /ə/). This is backed up by _Podręcznik Wymowy Niemieckiej_ (2005). I suspect that the open-mid vowels [ɛ œ ɔ] are the most likely to form diphthongs with [ɐ̯], others can pair with either sound (this is just my hunch).

I hear [eə̯ fuɐ̯] on the recording - the first vocalized /r/ seems to be more of a mid vowel than the second one. Let's not forget that uvular approximant realizations of /r/ that can be heard instead of [ɐ̯] after short vowels and the long /aː/ can sound awfully like [ə̯] as well.

Among the syllabic central vowels, the distinction between [ə] and [ɐ] is clearly phonemic (even if you consider the latter to be /ər/) and (to me) it's extremely audible in word-final positions. If you hear a central vowel that is open-mid or lower then you're hearing [ɐ]. If you hear a close-mid vowel approaching Polish /ɨ/ then the vowel is [ə]. To me this distinction was one of the easiest to learn.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> We need to distinguish between syllabic and non-syllabic vowels. The latter form diphthongs, which in German can be closing and centering. Among non-syllabic vowels there's just one central vowel which is conventionally written [ɐ̯], but the actual realization may be either [ɐ̯] (closer to /a/) or [ə̯] (closer to /ə/). This is backed up by _Podręcznik Wymowy Niemieckiej_ (2005). I suspect that the open-mid vowels [ɛ œ ɔ] are the most likely to form diphthongs with [ɐ̯], others can pair with either sound (this is just my hunch).


I can't follow you here. I would say, /ə/ and /ɐ/ are also well distinguished in diphthongs even though the discussion is a bit theoretical because there are indeed no strict minimal pairs. But there are some close minimal pairs like _er_=[eɐ̯] and _Ehe_=['e:.ə]. In rapid speech, ['e:.ə] gets rather close to a diphthong [eə], yet the distinguishablity from [eɐ̯] is never compromised.

Also some dialects have have retained the old _ie_-diphthong (which has become [i:] In Standard German): Swiss German had retained it as [iə] (e.g. in the toponym _Dietikon_) and Bavarian as [iɐ] (_siagst?_ = Standard German _siehst du?_). With my German ear, I would not consider these two diphthongs as interchangeable, although they are admittedly close.


----------



## 2wrbk

I'd expect the vowel in _er_ to be open-mid in rapid speech (though maybe not always when it's accented - then again, [ə̯] is probably more frequent in unaccented positions and when it's not word-final). This is actually what we hear in that recording of _er fur_ - it's [ɛə̯ ˈfuɐ̯]. I missed that detail the first time I heard the recording.

Here's what _Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch_ (p. 86) says about this (I guess they're speaking about both syllabic [ɐ] and non-syllabic [ɐ̯]):

_Die Mundöffnung richtet sich nach der Lautumgebung. Die Klangfarbe hängt ebenfalls von der Lautumgebung ab und schwankt vor allem zwischen _[a]_ und _[ɔ]_ bzw. zwischen _[a]_ und _[ə]_; auch Realisationen als _[əɐ̯]_ sind gebräuchlich._

The latest description is obviously about the syllabic [ɐ] but the rest seems to apply to both sounds.

I'm speaking only about (Northern) Standard German. I'm not claiming that Swiss German [iə] and Bavarian [iɐ] are the same, though I can assume that neither group of dialects distinguishes phonemic diphthongs that end in a mid schwa and those that end with an open schwa (actually, I don't know whether any language does that). I suppose you could write both of them as [iə] in broad transcription, as (at least according to the old definition of the symbol found in _the Principles of the IPA_) ə in IPA covers a huge central area from near-close to near-open. _The Principles_ recommend to use the symbol ɐ only when there's another contrastive schwa in the language (though, of course, there are additional factors that influence transcription such as the integrity of transcripton in Bavarian/German dialectology). I'm aware that _The Handbook of the IPA_ superseded _the Principles_ in 1999, but they're still very useful for certain purposes.

I wonder whether the Swiss would consider [iə] to be interchangeable with [iɐ] in their own dialects. We could be surprised with the responses. I also wonder whether the second element of Bavarian [iɐ] really always reaches [ɐ], especially when it appears in less stressed words in non-utterance-final positions.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> I'd expect the vowel in _er_ to be open-mid in rapid speech (though maybe not always when it's accented - then again, [ə̯] is probably more frequent in unaccented positions and when it's not word-final). This is actually what we hear in that recording of _er fur_ - it's [ɛə̯ ˈfuɐ̯]. I missed that detail the first time I heard the recording.


Well, we hear it differently. The distinction is subtle but it is there. When I produce [eə] and [eɐ] I notice that different muscles are involved. And somehow this must produce an audible difference. I have never tried to investigate this in an F1/F2 diagram or by similar means but from practical experience I can only tell you that the distinction is surprisingly stable given the narrowness of the vowels.


2wrbk said:


> I'm speaking only about (Northern) Standard German. I'm not claiming that Swiss German [iə] and Bavarian [iɐ] are the same


I gave evidence about *my* perception of the Bavarian and Swiss German diphthongs as a *northern standard speaker*. I was not speaking about either Swiss or Bavarian phonology and perception by speakers of those dialects. Of course, I might be prejudiced as I have studied the phonology of both dialect groups and I know what I "ought" to be hearing. But I consider it nevertheless relevant evidence.


----------



## 2wrbk

The key component of our disagreement might be vowel height. In the word-final position, Northern Standard German _e_-schwa is typically close-mid [ɘ], not mid (which can be used in other positions, as in _Beschlag_). I'm talking about the latter sound which you could narrowly transcribe as [ɘ̞] or [ɜ̝] (it could be very slightly more on the open-mid side, so maybe the latter transcription is better). I didn't want to claim that what is conventionally transcribed [eːɐ̯] and [eːə] merge. In fact, I don't know whether the [ɐ̯] component of the centering diphthongs ever reaches the close-mid height. Maybe sometimes it does when a speaker mispronounces a uvular approximant in [ɪʁ ʏʁ ʊʁ] as a bare non-syllabic vowel, though this is pure speculation. But I can certainly hear variation in vowel height on the recording.



berndf said:


> I gave evidence about my perception of the Bavarian and Swiss German diphthongs as a northern standard speaker. I was not speaking about either Swiss or Bavarian phonology and perception by speakers of those dialects. Of course, I might be prejudiced as I have studied the phonology of both dialect groups and I know what I "ought" to be hearing. But I consider it nevertheless relevant evidence.



That's fair enough. My mistake.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> But I can certainly hear variation in vowel height on the recording


That is quite possible. As there are only two reduced vowels in German, the space occupied by each of they is quite large. This is completely unscientific and just my gut feeling: If you draw a line through [ɤ] and a point half way between [ɜ] and [ɐ], then every unrounded, reduced vowel below this line is a /ɐ/ and every unrounded, reduced vowel above this line is a /ə/. It would be interesting for me if you can confirm this as a non-native speaker or if you have a different position of this phoneme border to suggest.


----------



## 2wrbk

That sounds reasonable - but, I still maintain that what we normally transcribe with [ɐ̯] has an additional variant that is close to or encroaches on the allophonic range of /ə/. The two may be close to merging but whether an actual merger occurs (as far as the phonetic quality is concerned anyway) is something that I can't say with any certainty.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> The two may be close to merging


I can't detect any tendency to merge the two whatsoever.


----------



## 2wrbk

I mean that when [ɐ̯] is phonetically more mid than open (but still central) then it may be qualitatively close to /ə/. How frequent is that? That's another question. I've certainly heard this from many speakers so this can't be a purely idiolectal issue.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> I mean that when [ɐ̯] is phonetically more mid than open (but still central) then it may be qualitatively close to /ə/. How frequent is that? That's another question. I've certainly heard this from many speakers so this can't be a purely idiolectal issue


I don't think it occurs. An /ɐ̯/ can be "more mid" but then it isn't central any more and the phonemic separation remains uncompromised.


----------



## 2wrbk

So we do hear it differently after all


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> So we do hear it differently after all


That has been my point all the time: You ear seems not to be adjusted to how native speakers differentiate between the two phonemes. For a production point of view, the difference is that for /ɐ/ the muscles in the back of the lower jaw are completely relaxed while for /ə/ the back of the lower jaw is slightly pulled up. This not only raises the vowel but also fronts it. The /ə/ could be described as a reduces [e] and the /ɐ/ as a reduced vowel somewhere between [ɑ] and [ʌ]. The division line between /ɐ/ and /ə/ does not cross the corridor of centrality in a horizontal line but in a tilted line: Back-central reduced vowels can be lower to count as /ɐ/ and front central reduced vowels must be higher to count as /ɐ/. The question is whether it is closer in distance to [ɑ] or to [e].


----------



## elroy

AnnaJDT said:


> So I was expecting, maybe, [ʃɛɐ̯ts] ??





berndf said:


> This pronunciation exists. It is just less likely in a consonant cluster than at the end of a syllable, like in _Er-folg_.


 I think that’s the _only_ pronunciation I’ve ever heard.


----------



## berndf

elroy said:


> I think that’s the _only_ pronunciation I’ve ever heard.


2x Erfolg = [ɛʁ̞ˈfɔlk]
Viel Erfolg = [fiːl ɛɐ̯ˈfɔlk]

Not a representative sample but the distribution seems reasonable to me.


----------



## elroy

berndf said:


> 2x Erfolg = [ɛʁˈfɔlk]


 I don’t hear [ʁ] in either.


----------



## berndf

No?

I've cut out the [ʁ̞] of the second sample (where it was stronger) and concatenated it 6x (click). You didn't hear that brief grinding sound? Maybe it was too short or your speakers aren't good enough.


----------



## 2wrbk

berndf said:


> That has been my point all the time: You ear seems not to be adjusted to how native speakers differentiate between the two phonemes.


I find it a bit strange that you keep not distinguishing between the syllabic [ɐ] and the non-syllabic [ɐ̯]. They're not the same thing, neither from the phonological perspective nor from the phonetic one (at least in terms of duration - the latter is shorter). That's been _my_ point (or one of them anyway) all the time.

The first one may be counted as a phoneme that contrasts with /ə/ or as a phonetic realization of the sequence /ər/. Either analysis is fine. This transcription can be further simplified to /ɛ/ (in the case of the mid schwa) and /ɛr/ (in the case of the open schwa) if you consider the mid schwa to be a mere allophone of the /ɛ/. That is also fine and I'm sure that all of these analyses can be found in the literature.

But, to the best of my knowledge, [ɐ̯] (note the phonetic brackets) is always analyzed as being /r/, phonemically distinct from [ə] (/ə/ or /ɛ/) and [ɐ] (/ɐ/, /ər/ or /ɛr/). It doesn't matter whether you write _Mutter_ as /ˈmʊtɐ/, /ˈmʊtər/ or /ˈmʊtɛr/ when _mehr_ has to be written /meːr/, not */meːɐ̯/ because [ɐ̯] occurs in a complementary distribution with [r] (which here denotes any type of a consonantal [r] - alveolar, velar, uvular, etc.) and therefore belongs to the same phoneme (/r/). Now, you can say that this is cherry picking - it's not. The fact that there's only one type of centering diphthongs in Standard German means that there are no contrastive central diphthong offsets of mid and open height. The phonemic contrast between /ə/ and /ɐ/ is not only a different thing but is simply nonexistent in this context. [ɐ̯] is a product of the vocalization of the historic [r] that occured immediately after vowels.

The way I see it, <ɐ̯> is nothing more than a conventional way of writing the vocalized non-syllabic /r/. It doesn't mean that the vowel is always [ɐ̯] and it also doesn't mean that it can't be [ə̯].

I hope I'm not making myself sound like a broken record. I'll just say that much of what I've written before in this thread still stands.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> I find it a bit strange that you keep not distinguishing between the syllabic [ɐ] and the non-syllabic [ɐ̯].


Because I think that there is no serious difference. You write [ɐ] after a consonant and [ɐ̯] vowel. The only way it matters is that there is a gradual shift from [ʁ̞] to [ɐ̯] while [ɐ] vs. [ɛʁ]~[ɛr] is a black or white issue. But with respect to the difference between [ə] and [ɐ]/[ɐ̯], I don't see any relevance.



2wrbk said:


> It doesn't mean that the vowel is always [ɐ̯] and it also doesn't mean that it can't be [ə̯].


Well, it just isn't. Wherever you have borders you have border cases but in vast majority of cases the qualitative separation is sufficiently clear.
The much bigger difficulty is to separate [a] and [ɐ̯]. For the vast majority of speakers, [aɐ̯] merges to [a:], e.g., merging words like _Fahne_ and _Farne_.


----------



## 2wrbk

Central vowels in Standard German are probably an underresearched area. I think that there's no point in continuing this discussion unless either of us provides sources to back up what we're saying.

I still trust my ears 



berndf said:


> Well, it just isn't. Wherever you have borders you have border cases but in vast majority of cases the qualitative separation is sufficiently clear.


But separation between what? There are no contrastive non-syllabic central vowels in SG.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> But separation between what? There are no contrastive non-syllabic central vowels in SG.


You sometimes hear non-native speakers pronounce Tier like [ti(ː)ə] rather than [ti(ː)ɐ̯]. I can only tell you it sounds awfully wrong. There are also some dialects where this happens and it sticks out like a sore thumb.


----------



## 2wrbk

I wouldn't expect the [ə̯] variant to occur in utterance-final positions in SG. I consider it to be a (probably more or less occasional) reduced form of [ɐ̯], much like [n̩] is a reduced form of [ən] (though it's probably more common than using [ə̯] for [ɐ̯]). There's also the issue of broadness of transcription: word-final mid schwas aren't really [ə] but something closer to [ɨ̞] or at least [ɘ]. So even if you raise [ɐ̯] to [ə̯], it is still different from the word-final variant of /ə/ because it's lower (mid rather than close-mid) and shorter.

As I've said - this issue needs further research. The fact that even pronunciation dictionaries don't cover it with sufficient depth doesn't reflect good on them.


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> word-final mid schwas aren't really [ə] but something closer to [ɨ̞] or at least [ɘ].


Yes, contrary to English, the two are not distinguished in German.


2wrbk said:


> I consider it to be a (probably more or less occasional) reduced form of [ɐ̯]


Can you give an example?


----------



## berndf

2wrbk said:


> I consider it to be a (probably more or less occasional) reduced form of [ɐ̯]





berndf said:


> Can you give an example?


I have done a bit of thinking where this could happen. Do you maybe mean -er in unstressed prefix syllables, like in _v*er*loren_? That would be correct; this can become an_ e_-Schwa. It is even Siebs pronunciation. I don't say it like this and therefore I didn't think of it. My daughter, who is studying drama and has to learn Siebs pronunciation, reminded me of that.


----------



## Dymn

Let me get this straight. There are three types :

At onset position (or as a liquid) it's always consonantic and there are mainly two types of Rs: a French-like uvular /ʁ/ which is the most common sound nowadays, and an Italian-like alveolar /r/ which is to be found in Austria (though decreasingly), Bavaria and Switzerland.
At the end of a word (e.g. _seh*r*_) or prefix (e.g. _ve*r*lieren*_) or in post-tonic position (e.g. _Bay*er*n_), it's an A-schwa (a vocalic /ɐ/ in unstressed _-er-_, a semivocalic /ɐ̯/ elsewhere). A consonantic pronunciation in this context is rare except for Switzerland (?).
In other coda-contexts (e.g. _A*r*m, Sche*r*z_), it's pronounced as a consonant (either /ʁ/ or /r/) in Southern Germany, Switzerland and Austria, while there's vacillation between a consonantic /ʁ/ and a semivocalic /ɐ̯/ in Central and Northern Germany.
Some more questions:

I'm not sure about prefixes (especially inseparable prefixes such as _er-, ver-, zer-_...). Is it possible that they should be place in a category between 2. and 3.?
How exactly does /ɐ̯/ interact with previous vowels? Most of the times, I can't hear it properly and I just hear the previous vowel lengthened. I guess this makes sense for */aɐ/ > /aː/ but what about other vowels? For example in this audio for _Scho*r*nstein_ all I can hear is /ˈʃɔːnˌʃtaɪ̯n/, I can't even be sure he's not using an uvular r.


----------



## berndf

Dymn said:


> and an Italian-like alveolar /r/ which is to be found in Austria (though decreasingly), Bavaria and Switzerland.


That is way to simplistic. The map of regions where one or the other is spoken looks like a quilt. It also depends on the age of the speaker, social group and if he lives in an urban or rural environment.


----------



## Dymn

You're right, I shouldn't have simplified it so much, although it's more common in the south than in the north. How likely are you to find the alveolar r in Central and Northern Germany?


----------



## Frank78

Dymn said:


> How likely are you to find the alveolar r in Central and Northern Germany?



They are non-existant. I can't even pronounce it despite I theoretically know how it's done.


----------



## berndf

Frank78 said:


> They are non-existant. I can't even pronounce it despite I theoretically know how it's done.


That is not true. There are e.g. parts of Hesse (Central Germany) that have it and in all areas where Low German (Northern Germany) is still alive it is heard regularly because Low German has it. But in urban areas it is indeed largely extinct. That I agree with..


----------



## Thersites

The problem is that there is no such thing as a German language. There are only German dialects. They are united by an artificial written and spoken High German, that is very close to some dialects (Hannover) and very far from others (Bavaria, Northern Germany, Switzerland, Austria). I think that most would agree that in classic High German and the dialects closest to it, the "r" is generally not "rolled".


----------



## Frieder

I agree but I don't like the expression _High German _in this context. I'd rather use _Standard German_. Hochdeutsch originated in the middle and south of Germany consisting of Mitteldeutsch and Oberdeutsch.



berndf said:


> in all areas where Low German (Northern Germany) is still alive it is heard regularly



I can confirm that. My grandmother rolled the *r* in a unique way – almost like the Czech _*ř*_ . She was from Scharnebeck.


----------



## merquiades

I had a colleague from Münster. She usually had an uvular r but in an intervocalic context, for example in a word like "studieren" , she'd sometimes roll it ever so slightly in the front of the mouth, similar to Spanish/Italian "cara". It sounded classy to me.


----------

