International Journal of Linguistics and Communication

March 2014, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 45-65

ISSN: 2372-479X (Print), 2372-4803(Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). 2014. All Rights Reserved.
American Research Institute for Policy Development
42 Monticello Street, New York, NY 12701, USA.
Phone: 1.347.757.4901 Website: www.aripd.org/ijlc

Is Bulgarian Language Losing Its Alveodental Consonant [l]?

Gergana Padareva-Ilieva1 and Sofiya Mitsova2

Abstract

This paper considers an increasingly dominating articulation of the alveodental

consonant [l] as [ŭ] in Bulgarian. This problem is rarely discussed in Bulgarian
linguistic literature. Until this moment there are not any experimental researches
proving the statement of the expansiveness of this articulation. The aim of this
preliminary study is to find out if the real number of people pronouncing [l] as [ŭ] is
as big as we assume and to define the word position in which this articulation
usually occurs. The results of the experiment prove our assumption and a deeper
analysis shows that the process which has started in Bulgarian will probably deepen,
following the tendency in other Slavic languages, as Polish, Byelorussian, Slovenian
etc. where this articulation is standardized.

Keywords:incorrect articulation, alveodental consonant [l], spelling problems,

semantics

1. Introduction

This paper is based upon our previous observations over the articulatory
tendencies of the alveodentallaminalconsonant [l] in contemporary Bulgarian speech
(Padareva-Ilieva and Mitsova, 2012). The correct articulation of the consonant [l]
includes both a constriction and aclosure in the oral cavity. The bladeof the tongue is
placed close to the alveolar ridge and the upper teeth obstructing the air passage.

1PhD;Department of Bulgarian Language, Faculty of Philology, South-West University “NeofitRilski”,

Blagoevgrad 2700, Bulgaria, E-mail:[email protected]
2PhD; Department of Bulgarian Language, Faculty of Philology, South-West University “NeofitRilski”,

Blagoevgrad 2700, Bulgaria, E-mail:[email protected]

46 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

This closure does not allow the air stream to pass the centerline in the oral
cavity – from the vocal folds to the lips. Consequently, the expiratory airstream can
pass only around both sides of the tongue because of the lateral openings within the
oral cavity. [l]is the only lateral consonant in Bulgarian language.This correct
articulation has been in a process of fading during the past three decades. It is
changing towards the articulation of [ŭ] (in IPA – [w], indicated in Bulgarian linguistic
literature as ў). Typical for this incorrect articulation is the participation of lips (lips
spreading round) and the tongue blade does not create an alveodental closure, but it is
loosened behind the bottom teeth as in the articulation of high back vowel [u]. The
result is [ŭ].

Some Bulgarian linguists (Naydenova, 1998; Murdarov, 2003) define this

production of [ŭ] instead of [l] as “a new one” or “mannered”. Probably it was new or
mannered as a typical feature of youth slang in the last decades of the previous
century. Nowadays this articulation is too expansive and deserves special attention
because of the following two factors – influence upon spelling and semantics. It
occurs that the presented pronunciation appears to be a problem for
Bulgarianteachers of Englishand also for learners of Bulgarian as a foreign language.

The truth is that young people including students in Linguistics are even
surprised by the fact that this is not a correct articulation. In addition, the new
Bulgarian media speech enforces the process. This articulation is inherent in Bulgarian
public culture in general (radio and TV programmes, advertising industry and shows).
Some Bulgarians, mostly highly educated, have noticed this problem and satirize its
pronunciation by consciously using letter у (Bulgarian alphabet) instead of л(Bulgarian
alphabet)when writing their posts in internet forums.

Many Bulgarian linguists (Stoykov, 1956;Kochev, 2007;Tsonev, 2008;Burov,

2012) consider this articulation as a dialect characteristic. They claim that its origin is
velar allophone of [l] which is very typical for most Bulgarian dialects especially those
spoken in the south-western part of the country.

In this paper we argue this position and do not classify it as a dialect feature
but as an expansive incorrect pronunciation throughout the country with
corresponding consequences in the spelling, semantics and phonetic system of
Bulgarian language.
Ilieva & Mitsova 47

2. Previous Studies

The discussed problem has been studied in two aspects in Bulgarian linguistic
literature – as a dialect feature (Selishchev, 1929; Stoykov, 1956, 1962; Holiolchev
1974; Zhobov, 2004; Stoilov et al. 1993; Kochev, 2007)and as a new articulatory
pattern(Holiolchev, 1974; Naydenova, 1998; Murdarov, 2001, 2003;Zhobov, 2004;
Padareva, 2009; Padareva-Ilieva and Mitsova, 2012).

This phenomenon is also observed in other Slavic languages (Merkù, 1983,

Kurjan, 1998, Chepar, 2011, Albul, Soroka, 2012).

2.1.[ŭ] as a dialect feature in Bulgarian

Stoykov(1956)first noticeda “new” phonetic change – [l] > [ŭ] – at the end of
the word and in a position before a consonant in one of the Bulgarian central dialects
– chuvaŭ;daŭand voŭк. Zhobov(2004) refers to Selishchev (1929) who pointed out
the same pronunciation in the same word position which is a specific feature of a
dialect region beyond the West Bulgarian bordernowadays.

Stoilov(1993) argues that in South-Western dialects the consonant [l] is often

pronounced as [u] in a position before central [a] and[ɜ] and before back vowels [o]
and [u] –kuatyavs. klatya; suatkovs. sladko. The same paper (Stoilov&Georgieva,
1993)claims that this is a speech anomaly which constantly expands.

Kochev(2007) considers [ŭ] as a semi-vowel, one of the final phases of

intensification process for non-palatalization.

Burov (2012) notes two variants of articulation – labiovelar [l] which is close
to [ŭ] in the western part of Bulgaria and the traditional alveodental [l] in Eastern and
Central Bulgaria. This pronunciation is distinctive for the standard Bulgarian language.

2.2.[ŭ] as a new Articulatory Pattern

Holiolchev (1974) noticed that this specific articulation of [l] as [ŭ] expands
quickly among young people outside the dialectal areas.
48 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

Holiolchev even ascertains the existence of a phonetic homonymy between

the variants [l] and [ŭ] in the linguistic consciousness of teenagers. Naydenova (1998)
defines the articulation of [ŭ] instead of [l] as a “phonetic deformation”.

According to certain contemporary linguists (Naydenova, 1998; Zhobov,

2004) there is a transition process of the lateral consonant [l] to [ŭ] among young
people under 30 years of age. Zhobov (2004) observes that just 10 – 15 % of his
students pronounce the consonant [l] correctly. Murdarov (2003) and Naydenova
(1998) outline that the logical result of the [l] >[ŭ] transition is the standardization of
this defective pronunciation as an official one.

It is interesting how a foreigner discusses this topic. Soroka (2013) has noticed
that according to [l] pronunciation Bulgarians could be divided into three groups:

1) People in and over their 40s who pronounce the standard alveodental[l].
2) People in their 30s who can articulate the standard [l], but unconsciously
produce [ŭ].
3) Young people, who almost do not make difference between [l] and [ŭ]. They
usually pronounce [ŭ].

She has noted that her students who are foreigners studying Bulgarian do not
understand the meaning of the Bulgarian words when pronounced with [ŭ] instead of
[l]. On the other hand, she has observed spelling mistakes made by Bulgarian students
learning Ukrainian. They write the letter l instead of letter v, which presents the non-
sonorant [ŭ]. According to Soroka (2013) the process which concerns the articulation
of [l] or [ŭ] is very dynamic and presently the two sounds are in a struggle. She
supposes that this non-standard allophone of [l] will be standardized in several years
(Soroka, 2013: 120).

2.3.The Phenomenon in other Slavic Languages

As we have already mentioned above this is not a new phenomenon in other

Slavic languages. A similar pronunciation is a standardized one in Polish even in the
same morphophonemic positions (at the syllable onset, before non-palatal
consonants, before rounded vowels and at syllable coda) (Naydenova, 1998). Other
Slavic languages as Slovenianare also familiar with the discussed problem.
Ilieva & Mitsova 49

Chepar (2011) affirms this articulation type as typical in Slovenian, in contrast

to the official norm in Bulgarian language. This similar process, already completed in
Serbian language, leads to the phonetic transition of the consonant [l] to the vowel [o]
at the same end of the word [bel–beo]. It is also noted that the same process is
current in Ukrainian language, but the linguistic interests towards it are still not
extended enough (Albul&Soroka, 2012).

However, the process in most of these countries has begun long before it
started in Bulgaria. Merkù(1983) refers on Ramovš(1924) who pointed out that this
phenomenon in Slovenian had begun in XIVth century. It is noticed that in
manuscripts of this period the phone is presented as either ł or u. In a paper devoted
on V. OblakKurjan(1998) states that for centuries the pronunciation of [ŭ] as a variant
of [ł] in Slovenian is not marked in manuscripts if we do not take into consideration
its articulatory description. This tradition is actually kept in some Slavic languages
nowadays. Yet in Bulgarian there still is not a special grapheme for this sound (for
example the grapheme in Polish is ł). It is important to point out that this problem is
noticed but a real discussion is not raised yet. In other Slavic languages discussions of
the type are held much earlier. That is the reason why the different articulation of [l]
in some of these languages is now an authorized literary form.

3. Theoretical framework. The nature of consonant [l] and its allophones in

Bulgarian

It is important to mention that alveodental [l] as the only lateral consonant in

Bulgarian has two main allophones (rounded [lw] in a position before the rounded
vowels [o], [u] and palatal [lj] before front unrounded vowels [i], [e]) and a palatal
correlate in a position before central and back vowels [ɑ], [ɜ], [o], [u].

[lw] is a result of an assimilation process. This allophone is influenced by the

following rounded sounds which induce pronunciation of [l] with lips rounded.
During this co-articulation process the consonant [l] does not lose its closure between
alveolar ridge and the upper teeth ([lwu`nɑ], [lwuk]).
50 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

In standard Bulgarian there is a palatal pronunciation when [l] is in a position

before front vowels [i] and [e], e.g. ([ljen], [lji`lɑf]). However, this allophone differs
from the palatal correlate which appears only before central and back vowels ([ljut],
[ljɑf]).

The discussed pronunciation (articulation of [l] as [ŭ]) is not identical with the
labial [lw] before rounded vowels [o], [u], although it may occur in this position as well.
The difference lies in the presence of a closure in the oral cavity pronouncing [lw] and
its absence when producing [ŭ]. So in this paper we discuss the [ŭ] pronunciation and
its variants in all other in-word positions except the position before front vowels. The
reason why we omit discussing the position before front vowels is that people who
produce [ŭ] instead of [l] pronounce [lj] before [e], [i] correctly.

4. Empirical Observations

4.1. Spelling problems

The expanding pronunciation of [l] as [ŭ] induces confusion of those two sounds.
That is why some spelling problems in words containing letters л<l>or у<u>have
been indicatedrecently. Low educated people and especially young people confuse
these two letters.

Алдитория/аудитория,Константинопоу/Константинопол,палза/пауза,
Уксор/Луксор, Халс/Хаус, валчер/ваучер

alditoriyavs.auditoriya;Konstantinopouvs.Konstantinopol; plaza vs.pauza;Uxor vs.

Luxor;Hals vs. Haus;valtchervs.vautcher

4.2. Semantic Confusion

Subjects of special interest for us are those examples in which the semantics
of the word is changed as a result of incorrect articulation of [l] as [ŭ](Padareva, 2009).
That is because if an incorrect articulation does not lead to a communicative
confusion, it will not be an object of linguistic interests. Thus the problem enlarges
and does not concern just a defective pronunciation. Practically the confusion of
[l]/[u]leads to homophony. The following examples illustrate our statement that even
the context sometimes fails to determine which word it is exactly.
Ilieva & Mitsova 51

We think it is appropriate to add the English translation of these examples for

to prove our statement that the incorrect articulation of the discussed phone changes
the meaning of the whole statement.

alt–aut;contralto – out
Tazipevitsa e alt./Tazipevitsa e aut.
This singer is contralto./ This singer is out.
poluchavam–pouchavam; To receive – to lecture
Toy znaesamo da poluchava./Toy znaesamo da pouchava.
He wants only to receive./He wants only to lecture.
lobiram –obiram;to lobby – to rob
Otkaktozaetozi post, se nauchisamo da lobira./Otkaktozaetozi post, se
nauchisamo da obira.
Since he held that post he has learnt to do everything but to lobby./ Since he
held that post he has learnt to do everything but to rob.
bluza–buza;a blouse – a cheek
Zhenatasassinyatabluza./Zhenatasassinyatabuza.
The woman in the blue blouse./The woman with a blue cheek.
bluden–buden; profligate – intelligent
Dneshnatabludnamladezh.../Dneshnatabudnamladezh ...
The profligate young people of today./The intelligent young people of
today…

4.3. Problems with foreign language studying and Bulgarian language studying

English language teachers in Bulgaria have also indicated this problem. The
reason is that ŭhas a similar pronunciation with the English approximant [w]. The
semantic problem arises here again in examples such as wife– life, why – lie, white – light,
walk – lock.

We find the same situation in some loanwords in Bulgarian from English.

уан/ лан, уот/ лот, РоусРойс/РолсРойс
ŭanvs. lan, ŭotvs. lot; RoŭsRoisvs.RolsRois

Foreigners studying Bulgarian are confused because the standard form of [l]
which they are taught occurs to be different from the one in everyday speech.
52 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

4.4. The articulation of [l] as [ŭ] in media speech and the discussion of the problem in
the Internet

It was in 1974 when Holiolchev (1974) mentioned that some Bulgarian

journalists in Radio Sofia pronounced incorrect [l] as [ŭ]. However, nobody took this
note into account. And as a result nothing is done to correct this defective
pronunciation.

One of our graduate students carried out a survey of Bulgarian media speech
and Internet forums in 2013. She found out that [ŭ] instead of [l] can be heard in
media all over the country. It proves our assumption that this articulation expands
and is not limited to particular areas and speech situations.

Although most people do not pronounce [l] correctly, they notice the
incorrect pronunciation and discuss it in their posts in the Internet forums, and this
fact is very interesting. Some of the opinions concerning the [l] as [ŭ] articulation are
really conversant. In fact, there are two points of view. The first one tries to affirm
that this is not a speech defect but a speech tendency. The second one, on the
contrary, states that this is a problem requiring speech therapy. There is another group
of Internet users who are too extreme or they just ascertain or survey particular cases.
Some of them belittle this problem claiming that this pronunciation does not affect
communication. Others claim that it is a question of time for Bulgarian language to
lose the consonant [l].

5. Aim of Study

The aim of this paper is neither to locate this kind of articulation as a

particular dialect feature, nor to specify its place in historical vowel-consonant
tendencies in Bulgarian. We aim to ascertain it as an incorrect pronunciation
according to the official language norm. We claim that this is an expansive articulatory
phenomenon.

In order to prove this claim we performed an experiment with two main

goals.
1. To find out if the real number of people pronouncing [l] as [ŭ] is as big as
we assume.
Ilieva & Mitsova 53

2. To define the in-word positions in which this articulation usually occurs.

6. Participants

30 randomly selected students studying Linguistics or Logopedy participated

in this experiment. We have chosen them by these particular subjects of study because
of the assumption that their pronunciation should be largely in accordance with the
official language norm.

7. Recording Procedures

The participants were asked to read 5 sentences containing words with

different in-word positions of [l]. Every single informant was recorded on a separate
audio file by using an USB microphoneon Praat software (Boersma&Weenick, 2010).

After the recordings an auditive analysis was carried out independently by two
linguists, specialists in Phonetics and Sociolinguistics. Every recorded audio file was
audited repeatedly as special attention to the words containing the consonant [l] has
been paid. The aim was to specify if the pronounced sound is [l] or [ŭ].

8. Corpus of the Study

Five sentences in Bulgarian containing words with different in-word positions

of [l]were used in the experiment. The reason why we did not use just words but
sentences was our aim to get close to spontaneous speech. We suppose that if the
informants were to pronounce separate words they would be rather careful in
articulation.

The observed positions of [l] are the following:

In a position between mid-vowel [ɑ], [ɜ] and alveolar consonant [n] and [t] (vǎlneniya,
kategorialnata, ekzaltiranata).
In between rounded vowels [o], [u] (pulover, poluchava).
In a position between bilabial consonant [b], [p] and rounded vowel [o], [u] (bluza,
aplodirani).
In a positionbetween rounded vowel [o] and velar consonant [k] (tolkova, nyakolko).
54 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

In a position betweenalveodental consonant [s] and mid-vowel [a] (sladka).

In a position betweenalveodental consonant [s] and rounded vowel [o]
(slovosǎtchetaniya).
In a position between velar consonant [g] and mid-vowel [ɑ] (glavnata).

Sentences:

Kogatobesheoblechena s vǎlneniyapulover, ne mi haresvashe, no s

tazisinyabluzasitolkovasladka.
Sporedkategirialnataprinadlezhnostnaglavnatachastrazlichavamenyakolkovidaslovosachetani
ya.
Vsichkispechelilinagradata, vlyazoha v golyamatauniversitetskaauditoriya
ibyahaburnoaplodiraniotekzaltiranatapublika.
Pevitsata, koyatoimashealtovglas, be autotgolyamatastsenazaradi problem s
glasovitevrǎzky.
Otkaktozapochna da se zanimava s politika, toy se nauchisamo da lobira i da
poluchavakomisionni.

9. Results

According to the previously marked aims of the study the results will be
announced in the same order: 1. Number of people pronouncing [l] as [ŭ], and 2.The
positions in which the articulation of [l] as [ŭ] usually occurs.It is interesting to
mention that during the auditive analysis we found that many participants produced
another sound except [l] and [ŭ] – similar to [ɯ] (high unrounded back vowel) which
is close to [ŭ] in articulation, but with lips unrounded.

9.1. Number of people pronouncing [l] as [ŭ]

We have found out that none of the participants produces [l] in all
investigated word positions. It confirms our statement that this articulation process
(i.e. transition of [l] to [ŭ]) is too expansive nowadays. 9 of all 30 participants do not
produce the correct [l] in any word. Only 2 participants pronounce l correctly, but
only in half of the experimental words – the participants№12 and №30. 28
participants do not pronounce [l] in over 60% of the given words. Moreover, 3
informants never produce [l], but [ŭ] in 13 words and [ɯ] in one word (The frequency
distribution of the three sounds for each participant is presented in Table 1A/B.
Ilieva & Mitsova 55

The percentage distribution of the three sounds for each participant is

presented in Table 2A/B and Diagram 1).

9.2. Positions in which the articulation of [l] as [ŭ] usually occurs

The following conclusions were made after the auditive analysis. The collected
results for each in-word position in the corresponding words will be presented.

1. In a position between mid-vowel [a] [ɜ] and alveolar consonant [n] and [t].

– vǎlneniya– 11 [ŭ], 18[ɯ], 1 [l]. We have already noticed this other variant which
appears instead of [ŭ]. It is close to the unrounded high vowel [ɯ], similar to the
presented [ŭ], but with lips loose as they are when articulating [ә].
– kategorialnata – 9 [ŭ], 17 [ɯ], 4 [l]
– ekzaltiranata–1[ŭ], 7 [ɯ], 22 [l]
– altov – 28 [ŭ], 2[l]
2. In between rounded vowels [o], [u].
– pulover – 27[ŭ], 3 [l]
– poluchava– 23 [ŭ], 7 [l]
3. In a position between bilabial consonant [b], [p] and rounded vowel [o], [u]
– bluza – 29 [ŭ], 1 [l]
– aplodirani – 30 [ŭ]
4. In a position between rounded vowel [o] and velar consonant [k].
– tolkova – 30 [ŭ]
– nyakolko – 30 [ŭ]
5. In a position betweenalveodental consonant [s] and mid-vowel [ɑ].
– sladka– 25 [ŭ], 5 [l]
6. In a position betweenalveodental consonant [s] and rounded vowel [o].
– slovosǎchetaniya – 28 [ŭ], 2 [l]
7. In a position between velar consonant [g] and mid-vowel [ɑ].
– glavnata – 24 [ŭ], 3 [ɯ], 3 [l]
– glas – 23[ŭ], 7 [l]
56 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

The frequency distribution of the three sounds for each word is presented in
Table 3A/B. The positions are numbered as they are above. The percentage
distribution of the three sounds for each word is presented in Table 4A/B and
Diagram 2.

10. Analyses

Itis obvious that the frequency and the percentage distribution of some words
are similar. So, based on the provided results we could divide the words into groups
according to thatsimilar distribution. Practically these groups form the seven positions
mentioned above. It means prima faci that the word position of l indicates its
pronunciation as [l], [ŭ], or [ɯ]. But a deeper analysis shows that the position, as we
marked it, is not the only determinant of the pronunciation. Actually the particular
neighboring sound segment is the one which determines the pronunciation.

Group 1.In a position between mid-vowel [ɑ, ɜ] and alveolar consonant [n] and [t].
Both consonants [n] and [t] are alveolar, but according to Bulgarian consonant
system [t] is actually alveodental and [n] is alveolar in location, but nasal by manner.
So the reason why these two consonants are a part of one and the same group is that
they are both alveolar.The two wordsvǎlneniya and kategorialnata have almost similar
frequency distribution.Ekzaltiranata, which is a part of the same group according to
the position of [l], has completely different frequency distribution, because of the
neighbouringalveodental consonant [t], since [l], as we have mentioned already, has to
be produced normally with an alveodental closure. So we ascertain that [l] is produced
correctly when it is close to a consonant with the same location of articulation as is [t].
And when the neighbouring sound is different by location it tends to become [ŭ] or
[ɯ] according to the principle of economy which governs the co-articulation.

The same position of [l] as in ekzaltiranata has another word altov. It is obvious
that the results for ekzaltiranataand altov are quite the opposite. We suggest that the
reason for these contradictory results should be the different place of the word stress.
The word stress in altov is on the first syllable /al-/ which contains l as coda. In
ekzaltiranata the word stress is on the third syllable, in a position after [l]. So the stress
location is probably the factor that influences a diphthongization of the first syllable
as /aŭ-/.
Ilieva & Mitsova 57

Group 2.In a position between rounded vowels [o], [u].

Both words pulover and poluchava receive almost the same frequency
distribution which is logical. According to the economy principle when [l] is in
between two rounded vowels it requires additional articulatory effort so as to be
produced as alveodental unrounded [l]. It is much easier to articulate [ŭ] in this
position.

Group 3.In a position between bilabial consonant [b], [p] and rounded vowel [o], [u].

The frequency distribution for bluza and aplodirani confirms the previous
conclusion.

Group 4.In a position between rounded vowel [o] and velar consonant [k].

It is interesting to mention here that this is the only position with such
indisputable results. All participants produce [l] as [ŭ] in this position. For this
example we assume that the assimilation is regressive. It means that the precedent
sound is responsible for the pronunciation of [l] as [ŭ].

Group 5.In a position betweenalveodental consonant [s] and mid-vowel [ɑ].

We suppose that in sladka the stress on the first syllable which includes -l- is
the reason for the preponderance of [ŭ] over [l] (see the analysis for Group 1). The
probable reason for the presence of 5 unarguable [l] pronunciations is the preceding
alveodental consonant [s].

Group 6.In a position betweenalveodental consonant [s] and rounded vowel [o].

It appears that in examples such as slovosǎchetaniya the next rounded vowel is a

more powerful factor for the occurrence of [ŭ] than the position of the word stress.

Group 7.In a position between velar consonant [g] and mid-vowel [ɑ].

We have placed the words glavnata and glas in the same group by the same
position of [l] although the frequency distribution is not equal but similar.
58 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

The biggest distribution of [ŭ] confirms our suggestion for Group 1. We have
noticed that in the one-syllable word glas [l] is pronounced usually as [ŭ] contrary to its
derivative polysyllable word glasovite.

11. Conclusions

According to the aims of the paper and the provided results we can draw
these three conclusions.

Diagram 2 shows the percentage distribution of the three sounds for every word.

1. 30 % of the participants never produce l and 93% of them produce [ŭ] and [ɯ]
in over 75% of the words. Just 6.7% of the participants (2 participants)
produce [l] correctly in 50% and 57% of the words respectively.
2. The word ekzaltiranata (position of [l] after mid-vowel [ɑ] and in front of
alveodental consonant [t]) is produced most correctly – 73.3% of the
participants. The other 13 words are produced correctly between 3% and
23.3%. In three of the words (aplodirani, tolkova, nyakolko – position of [l]
after labial consonant/ rounded vowel and in front of rounded vowel) 100% of
the participants produce [ŭ] instead of [l].
3. Beyond our aims we have found out that another sound appears instead of [l]
and [ŭ]. This is the sound [ɯ] (the articulation of which is the same as [ŭ], but
with unrounded lips).

12. Discussions

1. We suppose that the articulatory habits of the informants (all of them under 25
years of age) influence the pronunciation. This is one of the possible reasons for
the insignificant number of participants who pronounce [l] correctly.
2. We have mentioned three cases of over-articulation of normative [l]. According
to Farnetani and Recasens (1999: 34) “when the communicative situation
requires a high degree of phonetic precision, speakers are able to over-articulate;
when this is not needed speakers tend to under-articulate and economize
energy.”. We suppose that some informants realize their abnormal articulation
of [l] as [ŭ] and even correct themselves sometimes when the communicative
situation requires the normative pronunciation.
Ilieva & Mitsova 59

3. The original aims of the paper are to point out the word positions where [ŭ]
occurs most often and the real number of people who do not pronounce [l]
correctly. Analysing the results we have found out another sound [ɯ] which
appears instead of [l] and which is not actually [ŭ].

The three discussed topics here could be explored in further analyses and
experiments which will reveal more details concerning the pronunciation of [l] and the
dynamics of the phenomenon.

It was found that this problem is in fact profound and deserves much more
linguistic attention than it has received until now.
60 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

References

Albul,O.&Soroka,O.(2012).Viyavimovnoymodisuchasnomubolgarskomumovnomudiskursi.In
Zarva, V. A. (Ed.),Materialimizhnorodnogonaukovo-metodichnogoseminaru z
bolgarskoymovi, literature, kulturi ta istoriy (pp. 27-31).Berdyansk.
Boersma&Weenick, (2010), Praat: Doing phonetics by computer, Version 5.0.38.
http://www.praat.org.
Burov, S.(2013).Zadvenorminabǎlgarskataustnaknizhovnarech (Predvaritelnibelezhki). In
Ilieva, M. (Ed.), Problemi na ustnata komunikatsiya (pp. 42-74), Veliko Tǎrnovo.
Chepar, M.(2011). Pǎrvibǎlgarsko-slovenskirazgovornik (retsenziya).Bǎlgarskarech, 1, 63-66.
Farnetani Е., Recasens D. (1999).Coarticulation models in recent speech production theories.
In Hardcastle W. J.&HewlettN. (Eds.), Coarticulation: Theory, Data and Techniques
(pp. 31-68). NY:Cambridge university press.
Holiolchev Hr.(1974). Zarechtanagovoritelite, redaktorite, reportyorite i korespondentitena
radio Sofia. InAndreychin L. (Ed.), Probleminabǎlgarskataknizhovnarech (pp.30-37).
Sofiya.
Kurjan, I. (1998). TezisOblakayazaykavomdualizme i vopros o
pervompismenomsvidetelstveproiznosheniyaslavyanskogotverdogo Łkak ṷ.Obdobja
17 VatroslavOblak, Mednarodnysimpozijobdobja, Ljubljana 12 in 13 December
1996(pp.131-143).Ljubljana.
Kochev, Iv. (2007). Plavnitesǎglasni v bǎlgarskiyaezik.Ezikovsvyat, 3, 19-22.
Merkù, P. (1983). Prehod l>u v Tržaškislovenščini.Slavističnarevija, Letnic 31/83, 3, 260-262.
Murdarov, V. (2001). 99 ezikovisǎveta.Sofiya, (Chapter 9).
Murdarov, V. (2003). Oshte 99 ezikovisǎveta.Sofiya, (Cahpter 8).
Naydenova,V.(1998). Edna “modna” tendenciyanafonetichnoravnishte v
sǎvremenniyabǎlgarskiezik(novafonemailiprehodnamoda).Nauchnitrudovenaplovdivs
kiyauniversitet “PaisiyHilendarski”. Tom “Filologii”. № 36, 1, 197 – 200.
Padareva, G.(2009). Nay-chestosreshtaniteezikovigreshki v mediynotoprostranstvo,
ilikoynalagapravilata – mediite iliezikovedite. Nauchnitrudove. Tom 47, 1, 212 – 220.
Padareva-Ilieva, G. &Mitsova, S. (2012). Kǎmvǎprosazaŭvmesto l v
rechtanasǎvremenniyabǎlgarin. Bǎlgarskiezik, 3, 99-104.
Stoilov, Ant.&Georgieva, D. (1993). Otrazhenienadialektavǎrhupoyavata i
razvitietonaartikulacionnianomalii (disartikulii).Sbornik s
materialiotYubileynatanauchnakonferenciyanatema “Ezik i svyat.
Sǎvremennafilologicheskaproblematika”, 183-189.
Stoykov, St. (1956). Edna nova promyananasǎglasnata l v bǎlgarskiyaezik.Bǎlgarskiezik,8,
239–244.
Ramovš, F. (1924). Konzontizem(pp. 23).LJ.
Tsonev, R.(2008). Govorǎtna grad Bansko (pp. 128-130). Blagoevgrad.
Zhobov, V. (2004). Zvukovete v bǎlgarskija ezik. Sofiya: SemaRSh.
 Ilieva & Mitsova 61

Table 1 A. (Frequency distribution – participants/sounds)

Participants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sounds

ŭ 13 12 10 12 12 13 12 12 12 12 11 5 13 10 11

ɯ 1 - - - 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3

l - 2 4 2 1 - - - - - 1 7 - 2 -

Table 1 B. (Frequency distribution – participants/sounds)

Participants 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Sounds

ŭ 10 10 9 11 12 10 9 12 9 9 9 11 11 12 5

ɯ 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 1

l 2 3 4 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 2 - 1 8

Table 2 A. (Percentage distribution – participants/sounds)

Participants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
№

Sounds

ŭ 92,9 85,7 71,4 85,7 85,7 92,9 85,7 85,7 85,7 85,7 78,6 35,7 92,9 71,4 78,6

ɯ 7,1 - - - 7,1 7,1 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 14,3 7,1 14,3 21,4

l - 14,3 28,6 14,3 7,1 - - - - - 7,1 50 - 14,3 -

 62 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

Table 2 B. (Percentage distribution – participants/sounds)

Participants 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
№

Sounds

ŭ 71,4 71,4 64,3 78,6 85,7 71,4 64,3 85,7 64,3 64,3 64,3 78,6 78,6 85,7 35,7

ɯ 14,3 7,1 7,1 7,1 7,1 14,3 14,3 7,1 14,3 21,4 14,3 7,1 21,4 7,1 7,1

l 14,3 21,4 28,6 14,3 7,1 14,3 21,4 7,1 21,4 14,3 21,4 14,3 - 7,1 57,1

Diagram 1
Ilieva & Mitsova 63

Table 3 A. Frequency distribution (words/sounds)

Posi

tions 1st position 2nd position

Vari

ants

vǎlneniya kategorialnata ekzaltiranata altov pulover poluchava

[ŭ] 11 9 1 28 27 23

[ɯ] 18 17 7 – – –

[l] 1 4 22 2 3 7

Table 3 B. Frequency distribution (words/sounds)

Posi

tions 3d position 4th position 5th 6th position 7th position

position

Vari

ants

bluza aplodirani tolkova nyakolko sladka slovosǎchetaniya glavnata glas

[ŭ] 29 30 30 30 25 28 24 23

[ɯ] – – – – – – 3 –

[l] 1 – – – 5 2 3 7
64 International Journal of Linguistics and Communication,Vol. 2(1), March 2014

Table 4A.Percentage distribution (words/sounds)

Posi

tions 1st position 2nd position

Vari

ants

vǎlneniya kategorialnata ekzaltiranata altov pulover poluchava

[ŭ] 36,7% 30% 3,3% 93,3% 90% 76,7%

[ɯ] 60% 56,7% 23,3% - – –

[l] 3,3% 13,3% 73,3% 6,7% 10% 23,3%

Table 4B. Percentage distribution (words/sounds)

Posi
th th th th
tions 3d position 4 position 5 6 position 7 position
position

Vari

ants

bluza aplodirani tolkova nyakolko sladka slovosǎchetaniya glavnata glas

[ŭ] 96,7% 100% 100% 100% 83,3% 93,3% 80% 76,7%

[ɯ] – – – – – – 10% –

[l] 3,3% – – – 16,7% 6,7% 10% 23,3%

Ilieva & Mitsova 65

Diagram 2