In this analysis, we want to criticize the article of the book is hyper-rhoticity; the name of the author is Britton, Derek and published in the year 2007. We want not only criticism of this article, but we also want to know that how the article reflects the relationship between the English grammar and the sound we produced. This article also study that the findings of the research are good enough for any other person who wants to study..
This article reflects different things. Some of the things which are getting an intention are a grand mixture of the English grammar with the different voice of the sound. When we suggest the word with grammar. We can eliminate the voice of the sound. How important is that sound appears? We can use it but if we eliminate it. We can get the right result from that so how it would be more important. When we were discussing about the phonology, how it would be cleared it to those persons who cannot have the proper sense of phonology. The procedure of getting the explanation about the phonology is not explainable very proper. Some layman wants to use it, but it is not friendly user. In convinced cases why r word insert and one of the customary suspects for epenthesis? How it is possible that hyper hostility emerge? What are the ways of correcting the grammatical process or extragrammatic hyper correction? The intention of the person is to make the word to be delivered not making the proper noise practice.
After some kind of that criticism which belongs to the normally, we were discussed the criticism as the specifically.
The voice should be made but the air brings into the lungs can change the voice of the synonyms. How it is possible that hyper-rhoticity outside OT grammar? It is possible that hyper-rhoticity the confirmation that falsifies OT as a hypothesis of sentence structure? Testing all the activities regarding the practice of the phonology in front of the mirror is practically good but not as implemented as described. There are different assumptions that the friction of the air is different. The abstracts are not similar with every person because different persons have got the different mind frame. The foundation of everyone organized cross-linguistic difference is restraint re-ranking.
In meticulous, the position of input to the grammars of all languages is the equivalent. The grammatical inventories of a verbal communication are the outputs which materialize from the syntax when it is feed the widespread set of probable input. The language has been organized but the article does not present the complete picture of the organization.
The real combination of what we think, we say, we hear, we interpret it is not the easy target. This article misses out the real combination and cannot the explanation by step by step. The explanation of vowels, the phonology is not for the primary user, but it is useful for the secondary user. The author of this article is much aware about the English language and the voice combination with the grammar, but the structured procedure is not good at explanation and also for the one who is not aware of its voice contradiction. The article misses out the figures of certain vowels rather on emphasizing on the sound only. The three distinct series of the oral stops is not much explained.
The combination of the pronunciation and the pronunciation the word in question is not explained clear. There are certain words that pronunciation sounds in deep length such as obey, feet, in those word sounds in length. There is another word those sounds such as the cup cab, in which is not so much length. Some persons have got the nasal problem so how they will pronounce the word well this is the thing will not explain properly. The sound comes from the nose as well so when you have faced the certain kind of diseases so how it is possible to get the right result.
We suppose that the person knows enough knowledge of the grammar and their grasping power is good but how it could be possible to a person that when he speaks at the wordings in fluency he manages to just see all aspects of the punctuation. The person knows the vowel but the cardinal vowel or the other thing remembered it is not an easy task. The main theme of this article is to make that sense which develops not easily. The article explains the thing easily a little bit but it is not an easy task for a layman person to curtail the all things easily.
This article explains the basic relationship through the methodology which is "Causal" in effect and explains the relationship between the English grammar and the sound of the wordings.
The question which has arisen in our mind that what is the topic of the research is? The answer is the "phonology".
- What is the research context? The purpose of the study is to write something which is near to God not kind of maze of options. Tried to something which is explainable for everyone not for the particular kind of a person. The rhoticity in English defines the practicality of letter "r" the voice of the r which will use in before vowel and in whole word.
- The empirical context of this article is that punctuation, the sound analysis, the vowels presentation, the sound of grammar with cardinal vowel is good present but the criticism on that is they never explains the whole scenario in which they were used it well.
- The imaginary context of this article assumes lot of things which cannot measure it well.
- The definition of terms is not clear as it will be because some of the pronunciation and sound interpreting the grammar is not well defined.
- The topic of the research in this article does not familiarity with the research context and there are lots of things which should be discussed as well.
- The person which is going to be research on this project they first the familiar with he certain terminology because the description of the methods and procedures are not followed properly.
The researcher taken the research as a whole target they took the raw data as well because they raw data explains it well with the researcher wants to be. The researcher takes the data as for analyzing the raw facts and figures but it is the duty of the researcher to take the raw data and make it with the new touch.
The result interprets the findings of this article but never explains what the thing to make it better is.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The research questions are very justified but the article will explains it with better findings and the article explains the research questions a little bit.
The further questioned that should be raise on several issues on that which is if a person defect in the lungs and the larynx so how it could be possible to interpret the cardinal vowel. Another question raises that the person whose spoken power is good who will explain their desired thing easily do we thought that it is another thing should be explained.
The suggestions for further study are just only some rules which should be considered that if there is a person whose mother tongue is English how it is possible to cover the all issues which discussed in the article. The second suggestion is that the proper explanation of the difficult terminologies related to the grammar and the relationship between the vowels and the sound.
The results of this article are that this article is good but the terminology which is used in this article is never explains it properly the method is correct the way is right but the interpretation is not good and done with the certain kind of limitation. The results show that the author point out the grammar and the vowel relationship but the combination of sound of different is merged with each other.