Phonetically Based Phonology (original) (raw)
Related papers
Phonology, 2002
Without doubt, the most significant development in phonology over the past decade has been the ascendance of constraint-based formalisms over ordered rules. Constraints have provided us with a much richer and more nuanced conception of markedness-the answer to the question why sound x is more natural than sound y in context z. In recent markedness discussions, listeneroriented notions such as salience, contrast, similarity and cue have figured prominently. These terms derive from the speech-perception literature, whose goals and methods are often tangential to phonology. In the belief that the moment had arrived for linguists and speech scientists to reconnect with one another, Hume and Johnson organised a satellite meeting of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences in August 1999 in the San Francisco Bay Area that brought together leading phonologists and phoneticians to discuss how research in the speech laboratory can illuminate sound patterns in language. 1 The volume under review contains ten papers from the conference, plus a foreword by Björn Lindblom. It presents a healthy diversity of opinion on the nature and the extent of the grounding of phonology in speech perception. The reader gets a good sense of the kinds of experiments that can be brought to bear on these questions and the difficulties in interpreting their results. Space limitations preclude discussion of each chapter in this review. All are well worth reading. The paper by Patrice Speeter Beddor, Rena Arens Krakow & Stephanie Lindemann, ' Patterns of perceptual compensation and their phonological consequences', is an instructive example of how the study of speech perception in the laboratory can elucidate the phonology of nasal vowels. Previous literature showed that listeners readily compensate for nasal coarticulation. For example, Kawasaki (1986) found that American English subjects detect nasality in the vowel of a NṼ N syllable when the coda nasal is attenuated. Building on these results, Beddor et al. designed an experiment to show that such perceptual compensation (attributing a property of one segment to an adjacent one) is more gradient. Stimuli were constructed by excising and cross-splicing oral and nasal vowels from words like bode [bod] and moan [mõn]. American Englishspeaking subjects were presented with two pairs of stimuli and asked to judge which pair is ' more different '. In a control trial of [bod]-[bõd] vs. [bod]-[bod] (and [mon]-[mõn] vs. [mõn]-[mõn]) subjects were highly accurate in detecting nasal vs. oral vowels in contexts not susceptible to coarticulatory compensation. The test trials gauged listeners' ability to discriminate the V vs. Ṽ contrast in different consonantal contexts. Performance was quite good (80-90 %) in oral 1 The volume appears exactly 50 years after the most famous and influential collaboration between phonologists and phoneticians : Jakobson et al. (1951).
Systemic Markedness and Phonetic Detail in Phonology
In Randall Gess and Ed Rubin (eds.), Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics. Selected papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Salt Lake City, March 2004, 41-62. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2005
The Blackwell Companion to Phonology
Wiley eBooks, 2011
Sections Sections 1 Local metathesis 1 Local metathesis 2 Non-local effects 2 Non-local effects 3 Related processes 3 Related processes Note Note REFERENCES REFERENCES The term metathesis-Greek for 'transposition'-refers to a reordering of segments. This chapter outlines the range of phenomena that fall under this description, and theoretical perspectives on their insightful analysis. Other cross-linguistic surveys of this topic include Webb (1974)
Phonological Processes and Phonetic Rules
2009
1. Relating phonological representations to phonetic output In both generative and natural phonology, phonological representations and alternations have been described in terms of categorical feature values, as in Jakobson, Fant, & Halle’s (1963) original conception. This categorical representation contrasts with instrumental phonetic data, which present the speech signal as temporally, qualitatively, and quantitatively non-categorical and continuous. The question that will be addressed here is how phonetic representation (‘surface’ phonological representation) and speech are related. Generativists and naturalists have taken two quite different views on this. The generativist view, and that of most recent writers on phonetics, has been that phonetic representation and speech are related by language-specific phonetic rules that associate binary phonological values with gradient phonetic values. The naturalist position has been that the relationship is universally determined in the ac...
De Gruyter eBooks, 2017
Non-manuals 34 1.5.1 Mouth gestures 34 1.5.2 Mouthings 35 1.5.3 Other non-manuals 35 Elicitation materials 35 References 36 Chapter 2 Prosody 37 2.0 Definitions and challenges 37 2.0.1 What is prosody? 37 2.0.2 Prosodic markers 38 2.0.3 Methodological challenges 40 2.0.4 Outline of the chapter 41 2.1 The lexical level 41 2.1.1 Syllable 41 2.1.2 Foot 43 2.2 Above the lexical level 44 2.2.1 Prosodic word 45 2.2.2 Phonological phrase 47 2.2.3 Intonational phrase 47 2.2.4 Phonological utterance 49 2.3 Intonation 49 2.4 Interaction 50 2.4.1 Turn regulation 50 2.4.2 Back-channeling 51 Elicitation materials 51 References 51 Chapter 3 Phonological processes 53 3.0 Definitions and challenges 53 3.0.1 What is a phonological process? 53 3.0.2 Caveats 53 3.0.3 Outline of the chapter 54 3.1 Processes affecting the phonemic level 54 3.1.