Phonetic interpretation
According to Jakobson (1941), the distinctive features should have definable articulatory and acoustic correlates. For example, [+nasal] implies a lowering of the soft-palate and also an increase in the ratio of energy in the low to the high part of the spectrum. Chomsky & Halle (1968) abandoned the acoustic definitions of phonological features (inappropriately, as Ladefoged, 1971 and many others have argued: for example [f] and [x] are related acoustically but not articulatorily and they participated in the sound change by which the pronunciation of 'gh' spellings in English changed from a velar to a labiodental fricative e.g. 'laugh', [lɑx]→[lɑf]).
Many of the features are defined loosely in phonetic terms. This is perhaps to be expected. Phonology has established highly abstract representations to explain sound alternations (i.e. to factor out what are considered redundant or predictable aspects of a word's pronunciation) and this abstraction is partly opposed to the principle in phonetics of describing in articulatory and acoustic terms the characteristics of speech sound production that are shared by linguistic communities. Nevertheless, if phonology is to be related to how words are actually pronounced, the features are required to have at least some phonetic basis to them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Chomsky and Halle (1968-1983)
Phonetic interpretation
According to Jakobson (1941), the distinctive features should have definable articulatory and acoustic correlates. For example, [+nasal] implies a lowering of the soft-palate and also an increase in the ratio of energy in the low to the high part of the spectrum. Chomsky & Halle (1968) abandoned the acoustic definitions of phonological features (inappropriately, as Ladefoged, 1971 and many others have argued: for example [f] and [x] are related acoustically but not articulatorily and they participated in the sound change by which the pronunciation of 'gh' spellings in English changed from a velar to a labiodental fricative e.g. 'laugh', [lɑx]→[lɑf]).
Many of the features are defined loosely in phonetic terms. This is perhaps to be expected. Phonology has established highly abstract representations to explain sound alternations (i.e. to factor out what are considered redundant or predictable aspects of a word's pronunciation) and this abstraction is partly opposed to the principle in phonetics of describing in articulatory and acoustic terms the characteristics of speech sound production that are shared by linguistic communities. Nevertheless, if phonology is to be related to how words are actually pronounced, the features are required to have at least some phonetic basis to them.
According to Jakobson (1941), the distinctive features should have definable articulatory and acoustic correlates. For example, [+nasal] implies a lowering of the soft-palate and also an increase in the ratio of energy in the low to the high part of the spectrum. Chomsky & Halle (1968) abandoned the acoustic definitions of phonological features (inappropriately, as Ladefoged, 1971 and many others have argued: for example [f] and [x] are related acoustically but not articulatorily and they participated in the sound change by which the pronunciation of 'gh' spellings in English changed from a velar to a labiodental fricative e.g. 'laugh', [lɑx]→[lɑf]).
Many of the features are defined loosely in phonetic terms. This is perhaps to be expected. Phonology has established highly abstract representations to explain sound alternations (i.e. to factor out what are considered redundant or predictable aspects of a word's pronunciation) and this abstraction is partly opposed to the principle in phonetics of describing in articulatory and acoustic terms the characteristics of speech sound production that are shared by linguistic communities. Nevertheless, if phonology is to be related to how words are actually pronounced, the features are required to have at least some phonetic basis to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment