Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Where phonology and phonetics intersect: the case of Hausa intonation
- 3 Metrical representation of pitch register
- 4 The status of register in intonation theory: comments on the papers by Ladd and by Inkelas and Leben
- 5 The timing of prenuclear high accents in English
- 6 Alignment and composition of tonal accents: comments on Silverman and Pierrehumberf's paper
- 7 Macro and micro F0 in the synthesis of intonation
- 8 The separation of prosodies: comments on Kohler's paper
- 9 Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency
- 10 On the nature of prosodic constituency: comments on Beckman and Edwards's paper
- 11 Lengthenings and the nature of prosodic constituency: comments on Beckman and Edwards's paper
- 12 From performance to phonology: comments on Beckman and Edwards's paper
- 13 The Delta programming language: an integrated approach to nonlinear phonology, phonetics, and speech synthesis
- 14 The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation
- 15 On the value of reductionism and formal explicitness in phonological models: comments on Ohala's paper
- 16 A response to Pierrehumbert's commentary
- 17 The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification
- 18 Demisyllables as sets of features: comments on Clements's paper
- 19 Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech
- 20 Toward a model of articulatory control: comments on Browman and Goldstein's paper
- 21 Gestures and autosegments: comments on Browman and Goldstein's paper
- 22 On dividing phonetics and phonology: comments on the papers by Clements and by Browman and Goldstein
- 23 Articulatory binding
- 24 The generality of articulatory binding: comments on Kingston's paper
- 25 On articulatory binding: comments on Kingston's paper
- 26 The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence
- 27 Some factors influencing the precision required for articulatory targets: comments on Keating's paper
- 28 Some regularities in speech are not consequences of formal rules: comments on Keating's paper
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
4 - The status of register in intonation theory: comments on the papers by Ladd and by Inkelas and Leben
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 February 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Where phonology and phonetics intersect: the case of Hausa intonation
- 3 Metrical representation of pitch register
- 4 The status of register in intonation theory: comments on the papers by Ladd and by Inkelas and Leben
- 5 The timing of prenuclear high accents in English
- 6 Alignment and composition of tonal accents: comments on Silverman and Pierrehumberf's paper
- 7 Macro and micro F0 in the synthesis of intonation
- 8 The separation of prosodies: comments on Kohler's paper
- 9 Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency
- 10 On the nature of prosodic constituency: comments on Beckman and Edwards's paper
- 11 Lengthenings and the nature of prosodic constituency: comments on Beckman and Edwards's paper
- 12 From performance to phonology: comments on Beckman and Edwards's paper
- 13 The Delta programming language: an integrated approach to nonlinear phonology, phonetics, and speech synthesis
- 14 The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation
- 15 On the value of reductionism and formal explicitness in phonological models: comments on Ohala's paper
- 16 A response to Pierrehumbert's commentary
- 17 The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification
- 18 Demisyllables as sets of features: comments on Clements's paper
- 19 Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech
- 20 Toward a model of articulatory control: comments on Browman and Goldstein's paper
- 21 Gestures and autosegments: comments on Browman and Goldstein's paper
- 22 On dividing phonetics and phonology: comments on the papers by Clements and by Browman and Goldstein
- 23 Articulatory binding
- 24 The generality of articulatory binding: comments on Kingston's paper
- 25 On articulatory binding: comments on Kingston's paper
- 26 The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence
- 27 Some factors influencing the precision required for articulatory targets: comments on Keating's paper
- 28 Some regularities in speech are not consequences of formal rules: comments on Keating's paper
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
Summary
The studies by Ladd and by Inkelas and Leben make an important contribution to the vigorous, continuing debate on foundation issues in intonation theory. They are both concerned with establishing the basic formal mechanisms used to describe intonation, understood here (in a narrower sense than the usual one) as the way in which tonal and accentual patterns are mapped into phonetic F0 contours. What is central to these proposals is the significance of the role played by register. Both papers view register as a fundamental component of a linguistic description of intonation, and propose to characterize it in terms of separate intonational structures built over the tone melody (a sequence of pitch accents or tones), to which rules assigning F0 have access.
There are broad areas of agreement in these papers. Their common strategy is to shift some of the burden of accounting for intonational regularities from phonetic implementation rules to phonological structures defining global intonation patterns. Both papers argue that such an approach can capture generalizations that would otherwise go unexpressed, and allows the phonetic implementation rules to be simplified or constrained in desirable ways. To achieve these results Ladd introduces metrical tree structures, while Inkelas and Leben propose to recognize a new tier of autosegmental representation which they term the “register tier.”
These remarks will focus primarily on Ladd's and Inkelas and Leben's views on how register is to be formally characterized in intonation theory. I will suggest that while we do want a way of expressing register as an independent parameter of pitch assignment rules, we may not require the full power of metrical and autosegmental structures to obtain an adequate account of register shift phenomena.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Papers in Laboratory Phonology , pp. 58 - 71Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1990
- 2
- Cited by