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
26 - The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence
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
Introduction
Phonetics and phonology
Much recent work in phonetics aims to provide rules, in the framework of generative phonology, that will characterize aspects of speech previously thought to be outside the province of grammatical theory. These phonetic rules operate on a symbolic representation from the phonology to derive a physical representation which, like speech, exists in continuous time and space. The precise nature of phonological representations depends on the theory of phonology, but certain general distinctions between phonological and phonetic representations can be expected. Only in the phonology are there discrete and timeless segments characterized by static binary features, though phonological representations are not limited to such segments. Even in the phonology, segments may become less discrete as features spread from one segment to another, and less categorical if features assume non-binary values. However, only in the phonetics are temporal structure made explicit and features interpreted along physical dimensions; the relations between phonological features and physical dimensions may be somewhat complex.
Thus phonological representations involve two idealizations. They idealize in time with segmentation, by positing individual segments which have no duration or internal temporal structure. Temporal information is limited to the linear order of segments and their component features. Phonological representations idealize in space with labeling, by categorizing segments according to the physically abstract features. These idealizations are motivated by the many phonological generalizations that make no reference to quantitative properties of segments, but do make reference to categorial properties. Such generalizations are best stated on representations without the quantitative information, from which more specific and detailed representations can then be derived.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Papers in Laboratory Phonology , pp. 451 - 470Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1990
- 42
- Cited by