Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:06:29.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Interpretation of Vowel “Quality”: The Dimension of Rounding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2009

Leigh Lisker
Leigh Lisker
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania and Haskins Laboratories
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The usual description of vowels in respect to their “phonetic quality” requires the linguist to locate them within a so-called “vowel space,” apparently articulatory in nature, and having three dimensions labeled high-low (or close-open), front-back, and unrounded-rounded. The first two are coordinates of tongue with associated jaw position, while the third specifies the posture of the lips. It is recognized that vowels can vary qualitatively in ways that this three-dimensional space does not account for. So, for example, vowels may differ in degree of nasalization, and they may be rhotacized or r-colored. Moreover, it is recognized that while this vowel space serves important functions within the community of linguists, both the two measures of tongue position and the one for the lips inadequately identify those aspects of vocal tract shapes that are primarily responsible for the distinctive phonetic qualities of vowels (Ladefoged 1971). With all this said, it remains true enough that almost any vowel pair of different qualities can be described as occupying different positions with the space. Someone hearing two vowels in sequence and detecting a quality difference will presumably also be able to diagnose the nature of the articulatory shift executed in going from one vowel to the other.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , July 1989 , pp. 24 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Abercrombie, D. (1985). Daniel Jones's teaching. In Phonetic Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Peter Ladefoged, 15–24. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1948). Acoustic Phonetics. (Linguistic Society of America Language Monograph no. 23.) Baltimore: Waverly Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1967). The nature of vowel quality. In Three Areas of Experimental Phonetics, 50–142. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1971). Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1975). A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M. And Mattingly, I. G.(1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21, 1–36.Google Scholar
Potter, R. K., Kipp, G. A., and Green, H. C. (1947). Visible Speech. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar