No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Plaintive Note re the Recent IPA Revisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 February 2009
Extract
At the 1989 IPA Convention in Kiel it was decided that in the latest version of the IPA writing system no recognition be granted to a feature of force of articulation. At the time I questioned the advisability of this action, but another viewpoint won the day. Very possibly the refusal to allow for the notation of ‘fortis-lenis’ judgments in IPA transcription was based primarily on the conviction that ‘articulatory force’ has no generally accepted physical correlate, but whatever the basis for the decision, I would reiterate the opinion that it was wrongheaded, even though I too am reluctant to accept any of the suggested meanings attached to the terms ‘fortis’ and ‘lenis’ as sufficient for regarding force of articulation as an independent dimension of phonetic description. However, the function of the IPA alphabet is to facilitate the communication of phonetic judgments of speech. It has not been proposed, so far as I know, that the IPA alphabet represent only those judgments couched in terms that allow for physical disconfirmation.
- Type
- Revision of the IPA
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1992
References
Bloch, B. and Trager, G. L. (1942). Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Waverly Press, Baltimore; The Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Debrock, M. (1977). An acoustic correlate of the force of articulation. Journal of Phonetics, 5, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1972). An Outline of English Phonetics. (9th ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-Jørgensen, E. (1979). Zu den deutschen Verschlusslauten und Affrikaten. In Ezawa, K., Rensch, K. H. and Bethge, W. (editors) Sprache und Sprechen: Festschrift für Eberhard Zwirner zum 80. Geburtstag, 79–100. Tübingen; Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Fujimura, O. and Miller, J. E. (1979). Mandible height and syllable-final tenseness. Phonetica 36, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gimson, A. C. (1980). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. (3rd edition). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, W. J. (1973). Some observations on the tense-lax distinction in initial stops in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 1, 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HultzÉn, L. S. (1962). Voiceless lenis stops in prevocalic clusters. Word 18, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPA (International Phonetic Association) (1949). The Principles of the International Phonetic Association. London.Google Scholar
Kim, C.-W. (1965). On the autonomy of the tensity feature in stop classification. Word 21, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, K. J. (1979). Dimensions in the perception of fortis and lenis plosives. Phonetica, 36, 332–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohler, K. J. and Dommelen, W. A. Van. (1988). Prosodic effects on lenis/fortis perception: Preplosive Fo and LPC synthesis. Phonetica 43, 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1971). Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Malécot, A. (1970). The lenis-fortis opposition: its physiological parameters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 47, 1588–1592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trager, G. L. and Smith, H. L. Jr (1951). An Outline of English Structure. Norman, OK: Battenburg Press.Google Scholar