If we are to believe Panconcelli-Calzia (1941), the history of phonetics goes back three millenia, and probably as far back as the study of language in general. However, while the history of linguistics has in recent decades become a widely practised field of scholarly endeavour, with a specialist journal and several associated monograph series available since 1973, nothing comparable has occurred with regard to the history of phonetics. There is no indication that a concerted effort is under way to remedy the situation and to establish the history of phonetics as an integral part of the study of phonetics as has been done with regard to the history of linguistics for well over fifteen years. The present paper offers a critical survey of previous scholarship in the historiography of phonetics and presents a few ideas that may strengthen the interest in the historiography of (linguistic) phonetics and encourage someone to undertake a major, comprehensive work in this field.

Following the 1989 Kiel Convention a number of proposals for revisions of the IPA appeared in the Journal. These proposals were submitted to the Council on 1 December 1992, and votes were received from 24 of the 30 Council members by 1 February 1993. These votes are listed in Table 1. The marity of the specific proposals on which the Council voted appeared in the Journal 20 (2): 22–32. In this report, the numbering of the proposals and the responses has been arranged so that it forms a continuous sequence for easy reference.

The Extensions to the IPA for the transcription of disordered speech and voice quality (extIPA) were approved at the 1989 IPA Congress in Kiel (see Duckworth et al. 1990, Ball 1991). A transcription system for disordered speech needs to provide sufficient diversity of symbols and diacritics to account for the majority of observed phonetic variants. Creation of standard new symbols and diacritics for every observed variant is ultimately counterproductive. We submit that the following phenomena have been observed frequently enough and have sufficient diagnostic and therapeutic implications to warrant consideration as new extensions to the IPA. We do not imply, however, that these are the only atypical speech production phenomena that may, in the long run, be worthy of inclusion in a revised extIPA, and we look forward to further suggestions from clinicians and phoneticians.

I read with interest the note by Leigh Lisker in JIPA 22 (pp 57–61) concerning the problem of marking force of articulation in phonetic transcription, and his regret that the 1989 revisions did not include diacritics for the fortis-lenis distinction. It is true that there exists no universally agreed definition of articulatory force, however, as Professor Lisker points out, phoneticians involved in transcription frequently encounter the need to differentiate sounds of different strength which appear to be the same in other phonetic dimensions.

I am grateful that the wish I expressed at Kiel for a means to indicate neutral lip position has been fulfilled in the form of a set of rules for extended application of over-rounding and under-rounding diacritics, stated officially in the Journal 20:2, p.23, item 8. Only, could I point out that there is a serious mistake in the final portion of this passage?