Phonetics in Phonology and Phonology in Phonetics
Vina Qurrota’ Akyuningrum
The reason why I chose the title is because I’m interested when I see the title. I enter the key word when I search for it. Phonetics paper is my key word. And when I school it, I see the title and I’m interested. When I read the first paragraph, I’m interested because I do not know and I want to know more about it. The title Phonetics in Phonology and Phonology in Phonetics is an interesting title and makes me want to know more about phonology.
There are two different ways that interact. The difference needs to be drawn between the way phonetics affects phonology-phonetics in phonology, and the way phonology influences or propels phonetics - phonology in phonetics. which The first concerns how the phonetic effect and boundary are reflected in phonology, which is often referred to as natural.
The latter isa mapping between the phonology unit and the physical realization. In this case, phonology appears in phonetics in contrast Phonies manifest physically. These two facets of the relationship between phonology and phonetics are discussed within understanding the implications for understanding phonology and phonetics and their relationships.
It is widely assumed that phonology and phonetics are distinct and phonology is the domain of the entity Discrete and categorical, whereas phonetics are continuous domains and gradients.
Patterns affixed to factors The thus said nature. A close alignment between the phonetic effect and the phonological pattern has been because a lot of people think phonetics is natural is the primary source of the phonological pattern, that is, its phonies are convicted in phonetics.
The view of the inherent centrality of grammatically is the source of a controversial substance like the one hale and reiss framed (2000), where they argue separation full substance of form. They argue that phonology = grammar = formal and phonetic = substance = function. This approach is closely related to an assumption of strict modularity.
The similarities between cooperation and assimilation.
In cohn (1998), in which I argued that phonology and phonetics differ, I discussed a number of cases where the psychological and phonetic effects are similar, but not the same. It's the fundamental character of what I call a double phonetic and phonological, Cases where there are parallel categories and gradient effects in the same language, with independent evidence showing that the first is caused by phonology and the last is the result of the application which Before. For example, this is seen in nasalization patterns in some languages (cohn 1990), palatalization in some languages English (zsiga 1995), and devoicing vowels in Japanese (tsuchida 1997, 1998).
The differences between coarticulation and assimilation are also clearly demonstrated in work comparing vowel harmony with effects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation, as shown in work on Turkish (Beddor and Yavuz 1995) and Yoruba (Przezdziecki 2005). Consider an example from Yoruba comparing three dialects where the phonological patterns of vowel harmony differ. In the Àkùre dialect, there is anticipatory [ATR] vowel harmony affecting both mid and high vowels; thus in a V 1 CV 2.
Since assimilation and coarticulation are distinct, an adequate model needs to account for both of them. The view taken here is that while assimilation might arise historically through the process of visualization, there is ample evidence that the patterns of assimilation and coarticulation are not reducible to the same thing, thus we need to understand how the more categorical patterns and the more gradient patterns relate.
Phonology emerges in phonetics, in the sense that phonological contrast is physically realized. This then is the second facet of the relationship between phonology and phonetics: the relationship between these cognitive elements and their physical realization. The relationship between phonology and phonetics has been understood as a mapping between abstract phonological units (usually understood as features) and the physical signal.
Growing out of Pierrehumbert’s (1980) study of English intonation, gradient phonetic patterns are understood as resulting from phonetic implementation. Under the particular view developed there, termed generative phonetics, these gradient patterns are the result of interpolation through phonologically unspecified domains.
Keating (1988) and John (1990) extend this approach to the segmental domain, arguing that phenomena such as long distance fertilization and nasalization can be understood in these terms as well. Within generative phonetics, the account of gravity follows from a particular set of assumptions about specification and underspecification.
It is generally assumed that category in phonology also follows directly from the nature of perception and the important role of categorical perception. The specific ways in which perception constrains or defines phonology are not well.
Categorical phonetics and gradient phonology.
There are many ways to model steady-state patterns within the phonetics without calling into question any of the basic assumptions of the dichotomous model of phonology and phonetics. Just to mention one approach, within a target-interpolation model, phonetic targets can be assigned based on phonological specification as well as due to phonetic constraints or requirements. Such cases then do not really inform the debate about the gray area between phonology and phonetics.
Are phonetics and phonology distinct?
While the existence of categorical phonetics might not be pivotal in resolving our understanding of the relationship between phonology and phonetics, the status of gradient phonology is quite crucial for our understanding of this relationship.
Implications of a continuum of granularity.
The sound structure continuum is schematized in Figure 5a with phonetics vs. phonology on the x-axis and degree of granularity on the y-axis. Consider the schematic distribution of the data: A modular approach suggests a bimodal distribution such as that in Figure 5b, with little or no gray area. A unidimensional approach suggests a distribution such as that in Figure 5c, with little correlation between the two dimensions. Yet the evidence suggests that the distribution of data fall somewhere between these two views.
First of all, it is important to realize that just because it is difficult to know exactly where to draw the line, this does not necessarily mean there are not two separate domains of sound structure. The fact that is difficult to draw a line follows in part from the conception of phonologization. Phonologization by its very nature is bound to result in indeterminate cases. As phonetic details are being enhanced, it will be difficult at certain stages to say that a particular pattern is phonetic, while another is phonological. For example, vowel lengthening before voiced sounds in English might be viewed as being in this gray area. Thus the existence of some gray area does not in and of itself resolve the question. Yet, at the same time, it is important that our understanding of the nature of this continuum is not predetermined by our theoretical assumptions.
Modularity, duplication, and redundancy.
Evidence suggests that lexical representations include multiple levels of detail, including the kind of sparse abstract representations widely assumed in generative phonology and much more fine-grained levels of detail. (See Beckman et al. 2004 for discussion and a specific proposal in this regard.) Not only is there redundancy within domains, but there appears to be redundancy across domains, so duplication is not a problem, but in fact an intrinsic characteristic of language. Recent work in psycholinguistics shows that speakers have access in at least some situations to very fine details including both speaker-specific and situation-specific information. (See Beckman2003 and Pierrehumbert 2003 for reviews and discussion of this body of work.) However, just because we are sensitive to finer details does not mean that we cannot abstract across the lexicon. Pierrehumbert (2003, p. 191) argues that some phonotactic knowledge is, indeed, true abstraction across the lexicon. “In light of such results, I will assume, following mainstream thought in linguistics, that an abstract phonological level is to be distinguished from the lexicon proper.” This suggests that we have access to both fine-grained and coarse-grained levels of knowledge and that they co-exist (Beckman 2003; Beckman et al. 2004).
Implications for learning
There has been interesting work on the nature of categorization and how categories are learned. This includes a large body of work on infant speech perception showing the shift from relatively language-independent perception to largely languagespecific perception roughly between the age of 6-12 months. (See for example Best 1994, Kuhl et al. 1992, and Stager and Werker 1997). This work offers insight into the nature of human perceptual categories and the development of language-specific categories. While newborns are endowed with perceptual abilities and the ability to discriminate, this does not necessarily mean that specific linguistic categories are endowed. Certain aspects of speech perception may be emergent, in the sense that they can be learned from the ambient language. On the other hand, this does not answer the question of whether or not speech is special. (See Benson et al. 2001 for recent work on the subject.)
The relationship between phonetics and phonology is a multifaceted one. It includes phonetic constraints that have shaped synchronic phonological systems through historical change over time. Synchronically, phonological systems emerge as a balance between the various demands placed on the system, but the evidence suggests that phonology cannot be reduced to the sum of these influences. We also need to understand phonetics and phonology in relationship to the lexicon. The evidence suggests that there are parallels and overlaps between these three areas, but none of these areas is properly reduced to or contained in the others.
To reach a fuller understanding of the workings of phonology, phonetics, the lexicon, and their interactions, we need be willing to reconsider widely held assumptions and ask in an empirically-based way what is the connection between these domains of the linguistic system. What is called for are non-reductionist integrated approaches. Once we accept the profound complexity of what we are trying to describe and explain, we will discover that many of the contributions of generative linguistics and psychololinguistics often framed as being in opposition are in fact compatible and together offer an explanation of the nature of sounds systems, in terms of their mental representations, production, perception, acquisition, and use.
