Listener Oriented Representations in Natural Phonology

• Authors: Geoffrey Schwartz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

While Natural Phonology has long contended that phonemes are specified for their phonetic properties, followers of the theory have concentrated primarily on phonological processes, instead of delving into the details of pronounceable representations. In the area of representation, NP has thus failed to pursue its claim that systematic articulatory and perceptual phenomena below the level of segmental contrast must be treated phonologically. By building an explicit model of representation in NP, we may help the theory to meet one of its primary challenges: "to confirm the hypothesis that speech processing is categorical, or phonological, down to the level of the actual phonetic (pronounceable) representation" (Donegan 2002: 79). Prominence Phonology (Schwartz, in press) is an NP-inspired model that seeks to take Donegan's call to action to heart, introducing new and phonetically explicit representations based upon scalar yet monovalent elemental primes. This paper introduces these representations with the goal of refining our view of the signal so as to develop a phonological view of speech.

Keywords

EN

Natural Phonology; auditory representations; element theory

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Journal: Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 45
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 149-168

Dates

published

2009-03-01

online

2009-05-14

Contributors

author

Geoffrey Schwartz

• Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań

References

• Bogacka, A. 2005. "Why Poles can hear Sprite but not Coca-Cola". Talk given at the annual meeting of the German Linguistic Society, Cologne.
• Browman, C.P. and L. Goldstein. 1990. "Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech". In: Kingston, J. and M. Beckman (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 341-376.
• Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chistovich, L.A., R.L. Sheikin and V.V. Lublinskaja. 1979. "‘Centres of gravity’ and spectral peaks as the determinants of vowel quality". In: Lindblom, B. and S. Ohman (eds.), Frontiers of speech communication research. London: Academic. 143-157.
• Content, A., R. Kearns and U. Frauenfelder. 2001. "Bondaries versus onsets in syllabic segmentation". Journal of Memory and Language 45. 177-199.
• Crosswhite, K. 2003. "Spectral tilt as a cue to word stress in Macedonian, Polish, and Bulgarian". Paper presented at the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona.
• Davidson, L. 2007. "The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation". Phonology 24. 261-286.
• Delattre, P., A. Liberman and F. Cooper. 1955. "Acoustic loci and transitional cues for consonants". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27(4). 769-773.
• Delattre, P.C., A.M. Liberman, F.S. Cooper, and L.J. Gerstman. 1952. "An experimental study of the acoustic determinants of vowel colour: Observations on one- and two-formant vowels synthesized from spectrographic patterns". Word 8. 195-210.
• Delgutte, B. 1997. "Auditory neural processing of speech". In: W.J. Hardcastle and J. Laver (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 507-538.
• Di Paolo, M. and A. Faber. 1990. "Phonation differences and the phonetic content of the tenselax contrast in Utah English". Language Variation and Change 2. 155-204.
• Donegan, P.J. 1978. "On the natural phonology of vowels". (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Ohio. Also Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 23. Republished 1985: New York: Garland.)
• Donegen, P.J. 2001. "Constraints and processes in phonological perception". In: Dziubalska-Kołaczk, K. (ed.), Constraints and preferences. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 43-68.
• Donegan, P.J. 2002. "Phonological processes and phonetic rules". In: Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. and J. Weckwerth (eds.), Future challenges for Natural Linguistics. Munich: Lincom. 57-81.
• Donegan, P.J. and D. Stampe. 1979. "The study of Natural Phonology". In: Dinnsen, D. (ed), Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126-173.
• Fahey, R.P., R.L. Diehl and H. Traunmüller. 1996. "Perception of back vowels: Effects of varying F1-F0 Bark distance". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99. 2350-2357.[WoS]
• Flemming, E. 2002. Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.
• Flemming, E. 2004. "Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness". In: Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232-276.
• Greenberg, S. 1996. "Auditory processing of speech". In: Lass, N. (ed.), Principles of experimental phonetics. St. Louis: Mosby. 362-408.
• Harris, J. 2006. "On the phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority". Lingua 116. 1483-1494.
• Harris, J. and G. Lindsey. 1995. "The elements of phonological representation". In: Durand, J. and F. Katamba (eds.), Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations. Harlow: Longman. 34-79.
• Harris, K., H. Hoffman, A. Liberman, P. Delattre and F. Cooper. 1958. "Effect of third-formant transitions on the perception of voiced stop consonants". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 30(2). 122-126.[WoS]
• Hoemeke, K.A. and R.L. Diehl. 1994. "Perception of vowel height: The role of F1-f0 distance". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 96. 661-674.
• Hume, E., K. Johnson, M. Seo, G. Tserdanelis and S. Winters. 1999. "A cross-linguistic study of stop place perception". Paper presented at the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, San Francisco.
• Jensen, S. 1994. "Is ? an element? Towards a non-segmental phonology". SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 4. 71-78.
• Johnson, K. 1997. Acoustic and auditory phonetics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
• Lehiste, I. and G.E. Peterson. 1959. "Vowel amplitude and phonemic stress in American English". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31. 428-435.
• Ohala, J. 1981. "The listener as a source of sound change". In: Masek, C.S., R.A. Hendrik and M.F. Miller (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178-203.
• Pöchtrager, M. 2006. The structure of length. (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Vienna.)
• Pierrehumbert, J. 2000. "What people know about sounds of language". Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 29(2). 111-120.
• Scheer, T. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton.
• Schwartz, G. 2007a. "Prominence in beat structure". Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 43(1). 129-152.
• Schwartz, G. 2007b. Vowel quality and its holistic implications for phonology. (Ms., Adam Mickiewicz University.)
• Schwartz, G. 2008. "Anti-sonority: Phonotactics in terms of an onset element". Paper presented at the 5th Old World Conference in Phonology, Toulouse.
• Schwartz, G. In press. Phonology for the listener and language learner. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza.
• Stampe, D. 1973. A dissertation on Natural Phonology. (Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Republished with annotations 1979: New York: Garland.)
• Stevens, K.N. and S.E. Blumstein. 1981. "The search for invariant acoustic correlates of phonetic features". In: Eimas, P. and J. Miller (eds.), Perspectives on the study of speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1-38.
• Syrdal, A. and H. Gopal. 1986. "A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels". Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 79(4). 1086-1100.
• Traunmüler, H. 1994. "Conventional, biological, and environmental factors in speech communication: A modulation theory". Phonetica 51. 170-183.
• Wright, R. 2004. "Perceptual cue robustness and phonotactic constraints". In: Hayes, B., R. Kirchner and D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34-57.
• Wright, R., S. Frisch and D. Pisoni. 1997. Speech perception. Research on spoken language processing. (Progress Report No. 21. Indiana University.)

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10010-009-0008-4