This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
When you say :
The English language is pretty close to average, using 13 vowels and over 30 consonants.
I believe you are refering to the number of phonemes in English, not phones. RoseParks
Needs a reference to Peter Ladefoged's A Course in Phonetics.
I'm impressed by the work on creating a taxonomy for practically every noise the human vocal apparatus can make. However, out of curiosity, I'd like to ask: what would be the proper phonetic descriptions of:
-- The Anome 10:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
What a fun discussion! I used to debate with fellow students the possible classification of nonlinguistic human noises like farts. Bilabial anal fricative? Sometimes voiced, sometimes unvoiced? Would a silent fart really be a fricative or more like an intestinal [h]? Is that [+stink] or [-stink]? In any case, not to spoil the party, but I believe the IPA is designed to include only those phones that have phonological and morphological significance and are not purely onomotopoeic or humorous. Undoubtedly you all knew this already, but just to clarify. If someone discovers a group of people in Papua New Guinea who speak like Donald Duck in regular conversation, the IPA will be modified accordingly (and please send me a recording). Thanks for the entertainment, and how would you folks transcribe the way you sneeze?
I've noticed that a user has been repeatedly adding a link to an external forum, which has been reverted a few times. I'm pretty sure that this link does not comply with the external linking policy, and so have also removed it. (I also have conflict of interest concerns, which suggest that the link should not be included.) However, if there's some reason that this doesn't violate the external links policy and should be included - great. The thing to do, however, is to discuss it over here on the talk page and see if we can reach consensus for inclusion. Thanks. -- TheOther Bob 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I now find that general phonetics theories, including those (of TheOtherBob’s) on Wikipedia, have great errors; so, I now try to correct them through forum. TheOtherBob and someone who wrote “Thanks for the help TheOtherBob. I've already posted a discussion on Ygwnkm's user talk page. I've entered the case into mediation [ [2]] and am about to add it to WP:AN. Too bad it has to come to this.” will certainly know who I (Young-Won Kim) am through the link of “*[...] Comparative phonetics”. Will Wikipedia protect the fake theories of (fake phonetician) TheOtherBob’s by deleting my (moderate) link of “*[...] Comparative phonetics”. Let me know who you are and let’s talk whose theories are right or wrong openly; e,g, academici (Forum) Group, or somewhere else. I think the phonetics page of Wikipedia is not the private property of TheOtherBob. TheOtherBob will not accept my invitation/challenge, since he himself knows well that he is wrong. If you do not accept my challenge in a few hours, I will try to post my link again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ygwnkm ( talk • contribs).
Siobhan Hansa, How can an encyclopedia be made without debate/forum? Why do you/Wikipedia avoid truth through debate/forum? Spam; Do not say the different opinions as spam. However, you now protect the fake theories without proper reason/procedure/debate/forum. ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr
>I have no theory of phonetics, general or otherwise. __. But, in the world are there some people who understand/study phonetics, and they will eventually evaluate who are right or wrong if any opposite/different theories are presented at all, through forum or the likes. __. >Wikipedia is not the place to link to your own points of view on a topic. __. I post my link for the world and TheOtherBob does for no good purpose, and you now support TheOtherBob’s bad purpose. __. When someone’s ideas raise objection, we will need debate/forum/etc. __. Ask TheOtherBob Why he evades open debate/forum in any place/site, not on Wikipedia but on Comparative phonetics, or somewhere else.
Well, I'm just asking if there's any references while one says phonetics includes not only the study of the speech sounds but the non-speech sounds as well. If that's really the case, perhaps a further set of IPA symbols needs to be designed to handle the non-speech sounds? Tsuiwaiming 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if by non-speech sounds you are referring to the implosives used in some African languages, also called Clicks. Jeffinthehouse728 ( talk) 08:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
While the article makes clear that Phonetics is concerned with the sounds made by the human vocal apparatus, not their delineation in writing, the second paragraph principally concerns Chinese characters, and a fact that there is some reference to pronunciation in logographic writing systems. Does this belong in the article about phonetics?
If it does, then should it be in its own paragraph with a contrasting fact about non-logographic systems?
Perhaps these facts about writing systems of languages should be linked to the paragraph below about the IPA, pointing out the inadequacies and non-universality of the writing systems of particular languages as a motivating factor for the creation and use of the IPA. Joshua Crowgey 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There are lovely sections linked to in the "see also" section which might fill out this article nicely. Should there be links to "manner of articulation," "place of articulation," et cetera, while the only section in the article on Phonetics is a short paragraph regarding one particular technique (under the section labelled "techniques")?
I'm sort of new to wikipolicies and the like. I'd love to help out the phonetics project. It seems like the material needed to fill out this stub of an article already exists in the "see also" section. What to do, what to do? Joshua Crowgey 06:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a linguist, but a respected Slovenian linguist Jože Toporišič (the author of several treatises on phonetics and phonology, honored by the International Society of Phonetic Sciences in 1979 [3]) defined phonology as part of phonetics in 1992. ISBN 8636107563, COBISS 24684032. This article defines phonetics as opposed to phonology and the category Phonology is superior to Phonetics while it should be vice versa. -- Eleassar my talk 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
An expert who contributed to Slovenian Wikipedia explained that in English usage phonetics and linguistics are both linguistic sciencies, and phonology is part of linguistics. As a medicine student I won't comment this. He didn't cite any sources. -- Eleassar my talk 10:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
As academic activities. Toporišič defined:
phonetics - a linguistic science that studies the sound aspect of a language from a voice and intonation to a text. It studies it from the viewpoint of pronounciation or from the viewpoint of what can be heard [etc.]
phonology - that part of phonetics which studies how do the phenomena of the sound aspect of a language influence the meanings
My translation is a bit rough. You may verify for yourself what Toporišič said in Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika (1992), if someone can translate the entries for you. Here are some additional sources that treat phonology as part of phonetics.
Leksikon Cankarjeve založbe (1998; based on the German Volksbrockhaus and adapted by eminent Slovenian authors, but without Toporišič :)
phonology: a branch, respectively a school of phonetics. Studies voices as phonemes [etc].
Enciclopedia Italiana (1949; "a bit" outdated) says the following:
Fonetica descrittiva o fonologia: Si dice fonetica descrittiva o fonologia lo studio delle immagini acustiche o "fonemi", i quali sono dati dall'atto fonatorio e asticolatorio e dall'impressione auditiva.
Grundlagen der Phonetik/Fundamentals of Phonetics (2001): defines phonology as a separate scientific branch of phonetics. The same as Leksikon Cankarjeve založbe.
On the other side, EB explains that some experts define phonetics as part of phonology. -- Eleassar my talk 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am "worried" about it because of proper categorization (here and in Slovenian Wikipedia). Perhaps we should do the same as prof. Hess and put the articles/categories Phonetics and Phonology in the supercategory Phonetic sciences. IMHO it would be more neutral as it would imply that the modern phonology emerged from phonetics and that the two disciplines are interconnected: in line with the general usage in linguistics as you have explained it. -- Eleassar my talk 11:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to remember that most people working in phonology and/or phonetics are self-described amateurs, even if they get to the PhD level. It's sort of like academic philosophers choosing ontological issues over traditional metaphysics.
It might also be helpful simply to try and remember what the terms refer to before they refer to academic fields. If I said, 'English phonetics' and then 'English phonology', what difference holds across the two phrases? I would bet we could not get a worldwide consensus, meaning that the two areas overlap. Phonology has, since Chomsky and Halle, tended toward abstraction and formalization. No, I take that back, it has tended towards that since the structuralists, but theirs was a social and behaviorist abstraction and formalization, while Chomsky proclaimed a psychological element (though it seems more like empty formalistics to me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.112.18 ( talk) 09:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Back when structrualist phonemics was all the rage, at least in the US, it was often custom to designate phonology as consisting of phonemics and phonetics. This inheritance persists, such as in TESL/TEFL/applied linguistics for ELT. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
220.213.97.215 (
talk)
00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ancient India is mentioned in this article as "studying phonetics 2,500 years ago". It is mentioned almost as if it originated there.
From my understanding, "phonetics" originated from the same place the "alphabet" came from; Phonecia. A place deeply influenced by the Semetic groups and particularly by Egypt.
At times it was considered to be part of Egypt.
Phonecia was well documented by the Greeks (as they were also deeply influenced by Egypt).
This article has me questioning my understanding as the Greek word for sound also starts with "p" "h" "o" "n".
Maybe there is a link to both the word and the place?
If I am wrong could someone please prove the origin of phonetics.
If I am right could someone please confirm.
Either way, please could the findings be put on the main page.
G. Logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlogic ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not signing, did not mean to be rude. I am new to this site.
G.Logic.
P.S If you encounter any typo's this is probably due to my stoopidity. Forgive me.
Godlogic ( talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
A list of phonetics laboratories and research groups seems out of place in an encyclopedia article about phonetics. Perhaps a separate article would be more appropriate. Considering that such lists seem to be rare (if they even exist) in articles about other fields of study, I'm nominating this section for deletion. If no compelling arguments are made, then I plan on deleting the section a week from today. Emw2012 ( talk) 18:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the last sentence of second paragraph in the 'Phonetics and phonology' section has six references. One or two references is usually sufficient to support a controversial claim. Given that, using six references to support a relatively uncontroversial seems excessive. I suggest that the list of references be trimmed down the most relevant one or two references. Emw2012 ( talk) 13:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The talk about George Bernard Shaw under "Phonology and Phonetics" is out of place. Should this be deleted or put into a different section which talks about something like "Phonetics in Popular Culture." I almost think that it should be deleted. If the purpose of the wikipedia page on phonetics is to provide people with a scientific perspective of the field, these types of "fun facts" are inappropriate. Lingboy ( talk) 09:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Could page numbers and ISBN's be included in existing and future references to books? Emw2012 ( talk) 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has two "phonetic transcription" sections both discussing the IPA. Uncle G ( talk) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"Every documented phoneme available within the known languages in the world is assigned its own corresponding symbol."
Shouldn't be "phone" instead of phoneme?
Neptilo ( talk) 13:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The edited volume A guide to the history of the phonetic sciences in the United States contains a number of papers describing the history of phonetics which may be of use for the section in this article and/or a potential spin-off article. While only covering the history in the United States, it points to some additional resources for developments of historical interest elsewhere as well. I believe anyone should have access to the pdf copy, but if you need access to a particular section to improve the Wikipedia article, get in touch and I can help you get access. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Another omission in this article is any mention of the importance of training in practical phonetics, which has been at the heart of the study of phonetics (in Europe at least), for over a century. An account of this would fit reasonably well in the Subfields section. I did write a piece for WP on this topic some time ago (which can be read here) but it was rejected by the reviewer - someone might like to use it as a basis for a short paragraph on the topic. RoachPeter ( talk) 11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
From my highly subjective old-fashioned German-Chinese point of view practical phonetics is still the indispensable foundation for doing phonetics and phonology. At least I have never seen a machine or an app that was able to reliably transcribe speech in a huge number of random languages and dialects. Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 19:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This article describes consonants pretty well, but it completely neglects vowels. There should be a main section for vowels explaining how they differ from consonants and how vowels can differ from each other (height, backness, lip position, nasality, etc.) Diphthongs should also be treated, along with a sentence explaining the difference between vowels and semivowels/glides.
Consonants are described well, but there's no mention any place of articulation beyond uvular. I would recommend adding a separate subsection for radicals where pharyngeal, epiglottal and glottal consonants are described.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to add that while sign languages are acknowledged in the lead, there should be a section dedicated to them. Important topics to be covered include handshape, location, movement and orientation. Additional topics include the existence of two-handed signs and an explanation of the dominance and symmetry conditions.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Added a basic section on vowels, needless to say there's a lot of room left for expansion. I also just noticed that the article doesn't describe manners of articulation at all (other than randomly mentioning it once in the section on coronals). Added it to the to-do list.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 07:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Added radicals. More information on the difference/confusion between pharyngeals and epiglottals could be added.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Megaman en m and Nardog: since you both have been active on this article lately (but obviously any page watchers are welcome to weigh in too). The article is getting rather long (and once vowel content is added, will be getting longer), and I've been thinking about moving some of the content to main articles like consonants or places of articulation and then summarizing the content here to try and get the length down. On the other hand I think the article is a really comprehensive overview of the topic and there may not be much gain from the spinoffs. Thoughts? Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I added speech acoustics and prosody to the to-do list. I'll continue working on articulatory phonetics for now until there's a decent base since that's what I'm most familiar with.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 07:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This is rather tangential, but for some time I've found the articles Articulatory phonetics and Articulation (phonetics) quite redundant. This article also cover articulatory phonetics at moderate length, while there are also Manner of articulation and Place of articulation, and I feel we could use less of repeating the same things in so many different places and more of assembling them into fewer articles. Nardog ( talk) 16:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Right now there is a big level of difference between the detailed place of articulation section and the minimal description of manner of articulations to the point where it's jarring. They should both have the same level of detail, but should we add more detail to the manner of articulations or remove some detail from place of articulations and rely on the main article for the details?-- Megaman en m ( talk) 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Added a section on acoustics and auditory phonetics. I know pretty much nothing about the subject, I just read Keith Johnson (2003) and put in bits I thought were important. It's a start at least. I'll add more once I read more of the book. If anyone with actual expertise in this area is willing to improve – or better yet – expand this section, it would be greatly appreciated.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 20:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
After the history section, there should probably be two more sections—"Speech Production" and "Speech perception"—which give broadly accessible overviews of these two processes. Sedivy (2019)'s psycholinguistics text book has chapters on speech production and perception that does a very good job of explaining these, and would probably be useful for writing an overview. It also has a wonderful flow chart of the process of articulation and audition that I may adapt for the article when I have the time.
More generally, I think the structure of the article could use some explicit thinking through. The article needs a better introduction, right now the most intro the reader gets is a history of the field which is why the sections on production and perception would help a lot. Secondly, the division of "anatomy" and "describing sounds" while a better organization than previously, still isn't great. I think these two large sections should actually be merged, both into each other and into their parent articles. Essentially, rather than answering the questions "what are the parts of the vocal tract" and "how do we describe sounds", it is better to present the reader with the questions such as "how are phones articulated" and "What is the relationship between vocal tract shape and acoustics". I think the article already has answers to these questions, the prose just needs to be reworked some.
This has the added benefit of helping resolve the level of detail problem: speech prodction and perception sections would give a broad overview for readers just wanting the gist of the process, and this new block of "major research questions" would go into greater detail about the different parts of the process for readers wanting greater detail. We could then end it, as we already sort of do, with some sections on "Special topics" that give summaries of major theories in the field like motor theory, articulatory phonetics, exemplar theory, etc. — Wug· a·po·des 13:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You are the experts. I am just sympathetic with the average "Joe" who guesses they are about sounds because they begin with "phone" and "phono", but wants to know the difference; in one or two sentences. I will try again, and feel free to delete or change. Thank you. John ( talk) 17:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your help. This is my concern. I feel that the first sentence should tell us specifically what phonetics is. The average person reading the Phonology page and the Phonetics page would think they are the same thing, based on the first sentences:
"Phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of sounds in spoken languages..."
"Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that studies the sounds of human speech..."
They sound the same to me.
I suggest you amend the first sentence using the information in the second paragraph. So, it would start with:
Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that broadly deals with two aspects of human speech: production—the ways humans make sounds—and perception—the way speech is understood. In the case of sign languages, the equivalent aspects of sign would apply.
OR, even better:
Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that broadly deals with two aspects of human speech: the ways humans make speech sounds, and the way speech is understood. In the case of sign languages, the equivalent aspects of sign would apply.
The second paragraph can be changed a little to avoid repetition.
The Phonology page should change to. I suggest:
Phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of sounds (i.e. the patterns) in human languages; including phonetics, the ways humans make speech sounds and the way speech is understood. Cheers. John ( talk) 20:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that helps. John ( talk) 15:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi LiliCharlie, About my edit from my iPhone. I copied the line from the first paragraph of the article, so I thought it was safe. Although, I would be happier if it said "Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that deals with the physical properties of speech; how humans make and perceive sounds." It seems to me that phonetics is about people, and phonology is about the language. Is that correct? John ( talk) 19:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) I found this at http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/jcoleman/PHONOLOGY1.htm "Phonetics deals with the production of speech sounds by humans, often without prior knowledge of the language being spoken. Phonology is about patterns of sounds, especially different patterns of sounds in different languages, or within each language, different patterns of sounds in different positions in words etc." John ( talk) 19:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi LiliCharlie, and thanks for the explanation. So, can I change the top mobile line to say "Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that deals with the physical properties of speech, how humans make and perceive sounds." That is what the article says, and it seems clearer than the existing line. John ( talk) 20:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all, I appreciate the chat. I see where you are coming from. You folks are the experts and I respect that the two fields are different yet overlap, hence the difficulty. However, this is the line from the Phonology page: "Phonology is often distinguished from phonetics. While phonetics concerns the physical production, acoustic transmission and perception of the sounds of speech, phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages to encode meaning." So, am I correct in thinking that phonetics deals with "sounds in speech" and phonology deals with "sounds in languages"? I would just like to know in the event it comes up as a Jeopardy question:). John ( talk) 00:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
When you say :
The English language is pretty close to average, using 13 vowels and over 30 consonants.
I believe you are refering to the number of phonemes in English, not phones. RoseParks
Needs a reference to Peter Ladefoged's A Course in Phonetics.
I'm impressed by the work on creating a taxonomy for practically every noise the human vocal apparatus can make. However, out of curiosity, I'd like to ask: what would be the proper phonetic descriptions of:
-- The Anome 10:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
What a fun discussion! I used to debate with fellow students the possible classification of nonlinguistic human noises like farts. Bilabial anal fricative? Sometimes voiced, sometimes unvoiced? Would a silent fart really be a fricative or more like an intestinal [h]? Is that [+stink] or [-stink]? In any case, not to spoil the party, but I believe the IPA is designed to include only those phones that have phonological and morphological significance and are not purely onomotopoeic or humorous. Undoubtedly you all knew this already, but just to clarify. If someone discovers a group of people in Papua New Guinea who speak like Donald Duck in regular conversation, the IPA will be modified accordingly (and please send me a recording). Thanks for the entertainment, and how would you folks transcribe the way you sneeze?
I've noticed that a user has been repeatedly adding a link to an external forum, which has been reverted a few times. I'm pretty sure that this link does not comply with the external linking policy, and so have also removed it. (I also have conflict of interest concerns, which suggest that the link should not be included.) However, if there's some reason that this doesn't violate the external links policy and should be included - great. The thing to do, however, is to discuss it over here on the talk page and see if we can reach consensus for inclusion. Thanks. -- TheOther Bob 02:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I now find that general phonetics theories, including those (of TheOtherBob’s) on Wikipedia, have great errors; so, I now try to correct them through forum. TheOtherBob and someone who wrote “Thanks for the help TheOtherBob. I've already posted a discussion on Ygwnkm's user talk page. I've entered the case into mediation [ [2]] and am about to add it to WP:AN. Too bad it has to come to this.” will certainly know who I (Young-Won Kim) am through the link of “*[...] Comparative phonetics”. Will Wikipedia protect the fake theories of (fake phonetician) TheOtherBob’s by deleting my (moderate) link of “*[...] Comparative phonetics”. Let me know who you are and let’s talk whose theories are right or wrong openly; e,g, academici (Forum) Group, or somewhere else. I think the phonetics page of Wikipedia is not the private property of TheOtherBob. TheOtherBob will not accept my invitation/challenge, since he himself knows well that he is wrong. If you do not accept my challenge in a few hours, I will try to post my link again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ygwnkm ( talk • contribs).
Siobhan Hansa, How can an encyclopedia be made without debate/forum? Why do you/Wikipedia avoid truth through debate/forum? Spam; Do not say the different opinions as spam. However, you now protect the fake theories without proper reason/procedure/debate/forum. ygwnkm@yahoo.co.kr
>I have no theory of phonetics, general or otherwise. __. But, in the world are there some people who understand/study phonetics, and they will eventually evaluate who are right or wrong if any opposite/different theories are presented at all, through forum or the likes. __. >Wikipedia is not the place to link to your own points of view on a topic. __. I post my link for the world and TheOtherBob does for no good purpose, and you now support TheOtherBob’s bad purpose. __. When someone’s ideas raise objection, we will need debate/forum/etc. __. Ask TheOtherBob Why he evades open debate/forum in any place/site, not on Wikipedia but on Comparative phonetics, or somewhere else.
Well, I'm just asking if there's any references while one says phonetics includes not only the study of the speech sounds but the non-speech sounds as well. If that's really the case, perhaps a further set of IPA symbols needs to be designed to handle the non-speech sounds? Tsuiwaiming 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if by non-speech sounds you are referring to the implosives used in some African languages, also called Clicks. Jeffinthehouse728 ( talk) 08:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
While the article makes clear that Phonetics is concerned with the sounds made by the human vocal apparatus, not their delineation in writing, the second paragraph principally concerns Chinese characters, and a fact that there is some reference to pronunciation in logographic writing systems. Does this belong in the article about phonetics?
If it does, then should it be in its own paragraph with a contrasting fact about non-logographic systems?
Perhaps these facts about writing systems of languages should be linked to the paragraph below about the IPA, pointing out the inadequacies and non-universality of the writing systems of particular languages as a motivating factor for the creation and use of the IPA. Joshua Crowgey 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
There are lovely sections linked to in the "see also" section which might fill out this article nicely. Should there be links to "manner of articulation," "place of articulation," et cetera, while the only section in the article on Phonetics is a short paragraph regarding one particular technique (under the section labelled "techniques")?
I'm sort of new to wikipolicies and the like. I'd love to help out the phonetics project. It seems like the material needed to fill out this stub of an article already exists in the "see also" section. What to do, what to do? Joshua Crowgey 06:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a linguist, but a respected Slovenian linguist Jože Toporišič (the author of several treatises on phonetics and phonology, honored by the International Society of Phonetic Sciences in 1979 [3]) defined phonology as part of phonetics in 1992. ISBN 8636107563, COBISS 24684032. This article defines phonetics as opposed to phonology and the category Phonology is superior to Phonetics while it should be vice versa. -- Eleassar my talk 10:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
An expert who contributed to Slovenian Wikipedia explained that in English usage phonetics and linguistics are both linguistic sciencies, and phonology is part of linguistics. As a medicine student I won't comment this. He didn't cite any sources. -- Eleassar my talk 10:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
As academic activities. Toporišič defined:
phonetics - a linguistic science that studies the sound aspect of a language from a voice and intonation to a text. It studies it from the viewpoint of pronounciation or from the viewpoint of what can be heard [etc.]
phonology - that part of phonetics which studies how do the phenomena of the sound aspect of a language influence the meanings
My translation is a bit rough. You may verify for yourself what Toporišič said in Enciklopedija slovenskega jezika (1992), if someone can translate the entries for you. Here are some additional sources that treat phonology as part of phonetics.
Leksikon Cankarjeve založbe (1998; based on the German Volksbrockhaus and adapted by eminent Slovenian authors, but without Toporišič :)
phonology: a branch, respectively a school of phonetics. Studies voices as phonemes [etc].
Enciclopedia Italiana (1949; "a bit" outdated) says the following:
Fonetica descrittiva o fonologia: Si dice fonetica descrittiva o fonologia lo studio delle immagini acustiche o "fonemi", i quali sono dati dall'atto fonatorio e asticolatorio e dall'impressione auditiva.
Grundlagen der Phonetik/Fundamentals of Phonetics (2001): defines phonology as a separate scientific branch of phonetics. The same as Leksikon Cankarjeve založbe.
On the other side, EB explains that some experts define phonetics as part of phonology. -- Eleassar my talk 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am "worried" about it because of proper categorization (here and in Slovenian Wikipedia). Perhaps we should do the same as prof. Hess and put the articles/categories Phonetics and Phonology in the supercategory Phonetic sciences. IMHO it would be more neutral as it would imply that the modern phonology emerged from phonetics and that the two disciplines are interconnected: in line with the general usage in linguistics as you have explained it. -- Eleassar my talk 11:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful to remember that most people working in phonology and/or phonetics are self-described amateurs, even if they get to the PhD level. It's sort of like academic philosophers choosing ontological issues over traditional metaphysics.
It might also be helpful simply to try and remember what the terms refer to before they refer to academic fields. If I said, 'English phonetics' and then 'English phonology', what difference holds across the two phrases? I would bet we could not get a worldwide consensus, meaning that the two areas overlap. Phonology has, since Chomsky and Halle, tended toward abstraction and formalization. No, I take that back, it has tended towards that since the structuralists, but theirs was a social and behaviorist abstraction and formalization, while Chomsky proclaimed a psychological element (though it seems more like empty formalistics to me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.213.112.18 ( talk) 09:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Back when structrualist phonemics was all the rage, at least in the US, it was often custom to designate phonology as consisting of phonemics and phonetics. This inheritance persists, such as in TESL/TEFL/applied linguistics for ELT. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
220.213.97.215 (
talk)
00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ancient India is mentioned in this article as "studying phonetics 2,500 years ago". It is mentioned almost as if it originated there.
From my understanding, "phonetics" originated from the same place the "alphabet" came from; Phonecia. A place deeply influenced by the Semetic groups and particularly by Egypt.
At times it was considered to be part of Egypt.
Phonecia was well documented by the Greeks (as they were also deeply influenced by Egypt).
This article has me questioning my understanding as the Greek word for sound also starts with "p" "h" "o" "n".
Maybe there is a link to both the word and the place?
If I am wrong could someone please prove the origin of phonetics.
If I am right could someone please confirm.
Either way, please could the findings be put on the main page.
G. Logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godlogic ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not signing, did not mean to be rude. I am new to this site.
G.Logic.
P.S If you encounter any typo's this is probably due to my stoopidity. Forgive me.
Godlogic ( talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
A list of phonetics laboratories and research groups seems out of place in an encyclopedia article about phonetics. Perhaps a separate article would be more appropriate. Considering that such lists seem to be rare (if they even exist) in articles about other fields of study, I'm nominating this section for deletion. If no compelling arguments are made, then I plan on deleting the section a week from today. Emw2012 ( talk) 18:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the last sentence of second paragraph in the 'Phonetics and phonology' section has six references. One or two references is usually sufficient to support a controversial claim. Given that, using six references to support a relatively uncontroversial seems excessive. I suggest that the list of references be trimmed down the most relevant one or two references. Emw2012 ( talk) 13:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The talk about George Bernard Shaw under "Phonology and Phonetics" is out of place. Should this be deleted or put into a different section which talks about something like "Phonetics in Popular Culture." I almost think that it should be deleted. If the purpose of the wikipedia page on phonetics is to provide people with a scientific perspective of the field, these types of "fun facts" are inappropriate. Lingboy ( talk) 09:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Could page numbers and ISBN's be included in existing and future references to books? Emw2012 ( talk) 14:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has two "phonetic transcription" sections both discussing the IPA. Uncle G ( talk) 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"Every documented phoneme available within the known languages in the world is assigned its own corresponding symbol."
Shouldn't be "phone" instead of phoneme?
Neptilo ( talk) 13:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The edited volume A guide to the history of the phonetic sciences in the United States contains a number of papers describing the history of phonetics which may be of use for the section in this article and/or a potential spin-off article. While only covering the history in the United States, it points to some additional resources for developments of historical interest elsewhere as well. I believe anyone should have access to the pdf copy, but if you need access to a particular section to improve the Wikipedia article, get in touch and I can help you get access. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 20:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Another omission in this article is any mention of the importance of training in practical phonetics, which has been at the heart of the study of phonetics (in Europe at least), for over a century. An account of this would fit reasonably well in the Subfields section. I did write a piece for WP on this topic some time ago (which can be read here) but it was rejected by the reviewer - someone might like to use it as a basis for a short paragraph on the topic. RoachPeter ( talk) 11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
From my highly subjective old-fashioned German-Chinese point of view practical phonetics is still the indispensable foundation for doing phonetics and phonology. At least I have never seen a machine or an app that was able to reliably transcribe speech in a huge number of random languages and dialects. Love — LiliCharlie ( talk) 19:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This article describes consonants pretty well, but it completely neglects vowels. There should be a main section for vowels explaining how they differ from consonants and how vowels can differ from each other (height, backness, lip position, nasality, etc.) Diphthongs should also be treated, along with a sentence explaining the difference between vowels and semivowels/glides.
Consonants are described well, but there's no mention any place of articulation beyond uvular. I would recommend adding a separate subsection for radicals where pharyngeal, epiglottal and glottal consonants are described.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 14:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I would also like to add that while sign languages are acknowledged in the lead, there should be a section dedicated to them. Important topics to be covered include handshape, location, movement and orientation. Additional topics include the existence of two-handed signs and an explanation of the dominance and symmetry conditions.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Added a basic section on vowels, needless to say there's a lot of room left for expansion. I also just noticed that the article doesn't describe manners of articulation at all (other than randomly mentioning it once in the section on coronals). Added it to the to-do list.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 07:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Added radicals. More information on the difference/confusion between pharyngeals and epiglottals could be added.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Megaman en m and Nardog: since you both have been active on this article lately (but obviously any page watchers are welcome to weigh in too). The article is getting rather long (and once vowel content is added, will be getting longer), and I've been thinking about moving some of the content to main articles like consonants or places of articulation and then summarizing the content here to try and get the length down. On the other hand I think the article is a really comprehensive overview of the topic and there may not be much gain from the spinoffs. Thoughts? Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I added speech acoustics and prosody to the to-do list. I'll continue working on articulatory phonetics for now until there's a decent base since that's what I'm most familiar with.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 07:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This is rather tangential, but for some time I've found the articles Articulatory phonetics and Articulation (phonetics) quite redundant. This article also cover articulatory phonetics at moderate length, while there are also Manner of articulation and Place of articulation, and I feel we could use less of repeating the same things in so many different places and more of assembling them into fewer articles. Nardog ( talk) 16:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Right now there is a big level of difference between the detailed place of articulation section and the minimal description of manner of articulations to the point where it's jarring. They should both have the same level of detail, but should we add more detail to the manner of articulations or remove some detail from place of articulations and rely on the main article for the details?-- Megaman en m ( talk) 14:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Added a section on acoustics and auditory phonetics. I know pretty much nothing about the subject, I just read Keith Johnson (2003) and put in bits I thought were important. It's a start at least. I'll add more once I read more of the book. If anyone with actual expertise in this area is willing to improve – or better yet – expand this section, it would be greatly appreciated.-- Megaman en m ( talk) 20:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
After the history section, there should probably be two more sections—"Speech Production" and "Speech perception"—which give broadly accessible overviews of these two processes. Sedivy (2019)'s psycholinguistics text book has chapters on speech production and perception that does a very good job of explaining these, and would probably be useful for writing an overview. It also has a wonderful flow chart of the process of articulation and audition that I may adapt for the article when I have the time.
More generally, I think the structure of the article could use some explicit thinking through. The article needs a better introduction, right now the most intro the reader gets is a history of the field which is why the sections on production and perception would help a lot. Secondly, the division of "anatomy" and "describing sounds" while a better organization than previously, still isn't great. I think these two large sections should actually be merged, both into each other and into their parent articles. Essentially, rather than answering the questions "what are the parts of the vocal tract" and "how do we describe sounds", it is better to present the reader with the questions such as "how are phones articulated" and "What is the relationship between vocal tract shape and acoustics". I think the article already has answers to these questions, the prose just needs to be reworked some.
This has the added benefit of helping resolve the level of detail problem: speech prodction and perception sections would give a broad overview for readers just wanting the gist of the process, and this new block of "major research questions" would go into greater detail about the different parts of the process for readers wanting greater detail. We could then end it, as we already sort of do, with some sections on "Special topics" that give summaries of major theories in the field like motor theory, articulatory phonetics, exemplar theory, etc. — Wug· a·po·des 13:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You are the experts. I am just sympathetic with the average "Joe" who guesses they are about sounds because they begin with "phone" and "phono", but wants to know the difference; in one or two sentences. I will try again, and feel free to delete or change. Thank you. John ( talk) 17:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your help. This is my concern. I feel that the first sentence should tell us specifically what phonetics is. The average person reading the Phonology page and the Phonetics page would think they are the same thing, based on the first sentences:
"Phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of sounds in spoken languages..."
"Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that studies the sounds of human speech..."
They sound the same to me.
I suggest you amend the first sentence using the information in the second paragraph. So, it would start with:
Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that broadly deals with two aspects of human speech: production—the ways humans make sounds—and perception—the way speech is understood. In the case of sign languages, the equivalent aspects of sign would apply.
OR, even better:
Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that broadly deals with two aspects of human speech: the ways humans make speech sounds, and the way speech is understood. In the case of sign languages, the equivalent aspects of sign would apply.
The second paragraph can be changed a little to avoid repetition.
The Phonology page should change to. I suggest:
Phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of sounds (i.e. the patterns) in human languages; including phonetics, the ways humans make speech sounds and the way speech is understood. Cheers. John ( talk) 20:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that helps. John ( talk) 15:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi LiliCharlie, About my edit from my iPhone. I copied the line from the first paragraph of the article, so I thought it was safe. Although, I would be happier if it said "Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that deals with the physical properties of speech; how humans make and perceive sounds." It seems to me that phonetics is about people, and phonology is about the language. Is that correct? John ( talk) 19:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) I found this at http://www.phon.ox.ac.uk/jcoleman/PHONOLOGY1.htm "Phonetics deals with the production of speech sounds by humans, often without prior knowledge of the language being spoken. Phonology is about patterns of sounds, especially different patterns of sounds in different languages, or within each language, different patterns of sounds in different positions in words etc." John ( talk) 19:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi LiliCharlie, and thanks for the explanation. So, can I change the top mobile line to say "Phonetics is a branch of linguistics that deals with the physical properties of speech, how humans make and perceive sounds." That is what the article says, and it seems clearer than the existing line. John ( talk) 20:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks all, I appreciate the chat. I see where you are coming from. You folks are the experts and I respect that the two fields are different yet overlap, hence the difficulty. However, this is the line from the Phonology page: "Phonology is often distinguished from phonetics. While phonetics concerns the physical production, acoustic transmission and perception of the sounds of speech, phonology describes the way sounds function within a given language or across languages to encode meaning." So, am I correct in thinking that phonetics deals with "sounds in speech" and phonology deals with "sounds in languages"? I would just like to know in the event it comes up as a Jeopardy question:). John ( talk) 00:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)