Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:11:16.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phonetic documentation in three collections: Topics and evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2020

D. H. Whalen Open the ORCID record for D. H. Whalen [Opens in a new window] ,
Christian DiCanio Open the ORCID record for Christian DiCanio [Opens in a new window]  and
Rikker Dockum Open the ORCID record for Rikker Dockum [Opens in a new window]
D. H. Whalen
Affiliation:
City University of New York (also Haskins Laboratories and Yale University) [email protected]
Christian DiCanio
Affiliation:
University at [email protected]
Rikker Dockum
Affiliation:
Swarthmore [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phonetic aspects of many languages have been documented, though the breadth and focus of such documentation varies substantially. In this survey, phonetic aspects (here called ‘categories’) that are typically reported were assessed in three English-language collections – the Illustrations of the IPA from the Journal of the International Phonetic Association, articles from the Journal of Phonetics, and papers from the Ladefoged/Maddieson Sounds of the World’s Languages (SOWL) documentation project. Categories were defined for consonants (e.g. Voice Onset Time (VOT) and frication spectrum; 10 in total), vowels (e.g. formants and duration; 7 in total) and suprasegmentals (e.g. stress and distinctive vowel length, 6 in total). The Illustrations, due to their brevity, had, on average, limited coverage of the selected categories (12% of the 23 categories). Journal of Phonetics articles were typically theoretically motivated, but 64 had sufficient measurements to count as phonetic documentation; these also covered 12% of the categories. The SOWL studies, designed to cover as much of the phonetic structure as feasible in an article-length treatment, achieved 41% coverage on average. Four book-length studies were also examined, with an average of 49% coverage. Phonetic properties of many language families have been studied, though Indo-European is still disproportionately represented. Physiological measures were excluded as being less common, and perceptual measures were excluded as being typically more theoretical. This preliminary study indicates that certain acoustic properties of languages are typically measured and may be considered as an impetus for later, fuller coverage, but broader consensus on the categories is needed. Current and future documentation efforts would benefit these considerations being addressed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , April 2022 , pp. 95 - 121
Check for updates
Copyright
© International Phonetic Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amery, Rob. 1995. It’s ours to keep and call our own: reclamation of the Nunga languages in the Adelaide region, South Australia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 113, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, Peter K. 2014. Language documentation in the 21st century. JournaLIPP 3, 57–71.Google Scholar
Baldwin, Daryl & Olds, Julie. 2007. Miami Indian language and cultural research at Miami University. In Daniel, M. Cobb & Fowler, Loretta (eds.), Beyond red power: American Indian politics and activism since 1900, 280–290. Santa Fe, NM: SAR Press.Google Scholar
Banerjee, Mousumi, Capozzoli, Michelle, McSweeney, Laura & Sinha, Debajyoti. 1999. Beyond kappa: A review of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics 27(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Richard. 2011. “Better than any monument”: Envisioning museums of the spoken word. Museum Anthropology Review 5(1–2), 1–13.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Harnsberger, James D. & Lindemann, Stephanie. 2002. Language-specific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: Acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates. Journal of Phonetics 30, 591–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri. 2004. Phonetic documentation of endangered languages: Creating a knowledge-base containing sound recording, transcription and analysis. Acoustical Science and Technology 25, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Sonya & Kell, Sarah. 2017. The role of pronunciation in SENĆOĆEN language revitalization. Canadian Modern Language Review 73, 538–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, Heather, Bird, Sonya, Cooper, PEPAĆIYE Ashley, Burton, Strang & Gick, Bryan. 2018. Seeing speech: Ultrasound-based multimedia resources for pronunciation learning in indigenous languages. Language Documentation and Conservation 12, 315–338.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire L., McDonough, Joyce M. & Kelliher, Katherine. 2012. Bardi. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, Andrew. 1996. Some connected speech phenomena in Australian languages: Universals and idiosyncrasies. In Adrian, P. Simpson & Pätzold, Matthias (eds.), Sound patterns of connected speech: Description, models and explanation, 83–104. Kiel: Universität Kiel.Google Scholar
Chirkova, Katia, Wang, Dehe, Chen, Yiya, Amelot, Angélique & Antolík, Tanja Kocjančič. 2015. Ersu. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 45(2), 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Taehong & Keating, Patricia A.. 2001. Articulatory and acoustic studies on domain-initial strengthening in Korean. Journal of Phonetics 29, 155–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coronel-Molina, Serafín M. & McCarty, Teresa L. (eds.). 2016. Indigenous language revitalization in the Americas. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaf, Tjeerd. 2013. Endangered languages and endangered archives in the Russian Federation. In Fishman, Joshua A., David Singleton, Muiris Ó Laoire & Aronin, Larissa (eds.), Current multilingualism: A new linguistic dispensation, 279–296. Berlin & Boston, MA: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiCanio, Christian T. 2012. Coarticulation between tone and glottal consonants in Itunyoso Trique. Journal of Phonetics 40, 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elías-Ulloa, Jose. 2010. An acoustic phonetics of Shipibo-Conibo (Pano), an endangered Amazonian language: A new approach to documenting linguistic data. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Errington, Joseph. 2007. Linguistics in a colonial world: A story of language, meaning and power. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward, Ladefoged, Peter & Thomason, Sarah G.. 2008. Phonetic structures of Montana Salish. Journal of Phonetics 36, 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerfen, Chip & Baker, Kirk. 2005. The production and perception of laryngealized vowels in Coatzospan Mixtec. Journal of Phonetics 33, 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Pliny Earl. 1905. Mechanical aids to the study and recording of language. American Anthropologist 7, 613–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haber, Carl. 2014. Seeing voices: Imaging the earliest sound recordings. Physics Today 67(3), 68–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, Krauss, Michael, Watahomigie, Lucille J., Yamamoto, Akira Y., Craig, Colette, Jeanne, L. Masayesva & England, Nora. 1992. Endangered languages. Language 68, 1–42.Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon. 2007. Witsuwit’en grammar: Phonetics, phonology, morphology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Harnsberger, James D., Svirsky, Mario A., Kaiser, Adam R., Pisoni, David B., Richard, Wright & Meyer, Ted A.. 2001. Perceptual “vowel spaces” of cochlear implant users: Implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 109, 2135–2145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Drager, Katie. 2007. Sociophonetics. Annual Review of Anthropology 36(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, Dylan, Berardo, Marcellino, Feeling, Durbin, Hirata-Edds, Tracy & Peter, Lizette. 2015. Collaborative documentation and revitalization of Cherokee tone. Language Documentation and Conservation 9, 12–31.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36, 161–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, Leanne. 1994. Flutes of fire: Essays on California Indian languages. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne & Hale, Ken (eds.). 2001. The Green Book of language revitalization in practice. London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Huss, Leena & Roche, Gerald (eds.). 2018. The Routledge handbook of language revitalization. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, Daniel. 2010. Sample articles from Le Maître Phonétique . Journal of the International Phonetic Association 40, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Phonetic Association. 1989. Report on the 1989 Kiel Convention. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 19, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kakadelis, Stephanie & Whalen, D. H.. 2018. Place of articulation effects on voice onset time and phonation bleed persist in languages with no voicing distinction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 143, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, J. A. 1995. Phonetics: Precursors to modern approaches. In Koerner, E. F. K. & Asher, R. E. (eds.), Concise history of the language sciences: From the Sumerians to the cognitivists, 371–388. Oxford: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Pāinian linguistics. In Asher, R. E. (ed.), Concise history of the language sciences, 59–65. Amsterdam: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, James P. 2014. Incipient tonogenesis in Phnom Penh Khmer: Acoustic and perceptual studies. Journal of Phonetics 43, 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kottner, Jan, Audige, Laurent, Brorson, Stig, Donner, Allan, Gajewski, Byron J., Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Roberts, Chris, Shoukri, Mohamed & Streiner, David L.. 2011. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. International Journal of Nursing Studies 48, 661–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreiman, Jody & Sidtis, Diana. 2011. Foundations of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2014. Simultaneous structure in phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2003. Phonetic data analysis: An introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996a. Recording the phonetic structures of endangered languages. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 93, 1–7.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996b. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford & Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lehnert-LeHouillier, Heike. 2007. The perception of vowel quantity: A crosslinguistic investigation. Ph.D. dissertation, University at Buffalo, Buffalo.Google Scholar
little doe baird, jessie. 2013. Wampanoag: How did this happen to my language? In Hinton, Leanne (ed.), Bringing our languages home: Language revitalization for families, 19–32. Berkeley, CA: Heydey Books.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian & Gordon, Matthew. 1996. Notes on the phonetics of Sele, with particular attention to vowels. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 93, 149–163.Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce M. 2003. The Navajo sound system. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munson, Benjamin, Edwards, Jan, Schellinger, S., Beckman, Mary E. & Meyer, M.. 2010. Deconstructing phonetic transcription: Language-specificity, covert contrast, perceptual bias, and an extraterrestrial view of vox humana. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 24, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nettle, Daniel & Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olive, Joseph P., Alice, Greenwood & Coleman, John. 1993. Acoustics of American English speech: A dynamic approach. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Perley, Bernard C. 2012. Zombie linguistics: Experts, endangered languages and the curse of undead voices. Anthropological Forum 22, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1968. Short history of linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Rousselot, P.-J. 1897–1908. Principes de phonétique expérimentale. Paris: H. Welter.Google Scholar
Sands, Bonny, Maddieson, Ian & Ladefoged, Peter. 1996. The phonetic structures of Hadza. Studies in African linguistics 25, 171–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, Justin. 2018. Learning language through archives. In Hinton, Leanne, Huss, Leena & Roche, Gerald (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language revitalization, 179–187. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viëtor, W. 1898. Elemente der Phonetik des Deutschen, Englishcne unde Französischen. Leipzig: Reisland.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. & McDonough, Joyce M.. 2015. Taking the laboratory into the field. Annual Review of Linguistics 1, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, D. H. & Simons, Gary F.. 2012. Endangered language families. Language 88, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 2003. Defining documentary linguistics. Language Documentation and Description 1, 35–51.Google Scholar