The intonation of Spanish does not appear to have received the same degree of attention as the Spanish segmental system. Furthermore, much of the information available and the analyses proposed until fairly recently seem to have been largely arrived at on the basis of subjective, impressionistic considerations. It is only in the last few years that there seems to have been a shift of emphasis in the study of Spanish prosody and more research of an experimental and instrumental nature is being carried out.

From relevant surveys (Greenberg 1970, Maddieson 1984: 98–122) it appears that the only sound-types with glottalic suction initiation which are reliably attested in the sound systems of languages are oral-plus-velic stops with plain release, whether these be the common voiced types, or the rare voiceless types (see e.g. Pinkerton 1986) which received official recognition and symbols only at the 1989 IPA convention. Real-language members of the class ‘implosive’ thus share articulatory as well as initiatory properties, making the ‘-plosive’ part of the term particularly apt.

In the previous issue of the Journal, on page 52, there were reproductions of two spectrograms that readers were invited to interpret. Both had been tested by presenting them to a group of about half a dozen experienced spectrogram readers. This group discussed the reproductions, arguing for different interpretations until they had reached a consensus on what phrases must have been spoken. The following are some comments that readers might wish to consider, based on the group's procedure in interpreting the first phrase, which is reproduced again below. Remember that the spectrograms contain English sentences spoken in a British accent close to the RP standard.

There has been considerable correspondence among members concerning the revisions of the IPA. The new chart had the approval of the overwhelming majority of the Council and of the membership; but almost everyone had objections to some particular detail. This makes the correspondence hard to summarize in an objective fashion. Most people wrote that they favored the new proposals. But—and then they criticized some particular decision, often making the same point as they or others had made to no avail at the convention. The arguments in favor of that decision (arguments that successfully convinced the Convention to vote for it) are not made in the correspondence, and any summary would inevitably be one sided. Accordingly, with one exception, this report will concentrate on suggestions in the correspondence that do not reiterate statements made at the Convention, but instead are more concerned with tidying up loose ends. In order to provide a basis for future decisions, formal proposals will be made. After members have had an opportunity to express their opinions on these proposals, the Council will be asked to approve or disapprove these proposals.

A topic that was not discussed at the 1989 Kiel convention was the phonetic specification of [h]. Judging by its current place on the chart it appears to be a voiceless glottal fricative. But this is a misnomer, in that most forms of [h] have very little friction at the glottis. The vocal cords are apart and any turbulent airflow that there might be is due to what Pike (1943) calls “cavity friction” rather than local friction at a particular point, [h] has no more friction at the glottis than [f] or any other voiceless sound with a comparable airflow.

I am in favor of letting [h] and [ɦ] stay where they are as glottal fricatives—honorary glottal fricatives, if you like! What the preceding paper says about them is true—there tends to be noticeable glottal turbulence with [h] only occasionally, particularly before open [a]-type vowels (or after them, in languages with final [h]'s). The voiced counterpart is perhaps more likely to have some turbulent glottal flow, being, in fact breathy or whispery voice. My reason for wanting to keep [h] and [ɦ] in the chart is perhaps more phonological and practical than strictly phonetic. There are so many languages in which one or both of these sounds functions as a syllabic margin—as a term in a series of consonants—that one often wants to put them in a chart of consonants. In Caucasian languages [h] often coexists in the consonant system alongside [ʔ], and (e.g. in dialects of Agul) alongside [ʔ], [ʡ], [ħ], [ʕ], [H] and [ʢ].

The 1989 Kiel Convention made an unprincipled decision to ignore the basis of the Cardinal Vowel system, which specifies four ‘heights’ and three ‘horizontal’ locations for vowels, by ignoring close-mid and open-mid central vowels and proposing only two symbols for non-close central vowels, viz. [ə, ө].

Prior to the 1989 convention in Kiel the principal symbols for tones recommended by the IPA were a set of “horizontal and oblique accents” which were intended ‘by their shapes and positions” to “give some indication of their musical values” (quotations are from Principles of the IPA 1949, p. 18.). Thus, level tones were to be indicated by horizontal bars, rising tones by marks that slope up from left to right, falling tones by marks that slope down from left to right, and so on. The height of a tone could be indicated by vertical position of these marks relative to the symbols for the segmental material concerned. The marks could be placed either “over or under the vowels, … or at the beginnings of syllables”. A possible set of transcriptions is illustrated in table 1.

The contrast between bilabial and labiodental fricatives is comparatively rare in the world's languages. In his survey of 317 languages Maddieson (1984) notes only one that has the full set of voiced and voiceless sounds [φ, β, f, v], and only four other languages that contrast just the voiced pair. There is no doubt that these contrasts do occur, and that phonologists such as Sagey (1986) are wrong in neglecting to provide for them. This note will provide further particulars of the contrast in languages in which it has not been so well documented in the general linguistic literature. It will also suggest that this contrast may not be made in the same way in all languages, and discuss the implications for the IPA and for theories of phonetic description.