Intonation has frequently been regarded by linguists as on the periphery of linguistics. The study of grammar began in the classical era (see Robins 1967) and the study of phonetics also goes back a very long way (see, for example, Allen 1953). But intonation has not figured prominently in phonetic writings (if we exclude discussion of word phenomena like Greek accent). Most bibliographies of intonation do not go further back than the twentieth century (e.g. Ladd 1979a), two exceptions being Pike (1945) and Crystal (1969). But there are sufficient early writings on various aspects of intonation to justify a new sub-branch of the history of linguistics, the history of intonology. This article seeks to inaugurate this sub-branch by tracing the origins of a central theoretical concept in modern intonation back to the seventeenth century and ultimately to the renaissance.

In this paper we will discuss some phonetic differences that are found in the production of diphthongs. The study is of a limited scope and may be considered a pilot study. The kinds of questions that will be addressed have to do with the specification of timing in speech production. Are the vowel elements of diphthongs joined in language-specific ways, or can they be joined by more general principles, such as the assumption of a fairly constant transition duration, so that the transition rate will be faster if the distance between onset - and offset - vowels is greater? This kind of principle was proposed by Kent and Moll (1972) for some types of vowel-to-vowel sequences. Or does the duration of the transition lengthen as the distance of the transition increases, keeping the transition rate fairly constant? If any of these principles are at work, then their effects will show up acoustically in the transition duration, particularly of F2. If the Kent and Moll principle is applicable, it would for example operate as a tendency towards similar F2 transition durations in different languages for the ‘same’ diphthongs.

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.

A fundamentally important practice in phonetics is the analysis of continuous speech into a sequence of discrete segments. There has been considerable debate about the theoretical validity of this practice within classical auditory/kinaesthetic phonetics and in phonology as well as in the context of the acoustic analysis of speech; in recent years the issue has become more widely important as research work in automatic speech processing has resulted in computer algorithms for segmenting speech and assigning phonetic labels to the segments. Work on the automatic segmentation and labeling of speech sounds has been carried on in our department since 1980. This paper begins by examining the theoretical issues involved in segmentation and labeling, then describes our own work.

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.