Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 4 - Recognizing the Bias

  • from Part II - Questions of Epistemology: The Role of Instrumental Observations
  • Victor J. Boucher, Université de Montréal
  • Book:
    The Study of Speech Processes
    Published online:
    14 January 2021
    Print publication:
    21 January 2021, pp 75-107

  • Summary

    It has long been established through instrumental methods that conventional units of linguistic analysis are not in speech. Yet the tendency has been to overlook instrumental records and to focus instead on indirect observations, generally involving a reference to writing signs, in maintaining orthographic concepts. This has been the case of the historical debate on existence of letter-like phonemes. Indirect evidence from transcribed spoonerisms to the invention of the Greek alphabet has been interpreted as reflecting an awareness of phonemes even for illiterate speakers. Some claim that an awareness of letters arises from an innate competence for language.A critical review reveals that much indirect evidence is inherently circular: a reference to alphabet signs cannot validly serve to investigate an awareness of letter-like entities. Several authors have criticized the centrism of the assumption that alphabet systems reflect an innate awareness of phonemes. Similar problems arise with other writing-induced concepts that have guided interpretations of results and experimental designs.