Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T06:41:47.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Extrinsic phonetic interpretation: spectral variation in English liquids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

John Local
Affiliation:
University of York
Richard Ogden
Affiliation:
University of York
Rosalind Temple
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Much recent phonology presupposes intrinsic phonetic interpretation, in which phonological features are effectively phonetic features. In an intrinsic model such as Bromberger and Halle (1989), the phonology organises the phonetics in the sense that features have binary values in phonology; the same features appear with scalar values in the phonetics. Phonological structure is effectively an arrangement of phonetic content.

Extrinsic Phonetic Interpretation (EPI) makes use of abstract phonological categories which are related to, but do not equate to, phonetic features (Local 1995a). EPI mechanisms are found in some contemporary frameworks, particularly in those versions of Declarative Phonology influenced by Firthian Prosodic Analysis (Local 1995a; Local and Simpson 1999; Ogden 1993, 1999a, 1999b; Ogden et al., 2000). In such approaches, phonology is made up not of phonetic features but of abstract relational categories primarily concerned with contrast and not uniquely associated with phonetic events. EPI forces the analyst to recognise the need for explicit phonetic interpretation. In this paper I will argue that EPI provides for a felicitous account of phonetic variation and phonological abstraction.

This paper examines the case of secondary articulations in English liquids from a declarative phonology/EPI perspective, outlining the structure-dependent and dialect-specific aspects of their phonetic implementation, thereby extending the work of Kelly and Local (1986, 1989) to rhotic varieties of English and testing the predictions made by Sproat and Fujimura (1993) against data from other varieties.

Type
Chapter
Information
Phonetic Interpretation
Papers in Laboratory Phonology VI
, pp. 237 - 252
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×