Elements of General Phonetics 9780852240281, 0852240287, 9780852244517, 0852244517

Citation preview

ELEMENTS OF GENERAL PHONETICS

ELEMENTS OF GENERAL PHONETICS DAVID ABERCROMBIE

\

“R

"§\

13

\\\

M l' J',_-0.-‘Z;

"'"wfc_;f

v-0,01, ”vf[]»rtmI-os -‘Lo -\u'], -coloalf-'o]os‘-— -w3a>s ->o:>pns zrfiro -‘La wofjaro 1‘ -\v'], 'co[|»i:m'],o -011. -vi], ~o;oI-as piano, -‘[33 zap. -r='[,r 'oo]w'[, 's|]o’ -w'L w'],'op"i'1,|= -pi"; -Ls 'o1ouo[jr‘,--v1, -oolo “£73 ~o>[>I-a 'o|]o‘! The Organic Alphabet of Henry Sweet (from A Primer ofPhonetics, 3rd ed., 1906, p. 88; somewhat enlarged).

the printer and the proofreader. The advantages of an iconic notation are largely illusory, and are outweighed by these drawbacks, which seem to apply to all iconic notations that have so far been invented. In any case, when such a notation has been learnt, the symbols lose for the practised reader their iconic nature, and function just like any other letters. 4. Alphabetic notations: roman-based

While imperfect legibility is a common shortcoming of iconic notations, they have another serious disadvantage. A symbol in an iconic notation is likely to be tied to a particular theory of phonetic description—and this theory may turn out to be wrong or inadequate. An analphabetic notation can be revised to accommodate changes in theory; but, except within narrow limits, an iconic notation cannot be. The very shape of an iconic symbol may impose an unwanted theory on the person using it, and thereby constrain his thought. Thus Sweet’s Organic Alphabet commits us to his own classification of vocoids, which is based on dubious criteria, is very complex, and

in general is unacceptable nowadays. A good notation must be independent ofparticular theories of description. The roman alphabet is highly legible; but it has an additional advantage in that its symbols are completely arbitrary.

Alphabetic notations.‘ roman-based

1 21

If, however, in a roman-based phonetic notation, we are to have a single separate symbol for every classifiable segment, it is clear that the roman alphabet will not provide enough, and that it will have, somehow, to be augmented. Before we examine the different expedients by which this can be done, we must first ascertain the alphabet’s full resources: it can offer more, for the purposes of phonetic notation, than just the twenty-six letters of which, as we know it in this country, it consists. (It has not, of course, always had twenty-six letters; j, v, and w, for instance, are quite recent additions to it.) First of all, many letters have more than one shape. For example, capital letters are not only usually bigger than ‘lower-case’ or small letters, but apart from their difference in size their design may be different. Italic letters also, apart from being sloped, may be of different designfi Thus we have £1

f a '-w:-e-no1 C'.75"“C)’TlZ>

ll

and so on. Although we have here examples of different shapes of the same letter there is no reason why the different shapes should not be taken into a phonetic notation as diflerent symbols, and many people have done this. Some systems of notation preserve capital and italic letters exactly as they are, with their existing size or slope respectively. Others make the notation more homogeneous in appearance by printing capitals in the form of small capitals, thus: G I R U; and making italic letters upright instead of sloped, without changing their basic design, thus: