13.99, Disc: Phonetic Frequencies & "Corpus Phonetics"

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-99. Thu Jan 17 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.99, Disc: Phonetic Frequencies & "Corpus Phonetics"

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	Jody Huellmantel, WSU		James Yuells, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Richard Harvey, EMU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:16:33 +0000
From:  "Mark Jones" <markjjones at hotmail.com>
Subject:  Re: LINGUIST 13.88, Phonetic Frequencies & "Corpus Phonetics"

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 16 Jan 2002 09:16:33 +0000
From:  "Mark Jones" <markjjones at hotmail.com>
Subject:  Re: LINGUIST 13.88, Phonetic Frequencies & "Corpus Phonetics"

Greg Kochanski makes a number of very valuable points and suggestions about
the corpus based approach.

However, practical experience with non-University educated speakers in the
field suggests to me that some of his suggestions may not work in practice,
specifically asking a speaker to mark a text for potentially contrastive
features like prosody. Although non-linguists are capable of doing such
things, it often takes a great deal of time to explain this approach to
language, and an ad hoc explanation in response to a particular speaker
comment may itself, of course, prejudice different speakers to do things in
different ways.

Secondly, his objection to laboratory speech is of course a very valid one,
but it applies equally to reading a large text "seeded" with test words.
Actual real world speech not only differs in phonetic terms from lab speech,
but differs greatly in terms of the words and constructions used in writing.
Anyone who has attempted to use something as uncontrolled as free
conversation to elicit complex grammatical forms will testify to the amount
of material needed to gain one subjunctive, for example. Using subjunctives
in a reading text may therefore bias a speaker towards using a particular
style, and style shifting may potentially take place within one text.

The same is true of vocabulary items, which may have a regional and social
distribution not immediately apparent. As inflectional endings may also vary
in their distribution in dialect (I'm thinking here of the use of present
tense endings or past tense forms in some English dialects), the text may
produce something which is a hybrid, and it may be a hybrid for different
speakers at different points. This is uncontrolled and cannot be assessed
without a knowledge of what counts as a representative token of one style as
a yardstick.
In the end what one may gain from studying such a text may be less reliable
as an indicator of any one style of speech, and it may be simpler and
quicker to do a lab type elicitation task and some free conversation from
the same speaker.

Obviously lab speech needs to be very controlled too in terms of the above
as far as elicitation texts are concerned. However, as the focus of such
elicitation sentences is usually one particular aspect of pronunciation, and
therefore shorter, this is a much more manageable task.

Of course it is true that one gets different answers to different questions
using different approaches. However, I feel that to regard lab speech as
unnatural is incorrect. It is unspontaneous, but may be more representative
of natural speech than a long text containing some of the non-local or
socially and stylistically marked features I have referred to above.

In my own research, writing a dialct feature in one elicitation sentence
(the reduced definite article t' of some northern English English dialects)
prompted one speaker to say 'again' as [agen] in that sentence. In the
identical sentence without the written dialect feature the same speaker
consistently said [agein]. This suggests that the speaker was using more
'natural' speech in the sentence with the dialect feature than in the
sentence which lacked it, and indicates the degree of influence one
social/regional feature can have on elicited data on a sentence by sentence
and word by word basis.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-99