30.1667, Calls: Linguistic Theories, Phonetics, Phonology/Poland
The LINGUIST List
linguist at listserv.linguistlist.org
Wed Apr 17 03:57:47 UTC 2019
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-1667. Tue Apr 16 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.
Subject: 30.1667, Calls: Linguistic Theories, Phonetics, Phonology/Poland
Moderator: Malgorzata E. Cavar (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Student Moderator: Jeremy Coburn
Managing Editor: Becca Morris
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Everett Green, Sarah Robinson, Peace Han, Nils Hjortnaes, Yiwen Zhang, Julian Dietrich
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org
************************************** LINGUIST List Support **************************************
Fund Drive 2019
29 years of LINGUIST List! The annual Fund Drive is on!
Please support the LINGUIST List to ensure we can continue to deliver important information to your mailbox.
Every amount counts:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 23:57:15
From: Ewelina Wojtkowiak [ewojtkowiak at wa.amu.edu.pl]
Subject: Modern Phonetic Research & Phonological Representation
Full Title: Modern Phonetic Research & Phonological Representation
Date: 16-Sep-2019 - 18-Sep-2019
Location: Poznań, Poland
Contact Person: Ewelina Wojtkowiak
Meeting Email: ewojtkowiak at wa.amu.edu.pl
Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Phonetics; Phonology
Call Deadline: 22-Apr-2019
Meeting Description:
(Session of 49th Poznań Linguistic Meeting)
PLM 2019 Session Title: Modern phonetics and phonological representation: a
new outlook on an old controversy.
Convenors: Ewelina Wojtkowiak and Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
Irrespective of which units are used – distinctive features (e.g. Chomsky and
Halle 1968), elements (e.g. Backley 2011), or articulatory gestures (e.g.
Browman and Goldstein 1992), to name a few – phonological representations in
general possess a certain level of abstraction in which phonetic detail is
oftentimes disregarded. The dissonance between representation and realisation
has been the topic of a heated debate for quite some time. In fact, it can be
traced back to Trubetzkoy, who saw phonetics and phonology as two separate
disciplines which study two completely different phenomena and as such should
be kept strictly apart ([1939] 1962: 10). Some phonologists argue that
phonetics “is relatively uninteresting” and as such “has no place in
linguistics proper” (cf. Pierrehumbert 1990 for an overview; also: Gussmann
2004). In turn, phoneticians argue that phonological representations are not
subject to enough scientific research to tell us anything about the sound
structure of languages and as such is “an uninteresting subfield of
humanities” (Pierrehumbert 1990: 375). Problems with these disagreements
between the two sides of this issue arise when we cross-check phonological
accounts with empirical data. For instance, Polish has been described as a
language in which word-final obstruents undergo devoicing (Gussmann 2007), a
claim which has been taken for granted. Phonetic research, however, provides
evidence that Polish native speakers seem to be surprisingly accurate in
perceiving the contrast between underlyingly voiceless and voiced obstruents
in this position and, while less robust, the contrast is also by and large
maintained in their productions (Schwartz et al. 2018). Studies on
cross-linguistic influence show that L1 productions change under the influence
of one’s L2 and Lns (e.g. Chang 2012, Sypiańska 2016). Therefore, if
phonological representations fail to refer to phonetic research, they may fail
to accurately encapsulate linguistic phenomena (cf. Ohala 1990). While some
progress in this respect has been made, “phonetics as a motivating force for
phonology remains controversial” (Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2012).
2nd Call for Papers:
PLM 2019: Modern phonetics and phonological representation: a new outlook on
an old controversy.
Convenors: Ewelina Wojtkowiak and Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk
Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Irrespective of which units are used – distinctive features (e.g. Chomsky and
Halle 1968), elements (e.g. Backley 2011), or articulatory gestures (e.g.
Browman and Goldstein 1992), to name a few – phonological representations in
general possess a certain level of abstraction in which phonetic detail is
oftentimes disregarded. The dissonance between representation and realisation
has been the topic of a heated debate for quite some time. In fact, it can be
traced back to Trubetzkoy, who saw phonetics and phonology as two separate
disciplines which study two completely different phenomena and as such should
be kept strictly apart ([1939] 1962: 10). Some phonologists argue that
phonetics “is relatively uninteresting” and as such “has no place in
linguistics proper” (cf. Pierrehumbert 1990 for an overview; also: Gussmann
2004). In turn, phoneticians argue that phonological representations are not
subject to enough scientific research to tell us anything about the sound
structure of languages and as such is “an uninteresting subfield of
humanities” (Pierrehumbert 1990: 375). Problems with these disagreements
between the two sides of this issue arise when we cross-check phonological
accounts with empirical data. For instance, Polish has been described as a
language in which word-final obstruents undergo devoicing (Gussmann 2007), a
claim which has been taken for granted. Phonetic research, however, provides
evidence that Polish native speakers seem to be surprisingly accurate in
perceiving the contrast between underlyingly voiceless and voiced obstruents
in this position and, while less robust, the contrast is also by and large
maintained in their productions (Schwartz et al. 2018). Studies on
cross-linguistic influence show that L1 productions change under the influence
of one’s L2 and Lns (e.g. Chang 2012, Sypiańska 2016). Therefore, if
phonological representations fail to refer to phonetic research, they may fail
to accurately encapsulate linguistic phenomena (cf. Ohala 1990). While some
progress in this respect has been made, “phonetics as a motivating force for
phonology remains controversial” (Dziubalska-Kołaczyk 2012).
This workshop invites all papers that investigate the issue relating to the
extent to which phonetic detail should affect our decisions about phonological
representations, with respect to current phonological models. They may:
- Present original empirical studies that have been conducted to test
phonological hypotheses,
- Discuss the dubious status of the segment and the apparent stability of
morphemes in phonetics and phonology,
- Focus on intramorphemic phonotactics vs. morphological interactions,
- Seek to rethink the nature of the distinctive features.
Other ideas related to this theme are also welcome.
Submit your abstract via EasyChair:
https://easychair.org/my/conference.cgi?conf=plm2019
Call Deadline: 22/04/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*************************** LINGUIST List Support ***************************
The 2019 Fund Drive is under way! Please visit https://funddrive.linguistlist.org
to find out how to donate and check how your university, country or discipline
ranks in the fund drive challenges. Or go directly to the donation site:
https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list-2019
Let's make this a short fund drive!
Please feel free to share the link to our campaign:
https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-30-1667
----------------------------------------------------------
More information about the LINGUIST
mailing list