30.4495, Calls: Linguistic Theories, Phonetics, Phonology/Japan

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-30-4495. Tue Nov 26 2019. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 30.4495, Calls: Linguistic Theories, Phonetics, Phonology/Japan

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

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Everett Green <everett at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:10:45
From: Jonathan Barnes [jabarnes at bu.edu]
Subject: Representations in Intonational Phonology 2020

 
Full Title: Representations in Intonational Phonology 2020 
Short Title: RIP 2020 

Date: 23-May-2020 - 23-May-2020
Location: Tokyo, Japan 
Contact Person: Jonathan Barnes
Meeting Email: jabarnes at bu.edu
Web Site: http://sites.bu.edu/ripworkshop2020/ 

Linguistic Field(s): Linguistic Theories; Phonetics; Phonology 

Call Deadline: 20-Dec-2019 

Meeting Description:

Representations in Intonational Phonology is a satellite workshop to be held
immediately prior to the opening of Speech Prosody 2020 in Tokyo.


Call for Papers:

In intonational phonology, symbolic representations are bound to the acoustic
signal in ways no longer typical of mainstream analyses in segmental or
(lexical) tonal phonology. The assumption (reminiscent of SPE-era
phonetics/phonology) that all purposeful or “controlled” events in the
phonetics must be specified directly in the phonology leads to a practice
whereby basic properties of the tone melody are read deterministically off of
visible events in the F0 contour. This one-to-one mapping between abstract
symbols and elements of the acoustic signal stands in strong contrast to
contemporary approaches to segmental and tonal phonology, where abstract
phonological features represent contrasts among classes of segments,
implemented by clusters of language-specific, contextually variable and
dynamically interacting phonetic cues (e.g., Kingston & Diehl 1994 et seq. on
phonetic cues to the feature [voice], or Brunelle & Kirby 2016 on tone and
phonation type in Southeast Asia).

These differences in approach may be partly due to the nature of the evidence
at our disposal. As Pierrehumbert (1980, 11) somewhat offhandedly observes:
“In other languages, rules which alter tonal values or delete tones can apply
to such a representation. English appears to lack such rules, with the result
that the underlying and derived phonological representations of intonation are
identical. The rules of interest are thus the rules which assign phonetic
values to tones and construct the F0 contour between one tone and the next.”)
But is intonational phonology as a whole different from segmental/tonal
phonology in this way? And if so, why? And how then are we to investigate the
nature of phonological representations, beyond simple inspection of the
phonetic record?

We invite papers related to these issues, addressing questions such as:

Is intonational phonology different from other phonological systems in
important ways? How (dis)similar are intonational and (lexical/grammatical)
tonal phonology? How (dis)similar are intonational and segmental phonology?

Does every acoustic event in a pitch contour (or in prominence marking, or in
phrasing) map onto a phonological element? (cf. ‘spurious highs’ in Zhou & Ahn
2019, or enhancing/trading cues, such as scaling with timing contrasts [Barnes
et al. 2019], or contour shape with both scaling and timing [Barnes et al.
2012])

Do phonological elements in intonation always map onto a (constant) set of
phonetic cues?

Are there phonological processes/patterns in intonation that require
insertion, deletion, or rearrangement of abstract phonological symbols, rather
than their phonetic interpretation? (cf. segmentally conditioned AP initial
tones in Korean [Jun 1998]) Are there ‘null’ elements in intonational
phonology? (cf. the [now-abandoned] downstep-inducing trailing L of English
H*+ L in Pierrehumbert 1980)

What is the nature of phonological features in speech prosody? Are there
natural class behaviors requiring phonological representations to be one way
(vs. another) symbolically? To what degree are phonological features defined
by their acoustic characteristics?

What kinds of data and/or arguments are relevant for these questions? What
counts as an argument for/against a proposed answer?

Submissions for RIP at Speech Prosody 2020 must follow INTERSPEECH 2019
guidelines (4 page limit for text)

The INTERSPEECH 2019 kit for papers (LaTeX and MS Word) is here:
https://sp2020.jpn.org/submission/

Submissions via SPro2020's EasyChair page no later than December 20 2019,
23:59 Tokyo time: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sp2020

Select [WS3] in ''Workshop topics'' section.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***************************    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-30-4495	
----------------------------------------------------------