Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie
linguistlist.org>
The following is a response by Mike Davenport and S.J. Hannahs to the review of Introducing Phonetics and Phonology, by David Henry Deterding, Linguist 10-989. S.J. Hannahs and Mike Davenport =================================================== We are grateful for the generally positive tone of this review. Many of the comments made will be helpful in preparing a second edition. In what follows we'd like to comment on one or two of the less positive points made by the reviewer. We agree that the book would benefit from (more) discussion of both intonation and suprasegmental structure in general. It is hoped that we'll be able to address this in any further edition. We certainly didn't mean to convey the impression that we find intonation unimportant, though it is a difficult topic to address satisfactorily in an introductory textbook, particularly with our intended ab initio audience. The non-use of phonetic symbols in the early sections of the book is entirely deliberate. In a sense it's a chicken-and-egg question: early use of symbols can lead to confusion due to the unfamiliarity of many of them, yet you need some way of referring to the sounds in the early stages of the discussion. Before introducing phonetic symbols we are, however, normally careful to use expressions such as 'the sound represented by the letter _t_' or 'the first sound in the word _man_' (cf. p. 9). There is a similar problem with referring to vowel sounds before vowels are formally discussed. We have tried to avoid this as far as possible, yet to avoid it completely would seriously hamper appropriate discussion of some aspects of the phonetics of consonants. Where we do refer to vowels, as on p. 33, we have exemplified the symbols in question by providing words containing them. We recognise that there is a great deal of exemplification of regional variation, particularly in the chapter on vowels. We would hope that rather than leading to confusion this makes the student aware that English is not monolithic. Apart from this, however, there are several other reasons we have included this wealth of information. In the first place, most speakers of English speak neither RP nor General American, a fact which is often glossed over in many texts. The constant reference to accents other than these two is a way of helping students decide on the description of their own system. At the same time, non-native speakers have access to information on RP and General American while also being made aware of the wide variation in pronunciations of English. Again, this is something often glossed over by teachers of English as a foreign language. The reviewer erroneously suggests that RP is 'adopted as the base model throughout'. In fact, as we state on p. 7, 'The primary focus is on ... different varieties of English, particularly Received Pronunciation ... and General American.' The reviewer's comment that there are differences between the vowels given for RP on p. 52 and those in exercise 1, p. 173, for 'Non-rhotic English' is accurate. However, 'non-rhotic English' does not -- and indeed should not -- imply only Received Pronunciation. Most English Englishes, for example, are both non-rhotic and non-RP. We thank the reviewer for pointing out the inconsistencies with respect to the use of symbols for CV6 and CV7 and the feature [tense]. He is right in saying that the feature analysis breaks down in failing to differentiate all the vowels listed. However, as we discuss on p. 90, 'The use of just these features involves a number of awkward omissions with respect to vowel systems encountered in the languages of the world.' In an introductory textbook certain compromises are inevitable. At the same time, we have alerted the student to potential problems with a characterisation based on this type of feature system.Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue