Query Details
| Query Subject: |
Phonetic transparency and CMC
|
|
| Author: | WEN-CHAO LI | |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email | |
| Query: |
I am examining the hypothesis that computer-mediated communication
favors phonetically-transparent forms of spelling/writing over standard conventions. This seems to be common in English, where emails and discussion list posting are routinely peppered with phonetically-transparent non-standard spellings of colloquial forms -- more so than in other forms of writing, but what is more interesting is that in a non-alphabetic script such as Chinese, users also go out of their way to rearrange pictograms so as to achieve an approximation of new pronunciations and non-standard accents -- and this type of Chinese, as far as I know, occurs only on the internet. I would appreciate any pointers to work done on similar phenomena in other languages, or on the relationship between phonetic transparency and computer-mediated discourse. Thanks, Wenchao - ---- Wen-Chao Li Assistant Professor of Linguistics National Taiwan Normal University wenchao@usa.net Dear Linguists, I'd be interested to have people's opinions on the section on French (pp. 78-81) in the Handbook of the IPA published earlier this year. Specifically on the following points: (1) The authors say that [E~] (the nasalised vowel in e.g. 'matin') is ''produced with a tongue and lip position very similar to its oral counterpart [E]''. Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true of the 'young Parisian female' whose speech they're describing, how common is this among (say) young Parisian speakers as a whole? My observation is that pairs such as 'attention' ~ 'intention' are perceptually very similar for native speakers, and I'd be interested to know what, if any, studies have been done on the articulatory position of, and perception of, this vowel, and whether in 1999 we can really regard [E] as its oral counterpart for most young Parisian speakers. (2) On p. 80, the authors state that ''Contrasts between [j] and [i] occur chiefly in final position, as in [abej] 'abeille' vs. [abei] 'abbaye'.''. To what extent is 'contrast between [j] and [i]' an appropriate way to characterise this difference? It seems to me that what they speak of as ''final position'' is actually two different environments from the point of view of syllabification, and that what they transcribe as [e] could be analysed as a different vowel underlyingly in the two cases, and that this difference provides probably a motivating constraint for the [j]/[i] difference. Viz. adopting a segmental notation, we can say that these words are something like /abEi/ and /abei/ underlyingly, and that /E/, but not /e/, can occur in a closed syllable. I'd appreciate others' opinions on this matter. (3) In the transcription, 'serait regard�' is transcribed as [s@R@ R@-], i.e. with a schwa for the second vowel. How common is this assimilation? I'm surprised that the verb ending is completely reduced to a schwa as suggested here. Is it just me not being very observant? (4) In the word 'renon�a', [o~] is transcribed differently from elsewhere. Is there any motivation for this? (5) I'm surprised that [i] is marked as lengthened in 'ils sont tomb�s', but e.g. [a] isn't in 'commen�a a briller' [kOmA~sa bRije]. What do others think? All comments/feedback appreciated; I will of course summarise to the List if requested. Neil - Neil Coffey Fax: 0870 0553662 neil@ox.compsoc.net WWW: http://ox.compsoc.net/~neil/ |
|
| LL Issue: | 10.1767 | |
| Date posted: | 21-Nov-1999 | |
|
Back |
||
|
|
||
|
Sums main page
|
||
|
About LINGUIST
|
Contact Us
|
Report Broken Link
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents. |
|
