Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info


New from Oxford University Press!

ad

Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice

By Ingrid Piller

Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice "prompts thinking about linguistic disadvantage as a form of structural disadvantage that needs to be recognized and taken seriously."


New from Cambridge University Press!

ad

Language Evolution: The Windows Approach

By Rudolf Botha

Language Evolution: The Windows Approach addresses the question: "How can we unravel the evolution of language, given that there is no direct evidence about it?"


The LINGUIST List is dedicated to providing information on language and language analysis, and to providing the discipline of linguistics with the infrastructure necessary to function in the digital world. LINGUIST is a free resource, run by linguistics students and faculty, and supported primarily by your donations. Please support LINGUIST List during the 2016 Fund Drive.

Summary Details


Query:   Sum: French section of the Handbook of the IPA
Author:  Neil Coffey
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Applied Linguistics

Summary:   GENERAL
- -----

A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I POSTED A REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK ON
A NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE SECTION ON FRENCH IN THE
HANDBOOK OF THE IPA. SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE REPLIED BOTH WITH
FEEDBACK AND A REQUEST FOR A SUMMARY, WHICH I GIVE BELOW.
MY THANKS TO ALL THOSE WHO REPLIED, AND IN PARTICULAR TO
THE FOLLOWING FOR THEIR VERY DETAILED RESPONSES:

{A} ROGER BILLEREY
{B} AURELIEN MAX
{C} CHANTAL RITTAUD-HUTINET
{D} JOAQUIM DE CARVALHO
{E} MARC BAVANT
{F} JOHANNES REESE
{G} DOUGLAS WALKER

IN THE SUMMARY BELOW, LETTERS IN BRACES REFER TO RESPONDENTS
WHO SPECIFICALLY ADVOCATED A PARTICULAR VIEW; NOTE THAT
THEIR ABSENCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY UPHOLD
A CONTRARY VIEW.

RESPONSES
- -------

(1) THEERE WAS LARGE, THOUGH (SURPRISINGLY?) NOT UNANIMOUS,
AGREEMENT THAT THE NASALISED VOWEL IN E.G. 'MATIN' IS
CLOSER IN TIMBRE TO [AE~] THAN [E~] {ACDG}, THOUGH
ALL COMMENTS REFERRED TO PERCEPTION/FORMANT STRUCTURE
RATHER THAN ARTICULATION. ONE YOUNGER SPEAKER MADE
THE POINT THAT THE TONGUE SEEMED _LOWER_ IN THE MOUTH
FOR THE FIRST VOWEL OF 'INTENTION' THAN FOR 'ATTENTION'
{B}; AN OLDER SPEAKER MADE THE POINT THAT IF THERE
EXISTED THE WORD 'ETTENTION' (WITH [E-]), IT WOULD
BE CLOSER TO 'INTENTION' THAN 'ATTENTION' {E}.

TWO (NON-NATIVE) RESPONDENTS WONDERED IF A [A~]/[E~]
DIFFERENCE IN TIMBRE MIGHT OPERATE DEPENDING ON
MORPHOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE VOWEL {F}.

ONE RESPONDENT RECOMMENDED HANSEN (1998), REFERENCED
BELOW {G}. I HAVE IT ON ORDER, AND WILL SUMMARISE
ANY RELEVANT INFORMATION.

AS IT STANDS, THEN, IT SEEMS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER
THE HANDBOOK'S CLAIM THAT

LL Issue: 10.1908
Date Posted: 11-Dec-1999
Original Query: Read original query