LOT Winter School 2018

Phonetics in phonology, phonology in phonetics

Ruben van de Vijver




Course information

Course level


Course description

Even though phonetics and phonology are often distinguished, it is not so clear what the distinction is. Phonetics is considered to deal with gradient, automatic and universal properties of speech sounds, whereas phonology deals with categorical, deliberate and language specific aspects of speech sounds. Recently it has been argued that phonetics and phonology are so tightly intertwined that a complete distinction is impossible. In this course we will explore how phonology grows out of phonetics.

Day-to-day program

Monday: Phonetics in phonology, phonology in phonetics: the basics

Tuesday: How do phonetic properties group sounds?

Wednesday: How does phonetics shape our processing of speech sounds?

Thursday: How does phonetics influence phonological alternations?

Friday: How does phonetics influence morphophonological learning?

Reading list

Course readings:

Lecture 1: Phonetics in phonology, phonology in phonetics

Hayes, B. and Steriade, D. (2004). Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Hayes, B., Steriade, D., and Kirchner, R. M., editors, Phonetically Based Phonology, pages 1–33. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Kingston, J. and Diehl, R. L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Language, pages 419–454.

Pierrehumbert, J. (2000). The phonetic grounding of phonology. Les Cahiers de l’ICP, Bulletin de la Communication Parlée, 5:7–23.

Lecture 2: Grouping sounds

Cristià, A. and Seidl, A. (2008). Is infants’ learning of sound patterns constrained by phonological features? Language Learning and Development, 4(3):203–227.

Flemming, E. (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology, 18(1):7–44.

Mielke, J. (2005). Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology, 22(02):169– 203.

Lecture 3: Phonetics, phonology and processing

Guevara-Rukoz, A., Lin, I., Morii, M., Minagawa, Y., Dupoux, E., and Peperkamp, S. (2017a). Which epenthetic vowel? phonetic categories versus acoustic detail in perceptual vowel epenthesis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 142(2):EL211–EL217.

Guevara-Rukoz, A., Parlato-Oliveira, E., Yu, S., Hirose, Y., Peperkamp, S., and Dupoux, E. (2017b). Predicting epenthetic vowel quality from acoustics. In INTERSPEECH.

Martin, A. and Peperkamp, S. (2017). Assessing the distinctiveness of phonological features in word recognition: Prelexical and lexical influences. Journal of Phonetics, 62:1–11.

Lecture 4: Phonetics in the morphophonology of natural languages

Becker, M., Ketrez, N., and Nevins, A. (2011). The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics of Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language, 87(1):84–125.

Hayes, B., Zuraw, K., Siptár, P., and Londe, Z. (2009). Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language, 85(4):822–863.

Zuraw, K. (2007). The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Language, 83(2):277–316.

Lecture 5: The role of phonetics in learning alternations

Baer-Henney, D. and van de Vijver, R. (2012). On the role of sub- stance, locality and amount of exposure in the acquisition of morphophonemic alternations. Laboratory Phonology, 3(2):221–256.

Strüẗtjen, K., Baer-Henney, D., Indefrey, P., and van de Vijver, R. (2017). Phonological leanring is biased by substance: Evidence form an experimental study on vowel nasalisation. Heinrich- Heine-Universität Düsseldorf.

Wilson, C. (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and compu- tational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 30(5):945–982.