We partner with a secure submission system to handle manuscript submissions.
Please note:
You will need an account for the submission system, which is separate to your Cambridge Core account. For login and submission support, please visit the
submission and support pages.
Please review this journal's author instructions, particularly the
preparing your materials
page, before submitting your manuscript.
Click Proceed to submission system to continue to our partner's website.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
There is nothing very new about the idea that speech sounds can be classified in terms of a limited number of features. Phonetic taxonomies have existed from the times of the earliest grammarians; and traditional consonant charts can be viewed as attempts to classify sounds in terms of features of place and manner of production. But with the development of the Prague school of phonology (Trubetzkoy, 1939) and the subsequent work of Jakobson and his collaborators (Jakobson, 1962; Jakobson, Fant and Halle, 1951; Jakobson and Halle, 1956) the discussion of the distinctive features of speech came to have more importance. As a result of the more recent work of Chomsky and Halle (1968), the role of distinctive features within phonological theory has become even more crucial. This paper will review the nature of phonological features in general, and will suggest a particular set of features which it might be appropriate to use in phonological descriptions of languages.
The most important tone sandhi is that of tone-3. Each of the two forms of bisyllabic sequences in Chinese, the quasi-iambic and the trochaic, has two types of tone sandhi pattern. As far as the quasi-iambic sequence is concerned, tone-3 followed by other tones (including the neutral tone) except another tone-3 changes to ½ tone-3. Tone-3 followed by another tone-3 changes to tone-2. As far as the trochaic sequence is concerned, tone-3 followed by the neutral tone derived originally from tone-3 changes either to ½ tone-3 as before any other neutral tone, or to tone-2 as before any stressed tone-3. Tone-3 followed by the first type of trochaic sequence changes to tone-2, and that followed by the second type changes to ½ tone-3. Tone sandhi patterns of the sequences formed by three stressed tone-3 syllables, though mostly determined by the IC, are rather inconsistent; they vary from speaker to speaker. There are two types of tone sandhi patterns of the sequences formed by more than three stressed tone-3 syllables. The first type is uttered with a momentary pause which has the function of separating one IC from another. The second type is uttered without the pause. Thus only the tone pattern of the final syllable remains unchanged. Whether a polysyllabic sequence is uttered with a momentary pause or not depends on the speaker. In general, due to the influence of stress distribution, 223-sequences and 2223-sequences may optionally change to 213-sequences and 2123-sequences respectively when they are spoken faster. This confirms that the description of sandhi patterns in the second paragraph of section 1 is correct.
The Daniel Jones Cardinal Vowel system, defined as it is by clear-cut and rigid rules, is part of the stock-in-trade of all IPA phoneticians. I wish to suggest that the present format of the system contains a contradiction so basic that any attempt to make use of it as a descriptive technique, in all but a very restricted number of cases, would be completely impossible. This contradiction, moreover, is so obvious that the fact that no phonetician has called attention to it until now is hard to explain, and the equally certain fact that descriptive phoneticians (including the present writer) regularly teach the use of the technique to students, and apply it themselves, is even more so.
In the second paragraph of Mrs. Waterson's article ‘Some views on speech perception’ (JIPA, 1, 2, 81), the reference ‘Fry, 1970’ should read ‘Fry, 1956’.
In the same number, in Dr. W. Jassem's article ‘Pitch and compass of the speaking voice’, the denominator of formula (4) on p. 65 should read s3, not s2.