Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T09:58:07.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The validity of phonetic transcription: Limitations of a sociolinguistic research tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Paul Kerswill  and
Susan Wright
Paul Kerswill
Affiliation:
University of Reading
Susan Wright
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Auditory phonetic transcription is a stock-in-trade of sociolinguists; it is transcriptions, not actual speech, that form the raw data of much of sociolinguistics. Given its importance, it is surprising that phonetic transcription has rarely been examined by sociolinguists from the point of view of its validity and its reliability — despite the existence of a certain amount of discussion in the phonetic literature. Rather, it has been treated as a pretheoretical notion. In this article, we report an experiment that compares the auditory transcriptions of trained phoneticians with physiological data on the same utterances, using the technique of electropalatography. The experiment shows that (a) there are intervening factors of a psycho-acoustic nature that impinge on a phonetician's transcription, thus affecting validity; and (b) there is considerable inconsistency, both between phoneticians and between a single phonetician's different attempts at transcribing the same token. Both of these latter factors show that a high degree of reliability cannot be assumed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , October 1990 , pp. 255 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. (1987). Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-92:1–30. To appear in J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deser, T. (1990). Dialect transmission and variation: An acoustic analysis of vowels in six urban Detroit families. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. & Wodak, R. (1982). Sociophonological methods in the study of sociolinguistic variation in Viennese German. Language in Society 11:339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardcastle, W., Jones, W., Knight, C., Trudgeon, A. & Calder, G. (1989). New developments in electropalatography: State-of-the-art report. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 3:1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, J. (1986). Phonetic constraints on sociolinguistic variation. Sheffield Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 3:120–143.Google Scholar
Hindle, D. (1978). Approaches to vowel normalization in the study of natural speech. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic. 161–172.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. E. (1984). Social and linguistic aspects of Durham (e:). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 14(1):13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, P. E. (1985a). A sociolinguistic study of rural immigrants in Bergen, Norway. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. E. (1985b). A sociophonetic study of connected speech processes in Cambridge English: An outline and some results. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. E. (1987). Levels of linguistic variation in Durham. Journal of Linguistics 23:25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, P. E. & Wright, S. (1988, 04). On the limits of auditory transcription: A sociophonetic approach. Paper given at the Sociolinguistics Symposium,University of York.Google Scholar
Kiritani, S. (1986). X-ray microbeam methods for the measurement of articulatory dynamics — Techniques and results. Speech Communication 5:119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, G. O. (1978). The nature of phonological variables in Scouse. In Trudgill, P. (ed.), Sociolinguistic patterns in British English. London: Arnold. 80–90.Google Scholar
Kurath, H. (1972). Studies in area linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1980). The social origins of sound change. In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic. 251–266.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Yaeger, M. & Steiner, R. (1972). A quantitative study of sound change in progress (Final report on National Science Foundation contract NSF-GS-3287). Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (1967). Three areas of experimental phonetics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. (1986). Studies in the phonology of colloquial Englishes. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ma, R. & Herasimchuk, E. (1968). The linguistic dimensions of a bilingual neighborhood. In Fishman, J., Cooper, R. L., Ma, R. et al. , Bilingualism in the barrio (Final report on OECD-1–7–062817). Washington, DC: Office of Education. 689–703.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (1976). Length and height variations in the vowels of Belfast vernacular. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 1(3):68–116.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and analyzing natural language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nolan, F. J. & Kerswill, P. E. (1990). The description of connected speech processes. In Ramsaran, S. (ed.), Essays in honour of A. C. Gimson. London: Routledge. 295–316.Google Scholar
Orton, H., Halliday, W. J., Sanderson, S., Tilling, P. M., Wakelin, M. F. & Wright, N. (1962–1967). Survey of English dialects (Vols. I–IV). Leeds: E. J. Arnold.Google Scholar
Orton, H., Sanderson, S. & Widdowson, J. (1978). Linguistic atlas of England. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1981). Mortal phonemes as plural morphemes. In Sankoff, D. & Cedergren, H. (eds.), Variation omnibus. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research, Inc. 59–72.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (ed.) (1982). Sociolinguistic variation in speech communities. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vieregge, W. H. (1987). Basic aspects of phonetic segmental transcription. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik (Beiheft Nr. 54 “Probleme der phonetischen Transkription”). Wiesbaden: Steiner. 5–55.Google Scholar
Vieregge, W. H. & Cucchiarini, C. (1989). Agreement procedures in phonetic segmental transcriptions. In Schouten, M. E. H. & van Reenen, P. T. (eds.), New methods in dialectology: Proceedings of a workshop held at the Free University, Amsterdam, December 7–10, 1987. Dordrecht: Foris. 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1986). The interaction of sociolinguistic and phonetically-conditioned CSPs in Cambridge English: Auditory and electropalatographic evidence. Cambridge Papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics 5.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1989). The effects of style and speaking rate on /l/-vocalisation in local Cambridge English. York Papers in Linguistics 13:355–365.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Kerswill, P. E. (1988a, 03). EPG in the analysis of connected speech processes. Paper given at the First National Symposium on the Clinical Applications of Electropalatography,University of Reading.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Kerswill, P. E. (1988b, 03). On the perception of connected speech processes. Paper given at the Linguistics Association of Great Britain meeting,University of Durham.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Kerswill, P. E. (1988c, 03). On the perception of connected speech processes. Paper given at the Colloquium of the British Association of Academic Phoneticians,Trinity College,Dublin.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Kerswill, P. E. (1989). Electropalatography in the analysis of connected speech processes. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 3:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1972). On casual speech. In Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. & Phares, G. C. (eds.), Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 607–615.Google Scholar