Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T18:33:36.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There a Universal Phonetic Alphabet?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Geoffrey Sampson
Geoffrey Sampson*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many ‘physical phonetic ‘ variables are continuous, so physically there is an infinitely large range of possible sounds. The generative phonologists, unlike Bloomfield, believe in a universal level of ’systematic phonetics’, where only a fixed finite number of distinct values are possible for each phonetic variable, and hence there is only a finite set of possible segments. To justify this hypothesis it would be necessary (a) to show that facts follow from it which are arbitrary on Bloomfield's theory, and (b) to explain away any counter-evidence. It is argued here that hardly any true predictions have been shown to follow from the hypothesis, and evidence is offered against it.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , June 1974 , pp. 236 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 Linguistic Society of America

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

Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: University Press.Google Scholar
Abramson, A. S. 1962. The vowels and tones of standard Thai. (Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, publ. 20; IJAL 28:2, pt. 3). Bloomington.Google Scholar
Anderson, Lambert. 1959. Ticuna vowels with special regard to the system of five tonemes. (Publicaçöes do Museu Nacional, série linguistica especial, 1. 76–119.) Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1970. Aspects of language. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bazell, C. E., et al. (eds.) 1966. In memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bearth, T., & Zemp, H. 1967. The phonology of Dan (Santa). Journal of African Languages 6. 9–29.Google Scholar
Bird, C. S. 1968. Observations on initial consonant change in Southwestern Mande. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Botha, R. P. 1971. Methodological aspects of tranformational generative phonology. (Janua linguarum, series minor, 112.) The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1964. Phonation types. In honour of Daniel Jones, ed. by Abercrombie, D. et al., 26–37. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Chan Yuen Yuen, Angela. 1971. A perceptual study of tones in Cantonese. University College, London, doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Chang Nien-Chuang, T. 1958. Tones and intonation in the Chengtu dialect. Phonetica 2. 59–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, Y. R. 1930. A system of ‘tone letters’. Le Maître Phonétique 30. 24–7.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. (Janua linguarum, series minor, 38.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1972. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. Goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, S., 63–127. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Miller, G. A. 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural languages. Handbook of mathematical psychology, II, ed. by Luce, R. D., Bush, R. R., & Galanter, E., 269–321. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1969. Simplicity, descriptive adequacy, and binary features. Lg. 45. 1–8.Google Scholar
Doke, C. M. 1926. The phonetics of the Zulu language. (= Special number of Bantu Studies, vol. 2.) Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand Press.Google Scholar
Doke, C. M. 1954. The Southern Bantu languages. (Handbook of African languages.) London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fry, D. B. 1968. Prosodic phenomena. In Malmberg, 365–410.Google Scholar
Fudge, Erik. 1972. Vowel height features and the Tswana vowels. Paper presented to Autumn 1972 Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Garvin, P. L. 1953. Review of Jakobson et al. 1952. Lg. 29. 472–81.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. P., & Sampson, G. R. 1973. The simplicity of linguistic theories. MS.Google Scholar
Gimson, A. C. 1962. An introduction to the pronunciation of English. London: E. Arnold.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. Jr. 1956. Review of Doke 1954. Lg. 32. 567–73.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. Jr.. 1961. Review of works by Guthrie and Richardson. Lg. 37. 294–308.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1961. Safety, strength, simplicity. Philosophy of Science 28. 109–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, J. 1822. Deutsche Grammatik, pt. 1, 2nd. ed. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1957. In defence of the number Two. Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough on his sixtieth birthday, ed. by Pulgram, E., 65–72. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959a. The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1959b. Questions of linguistics. Supplemento al vol. 13, ser. 10, del Nuovo Cimiento, 494–517.Google Scholar
Han, Mieko S. 1966. Studies in the phonology of Asian languages, 4: Vietnamese vowels. Los Angeles: Acoustic Phonetics Research Laboratory, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Han, Mieko S. 1969. Studies .., 8: Vietnamese tones. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, A.-G. 1953. La place du viêtnamien dans les langues austroasiatiques. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 49. 122–8.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, A.-G. 1954. De l'origine des tons en viêtnamien. Journal Asiatique 242. 68–82.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Henderson, E. J. A. 1952. The main features of Cambodian pronunciation. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 14. 149–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1942. A system of descriptive phonology. Lg. 18. 3–21.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Hsin-I. 1970. The psychological reality of tone sandhi rules in Taiwanese. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 489–503.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1942. Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala. (Translated as Child language, aphasia, and phonological universals. Mouton, 1968.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman; Fant, C. G. M.; & Halle, M. 1965. Preliminaries to speech analysis. 6th printing of revised ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, & Halle, M. 1956. Fundamentals of language. (Janua linguarum, 1.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin. 1948. Acoustic phonetics. (Language monograph 23.) Baltimore: LSA.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. & Harms, R. T., 170–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1965. The nature of general phonetic theories. Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 18. 27–42. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1967. Three areas of experimental phonetics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1971. Preliminaries to linguistic phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lafon, Jean-Claude. 1968. Auditory basis of phonetics. In Malmberg, 76–104.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed, by I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave, 91–195. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., et al. 1967. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74. 431–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liljencrants, J., & Lindblom, B. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg. 48. 839–62.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., 1972. Phonetics and the description of language. Proc. 7th Intl. Cong. Phonetic Sciences, 63–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1968. On the role of formant transitions in vowel recognition (abstract). Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft, und Kommunikationsforschung 21.107.Google Scholar
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. 1971. Distinctive features and laryngeal control. Lg. 47. 767–85.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. 1952. Five phonetic pitch levels in Trique. Acta Linguistica 7. 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1970. Some tonal systems that come close to being pitch accent systems but don't quite make it. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 526–32.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1971. On the role of notation in generative phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (ed.) 1970. Tone in generative phonology. (Research notes, vol. 3, pts. 2–3.) Ibadan: Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages, University of Ibadan.Google Scholar
Malmberg, Bertil (ed.) 1968. Manual of phonetics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mattingly, I. G., et al. 1969. Discrimination of F 2 transitions in speech context and in isolation (abstract). Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 45. 314–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, I. G., & Liberman, A. M. 1969. The speech code and the physiology of language. Information processing in the nervous system, ed. by Leibovic, K. N., 97–114. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psychological Review 63. 81–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. D. 1961. Word tone recognition in Vietnamese whispered speech. Word 17. 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, Burckhard. 1971. Intrinsic variations in the speech signal. Phonetica 23. 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naro, A. J. 1971. Resolution of vocalic hiatus in Portuguese. Lg. 47. 381–93.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (ed.) 1970. Prosodic analysis. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. 1948. Tone languages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Rask, R. C. 1818. Undersøgelse om det gamle Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandlings Forlag.Google Scholar
Reich, P. A. 1969. The finiteness of natural language. Lg. 45. 831–43.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. 1969a. A note on Wang's ‘Phonological features of tone’. DAL 35. 62–6.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. R. 1969b. Hanoi dorsal finals. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 32. 115–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. R. 1970. On the need for a phonological base. Lg. 46. 586–626.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1915. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris. (Translated as Course in general linguistics, New York: Philosophical Library, 1959.)Google Scholar
Shorto, H. L. 1967. The register distinction in Mon-Khmer languages. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, 16. Jahrgang, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, vol. 1/2, pp. 245–8.Google Scholar
Skinner, L. E. 1962. Usila Chinantec syllable structure. IJAL 28. 251–5.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1972. On capturing regularities. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 567–77.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N. 1968. On the relations between speech movements and speech perception. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft, und Kommunikationsforschung 21. 102–6.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., et al. 1969. Cross-language study of vowel perception. Language and Speech 12. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, S. S., & Volkmann, J. 1940. The relation of pitch to frequency: a revised scale. American Journal of Psychology 53. 329–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, L. C. 1965. A Vietnamese grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Vanderslice, R., & Ladefoged, P. 1972. Binary suprasegmental features and transformational word-accentuation rules. Lg. 48. 819–38.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. 1967. Phonological features of tone. IJAL 33. 93–105.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. 1968a. Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Lg. 44. 695–708.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S-Y. 1968b. The many uses of F 0. (Project on Linguistic Analysis report, 2nd series, 8.) Berkeley: Department of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Williamson, Kay. 1970. The generative treatment of downstep. In Maddieson, 22–33.Google Scholar
Winckel, F. 1968. Acoustical foundations of phonetics. In Malmberg, 17–44.Google Scholar
Woo, Nancy. 1970. Tone in Northern Tepehuan. IJAL 36. 18–30.Google Scholar
Woo, Nancy. 1972. Prosody and phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Yen, Sian L. 1970. A note on the theoretical framework for tonal analysis. IJAL 36. 290–96.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. E. 1969. Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions. Lg. 45. 309–21.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. 1970. Greek-letter variables and the Sanskrit ruki class. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 549–55.Google Scholar