Phonetic Rules in the Subconscious

The readings by Gussenhoven and Kenstowicz provide detailed descriptions of some of the terminology used by phonologists in the analysis of various languages. Gussenhoven’s chapter delineates various mechanisms behind speech production, such as regions of articulation within the body, aspiration, and stresses we place on the “feet” of words. Kenstowicz, while elaborating on some of the ideas introduced by Gussenhoven, places particular emphasis on the distinct pronunciations of the stop [t] as seen in various dialects of American English. Kenstowicz provides examples of these various “t” sounds utilizing notational distinctions, but immediately follows by stating that “we are in general unconscious of these rules”. Due to our unconscious understanding of these rules, people who do not follow these rules seem to speak in a manner that is “funny”, as explained by Kenstowicz.

            What I found most interesting about these two sections of reading was that they encouraged me to think about the seemingly natural and unconscious manner by which humans acquire language. Gussenhoven describes the various ways in which we produce sounds, such as placing our tongues along the palate or constricting and contracting the vocal folds in order to whisper. However, in my opinion, it would appear that children are taught to speak by mimicking others of the language they wish to learn rather than being specifically taught how to produce individual sounds. Simultaneously, they remain unconsciously aware of linguistic rules that are never explicitly made clear to them. If this is the case, at what points and in what manner are such “rules” transferred to children? Do parents enumerate certain rules by slowing down their speech to emphasize changes or instead by changing the syllables they stress in the words they speak to their child? More importantly, how can we truly measure that each speaker of a certain language is unconsciously adhering to some central rule system?

            The line of thought I had regarding unconscious phonetic rule systems made me question whether Kenstowicz's exploration of distinct “t” sounds and the rules associated with them was warranted. More specifically, whether the various sounds that linguists hear in daily speech do not truly exist and are instead an artificial product of their linguistic training. This is a bold claim, but I also recognize that Kenstowicz’s concluding statements provide a compelling counterargument. He suggests, while referencing Edward Sapir, a language’s phonological representations and rules are a “conceptual system” of “ideal sounds” and not much more than “hypotheses” about the manner of speech of an individual. Perhaps it may be that individuals develop their own slightly varied and unconscious rule systems, but linguists must develop idealized and hypothetical versions of these systems in order to conduct proper study.