Phonology Building Upon Phonetics

            The Gussenhoven and Kenstowicz articles discussed the intricacies of phonetics and phonology. Gussenhoven outlined how we produce sounds, specifically, the mechanisms in the human body to make speech and how they interact with one another to make the various words and languages. On the other hand, Kenstowicz described the ambiguities and misrepresentations that can occur in the field of phonology as we translate sounds from speech to page to speech again. Kenstowicz’ article compounded Gussnehoven’s by taking the simple consonants and vowels that we can create and discussing these sounds in terms of garnering meaning.

            First, Gussenhoven introduced the different biological speech organs. The lungs, larynx, vocal tract, pharynx, mouth, and nasal cavity all help perform necessary functions for speech but retain biological purposes outside of this, pertaining to eating and breathing. Creating an air pressure difference in the appropriate location is the main mechanism for making sounds. English is mainly combined of pulmonic (lungs) and egressive (exhalation) speech. I noticed an emphasis on the glottis as essential to speech production. Through rapid opening and closing, the glottis produces the voice. A person can even make devoiced sounds, when the vocal cord doesn’t vibrate. Certain sounds can be aspirated, where the vocal folds remain open for a while, as in tea, pea, and key. The mouth is most important in forming the specific sounds. Gussenhoven also discussed the three voices—whisper, breathy, and creaky and how they are produced. Thus, these biological speech organs come together, through air pressure, to determine sound and speech.

            In contrast to Gussenhoven, Kenstowicz began his article with a statement about speech perception. He dealt with allophones in phonemes. The ambiguity of communication, according to Kenstowicz, derives from unpredictable lexical specifications, language-particular rules, and UG default values. Essentially, Kenstowicz asserts that the different between what is written and what we say comes from an alphabet that isn’t precise enough to reflect what we say, and the rules and regulations of each specific language. I find the idea that we still understand speech even though much of it is not even coded correctly into written language interesting.

            A real world example that especially resonated with me was that of writer vs. rider. These two words are written completely differently, but, when spoken aloud, sound almost identical. We, as language users, can still understand each other even when words sound almost identical when spoken, but are spelled completely different on a page. The case of the letter “t” in English represents an apt example of this point. The different t’s are not noticeable except when dissecting the language specifically. Otherwise, they are just different phonetic sounds that make up words that we, as native speakers, understand. The concept that we can understand each other without a written lexicon that reflects the precision of our speech raises the question: should we be writing phonetic specifications into our languages?