特集書評 : The C/D Model as a Theory of the Phonetics-Phonology Interface (Feature Articles : Adventures in Speech Science : Focus on the C/D Model and Its Impact on Phonetics & Phonology)

The following is my personal understanding of the C/D model, based on my reading of Osamu Fujimura’s works (especially Fujimura 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2007), as well as, perhaps more importantly, on my personal interaction with him. To start, let us assume, as most grammatical theories do, that phonetics and phonology are two distinct modules of grammar. It is then necessary to think about how these two modules of grammar are related to one another. More concretely, discrete, abstract, and cognitive phonological symbols need to be “translated” into continuous, gradient, and physical phonetic gestures, the issue that is sometimes known as the “translation” problem. The C/D model is an explicit attempt to model this translation procedure. This characterization of the C/D model may sound trivial—well, any grammatical theory has to do it anyway, but as soon as we attempt to think about doing so explicitly by ourselves, we come to appreciate the value of the C/D model. Let me try to walk us through the conceptual aspects of the C/D model as a theory of the phonetics-phonology interface. The C/D model cares about both phonological representations and phonetic representations. To understand its value and how it came to life, it may be helpful to recall that Osamu, the creator of the C/D model, is a physicist who is interested in languages in general. He is one of those who introduced Chomsky’s (1957) Syntactic Structures to Japan

[1]  R. Mester,et al.  The Phonology of Voicing in Japanese: Theoretical Consequences for Morphological Accessibility , 2008 .

[2]  R. Port,et al.  Against Formal Phonology , 2005 .

[3]  John J. McCarthy,et al.  Perceptually Grounded Faithfulness in Harmonic Serialism , 2011, Linguistic Inquiry.

[4]  Patricia A. Keating,et al.  Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The window model of coarticulation: articulatory evidence , 1990 .

[5]  Osamu Fujimura,et al.  The C/D Model and Prosodic Control of Articulatory Behavior , 2000, Phonetica.

[6]  Mary E. Beckman,et al.  Conceptual Foundations of Phonology as a Laboratory Science (reprint) , 2011 .

[7]  Daniel A. Silverman,et al.  Phasing and Recoverability , 1997 .

[8]  John Kingston,et al.  Phonetic Knowledge , 2015 .

[9]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Articulatory gestures as phonological units , 1989, Phonology.

[10]  Stephen R. Anderson,et al.  On the interaction of phonological rules of various types , 1975, Journal of Linguistics.

[11]  Jongho Jun,et al.  Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation : an optimality theoretic approach , 1995 .

[12]  L. Angeles The Effects of Duration and Sonority on Contour Tone Distribution— Typological Survey and Formal Analysis , 2001 .

[13]  Elizabeth C. Zsiga,et al.  Features, Gestures, and Igbo Vowels: An Approach to the Phonology-Phonetics Interface , 1997 .

[14]  Osamu Fujimura,et al.  Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation , 1993 .

[15]  Janet B. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Phonological and phonetic representation , 1990 .

[16]  L. Lisker “Voicing” in English: A Catalogue of Acoustic Features Signaling /b/ Versus /p/ in Trochees , 1986, Language and speech.

[17]  Edward Flemming Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology , 2001, Phonology.

[18]  S. Ohman Numerical model of coarticulation. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  M. Gordon Phonology–Phonetics Interface , 2006 .

[20]  Elizabeth C. Zsiga,et al.  The Lexical and Post-Lexical Phonology of Thai Tones* , 2006 .

[21]  Osamu Fujimura Temporal organization of speech utterance: a c/d model perspective , 2011 .

[22]  A. Prince,et al.  On stress and linguistic rhythm , 1977 .

[23]  Robert F. Port,et al.  Temporal Compensation and Universal Phonetics , 1980 .

[24]  P. Ladefoged WHAT ARE LINGUISTIC SOUNDS MADE OF , 1980 .

[25]  Jason Riggle,et al.  Copying and spreading in phonological theory: Evidence from echo epenthesis , 2005 .

[26]  D. Steriade Phonetics in Phonology: The Case of Laryngeal Neutralization , 1999 .

[27]  Daniel A. Dinnsen,et al.  Phonological rules and phonetic explanation , 1980, Journal of Linguistics.

[28]  Anne Pycha,et al.  Lengthened affricates as a test case for the phonetics–phonology interface , 2009, Journal of the International Phonetic Association.

[29]  Jaye Padgett,et al.  Markedness , Segment Realisation , and Locality in Spreading * , 1997 .

[30]  Timothy J. Vance,et al.  The sounds of Japanese , 2008 .

[31]  Bruce P. Hayes,et al.  Phonetically Driven Phonology: The Role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding 1 , 2008 .

[32]  Patricia A. Shaw,et al.  CONSONANT HARMONY SYSTEMS: THE SPECIAL STATUS OF CORONAL HARMONY , 1991 .

[33]  James D. Harnsberger,et al.  Language-specific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates , 2002, J. Phonetics.

[34]  D. Robert Ladd,et al.  Simultaneous Structure in Phonology , 2014 .

[35]  A. Cohn Nasalisation in English: phonology or phonetics , 1993, Phonology.

[36]  Louis Goldstein,et al.  Towards an articulatory phonology , 1986, Phonology.

[37]  John J. Ohala,et al.  There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: a personal view , 1990 .

[38]  D. Steriade CLOSURE, RELEASE, AND NASAL CONTOURS , 1993 .

[39]  George N. Clements,et al.  The geometry of phonological features , 1985, Phonology Yearbook.

[40]  A. Bradlow,et al.  A comparative acoustic study of English and Spanish vowels. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.