Talk:Auditory phonetics

Untitled Topic
This article is not really about auditory phonetics. More about phonics & learning how to read. - ishwar User_talk:Ish_ishwar 06:03, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that it should be expanded to cover auditory phonetics? Or that it should be renamed? --Theo (Talk) 08:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * some of this material should be moved to some educational article, like phonics or some such topic. the article greatly needs expansion. it should probably start off with something about the auditory system and how this works in language. other things include the following:
 * phon
 * loudness (as distinct from sound intensity)
 * etc., etc.
 * auditory phonetics has to do with hearing linguistic sounds, not learning them. at any rate, what is currently here about phonics is somewhat misleading in that you dont have to teach young children sounds (they do this automatically), you have to teach them that the alphabetic symbols represent linguistic sounds. this kind of reads like an educator who is probably well-read in education but not so much in linguistics/phonetics. (i am not trying offend anyone here: many educators just dont have time to do a lot of delving into linguistics). peace. &mdash; ishwar  (SPEAK)  09:51, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * You seem knowledgable. Can you fix it? --Theo  (Talk) 09:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. maybe at some later date. peace &mdash; ishwar  (SPEAK)  18:20, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Grasp
In the Lead, is the parenthetical explanation ("grasp") conveying some jargon (in which case, that should be explained) or is it a redundant synonym that should be deleted? --Theo (Talk) 08:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * i dont know if grasp is anything but just a metaphor. maybe a kind of popular educational catch-phrase? comprehension seems clearer to me (but, as i said above, this really doesnt belong here anyway...). &mdash; ishwar  (SPEAK)  09:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Auditory phonetics content
I'm new to this article. The few remarks on the Talk page seem to suggest that there used to be some material here that has since been removed. Auditory Phonetics is, I think, an important subject and ought to have a fuller coverage than it currently gets. Does anyone know if there is some earlier discussion about what this should contain? RoachPeter (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Expansion
First off, I added the class and importance tags. It's clearly a stub and is obviously highly important (maybe top importance, but I don't think so) as it's one of the main sub-disciplines within phonetics.

That out of the way, this article needs major attention. I'll start working on it in the next couple of days, and in the mean time, pretty much any expansion will be helpful. I have a number of off-line sources that may be of use, mostly text books and articles. I'll be posting this on WP:LING and WP:PHONETICS to try and get help. If you have ideas for expansion, critiques of the ongoing expansion, ideas, or knowledge of a specific aspect of auditory phonetics, feel free to talk about them here.

Wugapodes (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm returning to this article after a long time. It really does need a complete overhaul. I will make a start on revising the article as soon as possible. RoachPeter (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now rewritten this article, and hope it is an improvement. RoachPeter (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a major improvement, thanks Peter! — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am happy with the improvements that have been made since I put in my rewrite, apart from some matters of emphasis in the Lead. If I may explain: firstly, listing the trio of Acoustic, Articulatory and Auditory is standard in phonetics, and what I wrote intentionally mirrors what is said in the Lead of Phonetics. To say that articulatory phonetics is "one of the branches which focuses on speech perception" is quite out of line with normal teaching, which says that articulatory phonetics is concerned with the production of speech sounds. Maybe I have misunderstood this opening sentence. Secondly, I think the mention of EEG and MRI in the Lead is inappropriate - I have been trying to show that auditory phonetics is what phoneticians do primarily with their ears. Brain-scanning techniques are only used in the most advanced speech research, and the fields of research involved would, instead of being classed as Auditory phonetics, more likely be speech perception, acoustic phonetics, neuropsychology, psychoacoustics etc. It might be relevant for inclusion later on, but I think that to put brain scans in the Lead gives the wrong emphasis.
 * I have put together a synthesis of (1) the original Lead (before I worked on it), (2) the opening part of my rewrite and (3) the newly added Lead, and hope that the following might be found satisfactory:
 * The subject of Phonetics is traditionally said to comprise three main areas: Acoustic, Articulatory and Auditory.[1][2] Auditory phonetics is the branch concerned with the hearing of speech sounds and with speech perception. It thus entails the study of the relationships between speech stimuli and a listener’s responses to such stimuli as mediated by mechanisms of the peripheral and central auditory systems, including certain areas of the brain. The different branches of phonetics tend to overlap in their methods and questions.[3]
 * I didn't mean to say "articulatory phonetics is 'one of the branches which focuses on speech perception'". Wugapodes revised the lead to "Auditory phonetics is one of the three main branches of phonetics focusing on speech perception", but since I found this to be ambiguous in regard to whether "focusing" was modifying "one" (i.e. auditory phonetics) or all of the three branches, I modified it to "which focuses", clarifying the verb's subject. Nardog (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)