Talk:Vowel diagram

"The standard IPA vowel trapezium"
It seems regrettable that the diagram with the above caption should show an IPA-style vowel quadrilateral with a rather random selection of vowel symbols and no indication of whether these symbols represent the phonemes of some language, or are showing rough approximations to positions of some cardinal vowels. Would a more explicit caption resolve this? RoachPeter (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The 3-D tongue and lip representation is fundamentally flawed
This 20 minute video explains why. I'm not sure what to do about it, as the IPA charts are so pervasive. Sandizer (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As the blog post that video is based on points out, the basis of the vowel quadrilateral was debunked almost 100 years ago. This is nothing new and the quadrilateral is just what we're stuck with because the IPA has a penchant for continuity.
 * Also the article already shows Lindsey's triangle chart. Nardog (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also plenty of articles where formant charts (not unlike the Lindsey's chart, just a bit less readable for a layman) are shown. You can also see that on most vowel charts, are front-central (exactly as on the Lindsey's chart) and  are back-central (ditto). In some cases these symbols are even used for fully central vowels, which shouldn't surprise anyone given the typical ranges of the F2 values of those six vowels (as Lindsey says, they are more central than the corresponding cardinals differing in rounding).
 * It's also a bit strange how extremely high is on his chart. It's so high that it should serve as a mere notational variant of . I mean... the vowel on the opposite side of the chart is, or a slightly lowered  (the horizontal lines on his chart are far from being straight). Then again, how many languages contrast  with ?
 * There's another issue: you can make a central lip diphthong such as and you'll have the same problem representing it on the chart (also the Lindsey's chart) as  mentioned by Lindsey in that video (not to mention that on his chart,  is indistinguishable from, an unrounded fronting diphthong. That's another problem). I find it a non-argument and it also devalues the argument of placing  to the right/left of  due to the differences in F2. Furthermore, I and millions of other people are perfectly capable of producing an unrounded fully back  (meaning: , the famous NCVS  vowel making busses sound like bosses, to use a Labovian example) without moving my tongue (the two sounds are allophones in my native Polish), so I'm not sure I necessarily like the idea of always having to place  to the left of  (or  above ) on the chart as he does. It would make more sense if a change in F2 only indicated a change in rounding, which it of course does not (you can have front-central  and back-central ). It appears that both charts have their advantages and disadvantages. (I have no parallel argument regarding the placement of  to the right of  as fully front  are much rarer if not downright nonexistent in world's languages, AFAIK. But according to the principles of cardinal vowels,  are actually fully front so you can make more or less the same argument for them.)
 * And I agree with his placement of in the central position. I've always heard it as further back than, which is the most open vowel that is truly front. Sol505000 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Only difference?
"Vowels differ only in the position of the tongue when voiced." What about the position of the lips for rounded/unrounded? Mrmariomaster (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)