Differences btwn phonetics and phonology

Insbruk   Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:45 am GMT
Dictionary meanings of the two words "phonetics" and "phonology" seem pretty much the same to me, but surely they are different, right? I wonder whether anyone with a linguistic knowledge could contribute your idea here from a professional perspective yet with easy-to-understand language? Thanks!
Jim   Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:29 am GMT
Very roughly phonetics is about the sounds you can make with your vocal tract and phonology is about how they are used in language. Of course, the two do overlap.
Llorenna   Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:16 pm GMT
Phonology is linked to semantics: how a sound change affects meanings of words, let's say

phoneticist:''R in American english is a retroflex consonant, R in French is uvular consonant''
phonologist: ''you can use whatever R you want speaking English or French cause you'll be understood [there is no contrast between two types of R's like in Spanish perro ~ pero]''

If you want the perfect pronunciation, opt for phonetics :)
Kevin Paul Galo Librea   Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:43 am GMT
In what sense does deeper understanding of the hierarchical levels in linguistics help one better understand English as a universal tongue?
Liz   Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:18 am GMT
<<Phonology is linked to semantics: how a sound change affects meanings of words, let's say

phoneticist:''R in American english is a retroflex consonant, R in French is uvular consonant''
phonologist: ''you can use whatever R you want speaking English or French cause you'll be understood [there is no contrast between two types of R's like in Spanish perro ~ pero]''>>

Sorry, but no - you are seriously mistaken here. A retroflex R, an alveolar approximant, an alveolar trill and a uvular R are never pronounced the same way. No phonologist would say that there is no contrast between the *several* Rs because there isn't only two Rs.

Semantics is a toltally different kettle of fish, anyway. Let's not mix it into the discussion of phonetics and phonology.
Liz   Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:20 am GMT
BTW, it is "phonetician" and not "phoneticist".
Travis   Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:25 am GMT
Well, one can have multiple different rhotic phones which are allophones of the same rhotic phoneme; I for instance have a uvular approximant and a laminal postalveolar approximant as rhotic phones (which are articulated very differently from each other), but these are both allophones of the same rhotic phoneme. Consequently, one cannot say that all differing rhotic phones necessarily correspond to differing rhotic phonemes (as it should be expected that languages will have allophony with respect to rhotic phonemes).

At the same time, what is a rhotic phone in one language may not be one in English. For instance, if one tried to replace a rhotic phone in an English dialect with a flap or tap, which would be a rhotic in Spanish, one is unlikely to be understood very well by native English-speakers, who would be very likely to perceive said flap or tap as belonging to the phoneme /d/ rather than the phoneme /r/. Consequently, one cannot just go and replace one rhotic phone with another one and expect to necessarily be understood very well.