reification

[William Noble <wnoble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-Hi

I know practically nothing about phonetics or phonology, but I do know 
a little about how knowledge is represented in communities, and the 
ever-present tendency to make an object out of a concept 
(reification).  Thus, we need to generate representations of things in 
our communications with each other (for instance, if I am trying to 
explain something to you, or vice versa), but we also need to take care 
not to turn these representations into actual mechanisms or entities if 
there is no evidence to support their existence independent of our 
representations.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception 
[mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Silva
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: representations: phonetic/phonological

Hi



In my opiniom concepts involving representations are too obscure in the 
speech sciences. I have got the impression that authors are often 
telling about different things by employing the same words.

At the moment I am struggling  with questions concerning the 
demarcation line (or grey zone) between phonetic and phonologtical 
representations.
However my attempts have been virtualy unsuccesful. It seems that tare 
is no great concern in clearing up this concepts in spite of the 
overspread use of the terms (or maybe I am looking for answers in the 
wrong places)

In speech neurosciences, for exemple, with few exceptions, we never 
know exactly what does one means by the term "representation", and it 
gets even worse when it is associated with the words "phonological" 
or "phonetic".



I would appreciate some commentaries and indications of interesting 
papers.



Thanks! 

- 
>From UNE's web<->e-mail interface. http://pobox.une.edu.au/neomail/