Subject: reification From: William Noble <wnoble(at)POBOX.UNE.EDU.AU> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 01:18:54 +1000-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(at)lists.mcgill.ca] On Behalf Of Daniel Silva Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 3:51 PM To: AUDITORY(at)lists.mcgill.ca 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/