Arvaniti Amalia
Department of Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093-0108, USA.
Phonetica. 2009;66(1-2):46-63. doi: 10.1159/000208930. Epub 2009 Apr 8.
This article reviews the evidence for rhythmic categorization that has emerged on the basis of rhythm metrics, and argues that the metrics are unreliable predictors of rhythm which provide no more than a crude measure of timing. It is further argued that timing is distinct from rhythm and that equating them has led to circularity and a psychologically questionable conceptualization of rhythm in speech. It is thus proposed that research on rhythm be based on the same principles for all languages, something that does not apply to the widely accepted division of languages into stress- and syllable-timed. The hypothesis is advanced that these universal principles are grouping and prominence and evidence to support it is provided.
本文回顾了基于节奏度量所出现的节奏分类证据，并认为这些度量是不可靠的节奏预测指标，仅提供了一种粗略的时长测量方法。文章进一步指出，时长与节奏不同，将二者等同会导致循环论证以及在言语节奏的概念化上产生心理层面值得质疑的问题。因此，有人提出，对节奏的研究应基于适用于所有语言的相同原则，而这一点并不适用于将语言广泛划分为重音计时型和音节计时型的分类方式。文中提出了一个假设，即这些通用原则是分组和突出性，并提供了支持该假设的证据。
