I. Like so many linguistic terms, the term syllable has been used in many different senses, and theoretical distinctions have been made, aimed at avoiding confusion. There is hardly any need to remind the reader of Pike's distinction between PHONETIC and PHONEMIC syllables: ‘the phonetic syllables must be analyzed into the structural phonemic syllables’ (Pike, 1947: 90). Although obviously beneficial, this division still leaves considerable room for confusion, both on the phonetic and on the phonological side. On the phonological side the syllable can be thought of as a unit of organization of smaller phonological units (cf. e.g. Bell (1977), Bell & Hooper (1978)) or as a unit defining the scope or environment for phonological processes, or as accounting for regularities of quantity and tonality (cf. e.g. Pike (1947: 90), and Hooper (1972)). On the phonetic side there are at least two approaches to the syllable. It has been looked on as defining units in speech production (cf. Stetson (1951), Catford (1977: 89–90)) or as a means of describing sonority variation in the phonetic signal (cf. e.g. Jespersen (1949/1934: 118–121)). This latter aspect relates to the perception of the linguistic signal by speakers and to the acoustic buildup of the phonetic medium. Finally, there are those who deny the usefulness of the concept altogether.
Electrophysiological evidence on the time course of semantic and phonological processes in speech production.
