The type of analysis best suited to intonation (what Stockwell, 1972, calls the ‘representation’ question) is not under discussion in this article. In order to save taking up space with such analytical preliminaries, Belfast intonation is described in this article largely in a framework similar to that of Halliday (1967). We describe firstly the forms of intonation in that dialect; then the use of such forms; and end with some implications for linguistics in general. The analysis is based on recordings of the speech of an educated speaker of an urban Anglo-Irish dialect of Belfast. The main findings were checked by reference to a second speaker of the same dialect.

The subject under discussion is a style of pronunciation which phoneticians have never completely agreed in labelling: ‘familiar’ (Windsor Lewis, 1969: 36; O'connor, 1971: vii); ‘rapid familiar’ (Jones, 1956: 13); ‘quick colloquial’ (Ward, 1939: 198), and ‘rapid colloquial’ or ‘rapid familiar’ (Gimson, 1962: 302). For O'connor the terms ‘familiar’ and ‘colloquial’ even indicate two different styles.

The aim of this paper is to discuss certain non-obvious assimilation processes which take place at word boundaries. They are ‘non-obvious’ because it appears that the assimilation changes are not necessarily complete, i.e. rules apply partially producing transition segments which have some features of the original segment and some of the one which triggers off assimilation. This phenomenon is given the name FEATURE INVASION and is illustrated primarily by Polish examples and marginally by examples from English RP.

The eagerly awaited revision of the Association's Principles will no doubt incorporate a less controversial statement than the present (paragraph 11) remark that THEpositions ofTHEtongue in the articulation of cardinal [i, a, α] and [u] have been determined. The old form of diagram introduced by Daniel Jones, and still surviving as the only official IPA shape must surely be now discarded. Its form implied excessive optimism both about the universality of the applicability of the X-ray photography data on which it was based, and about its practical usefulness. It can only be said to have flourished for about the decade 1919–29. Since the early ‘thirties it has been overwhelmingly rejected in favour of Jones's second choice, which many would perhaps be surprised to hear has as yet absolutely no explicit official IPA sanction. This seems to have first appeared in 1929 in Ida Ward's The Phonetics of English. Jones himself never made use of the present official IPA diagram in any new or fully re-written book after 1932 not even in The Phoneme. So far as one knows he never formally abandoned it but his discarding of it seems to leave little doubt that he himself would have been in sympathy with authorization in the new edition of the de facto current version. If anyone still considers the older version preferable it would be very interesting to hear their arguments and to hear of any evidence on the basis of which such an opinion were held. Now is clearly the time for speaking up on this topic.

The following suggestions emerge from my paper read at the Eighth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences and recapitulate proposals made at the meeting of the International Phonetic Association held in connection with that Congress.