SUMMARY
A comparison of conflicting standpoints in prosodic research during the pastfew decade shows that linguists continue to disagree about how prosodyshould be approached as a subject of study and about where prosodic analysisought to fit into linguistic theory and language teaching. Several basicissues remain unresolved: e.g., is prosody an observational or introspectivefact of speech, is it cognitively or emotionally motivated, is it a sub-system oflanguage or an independent vocal system in its own right? Paradoxes of pros-·odic research in these and other areas suggest that discovering what and howprosodic activities communicate may be a necessary prerequisite for furtherinvestigating relations between verbal, vocal, and kinesic signals in speech.'n Vergelyking van teenstrydige standpunte in prosodiese navorsing die afgelopepaar dekades toon aan dat taalkundiges nog steeds verskil oor hoeprosodie as vakgebied benader behoort te word en oor waar prosodiese ontledingin linguistiese teorie en taalonderrig behoort te pas. Verskeiegrondliggende geskilpunte bly onopgelos, byvoorbeeld of prosodie 'n waarnemings-of introspektiewe kenmerk van spraak is, of dit kognitief ofemosioneel gemotiveer is, of dit 'n sub-stelsel van taal of 'n onafhanklikevokale stelsel op sigself (in sy eie reg) is? Geiaentifiseerde paradokse watspruit uit prosodiese navorsing op hierdie en ander terreine dui daarop datdit noodsaaklik mag wees om te bepaal wat deur prosodiese aktiwiteite gekommunikeerword en hoe dit geskied. Dit sal 'n. voorvereiste vir verdere ondersoek na die verhouding tussen verbale, vokale en liggaamseine inspraak wees.