To explain the unique efficiency of speech as an acoustic carrier of linguistic information and to resolve the paradox that units corresponding to phonetic segments are not to be found in the signal, consonants and vowels were said to be encoded into syllabic units. This approach stimulated a decade of research into the nature of the speech code and of its presumably specialized perceptual decoding mechanisms, but began to lose force as its implicit circularity became apparent. An alternative resolution of the paradox proposes that the signal carries no message: it carries informat~on concerning its source. The message, that is, the phonetic structure, emerges from the peculiar relation between the source and the listener, as a human and as a speaker of a particular language. This approach, like its predecessor and like much recent work in child phonology and phonetic theory, takes the study of speech to be a promising entry into the biology of language. The earliest claim for the special status of speech as an acoustic signal sprang from the difficulty of devising an effective alternative code to use in reading machines for the blind. Many years of sporadic, occasionally concentrated effort have still yielded no acoustic system by which blind (or sighted) users can follow a text much more quickly than the 35 words a minute of skilled Morse code operators. Given the very high rates at which we handle an optical transform of language, in reading and writing, this failure with acoustic codes is particularly striking. Evidently, the advantage of speech lies not in the modality itself, but in the particular way it exploits the modality. What acoustic properties set speech in this privileged relation to language? The concept of encodedness was an early attempt to answer this question (Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler, & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967). Liberman and his colleagues embraced the paradox that, although speech carries a linguistic message, units corresponding to those of the message are not to be found in the signal. They proposed that speech should be viewed not as a cipher on linguistic structure, offering the listener a signal isomorphic, unit for uni t, with the message, but as a code 0 The code collapsed the phonemic segments (consonants and vowels) into acoustic syllables, so that cues to the *Also in Cognition, 1981, 10, 301-306. +Also Queens College and Graduate Center,. City University of New York. Acknowledgment. I thank Alvin Liberman, Ignatius Mattingly, and Bruno Repp for much fruitful discussion and advice. Preparation of the paper was supported in part by NICHD Grant HD 01994 to Haskins Laboratories. [HASKINS LABORATORIES: Status Report on Speech Research SR-67/68 (1981)J