Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:45:58.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On measuring phonetic precursor robustness: a response to Moreton*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2011

Alan C. L. Yu
Alan C. L. Yu
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much debate in recent years has focused on the relative contribution of analytic and channel biases in shaping the typology of sound. Moreton (2008) argues forcefully for the strength of analytic bias, such as Universal Grammar and other non-modality-specific cognitive biases that facilitate the learning of some phonological patterns and inhibit that of others, in creating typological asymmetries on its own, unassisted by the robustness of phonetic precursors. This article focuses on the assessment of phonetic precursor robustness. The main goal of this article is two-fold: (i) to establish the inadequacy of Moreton's method of evaluating relative phonetic precursor robustness and to offer an alternative to his approach; (ii) to report the results of a cross-linguistic study comparing the nature of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and the interaction between obstruent voicing and vowel height with the same languages – no previous studies have directly compared these two phonetic precursors.

Type
Squibs and Replies
Information
Phonology , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , December 2011 , pp. 491 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Brasher, Anthony & Narayan, Chandan (2007). Applying perceptual methods to the study of phonetic variation and sound change. In Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Ohala, Manjari (eds.) Experimental approaches to phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter & Yavuz, Handan (1995). The relation between vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and vowel harmony in Turkish. In Elenius, Kjell & Branderud, Peter (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 2. Stockholm: KTH & Stockholm University. 44–51.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Harnsberger, James D. & Lindemann, Stephanie (2002). Language-specific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates. JPh 30. 591–627.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2006). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 117–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, Bart de & Kuhl, Patricia K. (2003). Investigating the role of infant-directed speech with a computer model. Acoustic Research Letters Online 4. 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayards, Meghan (2008). The ideal listener: making optimal use of acoustic-phonetic cues for word recognition. PhD thesis, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Clayards, Meghan, Tanenhaus, Michael K., Aslin, Richard N. & Jacobs, Robert A. (2008). Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 108. 804–809.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denning, Keith (1989). The diachronic development of phonological voice quality, with special reference to Dinka and the other Nilotic languages. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Dieth, Eugen (1932). A grammar of the Buchan dialect (Aberdeenshire): descriptive and historical. Vol. 1: Phonology – Accidence. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Evans, Bronwen G. & Iverson, Paul (2007). Plasticity in vowel perception and production: a study of accent change in young adults. JASA 121. 3814–3826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, Naomi H. & Griffiths, Thomas L. (2007). A rational account of the perceptual magnet effect. In McNamara, Danielle S. & Trafton, J. Gregory (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 257–262.Google Scholar
Feldman, Naomi H., Griffiths, Thomas L. & Morgan, James L. (2009). The influence of categories on perception: explaining the perceptual magnet effect as optimal statistical inference. Psychological Review 116. 752–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitzgerald, Colleen M. (2002). Vowel harmony in Buchan Scots English. English Language and Linguistics 6. 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (1995). Auditory representations in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (1996). Evidence for constraints on contrast: the dispersion theory of contrast. UCLA Working Papers in Phonology 1. 86–106.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18. 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2010). Modeling listeners: comments on Pluymaekers et al. and Scarborough. In Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D'Imperio, Mariapaola & Vallée, Nathalie (eds.) Laboratory phonology 10. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 587–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, Susan (1996). Velar palatalization: coarticulation, perception and sound change. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles (2000). Phonology as cognition. In Burton-Roberts, Noel, Carr, Philip & Docherty, Gerard (eds.) Phonological knowledge: conceptual and empirical issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan (2006). An acoustic analysis of ‘happy-tensing’ in the Queen's Christmas broadcasts. JPh 34. 439–457.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne & Watson, Catherine (2000). Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: an acoustic analysis of the Queen's Christmas broadcasts. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 30. 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillenbrand, James, Ingrisano, Dennis R., Smith, Bruce L. & Flege, James E. (1984). Perception of the voiced–voiceless contrast in syllable-final stops. JASA 76. 18–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (2001a). A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. In Hume, & Johnson, (2001b). 3–26.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) (2001b). The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (1976). Phonologization. In Juilland, Alphonse (ed.) Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Vol. 2: Phonology. Saratoga: Anma Libri. 407–418.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry (2001). On the limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited. In Hume, & Johnson, (2001b). 141–185.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, Barnes, Jonathan, Dolbey, Andrew, Good, Jeff, Hansson, Gunnar, Kavitskaya, Darya, Orgun, Orhan, Sprouse, Ronald & Yu, Alan (2001). The effects of stress on vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in Turkish. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.Google Scholar
Kingston, John & Diehl, Randy L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Lg 70. 419–454.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2006). The amphichronic program vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32. 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (2008). Universals constrain change; change results in typological generalizations. In Good, Jeff (ed.) Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 23–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, James (2010). Cue selection and category restructuring in sound change. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kirby, James (to appear). Acquisition of covert contrasts: an unsupervised learning approach. CLS 46.Google Scholar
Lee, Ernst W. (1977). Devoicing, aspiration, and vowel split in Haroi: evidence for register (contrastive tongue-root position. In Thomas, David, Lee, Ernst W. & Liem, Nguyen Dang (eds.) Papers in South East Asian linguistics No. 4: Chamic studies. Canberra: Australia National University. 87–104.Google Scholar
Lin, Ying (2005). Learning features and segments from waveforms: a statistical model of early phonological acquisition. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, Guion, Susan, Hura, Susan, Moon, Seung-Jae & Willerman, Raquel (1995). Is sound change adaptive? Rivista di Linguistica 7. 5–36.Google Scholar
McMurray, Bob, Aslin, Richard N. & Toscano, Joseph C. (2009). Statistical learning of phonetic categories: insights from a computational approach. Developmental Science 12. 369–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Majors, Tivoli (1998). Stress-dependent harmony: phonetic origins and phonological analysis. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Manuel, Sharon Y. (1990). The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. JASA 88. 1286–1298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayo, Catherine, Scobbie, James M., Hewlett, Nigel & Waters, Daphne (2003). The influence of phonemic awareness development on acoustic cue weighting strategies in children's speech perception. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46. 1184–1196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moreton, Elliott (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25. 83–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreton, Elliott (2009). Underphonologization and modularity bias. In Parker, Steve (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 79–101.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Thomas, Erik R. (2007). Origins of Canadian Raising in voiceless-coda effects: a case study in phonologization. In Cole, Jennifer & Hualde, José Ignacio (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 9. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 37–63.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye (2001). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.) Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 118–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nittrouer, Susan (2002). Learning to perceive speech: how fricative perception changes, and how it stays the same. JASA 112. 711–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nittrouer, Susan & Lowenstein, Joanna H. (2009). Does harmonicity explain children's cue weighting of fricative-vowel syllables? JASA 125. 1679–1692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nittrouer, Susan & Miller, Marnie E. (1997). Predicting developmental shifts in perceptual weighting schemes. JASA 101. 2253–2266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohala, John J. (1983). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, Peter F. (ed.) The production of speech. New York: Springer. 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1993). The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.) Historical linguistics: problems and perspectives. London: Longman. 237–278.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003). Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. NLLT 21. 39–87.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary (2004). Vowel height harmony and blocking in Buchan Scots. Phonology 21. 359–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sancier, Michele L. & Fowler, Carol A. (1997). Gestural drift in a bilingual speaker of Brazilian Portuguese and English. JPh 25. 421–436.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian (2004). Adolescents, young adults and the critical period: two case studies from ‘Seven Up’. In Fought, Carmen (ed.) Sociolinguistic variation: critical reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 121–139.Google Scholar
Scarborough, Rebecca A. (2004). Coarticulation and the structure of the lexicon. PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Seidl, Amanda & Buckley, Eugene (2005). On the learning of arbitrary phonological rules. Language Learning and Development 1. 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonderegger, Morgan & Yu, Alan C. L. (2010). A rational account of perceptual compensation for coarticulation. In Ohlsson, Stellan & Catrambone, Richard (eds.) Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society. 375–380.Google Scholar
Summers, W. Van (1987). Effects of stress and final-consonant voicing on vowel production: articulatory and acoustic analysis. JASA 82. 847–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut (1990). Analytic expressions for the tonotopic frequency scale. JASA 88. 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallabha, Gautam K., L. McClelland, James, Pons, Ferran, Werker, Janet F. & Amano, Shigeaki (2007). Unsupervised learning of vowel categories from infant-directed speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104. 13273–13278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, Jocelynne M. M. (1997). Sibilant-vowel coarticulation in the perception of speech by children with phonological disorders. PhD dissertation, Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. (1990). Coarticulation is largely planned. JPh 18. 3–35.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: an experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–982.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Alan C. L. (2010). Perceptual compensation is correlated with individuals' ‘autistic’ traits: implications for models of sound change. PLoS One 5:8. e11950. Available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, Alan C. L. (to appear). Individual differences in socio-cognitive processing and the actuation of sound change. In Yu, Alan C. L. (ed.) Origins of sound change: approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2007). The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Lg 83. 277–316.Google Scholar