Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:02:20.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acoustic testing for phonologization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Kimary Shahin
Kimary Shahin*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

Examination of phonetic data can show when phonologization has or has not occurred. Under the general Economy assumption of generative linguistics, this is important for theoretical phonology, since only cases where it has occurred require a phonological account. A modular view of phonetics and phonology is assumed, as it is clearly consistent with generative theory. A procedure for acoustic phonetic testing for phonologization is illustrated using data from one speaker of Palestinian Arabic and one speaker of Stát'imcets Salish. The testing can confirm phonological accounts or cause their revision. How it can cause revision is illustrated with the Stát'imcets data: the speaker's retraction harmony affects a rightward vowel, which is unexpected from standard descriptions of the harmony in that language. The testing can also identify cases of phonetics-within-language. This is illustrated with the St'at'imcets speaker's schwa lowering.

Résumé

Résumé

L’étude de données phonétiques peut montrer quand la phonologisation a eu lieu. Dans l’hypothèse générale de l’Économie de la linguistique générative, cela est important pour la phonologie théorique puisqu’une explication phonologique s’avère nécessaire seulement dans les cas où il y a eu phonologisation,. Un point de vue modulaire de la phonétique et de la phonologie est supposé, car il est clairement cohérent avec la théorie générative. Une procédure de tests phonétiques acoustiques pour identifier la phonologisation est illustrée par l’utilisation de données d’une lo-cutrice d’arabe palestinien et d’un locuteur de st’át’imcets salish. Les tests peuvent confirmer les explications phonologiques, ou entraîner leur révision. La façon dont ils peuvent entraîner la révision est illustrée par les données de st’át’imcets : pour le locuteur, l’harmonie de rétraction affecte la voyelle de droite, ce qui est inattendu d’après les descriptions standard de l’harmonie dans cette langue. Les tests peuvent également identifier les cas de phonétique au niveau de la langue, ce qui est illustré par l’abaissement du schwa pour le locuteur de st’át’imcets.

Keywords

phonologizationacoustic testingmodularitygradiencephonetics-phonology interfacephonologisationtests acoustiquesmodularitégradienceinterface phonétique-phonologie
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 321 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 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

Abu-Salim, Issam. 1987. Vowel harmony in Palestinian Arabic: A metrical perspective. Journal of Linguistics 23:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2002. Variation and phonological theory. In The handbook of variation and change, ed. Chambers, Jack K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie, 206–243. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia. 2007. On the relationship between phonology and phonetics (or why phonetics is not phonology). In International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) XVI Proceedings, 19–24. Institute of Phonetics, Saarland University.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2006. Strength and weakness at the interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara H. and Stemberger, Joseph P.. 1998. Handbook of phonological development from the perspective of constraint-based nonlinear phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bessell, Nicola. 1998. Local and non-local consonant-vowel interaction in Interior Salish. Phonology 15:1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, Bernard. 1941. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16:278–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6:201–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1990a. Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In Between the grammar and physics of speech (Papers in laboratory phonology I), ed. Kingston, John, and Beckman, Mary E., 341–376. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1990b. Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics 18:299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. and Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49:155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Card, Elizabeth. 1983. A phonetic and phonological study of Arabic emphasis. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Carson-Berndsen, Julie and Gibbon, Dafydd. 1992. Event relations at the phonetics/phonology interface. In COLING-92 Proceedings of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics, vol. 4, 1269–1273. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew and Wang, William S.-Y.. 1975. Sound change: Activation and implementation. Language 51:228–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Taehong. 2011. Laboratory phonology. In The continuum companion to phonology, ed. Kula, Nancy C., Botma, Bert, and Nasukawa, Kuniya, 343–368. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong, McQueen, James, and Cox, Ethan. 2007. Prosodically driven phonetic detail in speech processing: The case of domain-initial strengthening in English. Journal of Phonetics, 35:210–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. and Sezer, Engin. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In The structure of phonological representations, vol. 2, ed. Hulst, Harry van der and Smith, Norval, 213–255. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 2006. Is there gradient phonology? In Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, ed. Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Schlesewsky, Matthias, and Vogel, Ralf, 25–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 2007. Phonetics in phonology and phonology in phonetics. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 16:1–31. Ithaca, NY: Department of Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 2010. Laboratory phonology: Past successes and current questions, challenges, and goals. In Laboratory phonology 10: Phonology and phonetics, vol. 4, ed. Fougeron, Cécile, Kühnert, Barbara, D’Imperio, Mariapaola, and Vallé, Nathalie, 3–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2006. Form and function in the Nxa’amxcfn inchoative. In UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 19: Proceedings of Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas (WSCLA) 11, ed. Fujimori, Atsushi and Silva, Maria, 40–52. Vancouver: Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart. 1995. Emphasis spread in Arabic and grounded phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 26:465–498.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1992. “Filling in” versus finding out: A ubiquitous confusion in cognitive science. In Cognition: Conceptual and methodological issues, ed. Pick, Herbert L. Jr., Broek, Paulus Van Den, and Knill, David C., 33–49. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. 2011. Gradience and categoricality in phonological theory. In The Blackwell companion to phonology, ed. Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren, 2115–2136. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Esling, John H. 1999. The IPA categories “pharyngeal” and “epiglottal”: Laryngoscopic observations of pharyngeal articulations and larynx height. Language and Speech 42:349–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fant, Gunnar. 2004. Speech acoustics and phonetics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1997. Phonetic optimization: Compromise in speech production. In University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5: Selected Phonology Papers from H-OT-97, ed. Miglio, Viola and Moren, Bruce, 72–91. College Park, MD: Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18:7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourakis, Marios and Port, Robert. 1986. Stop epenthesis in English. Journal of Phonetics 14:197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. and Wright, Richard. 2002. The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics 30:139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios. 1999. The articulatory basis of locality in phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Ghazeli, Salem. 1977. Back consonants and backing coarticulation in Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Louis. 1994. Do acoustic landmarks constrain the coordination of articulatory events? In Phonological structure and phonetic form (Papers in laboratory phonology III), ed. Keating, Patricia A., 259–263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, Louis, Byrd, Dani, and Saltzman, Elliott. 2006. The role of vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology. In From action to language: The mirror neuron system, ed. Arbib, Michael A., 215–249. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajek, John. 1997. Universals of sound change in nasalization. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hajek, John and Maeda, Shinji. 2000. Investigating universals of sound change: The effect of vowel height and duration on the development of distinctive nasalization. In Acquisition and the lexicon (Papers in laboratory phonology V), ed. Broe, Michael and Pierrehumbert, Janet, 52–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark and Kissock, Madely. 2007. The phonetics-phonology interface and the acquisition of perseverant underspecification. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 81–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark and Reiss, Charles. 2000a. Phonology as cognition. In Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues, ed. Burton, Noel-Roberts, Carr, Philip, and Docherty, Gerard, 161–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark and Reiss, Charles. 2000b. Substance abuse and dysfunctionalism: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31:157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Nancy. 2006. Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion. Phonology 23:387–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara. 2008. Second language phonology in Optimality Theory. In Phonology and second language acquisition, ed. Edwards, Jette Hansen and Zampini, Mary, 117–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan. 2010. Phonetic analysis of speech corpora. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. In Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. I: General papers, ed. Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick, and Wheatley, Kathleen, 243–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce and Londe, Zsuzsa. 2006. Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23:59–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce and Steriade, Donca. 2004. Introduction: The phonetic basis of phonological markedness. In Phonetically-based phonology, ed. Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca, 1–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henke, William. 1966. Dynamic articulatory model of speech production using computer simulation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Herzallah, Rukayyah. 1990. Aspects of Palestinian Arabic phonology: A non-linear approach. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2001. Patterns and timing of glottalisation. Phonology 18:45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2008. Expectation and its role in phonologization and language change. Paper presented at the Symposium on Phonologization, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1975. Phonology: Theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1977. Phonologization. In Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg, ed. Juilland, Alphonse, 407–418. Saratoga: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2008. Enlarging the scope of phonologization. University of California Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report, 382–409. Berkeley: Linguistics Department, University of California, Berkeley. http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/phonlab/annual_report/documents/2008/Hyman_Phonologization_PLAR.pdf.Google Scholar
Johnsen, Sverre. 2011. The phonetics and phonologization of Verner’s Law. In Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft, ed. Krisch, Thomas and Lindner, Thomas, 232–241. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1998. The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Finite-State Methods in Natural Language Processing, FSMNLP’98, 1–12. Bilkent University, Ankara. (arXiv:cmp-lg/9804002v2).Google Scholar
Kavitskaya, Darya. 2002. Compensatory lengthening: Phonetics, phonology, diachrony. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1990. The window model of coarticulation: Articulatory evidence. Between the grammar and the physics of speech (Papers in laboratory phonology I), ed. Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary E., 451–470. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. 1996. The phonetics-phonology interface. In Interfaces in phonology, ed. Kleinhenz, Ursula, 262–278. Berlin: Akadamie Verlag.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1981. Vowel harmony in Palestinian Arabic: A suprasegmental analysis. Linguistics 19:449–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingston, John. 2007. The phonetics-phonology interface. In Handbook of phonology, ed. Lacy, Paul de, 435–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary E., eds. 1990. Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2:85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1999. Preliminary thoughts on ‘phonologization’ within an exemplar-based speech processing system. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 1 : Papers in Phonology 2, ed. Gordon, Matthew, 207–231. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert and Moore, Roger K.. 2008. Modelling exemplar-based phonologization. Paper presented at the Symposium on Phonologization, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei. 2009. Phonetic variation and gestural specification: Production of Russian consonants. In Variation and gradience in phonetics and phonology, ed. Kügler, Frank, Féry, Caroline, and Vijver, Ruben van de, 43–70. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1996. Elements of acoustic phonetics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1961. The phonology of Modern Standard Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lehnert-LeHouillier, Heike. 2009. Phonetic and phonological aspects of liquid devoicing in Thai, Hungarian, and American English stop-liquid sequences. In University of Rochester Working Papers in the Language Sciences 5.1, ed. Lehnert-LeHouillier, Heike and Fine, Alex B., 49–68. Rochester, NY: Department of Linguistics, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
Liberman, M. 1983. Phonetic representations. Paper presented at the Stanford Workshop on Lexical Phonology and Morphology, Stanford.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1963. Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35:1773–1781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2009. Typology and occurrence of pharyngeals and pharyngealization around the world. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Pharyngeals and Pharyngealisation, Newcastle. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/linguistics/assets/documents/PharyngealsMaddieson.pdf.Google Scholar
Magen, Harriet. 1984. Vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in English and Japanese. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 75, S1 : S41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuel, Sharon and Krakow, Rena. 1984. Universal and language particular aspects of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation. Haskins Laboratories Status Reports on Speech Research, SR-77/78:69–78.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1991. Semitic gutturals and distinctive feature theory. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics III, ed. Comrie, Bernhard and Eid, Mushira, 63–91. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. and Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K.P. 1982. Lexical phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Montler, Timothy. 2004. Vowel retraction before glottal stop in Klallam. In University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: Studies in Salish linguistics in honour of M. Dale Kinkade, ed. Gerdts, Donna and Matthewson, Lisa, 300–310. Missoula: Department of Linguistics, University of Montana.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2010. Underphonologization and modularity bias. In Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. Parker, Steve, 79–101. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliot and Thomas, Erik R.. 2007. Origins of Canadian raising in voiceless-coda effects: A case study in phonologization. In Phonology and phonetics (Papers in laboratory phonology IX), ed. Cole, Jennifer and Hualde, José I., 36–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Morley, Rebecca. 2008. Phonetic detail in the grammar: Learning conditioned coarticulation patterns. Paper presented at the Symposium on Phonologization, Chicago.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 2000. Boundary disputes: The distinction between phonetic and phonological sound patterns. In Phonological knowledge: conceptual and empirical issues, ed. Burton-Roberts, Noel, Carr, Philip, and Docherty, Gerard, 245–272. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 2002. Gaps in factorial typology: The case of voicing in consonant clusters. Ms., University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Obrecht, Dean. 1968. Effects of the second formant on the perception of velarization consonants in Arabic. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, ed. Masek, Carrie S., Hendrick, Robert A., and Miller, Mary F., 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1992. What’s cognitive, what’s not, in sound change. In Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition: Papers from the International Symposium at the University of Duisburg, 26-28 March 1990, ed. Kellermann, Günter and Morrissey, Michael D., 309–355. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1994. Hierarchies of environments for sound variation; Plus implications for ‘neutral’ vowels in vowel harmony. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 27:371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1999. Phonetics in phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm 4: Selected papers from SlCOL-97, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 105–113. Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. J. 2005. Phonetic explanations for sound patterns: Implications for grammars of competence. In A figure of speech: A festschrift for John Laver, ed. Hardcastle, William J. and Beck, Janet M., 23–38. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Öhman, Sven. 1966. Coarticulation in VCV utterances: Spectrographic measurements. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39:151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 2003. The emergence of contrastive palatalization in Russian. In Optimality theory and language change, ed. Holt, Eric, 307–335. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1990. Phonological and phonetic representation. Journal of Phonetics 18:375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2000. The phonetic grounding of phonology. Bulletin de la communication parlée 5:7–23.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przezdziecki, Marek A. 2005. Vowel harmony and coarticulation in three dialects of Yoruba: Phonetics determining phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1986. Tone in lexical phonology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reicke, Lars, Esposito, Fabrizio, Bonte, Milene, and Formisano, Elia. 2009. Hearing illusory sounds in noise: The timing of sensory-perceptual transformations in auditory cortex. Neuron 64:550–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 1996. Variable laryngeals and laryngeal lowering. Phonology 13:73–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scobbie, James, Stuart-Smith, Jane, Timmins, Claire, Lawson, E., Turk, Alice E., Hewlett, Nigel, and Tweedle, F.. 1999. Should phonologists trust their data?: An empirical phonological study of Scottish English. Paper presented at the 7th Manchester Phonology Meeting, Manchester.Google Scholar
Shahin, Kimary 2002. Postvelar harmony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shahin, Kimary. 2011. Pharyngeals. In Companion to phonology, ed. Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin, Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren, 604–627. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shahin, Kimary and Blake, Susan J.. 2004. A phonetic study of schwa in St’át’imcets (Lillooet Salish). In University of Montana Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: Studies in Salish linguistics in honor of M. Dale Kinkade, ed. Gerdts, Donna and Matthewson, Lisa, 311–327. Missoula: Department of Linguistics, University of Montana.Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia A., Blake, Susan J., Campbell, Jill, and Shepard, Cody. 1999. Stress in han’qamin’am’ (Musqueam) Salish. In UBC Working Papers in Linguistics 2: Proceedings of WSCLA 4, ed. Caldecott, Marion, Gessner, Suzanne, and Kim, Eun-Sook, 131–164. Vancouver: Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1999. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2: Papers in Phonology 3, ed. Gordon, Matthew K., 25–146. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2008. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In The nature of the word: Studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky, ed. Hanson, Kristin and Inkelas, Sharon, 151–179. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth 1994. Phonetic evidence for hierarchies of features. In Phonological structure and phonetic form (Papers in laboratory phonology III), ed. Keating, Patricia A., 242–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel. 1989. Primary features and their enhancement in consonants, Language 65:81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesar, Bruce, Grimshaw, Jane, and Prince, Alan. 1999. Linguistic and cognitive explanation in optimality theory. In What is cognitive science?, ed. Lepore, Ernest and Pylyshyn, Zenon, 295–326. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme, eds. 2010. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Richard. 1970. Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds. Science 167:392–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Younes, Munther. 1982. Problems in the segmental phonology of Palestinian Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Zawaydeh, Bushra A. 1998. Gradient uvularization spread in Ammani-Jordanian Arabic. In Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XI, ed. Benmamoun, Elabbas, Eid, Mushira, and Haeri, Niloofar, 117–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth C. 1997. Features, gestures, and Igbo vowels: An approach to the phonology-phonetics interface. Language 73: 227–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth C. 2000. Phonetic alignment constraints: Consonant overlap and palatalization in English and Russian, Journal of Phonetics 28:69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth C. 2003. Articulatory timing in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25:399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar