Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:19:39.360Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A history maker1

Review products

SoléMaria-Josep, BeddorPatrice Speeter & OhalaManjari (eds.), Experimental approaches to phonology (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pp. xviii+465.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2011

JOHN COLEMAN
JOHN COLEMAN*
Affiliation:
Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford
*
Author's address: Phonetics Laboratory, University of Oxford, 41 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JF, UKjohn.coleman@phon.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 201 - 217
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.)

Footnotes

[1]

I thank Nigel Fabb and an anonymous JL referee for their trenchant – and thus extremely helpful – comments on the manuscript. Of course, I am also grateful for the other referee's approval of the paper! And to Larry Hyman for a couple of very agreeable discussions about experimental vs. notebook methods in phonology, which taught me to better appreciate his point of view and to refine my language a little.

References

REFERENCES

Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bonatti, Luca L., Peña, Marcela, Nespor, Marina & Mehler, Jacques. 2005. Linguistic constraints on statistical computations. Psychological Science 16.6, 451–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso, Chialant, Doriana, Capasso, Rita & Miceli, Gabriele. 2000. Separable processing of consonants and vowels. Nature 403, 428–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cercle Linguistique de, Prague. 1931. Réunion Phonologique Internationale Tenue à Prague (18–21/XII 1930) (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4).Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1983. Transderivational relationships in Chamorro phonology. Language 59.1, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John. 2003. Discovering the acoustic correlates of phonological contrasts. Journal of Phonetics 31, 351–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Franklin S., Delattre, Pierre C., Liberman, Alvin M., Borst, John M. & Gerstman, Louis J.. 1952. Some experiments on the perception of synthetic speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 24.6, 597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R. & Tranel, Daniel. 1993. Nouns and verbs are retrieved with differently distributed neural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 90, 4957–4960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eichhoff, Frédéric Gustave. 1836. Parallèle des langues de l'Europe et de l'Inde. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
Fant, C.M, Gunnar. 1960. Acoustic theory of speech production. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Godfrey, John J., Holliman, Edward C. & McDaniel, Jane. 1992. SWITCHBOARD: Telephone Speech Corpus for Research and Development. ICASSP-92, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 1992, vol. I, 517–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, Stephen D. 1996. Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22, 1166–1183.Google ScholarPubMed
Goldsmith, John. 2001. Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics 27.2, 153–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, Esther, Kochanski, Greg & Coleman, John. 2007. Connecting intonation labels to mathematical descriptions of fundamental frequency. Language and Speech 50.3, 281–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guion, Susan G. 1998. The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica 55, 18–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halle, Morris. 1959. The sound pattern of Russian: A linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 2004. Moving on. Plenary address in honor of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Linguistic Society of America, Boston, MA, 8–11 January 2004.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Stevens, Kenneth N.. 1964. Speech recognition: A model and a program for research. In Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, 604–612. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Drager, Katie. 2010. Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48.4, 865–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Warren, Paul & Drager, Katie. 2006. Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34, 458–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffner, Roe-Merrill Secrist. 1950. General phonetics. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
IPA [International Phonetic Association]. 1949. The principles of the International Phonetic Association. London: International Phonetic Association.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1939. Observations sur le classement phonologique des consonnes. The Third International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Ghent. [Reprinted in Roman Jakobson, Selected writings, vol. 1, 272–279; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1982.]Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1962. The phonemic concept of distinctive features. In Sovijärvi, Antti & Aalto, Pentti (eds.), The Fourth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 4), 441–455. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, C. Gunnar M. & Halle, Morris. 1951. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Just, Marcel Adam, Carpenter, Patricia A., Keller, Timothy A., Eddy, William F. & Thulborn, Keith R.. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274, 114–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempelen, Wolfgang von. 1791. Le mécanisme de la parole, suivi de la description d'une machine parlante. Vienna.Google Scholar
Klagstad, Harold L. 1958. The phonemic system of colloquial standard Bulgarian. The Slavic and East European Journal 2.1, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. A course in phonetics, 4th edn. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M. 1957. Some results of research on speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29.1, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., Cooper, Franklin S., Shankweiler, D. P. & Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 1967. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74.6, 431–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Local, John & Simpson, Adrian. 1999. Phonetic implementation of geminates in Malayalam nouns. In Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari & Granville, Daniel (eds.), XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 14), vol. 1, 595–598. Berkeley: University of California, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passy, Paul. 1922. Petite phonétique comparée des principales langues européenes, 3rd edn. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.), Laboratory phonology 7, 101–140. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2003. Probabilistic phonology: Discrimination and robustness. In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer & Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 177–228. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rapp, Reinhard. 2007. Part-of-speech discovery by clustering contextual features. In Decker, Reinhold & Lenz, Hans-J. (eds.), Advances in data analysis: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Gesellschaft für Klassifikation e.V., Frei Universität Berlin, March 8–10, 2006, 627–634. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N. & Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274, 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, Laurence D. & Justeson, John S.. 1984. On the relationship between numbers of vowels and consonants in phonological systems. Linguistics 22, 531–545.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1998. Acoustic phonetics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 2002. Toward a model for lexical access based on acoustic landmarks and distinctive features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111.4, 1872–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergeevitch. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. [Page references are to the 1969 English version, Principles of phonology, translated by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe, University of California Press.]Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. 2003. Factors of lexical competition in vowel articulation. In Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Rosalind (eds.), Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology IV, 75–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar