Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:21:54.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

B. Elan Dresher. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. In the series Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xii + 280.

Review products

B. Elan Dresher. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. In the series Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. xii + 280.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Joseph W. Windsor
Joseph W. Windsor*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
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
Reviews/Comptes rendus
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 432 - 435
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

Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5:183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Benus, Stefan and Gafos, Adamantios I.. 2007. Articulatory characteristics of Hungarian ‘transparent’ vowels. Journal of Phonetics 35:271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Herd, Jonathon. 2005. Loanword adaptation and the evaluation of similarity. In Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 24: Special Issue on Similarity in Phonology, ed. Frigeni, Chiara, Hirayama, Manami, and Mackenzie, Sara, 117–123.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. and Stevens, Kenneth N.. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 82:33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1999. Preliminary thoughts on phonologization within an exemplar-based speech-processing system. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics: Papers in Phonology 2, ed. Gordon, M., 205–231.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert and Moore, Roger. 2008. Computing phonological generalization over real-speech exemplars. Ms., University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2006. The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34:516–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optiniality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1925. Sound patterns in language. Language 1:37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1995. Cours de linguistique générale. Critical edition by de Mauro, Tullio. Paris: Payot. [1916]Google Scholar