Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:44:22.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2008

Paul Boersma  and
Silke Hamann
Paul Boersma
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
Silke Hamann
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper reconciles the standpoint that language users do not aim at improving their sound systems with the observation that languages seem to improve their sound systems. If learners optimise their perception by gradually ranking their cue constraints, and reuse the resulting ranking in production, they automatically introduce a prototype effect, which can be counteracted by an articulatory effect. If the two effects are of unequal size, the learner will end up with a sound system auditorily different from that of her language environment. Computer simulations of sibilant inventories show that, independently of the initial auditory sound system, a stable equilibrium is reached within a small number of generations. In this stable state, the dispersion of the sibilants of the language strikes an optimal balance between articulatory ease and auditory contrast. Crucially, these results are derived within a model without any goal-oriented elements such as dispersion constraints.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 217 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Apoussidou, Diana (2007). The learnability of metrical phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Avery, Peter, Dresher, Elan & Rice, Keren (eds.) (2008). Contrast in phonology: theory, perception, acquisition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blutner, Reinhard (2000). Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. Journal of Semantics 17. 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, Bart de (1999). Self-organisation in vowel systems. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21. 43–58.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1998). Functional phonology: formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2003a). The odds of eternal optimization in Optimality Theory. In Holt (2003). 31–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2003b). Review of Tesar & Smolensky (2000). Phonology 20. 436–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2006). Prototypicality judgements as inverted perception. In Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Vogel, Ralf & Schlesewsky, Matthias (eds.) Gradience in grammar: generative perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2007a). Some listener-oriented accounts of h-aspiré in French. Lingua 117. 1989–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2007b). Cue constraints and their interactions in phonological perception and production. Available as ROA-944 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul (2007c). The emergence of auditory contrast. Paper presented at the 30th GLOW Colloquium, Tromsø.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Escudero, Paola (2008). Learning to perceive a smaller L2 vowel inventory: an Optimality Theory account. In Avery et al. (2008). 271–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, Escudero, Paola & Hayes, Rachel (2003). Learning abstract phonological from auditory phonetic categories: an integrated model for the acquisition of language-specific sound categories. In Solé et al. (2003). 1013–1016.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 45–86.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Pater, Joe (2008). Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. Available as ROA-970 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David (1992–2008). Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer. http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Borgstrøm, Carl H. (1940). A linguistic survey of the Gaelic dialects of Scotland. Vol. 1: The dialects of the Outer Hebrides. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Bosch, Louis ten (1991). On the structure of vowel systems: aspects of an extended vowel model using effort and contrast. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bradlow, Ann R. (1995). A comparative acoustic study of English and Spanish vowels. JASA 97. 1916–1924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breen, Gavan & Dobson, Veronica (2005). Central Arrernte. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35. 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersma, Mirjam (2005). Perception of familiar contrasts in unfamiliar positions. JASA 117. 3890–3901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlton, Terence R. (1991). Introduction to the phonological history of the Slavic languages. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Choi, John D. (1991). An acoustic study of Kabardian vowels. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 21. 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dart, Sarah N. (1991). Articulatory and acoustic properties of apical and laminal articulations. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Distributed as UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 79.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denes, P. (1955). Effect of duration on the perception of voicing. JASA 27. 761–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: a perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. (1944). Kota texts. Part 1. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola & Boersma, Paul (2003). Modelling the perceptual development of phonological contrasts with Optimality Theory and the Gradual Learning Algorithm. In Arunachalam, Sudha, Kaiser, Elsi & Williams, Alexander (eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. 71–85. Available as ROA-439 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola & Boersma, Paul (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26. 551–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Markus (2005). A Robbins-Monro type learning algorithm for an entropy maximizing version of stochastic Optimality Theory. Master's thesis, Humboldt University, Berlin. Available as ROA-767 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1922). On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 222. 309–368.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (1995). Auditory representations in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Published 2002, London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2003). The relationship between coronal place and vowel backness. Phonology 20. 335–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes et al. (2004). 232–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2005). Speech perception and phonological contrast. In Pisoni, David & Remez, Robert (eds.) The handbook of speech perception. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 156–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2006). The role of distinctiveness constraints in phonology. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Forrest, Karen, Weismer, Gary, Milenkovic, Paul & Dougall, N. Ronald (1988). Statistical analysis of word-initial voiceless obstruents: preliminary data. JASA 84. 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Variation within Optimality Theory: Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. 111–120.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew (1999). Syllable weight: phonetics, phonology, and typology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew, Barthmaier, Paul & Sands, Kathy (2002). A cross-linguistic acoustic study of voiceless fricatives. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32. 141–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, Silke (2003). The phonetics and phonology of retroflexes. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Hamann, Silke (2004). Retroflex fricatives in Slavic languages. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34. 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardcastle, W. J. (1976). Physiology of speech production: an introduction for speech scientists. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. (1969). Spanish phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, Phil (1997). The relative complexity of Catalan vowels and their perceptual correlates. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9. 358–402.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) (2004). Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Steriade, Donca (2004). Introduction: the phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In Hayes et al. (2004). 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffner, Roe-Merrill S. (1937). Notes on the length of vowels. American Speech 12. 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirose, Hajime & Gay, Thomas (1972). The activity of the intrinsic laryngeal muscles in voicing control. Phonetica 25. 140–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holt, Eric (ed.) (2003). Optimality Theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, Arthur S. & Fairbanks, Grant (1953). The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary acoustical characteristics of vowels. JASA 25. 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyt, Donald F. & Taylor, Richard C. (1981). Gait and the energetics of locomotion in horses. Nature 292. 239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutters, B. (1985). Vocal fold adjustments in aspirated and unaspirated stops in Danish. Phonetica 42. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacquemot, Charlotte, Pallier, Christophe, LeBihan, Denis, Dehaene, Stanislas & Dupoux, Emmanuel (2003). Phonological grammar shapes the auditory cortex: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Neuroscience 23. 9541–9546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, Gerhard (2003). Learning constraint sub-hierarchies: the Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm. In Zeevat, Henk & Blutner, Reinhard (eds.) Optimality Theory and pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 251–287.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard (2007). Maximum entropy models and Stochastic Optimality Theory. In Zaenen, Annie, Simpson, Jane, King, Tracy, Grimshaw, Jane, Maling, Joan & Manning, Chris (eds.) Architectures, rules, and preferences: variations on themes by Joan W. Bresnan. Stanford: CSLI. 467–479.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Lundequist.Google Scholar
Jassem, Wiktor (2003). Polish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33. 103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model. In Johnson, Keith & Mullennix, John (eds.) Talker variability in speech processing. San Diego: Academic Press. 145–165.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith, Flemming, Edward & Wright, Richard (1993). The hyperspace effect: phonetic targets are hyperarticulated. Lg 69. 505–528.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark (2001). The historical development of retroflex fricatives in Polish: markedness, functionality, phonology and phonetics. Ms, Trinity College, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Jongman, Allard, Wayland, Ratree & Wong, Serena (2000). Acoustic characteristics of English fricatives. JASA 108. 1252–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keating, Patricia A. (1979). A phonetic study of a voicing contrast in Polish. PhD dissertation, Brown University.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A. (1985). Universal phonetics and the organization of grammars. In Fromkin, Victoria (ed.) Phonetic linguistics: essays in honor of Peter Ladefoged. Orlando: Academic Press. 115–132.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia A., Linker, Wendy & Huffman, Marie (1983). Patterns in allophone distribution for voiced and voiceless stops. JPh 11. 277–290.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1998). An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Published 2001, New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei (2008). Self-organization through misperception: secondary articulation and vowel contrasts in language inventories. In Avery et al. (2008). 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, John K. (1992). ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review 99. 22–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacerda, Francisco (1997). Distributed memory representations generate the perceptual-magnet effect. Ms, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter (2001). Vowels and consonants. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter (2003). Phonetic data analysis: an introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, Ladefoged, Jenny, Turk, Alice, Hind, Kevin & Skilton, St. John (1997). Phonetic structures of Scottish Gaelic. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 95. 114–153.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian (1996). The sounds of the world's languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Wu, Zongji (1984). Places of articulation: an investigation of Pekingese fricatives and affricates. JPh 12. 267–278.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan & Lindblom, Björn (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg 48. 839–862.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn (1986). Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, John & Jaeger, Jeri (eds.) Experimental phonology. Orlando: Academic Press. 13–44.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn (1990a). Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Marchal, A. (eds.) Speech production and speech modelling. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn (1990b). Models of phonetic variation and selection. Phonetic Experimental Research, Institute of Linguistics, University of Stockholm 11. 65–100.Google Scholar
Luce, Paul A. & Charles-Luce, Jan (1985). Contextual effects on vowel duration, closure duration, and the consonant/vowel ratio in speech production. JASA 78. 1949–1957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luce, Paul A. & Pisoni, B. David (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, John J. (2002). A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1987). The Margi vowel system and labiocoronals. Studies in African Linguistics 18. 327–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuel, Sharon Y. (1990). The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. JASA 88. 1286–1298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mees, Inger & Collins, Beverley (1982). A phonetic description of the consonant system of Standard Dutch (ABN). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 12. 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2004). The emergence of distinctive features. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Moore, Brian C.J. & Glasberg, R. Brian (1983). Suggested formulae for calculating auditory-filter bandwidths and excitation patterns. JASA 74. 750–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart (2002). Effects of L1 duration experience on Japanese and Spanish listeners' perception of English high front vowels. MA dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.Google Scholar
Navarro Tomás, T. (1932). Manual de pronunciación española. 4th edn. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Históricos.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14. 700–708.Google Scholar
Nowak, Paweł M. (2006). The role of vowel transitions and frication noise in the perception of Polish sibilants. JPh 34. 139–152.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1981). The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S., Hendrick, R. A. & Miller, M. F. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–203.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, Pierre-Yves (2006). Self-organization in the evolution of speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2001). Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology. San Diego: Academic Press. 187–218.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003a). The emergence of contrastive palatalization in Russian. In Holt (2003). 307–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003b). Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. NLLT 21. 39–87.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2004). Russian vowel reduction and Dispersion Theory. Phonological Studies 7. 81–96.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye & Zygis, Marzena (2003). The evolution of sibilants in Polish and Russian. ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (2004). Bridging the gap between receptive and productive development with minimally violable constraints. In Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe (2008). Gradual learning and convergence. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 334–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan & Hopper, Paul (eds.) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 137–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polivanov, E. D. (1931). La perception des sons d'une langue étrangère. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4. 79–96. Translated as ‘The subjective nature of the perceptions of language sounds’ in E. D. Polivanov (1974). Selected works: articles on general linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 223–237.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Puppel, Stanisław, Nawrocka-Fisiak, Jadwiga & Krassowska, Halina (1977). A handbook of Polish pronunciation for English learners. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Raphael, Lawrence J. (1972). Preceding vowel duration as a cue to the perception of the voicing characteristic of word-final consonants in American English. JASA 51. 1296–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Repp, Bruno H. (1981). Two strategies in fricative discrimination. Perception and Psychophysics 30. 217–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ringen, Catherine & Helgason, Pétur (2004). Distinctive [voice] does not imply regressive assimilation: evidence from Swedish. International Journal of English Studies 4.2. 53–71.Google Scholar
Romani, Gian Luca, Williamson, J. Samuel & Kaufman, Lloyd (1982). Tonotopic organization of the human auditory cortex. Science 216. 1339–1340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rospond, Stanisław (1971). Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Sanders, Nathan (2003). Opacity and sound change in the Polish lexicon. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Boë, Louis-Jean, Vallée, Nathalie & Abry, Christian (1997). The Dispersion-Focalization Theory of vowel systems. JPh 25. 255–286.Google Scholar
Shalev, Michael, Ladefoged, Peter & Bhaskararao, Peri (1993). Phonetics of Toda. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 84. 89–125. Also published (1994) in PILC Journal of Dravidic Studies 4. 21–56.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1996). On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. LI 27. 720–731.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Soderstrom, Melanie, Mathis, Donald & Smolensky, Paul (2006). Abstract genomic encoding of Universal Grammar in Optimality Theory. In Smolensky & Legendre (2006: vol. 2). 403–471.Google Scholar
Solé, M. J., Recasens, D. & Romero, J. (eds.) (2003). Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona: Causal Productions.Google Scholar
Stieber, Zdzisław (1952). Rozwój fonologiczny języka polskiego. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Translated by E. Schwartz (1968) as The phonological development of Polish. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Stone, Maureen, Faber, Alice, Raphael, J. Lawrence & Shawker, H. Tomas (1992). Cross-sectional tongue shape and linguopalatal contact patterns in [s], [ʃ], and [l]. JPh 20. 253–270.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce (1997). An iterative strategy for learning metrical stress in Optimality Theory. In Hughes, Elizabeth, Hughes, Mary & Greenhill, Annabel (eds.) Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla. 615–626.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (1998). Learnability in Optimality Theory. LI 29. 229–268.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingsabadh, M. R. Kalaya & Abramson, S. Arthur (1999). Thai. In Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 147–150.Google Scholar
Toda, Martine (2005). Effect of palate shape on the spectral characteristics of coronal fricatives. Paper presented at the Conference on Turbulences, ZAS Berlin.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. (2004). Self-organization and categorical behavior in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. (2006). Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23. 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. (2007). Feedback and regularity in the lexicon. Phonology 24. 147–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeevat, Henk & Jäger, Gerhard (2002). A reinterpretation of syntactic alignment. In de Jongh, Dick, Nilsenová, Marie & Zeevat, Henk (eds.) Proceedings of the 4th International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation. University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zygis, Marzena (2003). The role of perception in Slavic sibilant systems. In Kosta, Peter, Błaszczak, Joanna, Frasek, Jens, Geist, Ljudmila & Zygis, Marzena (eds.) Investigations into formal Slavic linguistics: contributions of the 4th European Conference on Formal Description of Slavic Languages. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 137–153.Google Scholar
Zygis, Marzena & Hamann, Silke (2003). Perceptual and acoustic cues of Polish coronal fricatives. In Solé et al. (2003). 395–398.Google Scholar