Microvariation, variation, and the features of universal grammar (original) (raw)

On the internal perceptual structure of phonological features: The [voice] distinction

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1995

In a direct-realist theory of speech perception, listeners are in immediate (in the sense of unmediated) contact with the phonological units of their language when they use structure in acoustic speech signals as information for its causal source-phonological gestures of the vocal tract. In the theory, phonological categories include, minimally, the sets of motor-equivalent articulatory movements producible by a synergy of the vocal-tract, each set, thereby, counting as a token of the same phonological gesture for producer/ perceivers of speech. Maximally, categories include a set of similar gestures that members of a language community do not distinguish. Categories, thus, are defined gesturally, not acoustically, as for example, research on prototypes in speech have been interpreted as suggesting. Striking behaviors of listeners that index their extraction of information about phonetic gestures from the acoustic speech signal is their parsing of acoustic signals. A literature review suggests that listeners do not hear such unitary acoustic dimensions as fundamental frequency or duration as unitary. Rather, they parse each dimension into its distinct, converging gestural cause. Complementarily, listeners use as information for a phonological unit the constellation of diverse acoustic consequences of the units gestural realization. [Work supported by NICHD.]

Introduction: models of phonology in perception

The aim of this book is to provide explicit discussions on how perception is connected to phonology. This includes discussions of how many representations a comprehensive view of phonology requires, and how these representations are mapped to each other in the processes of comprehension and production. Of the two directions of processing, this book centres on comprehension, the direction that has received relatively little attention from phonologists.

COGNITIVE PHONETICS: THE UNIVERSAL PHONOLOGY-PHONETICS INTERFACE

submitted to The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces , 2025

Building on the theory of Substance-free Logical Phonology, which adopts the competence–performance dichotomy, strict internalism and modularity, we argue that phonology (phonological competence) and phonetics (the sensorimotor system in charge of speech production and perception) are distinct and non-overlapping domains in the complex process of the externalization of language through speech. These two domains are connected via the phonology-phonetics interface (PPI): a bidirectional transduction system that converts between feature-based surface phonological representations and the temporally coordinated motor programs that we call phonetic representations. This transduction is captured by a theory of the PPI called Cognitive Phonetics, whose workings are presented in this chapter. We apply this theory in the analysis of some notorious sound patterns, arguing that there is no need to assume the existence of language-specific phonetics.

Cognitive Phonetics: The Transduction of Distinctive Features at the Phonology-Phonetics Interface

Biolinguistics, 2017

We propose that the interface between phonology and phonetics is mediated by a transduction process that converts elementary units of phonological computation, features, into temporally coordinated neuromuscular patterns, called ‘True Phonetic Representations’, which are directly interpretable by the motor system of speech production. Our view of the interface is constrained by substance-free generative phonological assumptions and by insights gained from psycholinguistic and phonetic models of speech production. To distinguish transduction of abstract phonological units into planned neuromuscular patterns from the biomechanics of speech production usually associated with physiological phonetics, we have termed this interface theory ‘Cognitive Phonetics’ (CP). The inner workings of CP are described in terms of Marr’s (1982/2010) tri-level approach, which we used to construct a linking hypothesis relating formal phonology to neurobiological activity. Potential neurobiological correlates supporting various parts of CP are presented. We also argue that CP augments the study of certain phonetic phenomena, most notably coarticulation, and suggest that some phenomena usually considered phonological (e.g., naturalness and gradience) receive better explanations within CP.

On the atoms of phonological representation

Primitives of Phonological Structure, edited by Bert Botma, Andrew Nevins, and Marc van Oostendorp. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Is the phonetic form of human language underlyingly organised in terms of words, distinctive features, elements, or articulatory gestures? After setting out the basic properties of the two leading responses to this question, couched within Distinctive Feature Theory and Articulatory Phonology, we argue that although the two are essentially interchangeable in many ways, they differ significantly with respect to a number of important empirical predictions, some resulting from the nature of features and gestures themselves and some from the theoretical frameworks within which they are generally embedded. In both regards Distinctive Feature Theory is to be preferred, insofar as (at least when situated within a conventional generative model such as Rule-Based Phonology: it correctly predicts the distribution of labial vs labiodental consonants; the existence of relativised locality, inversion, enhancement, and suprasegmental processes; autonomy of stricture and manner vs place of articulation; and phonological manipulations of individual segments such as insertion and non-assimilatory mutation.

Phonological Processes and Phonetic Rules

2009

1. Relating phonological representations to phonetic output In both generative and natural phonology, phonological representations and alternations have been described in terms of categorical feature values, as in Jakobson, Fant, & Halle’s (1963) original conception. This categorical representation contrasts with instrumental phonetic data, which present the speech signal as temporally, qualitatively, and quantitatively non-categorical and continuous. The question that will be addressed here is how phonetic representation (‘surface’ phonological representation) and speech are related. Generativists and naturalists have taken two quite different views on this. The generativist view, and that of most recent writers on phonetics, has been that phonetic representation and speech are related by language-specific phonetic rules that associate binary phonological values with gradient phonetic values. The naturalist position has been that the relationship is universally determined in the ac...