Assessing the Representation of Phonological Rules by a Production Study of Non-Words in Coratino

References

1 Albright, A. (2007). Gradient Phonological Acceptability As a Grammatical Effect, ms., MIT. (http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/papers/Albright-GrammaticalGradience.pdf)Suche in Google Scholar

2 Albright, A., Andrade, A. E., & Hayes, B. (2001). Segmental environments of Spanish diphthongization. In A.Albright & T.Cho (Eds.),UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, Number 7: Papers in Phonology 5 (pp. 117–151).Suche in Google Scholar

3 Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2003). Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study.Cognition, 90(2), 119–161. 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00146-X0010-0277Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

4 Albright, A., & Hayes, B. (2011). Learning and learnability in phonology. In J.Goldsmith, J.Riggle, & A.Yu (Eds.),Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 661–690). Blackwell/Wiley. 10.1002/9781444343069.ch20Suche in Google Scholar

5 Bailey, T. M., & Hahn, U. (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods?Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 568–591. 10.1006/jmla.2000.27560749-596XSuche in Google Scholar

6 Barnes, J. (2002). Positional neutralization: a phonologization approach to typological patterns. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Suche in Google Scholar

7 Barnes, J. (2006). Strength and weakness at the interface: positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

8 Beckman, J. (1998). Positional Faithfulness. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Suche in Google Scholar

9 Berent, I. (2013). The phonological mind.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(7), 319–327. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.0041364-6613Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

10 Berent, I., Everett, D. L., & Shimron, J. (2001). Do phonological representations specify variables? Evidence from the obligatory contour principle.Cognitive Psychology, 42(1), 1–60. 10.1006/cogp.2000.07420010-0285Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

11 Berent, I., & Shimron, J. (1997). The representation of Hebrew words: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle.Cognition, 64(1), 39–72. 10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00016-40010-0277Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

12 Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. from http://www.praat.org/Suche in Google Scholar

13 Bucci, J. (2013). Voyelles longues virtuelles et réduction vocalique en coratin. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 58(3), 397–414. doi:10.1017/S0008413100002632Suche in Google Scholar

14 Bucci, J. (2017). L'alternance des voyelles moyennes en coratin : une analyse basée sur la théorie des éléments. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 63, 1–24. doi:10.1017/cnj.2017.22Suche in Google Scholar

15 Bucci, J., Perrier, P., Gerber, S., & Schwartz, J. L. (2018). Vowel Reduction in Coratino (South Italy): Phonological and Phonetic Perspectives.Phonetica. 10.1159/0004909470031-8388Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

16 Bucci, J., Scheer, T., & Schwartz, J. L. (Manuscript submitted for publication). Phonological analysis of a system with two targets for vowel reduction in Coratino. Linguistic Review.0167-6318Suche in Google Scholar

17 Bybee, J. (2001). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 10.1017/CBO9780511612886Suche in Google Scholar

18 Bybee, J., & McClelland, J. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition.Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381–410. 10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.3810167-6318Suche in Google Scholar

19 Chociej, J. (2011). Phonological grey areas: The case of polish vowel-zero alternations. Unpublished dissertation. http://individual.utoronto.ca/chociej/Files/UToronto-GP2-Chociej.pdfSuche in Google Scholar

20 Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

21 Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Suche in Google Scholar

22 Coady, J. A., & Evans, J. L. (2008). Uses and interpretations of non-word repetition tasks in children with and without specific language impairments (SLI).International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(1), 1–40. 10.1080/136828206011164851368-2822Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

23 Coleman, J. (2002). Phonetic representations in the mental lexicon. In J.Durand & B.Laks (Eds.),Phonetics, Phonology, and Cognition (pp. 96–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

24 Coleman, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability.Suche in Google Scholar

25 D’Introno, F., & Weston, R. M. (2000). Vowel Alternation, Vowel Consonant Assimilation and OCP Effects in a Barese Dialect. In L.Repetti (Ed.),Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy (pp. 89–110). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.212.07dinSuche in Google Scholar

26 Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Predicting the unpredictable: Interpreting neutralized segments in Dutch.Language, 79(1), 5–38. 10.1353/lan.2003.00760097-8507Suche in Google Scholar

27 Flemming, E. (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology.Phonology, 18(1), 7–44. 10.1017/S09526757010040060952-6757Suche in Google Scholar

28 Flemming, E. (2005). A phonetically-based model of phonological vowel reduction. Manuscript. Cambridge: MIT.Suche in Google Scholar

29 Gathercole, S. E. (1995). Is nonword repetition a test of phonological memory or long-term knowledge? It all depends on the nonwords.Memory & Cognition, 23(1), 83–94. 10.3758/BF032105590090-502XSuche in Google Scholar PubMed

30 Hamann, S. (2011). The phonetics-phonology interface. In N. Kula, B. Botma, & K, Nasukawa (Eds.), Continuum Companion to Phonology (pp. 202–224). London: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar

31 Hammond, M. (2004). Gradience, phonotactics, and the lexicon in English phonology.International Journal of English Studies, 4, 1–24.Suche in Google Scholar

32 Hayes, B., & Steriade, D. (2004). Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In B.Hayes, R.Kirchner, & D.Steriade (Eds.),Phonetically based phonology (pp. 1–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.001Suche in Google Scholar

33 Honeybone, P. (2005). Sharing makes us stronger. In P.Carr, J.Durand, & C.Ewen (Eds.),Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity: Phonological papers in honour of John Anderson (pp. 167–192). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.259.12honSuche in Google Scholar

34 Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.Biometrical Journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift, 50(3), 346–363. 10.1002/bimj.2008104250323-3847Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

35 Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. USA: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

36 Kawahara, S. (2013). Emphatic gemination in Japanese mimetic words: A wug-test with auditory stimuli.Language Sciences, 40, 24–35. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.02.0020388-0001Suche in Google Scholar

37 Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J., & Vergnaud, J. R. (1990). Constituent structure and government in phonology.Phonology, 7(1), 193–231. 10.1017/S09526757000011840952-6757Suche in Google Scholar

38 Kingston, J. (2006). The phonetics phonology interface. In P.de Lacy (Ed.),The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology (pp. 401–434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

39 Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(11), 1773–1781. 10.1121/1.19188160001-4966Suche in Google Scholar

40 Lindblom, B. (1967). Vowel duration and a model of lip mandible coordination.Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress Status Report, 4, 1–29.Suche in Google Scholar

41 Marcus, G. (2001). The algebraic mind: Integrating connectionism and cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1187.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

42 McClelland, J. L. (2009). Phonology and perception: a cognitive scientist’s perspective. In P.Boersma & S.Hamann (Eds.),Phonology in Perception (pp. 293–314). Mouton De Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

43 Munson, B., Edwards, J., & Beckman, M. E. (2005). Phonological knowledge in typical and atypical speech-sound development.Topics in Language Disorders, 25(3), 190–206. 10.1097/00011363-200507000-000030271-8294Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

44 Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: word frequency, lenition and contrast. In J.Bybee & P.Hopper (Eds.),Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (pp. 137–157). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45.08pieSuche in Google Scholar

45 Pierrehumbert, J., Beckman, M. E., & Ladd, D. R. (2000). Conceptual foundations of phonology as a laboratory science. In N.Burton-Roberts, P.Carr, & G.Docherty (Eds.),Phonological knowledge: Its nature and status (pp. 273–303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

46 Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470759400Suche in Google Scholar

47 R Development Core Team. (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.orgSuche in Google Scholar

48 Saporta, G. (2011). Probabilités, analyse des données et statistique. Paris: Editions TECHNIP.Suche in Google Scholar

49 Scheer, T. (2004). A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV, and why should it be? (Vol. 1). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110908336Suche in Google Scholar

50 Scobbie, J.M. (2005). Interface and Overlap in Phonetics and Phonology. In G, Ramchand. & C, Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 17–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

51 Steriade, D. (1994). Positional neutralization and the expression of contrast. ms. UCLA.Suche in Google Scholar

52 Treiman, R., & Barry, C. (2000). Dialect and authography: Some differences between American and British spellers.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1423–1430. 10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.14230278-7393Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

53 Treiman, R., Kessler, B., Knewasser, S., Tincoff, R., & Bowman, M. (1996). English speakers’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns. In M.Broe & J.Pierrehumbert (Eds.),Papers in Laboratory Phonology V (pp. 269–282). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

54 Vitevitch, M. S., Luce, P. A., Charles-Luce, J., & Kemmerer, D. (1997). Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words.Language and Speech, 40(Pt 1), 47–62. 10.1177/0023830997040001030023-8309Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

55 Zhang, J., Lai,Y., & Turnbull-Sailor, C. (2006). Wug-testing the “tone circle” in Taiwanese. In D.Baumer, D.Montero, & M.Scanlon(Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 453–461). Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA.Suche in Google Scholar