Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-rbv74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-25T05:54:24.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The role of vocal tract gestural action units in understanding the evolution of phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

By
Louis Goldstein ,
Dani Byrd  and
Elliot Saltzman
Edited by
Michael A. Arbib
Louis Goldstein
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven
Dani Byrd
Affiliation:
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Elliot Saltzman
Affiliation:
Boston University, Boston
Michael A. Arbib
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access

Summary

Introduction: duality of patterning

Language can be viewed as a structuring of cognitive units that can be transmitted among individuals for the purpose of communicating information. Cognitive units stand in specific and systematic relationships with one another, and linguists are interested in the characterization of these units and the nature of these relationships. Both can be examined at various levels of granularity. It has long been observed that languages exhibit distinct patterning of units in syntax and in phonology. This distinction, a universal characteristic of language, is termed duality of patterning (Hockett, 1960). Syntax refers to the structuring of words in sequence via hierarchical organization, where words are meaningful units belonging to an infinitely expandable set. But words also are composed of structured cognitive units. Phonology structures a small, closed set of recombinable, non-meaningful units that compose words (or signs, in the case of signed languages). It is precisely the use of a set of non-meaningful arbitrary discrete units that allows word creation to be productive.

In this chapter we outline a proposal that views the evolution of syntax and of phonology as arising from different sources and ultimately converging in a symbiotic relationship. Duality of patterning forms the intellectual basis for this proposal. Grasp and other manual gestures in early hominids are, as Arbib (Chapter 1, this volume) notes, well suited to provide a link from the iconic to the symbolic.

Type
Chapter
Information
Action to Language via the Mirror Neuron System , pp. 215 - 249
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abler, W. L., 1989. On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. J. Soc. Biol. Struct. 12: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. A., 2005. From monkey-like action recognition to human language: an evolutionary framework for neurolinguistics. Behav. Brain Sci 28: 105–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bailly, G., Laboissière, R., and Schwartz, J. L., 1991. Formant trajectories as audible gestures: an alternative for speech synthesis. J. Phonet. 19: 9–23.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L., 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22: 577–660.Google ScholarPubMed
Bernstein-Ratner, N., 1984. Phonological rule usage in mother–child speech. J. Phonet. 12: 245–254.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., 1995. A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception. In Strange, W. and Jenkins, J. J. (eds). Cross-Language Speech Perception. Timonium, MD: York Press, pp. 171–204.Google Scholar
Best, C. T., and McRoberts, G. W., 2003. Infant perception of nonnative contrasts that adults assimilate in different ways. Lang. Speech 46: 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L., 1990. Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some inplications for casual speech. In Kingston, J. and Beckman, M. E. (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology, vol. 1, Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L., 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49: 155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L., 1995. Dynamics and articulatory phonology. In Gelder, T. (ed.) Mind as Motion Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 175–194.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L., 2000. Competing constraints on intergestural coordination and self-organization of phonological structures. Bull. Commun. Parlée 5: 25–34.Google Scholar
Bullock, D., Grossberg, S., and Mannes, C., 1993. A neural network model for cursive script production. Biol. Cybernet. 70: 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, A. R., 1999. What speakers of Australian aboriginal languages do with their velums and why: the phonetics of the nasal/oral contrast. Proceedings 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Berkeley, CA, pp. 479–482.
Byrd, D., 1996a. A phase window framework for articulatory timing. Phonology 13: 139–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, D., 1996b. Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences. J. Phonet. 24: 209–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, D., and Saltzman, E., 1998. Intragestural dynamics of multiple phrasal boundaries. J. Phonet. 26: 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, D., and Saltzman, E., 2003. The elastic phrase: dynamics of boundary-adjacent lengthening. J. Phoneti. 31: 149–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chitoran, I., 2000. Some evidence for feature specification contraints on Georgian consonant sequencing. In Fujimura, O., Joseph, B. and Palek, B. (eds.) Proceedings of LP 98, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
Cohn, A. C., 1993. The status of nasalized continuants. In Huffman, M. and Krakow, R. (eds.) Nasal, Nasalization, and the Velum. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 329–367.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C., 2002. From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C., 2003. From mouth to hand: gesture, speech, and the evolution of handedness. Behavi. Brain Sci. 26: 199–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, R., Richardson, D. C., and Owen, M. J., 2003. Pumping for gestural origins: the well may be rather dry. Behav. Brain Sci. 26: 218–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B. L., and MacNeilage, P. F., 1995. The articulatory basis of babbling. J. Speech Hear. Res. 38: 1199–1211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, B. L. and MacNeilage, P. F., and Matyear, C. L., 2002. Acquisition of serial complexity in speech production: A comparison of phonetic and phonological approaches to first word production. Phonetica 59: 75–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boer, B., 2000a. Self-organization in vowel systems. J. Phonet. 28: 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer, B., 2000b. Emergence of vowel systems through self-organisation. A.I. Commun. 13: 27–39.Google Scholar
Jong, K., 2001. Rate induced re-syllabification revisited. Lang. Speech 44: 229–259.Google Scholar
Delattre, P., 1971. Consonant gemination in four languages: an acoustic, perceptual, and radiographic study, Part I. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 9: 31–52.Google Scholar
Dell, F., and Elmedlaoui, M., 1985. Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. J. Afri. Lang. Linguist. 7: 105–130.Google Scholar
Dell, F., and Elmedlaoui, M., 2002. Syllables in Tashlhiyt Berber and in Moroccan Arabic. Dordrecht, Nethelands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fajen, B. R., and Warren, W. H., 2003. Behavioral dynamics of steering, obstacle avoidance, and route selection. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percep. Perform. 29: 343–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, D., 2004. Prelinguistic evolution in early hominids: whence motherese. Behav. Brain Sci. 27: 491–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farmer, J. D., 1990. A Rosetta Stone for connectionism. Physica D 42: 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, P. F., Gallese, V., Rizzolatti, G., and Fogassi, L., 2003. Mirror neurons responding to the observation of ingestive and communicative mouth actions in the monkey ventral premotor cortex. Eur. J. Neurosci. 17: 1703–1714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flash, T., and Sejnowski, T., 2001. Computational approaches to motor control. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 11: 655–662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, C. A., and Dekle, D. J., 1991. Listening with eye and hand: cross-modal contributions to speech perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 17: 816–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, C. A., Galantucci, B., and Saltzman, E., 2003. Motor theories of perception. In Arbib, M. (ed.) The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, 2 edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 705–707.Google Scholar
Gafos, A., 2002. A grammar of gestural coordination. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 20: 269–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galuntucci, , Fowler, B., , C. A., and Turvey, M., in press. The motor theory of speech perception reviewed. Psychonom. Bull. Rev.
Goldstein, L., 2003. Emergence of discrete gestures. Proceedings 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, pp. 85–88.Google Scholar
Goldstein, L., and Fowler, C. A., 2003. Articulatory phonology: a phonology for public language use. In Schiller, N. and Meyer, A. (eds.) Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 159–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, L., Pouplier, M., Chen, L., Saltzman, E., and Byrd, D., in press. Dynamic action units slip in speech production errors. Cognition.
Guenther, F. H., 1994. A neural network model of speech acquisition and motor equivalent speech production. Biol. Cybernet. 72: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guenther, F. H., 1995. Speech sound acquisition, coarticulation, and rate effects in a neural network model of speech production. Psychol. Rev. 102: 594–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haken, H., Kelso, J. A. S., and Bunz, H., 1985. A theoretical model of phase transitions in human hand movements. Biol. Cybernet. 51: 347–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, Z. S., 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C., 1955. A Manual of Phonology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C., 1960, The origin of speech. Sci. American 203: 88–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B., Musseler, J., Aschersleben, G., and Prinz, W., 2001. The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behavi. Brain Sci. 24: 849–937.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, M. I., 1986. Serial Order in Behavior: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach, Technical Repant No. 8604. San Diego, CA: University of California, Institute for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Jordan, M. I., 1990. Motor learning and the degrees of freedom problem. In Jeannerod, M. (ed.) Attention and Performance. vol. 13 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 796–836.Google Scholar
Jordan, M. I., 1992. Constrained supervised learning. J. Math. Psychol. 36: 396–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, E., Keysers, C., Umiltà, M. A., et al., 2002. Hearing sounds, understanding actions: action representation in mirror neurons. Science 297: 846–848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krakow, R. A., 1993. Nonsegmental influences on velum movement patterns: syllables, sentences, stress, and speaking rate. In Huffman, M. A. and Krakow, R. A. (eds.) Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum. New York: Academic Press, pp. 87–116.Google Scholar
Krakow, R. A., 1999. Physiological organization of syllables: a review. J. Phonet. 27: 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., and Lindblom, B., 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lathroum, A., 1989. Feature encoding by neural nets. Phonology 6: 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, A. M., 1996. Speech: A Special Code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Ingemann, F., Lisker, L., Delattre, P. C., and Cooper, F. S., 1959. Minimal rules for synthesizing speech. J. Acoust. Soc. America 31: 1490–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F., 1998. The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production. Behav. Brain Sci. 21: 499–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeilage, P. F., and Davis, B. L., 1990. Acquisition of speech production: achievement of segmental independence; In Hardcastle, N. and , A. Marchal (eds.) Speech Production and Speech Modeling. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F., and Davis, B. L., 1993. A motor learning perspective on speech and babbling. In Boysson-Bardies, B., Schoen, S., Jusczyk, P., MacNeilage, P., and Morton, J. (eds.) Changes in Speech and Face Processing in Infancy: A Glimpse at Developmental Mechanisms of Cognition. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer pp. 341–352.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F., and Davis, B. L., 1999. Euolution of the form of spoken words. Evol. Commun. 3: 3–20.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F., and Davis, B. L., 2000. Origin of the internal structure of word forms. Science 288: 527–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeilage, P. F., and Davis, B. L., 2005. The frame/content theory of evolution of speech: a comparison with a gestural origins alternative. Interaction Studies: Interaction Stud. 6: 173–199.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F., Davis, B. L., Kinney, A., and Matyear, C. L., 2000. The comparison of serial organization patterns in infants and languages. Issue, Infant Devel. 71: 153–163.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W., Cohen, M. M., and Smeele, P. M., 1996. Perception of asynchronous and conflicting visual and auditory speech. J. Acoust. Soc. America 100: 1777–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattingly, I. G., 1981. Phonetic representation and speech synthesis by rule. In. Myers, T., Laver, J. and Anderson, J. (eds.) The Cognitive Representation of Speech.Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 415–420.Google Scholar
McGurk, H., and MacDonald, J., 1976. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264: 746–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNeill, D., 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, M., and Moore, K., 1997. Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Devel. Parent. 6: 179–192.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milo, R., Shen-Orr, S., Itzkovitz, S., et al., 2002. Network motifs: Simple building blocks of complex networks. Science 298: 824–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milo, R., Itzkovitz, S., Kashtan, N., et al., 2004. Superfamilies of evolved and designed networks. Science, 303: 1538–1542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A., 1995. Geometrical principles in motor control. In Arbib, M. (ed.) The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 434–438.Google Scholar
Nam, H., in press. A competitive, coupled oscillator model of moraic structure: split-gesture dynamics focusing on positional asymmetry. In Cole, J and Hualde, J (eds). Papers in Laboratory Phonology, vol. 9.
Nam, H., and Saltzman, E., 2003. A competitive, coupled oscillator of syllable structure. Proceedings 12th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Barcelona, pp. 2253–2256.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, P.-Y., 2003. L'auto-organisation de la parole. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris VI.
Oudeyer, P.-Y., 2005. The self-organization of speech sounds. J. Theoret. Biol. 233: 435–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pikovsky, A., Rosenblum, M., and Kurths, J., 2003. Synchronization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polka, L., Colantonio, C., and Sundara, M., 2001. A cross-language comparison of /d/-/D/ perception: evidence for a new developmental pattern. J. Acoust. Soc. America 109: 2190–2201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., and Smolensky, P., 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, W., 1997. Perception and action planning. Eur. J. Cogn. Psych. 9: 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouplier, M., 2003. The dynamics of error. Proceedings 15th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences, pp. 2245–2248.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., and Arbib, M. A., 1998. Language within our grasp. Trends Neurosci. 21: 188–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzolatti, G., Scandolara, C., Gentilucci, M., and Camarda, R., 1981. Response properties and behavioral modulation of “mouth” neurons of the postarcuate cortex (area 6) in macaque monkeys. Brain Res. 255: 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanski, L. M., and Goldman-Rakic, P. S., 2002. An auditory domain in primate prefrontal cortex. Nature Neurosci. 5: 15–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenblum, L. D., and Saldaña, H. M., 1996. An audiovisual test of kinematic primitives for visual speech perception. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 22: 318–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saltzman, E. L., 1986. Task dynamic coordination of the speech articulators: a preliminary model – Generation and modulation of action patterns. In Heuer, H and Fromm, C (eds.) Experimental Brain Research, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 129–144.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E. L., 1995. Dynamics and coordinate systems in skilled sensorimotor activity. In Port, R. and Gelder, T. (eds.) Mind as Motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 150–173.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E., and Byrd, D., 2000. Task-dynamics of gestural timing: phase windows and multifrequency rhythms. Hum. Mov. Sci. 19: 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltzman, E. L., and Kelso, J. A. S., 1987. Skilled actions: a task dynamic approach. Psychol. Rev. 94: 84–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saltzman, E. L., and Munhall, K. G., 1989. A dynamical approach to gestural patterning in speech production. Ecol. Psychol. 1: 333–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munhall, K. G., 1992. Skill acquisition and development: the roles of state-, parameter-, and graph-dynamics. J. Motor Behav. 24: 49–57.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E., Löfqvist, A., Kinsella-Shaw, J., Kay, B., and Rubin, P., 1995. On the dynamics of temporal patterning in speech. In Bell-Berti, F. and Raphael, L. (eds.) Producing Speech: Contemporary Issues for Katherine Safford Harris. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics, pp. 469–487.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E., Löfqvist, A., Kay, B., Kinsella-Shaw, J., and Rubin, P., 1998. Dynamics of intergestural timing: a perturbation study of lip–larynx coordination. Exp. Brain Res. 123: 412–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saltzman, E., Löfqvist, A., and Mitra, S., 2000. “Glue” and “clocks”: intergestural cohesion and global timing. In M., Broe and Pierrehumbert, J. (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology, vol. 5 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 88–101.Google Scholar
Saltzman, E., Nam, H., Goldstein, L., and Byrd, D., 2006. The distinctions between state, parameter and graph dynamics in sensorimotor control and coordination. In Latash, M. L and Lestienne, F. (eds.) Motor Control and Learning. New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 63–73.CrossRef
Schourup, A., 1973. A cross-language study of vowel nasalization. Ohio State Univ. Working Papers Linguist. 15: 190–221.Google Scholar
Shadmehr, R., 1995. Equilibrium point hypothesis. In Arbib, M. (ed.) The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 370–372.Google Scholar
Sproat, R., and Fujimura, O., 1993. Allophonic variation in English /l/ and its implications for phonetic implementation. J. Phonet. 21: 291–311.Google Scholar
Stetson, R. H., 1951. Motor Phonetics. Boston, MA: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., 1989. On the quantal nature of speech. J. Phonet. 17: 3–45.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. N., 1999. Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C., 1985. Phonetic inventories, 15–24 months: a longitndinal study. J. Speech Hearing Res. 18: 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M., 1998. The particulate origins of language generativity. In Hurford, J., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C., (eds.) Approaches to the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–221.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M., 2002a. Mirror neurons, vocal imitation, and the evolution of particulate speech. In Gallese, V and Stamerov, M (eds.) Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 207–227.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M., 2002b. Evolutionary implications of the particulate principle: imitation and the dissociation of phonetic form from semantic function. In Knight, C, Studdert-Kennedy, M and Hurford, J. B. (eds.) The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social Function and the Origin of Linguistic Form. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161–176.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Goldstein, L., 2003. Launching language: the gestural origin of discrete infinity. In Christiansen, M. H. and Kirby, S. (eds.) Language Evolution: The States of the Art. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Lane, H., 1980. Clues from the difference between signed and spoken languages. In Bellugi, U. and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (eds.) Biological Constraints on Linguistic Form. Berlin: Verlag Chemie, pp. 29–40.Google Scholar
Suprenant, A., and Goldstein, L., 1998. The perception of speech gestures. J. Acoust. Soc. America 104: 518–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabain, M., Breen, J. G., and Butcher, A. R., 2004. VC vs. CV syllables: a comparison of Aboriginal languages with English. J. Int. Phonet. Ass. 34: 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E., 1989. The (re)discovery of motor development: learning new things from an old field. Devel. Psychol. 25: 946–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuller, B., and Kelso, J. A. S., 1991. The production and perception of syllable structure. J. Speech Hear. Res. 34: 501–508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turvey, M., 1990. Coordination. Am. Psychologist 45: 938–953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vihman, M., 1996. Phonological Development: The Origins of Language in the Child. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K., 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×