Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-54lbx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T21:18:48.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On What Might Constitute Learnable Phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Martin D. S. Braine
Martin D. S. Braine*
Affiliation:
New York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A generative treatment of the early stages of development of two children suggests that the main learning process in pronunciation consists of discovering and gaining control over the articulatory features required to make sounds heard. The lexical representation differs from the phonetic output at all stages because actual pronunciations are constrained by primitive or acquired articulatory processes that have the effect of imposing a phonotactic filter on the speech output. Rules and representations depict ‘competence’ and have ‘psychological reality’ by describing the articulatory analysis made by the learner, together with the constraints imposed by the filter. The phoneme concept required is similar to Sapir's: no invariance or bi-uniqueness conditions are imposed, but phonemes are much more concrete than those of current generative phonology. The abstractness of the latter results from a methodology that enthrones economy criteria requiring assumptions about human memory and learning which are almost certainly wrong. Alternatives are discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , June 1974 , pp. 270 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andersen, H. 1972. Diphthongization. Lg. 48. 11–50.Google Scholar
Berko, J. 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. 1971a. On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. The ontogenesis of grammar, ed. by Slobin, D. I., 153–86. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. 1971b. The acquisition of language in infant and child. The learning of language, ed. by Reed, C., 7–95. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1962. Explanatory models in linguistics. Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science, ed. by Nagel, E. et al., 528–50. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J., 50–118. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Crothers, J. 1971. On the abstractness controversy. (POLA reports, 2nd series, 12.) Berkeley: Phonology Laboratory, Dept. of Linguistics, University of California.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1970. How concrete is phonology? Lg. 46. 58–76.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1968. How abstract is phonology? Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1971. Historical linguistics. A survey of linguistic science, ed. by Dingwall, W. O., 576–649. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. W. 1969. On the abstractness of phonology: the evidence from Yawelmani. Papers in Linguistics 1. 248–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, W. F. 1947. Speech development of a bilingual child: a linguist's record, vol. 2. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P. 1968. Primate vocalizations and human linguistic ability. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 44. 1574–84.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P., & Crelin, E. S. 1971. On the speech of Neanderthal man. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 203–22.Google Scholar
Crelin, E. S.; Harris, K. S., Wolff, P.; & Russell, L. H. 1971. Newborn infant cry and non-human primate vocalization. J. Speech & Hearing Research 14. 718–27.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1967. Sapir's phonological representation. IJAL 33. 106–11.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P., & Anderson, S. 1969. Children's identification and reproduction of /w/, /r/, and /l/. J. Speech & Hearing Research 12. 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prins, D. 1963. Relations among specific articulatory deviations and responses to a clinical measure of sound discrimination ability. J. Speech & Hearing Disorders 28. 382–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. 1933. La réalité psychologique des phonèmes. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 30. 247–65. (Translated as The psychological reality of phonemes. Selected writings of Edward Sapir, ed. by D. G. Mandelbaum, 46–60. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949.)Google Scholar
Stampe, D. 1969. The acquisition of phonetic representation. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 433–44.Google Scholar
Velten, H. V. 1943. The growth of phonemic and lexical patterns in infant language. Lg. 19. 281–92.Google Scholar
Waterson, N. 1971. Child phonology: a prosodic view. Journal of Linguistics 7. 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, W. C. MS. Competing economy criteria. To appear in Current problems in psycho-linguistics, ed. by Mehler, J. Paris: Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. E. 1964. Affixal negation in English and other languages: an investigation of restricted productivity. Word 20:2, supplement.Google Scholar