Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-rtbc9 Total loading time: 0.637 Render date: 2021-04-21T21:44:34.254Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2011

Daniel Currie Hall
Affiliation:
Saint Mary's University

Abstract

This paper offers a novel account of a familiar typological observation, namely the tendency of phonological inventories to consist of segments that are dispersed through the available auditory space. In contrast to previous approaches, which have treated dispersion as a goal explicitly encoded in the grammar, this paper shows that the cross-linguistic pattern follows automatically from the interaction of two independently motivated factors: phonological representations in which only contrastive features are specified, and the enhancement of these features in phonetic implementation. The merits of this approach are illustrated by examples involving both vocalic and consonantal inventories.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abou Haidar, Laura (1994). Norme linguistique et variabilité dialectale: analyse formantique du système vocalique de la langue arabe. Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 110. 115.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Ewen, Colin J. (1987). Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Lloyd (1975). Phonetic and psychological explanations for vowel harmony, especially in Finnish. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana (1988). Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5. 183207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, Peter & Rice, Keren (1989). Segment structure and coronal underspecification. Phonology 6. 179200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia (2008). The syntax of phonology: a radically substance-free approach. PhD dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Wedel, Andrew (2009). Inhibited sound change: an evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26. 143183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul (1997). How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21. 4358.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hamann, Silke (2008). The evolution of auditory dispersion in bidirectional constraint grammars. Phonology 25. 217270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. LI 32. 4586.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea (1998). Metaphony revisited. Rivista di Linguistica 10. 7–68.Google Scholar
Cherry, E. Colin, Halle, Morris & Jakobson, Roman (1953). Toward the logical description of languages in their phonemic aspect. Lg 29. 3446.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1987). Towards a substantive theory of feature specification. NELS 18. 7993.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (2003). Feature economy in sound systems. Phonology 20. 287333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. (2009). The role of features in phonological inventories. In Raimy, Eric & Cairns, Charles E. (eds.) Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1968.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, Elizabeth V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith (1995). 245306.Google Scholar
Connell, Bruce (2002). Tone languages and the universality of intrinsic F0: evidence from Africa. JPh 30. 101129.Google Scholar
Cumberland, Linda A. (2005). A grammar of Assiniboine: a Siouan language of the Northern Plains. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
D'Arcy, Alex (2004). Unconditional neutrality: vowel harmony in a two-place model. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23:2. 146.Google Scholar
Dellinger, David W. (1968). Ambivalence in Akha phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 10:8. 1622.Google Scholar
Dmitrijev, N. K. (1927). On the pronunciation of the common Turkish ‘r’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (New Series) 59. 521527.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan (2003). The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 20. 4762.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan (2009). The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & van der Hulst, Harry (1998). Head–dependent asymmetries in phonology: complexity and visibility. Phonology 15. 317352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, Piggott, Glyne & Rice, Keren (1994). Contrast in phonology: overview. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 13. iiixvii.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & Rice, Keren (1993). Complexity in phonological representations. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12:2. ivi.Google Scholar
Dyck, Carrie (1995). Constraining the phonology–phonetics interface, with exemplification from Spanish and Italian dialects. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Distributed by Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily (2005). The role of sonority in Blackfoot phonotactics. Calgary Papers in Linguistics 26. 2791.Google Scholar
Escudero, Paola & Boersma, Paul (2004). Bridging the gap between L2 speech perception research and phonological theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26. 551585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewen, Colin J. & van der Hulst, Harry (1985). Single-valued features and the non-linear analysis of vowel harmony. In Bennis, Hans & Beukema, Frits (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1985. Dordrecht: Foris. 3948.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2002). Auditory representations in phonology. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 232276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. (1991). The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Frantz, Donald G. (1991). Blackfoot grammar. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Fudge, E. C. (1967). The nature of phonological primes. JL 3. 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia (2004). Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In Kager, et al. (2004). 73108.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (1985). Vowel harmony in Khalkha Mongolian, Yaka, Finnish and Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 2. 253275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) (1995). The handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guenther, Frank H., Espy-Wilson, Carol Y., Boyce, Suzanne E., Matthies, Melanie L., Zandipour, Majid & Perkell, Joseph S. (1999). Articulatory tradeoffs reduce acoustic variability during American English /r/ production. JASA 105. 28542865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haiman, John & Benincà, Paola (1992). The Rhaeto-Romance languages. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark (2000). Marshallese phonology, the phonetics–phonology interface and historical linguistics. The Linguistic Review 17. 241257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Mark, Kissock, Madelyn & Reiss, Charles (2007). Microvariation, variation, and the features of universal grammar. Lingua 117. 645665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Beatrice L. & Hall, R. M. R. (1980). Nez Perce vowel harmony: an Africanist explanation and some theoretical questions. In Vago, Robert M. (ed.) Issues in vowel harmony. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 201236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie (1999). On the geometry of auditory space. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 17. 134157.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie (2007). The role and representation of contrast in phonological theory. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Distributed by Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie (2010). Probing the unnatural. In van Kampen, Jacqueline & Nouwen, Rick (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 7183.Google Scholar
Hall, T. A. & Żygis, Marzena (2010). An overview of the phonology of obstruents. In Fuchs, Susanne, Toda, Martine & Żygis, Marzena (eds.) Turbulent sounds: an interdisciplinary guide. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 136.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1959). The sound pattern of Russian: a linguistic and acoustical investigation. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. Word 18. 5472. Reprinted 1972 in Valerie Becker Makkai (ed.) Phonological theory: evolution and current practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 380–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, Philip J. (1996). Phonetic constraints and markedness in the phonotactics of Australian aboriginal languages. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto. Distributed by Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hardman, M. J. (2000). Jaqaru. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: the early stages. In Kager et al. (2004). 158203.Google Scholar
Holmer, Nils M. (1988). Notes on some Queensland languages. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hombert, Jean-Marie (1978). Consonant types, vowel quality, and tone. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.) Tone: a linguistic survey. New York: Academic Press. 77111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honda, Kiyoshi (1987). Relationship between pitch control and vowel articulation. In Bless, Diane M. & Abbs, James H. (eds.) Vocal fold physiology: contemporary research and clinical issues. San Diego: College Hill Press. 286297.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry van der & van de Weijer, Jeroen (1995). Vowel harmony. In Goldsmith (1995). 495534.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2003). ‘Abstract’ vowel harmony in Kàlŋ: a system-driven account. In Sauzet, Patrick & Zribi-Hertz, Anne (eds.) Typologie des langues d'Afrique et universaux de la grammaire. Vol. 1. Paris: L'Harmattan. 85112.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2008a). Enlarging the scope of phonologization. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report. 382408.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. (2008b). Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25. 83–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IPA Handbook (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: a guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (1996). Mixtec prenasalization as hypervoicing. IJAL 62. 165175.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C. (2003). Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1941). Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Uppsala University. Reprinted in Roman Jakobson (2001). Selected writings. Vol. 1: Phonological studies. 3rd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 328401.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, C. Gunnar M. & Halle, Morris (1952). Preliminaries to speech analysis: the distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Halle, Morris (1956). Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kager, René, Pater, Joe & Zonneveld, Wim (eds.) (2004). Constraints in phonological acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Stevens, Kenneth N. (2001). Enhancement revisited. In Kenstowicz, Michael J. (ed.) Ken Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 271291.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel Jay & Stevens, Kenneth N. (2006). Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Lg 82. 3363.Google Scholar
Kingston, John (1992). The phonetics and phonology of perceptually motivated articulatory covariation. Language and Speech 35. 99113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingston, John & Diehl, Randy L. (1994). Phonetic knowledge. Lg 70. 419454.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1997). Contrastiveness and faithfulness. Phonology 14. 83111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1998). An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Schneider, Edgar W. (eds.) (2004). A handbook of varieties of English: a multimedia reference tool. Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krämer, Martin (2002). Local constraint conjunction and neutral vowels in Finnish harmony. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 15. 3864.Google Scholar
Labov, William (1994). Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert (to appear). Systematic phonetics and phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, Paul (1968). Akha phonology. Anthropological Linguistics 10:2. 818.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan & Lindblom, Björn (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg 48. 839862.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn & Maddieson, Ian (1988). Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Hyman, Larry M. & Li, Charles N. (eds.) Language, speech and mind: studies in honour of Victoria A. Fromkin. London: Routledge. 6278.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn & Sundberg, Johan (1969). A quantitative model of vowel production and the distinctive features of Swedish vowels. Quarterly Progress and Status Reports, Speech Transmission Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm 10. 1430.Google Scholar
Lukas, Johannes (1933). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Sprachen von Wadái (Mararét, Mába). Journal de la Société des Africanistes 3:1. 2555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. LI 12. 373418.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst: GLSA. 249384.Google Scholar
Mackie, Scott & Mielke, Jeff (forthcoming). Feature economy in natural, random, and synthetic phoneme inventories. In Clements, G. N. & Ridouane, Rachid (eds.) Where do phonological contrasts come from? Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech patterns. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maclagan, Margaret, Watson, Catherine I., Harlow, Ray, King, Jeanette & Keegan, Peter (2009). /u/ fronting and /t/ aspiration in Māori and New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 21. 175192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian (1997). Phonetic universals. In Hardcastle, William J. & Laver, John (eds.) The handbook of phonetic sciences. Oxford & Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. 619639.Google Scholar
Manuel, Sharon Y. (1990). The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. JASA 88. 12861298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mateus, Maria Helena & d'Andrade, Ernesto (2000). The phonology of Portuguese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2005). Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22. 169203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2008). The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne (1982). The synchronic and diachronic behavior of plops, squeaks, croaks, sighs, and moans. IJAL 48. 4958.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye (1997). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. Report LRC-97-01, Linguistics Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire & Padgett, Jaye (2001). Markedness, segment realization, and locality in spreading. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.) Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: constraints and representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 118156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nivens, Richard (1992). A lexical phonology of West Tarangan. In Burquest, Donald A. & Laidig, Wyn D. (eds.) Phonological studies in four languages of Maluku. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Texas at Arlington & Pattimura University. 127227.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. (1980). Introduction to the symposium on phonetic universals in phonological systems and their explanation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Vol. 3. University of Copenhagen: Institute of Phonetics. 181185.Google Scholar
Ortega-Llebaria, Marta & Prieto, Pilar (2009). Perception of word stress in Castilian Spanish: the effects of sentence intonation and vowel type. In Vigário, Marina, Frota, Sónia & João Freitas, M. (eds.) Phonetics and phonology: interactions and interrelations. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 3550.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. 187218.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003a). Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian. NLLT 21. 3987.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye (2003b). The emergence of contrastive palatalization in Russian. In Eric Holt, D. (ed.) Optimality Theory and language change. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 307335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carole & Prunet, Jean-François (1991). Introduction: asymmetry and visibility in consonant articulations. In Paradis, Carole & Prunet, Jean-François (eds.) The special status of coronals: internal and external evidence. San Diego: Academic Press. 128.Google Scholar
Payne, David L. (1981). The phonology and morphology of Axininca Campa. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph (2000). Variation and change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Gordon E. & Barney, Harold L. (1952). Control methods used in a study of the vowels. JASA 24. 175184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrova, Olga, Plapp, Rosemary, Ringen, Catherine & Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd (2006). Voice and aspiration: evidence from Russian, Hungarian, German, Swedish, and Turkish. The Linguistic Review 23. 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul (1968). Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper & Row.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
Rice, Keren (1995). On vowel place features. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 73116.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (1996). Default variability: the coronal–velar relationship. NLLT 14. 493543.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren D. (2002). Vowel place contrasts. In Amberber, Mengistu & Collins, Peter (eds.) Language universals and variation. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. 239270.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon (1993). Coronality and vocalic underspecification. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12:2. 155177.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth (1986). The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget D. (2009). The structure of phonological theory. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Sanders, Nathan (2003). Opacity and sound change in the Polish lexicon. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne & Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Sedlak, Philip (1969). Typological considerations of vowel quality systems. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 1. 140.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul (1996). The initial state and ‘Richness of the Base’ in Optimality Theory. Ms, Johns Hopkins University. Available as ROA-154 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1987). Redundant values. CLS 23:2. 339362.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. (1972). The quantal nature of speech: evidence from articulatory-acoustic data. In David, Edward E. & Denes, Peter B. (eds.) Human communication: a unified view. New York: McGraw-Hill. 5166.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. JPh 17. 345.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. & Keyser, Samuel Jay (1989). Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Lg 65. 81106.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. & Keyser, Samuel Jay (2010). Quantal theory, enhancement and overlap. JPh 38. 1019.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Keyser, Samuel Jay & Kawasaki, Haruko (1986). Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Perkell, Joseph S. & Klatt, Dennis H. (eds.) Invariance and variability in speech processes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 426449.Google Scholar
Thelwall, Robin & Akram Sa'adeddin, M. (1999). Arabic. In IPA Handbook (1999). 5154.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. (1969). Principles of phonology. Translated by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press. Originally published 1939 as Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert (1998). The laryngeal specifications of fricatives. LI 29. 497511.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel (1993). A vowel feature hierarchy for contrastive specification. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12:2. 179197.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. 247274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, John C. (1982). The accents of English. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo & Mascaró, Joan (2001). The typology of voicing and devoicing. Lg 77. 207244.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. & Beddor, Patrice S. (1989). Connections between nasality and vowel duration and height: elucidation of the Eastern Algonquian intrusive nasal. Lg 65. 457486.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. & Levitt, Andrea G. (1995). The universality of intrinsic F0 of vowels. JPh 23. 349366.Google Scholar
Wilson, Heather (2003). A brief introduction to Marshallese phonology. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles. Available February 2011 at http://linguistics.byu.edu/faculty/hwills1.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 59
Total number of PDF views: 299 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article 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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: dispersedness without dispersion*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *