Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T07:03:04.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer's guide to evidence in phonology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of evidence adduced in support of a theory is not to prove that theory true but to demonstrate that competing theories account for facts less well and thus no longer demand our attention. Evidence therefore, if it can unambiguously decide between competing theories, helps the discipline to spend its resources on only a few issues at a time. I evaluate this winnowing capacity of various kinds of evidence which have been offered in support of hypotheses on what knowledge native speakers' have about the sound patterns in their language and how they use it: surface sound patterns, sound change, poetry, speech errors, word games, and experiments. I argue that experiments provide evidence of the highest quality. Four experiments are reported, three psychological and one phonetic, which offer evidence on the following claims: (a) the psychological basis of speakers' awareness of phonotactics, (b) speakers' awareness of the morphemic constituents of complex derived words, (c) whether epenthetic stops of the sort evident in words like team[p]ster are added by purely mechanical constraints of the articulatory apparatus or whether they can be attributed to higher, pre-phonetic levels, and (d) the factors that determine speakers' assignment of allophones to phonemes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 3 , May 1986 , pp. 3 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Footnotes

*

I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and criticisms of members of the audience at the Department of Linguistics, University of Michigan, especially R. Rhodes and P. Benson, where this paper was first presented. In addition I thank M. Caisse, J. Jaeger and S. Pearson for help and advice in the conduct of the experiments and J. Jaeger, C. Gussenhoven, G. Nathan and M. Ohala for insightful critiques of an earlier version of this paper. Errors and infelicities which remain are on my head. Portions of the research reported here were funded by the Committee on Research, University of California.

References

Anisfeld, M. (1969). Psychological evidence for an intermediate stage in a morphological derivation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8. 191–195.Google Scholar
Anisfeld, M. & Gordon, M. (1968). On the psychophonological structure of English inflectional rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 7 973–979.Google Scholar
Baars, B. J.Motley, M. & MacKay, D. G. (1975). Output editing for lexical status in artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 382–391.Google Scholar
Baker, W. J.Prideaux, G. D. & Derwing, B. L. (1973). Grammatical properties of sentences as a basis for concept formation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2.201–220.Google Scholar
Baker, R. G. & Smith, P. T. (1976). A psycholinguistic study of English stress assignment rules. Language and Speech 19. 9–27.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–177.Google Scholar
Bernard, C. (1957). An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. New York:Dover. (First French edition: 1865.)Google Scholar
Brown, R. W. & Hildum, D. C. (1956).Expectancy and the identification of syllables.Lg 32. 411–419.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Lg 58. 265–289.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1986). Testing phonology in the field. In Ohala & Jaeger (1986b). 163–173.Google Scholar
Cena, R. M. (1978). When is a phonological generalization psychologically real? Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Chao, Y.R. (1934). The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology (Academia Sinica) 4. 363–397.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N.(1975). A phonological analysis of English sp, st, sk with special reference to speech error evidence. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 5. 3–25.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. L. (1973). Transformational grammar as a theory of language acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. L. & Baker, W. J. (1977). The psychological basis for morphological rules.Macnamara, J. (ed.) (1977). Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press. 85–110.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. & Stampe, D. (1979). The study of natural phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.) Current approaches to phonological theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 126–173.Google Scholar
Esper, E. A. (1925). A technique for the experimental investigation of associative interference in artificial linguistic material. Language Monograph IGoogle Scholar
Fox, R. A. & Terbeek, D. (1977). Dental flaps, vowel duration and rule ordering in American English. £Ph 5. 27–34.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances.Lg 47. 27–52.Google Scholar
Grandgent, C. H. (1896). Warmpth. Publication of the Modern Language Association II (New Series 4). 63–75.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. & Jenkins, J. J. (1964). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20. 157–177.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1959). The sound pattern of Russian. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Harms, R. T. (1973). Some non-rules of English. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hombert, J. M. (1986). Word games: some implications for analysis of tone and other phonological processes. In Ohala & Jaeger (1986b). 175–186.Google Scholar
Hombert, J.M.Ohala, J. J. & Ewan, W. G. (1979). Phonetic explanations for the development of tone. Lg 55. 37–58.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1980). Testing the psychological reality of phonemes. Language and Speech 23. 233–253.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1984). Assessing the psychological status of the Vowel Shift Rule. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13. 13–36.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1986) Concept formation as a tool for linguistic research. In Ohala & Jaeger (1986b). 211–237.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. J. & Snodgrass, J. G. (1974). Seeing ring in rang and retain in retention: on recognizing stem morphemes in printed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13. 590–598.Google Scholar
Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.) Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 170–202.Google Scholar
Kraut, R. E. & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: an ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37. 1539–1553.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. & Fromkin, V. A. (1968). Experiments on competence and performance. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics AU-16. 130–136.Google Scholar
LaRiviere, C.Winitz, H.Reeds, J. & Herrima, E. (1974). The conceptual reality of selected distinctive features. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 17. 122–133.Google Scholar
Lotz, J.Abramson, A. S.Gerstman, L. J.Ingemann, F. & Nemser, W. J. (1960). The perception of English stops by speakers of English, Spanish, Hungarian, and Thai: a tape-cutting experiment. Language and Speech 3. 71–77.Google Scholar
Lovins, J. B. (1978). ‘Nasal reduction’ in English syllable codas. CLS 14. 241–253.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1972). The structure of words and syllables: evidence from errors in speech. Cognitive Psychology 3. 210–227.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1976). On the retrieval and lexical structure of verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15. 169–182.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. (1978). Derivational rules and the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17. 61–71.Google Scholar
MacNeilage, P. F. (ed.) (1983). The production of speech. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Maléecot, A. (1960). Vowel nasality as a distinctive feature in American English. Lg 36. 222–229Google Scholar
Malkiel, Y. (1966). Genetic analysis of word formation. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics 3. The Hague: Mouton. 305–364.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd edn. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Mencken, H. L. (1948). The American language. Supp. 2. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, B. A. (1973). On the status of vowel shift in English. In Moore, T. E. (ed.) Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press. 223–260.Google Scholar
Motley, M. T. & Baars, B. J. (1975). Encoding sensitivities to phonological markedness and transition probability: evidence from spoonerisms. Human Communication Research 2. 351–361.Google Scholar
Myerson, R. F. (1976). Children's knowledge of selected aspects of ‘Sound pattern of English’. In Campbell, R. N. & Smith, P. T. (eds.) Recent advances in the psychology of language: formal and experimental approaches. New York: Plenum Press. 377–402.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1974). Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.) Historical linguistics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 353–389.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981a). The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S.Hendrick, R. A. & Miller, M. F. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on language and behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981b). Speech timing as a tool in phonology. Phonetica 38. 204–212.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1981c). Articulatory constraints on the cognitive representation of speech.In Myers, T.Laver, J. & Anderson, J. (eds.) The cognitive representation of speech. Amsterdam: North-Holland, m–122.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1983a). The phonological end justifies any means. In Hattori, S. & Inoue, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo. Tokyo: distributed by Sanseido Shoten. 232–243.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. 1983b). The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage (1983). 189–216.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (in press). Explanation in phonology: opinions and examples. In Dressier, W. U. (ed.) Phonologica 1984. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. & Jaeger, J. J. (1986a). Introduction. In Ohala & Jaeger (1986b). 1–12.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. & Jaeger, J.J. (eds.) (1986b). Experimental phonology. Orlando, Fl.:Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. & Ohala, M. (1986). Testing hypotheses regarding the psychological manifestation of morpheme structure constraints. In Ohala & Jaeger (1986b). 239–252.Google Scholar
Ohala, M. (1975). Nasals and nasalization in Hindi. In Ferguson, C. A.Hyman, L. M. & Ohala, J. J. (eds.) Nasálfest: papers from a symposium on nasals and nasalization. Stanford: Language Universals Project. 317–332.Google Scholar
Ohala, M. (1983). Aspects of Hindi phonology. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Pertz, D. L. & Bever, T. G. (1975). Sensitivity to phonological universals in children nd adolescents. Lg 51. 149–162.Google Scholar
Pickett, J. M. & Pollack, I. (1963). Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: effects of rate of utterance and duration of excerpt. Language and Speech 6. 151–164.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Prideaux, G. D.Derwing, B. L. & Baker, W. J. (eds.) (1980).Experimental linguistics: integration of theories and applications. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de(1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Translated (1966) as Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schane, S. B.Tranel, & Lane, H. (1974). On the psychological reality of a natural rule of syllable structure. Cognition 3. 351–358.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (1983). Sublexical units and suprasegmental structure in speech production planning. In MacNeilage (1983). 109–136.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. & Klatt, D. H. (1979). The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 41–55.Google Scholar
Sherzer, J. (1970). Talking backwards in Cuna: the sociological reality of phonological descriptions. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26. 343–353.Google Scholar
Stanners, R. F.Neiser, J. J.Hernon, W. P. & Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18. 399-4J2.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1974). Experimental historical phonology. In Anderson, J. M. & Jones, C. (eds.) Historical linguistics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 353–389.Google Scholar
Steinberg, D. D. & Krohn, R. K. (1975). The psychological validity of Chomsky and Halle's Vowel Shift Rule. In Koerner, E.F.K. (ed.) The transformational-generative paradigm and modern linguistic theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 233–259.Google Scholar
Sweet, H. (1874).History of English sounds. London: Triibner.Google Scholar
Thumb, A. & Marbe, K.(1901). Experimented Untersuchungen über die psychologischen Grundlagen der sprachlichen Analogiebildung. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Wang, H. S. (1985). On the productivity of vowel shift alternations in English: an experimental study. PhD dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. (1969) Psychological correlates of some Turkish morpheme structure conditions. Lg 45. 309–321.Google Scholar