Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:25:16.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unveiling phonological universals: A linguist who asks “why” is (inter alia) an experimental psychologist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Iris Berent
Iris Berent
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115-5000. [email protected]://www.psych.neu.edu/people/faculty/berent.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evans & Levinson (E&L) are right to hold theories of language accountable for language diversity, but typological data alone cannot determine the structure of mental phonological grammars. Grammatical universals are nonetheless testable by formal and experimental methods, and the growing research in experimental phonology demonstrates the viability of a comparative experimental evaluation of the Universal Grammar (UG) hypothesis.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2009 , pp. 450 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)

References

Becker, M., Ketrez, N. & Nevins, A.(submitted) The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish devoicing neutralization.Google Scholar
Berent, I. (2008) Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34:1288–1304.Google ScholarPubMed
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Jun, J., Moreno, M. A. & Smolensky, P. (2008) Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:5321–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Smolensky, P. & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2009) Listeners' knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology 26:1–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T. & Vaknin, V. (2007) What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104:591–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, L. B. (1998) Alignment and adjacency in optimality theory: Evidence from Walpiri and Arrernte. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1990) The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In: Papers in laboratory phonology. I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. Kingston, J. & Beckman, M., pp. 282–333. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corina, D. P. (1990) Reassessing the role of sonority in syllable structure: Evidence from visual gestural language. In: Proceedings of the 26th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2, ed. Ziolkowski, M., Noske, M. & Deaton, K., pp. 33–43. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, L. (2006) Phonotactics and articulatory coordination interact in phonology: Evidence from nonnative production. Cognitive Science 30:837–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lacy, P. (2006) Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, P. (2008) Phonological evidence. In: Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. Parker, S., pp. 43–77. Equinox.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. & Steriade, D. (2004) A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In: Phonetically based phonology, ed. Hayes, B., Kirchner, R. M. & Steriade, D., pp. 1–33. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B., Zuraw, K., Siptar, P. & Londe, Z.(submitted) Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony.Google Scholar
Moreton, E. (2008) Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25(1):83–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (1993) A sonority cycle in American Sign language. Phonology 10:242–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. & Lillo-Martin, D. C. (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J. L. (2005) Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. Routledge.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (2006) Optimality in phonology. II: Markedness, feature domains, and local constraint conjunction. In: The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar, vol. 2: Linguistic and philosophical implications, ed. Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G., pp. 27–160. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. (2006) Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30:945–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed