Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:22:20.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of psychoacoustic similarity in Japanese puns: A corpus study1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2009

SHIGETO KAWAHARA  and
KAZUKO SHINOHARA
SHIGETO KAWAHARA*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, the State University of New Jersey
KAZUKO SHINOHARA*
Affiliation:
Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology
*
Authors' addresses: Linguistics Department, Rutgers University, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1108, USA[email protected]
Institute of Symbiotic Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, 2-24-16 Nakacho, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8588, Japan[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing body of recent work on the phonetics–phonology interface argues that many phonological patterns refer to psychoacoustic similarity – perceived similarity between sounds based on detailed acoustic information. In particular, two corresponding elements in phonology (e.g. inputs and outputs) are required to be as psychoacoustically similar as possible (Steriade 2001a, b, 2003; Fleischhacker 2005; Kawahara 2006; Zuraw 2007). Using a corpus of Japanese imperfect puns, this paper lends further support to this claim. Our corpus-based study shows that when Japanese speakers compose puns, they require two corresponding consonants to be as similar as possible, and the measure of similarity rests on psychoacoustic information. The result supports the hypothesis that speakers possess a rich knowledge of psychoacoustic similarity and deploy that knowledge in shaping verbal art patterns.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 111 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

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

[1]

We are grateful to our informants for composing ample examples of Japanese puns for us. We would also like to thank Gary Baker, Michael Becker, John Kingston, Kazu Kurisu, Dan Mash, Lisa Shiozaki, Betsy Wang, and two anonymous JL referees for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Remaining errors are ours. An earlier version of this paper appeared as Kawahara & Shinohara (2007). Both the data and analyses presented in this version supersede those in Kawahara & Shinohara (2007).

References

REFERENCES

Ahmed, Rais & Agrawal, S. S.. 1969. Significant features in the perception of (Hindi) consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 45, 758–773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albright, Adam (n.d.). Segmental similarity calculator [software]. http://web.mit.edu/albright/www/.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5, 183–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Todd & Hahn, Ulrike. 2005. Phoneme similarity and confusability. Journal of Memory and Language 52, 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benkí, José. 2003. Analysis of English nonsense syllable recognition in noise. Phonetica 60, 129–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumstein, Sheila. 1986. On acoustic invariance in speech. In Perkell, Joseph & Klatt, Dennis (eds.) Invariance and variability in speech processes, 178–193. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Blumstein, Sheila & Stevens, Kenneth. 1979. Acoustic invariance in speech production: Evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66, 1001–1017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interaction between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2007. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (version 5.0.34). http://www.praat.org.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu. 1990. Parameters of consonantal assimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Churma, Don. 1979. Arguments from external evidence in phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. & Hume, Elizabeth. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The handbook of phonological theory, 245–306. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries & Pater, Joe. 2005. Lexically gradient phonotactics in Muna and Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2004. Syntagmatic distinctness in consonant deletion. Phonology 21, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Anne & Otake, Takashi. 2002. Rhythmic categories in spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 296–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Barbara & MacNeilage, Peter. 2000. An embodiment perspective on the acquisition of speech perception. Phonetica 57, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Lacy, Paul & Kingston, John. 2006. Synchronic explanation. Ms., Rutgers University & University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed. 1985. Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7, 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, Randy & Walsh, Margaret. 1989. An auditory basis for the stimulus-length effect in the perception of stops and glides. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 85, 2154–2164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downing, Laura. 2005. On the ambiguous segmental status of nasal in homorganic NC sequences. In van Oostendorp, Marc & van der Weijer, Jeroen M. (eds.) The internal organization of phonological segments, 183–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques. 1999. Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25, 1568–1578.Google Scholar
Eekman, Thomas. 1974. The realm of rime: A study of rime in the poetry of the Slavs. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1997. Linguistics and literature: Language in the verbal arts of the world. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fay, David & Cutler, Anne. 1977. Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 505–520.Google Scholar
Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2005. Similarity in phonology: Evidence from reduplication and loan adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol. 1992. Vowel duration and closure duration in voiced and unvoiced stops: There are no contrast effects here. Journal of Phonetics 20, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stephan, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22, 179–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golston, Chris. 1994. The phonology of rhyme. Presented at 1994 LSA Meeting.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph & Jenkins, James. 1964. Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20, 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, Susan. 1998. The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica 55, 18–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halle, Morris. 1992. Phonological features. In Bright, William (ed.) International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 3, 207–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin. 1999. Formal variation in the rhymes of Robert Pinsky's The Inferno of Dante. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hempelmann, Christian. 2003. Paronomasic puns: Target recoverability towards automatic generation. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Holtman, Astrid. 1996. A generative theory of rhyme: An optimality approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin & Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2004. Harmonic scales as faithfulness. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Tsan. 2001. The interplay of perception and phonology in tone 3 sandhi in Chinese Putonghua. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) Studies on the interplay of speech perception and phonology (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 55), 23–42. Columbus, OH: OSU Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Huffman, Marie K. & Krakow, Rena A. (eds.). 1993. Nasals, nasalization, and the velum. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith. 2003. The impact of partial phonological contrast on speech perception. 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) 2003, Barcelona, 2385–2388.Google Scholar
Hura, Susan, Lindblom, Björn & Diehl, Randy. 1992. On the role of perception in shaping phonological assimilation rules. Language and Speech 35, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Kitagawa, Yoshihisa & Mester, Armin. 1996. Prosodic faithfulness and correspondence: Evidence from a Japanese argot. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 5, 217–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 49–73.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1999. The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.) The handbook of Japanese linguistics, 62–100. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, Mester, Armin & Padgett, Jaye. 1995. Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 571–614.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri & Ohala, John. 1984. On the structure of phonetic categories. Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 10), 15–26.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Language in literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar & Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis (Technical Report 13). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2003. Acoustic and auditory phonetics, 2nd edn. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 2004. Place assimilation. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology, 58–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, Yoonjung. 2003. Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology 20, 219–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katayama, Motoko. 1998. Optimality Theory and Japanese loanword phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2003. On a certain kind of hiatus resolution in Japanese. Phonological Studies 6, 11–20.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2006. A faithfulness ranking projected from a perceptibility scale: The case of voicing in Japanese. Language 82, 536–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2007. Half-rhymes in Japanese rap lyrics and knowledge of similarity. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 16, 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto, Ono, Hajime & Sudo, Kiyoshi. 2006. Consonant co-occurrence restrictions in Yamato Japanese. In Vance, Timothy & Jones, Kimberly (eds.) Japanese/Korean Linguistics 14, 27–38. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kawahara, Shigeto & Shinohara, Kazuko. 2007. The role of psychoacoustic similarity in Japanese imperfect puns. In Becker, Michael (ed.) University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 36, 111–133. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia. 1988. Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology 5, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia. 1996. The phonology–phonetics interface. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 92, 45–60.Google Scholar
Keating, Patricia & Lahiri, Aditi. 1993. Fronted velars, palatalized velars, and palatals. Phonetica 50, 73–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenstowicz, Michael. 2003. Salience and similarity in loanword adaptation: A case study from Fijian. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1970. Metrics and morphophonemics in the Kalevala. In Freeman, Donald (ed.) Linguistics and literary style, 165–181. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1972. Metrics and morphophonemics in the Rigveda. In Brame, Michael (ed.) Contributions to generative phonology, 171–200. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1981. The role of linguistics in a theory of poetry. In Freeman, Donald (ed.) Essays in modern stylistics, 9–23. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, In-Seok (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1998. An effort-based approach to consonant lenition. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Klatt, Dennis. 1968. Structure of confusions in short-term memory between English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59, 1208–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klockars, Alan J. & Sax, Gilbert. 1986. Multiple comparisons. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, Keith, Diehl, Randy & Wright, Beverly. 1988. Vowel-length differences before voiced and voiceless consonants: An auditory explanation. Journal of Phonetics 16, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, Klaus. 1990. Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: Phonological facts and phonetic explanations. In Hardcastle, William J. & Marchal, Alain (eds.) Speech production and speech modelling, 69–92. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kurowski, Kathleen & Blumstein, Sheila. 1993. Acoustic properties for the perception of nasal consonants. In Huffman, & Krakow, (eds.) 197–224.Google Scholar
Kwon, Bo-Young. 2005. The patterns of vowel insertion in IL phonology: The P-map account. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 11, 21–49.Google Scholar
LaCharité, Darlene & Paradis, Carole. 2005. Category preservation and proximity versus phonetic approximation in loanword adaptation. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 223–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerquist, Linnes. 1980. Linguistic evidence from paronomasia. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 16, 185–191.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi & Reetz, Henning. 2002. Underspecified recognition. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 7, 637–675. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1976. English phonology and phonological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lisker, Leigh. 1986. ‘Voicing’ in English: A catalog of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees. Language and Speech 29, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lombardi, Linda. 1990. The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8, 375–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, Peter John. 1969. English-speakers' awareness of distinctive features. Language Sciences 5, 14.Google Scholar
Maher, Peter John. 1972. Distinctive feature rhyme in German folk versification. Language Sciences 19, 19–20.Google Scholar
Malécot, André. 1956. Acoustic cues for nasal consonants: An experimental study involving a tape-splicing technique. Language 32, 274–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Joseph. 1987. Muted euphony and consonant matching in Irish. Germanic Linguistics 27, 133–144.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph. 1988a. On the global-phonologic nature of classical Irish alliteration. Germanic Linguistics 28, 93–103.Google Scholar
Malone, Joseph. 1988b. Underspecification theory and Turkish rhyme. Phonology 5, 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43, 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill, Walsh Dickey, Laura & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.) University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 249–384. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar
Mester, Armin & Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65, 258–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2003. The interplay of speech perception and phonology: Experimental evidence from Turkish. Phonetica 60, 208–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, George & Nicely, Patricia. 1955. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donca. 2003. Alliteration and sound change in early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1993. Fields of attraction in phonology. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.) The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations, 61–116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, B. & Wang, W. S.. 1968. Perceptual distance and the specification of phonological features. Phonetica 18, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukai, Yoshihito. 1996. Kotoba asobi no jyugyoo zukuri [Teaching with word games]. Tokyo: Meiji Tosho.Google Scholar
Myers, Jerome & Well, Arnold. 2003. Research design and statistical analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott & Hanssen, Benjamin. 2005. The origin of vowel-length neutralization in vocoid sequences. Phonology 22, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, Mitsuhiro. 2002. The articulation of the Japanese /r/ and some implications for phonological acquisition. Phonological Studies 5, 55–62.Google Scholar
Nishimura, Kohei. 2003. Lyman's law in loanwords. Ms., University of Tokyo.Google Scholar
Ohala, John. 1986. Consumer's guide to evidence in phonology. Phonology 3, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Egil Breivik, Leiv & Håkon Jahr, Ernst (eds.) Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 173–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John & Ohala, Manjari. 1993. The phonetics of nasal phonology: Theorems and data. In Huffman, & Krakow, (eds.) 225–249.Google Scholar
Otake, Takashi & Cutler, Anne. 2001. Recognition of (almost) spoken words: Evidence from word play in Japanese. European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology 7 (EUROSPEECH 2001 Scandinavia), 464–468.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1991. Stricture in feature geometry. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carol & Prunet, Jean-François (eds.). 1991. The special status of coronals: Internal and external evidence. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Steve. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Peters, Robert. 1963. Dimensions of perception for consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35, 1985–1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Talkin, David. 1992. Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop. In Docherty, Gerard & Ladd, Robert (eds.) Papers in Laboratory Phonology II, 90–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pols, Louis. 1983. Three mode principle component analysis of confusion matrices, based on the identification of Dutch consonants, under various conditions of noise and reverberation. Speech Communication 2, 275–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Patti. 1981. A cross-linguistic study of flaps in Japanese and in American English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1993. A reexamination of the feature [sonorant]: The status of sonorant obstruents. Language 69, 308–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon & Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80, 475–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth. 1986. The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Seco, G. V., Menéndez de la Fuente, I. A. & Escudero, J. R.. 2001. Pairwise multiple comparisons under violation of the independence assumption. Quality and Quantity 35, 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Klatt, Dennis. 1977. The limited use of distinctive features and markedness in speech production: Evidence from speech error data. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior 18, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinohara, Shigeko. 2004. A note on the Japanese pun, dajare: Two sources of phonological similarity. Ms., Laboratoire de Psychologie Experimentale.Google Scholar
Singh, Rajendra, Woods, David & Becker, Gordon. 1972. Perceptual structure of 22 prevocalic English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 52, 1698–1713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, Sadanand & Black, John. 1966. Study of twenty-six intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39, 372–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sobkowiak, Włodzimierz. 1991. Metaphonology of English paronomasic puns. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Spring, Cari. 1994. Combinatorial specification of a consonantal system. In Spaelti, Phillip (ed.) Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 12), 133–152. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph. 1991. Radical underspecification in language production. Phonology 8, 73–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1994. Positional neutralization and the expression of contrast. Ms., UCLA. [A revised, written-up version of 1993 NELS handout.]Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.) Acquisition and the lexicon (Papers in Laboratory Phonology V), 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001a. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.) The role of speech perception in phonology, 219–250. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001b. The phonology of perceptibility effect: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2003. Knowledge of similarity and narrow lexical override. 29th Annual Meeting of Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 29), 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth & Blumstein, Sheila. 1978. Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64, 1358–1368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sussman, Harvey, McCaffrey, Helen & Matthews, Sandra. 1991. An investigation of locus equations as a source of relational invariance for stop place categorization. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 90, 1309–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takizawa, Osamu. 1996. Nihongo syuuzihyougen no kougakuteki kenkyuu [Technological study of Japanese rhetorical expressions]. Tokyo: Tsuushin Sogo Kenkyuusho.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai. 1969. Principles of phonology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
van den Broecke, M. P. R. 1976. Hierarchies and rank orders in distinctive features. Amsterdam: Van Gorcum Assen.Google Scholar
van Dommelen, Wim. 1999. Auditory accounts of temporal factors in the perception of Norwegian disyllables and speech analogs. Journal of Phonetics 27, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walden, Brian & Montgomery, Allen. 1975. Dimensions of consonant perception in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 18, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, Rachel. 2003. Nasal and oral consonant similarity in speech errors: Exploring parallels with long-distance nasal agreement. Ms., University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Walter, Mary-Ann. 2004. Loan adaptation in Zazaki Kurdish. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.) Working Papers in Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 6 (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics), 97–106.Google Scholar
Wang, Marilyn D. & Bilger, Robert C.. 1973. Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54, 1248–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30, 945–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, Richard. 1996. Consonant clusters and cue preservation in Tsou. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1999. Reduplication as alliteration and rhyme. Glot International 4, 1–7.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie. 2007. The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog reduplication. Language 83, 277–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1976. This rock-and-roll has got to stop: Junior's head is hard as a rock. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 12, 676–697.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Zwicky, Elizabeth. 1986. Imperfect puns, markedness, and phonological similarity: With fronds like these, who needs anemones? Folia Linguistica 20, 493–503.Google Scholar