Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:55:04.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RENÉ KAGER, JOE PATER & WIM ZONNEVELD (EDS.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. ix + 417. ISBN: 0-521-82963-1.

Review products

RENÉ KAGER, JOE PATER & WIM ZONNEVELD (EDS.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. ix + 417. ISBN: 0-521-82963-1.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2007

Walcir Cardoso
Walcir Cardoso*
Affiliation:
Department of Education, TESL Centre Concordia [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Journal of the International Phonetic Association , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , December 2007 , pp. 329 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Journal of the International Phonetic Association 2007

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

Alderete, J. (2001). Faithfulness to prosodic heads. In McCarthy, J. (ed.), Optimality Theory in Phonology: Selected Readings, 215–227. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. W., Felix, S. & Ioup, G. (1988). The accessibility of Universal Grammar in adult language learning. Second Language Research 4 (1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In Godsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 206–244. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. (1997). Functional Phonology. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32, 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J. (1994). UG and the metaphor of access. In Ellis, N. (ed.), Implicit Learning of Language, 477–502. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, D. (2004). Review of Kager, Pater & Zonneveld (ed.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Phonology 21 (3), 431–440.Google Scholar
Menn, L. (1980). Phonological theory and child phonology. In Yeni-Komshian, G. H., Kavanagn, J. F. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds.), Child Phonology, vol. 1: Production, 23–42. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1996). The Initial State and ‘Richness of the Base’ in Optimality Theory. Technical Report JHU-CogSci-96-4, Cognitive Science Department, Johns Hopkins University. [Rutgers Optimality Archive: 154.]Google Scholar
Tesar, B. & Smolensky, P. (1993). The Learnability of Optimality Theory: An Algorithm and Some Basic Complexity Results. [Rutgers Optimality Archive: 2-1093.]Google Scholar
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. (1998). Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the nature of interlanguage representation. In Eubank, L. (ed.), UG Access in L2 Acquisition: Reassessing the Question, 1–13. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.Google Scholar