Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:33:43.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The sound of a spherical cow*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2017

Julian Bradfield
Julian Bradfield*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I consider the use of computational simulations in phonology, and the benefits and dangers of making abstractions, or failing to make abstractions. I argue that the potential of simulation studies is not yet realised as it could be.

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , August 2017 , pp. 347 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © Julian Bradfield 2017. Published by 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

*

I thank Bart de Boer, Paul Boersma, Kateřina Chládková and James Kirby for discussions and comments over the years, as well as attenders at the Phonetic Universals conference in Leipzig in 2010 and the 19th Manchester Phonology Meeting in 2011, where the first versions of the work in §3.3 and §4.2 were presented. I thank the anonymous reviewers for careful and expert commentary on the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Boer, Bart de (1999). Self-organisation in vowel systems. PhD dissertation, Free University Brussels.Google Scholar
Boer, Bart de (2001). The origins of vowel systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul & Chládková, Kateřina (2010). Perceptual difference in five-vowel systems reflect differences in feature structure. Paper presented at the 18th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Chládková, Kateřina, Boersma, Paul & Benders, Titia (2015). The perceptual basis of the feature vowel height. In The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS 2015 (ed.) Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Chládková, Kateřina, Escudero, Paola & Boersma, Paul (2011). Context-specific acoustic differences between Peruvian and Iberian Spanish vowels. JASA 130. 416–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donegan, Patricia J. (2004). Review of de Boer (2001). Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34. 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekštein, Kamil (2004). Hybrid methods of acoustic-phonetic analysis of spontaneous speech. PhD thesis, University of West Bohemia in Pilsen.Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman & Hartmann, Stephan (2017). Models in science. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Available (July 2017) at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science.Google Scholar
Harmegnes, Bernard & Poch-Olivé, Dolors (1992). A study of style-induced vowel variability: laboratory versus spontaneous speech in Spanish. Speech Communication 11. 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingerman, Peter Zilahy (1967). ‘Pāṇini-Backus form’ suggested. Communications of the ACM 10. 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith (2005). Speaker normalization in speech perception. In Pisoni, David B. & Remez, Robert E. (eds.) The handbook of speech perception. Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell. 363–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri (2006). The insufficiency of paper-and-pencil linguistics: the case of Finnish prosody. In Butt, Miriam, Dalrymple, Mary & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.) Intelligent linguistic architectures: variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan. Stanford: CSLI. 287–300.Google Scholar
Kirby, James (2010). Cue selection and category restructuring in sound change. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Klein, Sheldon (1966). Historical change in language using Monte Carlo techniques. Mechanical Translation and Computational Linguistics 9. 67–82.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan & Lindblom, Björn (1972). Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Lg 48. 839–862.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. 14–30.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1977). Artificial Intelligence: a personal view. Artificial Intelligence 9. 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In Gussenhoven, Carlos & Warner, Natasha (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 7. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 101–139.CrossRefGoogle 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
Savela, Janne (2009). Role of selected spectral attributes in the perception of synthetic vowels. PhD thesis, University of Turku.Google Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton (2013). Phonetic biases and systemic effects in the actuation of sound change. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc (1997). The synthetic modeling of language origins. Evolution of Communication 1. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, K. N. (1952). The perception of vowel formants. Abstract of paper presented at the 43rd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. JASA 24. 450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volín, Jan & Studenovský, David (2007). Normalization of Czech vowels from continuous read texts. In Jürgen Trouvain & William J. Barry (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Saarbrücken: Saarland University. 185–190.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bradfield supplementary material

Bradfield supplementary material 1

Download Bradfield supplementary material(File)
File 33.8 KB