28.3565, Review: Phonology: Muller, Ball (2016)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3565. Tue Aug 29 2017. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 28.3565, Review: Phonology: Muller, Ball (2016)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté,
                                   Michael Czerniakowski)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Clare Harshey <clare at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 13:08:59
From: Reza Falahati [reza.falahati at uottawa.ca]
Subject: Challenging Sonority

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36316217


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/27/27-4173.html

EDITOR: Martin J. Ball
EDITOR: Nicole  Muller
TITLE: Challenging Sonority
SUBTITLE: Cross-linguistic Evidence
SERIES TITLE: Studies in Phonetics and Phonology
PUBLISHER: Equinox Publishing Ltd
YEAR: 2016

REVIEWER: Reza Falahati, University of Ottawa

REVIEWS EDITOR: Robert A. Coté

SUMMARY

“Challenging Sonority: Cross-Linguistic Evidence”, edited by Martin J. Ball
and Nicole Müller,  is a collection of twenty articles focusing on one of the
key topics in linguistics which has a long tradition of controversy in the
field.  While two of the articles provide a review on sonority related to
natural language and acquisition, and two other contributions use sonority as
a background, most examine sonority and the related principles in
under-studied languages as well as speech from typically developing children
and those with speech disorders.
 
Sonority has been mainly defined as the intensity or constriction
degree/aperture related to a segment. The following hierarchy is proposed for
ranking sounds in terms of their sonority:
vowels  >  glides  >  liquids  >  nasals  >  fricatives  >  stops. According
to this, vowels are the most sonorous segments and stops are the least, with
glides, liquids, nasals, and fricatives in between.
  
There are a number of principles being used to explain different phenomena in
sonority-related studies. For example, the Sonority Sequencing Principle
(henceforth, SSP) determines the order of consonants in the onset or coda
position of a syllable by the sonority hierarchy. This principle requires that
sonority must decrease from the nucleus to the edges of the syllable (i.e.,
onset and coda). The Sonority Dispersion Principle (SDP) posits that in a
sequence of onset consonant clusters and vowel (e.g., C1C2V), the consonants
and vowel should be maximally and evenly separated from each other. This means
that a sequence of /pla/ is preferred over /pja/ since liquids are almost the
midpoint between plosives and vowels on the sonority scale. This principle
also requires that the rise of sonority from onset to nucleus be steep, and
the decline from nucleus to coda be shallow. 

This book starts with Chapter 1, “Sonority in Natural Language: A Review”, by
Joan Rahilly, which provides a critical review of the core principles in
sonority theory in natural language varieties from both phonetic and
phonological perspectives. These include correlating sonority with either
vocal tract configuration or loudness (e.g., Green 2003; Proctor & Walker
2012) or using a set of OT-related markedness and faithfulness constraints
(e.g., Prince & Smolensky 2004; Steriade 1990). The circularity of the
formalism used in OT and the categorical nature of the scales are the main
points emphasized by Rahilly.

The next two contributions provide a cross-linguistic study and simply use
sonority as a background. In Chapter 2, “Sonority and the Unusual Behavior of
/s/”, Heather Goad examines /s/-clusters in the syllabification systems of
three unrelated languages, namely Acoma, Blackfoot, and Ōgami, to see how the
unusual behaviour of /s/ in Indo-European languages is displayed in these
non-Indo-European languages. She states that in order to analyze the diverse
phonotactic behaviours of /s/ across Indo-European and non-Indo-European
languages, /s/ needs to be outside of its sonority class and we need to adopt
a syllable representation for it which “functions as the coda of an
empty-headed syllable in Indo-European, as an onset followed by an empty
nucleus in Acoma, and as nuclear in Blackfoot and Ōgami” (p. 26). 

In Chapter 3, “Relating the Sonority Hierarchy to Articulatory Timing
Patterns: A Cross-linguistic Perspective”, Joana Chitoran investigates the
articulatory data (using EMA) from three languages (i.e., Georgian, Slovak, &
Tashlhiyt) having different syllabic organization. Georgian allows only vowels
as the syllable nucleus, Slovak allows both vowels and liquids, and Tashlhiyt
allows all vowels and consonants to be syllabic. The author argues that the
variation existing in syllable structures across languages can be best
explained by referring to language-specific properties of articulatory timing
between adjacent gestures. This approach could explain both the patterns which
are in agreement with the sonority hierarchy as well as the ones which show
rankings opposite to the SSP. What this article has in common with earlier
studies is that Chitoran still shares the idea of articulatory motivation
behind the sonority hierarchy, but she puts the focus on the gestural timing
coordination between articulatory gestures rather than “degree of
constriction” as suggested by other researchers (e.g., Green 2003). 

The next eleven chapters deal with sonority and the related problems in a
range of different languages. Brent Ernest Archer, in Chapter 4, “Sonority in
Zulu”, a somehow different work, uses a statistical method on a corpus of Zulu
to test whether there is a “tendency” in such a non-Indo-European language to
sequence segments in onset and nucleus in a way that there is a maximum
sonority difference between them. In order to operationalize the distribution
of the syllable’s transition score, the researcher uses the following sonority
sequencing proposed by Ball, Müller, and Rutter (2010): vowels: 6, glides: 5,
liquids: 4, nasals: 3, fricatives: 2, stops: 1.
Based on the general results, Archer claims that the SSP cannot account for
the syllable formation in human languages. The question which still stays here
is how to deal with “marked” sounds such as ejectives, implosives, and clicks
in Zulu and other languages with different sound sources.

Matthew Faytak in Chapter 5, “Sonority in Some Languages of the Cameroon
Grassfields”, investigates the unusual phonotactics in Kom and Limbum, two
Bantu languages, spoken in south-western Cameroon. Faytak’s main motivation to
focus on these languages stems in having a set of peculiar obstruents in these
languages called “fricativized vowels”. The unusual behaviour of this set is
that they are licensed to take nucleus position to the exclusion of most of
the sonorant consonants. The author initially classifies these segments as
syllabified obstruents in order to show their unexpected behaviours in regard
to the SSP. However, later on he provides acoustic support (e.g., visible
formants) which mainly conforms to the vocalic nature of these segments. The
author suggests that the principle behind the SSP should be based on a
multiple spectral parameters rather than constriction degree only.

In Chapter 6, “An Investigation of Sonority Theory in Mandarin Chinese”, Li
Qiang examines the segments frequency and distribution of onset consonants and
vowels in a corpus of Mandarin Chinese to test the SSP predictions regarding
the preferred syllabic shape. Consonant-glide combinations are considered to
be a single phoneme in Mandarin. The results show that the frequency of high
vowels in his corpus was the highest followed by low vowels and mid vowels,
respectively. Adopting Clement’s (2009) sonority ranking for English vowels
(i.e., low vowels > mid vowels > high vowels), Qiang argues that the
prediction made by the SSP is not born out.  It could be that the small size
of the corpus (2,500 out of 87,019 possible characters) in this study may not
be a good representative of the Chinese characters. 

In Chapter 7, “Sonority and Syllabification in Casual and Formal Mongolian
Speech”, Anastasia Karlsson and Jan-Olof Svantesson examine the SSP in two
varieties of Mongolian: casual and formal speech. The syllabic structure of
the language allows three consonants in the coda position. However, when these
combinations violate the SSP, the two varieties use different strategies to
preserve the morphological structure of words. Voice assimilation and stop
lenition are the two major strategies that are used to preserve the sequence
of consonants that is formed as a result of suffixation in casual speech.
However, in the formal register, schwa epenthesis is the dominant strategy
used to avoid violation of the SSP. Karlsson and Svantesson mainly argue that
the use of these strategies in both formal and casual speech is to make
“consonant clusters pronounceable”. The results of this study could also be
viewed by referring to the temporal organization in articulatory gestures (see
Chitoran, this volume) and the speech rate difference in careful and casual
speech. The rate of production is  proved to influence gestural orchestration
and consequently the type and rate of deletion and other processes across
languages (Barry 1985; Byrd 1994, 1996). 

Samira Farwaneh in Chapter 8, “Sequential Constraints on Codas in Palestinian
Arabic”, deals with the coda consonant clusters in Palestinian Arabic (PA).
This language allows both complex onsets (CCVC) and complex codas (CVCC). When
the sequence of the consonants violates the well-formed coda condition, vowel
epenthesis is triggered to avoid illegal codas. Moreover, PA  applies the
vowel insertion to the coda consonant sequences where the SSP is not violated.
In addition to cases like this, vowel insertion is applied in words where
there is a sonority plateau (e., stop-stop, fricative-fricative) between the
coda consonants in specific order. In order to account for the phonotactics of
coda consonant sequences in PA, Farwaneh argues that in addition to the SSP,
Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) and markedness constraints are needed. Yip
(2013) has argued that the manner and place of articulation of both C1 and C2
in addition to their order could affect the perceptibility and gestural
overlap of the adjacent segment. 

Marie Klopfenstein in Chapter 9, “Exceptions to the SSP: Evidence from Ottawa
for a Metatheoretical Approach”, uses data from Ottawa, an endangered
Algonquin language, to examine the predictions made by the SSP. Using Ball,
Müller, and Rutter’s (2010) model, she presents words with onset clusters
which adhere to the SSP; however, the fricative-stop and nasal-obstruent
sequences are also presented as the consonant clusters which violate the SSP. 
Klopfenstein tries to examine different explanations proposed by phonologists
when exceptions, like the ones in Ottawa, happen. Merging two classes into
one, as Clements’ (1990) model does for stops and fricatives as obstruents, is
one explanation. She argues that although merges like this could result in
less SSP violation, they may lose some of their explanatory power in return.
The author highlights the specific role of morphology in the SSP rankings
since they could  convey important information in a language. 

Sonya Bird and Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins in Chapter 10, “Parsing Salish Consonant
Clusters”, present an acoustic study on consonant sequences in Nxaʔamxcín, a
Salish language, which allows two to four consonants root-initially as
obstruent-obstruent, obstruent-sonorant, sonorant-obstruent, and
sonorant-sonorant. Among these clusters, both root-initial and root-final
obstruent-obstruent sequences are considered a special sequence where schwas
are not inserted to break the sequence into smaller ones. Moreover, the
root-initial obstruent-sonorant sequences behave differently from root-final
sonorant-obstruent sequences by having more tendency for schwa insertion in
the former context. In addition to the results regarding schwa insertion
between two consonants, this study shows that schwa could also be inserted
after the clusters if they are followed by a suffix-initial sonorant. This
shows that the manner of articulation of the segment following (or preceding)
the cluster is quite significant in this respect. Bird and Czaykowska-Higgins
conclude that the SSP plays a major role in parsing the consonant clusters in
Nxaʔamxcín. However, in order to get a fuller picture of the phonotactics of
the consonant clusters in this language, an “interaction of phonological
constraints on syllable structure, perceptibility, and articulatory timing” is
needed (p. 194).

In Chapter 11, “Sonority in Gitksan”, Jason Brown deals with Gitksan, an
Interior Tsimshianic language in British Columbia, Canada. This language shows
very low-ranked constraints on sequencing stops and fricatives adjacent to
each other in both initial and final position in different orders; however,
this is not true for sonorants which cannot be next to each other. The
question here is why this language allows sonority plateau (e.g.,
fricative-fricative) or even sonority fall (e.g., fricative-stop), but does
not tolerate stop-sonorant sequences. Brown provides a perceptual account to
explain such a difference.

Yolanda Rivera-Castillo in Chapter 12, “Syllable Structure in Papiamentu and
the Sonority Scale”, examines the syllable structure in Papiamentu. The coda
and onset consonant clusters in the language show specific behaviours:
sonorants cannot be adjacent to other sonorants. Two obstruents can be next to
each other if both are voiceless and have a different feature for
[continuant]. Rivera-Castillo argues that the phonotactic constraints for
consonant clusters in Papiamentu are governed by melodic properties and some
other related constraints such as Minimal Sonority Distance & Syllable Contact
Law rather than the SSP. She states that these constraints are correlated to
perceptual cues. 

Chiara Meluzzi in Chapter 13, “A New Sonority Degree in the Realization of the
Dental Affricates /ts dz/ in Italian”, investigates different realizations of
dental affricates in the Italian variety of Bolzano. The Standard Italian
language contains both voiceless and voiced dental affricates /ts/ and /dz/,
while German has only voiceless affricates /pf/ and /ts/. The acoustic results
of the study show a new affricate variant (almost 25% of the tokens) labelled
as “mixed” where a voicing distinction was observed between the plosive and
the fricative parts of the affricate. The results show that there is an
interaction between “mixed” affricate realizations and social factors. The
presence of a gap between the occlusive and the fricative parts in the “mixed”
affricates is regarded as an evidence for the in-between status of mixed
affricates. The point which remains unclear here is the way the author has
interpreted affricates like /ds/ having a new sonority degree. It is not
obvious whether Meluzzi is treating the emerging affricate as a new phoneme or
a combination of a plosive and a fricative. 

Martin J. Ball and Nicole Müller in Chapter 14, “Sonority and Initial
Consonant Mutation in the Celtic Languages”,examine the initial consonant
mutation (ICM) in three Celtic languages (i.e., Welsh, Breton, and Irish) to
see how this sound change conforms to the predictions made by the SSP and the
SDP. Their findings for Welsh show that all the onset clusters with two
consonants (except /s/ + C sequence) respect the SSP. The 3-consonant clusters
mainly violate the SSP. In fact, this is mainly due to authors’ interpretation
of /gw/ as a plosive-glide sequence rather than a labialized velar. In
general, mutation reduces sonority distances between the initial consonant(s)
and the following vowels in all three languages. Ball and Müller claim that
such a phonological change does not support the predictions made by the SDP. 

The next five chapters (i.e., 15-19) explore language acquisition and impaired
speech in the context of sonority. Jessica A. Barlow in Chapter 15, “Sonority
in Acquisition: A Review”, evaluates the assumptions made by the SSP by
reviewing the studies on syllable structure acquisition by adults and children
with speech delay. According to the reviewed studies, CV syllables are
acquired first, followed by CVC and CCV(C)/CVCC. Obstruent onsets are acquired
before sonorant onsets by children. This supports the SSP since
obstruent-nucleus provides a maximal rise in the onset sonority compared to
sonorant-nucleus (Steriade 1993). However, the acquisition of either
obstruents or sonorants in the coda position does not support the SSP
predictions. Barlow states that phonotactic restrictions as well as different
structural representations should be considered to provide a full picture of
syllable acquisition.

Mehmet Yavaș and Elena Babatsouli in Chapter 16, “Acquisition of /s/ Clusters
in a Greek-English Bilingual Child: Sonority or OCP?”, in a longitudinal study
address the acquisition and reduction of #sC clusters in a Greek-English
bilingual child. The main goal of this research is to test the opposite
predictions made by the SSP and the OCP. According to the SSP, the /s/ + stop
clusters are more marked than /s/ + nasal/liquid/glide clusters, hence they
are expected to have lower accuracy in children’s production than the less
marked clusters. The OCP[continuant], however, predicts that the /s/ +
liquid/glide clusters are more marked than /s/ + stop/nasal clusters and
children are expected to produce them less correctly than the unmarked
clusters. The results show that /s/ + stop/nasal clusters appear earlier in
the production of the child than other clusters. This supports the predictions
made by OCP [continuant]. 

In Chapter 17, “The Influence of Sonority on Cluster Acquisition by Egyptian
Arabic Children Aged Two to Three Years”, Mona Maamoun investigates the
acquisition of clusters in CVCC Egyptian Colloquial Arabic (ECA) words by
typically developing children aged 2-3, to examine the predictions made by the
SSP. The general results of the study showed that the highest rate of correct
responses happened in clusters with a sonority plateau, followed by clusters
respecting the SSP.

Chapter 18, “Sonority and Cluster Reduction in Typical and Atypical
Phonological Development in Farsi”, by Froogh Shooshtaryzadeh, investigates
the word-final and word-medial (i.e., abutting) clusters in 10 Farsi-speaking
children with a functional phonological disorder (PD) and typically developing
children (TD). She considers different phonological processes such as cluster
reduction, metathesis, fusion, and voicing/devoicing in the production of PD
and TD children to see how the SSP or Articulatory Ease Principle (AEP) can
account for developing phonologies. The results show that the reduction of
coda clusters is mainly motivated by AEP and/or Continuity Preservation
Property (CPP), a constraint which favours the deletion of the final segment
in a cluster. However, the extent of influence of each factor varies across PD
and TD groups.

Martin J. Ball, Nicole Müller, and Chris Code in Chapter 19, “Sonority and
Aphasia”, first review some studies dealing with paraphasic and jargonaphasic
data to see how sonority could account for such impaired speech. The authors
show that the patterns found in subjects’ errors are against the predictions
of both sonority theory and the SDP. They then focus on studies of lexical and
non-lexical speech automatisms in English, German, and Cantonese. The data
from English and German were analyzed both in terms of consonant cluster
phonotactics and syllable structure while the analysis of the data on
Cantonese was restricted to syllable structure. The results show that the
preferred syllable for all languages is CV. As for the consonant classes the C
position is primarily filled by obstruents, followed by nasals. Contrary to
the results for paraphasia and jargonaphasia, the nonword/non-lexical
automatism results support the SSP. In general, it is argued that sonority
should be considered as a tendency rather than a hard-wired phonological law.
The authors conclude that the alternative interpretation of the same phonetic
change in favour of or against the SSP justifies such speech disorders at the
level of phonological organization rather than phonetic planning and
implementation.  

Mark J. Jones in the last chapter, “Motivating and Explaining the Structure of
Segment Sequences”, reviews some studies which list the problems with sonority
as an efficient factor in explaining segmental sequences and syllable
structures. These include the circularity in its definition (Ohala 1992), the
problem of intensity dealing with allophones, the extra-syllabic nature of
some segments, and the diverse syllabification of the same set of segmental
sequences across different languages (e.g., V.CCV vs. VC.CV). Jones argues
that an acoustic-auditory recoverability approach, by referring to signal
modulation and auditory dimension, can account for the attested patterns in a
better way than the SSP.

EVALUATION

The main goal of this edited volume is to investigate sonority and some
related principles (e.g., SSP, SDP, OCP, and markedness) by focusing on
under-studied languages as well as language acquisition in children with
normal and disordered speech. The secondary aim is to find whether sonority is
located in the speaker’s competence, such as in phonology, or whether it is
situated in phonetic planning, a component which is intermediate between
phonology and a motor implementation component (Ball, Müller & Code, this
volume). In general, this work is successful in examining sonority by studies
which cover a wide range of research questions and apply various
methodologies. The diversity in the work is mainly due to specific focus of
the book and contributors’ field of expertise which ranges from phonetics,
language acquisition, phonology, communication sciences and disorders, to
speech pathology. For example, this volume provides a full picture of sonority
by employing acoustic (e.g., Bird and Czaykowska-Higgins), articulatory (e.g.,
Chitoran), and perceptual (e.g., Brown) perspectives to study this phenomenon.
Moreover, providing data from children with disordered and normal speech opens
a new window for testing the predictions made by sonority.  

This edition could be improved if it had gone through a more rigid
proofreading and correction process since some of the authors are not native
English speakers. Moreover, the IPA was not used correctly by some authors in
some articles.

In general, the studies presented in this book show conflicting results. Most
of the works (e.g., Archer; Ball & Müller; Meluzzi; Qiang; Shooshtaryzadeh;
Yavaș & Babatsouli) do not support the predictions made by sonority-related
principles. However, there are some contributions which employ sonority
principles in addition to some other constraints in order to get a full
interpretation of their results (e.g., Bird & Czaykowska-Higgins; Farwaneh;
Klopfenstein). The lack of support for sonority in some of the chapters in
this book could be due to adopting different classifications for the segments,
especially the marked segments, in some studies. For example, /gw/ is
classified as plosive-glide sequence rather than a labialized velar in Chapter
14. This could have major consequences on the interpretation of the results.
Moreover, Miller (2012) has argued that the sonority scale should encompass
two smaller scales: one based on the degree of constriction and the other
based on sound source. Adopting such scale could provide us with results which
reflect sonority in a finer way across languages.   

This book also attempts to address the question regarding the location of
sonority. Is it part of speaker’s phonology, or is it part of finer phonetics?
There are some studies in the field which have shown that this bipolar
dichotomy (i.e., phonology vs. phonetics) is not a very clear-cut division.
They mainly assume that such distinction should be considered as one continuum
and many of the phonological processes could be explained by including some
other factors such a perception and markedness in phonetics-phonology
interface (see, for example, Jun 1995; Kochetov & Pouplier 2008).

In order to further distinguish properties that are actively controlled by the
speaker from properties which are the by-products of a mechanical execution,
Solé (2007) has suggested using different speech rates. According to her,
variation in the temporal duration of segments triggers the temporal change of
controlled effects whereas they have no impacts on mechanical effects. This
could be a good line of research for further studying where sonority is
located (see, Falahati 2013, for more discussion). 

Another promising direction for research is to develop a comparative study of
sonority from both articulatory and acoustic-perceptual perspectives. With the
rapid development of advanced technologies in the field, collecting
articulatory data from speech with different rates and styles as well as
acoustic-perceptual information could shed more light on this topic. In such
an attempt, the language-specific gestural organization and timing as well as
morphological characteristics of each language should be taken into account. 

REFERENCES

Ball, Martin. J., Müller, Nicole & Rutter, Ben. 2010. Phonology of
communication disorders. New York. Psychology Press.

Barry, Martin. 1985. A palatographic study of connected speech processes.
Cambridge papers in Phonetics and Experimental Linguistics, 4, 1-16.

Byrd, Dani. 1994. Articulatory timing in English consonant sequences, PhD
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. 

Byrd, Dani. 1996. Influences on articulatory timing in consonant sequences.
Journal of Phonetics, 24, 209-224.

Clements, George Nick. 1990. The role of sonority cycle in core
syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. E. Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory
phonology I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283-333.

Davis, Stuart & Shin, Seung-Hoon. 1999. The syllable contact constraint in
Korean. An optimality theoretic analysis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics,
8, 285-312.  

Falahati, Reza. 2013. Gradient and categorical consonant cluster
simplification in Persian: An ultrasound and acoustic study (Doctoral
dissertation). Ottawa: University of Ottawa.

Green,  Antony  D. 2003. Extrasyllabic consonants and onset well-formedness.
In C. Féry & R. Van de Vijver (eds.). The syllable in optimality theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238-253. 

Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation:
An Optimality Theoretic approach, UCLA dissertation.

Kochetov, Alexei & Marianne Pouplier. 2008. Phonetic availability and
grammatical knowledge: an articulatory study of Korean place assimilation.
Phonology 25: 399-431. 

Miller, Brett. 2012. Sonority and the larynx. In S. Parker (ed.). The sonority
controversy. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 257-288.  

Ohala, John. 1992. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining
segmental sequential constraints. Papers from the parasession on the syllable.
Chicago Linguistics Society, 319-338.  

Prince, Alan. & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint
interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Proctor, Michael & Walker, Rachel. 2012. Articulatory bases of sonority in
English liquids. In S. Parker (ed.). The sonority controversy. Amsterdam:
Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 289-316.  

Sole´, Maria Josep. 2007. Controlled and mechanical properties in speech: A
review of the literature. In M. J. Sole´, P. S. Beddor, and M. Ohala (eds.),
Experimental Approaches to Phonology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.
302-322.

Steriade, Donca. 1990. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. New
York: Garland Press.

Yip, Jonathan. 2013. Phonetic effects on the timing of gestural coordination
in Modern Greek (Doctoral dissertation). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Reza Falahati completed his PhD in Linguistics at the University of Ottawa in
2013. Then he worked as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Italy, SNS, for two
years. His research interests are mainly articulatory phonology, phonetics,
language acquisition, speech perception, and discourse analysis.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
            http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-28-3565	
----------------------------------------------------------