Phonology - phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics , 8 / 13

articulatory vocal tract movement gestures as the basis of linguistic representations. Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 21 Hamann, Silke. 2011. “Phonetics-phonology interface.” In The continuum companion to phonology. Edited by Nancy Kula, Bert Botma, and Kuniya Nasukawa, 202-224. London/New York: Continuum. Useful overview paper, providing succinct review of recurring topics on the interface between phonology and phonetics. Focusing on phonological and phonetic representation (which the author concludes are distinct), reviews different models of the mapping, and introduces the Bidirectional Phonology and Phonetics Model incorporating both production and perception. Keating, Patricia A. 1990. "Phonetic representation in a generative grammar.” Journal of Phonetics 18:321-34· Working within a phonetic implementation model of phonological realization, argues for three types of phonetic representations, including the detailed representation of the output of the phonology as well as both articulatory and acoustic representations, based on evidence from laryngeal contrasts and their realization. Lahiri, Aditi, and Henning Reetz. 2010. Distinctive features: Phonological underspecification in representation and processing. Journal of Phonetics 38.1: 44–59. Considers the nature of lexical and phonological representations based on experimental, phonological and historical evidence. Argues for a model of the lexicon with sparse phonological featural representations, using a three-way matching algorithm for the comprehension of speech based on highly variable acoustic input. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1990. Phonological and phonetic representation. Journal of Phonetics 18: 37594. One of the most in-depth discussions of the many differences between phonological and phonetic representations (with the latter construed broadly). Argues for quantitative mental representations of phonetic information and advocates proper attention to contextual effects and the differences between acoustic and articulatory structure. Dist inct ive Feature Theory and Primit ives of Phonological Sound Structure A core issue in phonology has been the question of the primitives of speech sounds. Any answer to this question carries with it an implicit or explicit theory of the relationship between phonology and phonetics. In much work on phonology and phonetic implementation, sounds have been assumed to be bundles of distinctive features. The central insight is that phonological representations are best characterized in physical terms, thus relating the abstract classificatory functions of phonology to the articulatory and acoustic systems. Starting with Jakobson et al. 1952/1963, it was widely held that a key aspect of the interface between phonology and phonetics was best captured through a universal distinctive feature theory. Since feature theory was taken to be the mechanism for mapping between phonological and phonetic representations, much attention in the literature on the interface focuses on issues in distinctive feature theory. Jakobson et al. 1952/1963, appealing to Information Theory of the time, defined the contrastive properties of both consonants and vowels with acoustically defined features. Chomsky and Halle 1968 expands this set in various ways, providing articulatory definitions and arguing that features should capture not only contrasts but also natural classes. Within generative phonology, for the later decades of the 20th century it was widely agreed that the primitives of phonology were features, with segments characterized by feature matrices. Two recent volumes exploring the phonetic basis of features and the origin of features are Hallé and Clements’ 2010 special issue of Journal of Phonetics and Clements and Ridouane’s 2011 volume of collected papers. Hall and Mielke 2011 provides an excellent overview and introduction to the extensive literature on distinctive feature theory, including aspects directly relevant to the phonology-phonetics interface. More recent work questions the Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 22 universality of features as primitives. In considering the “atoms” of phonological representation, Pouplier 2011 argues that gestures (see *Articulatorily Based Approaches*) provide a more adequate account. Mielke 2008 provides an overview of universal feature theory, reviewing the key arguments, but argues that many phonological groupings are not “natural” (as defined by a conjunction of phonological features). Other views suggest that both features and segments may be epiphenomenal, deriving from generalization over memory traces or “exemplars” (see Johnson 1997 and Silverman 2011 cited under *Integrated Views* for introduction to this alternative view). The rich and complex topic of acquisition of primitives of phonology is taken up in *First Language Acquisition* and *Second Language Learning*. Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row. (SPE) Modeling the phonology of English, presents an introduction to generative phonology (chapters 1, pp. 3-14 and 2, pp. 15-55) and proposes a universal set of 26 binary articulatorily defined distinctive features (chapter 7, pp. 293-329), intended to capture all possible contrasts and common phonological groupings of languages of the world. Basis of most common feature system in use. Clements, G. Nick, and Rachid Ridouane, eds. 2011. Where do phonological features come from? Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. Offers a range of perspectives on the basis and origin of features, including both views that features are innate and views that they are emergent. Varied set of papers with extensive experimental work from acoustics, perception, production, and acquisition. Hall, Daniel Currie, and Jeff Mielke. Distinctive Features. 2011. *Oxford Bibliographies[http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/]*: Linguistics. Well organized and comprehensive overview of distinctive features. Covers interface and relationship between phonology and phonetics focusing on representational issues. Includes good list of textbooks and journals that cover phonology and phonetics and to some degree their interface. Hallé, P. A., and G. Nick Clements, eds. 2010. Special issue: Phonetic bases of distinctive features. Journal of Phonetics 38.1. Special issue of Journal of Phonetics exploring the phonetic bases for phonological features. Includes empirically rich experimentally based papers addressing the biological basis, issues of variation and processing and cross-linguistic variation in production and perception of features. Jakobson, Roman, C. Gunnar M. Fant, and Morris Halle. 1952/63. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. First formal proposal of a universal “distinctive features” system, roughly 12 acoustically defined features describing both consonants and vowels, intended to capture all the phonological contrasts of the languages of the world. Provides theoretical underpinnings of distinctive feature theory as developed in the second half of the 20th century. Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The emergence of distinctive features. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Excellent review and critique of distinctive feature theory, concluding that groupings of phonologically active classes are not necessarily “natural” and arguing against the view that phonological classes are insightfully represented in terms of an innate, universal distinctive Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 23 feature system. Provides suggestive new directions for understanding phonological patterns. Pouplier, Marianne. 2011. The atoms of phonological representations. In The Blackwell companion to phonology. Edited by Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth V. Hume, and Keren Rice, 107-129. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Discusses the basic units of speech and the relationship between symbolic and physical representations, including where temporal organization fits in with symbolic representations. Argues for gestures as both symbolic and physical representations, capturing contrast and articulatory coordination; also discusses relationship between gestures and syllables (see also *Articulatorily based approaches *). Phonetic Explanations in Phonology A central topic in the phonology-phonetics interface is sources of explanation in phonology; that is, how observed phonological patterns are accounted for. This is a controversial area with some assuming the sources of explanation are directly integrated into phonological theory while others argue that any such explanations lie outside of phonology. Some of the explanatory concepts appealed to outside of linguistics proper include explaining sound inventories via properties of biological systems, including self organizing systems, and explaining sound patterns by appealing to general cognitive and/or physical constraints/systems. The role of cognition in understanding phonological systems is also addressed in *Psycholinguistics and Processing*. Discussion of this rich and widely debated topic is divided here into three subsections. First we focus on phonetic explanations of sound inventories. We then review literature on phonetic explanations of phonological patterns more generally. We roughly divide this into explanations understood to fall outside of the synchronic phonology, particularly physiological and perceptual pressures that are argued to shape sound change, and explanations integrating into the formal system of phonology. We also include specific critiques of the latter view. Needless to say, there is overlap across these three subsections in terms of empirical coverage and theoretical stance. The interested reader is encouraged to read all three subsections. Phonetic Explanations of Sound Inventories A long-standing area of interest has been characterizing the sound inventories of the languages of the world in a way that explains both attested and unattested patterns and also explains why some inventories are particularly common and others quite rare. Since it is generally agreed that, either directly or indirectly, phonetic mechanisms and constraints play some role in explaining the attested inventories of sounds of the languages of world, this is a key topic in discussions of the phonology-phonetics interface. The goal of characterizing the typology of possible sound inventories is implicit in the creation of the International Phonetic Alphabet in the late 19th century (see International Phonetic Association in *Resources*). One central concern of linguistic phonetics which is closely related to explanation of sound inventories has been development of accurate, comprehensive and empirically-based descriptions of the sounds of the world’s languages. Over a 40+ year period the UCLA Phonetics Lab group led in such research. A culmination of much of this work is Ladefoged and Maddieson’s 1996 Sounds of the World’s Languages, which offers a concise phonetic introduction to the sounds of the world’s languages. See also UCLA Phonetics Lab Language Archive in *Resources* which makes available audio recordings from over 200 languages. Utilizing a balanced sample of inventories is also critical for understanding typological patterns, the central goal of Maddieson’s 1984 creation of UPSID (updated in 1994), which has been the starting point for much research in phonology and phonetics. Maddieson 1984 introduces the database, including the sound inventories, attested segments, and extensive bibliography and provides analysis of key results. Maddieson 2007 further explores a number of these issues. One productive line of research in phonetics has been development of theories to account for segment Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 24 inventories. Dispersion Theory, discussed in the early seminal paper Liljencranz and Lindblom 1972, has been very influential, as has Stevens’ Quantal Theory, introduced here in Stevens and Keyser 2010 and Iskarous 2012, which reviews several phonetic theories about how the nature of inventories relates to the articulatory: acoustic mapping. A theory addressing inventories and phonological patterns more generally is Enhancement Theory, first presented in Stevens et al. 1986 and further discussed in Stevens and Keyser 2010. Using UPSID (see *Resources*), Clements 2003 compares the role of economy with more phonetically motivated explanations in explaining phonological inventories. See also Kingston 2007 in *Introductions to the Interface* for discussion of phonetic explanations of phonological inventories. Clements, G. Nick, 2003. Feature economy in sound systems, Phonology 20.3: 287-333. Investigates the degree to which phonological distinctive feature theory captures the attested cross-linguistic patterns of phonological sound inventories. Building on work of Martinet, argues that an organizing principle of phonological inventories is economy which is the tendency to maximize contrast within featurally defined phonological classes. Iskarous, Khalil. 2012. “Articulatory to acoustic modeling.” In The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology. Edited by Abigail C. Cohn, Cécile Fougeron, and Marie K. Huffman, 472-483. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Presents a brief review and comparison of four theories that intend to explain common features properties of contrasting sound inventories in the world’s languages: Quantal Theory, the Theory of Adaptive Dispersion, Dispersion-Focalization Theory, and the Distinctive Region Model. Ladefoged, Peter and Ian Maddieson. 1996. Sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Survey of the phonetic possibilities of the world’s languages, aiming to describe the totality of possible speech sounds. Fine details of sound production in a vast array of languages are presented, emphasizing a level of specification often ignored by works focusing on the structure of the phonological system more broadly. Liljencranz, Johan and Bjorn Lindblom. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast Language 48(4):839-861. Original paper proposing maximal perceptual contrast as an explanation for the phonetic structure of vowel systems. Argues strongly for the explanatory role of physical mechanisms available for speech and how they relate to general aspects of cognition and communicative efficiency. A direct contrast to the view in SPE. Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An influential survey of sound inventories of 317 languages, intended to provide quantifiable data for the testing of hypotheses about phonological typology, such as the relative commonness of different sounds, and patterns of sound co-occurrence that bear on proposed articulatory or acoustic explanations of sound inventories. Maddieson, Ian. 2007. “Issues of phonological complexity: Statistical analysis of the relationship between syllable structures, segment inventories, and tone contrasts.” In Experimental approaches to phonology. Edited by Marie-Josep Solé, Patrice Beddor and Manjari Ohala, 93-103. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Demonstrates how a large database of phonological inventories can be used to test functional explanations of sound structure. Argues that there is little evidence that languages compensate for complexity in one aspect of their phonology with less complexity in another aspect. Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 25 Stevens, Kenneth and Samuel Jay Keyser. 2010. Quantal theory, enhancement, and overlap. Journal of Phonetics 38: 10-19. This recent summary paper outlines the basic premises of quantal theory, enhancement (described in gestural rather than featural terms, unlike early versions of the theory) and discusses how gestural overlap threatens contrasts supported by quantal and enhancement effects. Supports a strict, traditional separation of phonological representation and phonetic implementation. Stevens, Kenneth, Samuel Jay Keyser, and Haruko Kawasaki. 1986. “Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features.” In Invariance and variability in speech processes, Edited by Joseph S. Perkell and Dennis H. Klatt, 426-49. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Early presentation of feature enhancement theory, in which it is argued that perceptual or articulatory enhancement could motivate featural additions/specifications, at a time when underlying representations were assumed to allow for underspecification. The majority of enhancement examples usually discussed in the literature are presented here. Phonetic Explanations of Phonological Patterns It has long been observed that amidst the wide diversity of language differences, there are also many strikingly common sound patterns such as phonotactic constraints and allophonic rules. It is often assumed that many or all of these have a phonetic motivation. Furthermore, comparison across related languages suggests that there are many similar historical changes that have arisen independently, suggesting a possible basis in the perceptual or production machinery shared by humans. Thus, much work concerned with phonetic explanations of phonological structure is also concerned with sound change across time. This is reflected in the papers discussed here, many of which include discussion of historical sound changes. These papers discuss factors such as the possible roles of articulatory preferences, speech effort, and perceptual influences on phonological patterns and sound change. Ohala 1983 is a much cited and influential early paper which proposes the idea that the influence of phonetics via historical change is motivated in large part by misperception of potentially ambiguous phonetic information. Beddor 2009 develops related ideas in depth, focusing on coarticulated nasalization, aiming to clarify with more precision which contexts and conditions are likely to lead to listener-driven sound change. Guion 1988 makes the case for perceptual influence in development of the very common palatalization of velars. Kim 2001 discusses the source of stop assibilation in fine phonetic detail of variants conditioned by vowel context. Hombert et al. 1979 is a classic reference on the development of tone in languages. Westbury and Keating 1986 discusses how aerodynamic conditions favor certain stop voicing patterns over others, another demonstration of the benefits of explicit articulatory (and aerodynamic) modeling. Browman and Goldstein 1990 emphasizes articulatory explanations for common connected speech patterns and consonant allophones. This work, including an account of vowel epenthesis and deletion, is a key inspiration for much subsequent work on epenthetic vowels in first and second language research (See for example Davidson 2011a in *Second language learning*). Kohler 1990 provides historical context for what he sees as the long standing reluctance in the field to consider phonetic explanations for speech properties and discusses the interplay of articulatory and perceptual considerations in conditioning connected speech rules in German. Social factors are also mentioned by Kohler 1990 but not discussed in depth. See also *Sociolinguistic Insights* for further discussion. For more discussion of the influence of perceptual factors, see also *Insights from Perception*. Beddor, Patrice S. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85:4, 785-821. Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 26 Advances theorizing on phonetic sources of sound patterns and changes through detailed acoustic analysis of VNC sequences as well as perception experiments evaluating the role of durational patterns and durational variability in favoring listener reinterpretation of coarticulatory nasalization as a property of the vowel. Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. 1990. Gestural specification using dynamically-defined articulatory structures. Journal of Phonetics, 18, 299-320. Presents the elements of an Articulatory Phonology view of sound representation, with a detailed case study of how such representations can account for apparent vowel deletion and epenthesis cases traditionally described with segmental phonological rules. Support is offered from perceptual experiments of speech generated with the gestural model. Guion, Susan. 1998. The role of perception in the sound change of velar palatalization. Phonetica, 55: 18-52. Presents data from spectral analysis and perception experiments establishing the perceptual confusability of velar stops and palatal affricates before [i], providing support for a phonetic explanation of the common palatalization of velars before high front vowels. Perceptual data also predict with the relatively frequency of [k] palatalization over [g] palatalization. Hombert, Jean-Marie, Ohala, John J. and William Ewan. 1979. Phonetic explanations for the development of tones. Language 55: 37 – 58. Argues for physical sources for independent instances of the development of linguistically meaningful tone in languages. Reviews evidence available at the time about the role of factors such as aerodynamics, laryngeal tension and articulator interactions in producing the ambiguous signals that listener’s might reinterpret as tone rather than contextual consonantal effects. Kim, Hyunsoon. 2001. A phonetically based account of phonological stop assibilation. Phonology 18: 81108. Proposes a phonetic explanation for assibilation of oral stops before high vowels and vocoids. Reviews x-ray and aerodynamic evidence, supplemented with acoustic measures of stop release properties in Korean. Proposes a phonological account of how contextually produced long duration turbulence becomes represented as a fricative componentof a stop. Kohler, Klaus. 1990. “Segmental reduction in connected speech in German: phonological facts and phonetic explanations.” In Speech production and speech modelling. Edited by William Hardcastle and Alain Marchal, 69-93. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Reviews sound modifications occurring in connected speech in German, discussing types of articulatory adjustments that could lead to these changes, providing substance to the oft used but under analyzed term articulatory effort. An early exposition of the fine phonetic detail often missed by investigations biased by segmental and/or transcriptional methodologies. Ohala, John J. 1983. “The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints.” In The production of speech. Edited by Peter F. MacNeilage, 189-216. New York: Springer-Verlag. An influential and frequently cited paper describing how common cross-language patterns in sound inventories and/or allophony have a basis in properties of the speech mechanism. Examples emphasize aerodynamic consequences, with many examples involving voicing. Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 27 Westbury, John and Patricia. A. Keating. 1986. On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing, Journal of Linguistics 22, 145-166. Employs a circuit model of the vocal tract to examine aerodynamic consequences of different assumptions about articulator tension, position and air pressure and flow settings. Argues that reasonable default settings explain many common patterns in stop voicing. Demonstrates how articulatory modeling can identify which patterns require a non-articulatory explanation. Integration of Phonetic Inf luences in Phonology Still controversial is the issue of where phonetic explanations of sound patterns fit within the linguistic system. Growing out of the work of Chomsky and Halle 1968 (see *Distinctive Feature Theory and Primitives of Phonological Sound Structure*) is the idea that phonologically active sound groupings are “natural” in the sense that they are motivated by phonetic mechanisms, often assumed to be accounted for by markedness. While Chomsky and Halle 1968 attempts to offer an account through a formal theory of markedness laid out in chapter 9 (pp. 400-435), this remains a problematic area, since there is little consensus as to what constitutes an adequate theory of markedness. For many phonologists, sources of explanation of phonological structure is the key issue in understanding the phonology-phonetics interface. (Depending on the proposed answer, this may or may not be part of the interface in a strict sense, but this certainly bears on the issue of the relationship between phonology and phonetics.) The many possible explanations of observed patterns include cognitive and physical constraints, which might directly or indirectly influence phonological systems. At the heart of the controversy is how strong such influences are, and whether they hold on the synchronic grammar or influence the grammar through language change. Here we review approaches that integrate explanations into phonological theory, as well as work that directly critiques this view. Anderson 1981 frames these questions in a classic paper suggesting that there are systematic parts of phonology that are not accounted for by phonetics and other factors external to the phonological system. The view that phonology is directly constrained by phonetics is labeled grounded phonology in Archangeli and Pulleyblank 1994. The idea of grounded phonology is central to the interaction of markedness and faithfulness constraints in Optimality Theory, as made explicit in Grounded Optimality Theory (see Hayes et al. 2004 in *Integrated Views*). Hale and Reiss 2000 critiques this approach, arguing that phonology is a computational system and physical explanations lie outside the system. Also much debated is whether phonetic influences on the phonological system impinge on the synchronic system, or play a role only indirectly through historical change. For a number of papers taking this latter approach, see *Phonetic Explanations of Phonological Patterns*. Blevins 2006 incorporates this view as one of several possible explanations. Hyman 2001, extending some of the themes in Anderson 1981, argues that there are systematic aspects of phonology that are not “natural”, while Hayes and Steriade 2004 develops the view that phonetic influence is direct and synchronic through phonetic knowledge. More recent work addresses the relative contributions of the cognitive and physical systems as well as the role of distributional data, exemplified in Moreten 2008. Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn't 'natural. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 493-539. In this classic paper, Anderson raises the question of the sources of naturalness in phonology, concluding that phonology is not simply a reflection of extralinguistic systems and that effects from the latter are indirect, mediated by the grammar. Archangeli, Diana, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Argues that phonology is “grounded” in the sense that it is shaped by phonetic constraints on production and perception. Taking cross-linguistic patterns of vowel harmony as a case study, Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 28 argues that observed constraints hold asymmetrically in a manner consistent with expected phonetic constraints. Blevins, Juliette. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32.2: 117-166. Introduces Evolutionary Phonology, which embodies the somewhat controversial proposal that constraints on phonology lie outside the grammar, proposing a typology of explanations including “change”, “chance” and “choice” to account for patterns many phonologist argue are accounted for in the synchronic grammar. Hale, Mark, and Charles Reiss. 2000. “Phonology as cognition.” In Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical Issues. Edited by Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr, and Gerard Docherty, 161–184. New York: Oxford University Press. Drawing a distinction between form and substance, assumes a sharp division between phonology as a formal computational system and phonetics as functional. Argues that individual speakers can’t know typologies of markedness assumed in Optimality Theoretic approaches, but must be able to learn these patterns from simple cognitive mechanisms. Hayes, Bruce, and Donca Steriade. 2004. “Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness.” In Phonetically based phonology. Edited by Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner, and Donca Steriade, 1–33. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press. Argues for a middle ground between explanations within the phonology and those that are extragrammatical, with the link between phonological systems and phonetic grounding due to phonetic knowledge that is learned anew by each individual. Hyman, Larry. 2001. “On the limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited.” In The role of speech perception phenomena in phonology. Edited by Elizabeth V. Hume and Keith Johnson, 141-185. San Diego: Academic Press. Presents counterexamples to claims of the universality of voicing of obstruents after nasals and related claimed implicational universals, showing that these counterexamples are nevertheless systematic and part of the synchronic phonology. Argues that phonological systems cannot be directly constrained by phonetic mechanisms. Moreton, Elliott 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25(1):83--127. Investigates biases in the phonological system contributing to the development of an adult phonological system. Interprets innateness in terms of cognitive biases and suggests that both analytic bias and cognitive bias together with distributional information shape learning of possible phonological systems. Relationship More Broadly Defined In recent years, the study of sound structure has expanded well beyond the more canonical definitions of phonology and phonetics. In several academic areas, growing bodies of research are examining in depth what are traditionally thought of as phonology and phonetics. These include (1) sociolinguistic insights, (2) psycholinguistics and processing of sound structure, (3) first language acquisition and (4) second language learning of both phonology and phonetics. Here we focus on the relationship between phonology and phonetics as it is understood within the broader context of each of these fields. We do not attempt to offer a more general introduction to these areas, though some of the works cited provide broader framing of these fields. Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 29 Sociol inguist ic Insights The variability of spoken language has been at the core of much theoretical debate about the nature of linguistic representations and the boundary between linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge relevant to the acts of speech production and perception. Thus, variation is treated, directly or indirectly, in almost everything discussed here. In this section, however, the focus is on work discussing linguistic representations as they relate to social dimensions of speech, addressing variable data directly in light of discussions about what constitutes phonology and phonetics. Much recent work has focussed on sound variability due to subject differences defined in terms of social groupings Variability derived from physical characteristics, speech style or emotional states is not included here. Two main issues tie together work in this area. First, any property of language that can be manipulated socially must be definable in structural terms, which in turn tells us what types of structure can be learned. Second, social structure and interaction is an integral part of the process of the development and maintenance of phonological categories and representations. Labov 2007 is a deeply elaborated discussion of how the grammars of individuals and communities change and of the role of speaker age and linguistic history on the course and form of that change. Foulkes and Docherty 2006 emphasizes the rich and subtle nature of the very fine phonetic details which correlate with social differences, arguing that this knowledge is best characterized with episodic representations as advocated in exemplar approaches. Warren et al. 2007 demonstrates how social information affects listener expectations, and discusses possible implications for how phonetic variability is processed during word recognition. Pierrehumbert 2006 argues for social interaction as a core factor motivating the existence and stability of phonological systems. Munson 2010 discusses ways that people learn socially relevant phonetic information and proposes a possible model of how this information is represented cognitively. Recent work has also started to address the acquisition of phonetic variation. Two excellent introductions are Pierrehumbert 2003 and Foulkes 2010. Pierrehumbert 2003 emphasizes the role of fine phonetic details and variation as integral to the learning of more abstract representations. Foulkes 2010 reviews theories of how phonetic and phonological cues to socio-indexical information are learned. Foulkes, Paul. 2010. Exploring social-indexical variation: A long past but a short history Laboratory Phonology 1, 5-39. Discusses evidence for exemplar representations of socal-indexical information and the relation of these to more traditional linguistic representations within the context of early language acquisition. Reviews predictions exemplar based theories make for the course of acquisition, citing support from acquisition studies and identifying promising directions for future research. Foulkes, Paul and Gerard Docherty. 2006. The social life of phonetics and phonology. Journal of Phonetics 34(4), 409-438. Describes how social patterning is reflected in systematic fine phonetic details in varieties of English, arguing for exemplar type representations as a means of handling variability in pronunciation of the same word in different social situations as well as over time. Outlines important areas of future research in sociophonetics. Labov, William. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83:344-387. Provides an account of the two commonly identified modes of sound change spread— transmission and diffusion. A key factor identified in language change is the age of the language learner and the consequences for their ability to learn the full set of structural conditions for occurrence of a particular variant. Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 30 Munson, Benjamin. 2010. Levels of phonological abstraction and knowledge of socially motivated speech-sound variation: A review, a proposal, and a commentary on the papers by Clopper, Pierrehumbert, and Tamati; Drager; Foulkes; Mack: and Smith, Hall, and Munson. Journal of Laboratory Phonology 1: 157-177. Discusses the complexity of the relationship between phonetic properties of speech and their social and semantic meanings. Reviews 5 LabPhon papers on sociophonetics and proposes a model of how sociophonetic information might be represented cognitively, including episodic representations linked to more abstract higher level phonological and socio-indexical representations. Also identifies promising areas of future research. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2003. Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech 46: 115-154. Addresses complexities of phonological acquisition in the face of rich phonetic and sociolinguistic variation. Discusses how categories can be learned by the infant based on this rich variable input. Uses exemplar theory to model bottom-up learning, supported by the speech community’s perception-production loop. Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2006. The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34: 516-530. Argues that social interaction is a critical factor contributing to stable phonological systems. Reviews linguistic evidence for exemplar representations and for phonological categories, arguing for hybrid models of linguistic representation, with multiple levels of representation and mechanisms for statistical learning and situational indexing, and phonological generalization over stored exemplars. Warren, Paul, Jennifer Hay and Bryn Thomas. 2007. “The loci of sound change effects in recognition and perception.” In Laboratory Phonology 9. Edited by Jennifer Cole and Jose Ignacio Hualde, 87-112. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Discusses effects of speaker age on listener bias in perception of vowels in a community where a merger is in progress. Argues for an exemplar model which includes a prelexical processor with its own internal structure that governs access to lexical items represented as exemplars. Psycholinguist ics and Processing Starting from early generative theory (see Chomsky and Halle 1968 * Distinctive Feature Theory and Primitives of Phonological Sound Structure*) there has been interest in the cognitive aspects of sound structure and attempts to understand the contributions of the phonological linguistic system as it relates to both the cognitive system more generally and the physical system of sound production and perception. Goldrick 2011 provides an excellent discussion of these issues, serving as an accessible starting point for this complex topic. Until recently the role of cognition in understanding sound systems and patterns was studied in psycholinguistics behaviorally. More recently, brain imaging results are also being used to investigate these issues. Contributions in Gaskell and Zwitserlood 2011 focusing on the nature of lexical representations provide an introduction to both more traditional and newer methodological approaches in psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics. Schiller and Meyer 2003 reviews psycholinguistic evidence on whether production and perception access identical representations. McMurray and Farris-Trimble 2012 argues that perception and production need not reference identical representations, but that the nature of speech favors development of parsimonious representations. See Fowler and Galantucci 2005 in *Phonological and Phonetic Representations* for a differing view. Ernestus and Baayen 2007 discusses how relationships in the lexicon affect perception of words and specifically phonological contrasts occurring in different patterns for different groups of morphologically related words. Kraljic and Samuel Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 31 2006 shows that lexically mediated exposure to phonetic variability can shift a phonemic category boundary and that listeners can generalize this effect to sounds sharing phonological properties with the training stimuli. Cutler et al. 2010 fleshes out the consequences of both speaker-related variation and our ability to ignore it, for our understanding of the nature of mental representations relevant to speech. While much recent research has provided evidence for episodic representations, supporting an exemplar view (see “Integrated Views*). Cutler et al. argue against the practice in much recent work of taking episodic representations as equivalent to lexical representations (see also Munson 2010 *Sociolinguistic Insights*). Kingston 2005 reviews evidence for autonomous pre-linguistic processing of speech based on perceptual integration of acoustic cues. Perceptual integration forms the cognitive basis for abstraction of feature values over multiple acoustic cues, for which [voice] has been the most consistent example in psycholinguistic work (e.g., Kraljic and Samuel 2006). Further work of this type could help explain the behavior of other phonological properties, both their online perception and their behavior in linguistic systems over time (see also, e.g., Warren et al. 2007 cited under *Sociolinguistic Insights*). Keating and Shattuck-Hufnagel 2002 addresses the issue of speech encoding as it integrates prosodic and segmental information. See also Fujimura in *Phonetic Representaiton of Segmental Structure*. Cutler, Ann, Eisner, Frank, McQueen, James and Dennis Norris. 2010. How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation. In Laboratory phonology 10. Edited by Cecile Fougeron, Barbara Kühnert, Mariapaola D'Imperio, and Nathalie Vallée, 91-111. Berlin: de Gruyter. Argues for a hybrid view of speech processing in which exemplar effects are non-lexical and abstract categorical effects are invoked in a pre-lexical processor. Speaker-specific information is stored outside the lexicon but is available to a prelexical processor that generalizes over variable inputs accounting for normalization and perceptual learning. Ernestus, Mirjam, and Harald Baayen. 2007. Paradigmatic effects in auditory word recognition: The case of alternating voice in Dutch. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(1), 1-24. Lexical decision experiments on subphonemic nonneutralized cues to voicing contrasts in German stem final obstruents show that the number of other members of the paradigm with voiced final obstruents affected lexical response time. Argues for exemplar models with separate “entries” for both morphologically simple and complex forms. Gaskell, Gareth and Pienie Zwitserlood, eds. 2011. Lexical representations. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Interdisciplinary volume on lexical representations, with contributions by linguists, psycholinguists, and neurolinguists. Provides empirically rich introduction to the complex set of issues involved in understanding the nature of lexical representation, and the processing of speech. Goldrick, Matthew. 2011. “Using psychological realism to advance phonological theory.” In Handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edition. Edited by John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu, 631-660. Wiley-Blackwell. Accessible and clear introduction to psychological approaches to understanding phonology. Reviews psycholinguistic models, addresses why such approaches are critical for phonological theory, and shows how psychological realism provides insight into phonological problems, taking knowledge of phonotactic well-formedness as a case study. Keating, Patricia A. and Stephanie Shattuck-Hufnagel. 2002. "A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production", UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics #101, August 2002, pp. 112-156. Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 32 Reviews earlier approaches to speech encoding as understood in terms of phonological encoding and phonetic encoding. Addresses role of prosodic structure, providing evidence for integration of prosodic information in phonological encoding, arguing for what they term a prosody first model. Kingston, John. 2005. “Ears to categories: New arguments for autonomy.” In Prosodies: Proceedings of the first conference on phonetics and phonology in Iberia (PaPI), Edited by Sonia Frota, Marina Vigario, and Maria João Freitas, 177-222. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Detailed review of evidence for auditory integration of acoustic cues, taking voicing contrasts as a case study. Reviews differences between auditory and linguistically based contextual perception effects and emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between categorization and discrimination. Argues that auditory integration is independent from perceptual processes accessing linguistic knowledge. Kraljic, Tanja and Arthur Samuel. 2006. Generalization in perceptual learning for speech. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 262-268. Perceptual learning study demonstrating that shifted VOT values for coronal stop voicing contrast generalize to contrast for labials despite labials having different specific contrasting values. Evidence for abstract feature Voice, phonetic specifics of which can be changed in real time by experience with effects on long term storage of values. McMurray, Bob and Ashley Farris-Trimble. 2012. “Emergent information level coupling between perception and production.” In Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology. Edited by Abigail C. Cohn, Cécile Fougeron, and Marie K. Huffman, 369-395. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Argues that coupling between perception and production is not a design feature of language necessitating representations using identical units. Rather, coupling emerges because there are statistical tendencies which the perceptual system becomes attuned to by computing probability distributions over data for multiple types and sizes of units. Schiller, Niels and Antje Meyer, eds. 2003. Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production. Differences and Similarities. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. A collection of papers addressing the question of whether the representations employed in speech production and perception are the same, employing evidence primarily from psycholinguistic research. First Language Acquisit ion A key area of inquiry for the understanding of sound structure is acquisition. In early generative theory, typological patterns of grammar were assumed to be closely tied to the mechanisms of acquisition, leading to specific conclusions of innate language structures to account for universal or widely attested cross-linguistic patterns. As more sophisticated experimental methods have been developed to study the perception, production, and understanding of speech by infants and small children, a much richer picture has emerged of the acquisition of both phonetics and phonology and how these relate in turn to the acquisition of the lexicon and other aspects of linguistic grammar. Some approaches to acquisition assume that patterns and mechanisms of first language acquisition and second language learning are one and the same, while others assume they are distinct. Ultimately this is an empirical question. In this section we introduce some key literature on the acquisition of phonetics and phonology by infants and toddlers. Gerken 2009, in a general introduction to language acquisition devotes considerable attention to the acquisition of phonetics and phonology. Munson et al. 2012 and Demuth 2011 provide accessible and Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 33 informative reviews of issues as currently understood and recent empirical results in the acquisition of sound structure. Vihman and Velleman 2000 highlights the role of both phonetics and phonology in any adequate account. Menn and Vihman 2011 review the issues of acquisition of features, arguing that assumptions of innate distinctive features is not necessary. While Cristià, Seidl, and Francis 2011 provides an excellent review of empirical results and ingredients of an adequate account of the acquisition of phonological primitives. Kuhl 2009 and Werker 2012 both provide detailed review of extensive recent experimental work on development of perception in infants, both monolingual and bilingual. See *Second Language Learning* for a review of recent work on second language learning, particularly as it bears on the relationship between phonology and phonetics. Recent work has started to address the issue of acquisition of socioi-indexial properties of language. See Pierrehumbert 2003 and Foulkes 2010 in *Sociolinguistic Insights*. The growing body of research on grammar induction as evidenced by artificial grammar learning is not addressed here, except to the degree that it addresses the relationship between phonology and phonetics. See Cristia and Seidle 2011 and Moreton 2008 (*Integration of Phonetic Influences in Phonology*) for review of relevant literature. Cristià, Alejandrina, Seidl, Amanda, and Alexander L. Francis 2011. “Phonological features in child infancy.” In Where do phonological features come from? Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories. Edited by G. Nick Clements and Rachid Ridouane, 303-326. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. Pp. 261-301. Provides review of recent experimental work on acquisition of features by infants and toddlers, explaining both the experimental paradigms used and models proposed. Argues for a separation of the distinctive and classificatory function of features. Demuth, Katherine 2011. “The acquisition of phonology.” In The handbook of phonological theory. Edited by John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan Yu, 571-595. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Comprehensive review of the development of the field of acquisition of phonology including key empirical results. After a historical review of early work, discusses recent developments, including constraint based approaches, new longitudinal data and experimental approaches in related fields of acquisition of both segmental phonology and prosody. Gerken, LouAnn. 2009. Language Development. San Diego: Plural Publishing Inc. Introduction to language acquisition, focusing primarily on first language acquisition. Addresses acquisition of sound system, word structure, and sentence structure, providing an excellent introduction to acquisition of phonology from the perspectives of both production and perception, reviewing both empirical issues and theoretical debates. Kuhl, Patricia K. 2009. Early language acquisition: Phonetic and word learning, neural substrates, and a theoretical model. The Perception of Speech: From Sound to Meaning. Editied by Brian C. J. Moore, Lorraine K. Tyler and William Marslen-Wilson. 103-131. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Reviews recent advances in the study of early acquisition of sounds, introduces current neurolinguistic methodology used in infants studies which help provide a picture of early acquisition in monolingual and bilingual infants. Menn, Lise and Marilyn Vihman. 2011. Features in child phonology: Inherent, emergent, or artefacts of analysis? In Where do phonological features come from? Cognitive, physical and developmental bases of distinctive speech categories. Edited by G. Nick Clements and Rachid Ridouane, 261-301. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. Tackles the question of whether distinctive features are innate, reviewing core assumptions going Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 34 back to Jakobson’s view of the universal patterns of unfolding of phonological contrasts. Argues based on cross-linguistic data that feature acquisition is emergent and does not follow a universal predetermined path. Munson, Benjamin, Edwards, Jan, and Mary E. Beckman. 2012. “Phonological representations in language acquisition: Climbing the ladder of abstraction.” In The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology. Edited by Abigail C. Cohn, Cécile Fougeron, and Marie K. Huffman, 288 209. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Provides a rich discussion of the development of phonological representations, including review of recent experimental evidence from production, perception, and sociolinguistic indexing. Shows how category learning and development of these categories into abstract representations in a linguistic system are built out of fine grained and detailed input. Vihman, Marilyn and Shelley Velleman. 2000. "Phonetics and the Origin of Phonology", in Phonological knowledge: conceptual and empirical Issues. Edited by Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr, and Gerard J. Docherty, 305-339. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Discusses the role of phonology and phonetics in acquisition of a phonological system. Argues that neither phonology nor phonetics alone offers a full account. Both dimensions contribute and need to be integrated into an adequate model. Provides an informative overview of results and issues in the acquisition of phonology. Second Language Learning Studies of second language phonology have also provided evidence about the relationship between phonology and phonetics. Traditionally much of this work has been primarily applied in its orientation; however, recently it has been used to address issues central to theoretical linguistics. This work has deepened the understanding of how acquisition of a second phonological system interacts with the first and sheds light on linguistic representation of such systems. Recent reviews in Altman and Kabak 2011 and Davidson 2011b provide excellent introductions to this growing area of the literature. Best 1995 reviews the Direct Realism approach to speech perception (see also Fowler and Galantucci 2005 in *Phonological and Phonetic Representations*) and outlines the Perceptual Assimilation Model of Second language perception and sound representation. MacKay et al. 2001 reviews the Speech Learning Model of second language perception and sound representation and discusses the importance of amount of input for second language production and perception. Bradlow et al. 1999 summarizes and extends important earlier results about the beneficial role of input variation on both perception and production in L2. Best et al. 2011 includes several articles on the influence of first language phonetics and phonology on second language representations and learning. Davidson 2011a discusses ways that second language perception is influenced by first language grammar, drawing attention to differences between loan word and second language phonology. Altmann, Heidi and Bariş Kabak. 2011 “Second language phonology.” In The continuum companion to phonology. Edited by Nancy Kula, Bert Botma, and Kuniya Nasukawa, 298-319. London and New York: Continuum [renamed The Bloomsbury Companion to Phonology]. Reviews research on and acquisition of second language segments, syllable structure, phonotactics, and stress. Emphasizes the importance of perceptual factors in constraining L2 proficiency in production. Argues that the L2 phonological system is not an imperfect imitation of native speech, but rather the “realization of imperfect representations”. (P. 318) Phonology-phonetics interface – to appear in Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, 8/13 35 Best, Catherine T. 1995. “A direct realist perspective on cross-language speech perception.” In Speech perception and linguistic experience: Theoretical and methodological issues in cross-language speech research. Edited by Winifred Strange. 167–200. Timonium, MD: York. Provides a review of direct realism approaches to speech perception and speech representations, with explicit comparisons to motor theory and psychoacoustic views. Discusses the basic assumptions and predictions of the Perceptual Assimilation Model of second language sound structure perception and learning. Best, Catherine T., Bradlow, Ann R., Guion-Anderson, Susan, and Linda Polka. 2011. Using the lens of phonetic experience to resolve phonological forms. Introduction to Special issue on Cross-Language Speech Perception and Variations in Linguistic Experience. Journal of Phonetics, 39, 4, 453-456. Introduces theoretical and empirical contributions about how perception of phonological forms is affected by the phonetic structure of the speaker’s other language(s) as well as influences of general learning mechanisms, and language-specific perceptual tuning mechanisms. Also includes investigations of language learning by simultaneous bilinguals, and later second