Phonotactic grammaticality 9783111352930, 9783110997842

Citation preview

PHONOTACTIC GRAMMATICALITY

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA M E M O R I A E NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curat

C. H. VAN S C H O O N E V E L D INDIANA UNIVERSITY

SERIES

MINOR

NR. L

1966

MOUTON & CO. THE H A G U E · PARIS

PHONOTACTIC GRAMMATICALLY by

ROBERT J. SCHOLES INDIANA UNIVERSITY

1966

MOUTON & CO. THE HAGUE • PARIS

© Copyright 1966 by Mouton & Co., Publishers, The Hague, The Netherlands. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

Printed in the Netherlands by Mouton & Co, Printers, The Hague

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During the preparation of this monograph I was aided or advised by the following people: Professor Fred W. Householder of Indiana University; Dr. Orrin Frink and the staff and students of the Intensive Language Training Center at Indiana; Ralph Britton and the students and administration of the Ida Price Junior High School of San Jose; Mr. Robert Walker, N. R. Dixon, and Dr. H. M. Truby of the IBM San Jose Research Laboratory; typists Anita Salemme and Armida Belt, also at IBM; and Irene Bitton Scholes, who served in numerous capacities. Needless to say, any objections to the content or organization of the monograph should be directed solely to the author.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

5

I.

9

INTRODUCTION

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. II.

T P G BASED ON SPEAKER PERFORMANCE .

A. Β. C. D. Ε. F. G. III.

Scope and Purpose Informal Presentation of the Problem . . Evaluating the TPG History of the Topic Cited and Occurring Strings Inventory of Possible Clusters Variant Symbolizations of Clusters . . .

. .

9 9 10 12 17 19 .19 22

Speaker Performance and Linguistic Regularity . 22 Grammaticality and Dictionary Entries . . . 23 EE4. Grammaticality and Possible-English-Wordness 24 EE5 26 EE1, EE2, and EE3 31 Conclusions for Experimentation . . . 33 Articulatory and Perceptual Confusions . . . 34 TPG's . . . . Introduction The Law of Sonority Historical Development of AE Initial Clusters . Frequency and Generic Proximity . . . . A Statistical-Probability Theory Hultzön's Theory The Maze and Rule Model A TPG Based on L. G. Jones' Distinctive Feature Approach

LINGUISTIC REGULARITY BASED

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H.

.

.

36 36 36 40 41 42 47 48 53

8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

J. Saporta's Hypothesis 59 K. The Jakobsonian Distinctive Features and Saporta's Hypothesis 63 L. Peterson and Harary's Formula 66 M. Yasui's Theory 70 N. A Chomskyan Model 76 IV.

A PROPOSED THEORY

A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. J. K. V.

79

Introduction 79 The Form of the TPG 79 The Readability of Phonemic S t r i n g s . . . . 80 The Tree Diagram for AE Two-Consonant initial Clusters 81 The Measure of Simplicity 84 Variant Orders of Binary Oppositions . . . 85 Evaluating the PG's 94 Displaying the Grammaticality Assignments . . 95 Extendibility of the TPG 96 Summary 98

APPENDIX: TESTING

BIBLIOGRAPHY

101 116

I

INTRODUCTION

A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to construct and evaluate a number of theories of phonemic grammaticality, hereafter referred to as TPG. By such a theory is meant a set of rules or principles by which a set of strings of phonemes can be assigned to levels or degrees of grammaticality. Thus, any TPG must provide the inventory of phonemes and phoneme strings to which the rules or principles are to be applied and the rules by which the phoneme strings are assigned to the levels of grammaticality. This study will be confined to a single set of phoneme strings - the actual and potential two-consonant initial prevocalic clusters of American English - and devoted principally to evaluating a number of level assigning principles applied to this set of phoneme strings. However, some discussion of longer strings and co-occurrence restrictions on non-continguous segments is to be found in chapter II.

B. INFORMAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM

In order to get some feeling for the discussion to follow, it may help to present some very informal notions of intuitive understanding of the grammaticality of phonemic strings. Given the AE phonemes /s/, /p/, and /r/, in addition to / # / (word boundary) and /V/ (some vowel), it is clear that / # p r V / and / # s p V / are fully grammatical concatenations of these consonants in this position; in fact, they are occurring strings in the words pray and spy. Other possible combinations of these consonants in this environment, however, do not occur and do not seem to be fully grammatical; they are /#ssV/, / # s r V / , / # p s V / , / # p p V / , / # r s V / ,

10

INTRODUCTION

/#rpV/, and /#rrV/. Native speakers of American English no doubt feel that these are somehow more difficult to pronounce than the fully grammatical set. Further, various degrees of grammaticality can be recognized in these possible but non-occurring clusters; /#ssV/, /#srV/, /#psV/ seem to be nearer to American English than /#rsV/, /#ppV/, /#rpV/, or /#rrV/. This feeling may be based on knowledge of phoneme distribution, articulatory habits, or both. As a TPG, however, intuition is not entirely satisfactory. The assignment of possible strings to degrees of grammaticality differs not only from speaker to speaker but, at least in my own case, from time to time. One would like the theory to apply not to a speaker but to the language.

C. EVALUATING THE TPG'S

Given a number of TPG, how are they evaluated? What are the requirements that such theories should meet? We will require, first and foremost, that the assignment procedure be complete in the sense that all of the information needed be contained in the theory. For example, a device which specifies the phonemic inventory in terms of bundles of distinctive features and whose assigning procedure is a rule of the form 'phoneme concatenations are grammatical to the extent to which consecutive phonemes differ by a large number of features' would be complete in this sense. Strings which differ by the largest number of features are the most grammatical; those differing by the least number of features are least grammatical, and so on. If, on the other hand, such a rule was proposed without specifying the featural composition of the phonemes, the TPG would not be complete since information would be needed which is not contained in the theory. Imposing the further restriction that the assignment of any possible phoneme concatenation should be to one and only one degree of grammaticality results in a more satisfying theory. One reason for the added satisfaction that such a requirement brings is

INTRODUCTION

11

that it sets an upper bound to the number of degrees of grammatically. If, say, five phonemes are to be considered in two-segment clusters and each cluster must be assigned to one and only one level of grammaticality, then there can be no more than 25 such levels since there are 25 possible clusters. If we do not make this restriction, there does not appear to be a reason to choose any number between two and infinity as an upper bound on the number of degrees of grammaticality to which a string may be assigned. Surely it is reasonable to expect that the number of levels of grammaticality not exceed the number of strings to be considered. Notice that it is not enough to simply set an upper bound on the number of degrees of grammaticality (i.e. that it not exceed the number of strings) since one could assign any one string to any one or any combination of the number of degrees of grammaticality - in our example, 2525 possible assignments would result. Thus, 'each string can be assigned to one and only one degree of grammaticality' is the correct statement of the desired requirement. A third requirement to be met by any TPG is that the set of fully grammatical strings derived from that theory should include most of the cited strings of the language. (The term cited strings will be defined in 1.5. For now, cited may be taken as synonymous with occurring.) This requirement necessitates listing the cited strings not because such a list is an essential part of the TPG, but because it is essential to its evaluation. It is not necessary to require that the fully grammatical set contain all the cited clusters since the inventory of cited clusters is not itself derived by any very rigorous procedure. A fourth requirement is that the theory be extendible. If an assigning procedure works for, say, the initial consonant clusters of AE, finding that it would also work for final clusters in AE or initial clusters in German would make it a much more desirable theory. It may be stated thus: of a number of theories which account equally well for some body of data, the theory which accounts for the greatest additional data is the one to be accepted. The ultimate in extension is, of course, universality - a TPG whose domain is the phoneme strings of any length in the languages of the world.

12

INTRODUCTION

Although the great variety of phoneme string types in the languages of the world make any specific level assigning scheme for them seem out of the question, it is not impossible to think that some general principles might be found (see Saporta's and Yasui's theories for such principles) and certain fairly trivial universal rules can be found - e.g. phoneme strings over twenty phonemes in length may not consist of only consonants. A final requirement is that the theory should explain the phenomena it covers. In this particular case, a TPG should explain our feelings about the grammaticality or ungrammaticality of certain phoneme strings by showing that they do or do not comply with certain principles - principles which may be articulatory, acoustic, auditory, distributional, statistical, typological, or whatever in nature. This study will not be particularly concerned with where the explanation comes from, only with whether or not it works - i.e. the phoneme strings are assigned to levels of grammaticality and these assignments do accord, for the most part, with our personal knowledge of language. To review, a TPG should explain the data it covers; it is desirable that the theory be extendible to other data; it should be in accord with the empirical evidence (i.e. fully grammatical strings include cited strings); it should assign each phoneme string to one and only one level of grammaticality; and it should be complete.

D. HISTORY OF THE TOPIC

The question of why certain sequences of speech sounds available to the speakers of a language are not used may have occurred to someone long before the concept of a phoneme was clearly posited, but it is doubtful that any interesting solutions could have been proposed without the concepts of 'structure' and 'pattern' which pervaded classical (i.e., roughly, de Saussure to Chomsky) phonemics. De Saussure (1959)1 contains at least two passages which may 1

de Saussure, Ferdinand, A Course in General Linguistics, Trans. Wade Baskin (New York, 1959).

INTRODUCTION

13

be construed as theories of phonotactic grammaticality. The first (p. 51) is entirely phonetic (or perhaps better, what Truby (1962)2 has called 'pleniphonetic') in nature, 'Freedom in linking phonological species is checked by the possibility of linking articulatory movements. To give an account of what takes place within groups, there should be a science of sound that would treat articulatory movements like algebraic equations: a binary combination implies a certain number of mechanical and acoustical elements that mutually condition each other; the variation of one has a necessary and calculable repercussion on the others... The importance of combinatory phonology in general linguistics is obvious. Whereas traditional phonology generally gives rules for articulating all sounds - . . . - and stops there, combinatory phonology limits the possibilities and defines the constant relations of interdependent phonemes.' The central feature of de Saussure's theory of combinatory phonology is the notion of implosion and explosion. In modern spectrographic language, implosion corresponds to the transitions from a steady state formant position to a target, while explosion parallels the transitions from a target to a steady state position; thus the terms are not limited in scope to stops (see section IV for my own use of these notions). Symbolizing implosion by > and explosion by < , de Saussure defines both syllable boundary and syllabic peak by reference to the chain of > ' s and < ' s . The possibilities of linking > ' s and < ' s describe what I have elsewhere (IV) called realizability. De Saussure's phonetics provides an interesting and accurate means of describing the constraints placed upon the realization of what he terms an 'unbroken chain' of phonemes. What his theory does not do is to provide a means of accounting for the fact that only a few of the possible 'unbroken chains' are used in the language. His theory, however, within its limits, is correct. The second passage from his book I should like to quote is found on page 133. 'In fact, the whole system of language is based on the 2

Truby, Η. M., "Pleniphonetic Transcription in Phonetic Analysis", Proceedings of the Ninth Intern. Congress of Linguists (Cambridge, 1962) (The Hague, 1964), pp. 101-108.

14

INTRODUCTION

irrational principle of the arbitrariness of the sign, which would lead to the worst sort of complication if applied without restriction. But the mind contrives to introduce a principle of order and regularity into certain parts of the mass of signs, and this is the role of relative motivation. If the mechanism of language were entirely rational, it could be studied independently. Since the mechanism of language is but a partial correction of a system that is by nature chaotic, however, we adopt the viewpoint imposed by the very nature of language and study it as it limits arbitrariness.' This quotation, taken together with an example on page 131, 'In the imaginary grouping anma, for instance, the sound m stands in syntagmatic opposition to its environing sounds and in associative opposition to all other sounds that may come to mind: anma ν s.' suggests an information theoretical approach to grammaticality such as those proposed by Saporta (III.J) and Yasui (III.M). This interpretation may be considered too liberal, but the extremely 'modern' approach to phonology suggested in the example (see Chomsky and Halle (I960)3 for the distinctive feature implementation of this approach) indicates that the concept was not beyond de Saussure's powers. Since Saporta's and Yasui's theories are discussed in detail in later sections, no attempt will be made to formalize de Saussure's suggestion. Sapir, in his famous 1925 article "Sound Patterns in Language",4 describes what might be called a 'distributional pattern' approach to phonotactic grammaticality. Since the relevant passage is short and concise, it is quoted here in its entirety: 'Very instructive is our attitude toward the English sounds j, η, 3

Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle, The Morphophonemics of English (= MIT Res. Lab. of Electronics Prog. Rep. 58) (1960). 4 Sapir, Edward, "Sound Patterns in Language", Language, 1.2 (1925).

15

INTRODUCTION

and ts. All three of these sounds are familiar to us (e.g. azure, sing, hats). None occurs initially. For all that the attempt to pronounce them initially in foreign words is not reacted to in the same way. ηα- and tsa- are naively felt to be incredible, not so ja-, which is easily acquired without replacement by dja- or sa-. Why is this? ηα- is incredible because there is no mba-, nda-, q{g)a- series in English, tsa- is incredible because there is no psa-, tsa-, ksa- series in English; -ts is always morphologically analysable into -t + -s, hence no feeling develops for ts as a simple phoneme despite the fact that its phonetic parallel ts (ch of church) is found in all positions. But ja- is not difficult, say in learning French, because its articulation and perception have been mastered by implication in the daily use of our phonetic pattern. This is obvious from a glance at the formula: -j-

-ζ-

-δ-

-v-

Z-

Ö-

V-

-ss-

-ΘΘ-

-/f-

which is buttressed by: -Ss-

Is it not evident that the English speaker's pattern has all but taught him j- before he himself has ever used or heard an actual j-T It is this notion of distributional patterns, together with phonetic (articulatory) similarity (evidenced in the quoted charts) which provides what might be called the 'traditional' approach to phonotactic grammaticality. The two most important contributions made in this traditional framework are those of Eli Fischer-Jorgensen and Hans Vogt. Considering the fact that certain sounds are not found where one might expect them, Fischer-Jorgensen (1952)5 said that some are not found must be due to accidental gaps in the inventory of signs, and cannot be explained by structural laws of the language...' 6

Fischer-Jergenscn, Eli, "On the Definition of Phoneme Categories on a Distributional Basis", Acta Linguistica, 7 (1952).

16

INTRODUCTION

An example of this appears to be the case for /fet/ which is not a cited string although there seems to be no structural reason why /ε/ should not appear in the environment /f-t/. This notion of gaps was further explored by Vogt (1954).6 He set up four types of consonant clusters as follows (p. 33): the class of clusters which do not occur and which do not conform to any structural patterns in the language, called inadmissible; the class of clusters which occur but do not conform to any structural patterns, called marginal clusters; the class of clusters which do not occur but conform to the structural patterns of the language, called virtual clusters; and finally the class of clusters which occur and conform to certain patterns, called actual clusters.' Besides the fact that these notions are too vague to provide any TPG (the 'structural patterns of the language' being based on things like articulatory phonetic similarity, are all but impossible to state rigorously), neither writer allows for more than two levels of grammaticality. Fischer-Jorgensen's 'accidental' and Vogt's 'virtual' and 'actual' are grammatical; and her 'structural' and his 'marginal' and 'inadmissible' are ungrammatical. (Even if we allow Vogt four levels, it seems extremely unlikely that every set of phoneme strings will fit neatly into four levels of grammaticality.) We will see much evidence in chapter II that the number of levels needed is to some extent a function of the length of the strings being considered and the types and number of possible strings for a given length. More recently Miller and Chomsky (1963)7 have explored the case (with respect to syntax) of multiple degrees of grammaticality. The notion here is that an inventory is divided into smaller and smaller sub-groups and that a string can be described as to its grammaticality by reference to the level of classification on which it is allowed. As an example, consider the classifications: 6 Vogt, Hans, "Phoneme Classes and Phoneme Classification", Word, 10.1 (1964). ' Miller, George Α., and Noam Chomsky, "Finitary Models of Language Users", Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Luce, Bush, and Galater, eds. (New York, 1963).

INTRODUCTION

Φ3 Φ2 Φ1

17

Word -* Noun, Verb, ... Noun -» Ni ... Nj Ni -+ boy, dog ... Nj clock, table, ...

and the sentence The boy ran after the car. With this information one can say that the sentence The dog ran after ... is grammatical at level 0 l y The clock ran after ... is grammatical at level Φ2, and The walked ran after ... is grammatical at level Φ3. In terms of phonemic strings, if Φ3 Φ2 Φι

Phoneme -» Stops, Fricatives, ... Stops -* p, t, k Fric -> S, F S- s J F f, θ

and /sp-/ is cited, then we might say that /Jp-/ is Φ1-deviant, /fp-/ is Φ2-deviant, and /pp-/ is Φ3-deviant. Such an approach is used in chapter III.N. E. CITED AND OCCURRING STRINGS

It is often assumed that there is a given set of phoneme strings which are fully grammatical by virtue of their occurrence in accepted words of the language and that there is a high degree of agreement as to what this set consists of. In point of fact, however, it is unlikely that any two researchers would provide exactly the same

18

INTRODUCTION

list; their lists reflect their dialects, linguistic experience, and social biases. My own speech, for example, contains some initial clusters not generally considered American English, e.g. /Jlamp/, /Jno/. Η. M. Truby (1959) 8 lists the following two-consonant onsets: /my, bl, br, by, dr, dw, gl, gr, gy, gw, pi, pr, py, tr, tw, kl, kr, ky, kw, fl, fr, fy, 0r, 0y, 0w, sm, sn, sp, st, sk, sf, sv, si, sw, Jr, hy, hw, vy/. Two of these (/gy, 0y/) are given special notes, and another list of strings of 'exceptional nature' adds /bw, pw, sö, Jm, Jn, fl, fw, vl/, of which /s6/ is said to be 'a more established part of the lexicon'. Thus to equate 'fully grammatical' with 'occurring' would not be very satisfactory since 'occurring strings' is not well-defined. Linguists do not agree on the members of this list, and, of course, many clusters occur in the course of an AE conversation which most linguists ignore when making such lists. Actually occurring initial clusters heard f r o m the mouths of native speakers of A E would include strings which result f r o m morphophonemic deletions (e.g. jtsi-j from 'it's a fine day'), false starts (e.g. /Jöessd/ f r o m 'she - they said'), or instances of bilingualism (e.g. /pw-/ f r o m 'pueblo'). N o r would it suffice to require that the clusters be word or morpheme initial since morpheme or word segmentation is not always possible in conversational American English; e.g. where do the morphemes terminate in /Jitjet/ ('did you eat yet')? Consequently we have settled for an operationally defined empirically fully grammatical set of initial two-consonant clusters. This set consists of the clusters listed by all four of our sources, Sivertsen (1961), 9 Jones (1956), 10 O ' C o n n o r and Trim (1953), 11 and Truby (1959), 12 without special comment. That is to say, none of these four sources thought any of the clusters in the list below 8

Truby, Η. M., "Acoustico-Cineradiographic Analysis Considerations", Acta Radiologica, Sup. 182 (1959). 8 Sivertsen, Eva, "Segment Inventories for Speech Synthesis", Language and Speech, 4.1 (1961). 10 Jones, Lawrence Gaylord, "English Consonantal Distribution", For Roman Jakobson (The Hague, 1956). 11 O'Connor, J. D., and J. L. M. Trim, "Vowel, Consonant, and Syllable - a phonological definition", Word, 9.2 (1953). " Truby, Η. M., op. cit. (1959).

INTRODUCTION

19

unusual enough to give them any special consideration. Throughout this discussion this set of onsets will be called cited strings, or cited clusters. The list of cited clusters is as follows: sp-, st-, sk-, sm-, sn-, sl-, sw-, pl-, kl-, bl-, gl-, fl-, pr-, tr-, kr-, br-, dr-, gr-, fr-, 0r-, Jr-, tw-, kw-, dw-.

F. INVENTORY OF POSSIBLE CLUSTERS

The list of possible initial AE clusters we will consider in this study is given in Chart 1. The inventory of phonemes can be found by simply reading down the first column. Some consonants have been omitted; these are /h/, /#/, /£/, and /j/. We do not wish to get involved in such questions as whether /hI and /η/ should be considered as one phoneme on distributional grounds or whether /δ/ and /j/ are unit phonemes or complexes /tJ7> /d3/· Their omission will not affect the evaluation of the various TPG to be considered.

G. VARIANT SYMBOLIZATIONS OF CLUSTERS

Since one of the requirements of any TPG is that its set of fully grammatical strings include most of the cited strings, it is important that the phonemic symbolizations for the cited strings be correct. The correctness, however, of these symbolizations is largely a function of the phonetic (featural) framework within which one is operating. If, for example, the feature of aspiration is chosen to distinguish /p/ from /b/, then clearly the initial cluster of'spin' must be /sb-/; if tension is chosen, then /sp-/ seems correct. As with the inventory of phonemes, however, it is not within our scope to establish a correct inventory; we wish only to use the inventory to help evaluate and construct various TPG. The interested reader

INTRODUCTION

20 >->

Χ Ό

>> >» 60 δ Ö > Vi φ

£ Χ

> £ Ι» ε β

pw

>1 α. -t-t «'δΜ

Ο,

k. IN. - ν •ο

•fe

-Ο

*

£ φ^

>—>

>

>> >> >< >> >> Ν *ο (Ο j>> Ii £ >Λ

>

»Ν > *ο to

^

^Ui

i

>>

UH UH Ii Es

fe § (αΗ

Ν *ο (Ο

"Sj ε α

φ

' S ίο "Τό 53

*o «ο «ο 1- £

«ο *ο *o »Ο «ο —> > *ο Ν «ο to 2 ε Ö «Ο t/2 φ «χΟ

ρζ

*ο «Ο xO *o Μ Χ) •ο ^

Ν Ν Λ Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν SI i ä ΧΝ ΌΝ Κ > > Ν χΟ to Ν N •S >> a ε α «S Ν Φ Ν *ο to Μ UH is >>

> ^ ρ- > > χ> •Ο > Μ δι ε β

Ό

ft

CM U-I χ Μ

Ό

Ω)

u

> > CA Φ «—>

CA

Φ Φ ε Ρ Φ «Λ Ö Ε

> >

«—5 A Ν *ο =— to

< Φ—» Φ Φ

Φ Φ «—9 >

C

Ö C Ö> α > C cS g Φ «—

ε ft

ε ε ε Με Χ5 -ο ι J

ε«

pd

-α -Ö T3 +•» •α Μ χ •Ό u l

pb

X Χ> χχ

pk

Μ Μ Μ Μ Χ •α

PP

φ *ο φto

Φ

EN

Ϊ7

Ν

^

Φ

φ

φ

α Ö e Ν *ο to

ε ε ε S Φε ε>· εΝ «ο to 'n

Ό β 8

Χ Χ Ό -§> ε C

£

60 Β β

«A

Ο ο Bu . «Μ "Ο ο £

c Ö Vi £

c

εl-H ε*

ε>>

-Μ C

•ü

+-» Μ Χ -α ω

ο, ft ft χft Τ3 s

ε

ο. ε β

Ό Ν «Ο to 2

Όν* τ3 ^

Χ Χ Χ> Χ Χ X χ ΧCFL Φ Ν χΟ to

X Λ? χ> >>

Μ ^ 1 Μ Φ > Ν »3

Φ

>

>

ft FT ft Φ «—» >

«Ο

Μ Μ Μ UH to

Ν «Ο to 4-» ft ft ft Ν «ο to

ο is

β CS

Ν «ο to _60 t-< 5t >>

60 60 60 60 b0 ft Η-* Μ Χ Ό

Λ

Φ Ν

>

>

tu Utu ta C/5 Φ Ν Ό to t« VH £

α μα χC ΌÖ § > 8

Η-»

> > > > Ν »ο to > > t-·

CA ΐΛ CA ΦΧΛ 05 >Γ. cfl (A Ν «ο to

ΊΛ

«Μ ε β

>

ρη

Α

ΊΛ

s , J > f , θ > ρ , t, k > z , 3 > v , Ö > b , d, g > m , n > l , r, w, y2e each pair can be rated. The resulting set of permissible or least deviant clusters consist of 26 This order is straight out of a hat. In at least one sense all somethings are equally unlike nothing. In terms of features, surely all consonants have similar numbers of features, whereas # is the absence of any feature.

LINGUISTIC REGULARITY-BASED TPG'S

75

fg-, fn-, fl-, fr-, fy-, tv-, kv-, sb-, sd-, sg-,27 sm-, sn-, sl-, sw-, sy-, pz-, tz-, kz-, 0b-, 0g-, ΘΓ-, 0W-, 0y-, pö-, kö-, fb-, fd-, Ig-, Jm-, Jn-, fl-, fr-, fw-, P3-, T3-, K3-,

pl-, pr-, py-, tr-, tw-, ty-, kl-, kr-, kw-, ky-. Some notable absences (gl-, gr-, gw-, gy-, dr-, dw-, dy-, bl-, br-, by-) would appear at the next level (6), while others (sf-, s0) are, by this scheme, extremely deviant. Another interesting feature is the opposition it presents for the traditional statement that 'surds' and 'sonants' (i.e., voiceless and voiced members of voiced: voiceless oppositions) do not concatenate ; here, if each consonant of the cluster is a member of a voiced : voiceless opposition, they may not both be voiced or both voiceless.

N . A CHOMSKYAN MODEL

Chomsky (1963)28 has outlined an approach to degrees of grammaticality discussed briefly earlier. For phonology, his device would require a given set of concatenations (the fully grammatical set generated by the phonological grammar of AE) and a tree diagram representing a hierarchy of phoneme classes. The grammatical set of clusters has been given earlier as the cited set. A tree diagram of the phonemes of AE is given in Figure 23. 27 88

This supports Hultzen's contentions. Miller and Chomsky, op. cit. (1963).

76

LINGUISTIC REGULARITY-BASED TPG'S

φ5

φ4 φ3

Φ2 2, V V - 3, 4 Simply dividing the number of right-hand symbols in each grammar by the number of rules gives simplicity measures of 12, 5, 3 and 2 for A, B, C, and D, respectively, and D becomes the simplest grammar. In the measure proposed above, D still turns out to be the simplest grammar, but the numbers are slightly different. The number of terminal symbols represented on the right side of the set of rules is 12 for A, 5 for B, 8 for C (since R represents 3 terminal symbols), and 12 for D (R = 2 + T = 3 + 2 + l + V = 2 + 2 ) ; and the simplicity measures are 12, 5, 4, and 3.

F. VARIANT ORDERS OF BINARY OPPOSITIONS

Using Τ to represent the opposition of tenseness, G for graveness, and C for compactness, these oppositions can be applied in the orders: 1) Τ G -+ C 2) Τ - * C - G 3) G - f C - > T

86

A PROPOSED THEORY

4) 5) 6)

G -> Τ - > C C - » T -+G C G -> T.

In the following pages, the sets of rewrite rules which result from these variations in order of application are constructed. For each set of rules, the left-hand symbols of the first rules have been provided by rules 1), 2a) and 2b) above. Thus the first rule of each set will be numbered 3a). To facilitate the reading of these rules, sets of terminal symbols will be used rather than abbreviations for oppositions; e.g., /sjfz3v/ rather than I (for independent). Since these sets of rules have, like generative grammars, the purpose of generating all and only the observed (fully grammatical) strings of the language (for a particular environment) but have the additional goal of relating classifications of terminal elements to observed strings of terminal elements, they will be referred to as phonotactic grammars (PG).

PG 1: Tense -* Grave —> Compact 3: Tenseness:

4: Graveness:

ptk I jmnl bdgj {wry 3b) mnlwry + mnlwry -»· mnl + wry 3c) sjfz 3 v + ptkbdg -> sjf + ptk Jmnl sjf , 3d) sJfz3V + mnlwry [wry Z 3V + wrv 3e) sJTz3v + mnlwry sjf + sjf 3a)

ptkbdg + mnlwry

4a)

ptk + mnl

4b) ptk + wry

•Ρ tkj

In

Jp + ry (tk + [w (ry

A PROPOSED THEORY

87

+ ry dg 4e)

m n l + w r y -*•

4f) '

s j f + p t k -> s Jj +1

4g)

sjf + m n l -

4h)

s j f f w r y ->

+ w

If |tk

si + sil

J™

+ Γry

f j

"

si

5: Compactness:

+ w

4i)

Z3v + w r y -*• ν +

4j)

sjf + sjf

5a)

ρ + In

5b)

t k + In -

5c)

b + In

ry

sj + f ρ + 1 k + 1 b + 1

5d)

d g + In

g + 1

5e)

m + ry

m +

y

5f)

nl + ry -» nl +

y

5g)

si + ρ -> s +

5h)

si + t k

5i)

sj + m -* s +

m

5j)

s j + nl

s +

nl

5k)

si + ry

s + y, f +

51)

s i + w -»• s +

w

5m)

ν + ry

y

5n)

s +

ν +

ρ tk

r

s i + f ^ s + f

T h i s P G isolates n o fully g r a m m a t i c a l s t r i n g s o n t h e t h i r d level, 18 s u c h s t r i n g s o n t h e f o u r t h l e v e l , a n d t h e r e m a i n i n g 19 o n t h e fifth

level.

(In this a n d the following P G s the fully grammatical

s t r i n g s t o b e i s o l a t e d a r e : s p , st, s k , s m , s n , si, s w , s y , s r , f r , fl, f y , v y ,

88

A PROPOSED THEORY

pr, tr, kr, br, dr, gr, pi, kl, bl, gl, gw, kw, dw, gw, py, ty, ky, by, dy, gy, sf, mn, ny, ly.) There are 29 rules and there are 132 symbols represented on the right side of these rules, giving P G 1 a simplicity measure of 4.82.

PG 2: Tense -* Compact

Grave

P G 2 is identical with PG 1 on level three, and the left-hand sides of the rules on level four are the same. Level 3 is therefore omitted. 4: Compactness:

4a)

ptk + mnl

kj , .

Pt ptk + wry -* k ptj Κ 4c) bdg + mnl -> g bdj 4d) bdg + wry g 1 bdj 4e) mnl + wry -> 1 mnl 4b)

4f)

sjf + ptk ^ sf +

4g)

sjf + wry

[wy + 1

wy

Γ c

ft + .

|w wy r U + Γ

4h) sjf + mnl

5: Graveness:

fr [wy

4i) 4j)

sf + f (m, η Z3V + wry -> zv + wy sjf + sjf -> sf + sf

5a)

pt + 1 -* ρ + 1

5b)

pt+wy^jt4"Wy IP + y 5c) bd + 1 b + 1 id + wy 5d) bd + wy Ip1 + y

A PROPOSED THEORY

89

5e)

1 + w y -»· 1 + y

5f)

m n + wy - * m n + y

5g)

sf + k - * s +

k

5h)

s f -»· p t - » s +

5i)

fs + r

5j)

fs + w y

,f

5k)

sf + mn

s +

51)

zv + w y - * ν + y

5m)

s f + s f ->· s +

f +

pt r +

+

wy

y

mn f

I n P G 2 n o fully g r a m m a t i c a l strings a r e i s o l a t e d o n level t h r e e , 15 o n level f o u r a n d 2 2 o n level five. T h e r e a r e 2 8 rules a n d 1 3 3 r i g h t h a n d s y m b o l s , giving P G 2 a simplicity m e a s u r e o f 4 . 7 5 .

PG 3: Grave —• Compact —• Tense pb 3 : Graveness:

}

3a)

p t k b d g + m n l w r y - » t k d g f -ϊ-

3b)

mnlwry + mnlwry

tkdg

3c)

sjfz3v + ptkbdg

s^z

3d)

s j f z 3 v + m n l w r y - > fv

+

3e)

sffz3v + s j f z 3 v -+ s j z 3 + fv

4a)

p b + nlry

4b)

t k d g + nlry

pb + I

Κ ί (yn

td I

4c)

t k d g + m w -*• tk d g }j

frl

+

lyn

+ m W

4d)

m w + l r n y -*• m w w + yn

4e)

lrny + lrny

lr 1 +ny nyj

+

l m y

+

sjz3+j

kg}

mw

mw 1

lrnyj

4 : Compactness:

+

nlry

ryln r y l n

[wm

90

5: Tenseness:

A PROPOSED THEORY

4f)

sjz3 + pb -»• sz + pb

4g)

sfz3 + tkdg

4h)

fv + ryln -> fv +

4i)

sfz3 + ryln

4j) 4k)

J3 + lr sjz3 + wm sz + wm sjz3 + fv -» sz + fv

5a) 5b) 5c) 5d) 5e) 5f) 5g) 5h) 5i) 5j) 5k) 51) 5m) 5n) 5o) 5p)

pb + yn -* pb + y td + rl -»• td + r td + yn ->· td + y kg + yn kg + y kg + mw -»· kg + w td + mw ^ td + w mw + yn -»• m + y lr + ny -»1 + y ny + ny -> η + y sz + pb -» s + ρ sz + td -»· s + t sz + kg -» s + k fv + yn -> fv + y fv + lr f + lr sz + lr s+ 1 sz + ny -» s + ny

sz +

sz +

{£

Ρ [ny

5q) l 3 + l r - > J " r 5r) sz + wm -* s + wm 5s) sz + fv -> s + f Iii P G 3 no fully grammatical strings are isolated on level three, 8 on level four and 29 on level five. There are 35 rules and 170 right-hand symbols, giving TP 3 a simplicity measure of 4.86. PG 4: Grave

Tense -> Compact

A PROPOSED THEORY P G 4 h a s t h e s a m e level t h r e e a s P G 3.

4: Tenseness:

4a)

pb + nlry

pi

f nl +

bj 4b)

tdkg + nlry

tk 1 dgj

4c)

(ry inl +

t k d g + m w -»• t k j

w +

dg) 4d)

m w + lrny -* m +

4e)

l r n y + l r n y ->• In +

4f)

s j z 3 + p b - > sf +

4g)

fv +

f

ryln

s j z 3 + r y l n ->· s j +

4i)

sjz3 + w m

4j)

sjz3 + fv

ρ + In - » ρ + 1

5b)

b + In

5c)

t k + In

b + 1 k + 1

d g + l n - ^ g + 1

5e)

m + ry

m +

y

5f)

In + r y -> In +

y

5g)

sj + ρ

5h)

f + In - > f + 1

5i)

ν + ry

ν +

5j)

s j + ry

s +

s +

ί

ρ y y

+ r

5k)

s j + I n ->· s +

In

51)

sf + w

w

5m)

sf + m sj + f

ry fry / [In

iw sj" + < lm sj + f

5a)

5n)

yr

\n

4h)

5d)

ry ρ

ν +

5: C o m p a c t n e s s :

(ry

s + s + s +

m f

92

A PROPOSED THEORY

PG 4 isolates no fully grammatical strings on level three, 18 on level four and 19 on level five. There are 29 rules and 140 right-hand symbols giving P G 4 a simplicity measure of 4.82. PG 5: Compact —• Grave -* Tense 3: Compactness: 3a)

kg j Irl ptbdj [mnwy 3b) mnlwry + mnlwry ->· rl 1 , !· + mnwy mnwyj 3c)

ptkbdg + mnlwry

sjfz3v + ptkbdg -* szfv + ί ® [ptbd

3d) sjfz3v + mnlwry - •

4: Graveness:

3e)

sjfz3v + sjfz ν

4a)

ptbd + rl

szfv 4-

[mnwy

(j3 + rl szfv + szfv

pbl td I

+

l: 1

4b) kg + mnwy -> kg + | nm W l y 4c) rl + mnwy rl — nyr 4d) mnwy + mnwy —• mw ny ny • 4e) szfv + kg sz + kg 4f)

szfv + ptbd

sz +

4g) szfv + rl -> sz| fv 4h) szfv + mnwy -> 4i) 5: Tenseness:

+ Γ ΐ

SZ +

i

n y

r l mw fv + ny szfv + szfv -> sz + fv

5a) td + rl -» td + r 5b) kg + mw -» kg + w

A PROPOSED THEORY

5c) 5d) 5e) 5f) 5g) 5h) 5i) 5j) 5k) 51) 5m) 5n) 5o) 5p)

93

kg + ny kg + y rl + ny -»· 1 + y mw + ny m + y ny + ny -» η + y sz + kg -» s + k sz + pb -+ s + ρ sz + td ->· s + t sz + rl -> s + 1 fv + rl -v f + rl sz + ny -» s + ny sz + mw -*• s + mw fv + ny fv + y sz + fv -* s + f i3+rl->J+r

In P G 5, 4 fully grammatical strings are isolated on level three, 4 on level four, and 29 on level five. There are 30 rules and 145 right-hand symbols, giving PG 5 a simplicity measure of 4.83. PG 6: Compact -> Tense -> Grave Level three is the same as that of P G 5. 4: Tenseness:

4a)

kg + mnwy-> kl , +wy g

4b) ptbd + rl

pt I bdj 4c) ptbd + mnwy -»· pt wy bdj 4d) rl + mnwy -* 1 + wy 4e) mnwy + mnwy —• mn + wy 4f) szfv + kg sf + k 4g) szfv + ptbd -> sf + pt 4h) szfv + rl -»• sf + r 1 4i)

szfv + mnwy

sf+{mn [wy zv -{- wy

94

A PROPOSED THEORY

4j) l3+rl^J+r 4k) szfv + szfv -» sf + sf 5: Graveness:

5a) pt + 1 -> ρ + 1 5b) bd + 1 b + 1 it + wy 5c) pt + wy -> i IP + y 5d) 5e) 5f) 5g) 5h) 5i) 5j) 5k)

^ + W y [b + y 1 + wy 1+ y mn + wy mn + y sf + k s + k sf + pt -> s + pt sf + r f + r sf + mn -» s + mn zv + wy -» ν + y b d + w

y

In P G 6, 4 fully grammatical strings are isolated on level three, 11 on level four, and 22 on level five. There are 27 rules and 131 right-hand symbols, giving PG 6 a simplicity measure of 4.85.

G. EVALUATING THE PG'S

The simplicity criterion establishes P G 2, Tense -> Compact Grave as the preferred phonotactic grammar for this set of clusters. If this grammar does not violate any strong intuitive notions about the grammaticality assignments, then there is no reason for not accepting it as the 'correct' description. A couple of these intuitive notions about grammaticality can be stated a bit more formally in terms of these phonotactic grammars. One of these is that the tense: lax (or voiced: voiceless, in another scheme) dichotomy is more powerful than oppositions having to do with place of articulation distinctions. Our preferred P G displays this notion in its ordering of oppositions by making tenseness the first of the three. Another is that most of the fully grammatical

A PROPOSED THEORY

95

strings should be isolated on the lowest level of the PG. The number of fully grammatical strings (out of 37) isolated on each level for these PGs is given below: Level 5 3 4 0 18 1 19 0 15 22 2 0 8 29 3 4 0 18 19 4 4 5 29 4 11 22 6 This criterion by itself would establish PG 3 (Grave -»Compact -> Tense) as the preferred description, but this order of feature application is perhaps most remote from intuitive expectations. If, however, we suppose that the simplicity and agreement of intuitive notions of ordering take precedence over this final criterion, then it can be seen that of the two PGs which agree with intuitive notions of feature ordering (PGs 1 and 2, where tenseness is first), the simplest of these is also the one which does the best job of isolating fully grammatical strings. Neither PG 1 nor PG 2 isolate any on level three, and PG 2 isolates more on level five than P G 1. Consequently, it appears that the simplest phonotactic grammar is likely to be the one which comes closest to mirroring intuitive notions and is therefore the best. 7

H. DISPLAYING THE GRAMMATICALITY ASSIGNMENTS

It is obvious that searching through the set of rewrite rules to find the level at which a specific string is not allowed is a timeconsuming task. It is therefore suggested that the assignments resulting from these rules be displayed in a more concise form. ' The ordering of Dependence and Vocalicness (levels 1 and 2) is not affected by this measure of simplicity - either order has a measure of 26 (3 rules and 78 symbols).

96

A PROPOSED THEORY

A simple two-dimensional matrix is shown below which displays the results of the chosen Phonotactic Grammar for American English initial two-consonant clusters. r

w

y

f

m

n

k

p

t

g

b

d

J

i'

s

3

ν

ζ

J. EXTENDIBILITY OF THE TPG

In order to be satisfactory as a theory of phonotactic grammaticality, this theory should be extendible. The extensions may be of two types: it should work for a larger inventory (or different inventory, say for a different language) or for longer strings. Increasing the inventory of consonantal phonemes for initial clusters in AE by adding /h/, /η/, /δ/, /J/, /θ/, and /ö/ necessitates

97

A PROPOSED THEORY

some changes in the tree diagram and oppositional classification, but can easily be handled within the framework of a phonotactic grammar. Using the features previously established, /h/ must be classed as non-consonantal and non-vocalic, making it a special case. It would thus have to be treated in the very first rule, where , ) # String

+

VX

Since / f / : /Θ/ and /ν/ : /δ/ are not distinguished on independent grounds,8 they must be adding to the category of dependent, nonvocalic phonemes. Since this group also includes /ptkbdg/, another feature must be added, or a trinary division must be allowed in some higher node. Since the dependency opposition appears to be of a trinary nature, the latter choice is taken, /δ/ and /]/ are included in the same group as /f/ /θ/ /ν/ /ö/ since they are independent in part (the ideational section) and dependent in part (the onset), /η/ is simply added to /m/ and /n/. Thus, the tree diagram below results:

The rewrite rules follow the same procedure as in PG 2. Extending the device to cover longer strings can best be accomplished by considering the grammaticality of any string to be the sum of the grammaticality assignments of the contained twomember strings, both contiguous and non-contiguous.9 For 8

'

See K. S. Harris (1958) and Miller and Nicely (1955). See Greenberg and Jenkins (1964) for psycholinguistic evidence.

98

A PROPOSED THEORY

example, in any American English string of the form CCCVC the grammatically of the whole string would be found by reference to PGs for each of the strings CI + C2, CI + C3, CI + V, CI + C4, C2 + C3, C2 + V, C2 + C4, C3 + V, C3 + C4, V + C4. If it is assumed that all AE strings consists of one or more concatenated syllables and that phoneme string restrictions apply only within (not across) syllable boundaries, then the task of composing an account of the phonotactic grammaticality of any strings of American English phonemes is not forbidding. It is possible to construct a tree diagram for AE phonemes using the phonotactic features described (plus one or two more to cover certain oppositions in vowels - although the restrictions on vowel occurrence do not appear to be so strongly phonetically based as those of consonants, it is clear that some such restrictions are important in the language, e.g. in the environment / η/). And it is also possible to construct sets of rewrite rules for each of the types of strings to be considered; what prevents this task from being done is the lack of a handy list of the occurring discontinuous strings. In order to determine the grammaticality of some particular string of the form CCCVC, for example, it is necessary to know what strings of the form C.. .C in the environment # C C V # occur in AE. Some recent applications of computers for assembling statistics on phoneme distribution 10 may soon eliminate this lack of data. When these distributional data are available in some easy-to-use format, the specification of the degrees of grammaticality for phoneme strings in AE should prove to be a reasonable and exciting task. K.

SUMMARY

A theory of phonotactic grammaticality is a device which assigns strings of phonemes to degrees of grammaticality on the basis ot 10

For example, Denes, P. B., Computer Processing of Acoustic and Linguistic Information in Automatic Speech Recognition, U S A F Technical Report A F 61 (514)-1176 (1963); Denes, P. B., "On the Statistics of Spoken English", J ASA, 35.6 (1963); Hultzen, Allen, and Miron, op. cit. (1964).

A PROPOSED THEORY

99

some properties of the phonemes themselves. The set of strings assigned to the degree 'fully-grammatical' should contain most of the cited or occurring strings of the language in question; the more remote the degree of grammaticality, the fewer cited strings it should contain. In order to accomplish this task without requiring any interference or guesswork from the reader, the device must contain 1) a list of the phonemes whose concatenations are to be assigned to degrees of grammaticality, together with a specification of the properties of these phonemes upon which the level assigning component of the device will operate; 2) a level assigning component which assigns strings to degrees of grammaticality on the basis of the number and types of properties shared by the cited strings and the string being assigned; 3) a list of the cited strings; and (if the strings are longer than two phonemes) 4) a formula for determining the sums of the two-phoneme strings involved in the entire string. In order for such a theory to be extendible, the properties chosen for specifying the classes of phonemes should be reasonably universal; that is, the chosen properties should allow an investigator to so classify the phonemes of any language in a largely nonarbitrary way. Since only phonetic (as opposed to historical, statistical, ontological, etc.) properties appear to have this quality, and these only if the phonetic oppositions are relative (not absolute), a set of features closely resembling the Jakobsonian distinctive features is the best choice. The features needed are of two distinct types. One set involves restrictions imposed by the dependency of the phonemes (dependency having to do with whether an individual phoneme is specifiable in whole, in part, or not at all by 'steady state' values). A second type involves restrictions imposed by (relative) properties of place and manner of articulation (in Jakobsonian terms, such things as 'compactness', 'graveness', etc.). In order for the level assignments made by the theory to accord with intuitive notions of grammaticality the restrictions imposed by the realizability of the string (i.e. whether or not the string could be consistently identified by listeners as consisting of the phonemes

100

A PROPOSED THEORY

intended) must precede the restrictions imposed by the place and manner dimensions. Since there does not appear to be strong evidence for orderings of place of articulation restrictions with regard to grammaticality, a simplicity measure of the level assigning component is used to establish the specific form of this component. Additional restrictions placed on the theory are that each phoneme string should be assigned to one and only one degree of grammaticality for a specific environment, and that classes of phonemes should be split into the least number of subclasses compatible with the rest of the device (i.e. the classifications should be binary unless there-is strong motivation for finer divisions). The particular device which best meets these requirements is one which consists of 1) a tree diagram whose terminal nodes are the phonemes being considered, and whose higher nodes represent phonotactic featural oppositions. The order of features being determined by 1) features expressing realizability restrictions must precede all others, 2) the simplicity of the level-assigning component. The level assigning component is a set of rewrite rules which rewrite occurring strings of classes of phonemes as occurring strings of sub-classes of these classes. Thus, for example, /yp/ is grammatical on the level of the rule which specifies such strings as consonantal plus consonantal, but it is not grammatical on the level of the rule which specifies CC as non-vocalic plus vocalic. The list of cited strings may be added by a supplementary list or by marking such strings in the rules by means of an asterisk or underlining. The grammaticality assignments made by the device may then be displayed in some easy to read format such as a CI X C2 matrix.

ν

APPENDIX: TESTING

Two types of tests are reported here. The first type (EE1, EE2, EE3) tests the ability of native speakers to produce and/or reproduce certain strings; the second type (EE4 and EE5) tests their ability to make judgments about the grammaticality of certain strings.

1. EE1, EE2, EE3 The hypothesis being investigated here is as follows: The degree of deviation of a sequence of speech sounds from grammaticalness is reflected in the difficulty with which native speakers can reproduce i f , the more grammatical the sequence, the more easily reproduced. Before I report on the tests themselves, it might help to have some idea of what we might expect from them. There are three clear possibilities: The first is that the percentages of error shown by the subjects for the test items would show a great range, perhaps from zero (for occurring easily perceived sequences) to 100% wrong for extremely difficult sequences, with no clearly defined groupings of the percentages; the second is that there would be clearly defined groupings which may or may not be able to be correlated with analytic groupings of speech sounds, e.g., by 'place' or 'manner'; third, and most remote it seems to me, is that there would be two quite clearly defined groups, one of which included all occurring sequences plus a few others which can be shown to be 'similar' to the occurring ones, and another which includes all other sequences. In this series I tested CCV sequences in which the V is always /a/ and the C's include only /ptk bdg mn fv θδ lr wy s j Z3/, with /wy/ never as the first C.

102

APPENDIX: TESTING

For our corpus of occurring sequences I used the listing of sequences by Eva Sivertsen (1961). There are three experiments in this report and all were conducted in the same way. I recorded the sequences I wished to test on a Wollensak portable tape recorder (microphone held approximately two inches away and to the left of my mouth, volume setting 5, quality setting 'balanced tone'). The tape was then played for a linguist (Fred W. Householder) who accepted or rejected each sequence as being or not being an accurate rendering of my intention. Rejected sequences were either re-recorded and checked or thrown out (as being beyond my capacity). The finished tapes were then played for a group of subjects in the language laboratory at Ballantine Hall at Indiana. In this lab the tape is played from a master control panel in the front of the room; the subjects are seated in individual booths with tape decks in front of them. They hear the master tape through headsets and record their responses on their individual tapes. In this way the subject's tapes all had the stimulus from the master tape and the response of the subject side by side, which made it relatively easy for me to make comparisons and to say that the response was or was not like the stimulus. Various measures were taken to insure the validity of the results. In the first test I checked on the possibility that the order in which the items were presented might be significant by inserting one item twice - once near the beginning, once near the end: there was no significant difference in the score of the two repetitions of the item. Otherwise all items were randomized by acceptable procedure one writes the items on small slips of paper, puts them in a box, shakes it up, pulls them out one by one, and records them in that order. To prevent giving any vocal cues as to what sequence was coming next, a mechanical device (snapping the lid of a cigarette lighter) was used to signal each new item. The subjects were given breaks at regular intervals to prevent fatigue. The subjects were all young men between 17 and 25, undergraduates at the university. They had all been exposed to at least one foreign language (Russian) and some to several others.

103

APPENDIX: TESTING

For the first test we posited sequences Type 1 (occurring), Type 2 ('accidental') and Type 3 ('structural'). CCV sequences found in Sivertsen /Pi/ /kl/ Μ /gl/

PI

/si/

/St/

/Pr/

Μ

Μ I kw/

/kr/

Μ

/dr/ /gr/ /fr/

/dw/ /gw/

/Θγ/

/0W/ /sw/

IN

/ky/ /by/ /gy/ /fy/

/vy/ /my / / sm/

/sf/

/sk/

/py/

In order to find the Type 2 ('accidental') sequences, we need a chart of these consonants which groups them according to the dimensions of 'place' and 'manner'; such charts are easily found. Ρ b m

f ν w

t d η s ζ θ ö 1 y

k g I 3

The vertical dimension here is not important for our purposes, it is rather the horizontal lines which determine what speech sounds are 'similar' and therefore significant for the positing of 'accidental' gaps. Basically, the criterion is this: If /xq/ occurs and /cq/ does

104

APPENDIX: TESTING

not and /x/ is similar to /c/, then /cq/ represents an accidental gap in distribution. The Type 2 sequences generated by our chart and data are: /pw/ /tl/ /bw/ /dl/

/fw/ /Θ1/ /sr/ /Ρ/

/vw/ /ÖW/ /mw/ /nw/ /JP/

/ty/ Idyl

/0y/ /sy/ lirl

IM

/Jy/

/öy/ /ny/ /It/

/Ik/

/S0/

/If/ /Im/

/ΙΘ/ /In/

All other non-occurring sequences represent Type 3 ('structural'). Our test list included almost all of the Type 2's, some Type l's and a sample of the Type 3's. The Type 3's were much too numerous for the physical limitations of our testing, so we selected a sampling of them based, again, on the classes of 'similar' sounds found in our chart. Below are the results of this test. Twenty-six subjects were used and from these I selected the clearest twenty tapes. I did not transcribe the responses, I only indicated if the response was the same as the stimulus or not. The figures represents the percentage of correct responses (out of 20).

APPENDIX: TESTING

105

Results of Test One Type l's py pr br 0w sm sp si sf Type Is pw bw fw vw ÖW

mw nw Jw Jy öy tl dl Θ1 sr Ji Type 3's zb zn zs ZÖ

zf zv

% Correct 100 100 100 95 100 100 95 95

Type 2's

% Correct 90 90 95 95 85 100 95 100 90 30 85 85 40 95 100

Type 3's

% Correct 100 100 15 85 70 90

Type 3's fs fz f6 fv vb vn

Jp it fk s0 Jf ίθ Jm in

pt pd ps pz pf pv bt bd bs bz bf sb ss sz zp

% Correct 90 90 90 85 80 40 95 95 % Correct 70 75 95 80 60 50 80 90 35 95 35 95 60 50 75 % Correct 40 45 75 50 90 85

106 zl zy fp fb fn

APPENDIX: TESTING

95 85 85 70 70

vs vz vö vl

60 65 75 90

Notes on chart of Test One. Type 2 sequences /ty, dy, 0y, ny/ are not included. In one of my dialects (I was a drama major as an undergraduate) they are all Type 1. At any rate, their absence won't affect the generalizations we can make from the testing. /I, r, m, n/ do not appear in the tests as first C except before /l, r, w, yI because, in my rendering, /np/, for example, always came out either /anp/ or /nap/. The number of sequences from the list above for each percent of error were: 100% 10 95% 13 90% 9 85% 8 80% 3 75% 3 70% 4 65% 2 60% 3 55% 0 50% or less 11 There seems to be a break at the 85% level. Eighty-five was also the lowest percentage for any sequence in the test list which occurs in my speech, /ly/ (noted by Sivertsen as 'Not General American')· This, then, gave me the corpus for the second experiment. I assumed that all sequences of Test One which showed a percent of 85 or above were grammatical sequences of English speech sounds. Furthermore, I assumed that all sequences related to these

APPENDIX: TESTING

107

by reference to the chart of consonants on page 104 above were grammatical sequences. All sequences which showed a percentage of less than 85 were assumed to be non-grammatical and nothing further was done with them. Test Two tested all CCV sequences implied (by the similarity criterion mentioned) not tested in Test One. The same procedure was followed in the testing, except that this time I was able to get only ten subjects. The sequences tested and the number of correct (matching) responses for Test Two are given below. Results of Test Two Sequence pm Pi tn tm ts ti kn km ks kj bg bm b3 db dg dm dn dz d3

dy dw

Correct Responses 0* 7 0* 0* 3

4 0* 0* 4 7 0* 0* 6

0* 0* 0*

0* 2 4 10 10

Sequence gm gn gz g3 gy

gw sd

Correct Responses 0* 0* 8 9 6 8 8 6

sg Jb

10

id ig zd zg zm

10 10 7

9

8

ZÖ

5

zr zw 3b

8 9

10

3d

8

3g

9 10

3m

108

APPENDIX: TESTING

Sequence gb gd 3l 3r 3y 3W ft fk vt vk vd vg vm vr θρ et 0k 0b 0d eg 0m θη 0s θί θζ θ3 0f θν *

Correct Responses 0* 0* 9 10 10 10 10 8 8 6 7 7 10 8 5 6 5 8 0 6 6 5 2 2 0 6 5 0

I was unable to produce these wii

Sequence 3n 3v 00 01 0y öp Öt Ök Öb Öd ög öm Ön 6s öi Ö3 Öf Öv Ö0 öl Ör

Correct Responses 7 9 0 6 9 0 2 2 6 6 3 8 7 4 0 0 0 5 6 4 8

an intervening sound.

If we choose a score of 8 on Test Two as indicating a grammatical sequence, to conform to the 85 % figure used in Test One, we have reduced the number of grammatical sequences to less than 100 from a possible 400 (20 X 20). The list of grammatical sequences is now:

109

APPENDIX: TESTING pi tr

pr

pw

tl

tw

ty

kl

kr

kw

ky

/ps

bz

bl

br

dl

dr

dw

dy

gz sp

S3 st

gl sk

Jp zb

it zd

3b

3d

py

bw

by

gr

gw

sb

sd

gy sm

Jk

Jb

zm

zn

Id zv

Ig ζδ

3V

fp vt

3g fk

3m

ft

fl

fr

3l fw

vb

vm

vn

vl

vr

0b

0r

0w

0y

9 m

Ör

ÖW.

mw,

nw /

sn Im zl 3r

sf In zr 3W

S0

si

Ii

Jr

zw

zy

sr Iw

sw Jy

3y

fy

vw

vy

A glance at this inventory will probably convince the reader that it consists of some very definite patterns plus some mistakes. This was my suspicion. To find out, I constructed Test Three. In this test I used a set of rules which seemed valid on the basis of the results of the first two tests. These rules for grammatical sequences were: 1) Any consonant (in position one of our list) may be followed by (lrwy). 2) Any voiceless stop (ptk) may be followed by any voiceless sibilant (sj). 3) Any voiced stop (bdg) may be followed by any voiced sibilant (z3). 4) Any labio-dental fricative (fv) may be followed by any stop (ptkbdg) or nasal (mn). 5) Any sibilant (sfz3) may be followed by any consonant not a sibilant. To make this a bit clearer, I put it in the form of a chart. The plain ' x ' s mark occurring sequences, the ' x ' s in parentheses, non-occurring 'grammatical' sequences. Below each tested item, I have placed the number of correct responses (again, out of 10)

110

APPENDIX: TESTING

from Test Three. Test Three was conducted exactly like the first two. See chapter II.E for an interpretation of these results. Chart of Items and Responses

for Test

Three

Second C o n s o n a n t

P

p t

k b d g s j z 3 f (x)(x)

ν

θ δ m η 1 χ

7 7 (x)(x) 9 7

t

k

X XX X

5

b

(x)(x) 9 6 (x)(x) 7 7

d

g

X (X) 6

(χ)(χ)

S χ

χ

7

χ (χ)(χ)(χ) 8

8

6 X X X

(x) 9

(x)(x) 6

r w y χ (χ) χ

2

7

χ

χ (x)(x)(x) x x x 6

6

X (x) X 8 X X (x) 7

X X X

(χ) X X

8

8

S (x)(x)(x)(x)(x)(x)

( χ ) ( χ ) ( χ ) ( χ ) ( χ ) ( χ ) ( χ ) χ (x)(x)

9 9 10 8 9 7 ζ (x)(x)(x)(x)(x)(x) 5 5 4 6 10 9

9 6 8 6 10 10 9 9 9 (x)(x)(x)(x)(x)(x)(x)(x)(x)(x) 7 8 2 5 10 10 8 5 10 8

3 (χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)

(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)

3 6 5 7 8 10 f (χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ) 7 9 10 4 3 6

2

θ

7

8

7

6

1

6

10 10 10 (χ)(χ) Χ 8 9

χ

8 5 5 (χ) X 5

(χ)(χ)(χ )( x )(χ) χ

V (χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ) 8

7

9

5 8

δ

10 (χ) 5

χ

4

9

7 7 χ

(χ) 2

(χ)(χ)(χ)(χ)

m

4

1

χ)(χ)(χ) χ

3 8 9 (χ)(χ)(χ) 3 7 6

η

2.

ΕΕ4

In ΕΕ4 169 two-consonant onsets were randomized; a set of -VC (C) codas were randomized and joined to the onsets; the list was recorded and presented to listeners for judgements as to the Englishness of the whole word. The codas were all cases of -VC(C) where this is a cited type

χ

APPENDIX ". TESTING

111

but not with the particular V used. For example, -Vbd is cited, but not with the vowel /υ/; -ubd was used as a coda (in /zwbd/). The subjects were members of a seventh-grade English class. They were asked if these stimuli could be English words. By 'could be' I meant; suppose we have a foreign word which sounds like this; if we used this word as an English word (borrowed it) would we change the way it sounds? To make this notion clear, the subjects were given a 20 minute lecture on borrowing and the resultant sound changes. This lecture is outlined in the Instructions. Of the 400 possible onsets, only 87 were actually counted in the test results. Initial /1, r, w, y, m, η/, doubled consonants, two stop clusters, stop plus nasal clusters, and fricative plus stop clusters of mixed voice quality were not recorded. Of the 169 that were recorded under optimum acoustic conditions at IBM, only 87 were clearly perceptible when heard in the classroom where the test was conducted. The list of 87 stimuli are given below in their full form. The results of this testing have been discussed in chapter II. EE4 Instructions to Subjects:

I. Fill in top part of answer sheet. When you have finished, turn the sheets over. II. Words are often borrowed by speakers of one language from another language. This is done, e.g. if one country borrowed a product of material from another (E. 'hamburger' becomes Fr. [äbyrger]); when a new word is needed for a new product or idea, in which case we often make up words from Latin or Greek (Gr. 'isos', 'morphe' E. isomorph); or we want to pronounce the name of some foreign person (Gr. Ptolemy). Now notice that in each case the borrowed words have changed not their meanings, but their sound. We can bring new meanings into our language without change, but we cannot bring new sounds and sound sequences into the language unless the language already exhibits very closely similar sounds and sequences. In order for a word to 'become English' it must fit the sound patterns already exhibited by the language.

112

APPENDIX: TESTING

Consequently, since we all know the sounds and sound sequences of English, we can predict whether or not a new word to be taken into English will be allowed in its foreign form, or it will have to be changed. III. If, then, I present you with a list of words and ask you if they could be English words a) you cannot decide on the basis of meaning since there are many perfectly legitimate English words whose meanings are unknown to you (e.g. 'sprue', 'tain', 'prodrome'); b) you can decide on the basis of sound since you do know all of the allowed English sounds and sound sequences (e.g. not 'stlashpm'). IV. Now turn the test papers over. You will hear a list of 169 potential English words. You are asked to tell me whether or not each item could be an English word. In the list there are some real English words the meanings of which you will probably not know (because they are very rare). If you don't mark these as being English, our test will be a failure and we will have wasted our time. Please be careful and pay close attention. If you think the word could be English, mark the 'yes' for that word; if you think it could not be English, mark the 'no' for that word; if you can't decide (or didn't hear it clearly, mark the '?' for that word. The test will take about 15 minutes. The words are three seconds apart. EE4 Test List. Forms used in discussion in II are italicized 1. fbpG 2. fmofi 3. zvobd 4. dwoimd 5. νηΐΐθ 6. 3naigd 7. pjwz

8. vyiil 9. ^daupQ 10. ksaeöd 11. vfolk 12. tfufG 13. Ozons 14. tyeilG

15. vdsetG 16. öraöz 17. f n u l j 18. droik 19. vzaöd 20. 3yolk 21. vwoibz

22. Srauvd 23. sroid 24. öfoils 25. dyugd 26. VÖ323 27. ffuls 28. sdaups

113

APPENDIX: TESTING

29. f3sdd

65.

glsns

101.

ömaij

137. fvaulp

30.

3zils

66.

zrult

102.

pyauf

138.

smog

31.

g3ud9

67.

θννυδζ

103.

g verls

139.

32.

Oloiv

68.

tOaug

104.

sjauöt

140.

3glöz byailp fpemf

33.

sbaulf

69.

vöoiöd

105. frost

141.

34.

bwoitd

70.

zfesp

106.

dveilt

142.

önubd

35.

zdimp

71.

vsai3

107.

zldlO

143.

dzonO

36.

bvotö

72.

zbaitf

108.

preöd

144.

OraelJ

37.

ftoit

73.

twopd

109.

ζηίρθ

145.

zöouns

38.

m

74.

Gparmp

110.

döeisp

146.

pfilt

föu0

grimf

111. ftalp

147.

112.

0mut0

148. fnalf

psafd

113.

skouft

vlufd

114.

3V3T3 fOailt

149.

78.

150.

Ovseö

kBofl

79.

öboiOs

115. fpxdQ

151.

0si)lt

44.

fsoö

80.

syomp

116.

zwoiö

152.

böaip0

45.

kJafG

81.

JyoOt

117.

153. fkilk

46.

tsau3

82.

zgaund

118.

V30if övalk

47.

gwault

83.

göulb

119.

bhdt

155.

treisk

48.

3foigd

84.

Jzoj

120.

30isp

156.

GJarlp

49.

vroilp

85.

Slons

121.

vbzlf

157.

50.

ζθυθβ

86.

stads

122.

svaidO

158.

tM Gkauft

51.

ρθοΪ3

87. fsoins

123.

zfump

159.

sloipt

52.

gzeilf

88.

zmoilk

124.

ploidO

160.

03ousp

53.

ögoim

89.

125.

3gaump

161.

bzilf

39.

S3oin0

75.

40.

Z3aufs

76. ßand

41.

Otoö

77.

42.

3walf

43.

154.

swoibd

54.

pw&pd

90.

tli3 Qnolp

126.

brvdt

162.

dyoig

55.

gyoisk

91.

fkauft

127.

dfeinß

163.

d3al0

56.

öwoilO

92.

kwousk

128.

b3ailf

164.

57.

vmautO

93.

freilf

129.

ödoudt

165.

fyoip dloipQ

58.

kyap0

94.

ölaup9

130.

fzisk

166.

sfails

59.

snaitQ

95.

spidB

131. 3saidt

60.

ösargd

96.

flazd

132.

61.

öyarlO

97.

fmuns

133. fwoutd

62. ffeipQ 63. S03-ÖZ

98.

zyilb

134.

99.

sdspQ

135. fwslk

100.

Smins

136.

64.

ÖzatO

kfoö 033rsk kroidt

167.

vgstd

168.

klid

169.

Ofils

114

APPENDIX: TESTING 3. EE5

In EE5 the instructions and procedures were identical to those of EE4. The subjects were 33 seventh-grade students in a French class taught by my wife, Irene. Figure 25 presents the total number of yes (it could be an English word) responses for each initial cluster in the test. Those clusters marked by an asterisk are not discussed in chapter II since they were not heard as intended. The full list of test items is given below in Figure 26. C+l, r

Ρ t k b d g m

f

s J

V ζ

3 *

1 28 *33 33 31 *26 27 13

r

32 31 33 29 31 33 27

η f

s J

V ζ

3

m f s k η Ρ t 6 13 10 3 2 3 29 33 20 32 28 7 2 13 1 7 10 5 0 1 1 3 0 1 6 0 2 4 1 1 1 2 0

1 *15 31 31 22 14 6 5 J

r

8 29 15 27 19 8 11 V

11

ζ

3

6 *7 3 0

Clusters not heard as intended. Figure 25. Yes Responses for EE5.

115

APPENDIX: TESTING

Recording Order RO 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

3net Ifid ztin tran ntog kran stin mlaij pran Iran

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

fnst 3lsrk slark blag bran klag Jmaet fkip glag flark

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

vkip fran ζρεϊΐ speil fpeil vzip dran zmaet vran mran

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

fmast θ znet ftin 3ρεϊ1 gran plar) sfid 3kip 3vil zvil

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

vnet Jlark dlaq zlark zkip Ιηεΐ V33t fkip 3ran Jpeil

51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

fsst zmaet ftin sran νρεΐΐ vtin snet 3tin tlir) skip

Figure 26.

61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

vmaet vlak φρ nran zran smaet

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle, "The Morphophonemics of English", MIT Res. Lab. of Elect. Prog. Rep., 58 (1960). Denes, P. B., Computer Processing of Acoustic and Linguistic Information in Automatic Speech Recognition, U S A F Technical Report AF61(514)-1176 (1963a). , "On the Statistics of Spoken English", JASA, 35.6 (1963b). de Saussure, Ferdinand, A Course in General Linguistics, Trans. Wade Baskin (New York, 1959). Fischer-Jergensen, Eli, "On the Definition of Phoneme Categories on a Distributional Basis", Acta Linguistica, 7 (1952). Greenberg, Joseph H., and James J. Jenkins, "Studies in the Psychological Correlates of the Sound System of American English", Word, 20.2 (1964). Halle, Morris, "Phonology in Generative Grammar", Word, 18.2 (1962). Harris, Katherine S., "Cues for Discrimination of American English Fricatives In Spoken Syllables", Language and Speech, 1.1 (1958). Harris, Zellig S., Structural Linguistics (Chicago, 1960). Heffner, R. M. S., General Phonetics (Madison, 1950). Hultzen, Lee S., "Voiceless Lenis Stops in Prevocalic Position", Word, 18.3 (1962). Hultzen, Lee S., Joseph H. D. Allen, Jr., and Murray S. Miron, Tables of Transitional Frequencies of English Phonemes (Urbana, 1964). Jones, Lawrence Gaylord, "English Consonantal Distribution", For Roman Jakobson (The Hague, 1956). Joos, Martin, Acoustic Phonetics, Sup. to Language, 24.2 (1948). Lisker, Leigh, "Minimal Cues for Separating /w, r, 1, y/ in Intervocalic Position", Word, 13.2 (1957). , "On Hultzen's 'Voiceless Lenis Stops in Prevocalic Position'", Word, 19.3 (1963). Malmberg, Bertil, Structural Linguistics and Human Communication (New York, 1963). Miller, George Α., Language and Communication (New York, 1951). Miller, George A. and P. E. Nicely, "An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions among some English Consonants", JASA, 27.2 (1955). Miller, George A. and Noam Chomsky, "Finitary Models of Language Users", Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Luce, Bush, and Galater eds. (New York, 1963). O'Connor, J. D., L. J. Gerstman, A. M. Liberman, P. C. DeLattre, and F. S. Cooper, "Acoustic Cues for the Perception of Initial /w, j, r, 1/ in English", Word, 13.1 (1957).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

117

O'Connor, J. D. and J. L. M. Trim, "Vowel, Consonant, and Syllable - a phonological definition", Word, 9.2 (1953) Peterson, Gordon and Frank Harary, "Foundations of Phonemic Theory", Proc. of the 12th Symposia in Applied Math. (Providence, 1961). Putnam, Hilary, "Some Issues in the Theory of Grammar", Proc. of the 12th Symposia in Applied Math. (Providence, 1961). Sapir, Edward, "Sound Patterns in Language", Language, 1.2 (1925). Saporta, Sol, "Frequency of Consonant Clusters", Language, 31.1-2 (1955). Saporta, Sol, and Heles Contreras, A Phonological Grammar of Spanish (Seattle, 1962). Sivertsen, Eva, "Segment Inventories for Speech Synthesis", Language and Speech, 4.1 (1961). Trnka, Bohumil, A Phonological Analysis of Present-Day Standard English (Prague, 1935). Truby, Η. M., "Acoustico-Cineradiographic Analysis Considerations", Acta Radiologica, Sup. 182 (1959). , "Pleniphonetic Transcription in Phonetic Analysis", Proc. of the Ninth intern. Congr. of Ling. (Cambridge, 1962) (The Hague, 1964), pp. 101-108. Van Riper, Charles, and John V. Irwin, Voice and Articulation (Englewood Cliffs, 1958). Vogt, Hans, "Phoneme Classes and Phoneme Classification", Word, 10.1 (1954). Whorf, Benjamin Lee, "Linguistics as an Exact Science", The Technology Review, XLIII.2 (1940). Reprinted in Four Articles on Metalinguistics (FSI, 1949). Yasui, Minoru, Consonant Patterning in English (Tokyo, 1963). Zabrocki, Ludwig, "Die Stimmhaftigkeit der Laute", Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 16.1-3 (1963).

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA Edited by C. H. van

Schooneveld

SERIES MINOR 1. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 17. 19. 20. 22. 23. 24.

Fundamentals of Language. 1956. Dglds. 6.— EMIL PETROVICI: Kann das Phonemsystem einer Sprache durch fremden Einfluss umgestaltet werden? Zum slavischen Einfluss auf das rumänische Lautsystem. 1957. 44 pp. Dglds. 4.— NOAM CHOMSKY: Syntactic Structures. Fifth printing. 1965. 118 pp. Dglds. 8.— N. VAN WIJK: Die baltischen und slavischen Akzent- und Intonationssysteme: Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der baltisch-slavischen Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse. 2nd ed. 1958. 160 pp. Dglds. 15.— ERNST PULGRAM: Introduction to the Spectrography of Speech. Second printing 1964. 174 pp., 31 figs., 2 tables. Dglds. 12.— AERT H . KUIPERS: Phoneme and Morpheme in Kabardian (Eastern Adyghe). 1960. 124 pp. Dglds. 16.— A. ROSETTI: Sur la theorie de la syllabe. Deuxieme edition, refondue et augmentee. 1963. 43 pp. Dglds. 7.50 URIEL and BEATRICE WEINREICH: Yiddish Language and Folklore: A Selective Bibliography for Research. 1959. 66 pp. Dglds. 6.— E. and κ. DELAVENAY: Bibliography of Mechanical Translation — Bibliographie de la traduction automatique. 1960. 69 pp. Dglds. 10.— CARL L. EBELING: Linguistic Units. Second printing. 1962. 143 pp. Dglds. 12.— SHELOMO MORAG: The Vocalization Systems of Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic: Their Phonetic and Phonemic Principles. 1962. 85 pp., 2 folding tables. Dglds. 15.— DWIGHT L. BOLINGER: Generality, Gradience, and the All-or-None. 1961. 46 pp. Dglds. 5.50 w. SIDNEY ALLEN : Sandhi. The Theoretical, Phonetic, and Historical Bases of Word-Junction in Sanskrit. 1962. 114 pp. Dglds. 16 — WALERIAN SWIECZKOWSKI : Word Order Patterning in Middle English: A quantitative study based on Piers Plowman and Middle English Sermons. 1962.114 pp. Dglds. 16.— FINNGEIR HIORTH: Zur formalen Charakterisierung des Satzes. 1962.152 pp. Dglds. 15.— Ε. F. HADEN, M. s. HAN, and Y. W. HAN: A Resonance Theory for Linguistics 1962. 51 pp. Dglds. 7.— SAMUEL R. LEVIN: Linguistic Structures in Poetry. Second printing. 1964. 64 pp. Dglds. 8.— ALPHONSE JUELLAND and JAMES MARCRIS: The English Verb System. 1962. 81 pp. Dglds. 8.—

ROMAN JAKOBSON

97 pp.

and

MORRIS HALLE:

25. IVAN FONÄGY: Die Metaphern in der Phonetik: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des wissenschaftlichen Denkens. 1963. 132 pp., 5 figs. Dglds. 14 — 26. Η. MOL: Fundamentals of Phonetics, I: The Organ of Hearing. 1963. 70 pp., 28 figs. Dglds. 9.— 27. LASZLO ANTAL: Questions of Meaning. 1963. 95 pp. Dglds. 10.— 29. PUNYA SLOKA RAY: Language Standardization: Studies in Prescriptive Linguistics. 1963. 159 pp. Dglds. 16.— 30. PAUL L. GARVIN: On Linguistic Method: Selected Papers. 1964. 158 pp. Dglds. 14.— 31. LASZLO ANTAL: Content, Meaning, and Understanding. 1964. 63 pp. Dglds. 8.— 32. GEORGES MOUNIN: La machine Ä traduire: Histoire des problemes linguistiques. 1964. 209 pp. Dglds. 22.— 33. ROBERT E. LONGACRE: Grammar Discovery Procedure: A Field Manual. 1964. 162 pp. Dglds. 9.— 34. WILLIAM s. COOPER: Set Theory and Syntactic Description. 1964. 52 pp. Dglds. 8.— 35. LUIS J. PRIETO: Principes de noologie: Fondements de la theorie fonctionnelle du signifie. Preface d'Andre Martinet. 1964. 130 pp., 36 figs. Dglds. 18.— 36. SEYMOUR CHATMAN: A Theory of Meter. 1965. 229 pp., many graphs, 2 plates. Dglds. 21.— 37. WAYNE TOSH: Syntactic Translation. 1965. 162 pp., 58 figs. Dglds. 21.— 38. NOAM CHOMSKY: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. 1964. 119 pp. Dglds. 10.— 39. D . CRYSTAL and R. QUIRK: Systems of Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features in English. 1964. 94 pp., 16 plates. Dglds. 12.— 40. FERENC PAPP: Mathematical Linguistics in the Soviet Union. 1966. 165 pp. Dglds. 22.— 42. MILKA ivic: Trends in Linguistics. Translated by Muriel Heppell. 1965. 260 pp. Dglds. 25.— 43. ISTVÄN FODOR: The Rate of Linguistic Change: Limits of the Application of Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. 1965.85 pp., some figs. Dglds. 12.— 44. THEODORE DRÄNGE: Type Crossings: Sentential Meaninglessness in the Border Area of Linguistics and Philosophy. 1966. 218 pp. Dglds. 21.—· 45. WARREN H . FAY: Temporal Sequence in the Perception of Speech. 1966. 70 pp., 7 figs. Dglds. 18.— 46. A. CAPELL: Studies in Socio-Linguistics. 1966. 167 pp., 12 folding tables. Dglds. 20.— 51. HOWARD R. POLLIO: The Structural Basis of Word Association Behavior. 1966. 95 pp., 13 figs., 9 tables. Dglds. 15.— 52. JEFFREY ELLIS: Towards a General Comparative Linguistics. 1966. 170 pp. Dglds. 20.— 54. RANDOLPH QUIRK and JAN SVARTVIK : Investigating Linguistic Acceptability. 1966. 118 pp., 14 figs., 4 tables. Dglds. 14.—