Imitation and the emergence of segments

Phonetica

Volumn 57, Issue 2-4, 2000, Pages 275-283

  Studdert Kennedy, Michael ^a  

^a HASKINS LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; IMITATION; INFANT; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; PHONETICS; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH;

HUMANS; IMITATIVE BEHAVIOR; INFANT; LANGUAGE; PHONETICS; SPEECH; VOCABULARY;

EID: 0034168551     PISSN: 00318388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000028480     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abler, W.L.: On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. J. soc. Biol. Struct. 12: 1-13 (1989).
2. Brothers, L.; Ring, B.; Kling, A.: Response of neurons in the macaque amygdala to complex social stimuli. Behav. Brain Res. 41: 199-213 (1990).
3. Browman, C.P.; Goldstein, L.: Articulatory phonology: an overview. Phonetica 49: 155-180 (1992).
4. Carré, R.; Chennoukh, S.: Vowel-consonant-vowel modeling by superposition of consonant closure on vowel-to-vowel gestures. J. Phonet. 23: 231-241 (1995).
5. Chadwick, J.: The decipherment of Linear B (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1958).
6. Chomsky, N.: Aspects of the theory of syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge 1965).
7. Coe, M.: Breaking the Maya code (Thames and Hudson, New York 1992).
8. Cole, R.A.; Rudnicky, A.I.; Zue, V.M.; Reddy, D.R.; Speech as patterns on paper; in Cole, Perception and production of fluent speech, pp. 3-50 (Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1980).
9. Cossu, G.; Urbinati, M.L.; Marshall, J.C.: Reading without speech and writing without arm movements. 5th Eur. Workshop on Cognitive Neuropsychol., Bressanone 1987.
10. Evans, E.F.: Representation of complex sounds at cochlear nerve and cochlear nucleus levels; in Carlson, Granström, The representation of speech in the peripheral auditory system, pp. 27-42 (Elsevier, Amsterdam 1982).
11. Faber, A.: Phonemic segmentation as epiphenomenon: evidence from the history of alphabetic writing; in Downing, Lima, Noonan, The linguistics of literacy, pp. 111-134 (J. Benjamins, Philadelphia 1992).
12. Fant, C.G.M.: Descriptive analysis of the acoustic aspects of speech. Logos 5: 3-17 (1962).
13. Ferguson, C.A.; Farwell, C.B.: Words and Sounds in early language acquisition. Language 15: 419-439 (1975).
14. Fowler, C.A.: An event approach to the study of speech perception from a direct-realist perspective. J. Phonet. 14: 3-28 (1986).
15. Fowler, C.A.; Smith, M.R.: Speech perception as 'vector analysis': an approach to the problems of invariance and segmentation; in Perkell, Klatt, Invariance and variability in speech processes, pp. 123-139 (Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1986).
16. Halle, M.: On the bases of phonology; In Fodor, Katz, The structure of language, pp. 324-333 (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs 1964).
17. Hauser, M.D.: The evolution of communication (MIT Press, Cambridge 1996).
18. Humboldt, W. von: Linguistic variability and intellectual development; translated by G.C. Buck and F.A. Raven (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia 1836/1972).
19. Johnson, K.: Speech perception without speaker normalization: an exemplar model; in Johnson, Mullenix, Talker variability in speech processing, pp. 145-165 (Academic Press, New York 1997).
20. Kluender, K.R.; Diehl, R.; Killeen, P.: Japanese quail can learn phonetic categories. Science 237: 1195-1197 (1987).
21. Kuhn, G.M.: On the front cavity resonance and its possible role in speech perception. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 58: 428-433 (1975).
22. Liberman, A.M.; Cooper, F.S.; Shankweiler, D.P.; Studdert-Kennedy, M.: Perception of the speech code. Psychol. Rev. 74: 431-461 (1967).
23. Liberman, A.M.; Mattingly, I.G.: The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21: 1-36 (1985).
24. Liljencrants, J.; Lindblom, B.: Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: the role of perceptual contrast. Language 48: 829-862 (1972).
25. Lindblom, B.: Phonetic universal in vowel systems; in Ohala, Jaeger, Experimental phonology, pp. 13-44 (Academic Press, New York 1986).
26. Lindblom, B.: Phonological units as adaptive emergents of lexical development; in Ferguson, Menn, Stoel-Gammon, Phonological development: models, research, implications, pp. 131-163 (York Press, Timonium 1992).
27. Lindblom, B.: Systemic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of sound structure; in Hurford, Studdert-Kennedy, Knight, Approaches to the evolution of language, pp. 242-264 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998).
28. Lindblom, B.; MacNeilage, P.I.; Studdert-Kennedy, M.: Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals; in Butterworth, Comrie, Dahl, Explanations for language universals, pp. 181-203 (Mouton, New York 1984).
29. Liu, S.A.: Landmark detection for distinctive feature-based recognition. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 100: 3417-3430 (1996).
30. MacNeilage, P.F.: Serial-ordering errors in speech and typing; in Fromkin, Phonetic linguistics, pp. 193-201 (Academic Press, New York 1985).
31. Mattingly, I.G.: The global character of phonetic gestures. J. Phonet. 18: 445-452 (1991).
32. Mayr, E.: The growth of biological thought (Belknap Press of Harward University, Cambridge 1982).
33. Meltzoff, A.N.; Moore, M.K.: Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. Early Dev. Parenting 6: 179-192 (1997).
34. Miller, G.A.; Nicely, P.E.: An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 27: 338-352 (1955).
35. Mowrey, R.A.; Mackay, I.R.A.: Phonological primitives: electromyographic speech error evidence. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 88: 1299-1312 (1990).
36. Remez, R.E.; Rubin, P.E.; Berns, S.M.; Pardo, J.S.; Lang, J.R.: On the perceptual organization of speech. Psychol. Rev. 101: 129-156 (1994).
37. Rizzolatti, G.; Arbib, M.A.: Language within our grasp. Trends Neurosci. 21: 188-194 (1998).
38. Rizzolatti, G.; Fadiga, L.; Gallese, V.; Fogassi, L.: Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Res. 3: 131-141 (1996).
39. Schroeder, M.R.; Atal, B.S.; Hall, J.L.: Objective measures of certain speech signal degradations based on masking properties of human auditory perception; in Lindblom, Öhman, Frontiers of speech communication research, pp. 217-229 (Academic Press, London 1979).
40. Stevens, K.N.: Evidence for the role of acoustic boundaries in the perception of speech sounds; in Fromkin, Phonetic linguistics, pp. 243-255 (Academic Press, New York 1985).
41. Studdert-Kennedy, M.: The phoneme as a perceptuomotor structure; in Allport, MacKay, Prinz, Scheerer, Language perception and production, pp. 67-84 (Academic Press, London 1987).
42. Studdert-Kennedy, M.: Language development from an evolutionary perspective; in Krasnegor, Rumbaugh, Schiefelbusch, Studdert-Kennedy, Biological and behavioral determinants of language development, pp. 5-28 (Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1991).
43. Studdert-Kennedy, M.: The particulate origins of language generativity: from syllable to gesture; in Hurford, Studdert-Kennedy, Knight, Approaches to the evolution of language, pp. 202-221 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1998).
44. Studdert-Kennedy, M.: Evolutionary implications of the particulate principle: imitation and the dissociation of phonetic form from semantic function; in Knight; Studdert-Kennedy, Hurford, The emergence of language: social function and the origins of linguistic form, pp. 161-176 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000).
45. Studdert-Kennedy, M.; Goodell, E.W.: Gestures, features and segments in early child speech; in deGelder, Morais, Speech and reading, pp. 65-88 (Erlbaum, Taylor & Francis, Hove 1995).
46. Traunmüller, H.J.: Conventional, biological and environmental factors in speech communication: a modulation theory. Phonetica 51: 170-183 (1994).
47. Vihman, M.M.: Ontogeny of phonetic gestures; in Mattingly, Studdert-Kennedy, Modularity and the motor theory of speech perception, pp. 9-84 (Erlbaum, Hillsdale 1991).
48. Vihman, M.M.: Phonological development (Blackwell, Oxford 1996).
49. Vihman, M.M.; DePaolis, R.A.: The role of mimesis in infant language development: evidence for phylogeny?; in Knight, Studdert-Kennedy, Hurford, The emergence of language: social function and the origins of linguistic form (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2000).