2 |
Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of non-native vowel contrasts
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
3 |
Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of non-native vowel contrasts
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
5 |
Computational simulation of CV combination preferences in babbling
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
7 |
Biomechanically Preferred Consonant-Vowel Combinations Fail to Appear in Adult Spoken Corpora
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
10 |
An Articulatory Phonology Account of Preferred Consonant-Vowel Combinations
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
11 |
Response to MacNeilage and Davis and to Oller
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
The article by MacNeilage and Davis in this issue, entitled “In Defense of the ‘Frames, then Content’ (FC) Perspective on Speech Acquisition: A Response to Two Critiques” appears to assume that the only alternative to segment-level control is oscillation specifically of the jaw; however, other articulators could be oscillated by infants as well. This allows the preferred CV combinations to emerge without positing a level of segmental control in babbling. Their response does not address our modeling work, which, rather similarly to Davis’s own modeling (Serkhane, Schwartz, Boë, Davis, & Matyear, 2007), shows little support for the Frame-then-Content (F/C) account. Our results show substantial support for the Articulatory Phonology (AP) one. A closer look at feeding in infants shows substantial control of the tongue and lips, casting further doubt on the foundation of the F/C account.
|
|
Keyword:
Article
|
|
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23825933 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3697154 https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.578547
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
13 |
VOT in the babbling of French- and English-learning infants
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|