BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:The Phonetics-Phonology Interface - D. R. Ladd (University of Edin
 burgh)\, Marilyn Vihman (University of York)
DTSTART:20100617T133000Z
DTEND:20100617T161000Z
UID:TALK25178@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Hae-Sung JEON
DESCRIPTION:We invite students and academic staff to a one-day seminar on 
 the Phonetics-Phonology Interface\, organised by the Phonology/Phonetics R
 esearch Cluster at the Department of Linguistics\, University of Cambridge
 . There will be talks by Prof. D. R. Ladd (University of Edinburgh) and Pr
 of. Marilyn Vihman (University of York) followed by discussion.\n\n*****\n
 \nPlease email Hae-Sung Jeon (hsj24@cam.ac.uk) by 11 June to register\, wi
 th your name\, position\, department\, and whether you would like to join 
 us for dinner in Sala Thong (6.20 pm\, 35 Newnham Road). Although there is
  no attendance fee for the seminar\, registration is required. \n\n*****\n
 Abstracts & reading suggestions\n\n*Segmental Analogies for Intonational G
 radience*\n\nD. R. Ladd\, University of Edinburgh\n\nIt has long been reco
 gnised that certain aspects of intonation involve "gradience" (e.g. increa
 sing pitch range for emphasis)\, but applying this notion in practice has 
 always been a source of disagreement. There are still many specific cases\
 , such as the difference between H(star) and L+H(star) in ToBI transcripti
 ons of English\, that are analysed by some descriptions as involving two c
 ategories and by others as involving a single category that is gradiently 
 variable.  Experimental phonetic evidence is usually compatible with eithe
 r interpretation: proponents of a categorical distinction can argue that a
 n apparent phonetic continuum simply reflects the overlapping phonetic rea
 lisation of phonologically distinct categories represented by the continuu
 m's extremes. I propose that we can investigate this question indirectly b
 ased on segmental analogues.\n\nAlthough most segmental distinctions are c
 ategorical and clearly distinct\, there are cases in which phonetic realis
 ations overlap and perceptual discrimination is difficult.  Examples in En
 glish include junctural distinctions (e.g. Norman Elson vs Norma Nelson) a
 nd morphologically distinct homophones (e.g. band vs banned). Intuitively\
 , the former involves two categories whose phonetic realisations overlap\,
  whereas the latter involves a single phonological form that may exhibit m
 eaningful gradient variation (e.g. of duration). If this intuitive distinc
 tion can be put on a firmer basis (e.g. if we could show that the statisti
 cal distribution of phonetic variability is different in the two types of 
 cases) we may be able to identify an empirical criterion for distinguishin
 g "gradience" from mere variability that could be applied to intonation as
  well.\n\nReading suggestions:\n\nBraun\, B. 2006.  Phonetics and phonolog
 y of thematic contrast in German. Language and Speech\, 49\, 451-93.\n\nHi
 rschberg\, J. & Ward\, G. 1992. The influence of pitch range\, duration\, 
 amplitude and spectral features on the interpretation of the rise-fall-ris
 e intonation contour in English. Journal of Phonetics\, 20\, 241-251.\n\nL
 add\, D. R. Intonational Phonology. 2008. 2nd edition. Cambridge Universit
 y Press. ( 4.2\, and 4.2.2 in particular)\n\n\n\n*The Role of Phonetics\, 
 Phonology and Memory in Early Word Production Templates*\n\nMarilyn Vihman
 \, University of York\n\nThe fact that children often form ‘whole-word
 ’ production patterns or representations early in their phonological dev
 elopment has long been noted (Menn\, 1971\, 1983\; Waterson\,1971\; Fergus
 on & Farwell\, 1975\; Macken\, 1979). Since the 70’s data have gradually
  accumulated to indicate that clear word templates characterize the develo
 pment of many\, if not all children\, with some typological differences by
  target language (Vihman & Croft\, 2007\; Vihman\, in press). In addition\
 , the few studies that draw on word forms produced after the single-word p
 eriod indicate that templates fade as the child’s vocabulary and consona
 nt inventory increase (Smith\, 1973\; Priestly\, 1977\; Macken\, 1979\; Ol
 iveira\, 2007\; Vihman & Vihman\, in press)\, and templates may be reused 
 at later lexical points as new challenges arise (Vihman\, 1978\, 1996\; Ll
 eó\, 1990\; Vihman & Vihman\, in press). The far more numerous studies of
  early template formation support these general conclusions as well (e.g.\
 , Vihman & Velleman\, 1989\, 2000\; Vihman\, 1993\; Vihman\, Velleman & Mc
 Cune\, 1994\; Jaeger\, 1997\; Savinainen-Makkonen\, 2007\; Keren-Portnoy e
 t al.\, 2008). \n\nThe focal questions for this talk relate to the origin 
 of phonological templates in development: Are they due to misperception or
  incomplete phonological representations? Articulatory difficulty (in prod
 uction per se or in planning)? Or should we invoke memory issues\, i.e\, o
 nline access? And how should we reconcile the evidence from production dat
 a with the findings of experimental studies that find ‘finely detailed r
 epresentations’ in children of various ages and stages of phonological d
 evelopment (from 7 to 24 months: see especially studies by Jusczyk\, Plunk
 ett\, Swingley\, Werker and their colleagues)? This talk will explore answ
 ers to these questions and will provide a preview of the findings of two e
 xperimental studies in progress\, designed to test the psychological signi
 ficance of templates for both perception and word-learning in two-year-old
 s.\n\nReading suggestions:\n\nVihman\, M. M. & Croft\, W. 2007. Phonologic
 al development: Toward a ‘radical’ templatic phonology. Linguistics\, 
 45\, 683-725.\n\nVihman\, M. M.\, DePaolis\, R. A.\, & Keren-Portnoy\, T. 
 2009. A Dynamic Systems approach to babbling and words. In E. L. Bavin (Ed
 .) The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language. pp. 163-182. Cambridge: Cambr
 idge University Press.\n
LOCATION:Wine Room\, King's College
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR