Papers in Laboratory Phonology: The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation

By J. Ohala. 1990

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Consonant cluster neutralisation and targeted constraints (2001, background): “Experimental work has shown that the perceptual cues provided by the release of a consonant are particularly important for signalling the existence and the features of that consonant (Ohala 1990, Kingston 1990, 1994).”
Syntagmatic distinctness in consonant deletion (2004, result): “…have better contextual cues in prevocalic than in postvocalic position and the perceptual advantage of CV transitions over VC ones is reflected in a number of experimental results (e.g. Fujimura et al. 1978, Ohala & Kawasaki 1985, Ohala 1990, 1992, Sussman et al. 1997, Krakow 1999, Warner 1999).”
The gradual path to cluster simplification* (2008, background): “In many languages, clusters assimilate by changing the ﬁrst consonant to match the second one, but not the other way around (Webb 1982, Ohala 1990, Mohanan 1993, Jun 1995, 2004, Steriade 2001): /panpa/ E [pampa], not *[panta].”
Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: a perceptual account (2001, result): “[Ohala 1990:266] The perceptually based asymmetries in place assimilation reported in this study would be consistent with Ohala's view, if the relative frequencies of sound changes that turns a's into b's matched the likelihood of a perceptual confusion between a and b.”
Production of coronal stops by simultaneous bilingual adults (2006, background): “Several researchers have previously suggested that perceptual distinctiveness and articulatory ease play a crucial role in modeling language change and in explaining language acquisition (Liljencrants and Lindblom, 1972; Ohala, 1978, 1990; Lindblom, 1983, 1990; Ohala and Ohala, 1993; Boersma, 1998”
Weighted Constraints in Generative Linguistics (2009, background): “Given such a phonetic basis for a typological asymmetry, some have argued that phonological theory should not attempt to account for that asymmetry in terms of a universal property of phonological representations (e.g., Ohala, 1990), or of constraint sets (e.g., Hale & Reiss, 2000).”
Analytic bias and phonological typology* (2008, background): “It may supply a universal set of representational units, or regularise phonetic variability, but does not otherwise favour one phonological pattern over another (Ohala 1990, 2005, Haspelmath 1999: 204–205, Hale & Reiss 2000, Hume & Johnson 2001a, Blevins 2004: 19–21, 41, 281–285).”
A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology (2006, background): “1 Some key references for these sound patters are: Maddieson (1984) for (1ii–iii); Yip (2002) for (1iv, xii); Steriade (1999), Blevins (2004a) for (1v, vi, xi); Hayes (1995) for (1vii, viii); Guion (1998) for (1ix); and Ohala (1990) for (1x).”