Some psychophysical evidence for natural phonological processes

Journal of Phonetics (1978) 6, 103-126

Some psychophysical evidence for natural phonological processes Nicholas J. Macari Department of Linguistics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, U.S.A . 78712 (Received 30 May 1977)

Abstract:

Stampe (1969, 1973) hypothesizes innate mental phonological processes which are selectively suppressed or limited by the child in the course of language acquisition. Stampe's evidence for the existence of the various processes he posits derives entirely from speech production. However, if the processes are truly mental as Stampe claims, one would expect them to be operative in speech perception as well. Starting from this observation, I first state predictions for a selection of posited "natural processes", and then test them against some of the extant data on speech perception. The result supports Stampe's hypothesis of centrality of processes.

Introduction In his doctoral dissertation David Stampe makes the claim that the "processes" which he hypothesizes are active in first language acquisition are in fact "central" mental operations rather than "peripheral" physical constraints (Stampe, 1973, p. 2f). His argument is, roughly, as follows : (1) The inborn capacity for speech is apparently the same for all people and seems to exhibit similar limitations, but the limitations are not absolute. In the course of acquisition children overcome them. (2) However, faced with sounds that they cannot articulate children employ substitutes. (3) The substitutes are consistent throughout the speech of an individual child, although different children may use different substitutes. (4) Such regularity might be supposed to be the direct result of physical constraints, except for the fact that it is not uncommon for a child to produce a sound correctly and yet later substitute for it. This is a fairly convincing argument, but notice that it is based solely on evidence from speech production (as are all of Stampe's conclusions). If, however, the processes are in truth mental operations as is claimed, one would anticipate that they would also be functional in perception. This observation is impetus for this paper. Since there is a fairly large body of literature on the perception of speech or speech like material, I decided to examine it to see whether or not predictions which could be deduced about it from the work of Stampe and others were in fact verified. To anticipate the result, I will at this point just comment that the evidence seems to favor Stampe's claim. The Literature on perception In searching for reports of experiments the data of which might be germane to the task at hand, I began with the bibliography of the most recent relevant article with which I am 0095-4470/78/0524- 0103 $02.00/0

© 1978 Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd.

104

N.J. Macari

familiar, Wang & Bilger, 1973. I mention this only because of the fact that, although in tracing through the works cited by Wang & Bilger and the references of those references I looked at a fair amount of material, I am sure there must be studies which I have overlooked, especially those having to do with languages other than English. The papers that I read divide roughly into three classes: those that are certainly useful/ those of no value, 2 and those that could possibly be useful, but in which it is not clear to me at this time what predictions of Natural Phonology to attempt to verify. 3 Before proceeding with particulars I think I should note a few general characteristics of these perceptual studies. The first is that except for the data they provide, they are not very linguistically interesting. The typical paradigm is to present a group of subjects with the stimuli of interest, record the error responses that arise under varying conditions of "noise", and then test the ability of sundry feature systems to "explain" the observed variation in error responses by analysis of variance or related techniques. What is distressing is that each experimenter invariably concludes that linguist's feature systems, as for instance that of The Sound Pattern of English, are inadequate. They never address the issue of whether "explaining" variance is an appropriate criterion for a feature system to satisfy. Because of restrictions of time I have confined my attention to consonant processes only. As a consequence, the perceptual studies I have dealt with comprise a subset of those listed in footnote one, viz. Miller & Nicely, 1955 ; Wickelgren, 1966 and Wang & Bilger, 1973. To recount each of these briefly, Miller & Nicely had five female subjects serving both as talkers and listeners, in rotation. One spoke the syllables, and the other four listened. The stimuli 4 were the 16 consonants //p, t, k, f, 8, s, s, b, d, g, v, 5, z, z, m, n;j, embedded in CV syllables with ;a; as the following vowel. There were three major conditions of signal degradation 5 in the experiment (varying signal to noise ratio, frequency band 1 They are Miller & Nicely (1955); Wickelgren (1965, 1966), and Wang & Bilger (1973). 2 Those in this category are unsatisfactory either because of insufficient data (not enough off diagonal entries in the conf. matrix), Gupta, Agrawal & Ahmed (1968); Ahmed & Agrawal (1968); Peters (1963); or because they use subjective judgments to generate the data, Singh & Woods (1970); Singh, Woods & Becker (1972) or because of simple irrelevance, Wilson (1963); Klatt (1968) ; Cole & Scott (1972); Tikofsky & Mcinish (1969) ; Mcinish & Tikofsky (1969) . 3Those I would place in this category are Singh & Black (1965) ; Grimm (1966) ; Graham & House (1970); Streeter & Landauer (1976) and Porter, Troendle & Berlin (1976). 4 The stimulus set and the response set are the same. 5 The following quotes from Lindsay & Norman (1972) are instructive: "Things do not always appear as they actually are. What we see or hear is not always what is. Often, the perceptual system makes errors: sometimes we see illusions, sometimes the perceptual system requires time to recover from prolonged stimulation, and sometimes it requires time to interpret the image presented to it. All of these phenomena are valuable to us because the mechanics of the system are frequently revealed primarily through its errors and distortions (emphasis added). When all works smoothly and properly, it is difficult to know where to begin the search . (p. 7) .. . The processes must be slowed up a bit so that the mechanisms involved become apparent (p. 8) .. . The point of an illusion is to design a n ambiguous set of sensory inputs in order to tease out some characteristics of the perceptual system through an analysis of the kinds of errors made (p. 14)." Their discussion centers primarily on the visual system but their comments are clearly applicable to the auditory system.

Natural phonological processes

105

limitation from above, frequency band limitation from below), and several subconditions under each of these. The Miller and Micely confusion matrices I, VII, and XVII are reproduced here as Appendix 1. 6 These are the "worst case" matrices of the three major conditions. In Appendix II are given, for each major condition, the matrices (au) where au is the sum 7 , over the subconditions within a major condition, of the corresponding c~i' where cL, is the entry in the ith row andjth column of the kth confusion matrix. The rows of a matrix indicate the stimuli and the columns the responses. The entry c~i is the frequency with which the phone labelling the jth column was given as a response to the phone labelling the ith row. An entry in the last row of each of these matrices indicates the total number of times that the phone heading its column was given as a response, and the entries in the rightmost column indicate the corresponding figure for the stimulus phones. The Wang & Bilger study was both a repetition and an extension of the Miller & Nicely one. Instead of using as stimuli a single subset of English phonemes, they used three (one being the same as Miller & Nicely's), and instead of a single vowel jaj in CV syllables, they used jaj, jij, and fuf in both CV and VC syllables. Their two additional consonant sets were:

(a)

//p, b, c,j, I, r, f, s, v, z, m, n, h, hw,

(b) //p, b, g,

I],

m, n, f,

w, yjj;

e, s, s, v, o, z, z, c,jjj.

The data tables are given in Appendix III. Wang & Bilger had four major experimental conditions which they labelled CV"l, VC-1, CV-2, and VC-2. CV-1 and VC-1 use the Miller and Nicely consonant set, CV-2 consonant set (a) above and VC-2 consonant set (b). Tables II through V of Appendix III are respectively the data for CY-1, VC-1, CV-2, and VC-2 summed over the variables of vowel environment and signal to noise ratios. Tables VI through IX are respectively the sums over vowel environment and signal level. (That is, in addition to varying vowel environment they varied signal to noise ratio for a fixed signal intensity and also varied signal level for a fixed signal to noise ratio.) They utilized six male and ten female subjects of college age. The Wickelgren study was not a perceptual study per se, but an exploration of short term memory (STM). Wickelgren ran his experiment twice, once with the Miller and Nicely consonant set and once with the set of consonants that occur syllable initially in English. Jn each the procedure was essentially the same. Subjects were aurally presented a list of CV stimuli (the vowel was fa/) which they were to write down. As soon as the stimulus presentations ended they were to cover what they had written and attempt to

6

1 have included the Appendices since they contain a good deal of useful information not found in the original sources. For example, Miller & Nicely do not provide the matrices in Appendix II and neither they nor Wang & Bilger provide the row sum and column sum information given here. Moreover, the reader may wish to verify the results I present in Tables II, III, and IV below. Finally, they may be useful in another fashion as I indicate my conclusions. 7 If one looks at Miller & Nicely's Tables I-VI, e.g. one sees that as the signal to noise ratio improves the off diagonal entries go quickly to zero. The difference between Tables I and II is dramatic. As a consequence most of the error response information is contained in Table I. However I included Appendix II because those tables are more directly comparable to Wang & Bilger's who also summed over conditions.

106

N.J. Macari

recall the list. The data Wickelgren analyzed were the intrusion errors that occurred in the recall task, but only with respect to the stimulus items which were perceived correctly. The differences between the two procedures were, first, list length-seven versus nine items, and, two, an attempt in the second to control the influence of the so-called von Restorff effect. 8 His subjects were M.I.T. undergraduate psychology students. The stimuli were spoken by a male who was native to Connecticut. I have included Wickelgren's data in Appendix IV. With respect to the question of interest here, each of these studies (as opposed to, e.g. Singh, Woods & Becker 1972) has the desirable characteristic that subjects were not asked to make overt subjective judgments of "same" or "different", but only to answer, in effect, the question : "What is it?''. Hopefully, then, no "higher" cognitive processes are influencing the data but only "automatic" perceptual ones. On the other hand, they all do suffer the shortcoming of not contrasting simultaneously the entire inventory of English consonant phonemes, which clearly could have an effect. The processes As noted previously, I have confined my attention to consonant processes. As a further delimitation, I have tested predictions for just those processes which I could infer that Stampe considered to be context free. I believe this is reasonable since one could not expect appropriate environments for context sensitive processes to be in general satisfied by CV and VC stimuli. In contrast, the context free type should by definition be applicable regardless of the nature of the stimuli (subject of course to the condition that they be identifiable as language or language like). Also I have included a few processes from other sources (Ohala 1974, Lovins 1974). These are listed in Table I together with their source and location within the source. The third column of the table indicates the predictions that the associated processes make for the perceptual studies. In this third column the notation xjy > yjx mean that the number of times that xis given as a response toy as a stimulus exceeds the number of times that y is given as a response to x as a stimulus. Actually a further qualification is necessary. In general 9 the number of presentations of x as stimulus andy as stimulus though quite similar, will not be identical. As a consequence, it is not meaningful to contrast absolute response frequencies directly. Rather, for each cell defined by a row and a column the entry should be normalized by the row sum(= the number presentations of the stimulus labelling that row) and the predictions tested against these relative frequencies. A process prefixed by an asterisk in Table I is not given directly by Stampe, Ohala or Lovins, but I believe it can be inferred from what is said at the location cited, in combination with the usual phonemicization of English. So for example Stampe (op. cit., 1973, p. 67) cites the case of Joan Velten having [bud] for spoon and comments " ... voiced stops derived from nasals .... " This constitutes direct evidence for process number nine of Table I. But in addition I believe his statement (quoted) allows the inference of numbers 10 and 11-assuming that the substituted stop would be homorganic to the nasal. 8

The Yon Restorff effect refers to the fact that in the serial learning of lists, items at the ends of the lists are learned more quickly than those in the middle, presumably because those at the ends are more readily remembered just by being at the end. If the middle item of a list is distinguished along an independent dimension-e.g. if the list is a list of words, coloring the middle item red and the rest black-then the error rate for it in recall of the list diminishes. 9 Trials are sometimes lost for a variety of reasons.

107

Natural phonological processes Table I Some processes and their predictions

Process 1 [I] 2 [y] 3 [z] 4*[s] 5 [I]

Location

[y] [z] -+ [z] ->- [s] ->- [d] 6 [I] ->- [n] 7 [I] -+ [r] 8 [1)] -+ [n] 9 [n] -+ [d] ->->-

10*[m]

->-

[b]

11 *[I)]

->-

[g]

12 [r] -+ 13 [I] -+ 14 [j] - >15*lcl ->16*[f] -+ 17*[v] - >18*[s] -+ 19*[z] ->20 ->21 *lcl _,.

[z]

m

22 [k]

->-

[z] [d]

[tl [p] [b] [t] [d] [z] [s] [t]

23*[g] ->- [d] 24 [w] -+ [b] 25 [I] ->- [w] 26 [9] ->- [f] 27*[b] ->- [p] 28*[d] -+ [t] 29*[g] -+ [k] 30*[z] -+ [s] 31*[z] __,. [s] 32*[5] -->- [9] 33*[v] -+ [f] 34 *[z] -+ [n] 35*[v] -+ [m] 36*[s] ->- [n] 37*[f] - >- [m]

Stampe 1973, pp. 11, 14 Stampe 1973, p. 12 Stampe 1973, p. 12 Stampe 1973, p. 12 Stampe 1973, p. 14 Stampe 1973, p. 14 Stampe 1973, p. 14 Stampe 1973, p. 32 Stampe 1973, p. 67 Stampe 1973, p. 67 Stampe 1973 , p. 67 Stampe 1973, p. 67 Stampe 1973, p. 67 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1869, pp. 445, 447 Stampe 1969, p. 446 Stampe 1969, p. 452 Stampe 1969, p. 452 Ohala 1974, p. 267 Stampe 1973, p. 1 Stampe 1973, p. 1 Stampe 1973 , p. 1 Stampe 1973, p. 1 Stampe 1973, p. 1 Stampe 1973, p. 1 Stampe 1973, p. 1 Stampe 1969, p. 451 Stampe 1969, p. 451 Stampe 1969, p. 451 Stampe 1969, p. 451

Prediction y/1 zjy

z/z

s/s d/1 n/1 r/1 n/1)

> > > > > > > > >

1/y y jz

z/z

s/s 1/d 1/n 1/r IJ /n

d/n njd b/m > m/b g/1) > 1)/g z/r > r/z z/1 > 1/z d/J > J/d

t/c p/f b/v t/s d/z

z/J

>eft

> f/p > vjb

> s/t > z/d >

s/c

>

t/k

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

d/g bfw

w/1 f/9 p/b t/d

k/g sjz

sfz 9/5

f/v z/n v/m

J/z

c/s k/t gfd

w/b 1/w 9/f b/p d/t

g/k z/s

zfs 5/9

v/f n/z m/v

sj n > njs f/m > m/f

Finally, I have included at the bottom of Table I a number of inferred non-processesnumbers 34- 37. The inference here is based on Stampe (1968, p. 451 fn. 5), where he states " ... there is no general process changing (non-nasal) spirants to nasals ." Again , I have assumed that the indicated spirants would have to be homorganic to the nasal. For these cases the indicated predictions are false ones; they could just as well have been the exact reverse (n/z > z/ n in 34). Making one set of predictions or the other is necessary to test what should be the appropriate hypothesis, namely that whichever set is chosen (the ones given or their reverses) they will be correct with no better than chance frequency.

Testing the Processes against the Data Tables II, III, and IV below list the processes by the corresponding number of Table I,

N.J. Macari

108

Process Prediction 1

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

y/1 > 1/y zfy >yfz z/'i. > 'i./z s/s > s/s d/1 >1 /d n/1 > 1/n r/1 >1/r n/IJ > IJ /n d/n > n/d b/m > m/b g/1) >1) /g z/r > r/z z/1 >1/z d/j > J/d t fc > eft p/f > f/p b/v > v/b tfs > sft d/z > z/d 'i.fj >J/'i.

Table II

Comparison with Miller-Nicely data

Tl

L:TI-TVI

TVII

L:TVIITXII

TXVII

L:TXIIITXVII

0·068 > 0·041 0·081 > 0·076 0·261 > 0·088 0·213 > 0·092 0·056 > 0·044 0·023::!-0·024 0·138 > 0·067 0·061::!-0·085 0·287 > 0·135 0·240 > 0·090 0·044 > 0·025 0·015 > 0·011

0·059::!-0·084 0·014 ::!- 0·025 0·011 > 0·0 0·004 > 0·001 0·086 > 0·057 0·081>0·057 0·022 ::!- 0·026 0·004 ::!- 0·032 0·009 > 0·007 0·085 > 0·068 0·067::!-0·091

0 · 058 ~ 0 · 067

0·101 > 0·087 0·112 > 0·090 0·067::!-0·082 0·057::!- 0·061

0·053 > 0.048 0·103::!- 0·126 0·028 = 0·028 0·059 > 0·050

0·092> 0·061 0·164 > 0·15 1 0·099 > 0·052 0·064 ::!- 0·086

0·041 > 0·035 0·105 > 0·067 0·025 > 0·015 0·062>0·029

0·041 ::!-0·063 0·073 ::!- 0·089 0·018 > 0·017 0·040 > 0·025

0·089 > 0·063 0·136 ::!- 0·150 0·019 > 0·009 0·072 > 0·023

s/c >c/s t/k d/g b/w w/1 f/9 p/b t/d k fg sfz sf'i. 9/o f/v z/n v/m s/n f/m

> k/t >g/d >w/b >1 /w > 9/f >b/p > d/t > g/k >z/s

0·092::!- 0·095 0·130 > 0·124 0·240 > 0·239 0·168 ::!- 0·229 0·129 > 0·051 0·107 > 0·035 0·099 > 0·071 0·191 > 0·126 0·272> 0·118 0·337>0·116 0·071 ::!- 0·078 0·154 > 0·091

0·054 > 0·049 0·045 ::!- 0·057 0·081>0·045 0·095 > 0·038 0·078 > 0·044 >z/s 0·032 > 0·030 >o/9 0·028 > 0·025 >v/f 0·049 ::!- 0·060 >n /z 0·042::!-0·049 > m/v 0·054=0·054 > n/s 0·076 > 0·020 >m /f 0·058 > 0·048

0·265 > 0·138 0·01 a 0·012 0·016 > 0·008 0·019 > 0·007 0·024 > 0·014 0·010 > 0·007 0·011::!-0·014 0·020 > 0·018 0·008::!- 0·013 0·018 ::!- 0·022 0·013 > 0·005 0·010 ::!- 0·011

0·097 ::!- 0·162 0·0 ::!- 0·012 0·0 ::!- 0·014 0·007> 0·005 0·01 3> 0·004 0·004=0·004 0·013 ::!- 0·021 0·004 > 0·0 0·007> 0·0 0·016 > 0·007 0·004 ::!- 0·008 0·004 ::!- 0·013

0·335 > 0·226 0·0 ::!- 0·003 0·001::!-0·005 0·003 > 0·001 0·008 > 0·003 0·007> 0·001 0·013::!-0·017 0·008 > 0·003 0·001=0·001 0·003::!-0·005 0·001=0·001 0·001::!-0·003

0·018::!-0·082 0·051 ::!- 0·060 0·107 > 0·047 0·071 > 0·030 0·258 > 0·120 0·213> 0·096 0·077::!-0·103 0·058::!-0·077 0·052 > 0·032 0·076 ::!- 0·089 0·030 > 0·025 0·061::!-0·123

0·077::!-0·099 0·053=0·053 0·051 > 0·025 0·044::!-0·059 0·203>0·110 0·173 > 0·100 0·080 ::!- 0·087 0·07890·085 0·025::!-0.028 0·054 ::!- 0·092 0·015::!-0·025 0·040::!-0·060

th.e prediction each makes, and the relevant numerical values 10 from the Miller & Nicely, Wang & Bilger and the Wickelgren studies respectively . In treating the data I have just arbitrarily chosen to record three decimal places in as much as I am uncertain of how many decimal places could be taken as significant and three seems intuitively reasonable. In consequence of this decision some relative frequencies are recorded as equal though they differ in the fourth or fifth decimal places. It will be noted that some of the entries in the aforementioned tables are blank. That is so because the indicated process is not testable in the data of the experiment which labels the column. 10 The numbers in Tables II and III are recoverable from the Tables of Appendices I, II and III by locating the response (column) of interest, finding the row of the appropriate row (stimulus) and dividing the entry in the cell defined by their intersection by the row sum. Wickelgren gave both absolute and relative frequencies of intrusions in his article, so one only has to scan down the columns of his Tables VI and VII (reproduced as Appendix IV) to obtain the number in Table IV.

Comparison with Wang & Bilger data

Table 111

Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Til

Prediction y/1 z/y z/z s/s d/1 n/1 r/1 n/TJ d/n b/m g/f] z/r z/1 d/J t/c p/f b/v t js

d/z z/J s/c t jk djg

b/w w/1 f/0 p/ b tjd

k/g s/z s/z

O/o f/v z/n v/m sjn

f/m

> 1/y > y fz > z/z > s/s > 1/d > 1/n > 1/r > TJ /n > n /d > m/b > TJ /g > r/z > 1/z > J/d >ef t

> f/ p > v/ b > sj t > zj d > J/z > c/s > k/ t > gf d > wfb > 1/w > 0/f > b/p > djt > gjk > z/s > z/s > o;o > vjf > njz > m/v > n /s > m/f

-

-

0·081 > 0·040 0·049 > 0 ·033 -

-

0·043 > 0·025 0·087>0·017 0·117 > 0·058 0·120::1-0·186 0·022::1-0·027 0·034::1- 0·036 0·087::1- 0·295 0·129::!-0·169 0·145 > 0·124 0·086 > 0·078 -

-

0·390 > 0·099 0·080 > 0·009 0·033:} 0·039 0·0 12::1- 0·031 0·024::1- 0·092 0·009:} 0 ·021 0·039 > 0·019 0·049 > 0·028 -

TIV

TIII

-

-

-

0·108>0·064 0·066 > 0·028 -

-

0·180 > 0·048 0·166>0·038 0·234 > 0·035 0·106 > 0·054 0·106 > 0·041 0·048 > 0·045 0·017::1-0·085 0·060:} 0·069 0·116 > 0·098 0·061 ::1-0·070 -

-

0·100 > 0·048 0·041 > 0·022 0·020::!-0 ·023 0·074 > 0·030 0·030 > 0·012 0·017::1- 0·020 0·034::!-0·060 0·025:} 0·026 -

-

-

-

0·018 ::1-0·085 0·016::!-0 ·038 -

-

0·020::!-0 ·023 0·031::!-0 ·148 -

-

-

0·087 > 0·044 0·074::1-0·128 -

-

0·008::1-0 ·016 0·033 > 0 ·024 -

-

0·081 >0·006 -

-

0·040::1-0·060 -

TVI -

0·130 > 0·083 0·113 > 0·042 -

-

0 ·165 > 0·141

0·025:} 0·043 0·020::!-0·034 -

-

-

0·040::!-0 ·069 -

TV

-

0·077 > 0·030 0·016::1-0·018 0·037::1-0·104 0·016>0·008 0·026:} 0·028

-

0·014 ::!- 0·076 0·026 > 0 ·020 -

-

0·210 > 0·063 0·088 > 0·040 -

-

0·035::!-0·085 0·044::!-0 ·118 -

-

0·113=0·113 0·053 > 0·038 -

-

0·050>0·015 0 ·019::!-0·022 0·042>0·039 0·023 > 0·022 0·038::!-0·081 0·032 > 0·024 0·010::!-0·011 0·017 =0·017

-

TV II -

0·022 > 0·015 0·008=0·008 -

-

0·009 ::!- 0 ·010 0·018>0 ·006 0·053 > 0 ·017 0·142 ::!- 0·143 0 ·004:} 0 ·009 0·009 ::!- 0·013 0·081::!-0 ·156 0·040::!-0 ·100 0·09 5 > 0·029 0·044 > 0·025 -

-

0·349 > 0 ·068 0·023 > 0·010 0 ·011::!-0 ·020 0·009 ::!- 0 ·019 0·021 ::1-0·065 0·022 > 0·010 0·061 > 0·041 0·026 > 0 ·021 -

-

-

-

0·024 > 0·018 0·019 > 0·015 -

-

0·027 > 0·010 0·018 :} 0·024 0·060 > 0·015 0·041 ::1-0·046 0·016 > 0 ·013 0·013::1-0·015 0·008 :} 0 ·021 0·015::!-0 ·020 0·039 > 0·033 0 ·008::1-0·014 -

-

0·078 > 0·065 0·059 > 0·010 0·017 > 0·010 0·047 > 0 ·019 0·045 > 0·012 0·032 > 0·019 0·039 > 0 ·038 0·051 > 0 ·023 -

-

TV III 0·003::!-0·018 0·017 > 0·014 -

-

1IX

0·028>0·015 0·035 > 0·005

0·004:} 0·008 0·0 11 :} 0·029 -

-

0·054 > 0·031 -

-

0·010=0·010 0·016 > 0·005 -

-

0·030 > 0 ·023 0·140::1-0·155 -

-

0·044 > 0·020 0·013::1-0·029 0·011 >0·005 -

-

-

0·067 > 0·025 0·047::1-0·048 -

-

0·006::!-0·023 0·016::!-0·029

~ E'

"";:::,

'1:::1 ;::,.. <:) ;::s <:)

~

i)Q

;:::;· ;:::,

'1:::1

""

<:)

(')

~ ~

0·017 > 0·004 0·018 > 0·010 -

-

0·018 > 0 ·008

0·046::!-0·053 -

-

0·025 > 0·023 0·013 > 0·005 0·028=0·028 0·025 > 0·002 0·015 > 0·010

0·080 > 0·069 0·081 > 0·012 0·073 > 0·015 0·025 > 0·024 0·029:} 0·068 0·041>0·022 0·017 > 0 ·011 0·017>0·005 0·005 > 0 ·002 0·013>0·004

...... 0

\0

110

N.J. Macari Table IV Comparison with Wickelgren consonant data Process

Prediction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

y/1 > 1/y > yjz z/z > z/z s/s > s/s d/1 > 1/d n/1 > 1/n r/1 > 1/r n/Q > Q/n d/n > n/d b/m > m/b g/Q > Q/g z/r > r/z z/1 > 1/z d/J > J/d t/c >eft p/f > f/p b/v > vj b t js > sjt d jz > z/d z/J > J/z s/c > cfs t/k > k/t dfg > g/d bfw > w j b w/1 > 1/w f/6 > 6/f p/b > b/p t/d > d/t k/g > g/k sjz > z/s s/z > z/s 6/o > o/6 f/v > v/f z/n > n/z v/m > m/v s/n > njs f/m > m/f

Wickelgren VI

zjy

0·319 > 0·166 0·160 > 0·1 41

0·051;} 0·139 0·057 ;} 0·090

0·099 > 0·039 0·082;} 0·133 0·084 > 0·073 0·047;} 0·062 0·085 > 0·077 0·106 ;} 0·108 0·082 = 0·082 0·155 > 0·112 0·065 > 0·032 0·089 > 0·047 0·133 > 0·088 0·094 > 0·065 0·382 > 0·137 0·092 > 0·069 0·071 > 0·025 0·083 > 0·082 0·066 > 0·052 0·057 ;} 0·1 07

Wickelgren VII 0·056 ;} 0·122 0·021 ;} 0·042 0·112 > 0·086 0·093 > 0·075 0·048 ;} 0·062 0·080 ;} 0·110 0·1 02 > 0·082 0·057 ;} 0·098 0·019;} 0 ·073 0·024;} 0·047 0·041 ;} 0·059 0·048 > 0·043 0·055 > 0·029 0·068 > 0·063 0·045 > 0·043 0·058 > 0·020 0·044 > 0·043 0·041 > 0·033 0·032 ;} 0·069 0·051 ;} 0·056 0·073 > 0·058 0·046 > 0·037 0·052 ;} 0·092 0·081 > 0·026 0·091 > 0·052 0·060 > 0·049 0·089 = 0·089 0·088 > 0·077 0·066 > 0·057 0·045 ;} 0·116 0·099 > 0·042 0·025 ;} 0·047 0·044 ;} 0·070 0·015 ;} 0 ·063 0·078 > 0·070

There are two statistical questions that can now be asked. The first is: "If one of the relative frequencies relevant to some process is larger than the other, is it larger by an amount that is statistically significant?" Clearly a pair of these numbers that are equal to the third decimal place are unlikely to be significantly different (the fact of the matter, of course, depends on how small the sample variance is). This problem I have largely ignored and made the (perhaps in some instances) ficticious assumption that if a difference was apparently there, then it was really there. The second question is the one of central concern here. It is inev itable, even under the most optimum of the experimental conditions of the studies discussed above that perceptual (or memory) errors should occur, if for no other reason than su bject Inattention at the instant of stimulus presentation or the inherent noise of the nervous system. O n the other hand even in the worst condition the su bject

Natural phonological processes

Ill

still receives some (but uncertain) information. Presumably the resultant response affords some insight into the makeup of the processing system (cf. footnote 5). Just because of such random effects it could not in general be expected that xjy would equal yjx. So the second question to be asked is whether the inequalities shown in Tables II, III, and IV "track" the predictions given with significantly greater than chance frequency for the processes and with only chance frequency for the "non-processes." Getting a positive answer to this question would I think constitute strong support for Stampe's claim of "centrality," 11 and in fact that is just the result I have obtained. If we let X be a binomial random variable that maps from the inequalities of Tables II, III and IV into {0, J} with its value being 1 when a prediction is sustained 12 by an inequality and 0 otherwise, we can test the null hypothesis in several ways. One way would be to consider the predictions with respect to the data of each of three psychophysical studies individually. 13 Another would be to group the three studies together and compute a single test statistic. Or a final and I think the most interesting, approach would be to test across all three studies the success of the predictions for individual processes (as e.g. [8] --+ [f]) or for natural groups of processes (as e.g. obstruents become stops-items 14-19 1\ general devoicing-items 27-33, depalatalization-items 3- 4, linguals become+ coronal-items 22-23 , non-processes). Testing in each of these ways, the statistic is significant (except for non-processes) for rejecting the null hypothesis. The z-values for processes are 3·27 for Miller & Nicely, 2·39 for Wang & Bliger, 2·14 for Wickelgren, 4·47 overall; 2·14 across studies for [8] --+ [f], 2·71 for obstruents become stops, 3·60 for general devoicing, 4·53 for depalatalization, 2·04 for linguals become+ coronal; and 0·289 for non-processes. In light of this evidence I think one is rather strongly pushed toward accepting Stampe's claim and rejecting Ohala's criticisms (cf. fn. 11). Answering some objections

In discussing the topic of this paper with others two objections to its validity were raised but I think both are answerable by reference to additional facts , or to constructs that are consistent with views that are fairly widespread in psychology. The first objection came up in connection with the process [s] --+ [s]. It was pointed out that in CV syllables, if the following vowel is jij it could "pull" [s] toward [s] phonetically and there would be no need to invoke any hypothetical "mental" process. I believe that this objection is severely weakened for several reasons. One is simply the good overall agreement between predicted results and observed facts that was found above. Another is that the vowel Jij was used only in the Wang & Bilger study. Miller & Nicely and Wickelgren used /a/. Finally, Singh & Black (Singh & Black 1965), in their work used jif, jaj and juf. In analyzing their data they tested for any significant effect of vowel environment and found none (op. cit., p. 373). ''In the light of this result, it seems that phonetic facts alone are insufficient to account for change (c/Ohala, 1974). In tabulating zeroes and ones I counted the cases of equality as sustaining (not refuting) the predictions. Of twelve such occurrences, 9 sustain the prediction in the fourth or fifth decimal place. I recognize, though, that this decision is rather arbitrary. 13 Although the columns 2, 4 and 6 are not really independent of 1, 3, 5 respectively in Table 2 (cffn. 7) I treated them as if they were in computing statistics. 14 I did not examine numbers 1, 2, 5, 6, 24, 25 across the three studies since there is so little data. However I did include them in the overall comparisons. 12

112

N.J. Macari

The second objection was that an analysis which compares predictions based on processes posited from the evidence of the productions of children learning language with data consisting of the perceptual errors of adults may be an analysis of non-commensurable objects. One sure way to refute this objection would be an analysis of "slip of the tongue" phenomena (from adults of course) that show intrusion errors with the same asymmetries as the perceptual or short term memory 15 errors. Tripartite agreement among child speech errors, adult speech errors and adult perceptual errors could scarcely be due to pure chance. I have not, however, investigated this possibility and am not certain whether there is sufficient data extant with which to do so. Lacking such a direct-confirmation, it is nevertheless possible to envision a model for the use of language which legitimizes the comparison of adult perceptual errors with children's productive errors. Reitman (1965 p. 249) describes an experiment in which: ... male subjects were shown two copies of a photograph of a girl's face . The copies were identical in all respects but one. The pupils of the girl's eyes had been retouched, making them larger in one copy than in the other. The subjects mentally preferred the girl with the larger pupils, but they were unable to locate any specific differences between the two pictures to account for the preference. He continues: The experiment is most important in its implications fo r our theory of the bases of human intelligence . . .. If we like we may regard (the) experiment as an operational demonstration of intuition, the ability to respond to features even though we are not immediately able to isolate them, point at them, or verbali ze them .. . Think of the problem of intelligence from a developmental viewpoint. Language is a recent acquisition . Physiologically, the localized speech center is uniquely human . Biological evidence suggests that when new organs arise, they operate through previously extant-ones, modulating and moderating them (emphasis added) rather than abolishing them . (There is) evidence suggesting that the rule is true of speech as well. Human information processing in this view may be taken as basically perceptual, with words and language operating on the basic perceptual system ... . The acquisition of language, in other words, ought not be thought of as abolishing the underlying perceptual system which, as in the (above) experiment, evidently continues to guide judgments, decisions, and behavior and otherwise to serve as an operating substrate for thought. Adopting a somewhat modified version of this position we could then regard natural phonological processes as stages in an information processing model of cognition. In the course of acquisition these stages would not be lost, but selectively shunted or by-passed. So, for example, Joan Velten's treatment of [I] as [z] (lamb -+ [zab]) (Stampe, 1973, p . llf) could be depicted as in Fig. 11 6 • [zab] for lamb corresponds to (a) of the figure ; (b), (c) and (d) indicate the successive shunting of stages as acquisition progresses. But we could hypothesize (cf fn. 5) that stressing the system causes the dormant stages to be reactivated. There would thus be no essential difference between the child' s production data on the basis of which the processes were posited and the adult perception data against which they were tested.

15 1 think the fact of the similarity between perceptual errors and intrusion errors in short term memory already weakens the objection somewhat. 16 1 am ignoring the problem of how it is that this sequence of stages links with other stages to form a common pathway for production and perception.

Natural phonological processes

(a)

113

)l)io

(A)

(b)

(c)

(d)

H m ~ ~ m H ~ 1 ~~ H ~ ~

(A)

(B)

(C)

(A)

(B)

(C)

(A)

(B)

(C)

Figure I

Conclusion To carry the discussion a bit further, the model proposed in the previous section has the potential, I think, with refinement, for accounting for two other apparently disparate facts. The first is Zipf's discovery that voiceless (fortis) sounds generally have higher cross language frequencies of occurrence than the voiced (Ienis) ones. If the human information processing system has an innate stage causing general devoicing and only a more limited context sensitive voicing stage then there is a clear asymmetry favoring voiceless sounds which could give rise to the frequency differences noted by Zipf. The second fact is the existence of the so-called "response bias." Psychologists have known for some time (cfLuce, 1959, p. 30) that in an experimental situation with a fixed set of responses available to a stimulus set, some of the responses are inherently favored over others. The said bias can be seen in the tables of the Appendices where the column (response) totals exhibit a considerably greater range than the row (stimulus) totals. Luce (op . cit., p. 30) allows a place for the response bias in his model, but I do not think its existence follows from any prior assumption. It is just there. It seems, though, that the stage model above can make inroads into explaining (at least with respect to the data of concern here) the presence of the response bias. I have one additional remark in conclusion. I believe it would be of some interest to try to generate predictions about processes from Tables II, III and IV and then seek verification in acquisition. Positive results here would constitute further confirmation of the accuracy of Stampe's claim. References Ahmed, R. & Agrawal, S. S. (1969). Significant features in the perception of (Hindi) consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 45, 758-63. Cole, R. A. & Scott, B. (1972). Distinctive feature control of decision-time: same-different judgments of simultaneously heard phonemes. Perception and Psychophysics 12, 91-94. Graham, L. W. & House, A. S. (1971), Phonological oppositions in children: A perceptual study. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49, 559- 66. Grimm, W. A. (1966). Perception of segments of English-spoken consonant-vowel syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 40, 1454-61. Gupta, J.P. , Agrawal, S. S. & Ahmed, R. (1969). Perception of (Hindi) consonants in clipped speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 45, 770-73.

114

N.J. Macari

Klatt, D . (1968). Structure of confusions in short term memory between English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 44, 401-7. Lindsay, P. H. & Norman, D. A. (1972). Human Information Processing. New York: Academic Press. Lovins, J. (1974). Why loan phonology is natural phonology. In Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, A. Bruck, R. A. Fox, M. W. LaGaly, (eds) pp. 240-50. Chicago, Illinois. Luce, R . D . (1959). Individual Choice Behavior, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Mclnish, J. R. & Tikofsky, R. S. (1969). Distinctive features and response latency: A pilot study, Perception and P:.ychophysics, 6, 267-8. Miller, G. A . & Nicely, P. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some english consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338- 52. Ohala, J. (1974). Phonetic explanation in phonology, in Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, A. Bruck, R. A. Fox, M . W. LaGaly, (eds) pp. 251-74. Chicago, Illinois. Peters, R. W. (1963). Dimensions of perception for consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35, 1985- 9. Porter, R. J. Jr., Troendle, R. & Berlin, C. I. (1976). Effects of practice on the perception of dichotically presented stop-consonant-vowel syllables. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59, 679-82. Reitman, W. R. (1965). Cognition and Thought. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Singh, S. & Black, J. W. (1966), Study of twenty-six intervocalic consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49, 1861-6. Singh , S., Woods, D. R . & Becker, G. M. (1973). Perceptual structure of 22 prevocalic English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 52, 1698- 1713 . Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic prepresentation, in Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting oft he Chicago Linguistic Society, R. I. Binnick, A. Davison, G. M. Green & J. L. Morgan, (eds) pp. 443-54. University of Chicago. Stampe, D. (1973). A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. University of Chicago, Ph.D . Dissertation. Streeter, L. A. & Landauer, T. K. (1976). Effects of learning English as a second language on the acquisition of a new phonetic contrast. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 59, 448-51. Tikofsky, R. S. & Mcinish, J . R. (1968). Consonant-discrimination by seven year olds. Psychonomic Science 10, 61-2. Wang, M.D. & Bilger, R. C. (1973). Consonant confusions in noise : A study of perceptual features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 54, 1248-66. Wickelgren, W. A. (1965). Distinctive features and errors in short-term memory for English vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 38, 583- 8. Wickelgren, W. A. (1966). Distinctive features and errors in short-term memory for English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 39, 388-98. Wilson, K . Y. (1963) . Multidimensional analyses of confusions of English consonants. The American Journal of Psychology 76, 89-95.

115

Natural phonological processes Appendix I Table I

k

p p t

k f

e s s b d g v 0

z

z m n

14 16 20 27 17 18 I6 I2 I6 11

9 I6 I8 8 19 11

248

27 26 22 22 18 I7 20 11

22 2I 24 27 I8 23 27 24 I8 29 I8 IO

24 '20 17 11 I8 15 16 17 24 15 I8 20 31I 328

f

Miller & Nicely

e

s

p t

k f

e s s b d g v

0 z

z

47 59 37 2I 13 I6 15

0 I 4 0 I 2 1

0 n I 2I8 m

k

b

d

g

v

0

z

z

m

n

7 17 11 12 I1 I6 I2 23 25 22 14 15 16 7 IO I5 I5 I8 I4 6 17 9 I3 11 9 I3 I5 I4 29 12 4 II 9 I2 IO 16 II 17 14 23 I3 I2 IO I9 20 14 I6 I6 15 3 13 18 13 15 2I 12 14 20 I4 23 9 12 14 6 14 I1 18 21 17 11 24 I5 15 I6 11 13 17 5 8 I6 15 I7 I3 37 I4 10 2I 7 20 18 9 I5 I9 15 I2 24 20 I9 24 I2 15 11 18 17 I3 I5 15 I4 22 25 21 25 17 18 13 15 25 9 I8 I8 I5 26 30 14 18 14 16 20 24 22 7 I2 9 25 14 13 I5 I5 19 11 12 17 II 7 7 I7 12 18 18 6 I4 10 20 17 I8 15 7 22 14 9 13 19 9 2I 12 23 10 22 12 7 22 18 14 12 15 8 15 11 15 11 18 13 8 14 15 I2 13 I4 14 I4 8 11 6 25 28 9 I4 14 13 6 9 18 9 8 IO 12 33 32 215 226 300 184 269 289 199 275 190 234 172 285 275 Table VII

p

s

f

e

264 220 240 268 240 252 268 268 296 304 224 216 244 220 240 236

Miller & Nicely

s

s

b

d

g

v

0

z

z

m

n

9 3 61 68 I5 11 17 0 2 3 1 I 2 3 1 63 64 I9 15 I4 13 3 4 I 0 2 5 2 2 2 47 56 IO 13 15 IO I 2 0 2 0 1 0 I 1 29 2I 38 37 47 I9 2 0 2 I 2 2 3 3 1 23 25 23 39 54 39 2 2 I 0 0 5 I 4 5 25 IO 29 52 65 34 1 4 2 4 5 1 I I 2 33 23 I8 28 70 4I 1 I 0 0 7 3 I I 2 3 98 28 17 38 19 8 I I 8 5 9 2 8 7 0 I 11 7 12 5 70 84 33 12 IO 24 9 1 0 7 8 56 74 33 13 15 2I 13 I 2 5 I3 6 1 2 2 I I 44 34 18 77 34 36 14 1 I 2 l 0 0 0 3 0 1 22 16 19 45 46 45 23 11 8 3 2 4 3 2 15 15 20 46 35 64 21 2 2 0 1 0 0 I 11 15 24 54 42 70 39 2 I 2 5 0 0 I I 2 2 I 3 3 4 4 161 60 5 I 3 2 2 I I I I 3 2 2 4 2 2 133 I08 292 277 184 229 3I9 I88 33I 290 176 295 237 283 137 340 204

244 268 196 228 236 252 244 252 280 272 268 240 236 268 248 268

N.J. Macari

116

Table XVII p

k

f

e

s

Miller & Nicely

s

b

d

g

v

0

z

z

m

n

26 21 23 16 24 20 4 15 16 14 20 9 10 9 16 9 4 3 7 11 4 10 141 12 3 4 3 5 11 5 5 8 8 18 13 20 10 12 22 k 8 20 20 16 34 25 14 11 13 6 18 17 f 9 17 19 9 3 27 13 9 9 22 18 18 6 e 16 21 25 5 20 10 2 29 23 24 27 28 11 5 16 10 7 34 7 7 II 138 7 6 5 6 4 11 13 s 8 5 15 s 3 3 7 I 1 12 190 1 4 2 2 4 6 26 6 4 18 13 6 16 16 12 8 23 11 9 26 14 18 21 14 11 b 8 4 19 18 19 13 11 6 3 16 14 d 24 26 28 16 19 18 19 II 10 12 17 21 7 10 22 13 g 12 16 17 14 21 6 3 23 16 v 21 11 17 15 24 12 8 19 15 14 33 23 7 9 II 24 10 18 19 15 16 20 5 24 16 16 22 28 0 7 64 8 8 8 5 12 10 9 12 17 51 11 z 8 12 6 z 5 18 10 8 9 11 57 5 4 5 9 11 15 85 9 7 7 18 2 15 18 m 8 13 20 13 15 14 8 16 16 17 12 n 7 6 19 20 12 17 15 12 20 15 15 18 15 4 21 16 216 372 282 183 237 350 331 248 217 203 265 246 223 198 243 186 p t

252 236 264 220 272 284 272 236 244 240 260 260 248 268 212 232

117

Natural phonological processes

Appendix IT Tables I-VI summed Miller & Nicely

p t

k f

e s s b d g v 5

z

z m n

e

b

g

v

5

76 75 697 I71 335 34 27 IS I7 9 36 I90 882 I93 42 48 43 IO 13 8 278 I94 72I 54 4I 54 28 8 I2 IO 27 85 60 7I 9I4 222 42 22 38 I5 3I 28 33 22 87 64 66 405 565 93 27 42 40 44 73 I26 8I5 I22 IS 3I II 28 I2 40 6I 53 35 46 95 I066 52 46 37 26 13 9II 17 13 26 46 33 45 76I I85 I9 24 I9 I7 22 I9 22 60 302 667 30 10 25 23 14 21 29 I4 I49 39 45 9 IS I9 I4 18 I5 I7 I2 114 54 77 I6 I2 I4 24 24 I9 20 34 I7 I6 52 85 100 11 IS I9 I5 I2 2I I4 30 79 56 11 20 25 15 8 30 I5 14 I5 IS 18 12 IS 20 7 13 19 9 17 22 21 I56I I640 I662 I772 I296 I368 I473 I539 I573 I3I8

2I IS

I6 I2

13

13

k

p

f

Tables VII- XII summed k

p p t

k f

e s b d g v 5

z

z m n

842 366 248 58 25 23 21 0 2 5 2 1 5 I 1 1 I601

254 608 246 44 42 40 52 2 1 1 5 1 3 1 0 3 1303

f

e

292 54 3I 332 47 28 878 25 24 38 753 321 40 484 524 17 I 57 38I 46 45 122 50 3 75 3 12 10 4 11 5 1 13 11 1 IO 2I 3 IO 4 2 6 1 2 I 1 2 2 2 I663 1694 I548

s

s

b

d

29 27 44 22 I9 IS 23 IS 204 I04 52 74 37 73 784 I74 292 590 68 I08 28 27 25 2I I6 I9 I673 13I6

z

z

m

n

I7 13 I6 26 I2 I7 I6 I6 22 I7 I6 11 IS 3 I7 IS I6 I9 22 11 7 I7 I7 20 IS I5 11 20 37 3I IS 43 37 74 66 25 92 140 34 34 27 54 I6 3I 105 24 37 29 725 I09 25 I9 30 110 867 23 7 1003 I44 I4 I2 28 I74 1117 1343 1356 I532 I578

I568 1556 I492 I608 I528 I436 I552 I624 1472 I584 I440 I432 I432 1360 1392 I524

Miller & Nicely d

g

23 11 5 8 22 I6 7 4 20 12 2 1 I04 30 24 3 21 178 63 9 712 141 15 16 347 760 4 13 12 3 1069 71 27 15 123 1003 27 10 81 486 4 1 162 40 6 3 I26 47 11 6 46 87 0 11 12 62 0 13 3 6 2 13 6 .2 1498 1084 1719 I866

2 3 2 2 5 9 7 33 171 664 33 115 179 118 4 3 1350

v

5

z

z

m

n

3 2 3 0 3 3 0 IO 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 4 0 2 4 25 3 4 5 I4 25 3 1 6 4 7 40 5 2 1 2 2 15 2 2 9 1 100 44 13 3 10 8 17 18 43 28 2 1 22 29 49 39 7 4 852 294 88 23 7 4 423 625 I99 49 13 I2 IOO I7I 652 130 2 3 74 91 347 896 5 5 5 2 4 1279 194 5 2 3 2 358 1085 6 1624 I405 I42I II90 1699 1335

I536 1452 1468 1420 1444 1568 1448 1496 1476 1444 1540 I652 1412 1632 1520 1492

N.J. Macari

118

Tables XIII- XVII summed

p t

k f

e s s

b d g v

0 z

z

m n

p

k

f

e

399 32 90 105 76 20 5 69 41 34 80 64 24 11 55 46 1151

107 145 984 43 130 504 37 60 63 63 26 26 11 11 30 49 64 56 35 53 37 57 43 42 41 20 28 13 27 46 26 42 1689 1230

78 14 34 291 97 27 5 95 32 39 100 54 22 14 48 32 982

63 12 45 117 287 89 7 80 36 47 77

106 43 10 61 44

1124

b

Miller & Nicely d

g

v

62 15 65 40 46 38 31 13 13 11 15 11 72 33 46 29 18 41 60 100 29 19 116 44 66 80 73 75 15 81 31 34 15 33 786 15 4 3 6 18 1000 4 51 68 194 24 12 303 14 9 39 596 114 45 28 14 60 187 424 53 56 271 22 174 51 23 84 114 81 24 13 106 57 26 25 89 251 18 19 12 25 214 9 16 55 65 45 28 14 81 60 48 99 18 12 45 1421 1421 1179 1488 1229 1153

6

z

z

m

n

25 48 26 38 41 1236 16 11 13 18 7 1244 28 44 32 34 36 1216 26 56 10 71 39 1180 110 50 13 59 56 1264 39 149 21 15 34 1360 11 10 123 13 5 1236 109 30 13 117 48 1292 35 29 32 42 72 1256 51 36 30 73 1212 48 128 25 9 118 52 1280 273 75 24 138 79 1320 88 440 30 27 35 1236 22 29 786 20 12 1240 27 64 9 478 101 1204 53 31 16 60 592 1224 1131 1037 1187 1296 1282

119

Natural phonological processes

Appendix III Table II p p t

k b d g f

8

v 0 z

z (;

j

933 245 324 136 33 20 198 107 44 26 34 37 20 19 67 20 2263

k

b

d

Wang & Bilger g

p t

k b d g f

8

v 0 z

z

(;

911 182 252 70 27 48 403 64 85 47 17 11 17 14 53 54 2255

8

v

0

z

z

(;

30 17 210 191 16 98 39 11 10 26 16 14 16 47 12 12 29 67 31 68 30 46 25 22 11 843 213 35 39 40 24 7 97 247 565 30 35 53 89 27 8 15 33 25 191 126 65 5 316 104 6 5 60 68 486 60 62 17 14 53 34 46 11 94 78 56 33 178 819 133 37 7 12 20 12 132 29 57 22 20 82 148 938 15 42 28 6 19 48 4 88 69 91 40 9 765 168 113 58 32 29 4 12 67 25 13 667 275 204 29 69 107 57 14 13 38 25 150 70 905 70 29 157 38 34 51 26 84 870 12 37 17 31 38 13 8 34 35 288 51 23 20 52 84 65 43 13 705 193 155 4 37 204 43 67 30 82 64 49 56 10 534 270 192 12 9 18 239 32 41 22 72 58 115 31 12 231 114 787 68 3 23 19 22 20 24 32 66 286 16 16 77 38 137 420 6 24 144 221 149 92 15 20 14 46 13 8 16 15 829 21 12 30 73 152 8 6 18 39 34 8 106 148 11 1930 1519 1685 1621 1995 2359 1010 1870 1396 2381 982 1846 840 1345

k

b

d

24 24 102 9 42 162 11 14 15 130 27 28 84 502 37 1016 2227

1698 1713 1702 1695 1703 1713 1699 1712 1710 1700 1702 1697 1713 1700 17 J0 1702

24 19 17 27 83 72 25 32 16 62 44 39 64 146 249 482 1401

1735 1721 1721 1716 1721 1715 1722 1707 1724 1721 1724 1718 1722 1717 1719 1705

Wang & Bilger

Table III p

f

g

f

8

v

29 163 316 38 10 23 61 44 26 15 27 46 62 70 46 922 169 24 40 9 52 75 200 813 33 19 44 64 51 10 77 254 50 38 29 24 92 34 70 845 21 22 29 35 33 178 821 121 41 63 30 30 39 42 49 49 126 106 105 896 27 110 242 70 96 437 83 68 41 45 92 93 88 171 437 135 200 98 64 54 183 91 23 12 20 44 54 1040 49 10 23 57 42 27 168 116 35 58 114 764 43 57 28 27 24 182 95 121 15 723 14 9 137 289 95 21 58 16 20 327 47 44 42 78 41 70 52 50 242 83 25 23 21 43 63 78 24 33 29 154 286 95 34 54 40 56 103 28 34 28 143 96 53 307 86 41 43 53 90 23 2604 2363 1935 2092 2126 1201 1177 1855 1443 1871

0

z

z

(;

17 7 14 37 12 13 15 65 15 12 13 51 35 43 18 10 115 78 40 14 33 27 43 20 26 12 9 28 37 103 18 21 22 21 10 44 28 27 34 119 190 111 39 8 410 213 49 10 212 550 111 19 20 115 186 743 26 17 23 593 27 32 29 146 1407 1383 1190 1205

120

N.J. Macari Wang & Bilger

Table IV p p

b (;

r

f v

z m n

h hw w y

963 140 75 7 11 8 150 44 23 20 45 25 470 28 25 18 2052

b

(;

r

12 76 12 51 29 20 549 14 16 51 16 237 12 93 9 1159 31 13 23 47 1030 35 36 12 27 3 16 1274 53 22 14 10 28 256 1089 5 J3S 35 16 804 16 24 62 54 23 32 15 168 128 7 15 132 53 132 55 75 36 14 56 58 68 6 11 45 18 44 15 39 22 25 6 14 17 24 70 18 16 93 21 31 43 43 51 41 73 20 14 16 56 41 10 15 52 147 45 16 1166 1538 1454 2227 1602 1824

TableV p p

b g I)

m n

f

e s v 0 z

z

(;

1044 90 48 18 24 27 362 66 103 102 26 27 28 28 133 86 2212

f

b

g

I)

66 53 10 733 194 22 173 824 34 24 45 991 24 26 185 21 21 243 93 87 21 101 67 14 23 26 15 41 45 26 151 114 46 95 109 32 30 55 40 36 65 30 79 31 23 94 97 28 1784 1859 1760

v

z

45 16 6 30 68 220 154 13 11 31 135 44 14 30 34 22 44 13 130 52 41 1036 54 103 30 562 254 69 192 871 23 30 64 27 27 24 10 49 18 22 37 23 20 21 68 25 12 28 1791 1354 1707

m

n

h

hw

w

17 371 19 37 28 119 44 144 28 38 8 12 64 26 23 23 12 25 40 40 81 35 19 20 57 38 23 4 29 66 48 12 223 23 13 25 14 52 27 6 181 56 18 30 82 43 31 24 38 82 1189 90 30 20 21 416 978 38 20 31 21 21 10 822 56 19 14 88 769 447 26 25 351 842 13 35 24 14 17 42 2291 1385 1961 1541 1829

y

25 10 21 175 31 79 2 9 21 67 15 20 11 43 113 1220 1862

1727 1724 1724 1715 1727 1728 1724 1724 1724 1731 1719 1727 1726 1720 1724 1720

Wang & Bilger

m

n

24 130 30 148 974 154 29 18 8 29 41 31 45 22 26 29 1738

19 66 61 284 192 915 34 40 19 41 88 107 139 82 43 27 2157

e v 0 z z (; j 109 79 100 42 20 24 17 15 61 37 78 81 56 27 69 45 34 29 19 37 51 62 51 37 57 40 32 51 34 136 26 26 24 17 33 22 25 12 15 16 29 41 19 14 55 34 25 20 12 41 28 18 20 29 28 13 65 72 15 49 577 195 112 32 38 30 24 18 36 35 59 68 67 37 195 6713 201 32 42 37 71 75 i30 1055 32 10 26 15 74 22 38 25 70 104 195 632 18 38 203 113 40 45 30 626 223 86 98 52 10 47 28 23 72 15 340 543 160 68 12 57 45 111 85 45 172 226 479 143 19 54 29 36 32 112 168 223 641 50 15 146 65 64 93 76 24 24 28 777 226 13 77 82 107 34 26 61 25 60 158 721 1502 1889 2225 1210 1747 1517 1319 1294 1502 1774

1720 1710 1721 1726 1715 1718 1723 1722 1704 1720 1723 1719 1716 1715 1725 1712

121

Natural phonological processes Table VI k

p p t

k b d g

f

e v 0 z

z (;

773 33 71

21 9 4 43 22 10 5 7 11 7 6 3 3 1028

b

Wang & Bilger

d

g

k

p

p

k b d g f

e s v

763 23 25 795 66 36 12 55 9 16 16 10 0 56 11 14 7 15 9

5 8

0 z

4

c

10

z

9 16 1069

s

v

0

z

z

c

j

2 7 38 35 9 14 6 16 8 9 2 2 4 1 4 783 27 7 19 6 0 3 8 3 3 8 11 4 6 9 2 2 6 9 37 89 585 11 14 18 14 47 4 15 9 3 11 8 587 28 33 28 8 47 0 3 17 5 1 133 24 12 10 4 32 771 1 9 3 18 5 3 9 8 12 4 8 27 41 764 3 3 5 2 19 3 8 14 1 21 2 4 7 13 44 17 4 4 681 63 3 20 11 13 4 34 2 2 27 15 13 64 11 2 321 355 38 14 0 1 4 4 23 7 3 31 26 732 7 13 0 1 5 60 4 7 745 4 7 3 5 6 0 1 2 0 9 19 93 21 6 10 9 128 2 23 3 567 38 50 11 31 6 4 6 1 5 88 24 14 21 57 18 7 407 204 58 9 2 7 2 10 2 70 756 8 9 9 20 5 28 15 7 9 15 9 8 10 16 48 4 5 21 7 34 8 149 4 17 612 17 4 7 5 3 9 6 13 37 3 3 4 11 794 14 6 4 2 8 40 3 4 8 12 76 3 734 5 0 25 1016 743 1057 987 959 1170 609 906 867 1265 469 1052 802 958 1036

Table VII

t

e

b

d

g

930 930 933 933 930 927 933 921 930 927 901 933 972 958 933 933

Wang & Bilger

e

v

0

z

z

c

80 9 3 10 14 6 6 5 4 4 2 3 1 4 31 1 6 4 4 12 3 0 2 2 2 22 9 9 753 2 7 7 18 10 3 3 5 7 5 4 1 6 28 608 19 87 46 9 9 2 43 6 3 3 2 4 7 10 763 12 2 15 13 8 13 33 14 9 3 9 22 7 762 44 13 5 3 4 3 4 2 12 4 20 22 11 9 13 712 61 IO 3 25 8 0 1 0 2 7 23 9 9 42 10 73 656 . 28 36 13 1 I 3 12 I 3 4 15 23 828 14 1 I 11 0 1 0 7 10 6 17 4 2 4 18 9 6 1 18 788 19 IS 22 19 48 7 11 4 637 I04 I 5 8 38 7 I2 5 7 5 38 77 4 10 37 6 7 136 556 34 2 8 1 I2 8 15 4 10 8 22 42 8 54 35 687 17 4 3 7 3 9 I 30 24 13 4 7 15 13 22 752 4 20 17 2 7 2 14 5 1 5 14 2 1 0 5 727 I21 20 31 2 25 17 4 10 3 2 8 7 86 689 1 11 998 1067 779 1022 993 974 858 1020 910 994 806 819 844 881 907

937 927 933 936 936 931 933 936 936 936 933 936 933 93 3 933 932

N.J. Macari

122

Table VIII p p b

769 17

1 0 3 r 6 f 28 5 v 4 z 7 m 9 n 2 h 88 hw 3 w 5 y 4 951

(;

b

v

f

(;

z

m

n

h

hw

w

b

g

I)

m

923 922 927 918 921 922 930 927 923 934 927 926 924 918 929 933

Wang & Bilger n

f

e

v

0

z

z

(;

24 5 6 3 23 3 14 2 5 2 4 3 8 813 11 2 3 75 592 92 45 4 27 5 57 6 11 I I 4 13 35 759 5 2 11 11 6 7 7 15 5 8 6 12 44 41 6 8 0 2 4 I) 9 4 10 789 I 4 6 1 7 46 12 2 6 4 16 I 1 1 m 9 12 6 24 784 40 757 25 16 1 2 n 10 14 8 19 5 6 5 4 16 2 2 4 f 62 22 64 9 3 20 I1 4 18 I 6 695 e 14 13 14 2 2 9 74 653 27 5 22 63 9 5 2 2 2 2 22 25 822 5 1 1 14 7 13 5 1 0 3 1 0 22 27 7 3 8 4 33 782 16 1 4 6 38 12 7 3 636 112 18 3 v 6 44 19 5 5 14 2 27 2 147 565 33 12 53 10 10 7 3 2 3 57 0 6 4 53 29 661 13 22 68 14 z 16 14 10 6 4 10 4 z 7 3 6 3 5 13 2 6 10 23 22 13 26 755 9 (; 2 15 3 2 20 2 3 4 11 3 4 4 4 6 742 7 2 22 11 16 6 5 8 4 27 11 6 4 5 90 1JJ7 825 1015 878 942 988 988 841 1055 882 1018 838 807 843 921 p b g

y

7 7 7 67 2 4 2 6 7 3 4 3 21 10 4 7 17 2 12 143 14 29 6 4 4 3 12 611 4 37 5 5 6 1 3 2 26 1 9 4 820 4 6 8 26 3 2 14 7 26 4 6 0 2 22 802 10 4 1 15 17 3 8 16 4 11 15 15 16 4 14 5 4 776 10 7 2 7 12 9 6 8 3 7 2 5 27 809 6 6 21 12 9 5 26 3 3 1 2 726 33 43 5 5 8 2 3 2 10 49 6 1 0 23 4 2 9 6 43 762 26 52 12 3 11 7 15 129 2 8 593 14 23 3 21 2 5 29 766 5 4 5 13 14 5 10 5 9 12 43 20 5 1 4 2 2 4 26 10 763 50 2 9 6 14 7 12 80 753 4 6 5 6 0 7 3 6 23 6 6 7 7 7 4 7 20 13 9 5 698 13 5 5 3 33 15 630 186 7 6 6 4 7 10 3 8 2 9 8 14 2 13 322 502 3 5 6 8 8 16 2 3 9 19 6 4 16 4 8 11 5 2 801 11 6 19 17 8 4 13 960 894 901 939 914 943 1001 899 1015 976 847 891 1025 761 887

Table IX p

Wang & Bilger

1 5 25 4 2 2 4 13 2 16 3 2 5 21 111 706 922

927 930 927 933 933 930 927 927 924 933 927 939 933 924 936 930

>

"CS "CS

Table VI

b

p

k

b

3

d

4

t

15-45

10·64

f

g

v

8

m

9 10

e

8·53

5-69

7-63

8-43

5·22

s

12

z

13

z

p

n

7-30

4·57

7·11

4-45

z 0

3·53

z 468

14

4·56 2·35

s e

5·08

9·31

s

z e

3·24

1·72

6-47

2·94

z

ct 6·50

5·96

6-43

3·24

v

3·00

5·29

z

z 5·21

2·59

z

1'81 0-43

z

4·94

7·23

e

5·04

7·97

z

6·87

5·58

5·70 k

5·26

4·18

6·22

1'61 k

6·16

4·82

3·88

2·94

3-60

e

5-81 b

2·98 2·58

I·16

z

5·58 3-99

0·00

4·86

0

~

4·12

HI 2·48 p

2· 54 g

2-33 g

2·13

2·13 f

b

3-63

~"

v

2·84

3-86

;:;

3-86

3·I1

4·65

$::) .....

d

n

m 2·35

3·53

v

4·7I

HI

5·08

e

~

"l::::s

3-64

m

f

0

5·15

3·24

5·58

4·68

0·85

b

z

p

d

b

e

4·72

1·04

~ c:;·

HI

6·I9

0

g

g

5·22

d

6-46

5·04 b

m

s d

6·16

I-42

6·12

3-24 g

z

4·29

0 6·64

~

0

3-88

7·11

6·22

p

p

p

z

m

2·54

k

4·95

4·I2

3·55 0

3·53

n

6·60

"l::::s

6·22

n

k

....s:::~ ~ .....

5·I5

n

6·64

3·00

e

6·46 m

p

n

m

d

p

7·29

6·74

z

v

6·74

v

3·I9

7·1I

5·69

4·18

7-30

7-80 b

f

v

5·07

4·26

3-86

7·66

6·64

5·2I f

7-29 k

16·55 k

9·42

8· IO v

3-62 v

n

8· 15

14·06

k

7· 73

3-4I

z

8·84 g

3-64

d

8·15 g

0

0

2·52

f

5·70

z

e

<

z 31'88

13-3I f

3·96

8·36

8·14

f

d

4-74 4·71

4-71

3-62

d

b

5·15

z

z

6·60

5·22

10·04

8·29 p

n

z 15·97

4·94

10·53

9-4I

p

b

z 3-62

6·87 6·60

5·67

5·22 k

12·55

z

m 8·15

k

m

0 3-96

7-22

6·44

s

e

e

m

g

6·50

4·29

o

HI

z

z

2·66

6·87

s 13-73

z

z

z 9·64

8·50

f

7-69

8·14

38·24

11-15

9·22

s

0

e

0

n

7-25 n

b

3·79

6·87

4·35

m 8·63 8·15

8·82

4·12

7·09

d

8·10

p

b

5·57

e

9·01

4·68

f

6·84

9·36 v

10·30

8·94

0

k

v

e

e

0

n

z

7·22

6·98

d

4·35

6-43

I0·30

0 7·29

11 ·63

13-12

4·72

7-66

7·58

5·15

4·71

s Is o

g

10·84 b

p

6·08

~·

z

g

g

b

f 7·77

7·09

d

12-44

13-93 v

n

8·1 6

n

11

k

5·70 k

8·16

s

8·81

9·01

k

8·51

7

11'68

Rank of presented consonants z k b 13-30 11·51 9-48 13-30

m

d

v

m

f

15·03

8·91

13-95

9·14 v

m

p

n

b

6·1 9

9·87

6

9·79

8·1 6

10·64

15-45

Q,

Intrusion (consonant recalled) k g f v

n

m

g

p

n

d

10·93

5

g

v

12·07

e 10·73

11-24 g

d

m

f

p

16·59 2

r;g

Ranking of 15 other presented consonants by percent substitution of each intrusion consonant

1·72

I·29 N

w

124

N.J. Macari Table VII

Ranking of 22 other presented consonants

Intrusion (consonant recalled) b

p

1 k

5·71

9-43

2 b 9·13 8·74

5· 12

e

4·71

7·13

4·58

v

6·81

4-49 4·24

6·38 n

6·35 12 s

e

6·29 13 n 14

s

6· 87

4·24

6·55

5·03

6·29 6·21

3·18

4·99 m

3·07

f

5·71

2·99

5-41

16 2-85

4·99

4·97

2·82 f

18 z 4·65 19 d

z

2·63

4·08

3·42 2·56

e

4·65

2·27

z

4·90

y

4·65

4·55

1·65

c

6·15

z 3·30

3·61

s

3·16

c

3·06

3·1 5 2 ·53

4·14

e

2·51 2·33

e

1·24

4·79

4·04

6·32

3·90

5-80

4·51 4·23

2·20

1·80

3·03

3-88

5·18 w

2·56

4· 82

y

2·10

3·72

m

1·47

5·24

y

6

s

5·3 7

3·15

4·23

5·42

n

s

m

z

3·49 v

y

2-41

2·15

3·55 n

r

f

z 1·1 6

6-44

h

d

2·47

2·35

3-31

4-82

2·84

w

d

3-91

5·13

2-82

2·36 y

4·26

4·1 4 p

b

v

v

2·33

y

2-38 h

s

4·31

2-49

4·28

c

h

r

0

v

6·60 d

5·36

2·90

2·67

4·65

4·37

z 2·99

6·67

z

w

n 5·71

3-6\

5·39

3·17 n

2·69

7·31

4·51

m

s

m

b

m

3-33

6·27

4·82

5·58

3·31

2·74

7·60 b

p

r

g

f

f

k 1·94

4·40 4·28

4·13

s

6·29 w

w

w

z

m

22 0

z

4·99

2·56 0

3·72

5-40

s

s

21

s

s

4·84 g

17 g

4·73

5·93

3·41

2·90

7·77

4·84 w

0

b

4-89

6·62 f

3·77

7-82 m

f

v

s

z 4·85

6·03

h

3·88

3-61

6·62

4·77

h

h

6·62

4.79

8·04

5·13

z 6·73

3-91

3·90

8·52 8·14

5·37

6·82 n

h

g

i5 y

20

5·12

5·79

7·59

3·93 b

w

e k

k

g

5·94 d

7-67

4 ·06

4·18

6·74

4-79 b

r

3·49

5-46

5·20

8·90

8·62 0

h

z

k

k

6·08

g

4·20

8·73

s

b

p

4·29

4·26

6·85

8·90 g

4·65

4·29

7-22

4·85

9·89

6·85

p

f

h

p

z 5·74

5·52

6·97 d

11 r

4·91

9·19

4·77

d

s

k

e

4·65

8·03 p

5·83

4·99

5·02

p

8·31

5·03

s

7·03

e 0

v

10 h

v

5·11

5·87

7-31

f

4·50

6·98

5·97

v

8·89

r

5·12

8·73

5·18

z

b

r

9 f

7-85

9· 82 r

0

k

10·47

k

9·82

5-64 y

6·01

7·95

5·75

f

g

e

c

6·89

10·83 d

5·74

6·07 0

w

6·98

k

r

p

d

j

y

n

6·32

8·04

y

7-46

6-48

v

w

4·76

8-43

6 v

8

h

g

e

p

8·24

5·15

8-48 5 w

c

y

k

Rank of presented consonant g m z 6·62 7·25 13·35 7·02

n 9·79

5·1 9 d

4 t

13-22 r

p

3 m

7

b

n

c

n

d

t

m

0·97

3·09

e

2·35

4·34 g

1·1 6

3·73

j is used throughout this table (as in the original Wickelgren article) where j

is iairly clearly intended.

Naturalphonological processes

125

by percent substitution of each intrusion consonant

o

z

e

v

2·70

5·24 f

y

4·71 4·51 r

c

3·37

4·50 4·37 b

2·07

z

4·34

1·63

4·08 0

s

h

2·12

1·34

c

2·05

1·30 d

e

1·25

3-49

m

z

1·21

3·35

y 3·25

w 1·65

p

2·33

s

1·90

0·90

1·62

1·62

0·73

1·50

e

2·38

1·52 d

1·08 0·53

6·90

0·66 0 ·25

e

v

1·1 6

2-43

4·40 n

2·33

6·07

4·24 d

2·26

5·87

4·08 p

g

3·84

2·07 0

4·65

1·36

e

4·50 z

p

z

4·58 r

2·70

6·22

4·75

4·76

2·90

k

6·29

5·36

1·71

3·03

6·39

v

1·89

4·94 g

k

s

5-48

5·23 5·06

3·22

6·65

5-81

c

5·36

y

s

z

11

0·50

7·01

d

f

n

s

5·75

2·13

1·3.5

c

s

3-44

c

y

j

p

0·00

c

7·08

6·06

k 1·50

1·12

1·81

e

2·20

1-65

1-13

p

11

6·32

b

v

2·12

1·72

114

1·85

1·14

2·13

3·09 y

h

y

k

m

1·18

2·38 h

1·88

1·25

0·48 0·00

1·94

d

b

1·86 r

b 2-49

3·24 s

p

y

11

w

k

2·01

1·35

[ ·14

2-84 s

2·67

m

1-42

1-41

6·85 p

3·74 r

k

5·36 s

3·74

7·59 b

7·02

3·65 11

1·86

8·20

7·06

5·39

4·08 f

n

b

g

h

n

p

b

2·90

m 2·17

1·50

1· 14

2 ·99

2·17

1·69

1·88

1·66 y

h h

2·92

3·65 d

s

z

4·16

8·3 5 r

7·09

5· 71 v

d

y

3·73

1·94

1·87 g

3·73

b

y

8·50

7-91

5·71

4·34

z

f

h

g

2·16

1·93

3·20

2·28

2·28

m

k

3·74

.5 ·79 f

4·96

8·81

8·36

6·07

0

j

m

f

s

k [ ·96

3·23

v

d 1·18

2·17

d

b

2-41 b

z 3-41

2·56

1·85

2·18

8·90

8·52

3·79 f

5·10

s 4·99 z

0

k

w

w

k

0 3·98

2·70

2·20

3-61

2·93

2-84

9·16 g

8·69

4·13

0

10·17

8·73

6·16

5·64

m

w

g

v

m

8·98

4·13

3·12

2·23

4·04

w

11

2·27

3· 68

2·76

1·95

4·11

m

f

0

r

1·29

3·65

c

2·97

6 3·72

2·33

4·12

w

p

2·07

s

4·23

10·97 h

11

6 4·14

3·11

b

J

3-86

3·78 3·72

2·14

1-42

3·93

z

5·70

10·20

m

j

6

g

g

w

4·29 g

3-82

2·1 6

y

1-45

3·98

2·51

8

b

11

4·29 r

h

2·20

1· 59 g

g

2·99

k

r

3·97

p

5·75

J

d

v

c

3·22

4·34

4· 84

3·03

c

4-84 j

r

z 1·65

4·18 d

c

1·71

s

f

3·30 s

z

m

r

6·98 f

2-43

h

z

e

v

2·64

y

r

w

Rank of presented consonant w y z s v w m 11·63 9·26 11 ·16 7-46 8·56 5·62 11·33 12·24 5·78 6·55 z s h w z e d P 6·27 4·24 7·69 6·61 8·80 5·81 5·21 10·52 11·51 5·67

s

k

p

z

s

4·54

6·11 n

Intrusion (consonant recalled)

e

v

4·49

e

4·96

1·99 b

3-49

1·83

e

3·72 2·33

126

N.J. Macari

Note added in proof

Actually, the first objection on page Ill is I think due to a misunderstanding. What the person who raised it was probably thinking was that in an experiment such as Wang and Bilger's, for example, if the subjects were given [si] as a stimulus, they might 'hear' [si]. That is, [s] could be shifted toward [s] due to the influence of the [i]-such a process is well known on the production side of speech, as in [a 1 miS::!] for [a' m1s yuw]-thereby giving a larger s/s among the responses. if Stampe were claiming [s] --+ [s], this would yield a phonetic vis a vis a natural process explanation; however, the inferred claim here is quite the opposite (cf. #4, Table 1), namely, [s] -:- [s], which claim is, moreover, as one can see, supported in the results of Tables II, III, and IV.