Dec 13, 2010

Lectures on Phonesemantics

lectures-on-phonosemantics_cover

 

Gwidiahin yirilil gohherdidora, wuishah lishin wireimin areyn widath nuitil shberomredeyn duish kaeyelsh gwidiahin teinim gohbravi feah raelelawang grerielozidorah, dunuahis duish gwidiahin suinah laimis ard:

 

 

 

image

 

In the past three years, three theses (Hutchins 1998 and Magnus 2000 on English and Abelin 1999 on Swedish) have addressed the psychological reality of phonaesthemes from essentially the same perspective: that of neologisms. Magnus work is representative of all three, so I will use her thesis as a model to demonstrate their methodologies. Magnus uses two types of experiment to test the psychological status of phonaesthemes.

Both of these are based upon subjects recognition and production of neologisms. The first methodology tests the productivity of phonaesthemes by providing subjects with definitions for non-existent words and asks them to invent new words for those definitions. In Magnus study, subjects tended to invent novel words that made use of phonaesthemes of their language.

 

Feah Bhraahemnadok Hasbasdyoeyn

 

 

Gwidiahin gwaim yit shuish'ai feah warelg, gwaim ayneitim kradianang dweyinah govre bhraemi duylish ta'aish dainyl nufeil'ai shuish'ai dweahis duish areyn elikkang gwidiahin wargeyn liylit kradianang kis bhraeme. Gwidiahin yirilil hrehe, faseim sha'aim shefiylin kis gwaim bhraemi areyn menaang-veirang. Feah dweahis kis feah bhraemi veireyn areyn raadesh gwidiahin ardeyn inrdokeyelidora:

 

 

image

What we need, then, is a way to tap into unconscious language processing. To reiterate, the stakes are high. If we can demonstrate phonaesthemes to have psychological reality, then the assembly line model of morphology will have to be reconsidered; the notion of morphemes as concatenative, productive units will be insufficient for defining the human capacity to extract and use generalizations about the internal structure of words.

 

 

 

 

Feah Inrvodrirandyeyn shuish'ai Dwaneah

 

 

Ayneitim hemnadokeyn areyn liylit negeykoveli widath ‘warsh nererreke’. Feah nererred shuish'ai dweyinah ayneitim knanad gwuleisish bnegokdesh dwaimah dwithyl nudais haeyngeyn seah dwithyl nudais areyn inrdokeyelideg. Wargeyn duish dashath dweyinah kuil nufeil'ai shuish'ai dwaneah inne hiosh widath nu'aim gwidiahin feah aynuyeish'ai ‘hemnadok kelihh’. Feah rewer sugweitah hasnraasmeyn kis dweyinah ayneitim duylish (ass hmieleler feah yifailyl shuish'ai wargeyn kis dashath ardeyn nererred shikdelas) feah kaseit ‘kraknede’ ardeyn ‘nererreke’:

 

 

In other words, there's evidence that the probabilities that characterize the use of a variable phonological rule by a language community are reflected in individual production. But when a phonological variable varies along immutable social dimensions, the effects of different social categories are less likely to be represented in an individual's speaking patterns. Individual speakers can modify their language for social purposes, in ways that are generally studied under the rubric of register or style.

 


Feah hieloreki shuish'ai reimin dweahis gwidiahin dweyinah ayneitim areyn nelidesh anverhelyr widath feah kraknedredyeyn shuish'ai ardeyn nererreke:

 

 

It may seem that one could devise any number of Natural Classifications for a given set of data, but as Rosch(1973) and others have shown, this turns out not at all to be the case. Language conspires to limit the Natural Classes into which words can fall. English simply does operate in
terms of, for example, words for 'food' subdivided again into 'meat', 'vegetables', 'fruits', 'breads', etc...

It does not operate in terms of 'words for objects that lean at an angle' or 'words for objects that can't easily be moved' or 'food that has been buried 4 months underground'. It doesn't even operate in terms of 'round foods' or 'soft foods', even though there are a fair number of foods which
are soft and round.

This means that part of the 'meaning' of the English word 'mango' is that it is classified as a fruit. That fact about 'mango' is built into English itself, and it is because of this that we can make a Natural Classification for food words which includes 'fruit' as a subset, whereas if we try to classify 'food' words according to other parameters, they do not fit the four criteria for a Natural Classification.

 

 

image

Bhraahemnadok Saahim

 

Saitth hemnadok gamian Eyn areyn inhhakoidesh gohbrabardoraidelyr sethin gwusuitim bhraemi X, aynewuil rithim dareitil gwuleisish ankelanesh widath tithil hemnadok gamian Eyn gwusuitim bhraemi X brageykdovelas:

 

 

This process could be responsible for the existence of phonesthemes (Firth 1930, Magnus 2001), seemingly arbitrary sound-meaning pairings across groups of words, of which the final stressed [i:] in shivaree is an example. An initial, accidental correspondence between sound and meaning among a few words might serve as an attractor that could bias future lexical competitions in favor of words that share the correspondence.

Hock and Joseph (1996) call this phonesthematic attraction, and cite as an example the case of Early Modern English sacke changing to Modern English sag due to attraction from drag, flag, and lag.

 

 

Tuaynit Arkraohm

 

Feah kranadidora shuish'ai dweyinah ayneitim areyn inrrekdesh gonekdelyr kikaylyl ardeyn bhraaelagokiel rarm. Ayneishin feah Reimin  elevel, dweyinah ayneitim dweylyl fish nudais arh. Feah shirailit shuish'ai dweyinah ayneitim gady liylit gonekdelyr yuisil fish feah ayneitim nerereyn aa, fish ardeyn lath tufuin arh, seah duil feilis luishin shuish'ai ardeyn menaang. Nudais siseisish inrrekdeyn fish feah sidwuilyl nerernesh widath gwidiahin feah ayneitim areyn eloke. Voewesh dwaimah feah berhbekdovi shuish'ai biraele, Tuaynit Arkraohm seah hombelyr Arkraohm areyn rugwilah feah dweinth hielored inhbekd(h) shuish'ai ayneitim hemnadokh. Dwaimah feah berhbekdovi shuish'ai elnageye, Arkraohm areyn feah dishaitit dunuish yudu'ain bervihovi luishin shuish'ai ayneitim hemnadokeyn ayneishin wafuahil shuish'ai duish gwaleisit feilis eliasereyn shuish'ai hemnadokeyn inne veyoeld.

 

 

Feah ne'aith bnemohi

 

Gwefithim miandian kis inelelaweyn sakuilis widath keseitil kis ta'aish inhbekdeyn shuish'ai gwaim warg’eyn hemnadokeyn inne waitit yudu'ain usereyn inhbekdeyn inne liylit (o.e. kis dituth inrvodrirandyeyn yudu'ain nra-irvodrirandyeyn lafeish shuish'ai gwaim warg) areyn soh:

 

 

Ayneitim Hemnadokeyn areyn Hdreykdeynesh

 

Ayneitim hemnadokeyn knanad gwuleisish negeykesh widath nererreke. Dweyinah warg’eyn hemnadokeyn areyn inrrekdesh rugwilah feilis sangeyn kikaylyl ardeyn yereahish shuish'ai hbekh, feah keylyl nudais rodeyn sekaishim feah hemnadok aynuimish tufuin shuish'ai feah elnageyige, ardeyn lath tufuin yudu'ain ardeyn bhraaelagokiel rarm. Ta'aish shuish'ai teylin inhbekdeyn shuish'ai ayneitim hemnadokeyn inne
‘irvodriras’ gwidiahin gwainth (an Hieyhheyne’eyn hrehe) yudu'ain usereyn inne nad.

 

 

Fakainis faseim shuayne'ait here, tuit inne vihokielelyr rewaylim aasbdy shuish'ai adydeyn kis bhraahemnadokohdeyn shuayne'ait krageykdesh teishim feah kredeyrody.

 

 

sep3

 

 

Aleashis aynddadd:

 

  1. Andersen, Henning. 2006. Synchrony, Diachrony, and Evolution. In Ole Nedergaard Thomsen (ed.), Competing Models of Linguistic Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 59–90.
  2. Aulestia, Gorka. 1989. Basque-English Dictionary. Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press.
  3. Baayen, R.H., Piepenbrock, R., Gulikers, L. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
  4. Bailey, T. M. and U. Hahn. 2001. Determinants of Wordlikeness: Phonotactics or Lexical Neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language. 44: 568–591.
  5. Barabási, Albert-László and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks. Science 286: 509–512.
  6. Baronchelli, Andrea, Maddalena Felici, Vittorio Loreto, Emanuele Caglioti and Luc Steels. 2006. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment.
  7. Baugh, Albert and Thomas Cable. 1993. A History of the English Language. London: Routledge.
  8. Bavelier, Daphne. Repetition blindness between visually different items: the case of pictures and words. Cognition 51: 199–236.
  9. Berg, Thomas. 1998. Linguistic Structure and Change: An Explanation from Language Processing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  10. Berger, Adam L., Stephen A. Della Pietra, and Vincent J. Della Pietra. 1996. A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. Computational Linguistics 22: 39–71.
  11. Blackmore, Susan. 2000. The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Blevins, Juliette. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 2. 117–166.
  14. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.
  15. Boersma, Paul. 1997. How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, Amsterdam 21: 43–58.
  16. Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
  17. Boersma, Paul. 2007. The evolution of phonotactic distributions in the lexicon. Talk given at the Presentation Workshop on Variation, Gradience and Frequency in Phonology, Stanford University.
  18. Bolinger, Dwight. 1950. ‘Shivaree’ and the Phonestheme. American Speech 25: 135–135.
  19. Bosworth, Joseph and TN Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. Breen, Jim. 2000. A WWW Japanese Dictionary. Japanese Studies 20:313–317.
  21. Brighton, Henry, Kenny Smith and Simon Kirby. 2005. Language as an evolutionary system. Physics of Life Reviews 2(3): 177–226.

  22. Briscoe, Ted. 2002. Language Evolution Through Language Acquisition: Formal and Computational Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Broe, Michael. 1995. Specification theory and Ngbaka co-occurrence constraints. Ms., Northwestern University.
  24. Chen, Stanley and Ronald Rosenfeld. 2000. A Survey of Smoothing Techniques for ME models. IIEE Transactions on Speech and Audio Processing 8: 37–50.
  25. Chomsky, Noam, and Howard Lasnik. 1977. Filters and Control. Linguistic Inquiry 8:425–504.
  26. Clark, Eve. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Clements, George. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston, and M. E. Beckman (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: between the grammar and physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 283–334.
  28. Clements, George and Engin Sezer. 1982. Vowel and Consonant Disharmony in Turkish. In Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith (eds.), The structure of phonological representations (Part II). Dordrecht: Foris Publications. 213–
    255.
  29. Coetzee, Andries and Joe Pater. 2005. Lexically Gradient Phonotactics in Muna and Optimality Theory. Ms., University of Massachusetts.
  30. Coleman, J., & Pierrehumbert, J. B. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Computational phonology: Third meeting of the ACL special interest group in computational phonology. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 49–56.
  31. Croft, William. 2006. The relevance of an evolutionary model to historical linguistics. In Ole Nedergaard Thomsen (ed.), Competing Models of Linguistic Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 91–132.

  32. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
  33. Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. History of English. New York: Routledge.
  34. Davis, Alva, and Raven McDavid. 1949. ‘Shivaree’: An Example of Cultural Diffusion. American Speech 24: 249–255.
  35. Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  36. Dell, Gary. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93: 283–321.
  37. Dell, Gary, Lisa Burger and William Svec. 1997. Language Production and Serial Order: A Functional Analysis and a Model. Psychological Review 107: 123–147.
  38. Dell, Gary and Jean Gordon. 2003. Neighbors in the lexicon: Friends or foes? In N. O. Schiller & A. S. Meyer (eds.), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  39. Dell, G. S., K.D. Reed, D.R. Adams, and A.S. Meyer. 2000. Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26: 1355–1367.
  40. Della Pietra, Stephen, Vincent J. Della Pietra, and John D. Lafferty. 1997. Inducing features of random fields. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 19: 380–393.
  41. Del Viso, S., J.M. Igoa, and J.E. Garcia-Albea. 1991. On the autonomy of phonological encoding: Evidence from slips of the tongue in Spanish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20: 161–185.
  42. Dennett, Daniel. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  43. Elman, Jeffrey. 1990. Finding Structure in Time. Cognitive Science 14: 179–211.
  44. Ernout, A. and A. Meillet. 1959. Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Latine. Paris: Libraire C. Klincksieck.
  45. Ferguson, Charles A. 1963. Assumptions about nasals; a sample study in phonological universals. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. 53–60.
  46. Ferguson, C.A. and C. Farwell. 1975. Words and sounds in early language acquisition: English initial consonants in the first 50 words. Language 51:419-439.
  47. Ferreira, Victor S. and Zenzi M. Griffin. 2003. Phonological influences on lexical (MIS)selection. Psychological Science 14(1): 86–90.
  48. Firth, John Rupert. 1930. Speech. In Peter Strevens (ed.), The Tongues of Men and Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  49. Fountain, Amy. 1998. An Optimality Theoretic approach to Navajo prefixal syllables. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. Available at Rutgers Optimality Archive (http://roa.rutgers.edu) as ROA-238.
  50. Frisch, Stefan. 1996. Similarity and Frequency in Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
  51. Frisch, Stefan. 2004. Language Processing and Segmental OCP Effects. Phonetically based Phonology, ed. B. Hayes, R. Kirchner and D. Steriade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 346–371.
  52. Frisch, Stefan, Nathan Large and David Pisoni. 2000. Perception of Wordlikeness: Effects of Segment Probability and Length on the Processing of Nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 481–496.
  53. Frisch, Stefan, Janet Pierrhumbert and Michael Broe. 2004. Similarity Avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 179-228.
  54. Frisch, Stefan, and Bushra Zawaydeh. 2001. The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language 77: 91-106.
  55. Fromkin, Victoria. 1971. The Non-anomalous Nature of Anomalous Utterances. Language 47(1): 27–52.
  56. Gathercole, S.E., C.R. Frankish, S.J. Pickering, and S. Peaker. Phonotactic influences on short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25: 84–95.
  57. Giles, H. and P. Smith. 1979. Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In: Giles, H., St. Clair, R. (eds.), Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  58. Goldwater, Sharon and Mark Johnson. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. In Jenni fer Spenader, Anders Eriksson, and Osten Dahl (eds.), Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. 111–120.
  59. Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language Universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
  60. Goldinger, Stephen D.; Kleider, Heather M.; Shelley, Eric. 1999. The marriage of perception and memory: Creating two-way illusions with words and voices. Memory & Cognition 27(2):328-338.
  61. Good, Jeff. 1998. H-aspiré Under Close Scrutiny: How Regular Can an Irregular Phenomenon Be? Unpublished MA thesis. University of Chicago.
  62. Grady, Joseph., Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson. 1999. Conceptual Blending and Metaphor. In G. Steen and R. Gibbs (Eds.) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  63. Grammont, Maurice. 1938. La prononciation francaise. Paris: Librairie Delgrave.
  64. Grimes, Barbara (Ed.). 2000. Ethnologue, 14th Edition. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
  65. Guy, Gregory. 1977. A new look at -t, -d deletion. In R. Shuy and R. Fasold (Eds.) Studies in language variation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press:1-11.
  66. Guy, Gregory. 1980. Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion. In Labov, William (Ed.) Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press: 1-36.
  67. Guy, Gregory. 1991. Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3: 1-22.
  68. Halle, Morris; and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. Pg. 111-176 in K. Hale and S. Bromberger (Eds.) The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  69. Hawkins, John. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
  70. Heise, David (1966), "Sound-Meaning Correlations among 1000 English Words", Language and Speech 9: 14.
  71. Helson, Harry (1933, “A Child's Spontaneous Reports of Imagery”, American Journal of Psychology, 45: 360-361.
  72. Herlovsky, William (1981), Phonetic Symbolism in Japanese Onomatopoeia, MA thesis, University of Michigan.
  73. Hill, Spencer R. (1987), Sound Symbolism: An Aural Look at Selected English Consonant Clusters, Brigham Young University dissertation.
  74. Hines, Caitlin (1994), "What's so Easy about Pie? The Lexicalization of a Metaphor", Conceptual Structure, Discourse
    and Language Conference, San Francisco State University.
  75. Hinton, Leanne , Johanna Nicols and John J. Ohala (1994), Sound Symbolism, Cambridge University Press.
  76. Hiraga, Masako K. (1987), "Eternal Stillness: A Linguistic Journey to Basho's _Haiku_ about the Cicada", Poetics Today 8(1): 5-18.
  77. Hiraga, Masako K. (1993), "Iconicity in Poetry: How Poetic Form Embodies Meaning", in Semiotics 1990, edited by Karen Haworth, John Deely, and Terry Prewitt, 115-126, New York: University Press of America.
  78. Hiraga, Masako K. (1993), "Iconic Meanings of Visual Repetition in Poetry", in Semiotics 1991, edited by John Deely and Terry Prewitt, 95-103, New York: University Press of America.
  79. Hiraga, Masako K. (1994), "Diagrams and Metaphors: Iconic Aspects in Language", The Journal of Pragmatics 22(1):5-21.
  80. Hiraga, Masako K (1998), "Metaphor-Icon Link in Poetic Texts: A Cognitive Approach to Iconicity", Journal of the University of the Air 16: 95-123.
  81. Hiraga, Masako K. (in press), "'Blending' and an Interpretation of Haiku: A Cognitive Approach", Poetics Today.
  82. Hiraga, Masako K., and Joanna Radwanska-Williams, eds. (1994), "Metaphor and Iconicity", Special issue, Journal of Pragmatics 22 (1).
  83. Hjelmslev, Louis (1943), Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, translated by F. J. Whitfield, University of Wisconson Press, Madison.
  84. Hoffman, Karl (1952), "Wiederholende Onomatopoetika im Altindischen", Indogermanische Forschungen 60: 254-264.
  85. Hough, C. (2000), “Toward an Explanation of Phonetic Differentiation in Masculine and Feminine Personal Names”, Journal of Linguistics, 36: 1-11.
  86. Householder, Fred W. (1962), "Azerbaijani Onomatopes", N. Poppo (ed.), American Studies in Altaic Linguistics, Bloomington, IN, 115-121.
  87. Jurafsky, Daniel (1996), "Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive", Language 72: 533-578.
  88. Kaesmann, Hans (1992), "Das englische Phonasthem sl-"in H. Kaesmann, H. Gneuss, E. Wolff and Th. Wolpers, Anglia, MaxNiemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 110: 307-346.
  89. Kakehi, Hisao (1983), "Onomatopoetic Expressions in Japanese and English", in Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo.
  90. Kakehi, Hisao, Lawrence Schourup,Ikuhiro Tamori (1998), A Dictionary of Iconic Expressions in Japanese, Mouton, The Hague.
  91. Kakehi, Hisao and Ikuhiro Tamori, eds. (1993), Onomatopoeia, Keiso-Shobo, Tokyo.
  92. Karlgren, Bernhard (1934), "Word families in Chinese", Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 5.9-120.
  93. Katkevich, O.A. (1999), “Izobrazitel'naya leksika v shamanskih tekstah severnyh sel'kupov”, Materialy vserossijskoj konferencii, 141, Moskva.
  94. Kaufman, Terrence (1994), "Symbolism and Change inthe Sound System of Haustec", in Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nicols and John J. Ohala, (eds.), Sound Symbolism, Cambridge University Press.
  95. Kendon, Adam (1986), "Iconicity in Walpiri Sign Language" in Paul Bouissac et al. (eds), Iconicity: Essays on the Nature of Culture,Gunter Narr, TÜbingen, 7-15.
  96. Key, Margaret (1997), The Polysemy Structure of Japanese Mimetics, M.A. thesis, Indiana University.
  97. Khatena, Joe (1969), "'Onomatopoeia and Images': Preliminary Validity Study of a Test of Originality", Perceptual and Motor Skills 28: 335-38.
  98. Khlebnikov, Velemir (1987), Tvoreniya, Izdatel’stvo “Sovetskij Pisatel”, Moscow.
  99. Kim, Kong-On (1977), "Sound Symbolism in Korean", Journal of Linguistics, 13: 67-75.
  100. Labov, William, P. Cohen, C. Robins and J. Lewis. 1968. A study of the non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican speakers in New York City. Final report, Cooperative Research Project 3288. 2 vols. Philadelphia: U.S. Regional Survey.
  101. Labov, William. 1963. The social motivation of a sound change. Word 19:273-309.
  102. Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  103. Lakoff, George. 1993. How Metaphor Structures Dreams: The Theory of Conceptual Metaphor Applied to Dream Analysis. Dreaming 3(2): 77-98.
  104. Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
  105. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT; published 1981 by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  106. MacWhinney, B., & Leinbach, J. 1991. Implementations are not Conceptualizations: Revising the Verb Learning Model. Cognition.
  107. Maess, Burkhard, Stefan Koelsch, Thomas Gunter, and Angela Friederici. 2001. Musical syntax is processed in Broca's area: An MEG study. Nature Neuroscience 4(5):540-545.
  108. Magnus, Margaret. 2000. What’s in a Word? Evidence for Phonosemantics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Trondheim, Norway.
  109. Marchand, Hans. 1959. Phonetic symbolism in English word formations. Indogermanische Forschungen 64: 146-168.
  110. Marr, David. 1982. Vision. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.
  111. Martinet, Jeanne. 1988. Un Traitement fonctionnel de la liaison en francais. Folia Linguistica Acta Societatis Linguisticae Europaeae, 22(3-4): 293-299.
  112. Mayeux, Richard and Eric Kandel. 1991. Disorders of language: the aphasias. In Eric Kandel, James Schwartz and Thomas Jessel (Eds.) Principles of Neural Science. Norwalk: Appleton and Lange: 839-851.
  113. Malkiel, Yakov (1978), "From Phonosymbolism to Morphosymbolism", The Fourth LACUS Forum, Hornbeam, Columbia, SC, 511-529.
  114. Malkiel, Yakov (1985), "Integration of Phonosymbolism with other Categories of Language Change", Seventh Internation Conferenceon Hispanic Languages.
  115. Malkiel, Yakov (1990), Diachronic Problems in Phonosymbolism, J. Benjamins PublishingCompany, Amsterdam, Philadelphia.
  116. Malkiel, Yakov (1994), "Regular Sound Development, Phonosymbolic Orchestration, Disambiguation of Homonyms", in Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nicols and John J. Ohala, (eds.), Sound Symbolism, Cambridge University Press.
  117. Maltzman, I., L. Morrisett, L. and L. Brooks (1956), "An Investigation of Phonetic Symbolism", The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 53: 245-251.
  118. Mamphwe, C. T. (1987), "The Ideophone in Venda", honors dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria.
by Ayndryl on Monday, December 13, 2010
Labels
Template Design by SkinCorner