Computer Analysis of Alliteration in Beowulf Using Distinctive Feature Theory

1991 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 274-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. BARQUIST
Keyword(s):  
Computer Analysis ◽  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Feature Theory

The Modification of Multiple Articulation Errors Based on Distinctive Feature Theory

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonis Costello ◽  
Joanne M. Onstine
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Treatment Program ◽  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Full Data ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Feature Theory

The effectiveness of articulation remediation procedures based on distinctive feature theory was evaluated through the administration of an articulation program designed for this purpose. Two preschool children with multiple phoneme errors which could be described by a distinctive feature analysis were the subjects. Both children substituted stop phonemes for most continuant phonemes. Each child was individually administered the distinctive feature program which is described in full. Data are presented which indicate the adequacy of. the treatment program, the acquisition of correct articulation of the two directly treated target phonemes, and the concurrent improvement of five other nontreated error phonemes. Such across-phoneme generalization was predicted by distinctive feature theory. Certain modifications in the treatment program are suggested and theoretical/empirical questions regarding articulation remediation from a distinctive features viewpoint are discussed.

Disorders of Articulation: Some Clinical Applications of Distinctive Feature Theory

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 451-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Pollack ◽  
Norma S. Rees
Keyword(s):  
Test Data ◽  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Clinical Management ◽  
Speech Therapy ◽  
Clinical Applications ◽  
Clinical Approach ◽  
Articulation Disorder ◽  
Adult Model ◽  
Rule System ◽  
Feature Theory

The application of distinctive feature theory to the analysis of the speech of children with defective articulation is suggested as a clinical approach. Distinctions are made between children with phonetic disorders and children with phonemic disorders. Distinctive feature analyses were made of the articulation test data of a child receiving speech therapy for an articulation disorder at three intervals, at ages 5-2, 5–8, and 6-3. Each analysis was compared with the adult model to reveal the rules of the child’s phonological competence at that time. Each analysis is compared with the preceding one(s) to show the changes in the rule system as the child’s speech gradually approached the adult model. Discussion of these analyses suggests some specific applications of the resulting data to clinical management and some limitations of this approach.

Foundations of Distinctive Feature Theory

Language ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Frank Parker ◽  
Christiane Baltaxe
Keyword(s):  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Feature Theory

The Conceptual Reality of Selected Distinctive Features

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 122-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Conrad LaRiviere ◽  
Harris Winitz ◽  
James Reeds ◽  
Eve Herriman
Keyword(s):  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Improve Performance ◽  
Immediate Feedback ◽  
Distinctive Features ◽  
Speech Stimuli ◽  
Group A ◽  
Contrast Group ◽  
Feature Theory ◽  
Rote Memory

An experiment was conducted in which a large group of subjects was asked to categorize speech stimuli. In each subexperiment, two groups of 10 subjects categorized, with immediate feedback, 90 stimuli consisting of six monosyllables arranged in 15 randomized blocks. One group, the feature-contrast group, could solve the categorization task on the basis of a feature contrast or rote memory. The second group, a control group, could operate only on the basis of rote memory. Data are presented for the following features: ± vocalic, ± voice, ± nasal, ± continuant, and ± strident. Results indicate that the nasal, strident, and vocalic features have conceptual reality, that pairing a conceptually real feature with a nonoonceptually real feature does not improve performance, and that the data are not easily related to many existing notions or data concerning distinctive-feature theory.

scholarly journals The Sound System of Baghdadi Arabic in the Light of Distinctive Feature Theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 214 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-66
Author(s):  
Inst. Dr. Abdul Rahman Abbood Hassan
Keyword(s):  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Sound System ◽  
Language Variety ◽  
Feature Theory

This paper is an attempt to look at the sound system of Baghdadi Arabic in view of the Distinctive  Feature Theory, in order to see how far such a theory would be applicable to the language variety being dealt with in this paper. The main purpose ,here, is to see how far is it  possible to group the sounds of Baghdadi Arabic into classes according to their phonetic (distinctive) properties. Thus, on one hand, the paper is meant to deal with the sounds of Baghdadi Arabic in terms of Trubetzkoy's distinctive oppositions, using the method of contrasting the classes of sounds according to such oppositions. 

Underspecification and vowel height transfer in Esimbi

Phonology ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry M. Hyman
Keyword(s):  
Steady Flow ◽  
Distinctive Feature ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Phonological Representation ◽  
One Step ◽  
Feature Theory ◽  
Vowel Height

Since the advent of distinctive feature theory, few issues have received as many interpretations as the phonological representation of vowel height. Vowel height features have been denned acoustically and articulatorily, have allowed three, four or five distinct heights, have been unary, binary and n-ary, and have been on a single tier, multiple tiers or in various head-dependency relationships. It is fair to say that there is no consensus on how vowel height should be represented. While many generative phonologists have been quite content working for nearly three decades with a pair of binary vowel height features, the literature of this period includes a steady flow of criticisms of this approach as well as suggestions for improvement or radical change. This literature generally addresses itself to two problems inherent in the SPE features [high] and [low] and the three vowel heights they define: First, how does one account for systems with four (five?) vowel heights? Second, how can rules that raise (lower) vowel heights by one step each be accounted for? In the first question we ask what the theory has to say about distinctive oppositions such as /i e ∊ æ/ in the second question we ask what the theory has to say about a rule such as one that would lower /i/ to [e] and /e/ to [∊].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document