The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness
Abstract
Introduction Most ‘phonetically driven’ or functionalist theories of phonology propose that two of the fundamental forces shaping phonology are the need to minimise effort on the part of the speaker and the need to minimise the likelihood of confusion on the part of the listener. The goal of this chapter is to explore the perceptual side of this story, investigating the general character of the constraints imposed on phonology by the need to minimise confusion. The need to avoid confusion is hypothesised to derive from the communicative function of language. Successful communication depends on listeners being able to recover what a speaker is saying. Therefore it is important to avoid perceptually confusable realisations of distinct categories; in particular, distinct words should not be perceptually confusable. The phonology of a language regulates the differences that can minimally distinguish words, so one of the desiderata for a phonology is that it should not allow these minimal differences, or contrasts, to be too subtle perceptually. In Optimality-Theoretic terms, this means that there are constraints favouring less confusable contrasts over more confusable contrasts. There is nothing new about the broad outlines of this theory (cf. Lindblom 1986, 1990; Martinet 1955; Zipf 1949; among others), but it has important implications for the nature of phonology. First, it gives a central role to the auditoryperceptual properties of speech sounds, since distinctiveness of contrasts is dependent on perceptual representation of speech sounds. This runs counter to the articulatory bias in phonological feature theory observed in Chomsky and Halle 1968 and its successors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968) · Cited by 5,162
Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004) · Optimality Theory in Phonology · doi:10.1002/9780470756171.ch1 · Cited by 4,683
Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.115.1.39 · Cited by 2,766
A Cross-Language Study of Voicing in Initial Stops: Acoustical Measurements
Lisker, L., & Abramson, A. S. (1964) · WORD · doi:10.1080/00437956.1964.11659830 · Cited by 2,590
The Sounds of the World's Languages
Foulkes, P. (1997) · International Journal of Bilingualism · doi:10.1177/136700699700100110 · Cited by 1,959
Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies
Hayes, B. (1995) · Cited by 1,919
The Sounds of the World's Languages
Nathan, G. S., Ladefoged, P., & Maddieson, I. (1998) · Language · doi:10.2307/417875 · Cited by 1,724
Human behavior and the principle of least effort.
indicated, N. A. (1949) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0052803 · Cited by 1,565
Duration of Syllable Nuclei in English
Peterson, G. E., & Lehiste, I. (1960) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1908183 · Cited by 1,069
Maddieson, I. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,037
Metadata
- Authors
- Flemming, E.
- Venue
- Phonetically Based Phonology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2004-08-12
- Pages
- 232-276
- OpenAlex
- W1594665447
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 29.42
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511486401.008
- The paper
- Flemming, E. (2004). Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. Phonetically Based Phonology. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511486401.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.