Understanding Speech, Conceptualization, Planning, Articulation, Acoustic Transition And Perception

Full text

r
Understanding Speech, Conceptualisation, Planning,
Articulation,
Acoustic, Transition and Perception
Fawaz Annaz & Charles Jannuzi
Introduction
Although there are various approaches to studying, describing, analyzing and explaining the production,
transmission and perception
of language, practical implementation
of such approaches remains
problematic.
Phonological concepts
and terminologies often seem too complex and abstract, if not contradictory.
To
overcome such difficulties, the paper
will start by reviewing phonemic,
featural
and gestural
models of the
"IJnits" of spoken language. Then it will describe and explain a cross-disciplinary
proposed gestural
model
approach, whose validity is supported by electromyographical evidence
The paper
will also highlight deficiencies
in current approaches to phonology, which emphasize
on either
simplistic, static phonemic-phonetic
models or place an over-emphasis on acoustic feedback instead of
Articulatory
representations of connected
gestural routines. This proposed
approach
provides
innovative ideas
for model pronunciation
opening new
practical possibilities
in multidisciplinary
applications that uses visual as
well as acoustic feedback.
Language
Units
In this section different models will be reviewed in terms of basic units, and a parallel to what engineers
recognize
as dimensional analysis will be performed
on each model. The discussion below will show how the
Articulatory Gesture theory/model reconciles
the above the language
model aspects. To start this discussion,
let
us break up language into something that everyone agrees with, that is words. A Word is defined
a consecutive
string of letters with a single space on each side. If language subdivision is taken a step
further,
then a sub-
lexical level (beneath
world level meaning) may be derived. kt us look at the different models in their sub-
lexical levels
to derive units to perform
our linguistic
dimensional analysis.
$ Morphology: The Sub-lexical processes
at the Morphological lrvel by considering
Derivations and
"i Inflections: are basically outside the unit of word meaning
(What words do grammatically).
In
other words, the interface of Grammar and words. English is a relatively
uninflected language, but it
still has
some
inflections,
such as Plural inflection (Cats
is the Plural of Cat) and tense modification
of verbs ("Bought" is the
past
tense of "Buy").
'i" Derivation: is the form of new words out of root words. For example combing the word "lrxical"
(the adjective inflection of the I-atin word "[rxis") and the word "Sub" will yield the word "Sub-
frxical". In fact, this example also illustrates the overlap between
"Inflectional" and "Derivation"
Morphology.
ri Holophrastically Treated Words: These are idiomatic chunks of language which are understood
holistically
as opposed to breaking
them down into their parts
to understand their meanings. These
include phrases
which are mentally treated and accepted as unique words giving unique meanings.
For example, it is not necessary
to break down the phrase
"For Example" into two words to
understand its meani ng.
If we were to analyze words (into something) beneath this level or at least parallel
to Morphological
level
without grammatical
consideration,
then at the other end of the spectrum there are Phonological
as
well as
Morphophonological
considerations.
t Morphophonology: is when words undergo morphological
and phonological
changes. For example, to
generate
the plurals
(Morphological changes) of words will result in pronunciation
(phonological) changes
too. To generate
the plurals of cat and dog (i.e. CATS and DOGS) the words will undergo similar
morphological
changes with Phonological
differences; both words are inflected by adding
"S" at the end of
each word; CATS sound
as
KATS whereas DODS sound as
*DOGZ", so there were Morphological
units
with phonological (pronunciation)
variations.

t
i
I
Phonology and Phonetics: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Phonology" is defined
as the
study of sounds in a language, while phonetics
deals with the representation of speech-sound
by a
particular
symbol used for a particular
sound. Phonology
is concerned
with the breakdown of words into
smaller units beneath
the word level or word level meaning, i.e. sound
units
or syllables.
Unlike Phonetics,
Phonology is a mentally
controlled process, such
as
control of the Articulatory Gesture. Phonetics carries
out a similar breakdown
without any mental conceptualization,
planning
or control.
Basically, Phonology
deals with a word level view of language
that consists
of a word meaning
level mapped
on word phonic
substance (mental acoustic and Articulatory material).
Language
representation
below this word level,
may
be represented as follows:
-: Syllabic kvel: Syllables
may be defined in terms of a mental
structure resulting in Articulatory or
acoustic sub-definitions.
Words are considered to be made up of one or more syllables.
? Acoustically: consonants (Con) and vowels
(Vow) put together to make
up a syllable.
. Articulatory: with a consonant the mouth tends to be closed
(C), while with a vowel the mouth
tend to be open (O). Therefore, a syllable
is a combination
of opened/closed mouth sequences.
This physiology is transformed mentally to make up a meaningful word. In English language
syllables could be as minimal as saying the letter
"A" as in saying
"A BOOK" or could a
different
combination
of different
consonants and
vowels.
,l Sub-Syllabic Level: Phonetically and phonologically
syllables of words may be thought of to be
made of a "Nucleus
Vowel" alone or its combination
with preceding
"Onset", "Complex Onset" and
a trailing "Coda", and "Complex Coda". The Vowel Nucleus
could be a combination of two vowel
sounds
which is transformed
as diphthongs or even triphthongs;
as an example of diphthong,
RIGHT. which could be thought of as "R + AI + T" and
not "RA +IT". The "AI" is a unified sound
and
is referred
to as a diphthong.
? Mora: is an isochronic
rhythmic beat measure in a word. If words were to be represented in
rhythmic "Points"; The word "CAN" ss61es
"oooo" in comparison to the word "CAT" which
scores
"..", where
. indicates a sudden stop.
? Features: This type of unit is at a similar level as the "Mora" level. but is concerned
with word
uniting in terms of feature comparisons. In this type of unit. "CAT" and "CAN" will differ in
nasality,
length and vocalization.
-:- Phoneme: is above
Mora and
features and it is concerned with breaking
up words into segments, so
the word "CAN" can
be broken up into "K+,4+N". This type of uniting reflects alphabetical writing
and fails to cater
for physiological
conceptualization,
planning
and control of a language. Also it fails
to cater for articulation, acoustic transition, mental and
physical perception
of Ianguage.
Articulatory Gesture: This unit fits the abstraction
that models
Iinguistic reality and pedagogical
reality
much more accurately than
the previous models. A model
that represents
linguistic reality means it has to
reconcile
psycholinguistic control
(planning and
conceptualization). articulation,
acoustic
transmission
and
perception.
Psycholinguistic Control: Articulation involves patterned (not random), planned and controlled
movements through the vocal
track,
reconciling with psycholinguistic
control of the speech.
Articulation: Simply it is not possible
to say something that is impossible
to say. Unlike the
phoneme
(which somehow
gets stripped away from the phonetic
and Articulatory consideration),
hence, the Articulatory Gesture
reconciles
the mental
control to shape the mouth.
Acoustic Transmission: This basically depends on the use of individual linguistic skills to produce
sound and interpret
sound
back into language. The coding and decoding tasks become more efficient
if Articulatory visualization
is available to both the speaker and the listener.
The ability to decode
pure
acoustic signals
is highly dependent on language skills.
Perception: this is a decoding
process
which again is possible because
the listener is capable
of
articulation,
and
with a visual the
process
becomes more efficient.
Another strong point of this unit is that it reconciles with the probable
evolution of human
communication.
Before humans could speak. humans could gesture
and make noise. Gesturing and making noise is not
considered as a developed language; it is amusing to hear
a parrot mimicking speech,
but the parrot is never
67
1"
&,

i
considered
to be capable
of speaking
a language.
However, it is in the merging of controlled
gesturing fused
with the
phonetic
ability,
that
spoken
language evolved.
Conceptual
Legacy and Contrasts in Uniting Systems
The Phoneme.'
Phonologists came up with the structuralist
idea that speech
could be segmented
into the
ultimate
phonological unit,
the
phoneme. This is concerned
with breaking
up words into segments,
so the
word
(CAl\" can be broken up into "K+,4,+N", hence
as a unit it is ranked
above the Mora and
Features.
Although
the Phonemes could account for some aspects
of English speech
and writing system, there is clear evidence
that proves
otherwise.
Not only does
this type of unit reflect poor representation to speech
or alphabetical
writing, it fails to cater
for physiological
conceptualization,
planning and
control of a language.
Also it fails to
cater
for articulation,
acoustic transition
as well as
mental
and
physical perception of language.
Problems:
i. Segmentationnon-uniformity
*F /B/ in "BAT" or "BIN" are
contrasted with the
rhyming words
"AT" or "IN"
',=
Isolate the vowels in "BET" and
"BIT". to distineuish
between the
vowels
lEl and
lll .
n Segmentation failure to reach
phoneme status
"jr-
the
'<NG"
sound(s) at the end
of "RING" or "SING"
S SegmentationShutdown
':=
Are the IN-IIM- prefixes in "INERT" and "IMMOBILE" different because of the
morphophonemic variation
or could one argue that either the /N/ or the phonetically similar
/M/ is actually an allophonic
variation
of a phoneme?
The Feature: A unit by which attempts
to further break down the Phonemes, resulting in the Features
unit.
This unit is at a similar level as the "Mora" level,
but is concerned
with word uniting
in terms of feature
comparisons.
In this type
of uniting, "CAT" and
"CAN" will differ in nasality,
vowel length and
voicing.
Problems:
,1" Non-uniformity across
modes
of production and reception:
The features
of the "Feature" itself
(nasality,
length
and
vocalization)
show clear
non-uniformity uniting with respect to letter
position
in a word
'::' Voicing of El to form /D/
-a Aspiration might distinguish an initial lP lfrom medial one.
S Boundary
effects: Features spread
over whole syllables,
words and even
word boundaries.
': "NET" and
"TEN"
The Articulatory Gesture: A system with Phonological units should be valid statically as well as
dynamically,
after all. static instances are no more than frozen dynamic instances. If this analysis
applies
to
engineering
concepts
and applications
then it should not be surprising
that the same
could be extended
to
speech,
which is also a tool that humans
have taken for granted. A closer
look at speech
unit analysis
reveals
that linguistic models should account
for speech
from the instant that it is conceptualized (in the speaker's
mouth) to the instant
it is perceived by the listener. If otherwise,
then it is no more than noise. Therefbre, a
linguistically
satisfactory model should
cater
fbr and must not ignore:
Conceptualization
I Planning 0 Articulating 9 Acoustic Transition 0 Perception
What makes this approach
more appealing
is that it coherently
addresses
the phonetical,
physiological
and
psychological aspects
of speech.
Here, speech
is made up of syllabic units produced through dynamic
descriptions
of a complex movements
in the vocal tract, mouth and facial muscles,
this we refer to as the
Articulatory
gestural approach or Articulatory
phonology.
In this approach the basic units of phonological contrast are gestures,
which are also abstract
characterizations
of Articulatory events,
each with an intrinsic time or duration. Words are modeled as
organized syllabic
patterns. whom gestural units may overlap
in time. The phonological structures defined
in
this way provide a set of articulatorily based
natural classes.
Therefore, Prelinguistic
units of action are
harnessed into gestural phonological structures
through differentiation and coordination. (Browman &
Goldstein, 1992,
p. i55)
68

One problem with any theory that seeks
to explain speech
is that it might not take perception
into account.
Real
speech
is a process
of overlapped
sounds
that could be
optimized
through co-articulation
of segments,
use
of super-syllabic features,
reduction
of vowels
and use of glottal consonants. However,
optimized
speech
efficiency is constrained by the listener perceived rate,
hence higher
rate of speech
production would definitely
cause a breakdown in communication. This is highly likely to occur
in cross cultural or cross
disciplinary
communications. Cross culturally, although, different languages.
dialects. and accents have different sets of
Articulatory Gestures,
comprehension
remains possible if there is mutual intelligibility (i.e. considerable
overlap of grammar
and lexicon) despite
pronunciation
variations.
Cross
disciplinary
comprehension can be
more taxing but not impossible.
Articulatory Gestures, A Facially
Prominent Account
Human ability in producing
systematic meaningful speech lies in the vocal ability and
fortuitous
adaptation of
respiratory, upper digestive and auditory tracts
that allows it to gesture
semiotically. The face
is a transitional
part
ofthe vocal
apparatus and
is the
visual-gestural
system.
One clear advantage of an
Articulatory
gestural account
of phonology
is that it gives
a dynamic,
physiologicai
basis in language communication,
allowing for the ability to handle fast (normal), reduced,
or co-articulated
speech and anticipate or even filling in missed audible
portions
in the speech stream.
It is the natural,
realistic
and most efficient
way in speech acquisition and its applications
could
be extended to language learning,
language
development, lip reading
and
others.
Electromyography
Electromyography is a means
to measure and
graphically
record in
controlled settings the electrical
activity of muscles, including
those used in producing speech. Generate
electric impulses are
picked up by the attached (to an abraded area of the skin over the
muscle) electrodes
as facial muscles contracted or stimulated.
Audible signals
of speech along with associated muscular activities
due to speech
can be
displayed on an oscilloscope and
recorded
as
electromyogram.
Although electromyographic techniques
could be utilized
to measure
inner
vocal
tract activities, the approach would interfere
with normal speech. Therefore, an external, facial
electromyographic
technique, first were conducted
by Koyama et
al. (1976), were adapted
to examine common, salient visual and
kinesthetic modes that might help in understanding speech
and its
production
as
facial
muscular activities.
Electromyographic Data
Preliminary.
yet extensive, sets of vowels and
the consonants data from one subject (an
American native speaker
of English,
one
of the
authors, Jannuzi) were collected
and
analyzed
(from the M. temporalis, M. masetter. M.
levator labii superioris alaeque nasi, M.
orbicularis oris, M depressor labii inferioris, M
digastricus venter anterior, Figure 1).
Spectrally and statically limited (as far as
experiments are concerned) yet it gave an
interesting physiological insight
(dominance of
the depressor, Figure 2) in speech
production
strengthening the Articulatory gestural
claims.
In what follows. Articulatory Gesture will be
contrasted and compared to Phonemes:
Figure
1: Monitored facial muscles
ttmprralis mitsetlrr kllrtor rirbitulalis drptcssol diglstricus
r
l'n
l-'
I'o
1,,,
lf 1:
WT
la
I],\
le
lae
€ou
lu
'Flr" ".
Figure 2: Dominance of the
Depressor
69

0ru
Acoustically speaking,
ll:ls and
/I/s can appear
to sound
quite
similar and
are
hard to distinguish
Phonemic and Featural Accounts:
place
lI:l alongside
lll as
an
important contrast.
Articulatory Gestural Account: In this case, there is no contradiction with Phonemic or Featural
Accounts. In fact,
it confirms that
there are clear
distinction
patterns.
Electromyographic data:
gives significant evidence for the planning
stage
(mental control of physiology) in
speech
production,
which falls in between conceptualization and
actual speech production. The concept
of
physiological
control
(preceding
and
accompanying speech) negates the intuitive notion of speech being a
sequence of sounds. Muscular activity that precedes speech production, cannot be regarded
(phonologically
speaking) as
a simple
sequence
of sound
segments.
For example:
' Anticipatory Muscular Activity Prior Phonation:
One-syllable
words ending
in consonants
/P/ or /M/ might display more muscular activity preceding
the
production
ofthis first segment as sound,
Figures 3,4 and 6.
Contrast of Muscular Energy between l[:l and lllz
There is greater
muscular
intensity with words including
/I:/ such as "PEAT", in contrast with words
including
/I/ as
in'PIT", Figures
7 and 8.
. Nasality:
Nasality
in /N/ and
/M/ leads to lengthening
of sound signal in vowels
especially, but Features
too
Figures 3-8.
"' Invalid Segmental
Opposition:
"TOP" and
"POT" are not exact segmental opposites, contrary to Phonimic
Theory,
Figure
5
Fig.3: See, Seat. Seep
and
Seen
[I: words] Fig.
4: It, Sit, Sip and
Sin
[I words]
Non-minimal difference:
Initial consonants
involve a krt of movement
while final consonants do not; however, note that a
"Minimal" pair such as
"COT" and
"CON" are not minimally different.
Figure
5
tt.:
o5
Fig. 5: Top, Pot. Cot and
Con [A words]
70
Fig.6: Cut. Gun. Tough
and
Come
[" words]

:ull
I"7
tl
I:e;o
iso
:
-ta)
rJ0
r:l)
Il{)
I
i{l
i
tJtt
i
71)
1
i6r)
is{,
i'o
rJl)
.N[, l]epnss{rr-
L:rlrii brfrrioris
- $etl
I pe:rt
'"--'"^"-:'--'--"'
1
. _._---....,1.....-
----,.._
_..
I
l
,
l?{)
ll,
I
itt
4
{}.5 |
Fig.7:
Sin, Hit and
Pit [I]
-!::i - J
Fig.
8: Seen, Heat and Peat
[I:]
Phonological
Coding Ability
It could be argued from theoretical and experimental
standpoints that a facially salient
Articulatory Gesture is
the
best
model of psycholinguistically controlled speech
at a sub-lexical, sub-syllabic level. However, within a
more comprehensive view of language
and literacy,
there still might be a place fbr the concepts
of phonemes
and features.
Other conceptual areas that must be considered (before beginning to account
for phonology
in
speech acquisition, language learning.
listening outside
of face-to-face interaction,
and literacy development)
include
the cognitive
linguistics
skills of "Phonological
Coding/processing
ability". This is concerned
with
S. Phonological perception
and interpretation ofphonetic or phonetically graphic data,
n Analysis/decoding
of acoustic
(and/or
visual/graphic)
signals
in oral and/or written communication,
'.i, Re-encoding
of linguistic
input for lexical
access and word recognition,
& Re-encoding
of linguistic input for comprehension and meaning
making.
t" l.anguage retention in short{erm working memory (more
specifically, phonological memory),
and
d' Linking all these
points
with long{erm memory such
as
storage and retrieval.
Metacognition: Awareness Skills in Language
and Literacy Development Background
This section briefly summaries skills that are
thought
to comprise
a Metacognitive
type of analytic
ability which
over-layers
verbal
language
processing
but remains
separable
from what have
traditionally been called
phonics
skills. The latter of which emerge as part of reading
in an alphabetically language. Thus, it is thought that
phonological
awareness skills follow from the phonological processing, production
and perception
skills that
develop as a result of native language acquisition. However, they
precede
the development of phonics
skills and
beginning
literacy and may play some sort of causal
role in reading development. The related concepts of
phonological
and/or
phonemic
awareness are
not well established
within foreign language education. coming
as
they do mostly liom theorizing about and
research on native literacy in languages that are written alphabetically.
Descriptions may be
found
in:
n For l-anguage
awareness and short-term
memory skills at a phonological
level play an integral role in
literacy
development in languages with alphabetic orthographies, please
refer
to:
Elkonin, 1963; Libe rman,
1973; Liberman, Shankweiler,
Fischer
& Carter,
1974; Williams, 1995; Nation & Hulme, 1997; Stahl,
Duffey-Hester,
& Stahl. 1998;
'i. From a cross-linguistic
perspective
using
pure research
techniques,
please
refer to Koda, 1987,
1998
$ For English as a Second
Language
perspective
using applied
research
case studies.
please
refer to Birch.
1998.
-4" Epistemologically
speaking.
phonological and phonemic awareness abilities would seem to subsist
somewhere
between
what Skehan
(1998) calls "Phonological
Coding Ability" and what have been
traditionally termed
phonics
skills in native language arts. Phonics
skills clnly come into play when
alphabetic or syllabic writing conventions are associated with and/or analyzed into some sort of
phonological
equivalent during the reading and writing of text. In the case of reading written English.
single letters and letter combinations functioning as
graphemes
(units of writing corresponding to units of
sound) would be made to stand
for single sounds
and
sound
combinations
in some sort of psycholinguistic
process
during reading; these representations might then be related to the phonology
of spoken
English
to
facilitate
lexical access.
which would then lead to the integration
of lexical meaning into syntax and
discourse.
Phonological awareness skills may serve as some sort of meta-cognitive
bridge
between
oral and
written language processi
ng.
1:'i
I -1, i -"-1
11
I'

It is often asserted
that phonological
awareness/meta-phonological
skills emerge
before
and may even
causally
underlie
beginning
literacy
(hence
the need
to oirlngu'rrtt
theri from what has
been
called
traditionaty phonics'
It might also
be argued
*,ai*,is ability to .^ti;;i"i; an internalized
language
phono-analytically
leads
to the
acquisition
of phonics
skills at decoding
una ,nJnlpoiuting
alphabetic
wriiing, especially
if phonics
skills are
a
key part of beginning
literacy development
unJ riUr"quJnt iunctional litericy' Phonological
awareness
skills
are
thought
to be activated
as
a sub-component
of the reading
process
because
they help a reader
(as
language
user)
to decode
and reconstruct
informatior r"-pi.o t o- in'alphabetically written text and relate
it at one
specific
level with the
reader's
internalized
ph";ilgt of the language
being
read'
Such
a step
may
be especially
important
in:;"'",l"Xffi?:*l1"li!I, however,
in which
phonological
awareness
skills
are
seen
as
a fairlv
spontaneous
a"u"ropnl"ni bridging native languug"
u.qui.itio.n
oiphonology with literacy development'
This
might undercut
the hypotheticll fredicti"., ";;f;;;i and instructional
uilue of phonological
awareness
in
reading
instruction,
since
this view would makl such
'killt upp"u' to be more a result
of success
at beginning
literacy
than
a causative
factor underlying
it. Another
vexed
iisue is the orthography
of English
itself; although
written alphabetically,
English
violates
the-
alphabetic
principle (one symbol=one
sound)
severely
in numerous
ways,
to an
extent
tlut ttr"-."utity
of phonological
and
pttoni. reading
of it hut to be drastically
circumscribed'
if
not placed
entirely
in doubt.
nre tanguage
leueis
ut which it can
be said
the
code
of written English
is stable
and
determines
the
language
read
would be at the
word level and
above'
I
I
t
iiI
'l
I
?
I
Conclusion
;*lJtL:Tlious approaches
that account
for the production,
transmission
and perception
of a speech
^^L^- ^-- h^", mrrnh nsefirl information
;ff:ffi;
H:'iH"liil;ftfi'il
#;ile i1"^ 1;{"*::'":l':::1,:,il}ili#}il;:::*iii:'Iiii::
::',1"#'J-fiff'.jlJffiil'::'iffi;'il;':';:i"}11",
'""'
l*:*:,::*"':;::':l"i:Ti*:ililX'::
::"["J"ffiT;ffi;%*-il;"..-';;r'?";"d"r""'i':Ti*:*"::"::'"1ff
*J'f, :"::H;;i'J?i:
;"J'.":,ffH;'r[,TtT:-"ffi;!]ffi ."",t,, or
terms
in phonologicar
speelch
'"lv b: too
opaque
and
,^-^ -:--t;.ti^ onr{ ctqtic to do iustice tO
ffJ,l'r]',J';,t"j#, i"""n"J';;;i;;i"p"rr, rn" concepts
"outd
b. too
simplistic
and
static
to do
justrce
to
r r- ^:^l ^l^^+-^6rr^ftranhrr srrnnOfts A
i;JTil:hi:'#il*";:i
oi'J"i"'':l
:1Tr",1'l: T::,H:1":::"3:,':i"1":::,T#'ffiJJ'
:T.'iT:
:
',ff'HH'::::hffifi:i#;""".ii{;";;;
;;;;:;lli:l
:::i:f: :::?:::"'-:,"?;1?T:Ji::*.1f,$:"f,
:'#:,i::S,:TtJfii,,fr"i."Jr]"#il;
t"J,",n-,.?tiung,ug"
teaching,
training,
mateiiars
development,
speech
acquisition
and
sPeech
theraPY'
23,65-77.
r-iu".run','i-ti.,"itunt*"lter, D., Fischer,
w.M., & carter, B. (rg74)' Explicit syllable
and phoneme
r n^.-t-^t^-,, 1a ao.1 -)1)
;J,1;,J#;;;;;,;;td';;:u,n',roin,p",i*"n,:::!:i2::::!::ll2t:::#"segmenlalron
lll r's yuu'6 u'rru'rv4' rn" ,"g-"ntution, predicts early reading
Nation,
t<.
"& Hutme
, C. (Iggi)' Phonemic
yqmentatiol^"?::1t:5"
and
spelling
skilli.
Reading
Research
Quarterly
i': ttl!"U^|-.
Skehan,
i"iti'niii..f
.C't;;;-;p;';;i
i' t'"g'1s"-?l'1*f
-o:t'iL:l"t",f^Yl1?:tit"i,;'"':
i,ffilXlJ
l'"iil;i ';f::::#;':;:;;ffi ;;1 ;.-"-.^Td
\l-n"oges
(Eds
),
rhe
titeracv
dictionary'
(pp
' International
Reading
Association'
185-136).
Newark,
DE:
References
Birch,
B. (1998).
Nurturing
bottom-up,reading
strategies,
too.
TESOL
Journal
T(6)'
t8'23'
Browman,
c. p.,
& Gotdstein,
L. (1gg2).Arti"uiuio.i
phonology:
An overview
. Phonetica,
49,
155-180'
Elkonin,
D. B. (1963).
The
psychotogy
gf -^;;;ir;ir,e ete,ients
of -reading'
In B' Simon
& J' Simon
(Eds')'
Educational
p ,vrioiogv in tnlJ
u's's'n' @p'
165-17?)'
f"t York:
Routledge'
Harris,
T.L., &Hodges,
R. E. (Eds.)(1995).Ti'e'literacy
dictionary:
The
vocabulary
of reading
andwriting'
Newark,
DEr International
Reading
Association'
Koyama,
S.,
T. okamoi",
r'r. v.rttiru*u du. rumamoto
(1976).
An electromyographic
study
on
training
to
pronounce
English
consonants
unfamiliar
to
the
Japane
se'
Journal
of
Human
Ergology'
5' 51-60'
Koda,
K. (19g7).
cogriiii"" ,rrategy
transfer.in
second
language
reading.
in J' Devine,
P'L' carrell'
& D'E'
Eskey
(Eds.)
,
Research
in
inglishi' o S"'ona
ionguage
1pp'
W -t++)'
Washington'
D'C':
TESOL'
KodaK.(1998).Theroleofphonemicawareness*inse.onol-anguagereadirrg.SecondLanguageResearch
(London),
14(2),
794-215
'
Liberman,
I. Y.(1973).
Segmentation
of the
spoken
word
and
reading
acquisition'
Bulletin
of the
Orton
Society
72