Subject: Re: JASA templates From: Tarun Pruthi <tpruthi(at)GLUE.UMD.EDU> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 09:30:31 -0400Hi, Thanks a lot for the replies. I promise to collect all of them and write to the list about which one worked best for me when I am done. Thanks and Regards Tarun On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Tarun Pruthi wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing a paper for JASA and I am unable to find a template for > writing articles for JASA in latex. Can anyone point me to the relevant > links? Any other tips/suggestions I should keep in mind are welcome. > > Thanks and Regards > Tarun > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Robert Port wrote: > >> I can't resist responding to this issue. I have spent my career trying >> to figure out what words are made of. I have finally come to the >> conclusion that: >> >> BOTH PHONEMES AND PHONES ARE INTUITIVELY PERSUASIVE PRIMARILY >> BECAUSE OF OUR LIFELONG EXPERIENCE WITH ALPHABETS. >> >> Speech sounds are very short (15-20 per second), and the relevant >> motor gestures are mostly invisible (tongue, glottis, velum, etc). And >> those of us in the European cultural tradition learn to use letters >> beginning as young as 2. Letters are a great engineering solution to >> preserving language in graphic form and our education system assures >> that we all become proficient at thinking about speech in letter-like >> terms from an early age. But phones and phonemes inherit many >> graphic properties from letters: >> * SERIAL ORDER (no temporal patterns allowed), >> * NONOVERLAPPING (hence the artificial `coarticulation problem'), >> * PERFECTLY CONTRASTIVE FROM ONE ANOTHER (no near contrasts or >> partial contrasts) >> * STATIC (diphthongs, glides and affricates present awkward >> inconsistencies). >> >> In the late 19th C, de Courtenay proposed the notion of the `phoneme' >> which was very quickly adopted by phoneticians and linguists and >> treated as a great discovery about human language. In fact, all that >> happened is that scientists began to think seriously about the >> psychological representation of language (which had been largely >> ignored earlier) and thought `Maybe we have something in our heads >> that represents words the way letters do. There must be something >> analogous to letters to keep words distinct from each other. There >> must be PHONEMES!' The phoneme was not discovered, it was just >> postulated by analogy with alphabetical written language. >> >> So how ARE words `represented' in the head?: By gestures and gesture >> components of various sizes - from feature size to syllable size to >> the size of whole phrases - WHATEVER STATISTICAL REGULARITIES SPEAKERS >> HAPPEN TO PICK UP as they learn how TO talk. Each language has its >> own conventional solution to keeping utterances distinct. Of course, >> languages have a phonological system, something a little like an >> `inventory' of possible sound contrasts in various positions. This >> system should be thought of as a social institution that children >> learn to adapt their speech habits to. But these inventories are very >> different from a cognitive spelling system. Eg, they always have many >> uncertainties, places where you cannot tell which phonemes (letters) >> to employ: what is the V in `beer'? (same as bead or same as bid?), >> what is the stop in `stow'? Same as tow or same as doe? What is the >> pstop butter? Same a butt or same as Bud? Or neither? (But the data >> show two slightly different flaps are used in ladder and latter!) If >> language were REALLY spelled with a phonological alphabet, then these >> uncertainties could not happen. >> >> I have a couple mspts on my website addressing these >> issues. Obviously there are a great many empirical implications of >> this iconoclastic hypothesis: implications about how speech can be >> recognized (by humans or machine), for how languages are learned, how >> they change over time, differences between the linguistic intuitions >> of alphabet-literates vs. nonalphabet-literates, constraints on >> phonological language games (like pig-latin), etc etc. Basically ALL >> the data come out just as this hypothesis predicts. I claim, in fact: >> >> NO DATA WHATEVER, (aside from the powerful intuitions of lay >> people and linguists educated in the alphabetic tradition) SUPPORT A >> SEGMENTAL (that is, C and V) DESCRIPTION OF LANGUAGE! >> >> I would like to hear the evidence if anyone wishes to challenge this >> claim. >> >> I have a couple papers on my website presenting these >> arguments in more detail. >> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/pubs.html >> >> Bob Port >> >> ( ( ( O ) ) ) ( ( ( O ) ) ) ( ( ( O ) ) ) >> Lingstcs/Comp Sci/Cogntv Sci >> ROBERT F. PORT 330 Memorial Hall, Indiana University >> Bloomington, Indiana 47405 >> 812-855-9217 Fx 812-855-5363 >> http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port >> >> > > ----------------------------------------- > Tarun Pruthi > Graduate Research Assistant, ECE > Room 3180, A V Williams Building > University of Maryland, College Park > MD 20742 USA > Email: tpruthi(at)glue.umd.edu > Web: www.ece.umd.edu/~tpruthi > Ph: 301-405-1365 > ---------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------- Tarun Pruthi Graduate Research Assistant, ECE Room 3180, A V Williams Building University of Maryland, College Park MD 20742 USA Email: tpruthi(at)glue.umd.edu Web: www.ece.umd.edu/~tpruthi Ph: 301-405-1365 ----------------------------------------