Lombard noted in 1911 that a speaker changes his voice level similarly when the ambient noise level increases, on the one hand, and when the level at which he hears his own voice (his sidetone) decreases, on the other. We can now state the form of these two functions, show that they are related to each other and to the equal-sensation function for imitating speech or noise loudness, and account for their form in terms of the underlying sensory scales and the hypothesis that the speaker tries to maintain a speech-to-noise ratio favorable for communication. Perturbations in the timing and spectrum of sidetone also lead the speaker to compensate for the apparent deterioration in his intelligibility. Such compensations reflect direct and indirect audience control of speech, rather than its autoregulation by sidetone. When not harassed by prying experimenters or an unfavorable acoustic environment, the speaker need no more listen to himself while speaking than he need speak to himself while listening.

This introductory textbook is principally addressed to English speakers who want systematically to improve their pronunciation of French - whether relative beginners or more advanced students. It describes the difficulties typically encountered, explains why they occur. and suggests ways to resolve them. It also explains how certain properties of the French sound system came about as the language changed over time, and it includes an examination of the relationship between French spelling and French pronunciation. Although focusing on the pronunciation of standard French, different pronunciations in other varieties of French (Québec French, Southern French, etc.) are also considered. In addition, from a more theoretical perspective, the book provides readers with a fundamental understanding of the way French sounds are produced and how they behave according to general linguistic principles. Overall the book stands as a multifaceted introduction to French sounds, drawing for its account on contrastive analysis, general phonetics, traditional knowledge and modern developments in phonology, historical linguistics, and orthography. Teachers of French will welcome Bernard Tranel's wide scholarship and firm grasp of teaching principles, while students will welcome the refreshing clarity of style and organization.

People speak more loudly in a noisy room or when momentarily deafened and more softly in a quiet room or when sidetone is artificially increased. The effort to compensate for these changes in the signal-to-noise ratio, or to match directly changes in the intensity of a model, typically falls about halfway short (in decibel units). This is probably because a speaker considers that he has doubled his own vocal level in half as many decibels as it takes to double the loudness of the signal or the noise. More concisely, the Lombard-reflex, sidetone-penalty and cross-morality matching functions have exponents of about one-half because the exponent of the loudness scale is haft that of the autophonic scale of voice level. This amounts to saying that the speaker matches changes in signal or in noise to keep the signal-to-noise ratio nearly constant, but he is misled by the disparity in the sensory operating characteristics of speaking and listening.For a subject to perceive a doubling in loudness, the sound-pressure level mnst be more than tripled if generated by an external source, but less than doubled if generated by the subject himself, vocally. The former relation is well known as the sone scale (Stevens 1); the latter is becoming known as the autophonic scale, a term coined in the pages of this JOURNAL by Lane, Catania, and Stevens," who described the speaker's perception of his own vocal level in some detail.When a speaker judges the dynamic characteristics of his own speech, the possible sources of cues include airborne sound (air sidetone), head sidetone, and proprioception. When the speaker stops talking and listens to someone else instead, he is deprived of most of these cues and, as a listener, he must base his judgments differently. Since the sensoD' characteristics of speaking and listening axe so different structurally (yon B•k•ssa), it is not surprising to learn that they are quite different functionally. After establishing that the exponent (slope, in log-log coordinates) of the antophonic scale is approximately 1.2 whereas that of the sone scale is 0.6, Lane, Catania, and Stevens went on to confirm this disparity by asking subjects to match their vocal levels to changes in the level of a criterion sound. Given In complementary experiments, speakers were instructed to compensate for, rather than match, the changes in the loudness of a criterion sound, so that the loudness would be held constant. The criterion sound was the speaker's own voice, fed back to him at vaxious levels in an interphone system, and his task was to vocalize so as to compensate for changes in amplification introduced into the sidetone channel. Again the

The functional equivalence of CVV and CVC syllables, as opposed to CV syllables, is a time-honoured observation holding true for numerous languages over a variety of phonological and morphological phenomena, including stress assignment (cf. Newman 1972 for a review). Traditionally, the opposition between the two types of syllables has been informally described by reference to syllable weight: CVV and CVC syllables are heavy, CV syllables are light (e.g. La Grasserie 1909: 31–32). It has also been observed, however, that in languages sensitive to the CV/CVV distinction, CVC syllables do not necessarily pattern with CVV syllables, but may instead pattern with CV syllables, thus counting as light rather than heavy (Hyman 1985: 5–6; McCarthy & Prince 1986: 32–34; Hayes 1989: 255–256).

No abstract