I’m sorry, I can’t recall the reference, but I remember reading somewhere of a study of infants where some 63% of the subjects were able to discriminate phonetic features in a manner consistent with an assumed geometric hierarchy of contrasts, while 11% demonstrated perceptions that violated that hierarchy in few but consistent ways. This shows, according to the authors, that the separation between mainstream and minority schools of thought in linguistics is not acquired, as many have supposed, but innate and universal.
You must be referring to “Is Universal Grammar Universal? Most Likely Not
I wanted to point out an inaccuracy in last issue’s Letters to the Editor. It has a cow’s moo transcribed in IPA as [ʔm̰ɨ̰̃ː˥˦˥] (with tone pattern 5-4-5). It is true that the transcription in Rhodes’ paper “Aural Imagery” has “545” in superscript. However, in note 7 of that paper, it is explained that (contrary to the usual conventions for notating tone) higher numbers are used for lower pitch levels! Hence, in standard IPA, something like ˦˥˦ (or even ˩˨˩) would be more appropriate.
This reinforces the point made in Bangzerrungen’s article about “the appropriateness of endnotes in our modern digitally typeset age”.
1 It is impossible to separate a concept into the main text and a footnote, or the main text and an endnote, or in general, any kind of separate note or marginalia, without loss of communicative efficacy. We have discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this note is too small to contain.
Speculative Grammarian accepts well-