Chapter published in:
Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 4768
References

References

Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit & Sandler, Wendy
2005The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2): 301–344.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T.
1972How do languages get crazy rules? In Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, Robert P. Stockwell & Ronald K. S. Macaulay (eds), 1–21. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Brenier, Jason M., Gregory, Michelle, Girand, Cynthia & Jurafsky, Dan
2009Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1): 92–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berent, Iris
2013aThe phonological mind. Trends in Cognitive Science 17(7): 319–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013bThe Phonological Mind. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Smolensky, Paul & Vaknin-Nusbaum, Vered
2009Listeners′ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology 26: 75–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered
2007What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104: 591–630. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Hildebrant, Kristine & Schiering, Réne
2009The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, Janet Grijzenhout & Baris Kabak (eds), 47–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette
2004Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 117–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics 48: 264–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Evolutionary phonology: A holistic approach to sound change typology. In Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, Patrick Honeybone & Joe Salmons (eds). Oxford: OUP, 485–500.Google Scholar
2017Areal sound patterns: From perceptual magnets to stone soup. In The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, Raymond Hickey (ed.). Cambridge: CUP, 88–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E.
1992Language transfer and universals in second language epenthesis. In Language Transfer in Language Learning [Language Acquisition and Language Learning 5], Susan Gass & Larry Selinker (eds), 71–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015The typology of position-quality interactions in loanword vowel insertion. In Capturing Phonological Shades, Yuchau E. Hsiao & Lian-Hee Wee (eds), 292–319. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene
2000On the naturalness of unnatural rules. Proceedings from the Second Workshop on American Indigenous Languages. UCSB Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 9.Google Scholar
Burenhult, N.
2001Jahai phonology: A preliminary survey. Mon-Khmer Studies 31: 29–45.Google Scholar
2005A Grammar of Jahai [Pacific Linguistics 566]. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clark, Alexander & Lappin, Shalom
2011Linguistic Nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N.
1990The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, 1: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, John Kingston & Mary E. Beckman (eds), 283–333. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Boer, Bart
2000Self organization in vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics 28: 441–465. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed
1985Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7:105–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988Syllabic consonants in Berber: Some new evidence. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 10: 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elbert, Samuel H. & Kawena Pukui, Mary
1979Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu HI: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Fleischhacker, Heidi
2001Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics [Papers in Phonology 5], 71–116.Google Scholar
2005Similarity in Phonology: Evidence from Reduplication and Loan Adaptation. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward
2001Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18(1): 7–44.Google Scholar
2004Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Phonetically Based Phonology, Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds), 232–276. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanna
2008 Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84(3): 474–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanna & Yu, Alan C. L.
(eds) 2006Exemplar-based Models in Linguistics. Special Issue of The Linguistic Review 23.Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward
1999Minimal words aren’t minimal feet. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics, 1 [Papers in Phonology 2], Matthew Gordon (ed.), 68–105.Google Scholar
Hall, Daniel Currie
2010Probing the unnatural. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010: 73–85.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne & Watson, Catherine
2000Does the Queen speak the Queen’s English? Nature 408: 927–928. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan
2007Evidence for a relationship between synchronic variability and diachronic change in the Queen’s annual Christmas broadcasts. In Laboratory Phonology 9, Jennifer Cole & José Ignacio Hualde (eds), 125–143. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2006Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah
2003Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics 31: 373–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah & Nguyen, Noël
2003Effects on word recognition of syllable-onset cues to syllable-coda voicing. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology 6, John Local, Richard Ogden & Rosalind Temple (eds), 38–57. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2004Influence of syllable-coda voicing on the acoustic properties of syllable-onset /l/ in English. Journal of Phonetics 32: 199–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce
1995Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry
2008Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25: 83–137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1962Typological studies. In Selected writings, 1: Phonological studies, 2nd edn, Linda L. Waugh & Monique Monville-Burston (eds), 523–532. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1904Lehrbuch der phonetik, translated by Hermann Davidsen. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Jones, Alan A.
1995Mekeo. In Comparative Austronesian Dictionary, Part 1: Fascicle 2, Darrell T. Tryon (ed.), 775–780. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Towards a Lexicogrammar of Mekeo (An Austronesian Language of Western Central Papua). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kamprath, Christine
1987Suprasegmental Structures in a Raeto-Romansch Dialect: A Case-study in Metrical and Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael
1994Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kleber, Felicitas
2011Incomplete Neutralization and Maintenance of Phonological Contrast in Varieties of Standard German. PhD dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter
1975A Course in Phonetics. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Longerich, Linda
1998Acoustic Conditioning for the RUKI Rule. MA thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Mann, Daniel
2014Typologically rare onset clusters. Ms, The Graduate Center, CUNY.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan
1986Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachussetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev
2011The interaction of tone and stress in the prosodic system of Iquito (Zaparoan, Peru). Amerindia 36.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff
2005Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22(2): 169–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008The Emergence of Distinctive Features. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2009Segment inventories. Blackwell Language and Linguistics Compass 32(3): 700–718. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor
1997Evenki. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene
1986Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J.
1990Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Papers from the 26th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 2: Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, Michael Ziolkowski, Manuela Noske & Karen Deaton (eds), 319–338. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Kawasaki-Fukimori, Haruko
1997Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequencing constraints. In Language and its Ecology: Essays in Honor of Einar Haugen [Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 100], Stig Eliasson & Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds), 343–365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, Pierre-Yves
2006Self-Organization in the Evolution of Speech. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carol & Prunet, Jean-François
(eds) 1991The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence [Phonetics and Phonology 2]. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Steve
2002Quantifying the Sonority Hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Parker, Steve
2011Sonority. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. II, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds). Malden MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, H.
1895Das indogermanische s im Slawischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 5: 33–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Timothy C.
2013Linguistic Comparison of Semai Dialects. Arlington TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Port, Robert, Mitleb, Fares & O′Dell, Michael
1981Neutralization of obstruent voicing in German is incomplete. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 70: S13, F10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald
2005Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(4): 2561–2569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul
1993Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. (Published 2004. Malden MA: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Reiss, Charles
. 2017. Substance free phonology. In Handbook of Phonological Theory, S. J. Hannahs & Anna R. K. Bosch eds London: Routledge.
Sankoff, G. & Blondeau, H.
2007Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83(3): 560–588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy
1989Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and Nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit & Padden, Carol
2011The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 502–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schiering, Réne, Bickel, Balthasar & Hildebrant, Kristine
2010The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46: 657–709. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1980Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Juncture, Mark Aronoff & Marie-Louise Kean (eds), 107–29. Saratoga CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
1984Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca
2001Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology, Elizabeth V. Hume & Keith Johnson (eds), 219–250. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2008The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In The Nature of the Word: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky, Kristin Hanson & Sharon Inkelas (eds), 151–180. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
al Tamimi, Yasser A. S. & Al Shboul, Yousef
2013Is the phonotactics of the Arabic complex coda sonority-based? Journal of King Saud University Language and Translation 25: 21–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert
2002Consonant epenthesis and the problem of unnatural phonology. Ms, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1974Sanskrit Ruki and the concept of a natural class. Linguistics: An International Review 140: 91–98.Google Scholar
1983Causality in language change. Theories of linguistic preferences as a basis for linguistic explanations. Folia Linguistica Historica 6: 5–26.Google Scholar
Verhoef, Tessa, Kirby, Simon & de Boer, Bart
2014Emergence of combinatorial structure and economy through iterated learning. Journal of Phonetics 43: 57–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew
2011Self-organization in phonology. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 1, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewan, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 130–147. Malden MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight
1865On the relation of vowels and consonants. Journal of the American Oriental Society 8: 357–373.Google Scholar
1889Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge MD: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zuidema, Willem & de Boer, Bart
2009The evolution of combinatorial phonology. Journal of Phonetics 37(2):125–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold
1970Greek-letter variables and the Sanskrit ruki Class. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 549–555.Google Scholar