Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 47–68

Chapter 3
What are grammars made of?

| The Graduate Center, CUNY
The 21st century has brought major advances in our understanding of sound patterns, their phonetic basis, and their cross-linguistic diversity. Properties that were once thought to be universal, from phonological features to prosodic units like the syllable, have shown themselves to be highly variable across languages, and to sometimes fail at the very specific organizational role they are meant to play within sound systems. The goal of this chapter is to summarize evidence from the diversity of phonological systems that may inform areas of disagreement in modeling phonological grammars, with special attention to the locus of explanation in phonological theory. General arguments against phonological universals and phonological markedness in grammar are presented, including distinctive features, the sonority scale, and the prosodic hierarchy. Arguments for language-specific sound patterns and extra-grammatical explanations are also presented, including rare phoneme inventories, rare phonotactics, and distinct modality-specific properties of spoken versus signed languages.
Keywords: phonological grammar, markedness, explanation, universals, linguistic diversity
Article outline
  • 1.Phonology and grammar
  • 2.Phonological universals?
    • 2.1Distinctive features
    • 2.2The sonority hierarchy
    • 2.3The prosodic hierarchy
    • 2.4Replacing universals with non-universals
  • 3.Markedness constraints?
    • 3.1Segment inventories: Are coronals unmarked?
    • 3.2Syllable types: Are open syllables unmarked?
  • 4.What are grammars made of?
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.241.03ble
References (88)
References
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit & Sandler, Wendy. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2): 301–344.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T. 1972. How 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. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1): 92–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, Iris. 2013a. The phonological mind. Trends in Cognitive Science 17(7): 319–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. The Phonological Mind. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Smolensky, Paul & Vaknin-Nusbaum, Vered. 2009. Listeners′ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology 26: 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered. 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104: 591–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Hildebrant, Kristine & Schiering, Réne. 2009. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 117–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics 48: 264–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Evolutionary 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
. 2017. Areal sound patterns: From perceptual magnets to stone soup. In The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics, Raymond Hickey (ed.). Cambridge: CUP, 88–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E. 1992. Language 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The 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. 2000. On 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. 2001. Jahai phonology: A preliminary survey. Mon-Khmer Studies 31: 29–45.Google Scholar
2005. A Grammar of Jahai [Pacific Linguistics 566]. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clark, Alexander & Lappin, Shalom. 2011. Linguistic Nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1990. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Boer, Bart. 2000. Self organization in vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics 28: 441–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed. 1985. Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7:105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Syllabic consonants in Berber: Some new evidence. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 10: 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elbert, Samuel H. & Kawena Pukui, Mary. 1979. Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu HI: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2001. Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics [Papers in Phonology 5], 71–116.Google Scholar
. 2005. Similarity in Phonology: Evidence from Reduplication and Loan Adaptation. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18(1): 7–44.Google Scholar
. 2004. Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness. In Phonetically Based Phonology, Bruce Hayes, Robert Kirchner & Donca Steriade (eds), 232–276. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, Susanna & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds). 2006. Exemplar-based Models in Linguistics. Special Issue of The Linguistic Review 23.Google Scholar
Garrett, Edward. 1999. Minimal 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. 2010. Probing the unnatural. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2010: 73–85.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne & Watson, Catherine. 2000. Does the Queen speak the Queen’s English? Nature 408: 927–928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan. 2007. Evidence 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. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah. 2003. Roles and representations of systematic fine phonetic detail in speech understanding. Journal of Phonetics 31: 373–405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah & Nguyen, Noël. 2003. Effects 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
. 2004. Influence of syllable-coda voicing on the acoustic properties of syllable-onset /l/ in English. Journal of Phonetics 32: 199–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25: 83–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1962. Typological 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. 1904. Lehrbuch der phonetik, translated by Hermann Davidsen. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.Google Scholar
Jones, Alan A. 1995. Mekeo. In Comparative Austronesian Dictionary, Part 1: Fascicle 2, Darrell T. Tryon (ed.), 775–780. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Towards a Lexicogrammar of Mekeo (An Austronesian Language of Western Central Papua). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kamprath, Christine. 1987. Suprasegmental 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. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kleber, Felicitas. 2011. Incomplete Neutralization and Maintenance of Phonological Contrast in Varieties of Standard German. PhD dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1975. A Course in Phonetics. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Longerich, Linda. 1998. Acoustic Conditioning for the RUKI Rule. MA thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Mann, Daniel. 2014. Typologically rare onset clusters. Ms, The Graduate Center, CUNY.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms, University of Massachussetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev. 2011. The interaction of tone and stress in the prosodic system of Iquito (Zaparoan, Peru). Amerindia 36.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2005. Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22(2): 169–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The Emergence of Distinctive Features. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2009. Segment inventories. Blackwell Language and Linguistics Compass 32(3): 700–718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor. 1997. Evenki. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1990. Alternatives 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. 1997. Alternatives 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, Pierre-Yves. 2006. Self-Organization in the Evolution of Speech. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carol & Prunet, Jean-François (eds). 1991. The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence [Phonetics and Phonology 2]. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Steve. 2002. Quantifying the Sonority Hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Parker, Steve. 2011. Sonority. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. II, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds). Malden MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, H. 1895. Das indogermanische s im Slawischen. Indogermanische Forschungen 5: 33–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Timothy C. 2013. Linguistic Comparison of Semai Dialects. Arlington TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Port, Robert, Mitleb, Fares & O′Dell, Michael. 1981. Neutralization of obstruent voicing in German is incomplete. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 70: S13, F10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Ernestus, Mirjam & Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(4): 2561–2569. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality 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. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83(3): 560–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1989. Phonological Representation of the Sign: Linearity and Nonlinearity in American Sign Language. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit & Padden, Carol. 2011. The gradual emergence of phonological form in a new language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 502–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiering, Réne, Bickel, Balthasar & Hildebrant, Kristine. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46: 657–709. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Juncture, Mark Aronoff & Marie-Louise Kean (eds), 107–29. Saratoga CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional 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
. 2008. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
al Tamimi, Yasser A. S. & Al Shboul, Yousef. 2013. Is the phonotactics of the Arabic complex coda sonority-based? Journal of King Saud University Language and Translation 25: 21–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2002. Consonant epenthesis and the problem of unnatural phonology. Ms, Department of Linguistics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Sanskrit Ruki and the concept of a natural class. Linguistics: An International Review 140: 91–98.Google Scholar
. 1983. Causality 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. 2014. Emergence of combinatorial structure and economy through iterated learning. Journal of Phonetics 43: 57–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew. 2011. Self-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1865. On the relation of vowels and consonants. Journal of the American Oriental Society 8: 357–373.Google Scholar
. 1889. Sanskrit Grammar. Cambridge MD: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zuidema, Willem & de Boer, Bart. 2009. The evolution of combinatorial phonology. Journal of Phonetics 37(2):125–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1970. Greek-letter variables and the Sanskrit ruki Class. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 549–555.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Blevins, Juliette & Ander Egurtzegi
2023. Refining explanation in Evolutionary Phonology: macro-typologies and targeted typologies in action. Linguistic Typology 27:2 ► pp. 289 ff. DOI logo
Florian Breit, Bert Botma, Marijn van 't Veer & Marc van Oostendorp
2023. Primitives of Phonological Structure, DOI logo
Faust, Noam & Nicola Lampitelli
2023. Root and Pattern in Semitic – and Beyond. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Faust, Noam & Shanti Ulfsbjorninn
2018. Arabic stress in strict CV, with no moras, no syllables, no feet and no extrametricality. The Linguistic Review 35:4 ► pp. 561 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.