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

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

Cited by 4 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 17 november 2023. 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.