Cover not available
Part of
Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 69–100

Chapter 4
Consonant epenthesis and markedness

| Cambridge University University of Southern California
| USC
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.English r-epenthesis
  • 3.Deletion
  • 4.Markedness-based analyses
    • 4.1Glide formation
    • 4.2Contextual markedness
    • 4.3Markedness and defaults
    • 4.4Correlating insertion and deletion via the P-map
  • 5.Case study: rhotacism in English
  • 6.Conclusions
  • acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.241.04vau
References
Alber, Birgit
2001 Regional variation and edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in standard and southern varieties of German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20: 3–41.Google Scholar
Alderete, John, Beckman, Jill N., Benua, Laura, Gnanadesikan, Amalia, McCarthy, John J. & Urbanczyk, Suzanne
1999 Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 327–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1981 Why phonology isn’t ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 493–539.Google Scholar
2009 The logical structure of linguistic theory. Language 84: 795–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana
1988 Aspects of underspecification theory. Phonology 5: 183–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1985 Tracing phonetic change in the received pronunciation of British English. Journal of Phonetics 13: 61–81.Google Scholar
Beffa, Marie-Lise & Hamayon, Roberte N.
1975 Éléments de grammaire mongole. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, Barbara H. & Stemberger, Joseph P.
1998 Handbook of Phonological Development: From the Perspective of Constraint-based Nonlinear Phonology. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette
1997 Rules in optimality theory: Two case studies. In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, Iggy Roca (ed.), 227–260. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2004 Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Consonant epenthesis: Natural & unnatural histories. In Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change, Jeff Good (ed.), 79–107. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert
1994 Obstruent epenthesis and the unity of phonological features. Lingua 93: 111–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broadbent, J.
1991 Linking and intrusive r in English. University College London Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 281–302.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen
1984 Default consonants in Amharic morphology. MITWPL 7: 15–31.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N.
2009 Does sonority have a phonetic basis? In Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonological Theory, Eric Raimy & Charles Cairns (eds), 165–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John
2001 Levels, rules, and processes. [URL]
Daly, D. M. & Martin, L. W.
1972 Epenthetic processes. Research on Language & Social Interaction 5: 604–612.Google Scholar
Delattre, Piere C.
1971 Pharyngeal features in the consonants of Arabic, German, French, Spanish, and American English. Phonetics 23:129–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donegan, Patricia
1993 On the phonetic basis of phonological change. In Historical Linguistics: Problems & Perspectives, Charles Jones (ed.), 98–130. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Embick, David
2008 Localism vs. globalism in morphology & phonology. Ms, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Gick, Bryan
1999 A gesture-based account of intrusive consonants in English. Phonology 16: 29–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz
1999 Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia
1997 Phonology with Ternary Scales. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Gutch, Donald
1992 Linking & intrusive r in English & Bavarian. In Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honor of Otto Hietsch, Claudia Blank (ed.), 555–611. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hahn, Reinhard
1991 Spoken Uyghur. Seattle WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
1992 Modern Uyghur ~ r insertion: Nativization through analogical extension. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 24: 77–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles
2000 Phonology as cognition. In Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerald Docherty (eds), 161–184. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008 The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan
2013 How common is r-epenthesis? Folia Linguistica 47: 55–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Idsardi, William J.
1997a R, hypercorrection, and the elsewhere condition. In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, Iggy Roca (ed.), 331–348. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1997b Response to McCarthy (1997) 25 November.
Harris, John
1994 English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, Martin & Vincent, Nigel
(eds) 1988 The Romance Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42: 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Sudbury, Andrea
2005 How rhoticity became /r/-sandhi. Language 81: 799–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Gaminde, Iñaki
1998 Vowel interaction in Basque: A nearly exhaustive catalogue. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 28: 41–77.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth
2004 Deconstructing markedness: A predictability-based approach. Proceedings of BLS 30: 182–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko & Mester, Armin
2007 The onset of the prosodic word. In Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation, Steve Parker (ed.). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Auger, Julie
1992 Quantitative evidence, qualitative hypercorrection, sociolinguistic variables – and French speakers′ ’eadaches with English h/ø. Language & Communication 12: 195–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Daniel
1928 An English Pronunciation Dictionary, revised edn. London: Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
Kager, René
1999 Optimality Theory. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Daniel
1976 Syllable-based Generalizations in English Phonology. PhD dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, Marianne
1983 Troncation ou insertion dans les liaisons françaises: Quelques donnees aphasiques comme indices externes. Folia Linguistica 17: 445–461.Google Scholar
Kim, Hyouk-Keun
1999 Interlanguage phonology of Korean learners of English. [URL]
de Lacy, Paul
2004 Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21: 145–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Laurence B., Miller, Judith A. & Brown, Heather
1984 Consonant & syllable harmony in the speech of language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 45: 336–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Kenneth R.
1984 Studies in the Phonology of Colloquial English. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda
2002 Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology 19: 219–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maidment, John
1999 Tip of the day #94: r insertion. [URL]
Mansen, Karis & Mansen, Richard
1984 Aprendamos Guajiro. Bogotá: Editorial Townsend.Google Scholar
Massenet, Jean-Marie
1986 Étude phonologique d’un dialecte inuit canadien. Cahiers d′Études Inuit 1.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J.
1991 Synchronic rule inversion. In Proceedings of BLS 17: 192–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38: 169–195.Google Scholar
1997 Letter to Morris Halle in response to Halle & Idsardi (1997a). 11 November.
1999a Introductory OT on CD-ROM. Available from the GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
1999b Online appendix to Review of Roca (1997), Derivations and Constraints in Phonology. [URL]
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan
1994 The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. In Proceedings of NELS 24: 333–379.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan
1995 Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Papers in Optimality Theory [University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18], Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbancyk (eds), 249–384. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
McMahon, April
2000 Lexical Phonology and the History of English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMahon, April, Foulkes, Paul & Tollfree, Laura
1994 Gestural representation and lexical phonology. Phonology 11: 227–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morley, Rebecca L.
2008 Generalization, Lexical Statistics, and Typologically Rare Systems. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
2015 Deletion or epenthesis? On the falsifiability of phonological universals. Lingua 154:1–26.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew I. & Plaster, Keith
2008 Review of de Lacy (2006), Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Journal of Linguistics 44: 770–781. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
2005 Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael
1988 Structure-preserving properties of an epenthetic rule in Spanish. In Advances in Romance Linguistics, David Birdsong & Jean-Pierre Montreuil (eds), 319–335. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odden, David
1988 Antiantigemination and the OCP. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 451–475.Google Scholar
2008 Ordering. In Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena, Bert Vaux & Andrew I. Nevins (eds), 61–120. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J.
1981 The listener as a source of sound change. In Papers from the Chicago Linguistic Society Parasession, 23: Language and Behavior, 178–203. Chicago IL: CLSGoogle Scholar
van Oostendorp, Marc
2000 Phonological Projection: A Theory of Feature Content and Prosodic Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orgun, C. Orhan
2001 English r-insertion in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 737–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pargman, Sheri
1998 On the regularity of hypercorrection in phonological change. Diachronica 15: 285–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe
2009 Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33: 999–1035. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan
1997 Paninian relations. Handout from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. [URL]
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul
1993 [2004] Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas
1988 Underspecification, the feature hierarchy and Tiv vowels. Phonology 5: 299–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rialland, Annie & Djamouri, Redouane
1984 Harmonie vocalique, consonantique et structures de dépendance dans le mot en mongol khalkha. Paris: Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren
2008 Review of de Lacy (2006), Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Phonology 25: 361–371.Google Scholar
Rischel, Jorgen
1974 Topics in West Greenlandic Phonology. Copenhagen: Akademisk Verlag.Google Scholar
Romani, Cristina & Calabrese, Andrea
1998 Syllabic constraints in the phonological errors of an aphasic patient. Brain and Language 64: 83–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy
2000 Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 271–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 601–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Bridget
2011 Phonological Architecture: A Biolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanžeev, Garma Dancaranovič, Bertagaev, Trofim Alekseevič & Cydendambaev, Cybikžap Boboevič
(eds) 1962 Grammatika burjatskogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Vostočnoj Literatury.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford
1973 Generative Phonology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James
1991 Re: r-linking. Linguist List 2.720.Google Scholar
Sivertsen, Eva
1960 Cockney Phonology [Oslo Studies in English 8]. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul
1996 On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 720–731.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca
2009 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), 151–179. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stonham, John
1999 Aspects of Tsishaath Nootka Phonetics and Phonology. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof
1995 Cyclic syllabification in Mongolian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 755–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szigetvári, Peter
1994 The special nature of coronal consonants. MA thesis, Eötvös Loránd University.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul
2000 Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter
1974 The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Uffmann, Christian
2007 Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants. Language Sciences 29: 451–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert
2010 The phonology of English rhotacism. Ms, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert & Samuels, Bridget
2005 Laryngeal markedness and aspiration. Phonology 22: 395–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1972 Rule inversion. Lingua 29: 209–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walsh Dickey, Laura
1997 The Phonology of Liquids. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Wells, John
1982 Accents of English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard
1996 The Phonology of German. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Florian Breit, Bert Botma, Marijn van 't Veer & Marc van Oostendorp
2023. Primitives of Phonological Structure, DOI logo
Passino, Diana & Fiammetta di Pasquale
2022. L’epentesi consonantica nel dialetto teramano. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia 67:1 ► pp. 181 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.