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 UniversityUniversity 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 (102)
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 (2)

Cited by two 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 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.