Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 10:1 (2015) ► pp.88–132

On the sonority levels of fricatives and stops

| Northeastern University
| Northeastern University
Across languages, stop-sonorant onsets are preferred to fricative-sonorant ones (e.g., pna ≻ fna), suggesting that stop-initial onsets are better formed. Here, we ask whether this preference is active in the linguistic competence of English speakers. To address this question, we compare stop- and fricative-nasal onsets (e.g., pnik vs. fnik) to matched obstruent-obstruent controls (e.g., ptik vs. fsik, respectively). Past research has shown that (a) stop-stop onsets (e.g., ptik) are dispreferred to stop-nasal onsets (e.g., pnik); and (b) dispreferred onsets tend to be misidentified (e.g., ptik → pәtik). We thus reasoned that, if fricative-nasal onsets (e.g., fnik) are worse formed relative to stop-nasal ones (e.g., pnik), then fnik-type onsets should be more vulnerable to misidentification, hence, their advantage over obstruent-obstruent controls (e.g., fsik) should be attenuated. Consequently, when compared to the obstruent-obstruent baseline (e.g., ptik, fsik), misidentification should be less prevalent in stop-nasal onsets (e.g., pnik) compared to fricative-nasal ones (e.g., fnik). The results of three experiments are consistent with this prediction. Our findings suggest that English speakers possess linguistic preferences that mirror the distribution of onset clusters across languages.
Keywords: phonology, sonority, optimality theory, syllable
Published online: 1 May 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.10.1.04len
References (149)
Adriaans, F., & Kager, R. (2010). Adding generalization to statistical learning: The induction of phonotactics from continuous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 621, 311–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, A. (2007). Natural classes are not enough: biased generalization in novel onset clusters. Manuscript, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
. (2009). Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology, 261, 9–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alonzo, A., & Taft, M. (2002). Sonority constraints on onset-rime cohesion: Evidence from native and bilingual Filipino readers of English. Brain and Language, 811, 368–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailey, T.M., & Hahn, U. (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language, 441, 568–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barlow, J.A (2001a). A preliminary typology of initial clusters in acquisition. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 151, 9–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001b). Individual differences in the production of initial consonant sequences in Pig Latin. Lingua, 1111, 667–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Asymmetries in the acquisition of consonant clusters in Spanish. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 481, 179–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Sonority effects in the production of consonant clusters by Spanish-speaking children. In D. Eddington (Ed.) Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 1-14). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bastiaanse, R., Gilbers, D., & van der Linde, K. (1994). Sonority substitutions in Broca’s and conduction aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 81, 247–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, O. (2012). The Sonority Dispersion Principle in the acquisition of Hebrew word final codas. In S. Parker (Ed.), The sonority controversy (pp. 319–344). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I. (2008). Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 341, 1288–1304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). The phonological mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berent, I., Balaban, E., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2010). Phonological universals constrain the processing of nonspeech stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1391, 418–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Dupuis, A., & Brentari, D. (2013). Amodal aspects of linguistic design. PLoS ONE, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Harder, K., & Lennertz, T. (2011). Phonological universals in early childhood: Evidence from sonority restrictions. Language Acquisition, 181, 281–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., & Lennertz, T. (2010). Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: Phonological or acoustic? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 361, 212–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., & Balaban, E. (2012). Language universals and misidentification: 
A two-way street. Language and Speech, 551, 311–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Jun, J., Moreno, M.A., & Smolensky, P. (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1051, 5321–5325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Lennertz, T., Smolensky, P., & Vaknin-Nusbaum, V. (2009). Listeners’ knowledge of phonological universals: Evidence from nasal clusters. Phonology, 261, 75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berent, I., Steriade, D., Lennertz, T., & Vaknin, V. (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition, 1041, 591–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp. 206–244). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics, 321, 117–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brentari, D. (1993). Establishing a sonority hierarchy in American Sign Language: The use of simultaneous structure in phonology. Phonology, 101, 281–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Broselow, E., & Finer, D. (1991). Parameter setting in second language phonology and syntax. Second Language Research, 71, 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., Chen, S-I., & Wang, C. (1998). The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 201, 261–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broselow, E., & Xu, Z. (2004). Differential difficulty in the acquisition of second language phonology. International Journal of English Studies, 41, 135–163.Google Scholar
Byrd, D. (1992). Perception of assimilation in consonant clusters: A gestural model. Phonetica, 491, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cassandro, M., Collet, P., Duarte, D., Galves, A., & Garcia, J. (2003). A universal linear relation among acoustic correlates of rhythm. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Columbia University Press: New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1965). Some controversial questions in phonological theory. Journal of Linguistics, 11, 97–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christman, S.S. (1992). Uncovering phonological regularity in neologisms: contributions of sonority theory. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 61, 219–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, G.N. (1990). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In J. Kingston & M. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech (pp. 282–333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Code, C., & Ball, M.J. (1994). Syllabification in aphasic recurring utterances: Contributions of sonority theory. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 81, 257–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J., & Pierrehumbert, J.B. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In J. Coleman (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology (pp. 49–56). Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Coetzee, A.W., & Pater, J. (2008). Weighted constraints and gradient restrictions on place co-occurrence in Muna. Natural language and linguistic theory, 261, 289–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Côté, M-H. (2000). Consonant cluster phonotactics: A perceptual approach. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Daland, R., Hayes, B., White, J., Garellek, M., Davis, A., & Norrmann, I. (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology, 281, 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, L. (2000). Experimentally uncovering hidden strata in English phonology. In L. Gleitman & A. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Davidson, L., Jusczyk, P.W., & Smolensky, P. (2004). The initial and final states: Theoretical implications and experimental explorations of Richness of the Base. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Fixing priorities: Constraints in phonological acquisition (pp. 321–368). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, L. (2006a). Phonotactics and articulatory coordination interact in phonology: Evidence from nonnative production. Cognitive Science, 301, 837–862. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006b.) Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: Influences on the production of non-native sequences. Journal of Phonetics, 341, 104–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Phonetic bases of similarities in cross-language production: Evidence from English and Catalan. Journal of Phonetics, 381, 272–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Phonetic, phonemic, and phonological factors in cross-language discrimination of phonotactic contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 371, 270–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davidson, L., & Shaw, J.A. (2009). A closer look at perceptual epenthesis in cross-language perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1251, 2752–2753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Sources of illusion in consonant cluster perception. Journal of Phonetics, 401, 234–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, P. (2007). The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure. In P. de Lacy (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology (pp. 281–307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge, UK: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne and Paris: Payot. Translated in 1959 as Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Dell, F., & Elmedlaoui, M. (1985). Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 71, 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dell, G.S., Reed, K.D., Adams, D.R., & Meyer, A.S. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 261, 1355–1367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, S. (2000). The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dupoux, E., Kakehi, K., Hirose, Y., Pallier, C., & Mehler, J. (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: A perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 251, 1568–1578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, E., Pallier, C., Kakehi, K., & Mehler, J. (2001). New evidence for prelexical phonological processing in word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 161, 491–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F.R., & Iverson, G.K. (1993). Sonority and markedness among onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL learners. Second Language Research, 91, 234–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischhacker, H. (2001). Cluster-dependent epenthesis asymmetries. In A. Albright & T. Cho (Eds.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7, Papers in Phonology 5 (pp. 71–116). Department of Linguistics of the University of California at Los Angeles.
Fowler, C., Treiman, R., & Gross, J. (1993). The structure of English syllables and polysyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 321, 115–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A.D., & Wessels, J.M.I. (1993). Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 541, 287–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, S.A., Large, N.R., & Pisoni, D.B. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 421, 481–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisch, S.A., Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Broe, M.B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 221, 179–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galves, A., Garcia, J., Duarte, D., & Galves, C. (2002). Sonority as a basis for rhythmic class discrimination. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.) Proceedings of the speech prosody 2002 conference (pp. 323–326). Aix-en-Provence.
Giegerich, H.J. (1992). English phonology: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gierut, J.A. (1999). Syllable onsets: Clusters and adjuncts in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 421, 708–726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, A. (2004). Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. In R. Kager, J. Pater, & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Fixing priorities: Constraints in phonological acquisition (pp. 73–108). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, M. (2007). Functionalism in phonology. In Paul de Lacy (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology (pp. 61–78). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gouskova, M. (2001). Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and syllable contact. In M. Andronis, C. Ball, H. Elston, & S. Neuvel (Eds.), CLS 37: The Main Session. Papers from the 37th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society . Chicago: CLS.
. (2004). Relational hierarchies in optimality theory: The case of syllable contact. Phonology, 211, 201–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J.H. (1978). Some generalizations concerning initial and final consonant clusters. In J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson, & E.A. Moravscik (Eds.), Universals in Human Language: 2 (pp. 243–279). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hallé, P., Segui, J., Frauenfelder, U., & Meunier, C. (1998). Processing of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 241, 592–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, J., & Aissen, J. (1974). The sonority hierarchy. In A. Bruck, R.A. Fox, & M.W. LaGaly (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on natural phonology (pp. 131–145). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hay, J., Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Beckman, M.E. (2003). Speech perception, well- formedness and the statistics of the lexicon. In J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.) Phonetic interpretation: Papers in laboratory phonology VI (pp. 58–74). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hay, J.A., Pelucchi, B., Graf Estes, K., & Saffran, J.R. (2011). Linking sounds to meanings: Infant statistical learning in a natural language. Cognitive Psychology, 631, 93–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (2004). Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. In J.J. McCarthy (Ed.), Optimality theory in phonology (pp. 290–309). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). Interpreting sonority projection experiments: The role of phonotactic modeling. Proceedings of 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences . Hong Kong.
Hayes, B., & Steriade, D. (2004). Introduction: The phonetic bases of phonological markedness. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner, & D. Steriade (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology (pp. 1–33). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B., & Wilson, C. (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 391, 379–440. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, J.B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, P.W., Friederici, A.D., Wessels, J.M.I., Svenkerud, V.Y., & Jusczyk, A.M. (1993). Infants’ sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 321, 402–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P.W., Smolensky, P., & Allocco, T. (2002). How English-learning infants respond to markedness and faithfulness constraints. Language Acquisition, 101, 31–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kabak, B., & Idsardi, W.J. (2007). Perceptual distortions in the adaptation of English consonant clusters: Syllable structure or consonantal contact constraints? Language and Speech, 501, 23–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kawasaki-Fukumori, H. (1992). An acoustical basis for universal phonotactic constraints. Language and Speech, 351, 73–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry, 101, 421–441.Google Scholar
Kreitman, R. (2006). Cluster Buster: A typology of onset clusters. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 421, 163–179.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. (2001). A course in phonetics. Boston: Heinle & HeinleGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y. (1994). Onset analysis of Korean on-glides. In Y.K. Kim-Renaud (Ed.), Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics (pp. 133–156). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Locke, J.L. (2000). Language: Movement patterns in spoken language. Science, 2881, 449–451. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacNeilage, P.F., & Davis, B.L. (2000). On the origin of internal structure of word forms. Science, 2881, 527–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massaro, D.W., & Cohen, M.M. (1983). Phonological constraints in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 341, 338–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morelli, F. (1999). The phonotactics and phonology of obstruent clusters in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
McClelland, J.L., & Plaut, D.C. (1999). Does generalization in infant learning implicate abstract algebra-like rules? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 31, 166–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreton, E. (2002). Structural constraints in the perception of English stop-sonorant clusters. Cognition, 841, 55–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology, 251, 83–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreton, E., Feng, G., & Smith, J.L. (2005). Syllabification, sonority, and perception: new evidence from a language game. Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 411, 341–355.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., & Vaux, B. (2003). Metalinguistic, shmetalinguistic: The phonology of shm-reduplication. Proceedings of the 39th Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 702–721).
Ohala, D. (1999). The influence of sonority on children’s cluster reductions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 321, 397–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, J.J. (1990). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Chicago Linguistic Society (Ed.) Papers from the regional meetings (pp. 319–338). Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Ohala, J.J., & Kawasaki-Fukumori, H. (1997). Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In S. Eliasson & E. Hakon Jahr (Eds.), Language and its ecology: Essays in honor of Einar Haugen. Trends in linguistic studies and monographs (pp. 343–365). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Onishi, K.H., Chambers, K.E., & Fisher, C. (2002). Learning phonotactic constraints from brief auditory experience. Cognition, 831, B13-B23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, P-Y. (2005). The self-organization of speech sounds. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2331, 435–449. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, C., & Perlmutter, D. (1987). American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 51, 335–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parker, S. (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
. (2008). Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics, 361, 55–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). The sonority controversy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pater, J., & Barlow, J. (2003). Constraint conflict in cluster reduction. Journal of Child Language, 301, 487–526. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pelucchi, B., Hay, J., & Saffran, J.R. (2009). Statistical learning in a natural language by 8-month-old infants. Child Development, 801, 674–685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, S. (2007). Do we have innate knowledge about phonological markedness? Comments on Berent, Steriade, Lennertz, and Vaknin. Cognition, 1041, 631–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1992). Sonority and syllable structure in American Sign Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 231, 407–422.Google Scholar
Pertz, D.L., & Bever, T.G. (1975). Sensitivity to phonological universals in children and adolescents. Language, 511, 149–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., & Birdsong, D. (1979). Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181, 497–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pitt, M.A. (1998). Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception & Psychophysics, 601, 941–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (2004). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Redford, M.A. (2008). Production constraints on learning novel onset phonotactics. Cognition, 1071, 785–816. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ren, J., Gao, L., & Morgan, J.L. (2010). Mandarin speakers’ knowledge of the sonority sequencing principle. 20th Colloquium on Generative Grammar . Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Romani, C., & Calabrese, A. (1998). Syllabic constraints in the phonological errors of an aphasic patient. Brain and Language, 641, 83–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. (2000). Epenthesis positioning and syllable contact in Chaha. Phonology, 171, 397–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W. (1993). A sonority cycle in American sign language. Phonology, 101, 242–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, W., & Lillo-Martin, D. (2006). Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J.R. (2003). Statistical language learning: Mechanisms and constraints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 121, 110–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J.R., Aslin, R.N., & Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month old infants. Science, 2741, 1926–1928. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scholes, R. (1966). Phonotactic grammaticality. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E.O. (1982). The syllable. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith (Eds.), The structure of phonological representations, part II (pp. 337–383). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In M. Aronoff & R.T. Oerhle (Eds.), Language sound structure (pp. 107–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Sibley, D.E., Kello, C.T., Plaut, D.C., & Elman, J. (2008). Large-scale modeling of wordform learning and representation. Cognitive Science, 321, 741–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P. (2006). Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction and feature domain markedness. In P. Smolensky & G. Legendre (Eds.), The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar (pp. 27–160). Vol. 21. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (Eds.) 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Vol. 21. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stenneken, P., Bastiaanse, R., Huber, W., & Jacobs, A.M. (2005). Syllable structure and sonority in language inventory and aphasic neologisms. Brain and Language, 951, 280–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, D. (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.
. (1988). Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit and elsewhere. Phonology, 51, 73–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Stevens, K.N. (1989). On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics, 171, 3–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C. (1985). Phonetic Inventories, 15–24 Months: A longitudinal study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 281, 505–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R. (1984). On the status of final consonant clusters in English syllables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 231, 343–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., Bowey, J., & Bourassa, D. (2002). Segmentation of spoken words into syllables by English- speaking children as compared to adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 821, 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1997). Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task? Developmental Psychology, 331, 771–780. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., & Danis, C. (1988). Syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Journal of Memory and Language, 271, 87–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., Gross, J., & Cwikiel-Glavin, A. (1992). The syllabification of /s/ clusters in English. Journal of Phonetics, 201, 383–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1990). Toward an understanding of English syllabification. Journal of Memory and Language, 291, 66–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T. (1972). On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte, 181, 1–18.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M.S., & Luce, P.A. (2004). A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 361, 481–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, C. (2006). Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational Ssudy of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science, 301, 945–982. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, C., & Davidson, L. (2013). Bayesian analysis of non-native cluster production. Proceedings of NELS 40 . Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Wright, R. (2004). A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In D. Steriade, R. Kirchner, & B. Hayes (Eds.), Phonetically based phonology (pp. 34–57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yavas, M., & Gogate, L.J. (1999). Phoneme awareness in children: A function of sonority. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 281, 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zec, D. (2007). The syllable. In P. de Lacy (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology (pp. 161–194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X., & Berent, I. (2013a). Universal constraints on the sound structure of language: Beyond articulation. Poster presented at the RISE conference . Northeastern University, Boston.
. (submitted). Speakers’ knowledge of grammatical universals: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese.
Zuraw, K. (2007). The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: Corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Language, 831, 277–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Albert, Aviad & Bruno Nicenboim
2022. Modeling Sonority in Terms of Pitch Intelligibility With the Nucleus Attraction Principle. Cognitive Science 46:7 DOI logo
Zhao, Xu & Iris Berent
2018. The Basis of the Syllable Hierarchy: Articulatory Pressures or Universal Phonological Constraints?. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 47:1 ► pp. 29 ff. DOI logo
Parker, Steve
2017. Sounding out Sonority. Language and Linguistics Compass 11:9 DOI logo
Berent, Iris
2016. Commentary: “An Evaluation of Universal Grammar and the Phonological Mind”—UG Is Still a Viable Hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology 7 DOI logo
성은경
2016. Perception of onset clusters by English and Korean listeners: Universal markedness and L2 phonotactic knowledge. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology 22:3 ► pp. 477 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.