Chapter published in:
Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson
Edited by Roger Böhm and Harry van der Hulst
[Studies in Language Companion Series 204] 2018
► pp. 385–430

Degrees of complexity in phonological segments

| University of Connecticut
| Shenzhen University
In this chapter the authors discuss the representation of degrees of complexity in segmental structure. After exploring several measures of complexity in relation to the notion of markedness, five assumptions concerning phonological primes are listed. Adopting a dependency-based model using unary ‘features’, a brief introduction to this model, Radical cv Phonology (RcvP), is provided, focusing on its guiding principles and elementary units, the connection between the segment and the syllable (including a perspective on the relation between major class and syllable structure) and providing the representation of different groups of features (laryngeal, place and manner). The authors then turn their attention to so-called ‘complex segments’, proposing a formal typology in terms of the level in the structure at which complexity occurs.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Relative complexity and markedness
  • 3.Five theses concerning phonological primes
    • 3.1Are features based on perception or articulation?
    • 3.2Are features innate?
    • 3.3Are features, or is phonology in general, substance-free?
    • 3.4Are phonological representations fully specified?
    • 3.5Is there such a thing as a segment inventory?
  • 4.The RCVP framework
    • 4.1The formal representation of segmental structure and its phonetic interpretation
    • 4.2Syllable structure in RcvP
    • 4.3RcvP representations for ‘features’
  • 5.The representation of complex segments
    • 5.1Complex consonants
      • 5.1.1Affricates
      • 5.1.2Consonants with secondary manners
      • 5.1.3Consonants with secondary place
      • 5.1.4Segments with two major places
    • 5.2Complex vowels
      • 5.2.1(Short) diphthongs
      • 5.2.2Vowels with contour tones
      • 5.2.3Vowels with ‘special’ phonation
      • 5.2.4Vowels with special manner
  • 6.Branching syllabic constituents and ‘two-root structures’
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.204.10hul
References
Anderson, John M.
1987 The limits of linearity. In Explorations in Dependency Phonology, John M. Anderson & Jacques Durand (eds), 169–190. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The Substance of Language, Vol. I: The Domain of Syntax. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The Substance of Language, Vol. II: Morphology, Paradigms, and Periphrases. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The Substance of Language, Vol. III: Phonology-Syntax Analogies. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Graphophonology and anachronic phonology. Notes on episodes in the history of pseudo-phonology. Folia Linguistica Historica 35: 1–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Ewen, Colin J.
1987 Principles of Dependency Phonology [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 47]. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles
1974 Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10: 1–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1976 Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments. Language 52(2): 326–344.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Backley, Phillip
2011 An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Banner Inouye, Susan
1989 The flap as a contour segment. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 72: 39–81.Google Scholar
Bauer, Gerd
1956 The problem of short diphthongs in Old English. Anglia – Zeitschrift für Englische Philologie 74: 427–437.Google Scholar
Bauer, Winifred
1993 Maori. London: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, William G.
2008 Some interesting implications of clicks. Paper presented at Humdrum 2008.Google Scholar
2009 Reconsidering nasality in nasal clicks. Paper presented at the 33rd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
2014 Some differences between clicks and labio-velars. South African Journal of African Languages 34(2): 115–126.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia
2008 The Syntax of Phonology: A Radically Substance-free Approach. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Bradfield, Julian
2014 Clicks, concurrency and Khoisan. Phonology 31(1): 1–49.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis M.
1986 Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 219–252.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 Articulatory phonology. Phonetica 49: 155–180.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
1974 Phonological features: Problems and proposals. Language 50(1): 52–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968 The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper and Row. Reprinted 1991. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, George N.
1985 The geometry of phonological features. Phonology 2: 225–252.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, John Kingston & Mary Beckman (eds), 283–333. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Affricates as noncontoured stops. In Proceedings of LP’98: Item Order in Language and Speech, Osamu Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph & Bohumil Palek (eds), 271–299. Prague: Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
Connell, Bruce
2007 Mambila fricative vowels and Bantu spirantisation. Africana Linguistica 13(1): 7–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Danis, Nick
2015 Markedness and complex stops: Evidence from simplification processes (handout). Paper presented at the 8th World Congress of African Languages, Kyoto.Google Scholar
Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed
1985 Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7(2): 105–130.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel & van der Hulst, Harry
To appear. On some deep analogies between syntax and phonology. In Morpheme-internal Recursion in Phonology, Phillip Backley & Kuniya Nasukawa eds Berlin De Gruyter
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
1983 The Turkana Language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan
2009 The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121]. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & van der Hulst, Harry
1998 Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology. Phonology 15: 317–352.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, San
1994 Against contour tone units. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 555–608.Google Scholar
2008 Syllable Structure: The Limits of Variation. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The CVX theory of syllable structure. In Handbook of the Syllable, Charles E. Cairns & Eric Raimy (eds), 99–128. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2016 A Theory of Phonological Features. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ewen, Colin J.
1980 Aspects of Phonological Structure, with Particular Reference to English and Dutch. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Mark H.
1979 Prenasalization and syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2): 245–278.Google Scholar
Foley, James
1977 Foundations of Theoretical Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gandour, Jack
1974 Consonant types and tone in Siamese. Journal of Phonetics 2: 337–350.Google Scholar
Gandour, Jack, Tumtavitikul, Apiluck & Satthamnuwong, Nakarin
1999 Effects of speaking rate on Thai tones. Phonetica 56(3–4): 123–134.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glanze, Walter D., Anderson, Kenneth & Anderson, Lois E.
1990 Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 4th edn. Maryland Heights MO: Mosby.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris & van der Hulst, Harry
1999 Stricture is structure. In The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory, Ben Hermans & Marc van Oostendorp (eds), 153–174. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew
1998 The phonetics and phonology of non-modal vowels: A cross-linguistic perspective. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 24: 93–105.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew K.
2006 Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles
2000 ‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 157–169.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, R. K.
1975 Reanalyzing prenasalized consonants. Studies in African Linguistics 6(2): 105–123.Google Scholar
1977 Phonetic analysis in phonological description: Prenasalized consonants and Meinhof’s rule. Lingua 43(4): 339–373.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Archibald A.
1958 Introduction to Linguistic Structures: From Sound to Sentence in English. New York NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel
1985 Linearisation and the single-segment hypothesis. In Grammatical Representation, Jacqueline Guéron, Hans Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 87–100. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995 Macro segments. Paper presented at Current Trends in Phonology: Models and methods, Royaumont.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1943 [1953] Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Baltimore MD: Waverly Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M.
1992 Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066, Richard M. Hogg (ed), 67–168. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.
2003 African languages and phonological theory. Glot International 7(6): 153–163.Google Scholar
2011 The representation of tone. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. II, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 1078–1102. London: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iosad, Pavel
2013 Representation and Variation in Substance-free Phonology: A Case Study in Celtic. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1968 Extrapulmonic consonants: Ejectives, implosives, clicks. Quarterly Progress Report of the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics 90. (Reprinted in Jakobson, Roman. 32002. Selected Writings, I: Phonological Studies 2, 220–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar Fant & Morris Halle
1952 Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and Their Correlates, 2nd edn. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith
2007 Decisions and mechanisms in exemplar-based phonology. In Experimental Approaches to Phonology, Maria-Josep Solé, Patrice S. Beddor & Manjari Ohala (eds), 25–40. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel
1911 The Pronunciation and Orthography of the Chindau Language. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger
1985 The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305–328.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud
1990 Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7.2: 193–231.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A.
1988 Palatals as complex segments: X-ray evidence. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 69: 77–91.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang & Golston, Chris
2004 A prosodic theory of laryngeal contrasts. Phonology 21(3): 325–357.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hyunsoon & Clements, George N.
2015 The feature [tense]. In Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements and Coauthors [Phonetics and Phonology 21], Annie Rialland, Rachid Ridouane & Harry van der Hulst (eds), 159–178. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Martin
2012 Underlying Representations. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K.
1991 Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics 50: 93–107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter
1968 A Phonetic Study of West African languages: An Auditory-instrumental Survey. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1971 Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1973 The features of the larynx. Journal of Phonetics 1(1): 73–83.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian
1996 The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Traill, Anthony
1984 Linguistic phonetic descriptions of clicks. Language 60(1): 1–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Clicks and their accompaniments. Journal of Phonetics 22: 33–64.Google Scholar
Lee-Kim, Sang-Im
2014 Revisiting Mandarin ‘apical vowels’: An articulatory and acoustic study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 44(3): 261–282.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M. & Mattingly, Ignatius G.
1985 The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21(1): 1–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Yen-Hwei
2011 Affricates. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 1, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 367–390. London: Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lisker, Leigh
1976 Phonetic aspects of time and timing. Paper presented at the 100th Meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Society, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda
1990 The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(3): 375–425.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean
1996 CV as the only syllable type. In Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds), 419–442. Salford: European Studies Research Institute.Google Scholar
2003 Remarks on mutæ cum liquidā and branching onsets. In Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honor of Jonathan Kaye [Studies in Generative Grammar 62], Stefan Ploch (ed), 339–363. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian
1984 Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Issues of phonological complexity: Statistical analysis of the relationship between syllable structures, segment inventories and tone contrasts. Berkeley CA: UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.Google Scholar
2009 Prenasalized stops and speech timing. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 19(2): 57–66.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Correlating syllable complexity with other measures of phonological complexity. Phonological Studies 13: 105–116.Google Scholar
Malmberg, Bertil
1951 Svens Fonetik. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J.
1988 Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43: 84–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff
2008 The Emergence of Distinctive Features. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Miller, Amanda L.
2017 Palatal click allophony in Mangetti Dune! Xung: Implications for sound change. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 47(3): 1–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Amanda L., Namaseb, Levi & Iskarous, Khalil
2007 Tongue body constriction differences in click types. Laboratory Phonology 9: 643–656.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce
2003 The parallel structures model of feature geometry. Working Papers of Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 15: 194–270.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L.
1988 Prenasalization and feature geometry. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 19: 345–352.Google Scholar
Pilch, Herbert
1997 Middle English phonetics: A systematic survey including notes on Irish and Welsh loanwords. In Studies in Middle English Linguistics [Trends in Linguistics 103], Jacek Fisiak (ed), 439–468. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poser, William J.
1979 Nasal Contour Consonants and the Concept of Segment in Phonological Theory. BA thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas
1986 Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, Charles
2018 Substance free phonology. In The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, S. J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Riehl, Anastasia K. & Cohn, Abigail C.
2011 Partially nasal segments. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. I, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 550–576. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthall, Sam
1992 Prenasalized stops and feature geometry. In Phonologica 1988 – Proceedings of the Sixth International Phonology Meeting, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds), 249–258. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rowicka, Grażyna J. & van de Weijer, Jeroen
1992 Nasal vowels in Polish. In Leiden Conference for Junior Linguists, Vol. 3, Sjef Barbiers, Marcel den Dikken & Clara Levelt (eds), 219–231. Leiden: HIL.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth C.
1986 The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-linear Phonology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Salting, Don
2005 The geometry of harmony. In The Internal Organization of Phonological Segments, Marc van Oostendorp & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 93–120. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford A.
1984 The fundamentals of Particle Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1: 129–155.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2004 A Lateral Theory of Phonology: What is CVCV, and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1982 The syllable. In The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part 2, Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds), 337–383. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sloos, Marjoleine, Ran, Yunyun & van de Weijer, Jeroen
Submitted. Illustrations of the IPA: Huangyan Taizhou. Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
Smeets, Ineke
2008 A Grammar of Mapuche [Mouton Grammar Library 41]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Norval, de Wit, Heleen & Noske, Roland
1988 Yurok retroflex harmony. Ms, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Staun, Jørgen
2013 Fission in component-based phonology. Language Sciences 40: 123–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
1982 Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. PhD thesis, MIT. Published as Steriade, Donca. 1993. Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. & Samuel J. Keyser
1989 Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 65(1): 81–106.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Keyser, Samuel J. & Kawasaki, Haruko
1986 Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, Joseph Perkell & Dennis Klatt (eds), 426–449. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, Carol & Beckett Herrington, Paula
1990 Vowel systems of normally developing and phonologically disordered children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 4(2): 145–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traill, Anthony
1993 The feature geometry of clicks. In Linguistica: Festschrift E. B. van Wijk, Paul M. von Staden (ed), 134–140. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.Google Scholar
1995 Place of articulation features for clicks: Anomalies for universals. In Studies in General and English Phonetics: Essays in Honour of Professor J. D. O’Connor, Jack Windsor Lewis (ed), 121–129. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mieke
1983 The Syllable in Dutch: With Special Reference to Diminutive Formation. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S.
1939 [1960] Grundzüge der Phonologie (Principles of Phonology), trans. by Christine A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen
1992 Basque affricates and the manner-place dependency. Lingua 88(2): 129–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 Segmental Structure and Complex Segments [Linguistische Arbeiten 350]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014a Affricates in English as a natural class. In Above and Beyond the Segments – Experimental Linguistics and Phonetics, Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller & Ellen van Zanten (eds), 350–358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014b The origin of OT constraints. Lingua 142: 66–75.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Emergent phonological constraints: The acquisition of *Complex in English. Acta Linguistica Academica 64(1): 153–165.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen, Nanjo, Kensuke & Nishihara, Tetsuo
(eds) 2005 Voicing in Japanese [Studies in Generative Grammar 84]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry
1984 Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1993a Les atomes de la structure segmentale: Composants, gestes, et dépendances. In L’Architecture des représentations phonologiques, Bernard Laks & Annie Rialland (eds), 255–290. Paris: Éditions CNRS.Google Scholar
1993b Units in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10(2): 209–241.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 Radical CV Phonology: The categorial gesture. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 80–116. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1996 Radical CV Phonology: The segment-syllable connection. In Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, Vol. 1, Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds), 333–363. Paris: CNRS/ESRI.Google Scholar
2000a Features, segments and syllables in Radical CV Phonology. In Phonologica, John R. Rennison & Klaus Kühnhammer (eds), 89–111. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
2000b Modularity and modality in phonology. In Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerard J. Docherty (eds), 207–243. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005 The molecular structure of phonological segments. In Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity, Phil Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin J. Ewen (eds), 193–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015a The laryngeal class in RcvP and voice phenomena in Dutch. In Above and Beyond the Segments – Experimental Linguistics and Phonetics, Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller & Ellen van Zanten (eds), 323–349. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015b The opponent principle in RcvP: Binarity in a unary system. In The Segment in Phonetics and Phonology, Eric Raimy & Charles Cairns (eds), 149–179. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2016 Monovalent ‘features’ in phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(2): 83–102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017a Phonological typology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Typological Linguistics, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds), 39–77. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017b Deconstructing tongue root harmony systems. In Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris [Language Faculty and Beyond 14], Geoff Lindsey & Andrew Nevins (eds), 74–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 Asymmetries in Vowel Harmony – A Representational Account. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
to appear. Principles of Radical CV Phonology. Edinburgh University Press.
van der Hulst, Harry & Snider, Keith L.
1993 Issues in the representation of tonal register. In The Phonology of Tone: The Representation of Tonal Register [Linguistic Models 17], Harry van der Hulst & Keith L. Snider (eds), 1–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry & Jeroen van de Weijer
2018 Dependency Phonology. In The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, S. J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds), 325–359. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo
1995 Mid-vowel alternations in the Brazilian Portuguese verb. Phonology 12(2): 281–304.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, David L.
2016 Old English without short diphthongs: An alternative historical phonology. Anglica – International Journal of English Studies 25(2): 5–29.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard
1997 Underspecification and the description of Chinese vowels. In Studies in Chinese Phonology [Linguistic Models 20], Jialing Wang & Norval Smith (eds), 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Richard, Maddieson, Ian, Ladefoged, Peter & Sands, Bonny
1995 A phonetic study of Sandawe clicks. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 91: 1–24.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira
1989 Contour tones. Phonology 6(1): 149–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 Tone. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando
2000 Mapudungun [Languages of the World/Materials 74]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Bassac, Christian
2018.  In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series, 204], ► pp. 201 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.