Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T15:31:27.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Post-nasal devoicing and the blurring process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

GAŠPER BEGUŠ Open the ORCID record for GAŠPER BEGUŠ [Opens in a new window]
GAŠPER BEGUŠ*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
Author’s address: University of Washington, Department of Linguistics, Guggenheim Hall 415H, Box 352425, 3940 Benton Ln NE, Seattle, WA 98195-2425, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses one of the most contested issues in phonology: unnatural alternations. First, non-natural phonological processes are subdivided into unmotivated and unnatural. The central topic of the paper is an unnatural process: post-nasal devoicing (PND). I collect thirteen cases of PND and argue that in all reported cases, PND does not derive from a single unnatural sound change (as claimed in some individual accounts of the data), but rather from a combination of three sound changes, each of which is phonetically motivated. I present new evidence showing that the three stages are directly historically attested in the pre-history of Yaghnobi. Based on several discussed cases, I propose a new diachronic model for explaining unnatural phenomena called the Blurring Process and point to its advantages over competing approaches (hypercorrection, perceptual enhancement, and phonetic motivation). The Blurring Process establishes general diachronic conditions for unnatural synchronic processes and can be employed to explain unnatural processes beyond PND. Additionally, I provide a proof establishing the minimal sound changes required for an unmotivated/unnatural alternation to arise. The Blurring Process and Minimal Sound Change Requirement have implications for models of typology within the Channel Bias approach. This paper thus presents a first step toward the ultimate goal of quantifying the influences of Channel Bias on phonological typology.

Keywords

Channel Biasnaturalnessphonological typologypost-nasal devoicingsound changevoice
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , 01 November 2019 , pp. 689 - 753
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank Kevin Ryan, Jay Jasanoff, Adam Albright, Donca Steriade, Edward Flemming, John Merrill, three anonymous Journal of Linguistics reviewers, the editors, and the audiences at LSA 2015, AMP 2016, WCCFL 35, CLS 53, and the Sound Workshop at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst for their useful feedback. All mistakes are my own.

References

Adelaar, Willem F. H. 1977. Tarma Quechua: Grammar, texts, dictionary. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Ali, Latif, Daniloff, Ray & Hammarberg, Robert. 1979. Intrusive stops in nasal-fricative clusters: An aerodynamic and acoustic investigation. Phonetica 36, 85–97.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn’t ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12.4, 493–539.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T.. 1972. How do languages get crazy rules? In Stockwell, Robert & Macaulay, Ronald (eds.), Linguistic change and generative theory, 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2002. Positional neutralization: A phonologization approach to typological patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Bartholomae, Christian. 1961. Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Ketrez, Nihan & Nevins, Andrew. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87.1, 84–125.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice S. 2009. A coarticulatory path to sound change. Language 85.4, 785–821.Google Scholar
Beguš, Gašper. 2017. Effects of ejective stops on preceding vowel duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 142.4, 2168–2184.Google Scholar
Beguš, Gašper. 2018. Unnatural phonology: A synchrony-diachrony interface approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Beguš, Gašper. To appear. Segmental phonetics and phonology. In Maria Polinsky (ed.), The Oxford handbook of languages of the Caucasus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, faculty.washington.edu/begus/files/caucasian.pdf(accessed 9 Oct 2018).Google Scholar
Beguš, Gašper & Nazarov, Aleksei. 2017. Lexicon against naturalness: Unnatural gradient phonotactic restrictions and their origins. Ms., University of Washington, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Beguš, Gašper & Nazarov, Aleksei. To appear. Gradient trends against phonetic naturalness: The case of Tarma Quechua. In Sherry Hucklebridge & Max Nelson (eds.), Proceedings of the 48th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan. 1970. A state-process approach to syllabicity and syllabic structure. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan. 1971. Some patterns of the occurrence and formation of syllabic structure. Working Papers on Language Universals 6, 23–138.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2007. The importance of typology in explaining recurrent sound patterns. Linguistic Typology 11, 107–113.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2008a. Consonant epenthesis: Natural and unnatural histories. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Language universals and language change, 79–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2008b. Natural and unnatural sound patterns: A pocket field guide. In Willems, Klaas & De Cuypere, Ludovic (eds.), Naturalness and iconicity in language, 121–148. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2013. Evolutionary Phonology: A holistic approach to sound change typology. In Honeybone, Patrick & Salmons, Joseph (eds.), Handbook of historical phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Garrett, Andrew. 1998. The origins of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 74.3, 508–556.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1974. A Murik vocabulary, with a note on the linguistic position of Murik. The Sarawak Museum Journal 22.43, 153–189.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2005. Must sound change be linguistically motivated? Diachronica 22.2, 219–269.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2013. The Austronesian languages. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert. 2017. Odd conditions: Context-sensitive sound change in unexpected contexts. Journal of Historical Linguistics 7.3, 322–371.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49, 155–180.Google Scholar
Brown, Jason. 2017. Postnasal devoicing in Nasioi. Oceanic Linguistics 56.1, 267–277.Google Scholar
Bruck, Anthony, Fox, Robert A. & LaGaly, Michael W. (eds.). 1974. Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.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 9, 1–14.Google Scholar
Burkard, Monja & Dziallas, Kristina. 2018. Final /d/ in the varieties of Madrid, Barcelona and Seville: Regional and stylistic variation. In Belz, Malte, Mooshammer, Christine, Fuchs, Susanne, Jannedy, Stefanie, Rasskazova, Oksana & Żygis, Marzena (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Phonetics & Phonology in German-speaking Countries 13. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, Jürgen M.2014. The reconstruction of the phonology of Proto-Berawan. Ph.D. dissertation, Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Busà, M. Grazia. 2007. Coarticulatory nasalization and phonological developments: Data from Italian and English nasal-fricative sequences. In Solé, Maria-Josep & Speeter, Patrice (eds.), Experimental approaches to phonology, 155–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Angela C. 2010. A naturalness bias in learning stress. Phonology 27.3, 345–392.Google Scholar
Catford, John C. 1972. Labialization in Caucasian languages, with special reference to Abkhaz. In Rigault, André & Charbonneau, René (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 679–682. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Catford, John C.1974. Natural sound changes: Some questions of directionality and diachronic phonetics. In Bruck et al. (eds.), 21–29.Google Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra A. 2015. A probabilistic model of Evolutionary Phonology. In Bui, Thuy & Özyıldz, Deniz (eds.), Proceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 145–150. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Volume 1.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew Y.1974. Natural phonology from the diachronic vantage point. In Bruck et al. (eds.), 21–29.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W., Lin, Susan & Pretorius, Rigardt. 2007. Post-nasal devoicing in Tswana. In Trouvain, Jürgen & Barry, William J. (eds.), 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 861–864. Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries W. & Pretorius, Rigardt. 2010. Phonetically grounded phonology and sound change: The case of Tswana labial plosives. Journal of Phonetics 38, 404–421.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail C. 2006. Is there gradient phonology? In Fanselow, G., Féry, C. & Schlesewsky, M. (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 25–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa. 2016. Variability in the implementation of voicing in American English obstruents. Journal of Phonetics 54, 35–50.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa. 2017. Phonation and laryngeal specification in American English voiceless obstruents. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1–26.Google Scholar
Dickens, Patrick J. 1984. The history of so-called strengthening in Tswana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 6, 97–125.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1977. A grammar of Yidin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia J. & Stampe, David. 1979. The study of natural phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 126–173. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang.1974. Diachronic puzzles for natural phonology. In Bruck et al. (1974), 21–29.Google Scholar
Fenwick, Rohan S. H. 2011. A grammar of Ubykh. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Ferry, Marie-Paule. 1991. Thesaurus tenda: Dictionnaire ethnolinguistique de langues sénégalo-guinnéennes (Bassari, Bedik, Konyagi) (Langues et cultures africaines), Paris: Société des Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Fourakis, Marios & Port, Robert. 1986. Stop epenthesis in English. Journal of Phonetics 14.2, 197–221.Google Scholar
Fruehwald, Josef. 2016. The early influence of phonology on a phonetic change. Language 92.2, 376–410.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2015. Sound change. In Bowern, Claire & Evans, Bethwyn (eds.), The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, 227–248. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew & Johnson, Keith. 2013. Phonetic bias in sound change. In Yu (ed.), 51–97.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 2007. Phonetically unmotivated sound change. In Nussbaum, Alan J. (ed.), Verba docenti: Studies in historical and Indo-European linguistics presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by students, colleagues and friends, 115–130. Ann Arbor, MI: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria, Zsiga, Elizabeth & Boyer, One Tlale. 2011. Grounded constraints and the consonants of Setswana. Lingua 121.15, 2120–2152.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Diachrony, synchrony, and language universals. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of human language, 61–92. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Volume I: Method & Theory.Google Scholar
Guion, Susan G.1996. Velar palatalization: Coarticulation, perception, and sound change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Hall, T. Alan. 2007. Segmental features. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of phonology, 311–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamed, Mahé B. & Flavier, Sébastien. 2009. Unidia: A database for deriving diachronic universals. In Dufresne, Monique, Dupuis, Fernande & Vocaj, Etleva (eds.), Historical linguistics 2007: Selected papers from the 18th International conference on historical linguistics, Montreal, August 2007, 6–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar. 2008. Diachronic explanations of sound patterns. Language & Linguistics Compass 2, 859–893.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., Pierrehumbert, Janet B., Walker, Abby J. & LaShell, P.. 2015. Tracking word frequency effects through 130 years of sound change. Cognition 139, 83–91.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically-driven phonology: The role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding. In Darnell, Michael & Moravscik, Edith (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, volume i: General papers, 243–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2004. Phonological acquisition in Optimality Theory: The early stages. In Kager, R., Pater, J. & Zonneveld, W. (eds.), Constraints in phonological acquisition, 153–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Siptár, Péter, Zuraw, Kie & Londe, Zsuzsa. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85.4, 822–863.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Stivers, Tanya. 2000. Postnasal voicing. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. http://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/Phonet/NCPhonet.pdf (accessed 9 May 2018).Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & White, James. 2013. Phonological naturalness and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 44.1, 45–75.Google Scholar
Hellberg, Staffan. 1978. Unnatural phonology. Journal of Linguistics 14.2, 157–177.Google Scholar
Herbert, Robert K. 1986. Language universals, markedness theory, and natural phonetic processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans H. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick. 2016. Are there impossible changes? $\unicode[STIX]{x1D703}>\text{f}$ but $\text{f}\ngtr \unicode[STIX]{x1D703}$ . Papers in Historical Phonology 1, 316–358.\text{f}$+but+$\text{f}\ngtr+\unicode[STIX]{x1D703}$+.+Papers+in+Historical+Phonology+1,+316–358.>Google Scholar
Hurd, Conrad & Hurd, Phyllis. 1970. Nasioi verbs. Oceanic Linguistics 9, 37–78.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1972. Nasals and nasalization in Kwa. Studies in African Linguistics 4, 167–206.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1975. Phonology: Theory and analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1976. Phonologization. In Juilland, A. (ed.), Linguistic studies presented to Joseph H. Greenberg, 407–418. Saratoga, CA: Anna Libri.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2001. The limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.), The role of speech perception in phonology, 141–186. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.2013. Enlarging the scope of phonologization. In Yu (2013), 3–28.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. & Schuh, Russell G.. 1974. Universals of tone rules: Evidence from West Africa. Linguistic Inquiry 5.1, 81–115.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joseph C.. 2011. Final devoicing and final laryngeal neutralization. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology: Suprasegmental and prosodic phonology, 1622–1643. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Volume 2.Google Scholar
Janson, Tore. 1991/1992. Southern Bantu and Makua. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 12/13, 1–44.Google Scholar
Janssens, Baudouin. 1993. Doubles réflexes consonantiques: quatre études sur le bantou de zone a (bubi, nen, bafia, ewondo). Ph.D. dissertation, Université libre de Bruxelles, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth. 1991. An articulatory study of consonant-induced vowel duration changes in English. Phonetica 48.1, 1–17.Google Scholar
de Jong, Kenneth. 2004. Stress, lexical focus, and segmental focus in English: Patterns of variation in vowel duration. Journal of Phonetics 32.4, 493–516.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Abby. 2008. Perceptual, articulatory, and systemic influences on lenition. Ms., University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Abby. 2010. Phonology shaped by phonetics: The case of intervocalic lenition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Katzir Cozier, Franz. 2008. The role of perception in phonotactic constraints: Evidence from Trinidad English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael J. & Kisseberth, Charles W.. 1977. Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kent, Raymond D., Carney, Patrick J. & Severeid, Larry R.. 1974. Velar movement and timing: Evaluation of a model for binary control. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 17.3, 470–488.Google Scholar
Kent, Raymond D. & Moll, Kenneth L.. 1969. Vocal tract characteristics of the stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 46.6, 1549–1555.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. & Stevens, Kenneth N.. 2001. Enhancement revisited. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken hale: A life in language, 271–291. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. & Stevens, Kenneth N.. 2006. Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain. Language 82.1, 33–63.Google Scholar
Kingston, John & Diehl, Randy L.. 1994. Phonetic knowledge. Language 70.3, 419–454.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1971. Historical linguistics. In Dingwall, William O. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science, 576–642. College Park: University of Maryland Linguistics Program.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory, 57–86. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. The phonological basis of sound change. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), Handbook of phonological theory, 640–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2006. Amphichronic program vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32.2, 217–236.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Linguistic universals and language change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2015. Stratal OT: A synopsis and FAQs. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.), Capturing phonological shades within and across languages, 2–44. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 2000. Geminate inalterability and lenition. Language 76.3, 509–545.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Martin. 2006. Einführung ins Ostmitteliranische. www.academia.edu/30130317(accessed 30 March 2018).Google Scholar
Kümmel, Martin. 2007. Konsonantenwandel. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vols 1 & 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul & Kingston, John. 2013. Synchronic explanation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31.2, 287–355.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lapierre, Myriam. 2018. A sound change from ND to NT: Post-oralized and devoiced nasals in Panará (Jê). Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, John J. & Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental phonology, 13–44. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, William J. & Marchai, Alain (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, Guion, Susan, Hura, Susan, Moon, Seung-Jae & Willerman, Raquel. 1995. Is sound change adaptive? Rivista di Linguistica 7, 5–36.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Makalela, Leketi. 2009. Harmonizing South African Sotho language varieties: Lessons from reading proficiency assessment. International Multilingual Research Journal 3.2, 120–133.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 499–546.Google Scholar
Merrill, John. 2014. A historical account of the Fula and Sereer consonant mutation and noun class systems. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Merrill, John. 2016a. Consonant mutation and initial prominence: The historical loss of lexical contrastiveness. Talk presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC, January 7–10, 2016.Google Scholar
Merrill, John. 2016b. Konyagi post-nasal devoicing? Ms., University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Mills, Frederick R.1975. Proto South Sulawesi and Proto Austronesian phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Moll, Kenneth L. & Daniloff, Raymond G.. 1971. Investigation of the timing of velar movements during speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 50.2B, 678–684.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott. 2008. Analytic bias and phonological typology. Phonology 25.1, 83–127.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe. 2012a. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part I, Structure. Language & Linguistics Compass 6.11, 686–701.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott & Pater, Joe. 2012b. Structure and substance in artificial-phonology learning. Part II, Substance. Language & Linguistics Compass 6.11, 702–718.Google Scholar
Morley, Rebecca L. 2012. The emergence of epenthesis: An incremental model of grammar change. Language Dynamics and Change 2, 59–97.Google Scholar
Morley, Rebecca L. 2014. Implications of an exemplar-theoretic model of phoneme genesis: A velar palatalization case study. Language and Speech 57.1, 3–41.Google Scholar
Morley, Rebecca L. 2015. Can phonological universals be emergent? Modeling the space of sound change, lexical distribution, and hypothesis selection. Language 91.2, e40–e70.Google Scholar
Mouguiama-Daouda, P. 1990. Esquisse d’une phonologie diachronique du mpongwe. Pholia 5, 121–146.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 2002. Gaps in factorial typology: the case of voicing in consonant clusters. Ms., University of Texas, Austin. [ROA]Google Scholar
Nazarov, Aleksei. 2008. Stop voicing in Tarma Quechua. Ms., Leiden University.Google Scholar
Nikulin, Andrey. 2017. A phonological reconstruction of Proto-Cerrado (Jê family). Journal of Language Relationship 15.3, 147–180.Google Scholar
Noorduyn, Jacobus. 2012/1955. The Bugis language. In Macknight, Campbell (ed.), Bugis and Makasar: Two short grammars, 33–55. Canberra: Karuda Press. Translated by Campbell Macknight.Google Scholar
Novák, L’ubomír. 2010. Jaghnóbsko-český slovník s přehledem jaghnóbské grammatiky. Prague: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakulta.Google Scholar
Novák, L’ubomír. 2013. Problem of archaism and innovation in the Eastern Iranian languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Charles University in Prague.Google Scholar
Novák, L’ubomír. 2014. Historical phonology of Yaghnōbı̄ and Sogdian. Ms., National Museum, Prague/Charles University in Prague. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.19663.28326.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, Carrie S., Hendrick, Roberta A. & Miller, Mary Frances (eds.), Papers from the parasession on language and behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, Peter F. (ed.), The production of speech, 189–216. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1989. Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation. In Breivik, L. E. & Jahr, E. H. (eds.), Language change: Contributions to the study of its causes, 173–198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. In Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, 237–278. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1997. Emergent stops. Proceedings of the 4th Seoul International Conference on Linguistics (SICOL), 84–91. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2006. Speech aerodynamics. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 2nd edn, 684–689. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 2011. Accommodation to the aerodynamic voicing constraint and its phonological relevance. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 17, 64–67.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Ohala, Manjari. 1993. The phonetics of nasal phonology: Theorems and data. In Huffman, Marie K. & Krakow, Rena A. (eds.), Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, 225–249. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Riordan, Carol J.. 1979. Passive vocal tract enlargement during voiced stops. In Wolf, J. J. & Klatt, D. H. (eds.), Speech communication papers, 89–92. New York: Acoustical Society of America.Google Scholar
Onishi, Masayuki. 2011. A grammar of Motuna. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC effects. In Kager, René & van, Harry (eds.), The prosody-morphology interface, 310–343. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe & Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2006. L1 phonotactic knowledge and the l2 acquisition of alternations. In Slabakova, Roumyana, Montrul, Silvina A. & Prévost, Philippe (eds.), Inquiries in linguistic development: Studies in honor of Lydia White, 115–131. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paul, Daniel, Abbess, Elisabeth, Müller, Katja, Tiessen, Calvin & Tiessen, Gabriela. 2010. The ethnolinguistic vitality of Yaghnobi. In SIL Electronic Survey Report 2010-017, May 2010, SIL International. www-01.sil.org/silesr/2010/silesr2010-017.pdf (accessed 23 August 2017).Google Scholar
Picard, Marc. 1994. Principles and methods in historical phonology: From Proto-Algonkian to Arapaho. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, 137–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell. First published in Tech. Rep. 2, Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Pucilowski, Anna. 2013. Topics in ho morphophonology and morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Puente Baldoceda, Blas. 1977. Fonología del quechua tarmeño. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Centro de Investigación de Lingüística Aplicada.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1976. The Duke of York gambit. Journal of Linguistics 12, 83–102.Google Scholar
Recasens, Daniel. 2012. The phonetic implementation of underlying and epenthetic stops in word final clusters in Valencian Catalan. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42.1, 65–90.Google Scholar
Rensch, Calvin R., Rensch, Carolyn M., Noeb, Jonas & Ridu, Robert S.. 2006. The Bidayuh language: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Kuching, Sarawak: Dayak Bidayuh National Association.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1949. Lautlehre. Historische Grammatik der Italienischen Sprache und ihrer Mundarten, vol. 1. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Rothenberg, Martin. 1968. The breath-stream dynamics of simple-released-plosive production. Basel: S. Karger.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, Merritt. 1975. A guide to languages of the world. Stanford, CA: Language Universals Project.Google Scholar
Santos, Rosine. 1996. Le mey: langue ouest-atlantique de Guinée. Paris: Université Paris III.Google Scholar
Simons, Gary F. & Fennig, Charles D. (eds.). 2018. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 21st edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. www.ethnologue.com (accessed 13 October 2018).Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1987. Sogdian. In Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.), Compendium linguarum iranicarum, 173–192. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
Sirk, Ülo. 1983. The Buginese language. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 2007. Controlled and mechanical properties in speech: A review of the literature. In Solé, Maria-Josep & Beddor, Patrice (eds.), Experimental approaches to phonology, 302–321. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep. 2012. Natural and unnatural patterns of sound change?In Solé, Maria-Josep & Recasens, Daniel (eds.), The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors, 123–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep, Hyman, Larry M. & Monaka, Kemmonye C.. 2010. More on post-nasal devoicing: The case of Shekgalagari. Journal of Phonetics 38.4, 299–319.Google Scholar
Stampe, David. 1973. A dissertation on natural phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2016a. Effects of allophonic vowel nasalization on NC clusters: A contrast-based analysis. In Hammerly, Christopher & Prickett, Brandon (eds.), Proceedings of the 46th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 193–206. Amherst, MA: GLSA. Volume 3.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2016b. Predicting distributional restrictions on prenasalized stops. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 34.3, 1089–1133.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2018a. Constraints on contrast motivate nasal cluster dissimilation. Ms., New York University.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2018b. Environmental shielding is contrast preservation. Phonology 35, 39–78.Google Scholar
Stausland Johnsen, Sverre. 2012. A diachronic account of phonological unnaturalness. Phonology 29, 505–531.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1993. Closure, release, and nasal contours. In Huffman, Marie K. & Krakow, Rena A. (eds.), Phonetics and phonology. Volume 5: Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, 401–470. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Tesar, Bruce & Smolensky, Paul. 2000. Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Valls, David. 2014. A grammar sketch of the Bugis language. Ms., www.academia.edu/23400897/A_grammar_sketch_of_the_Bugis_language(accessed 31 August 2017).Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-y. 1968. Vowel features, paired variables, and the English vowel shift. Language 44.4, 695–708.Google Scholar
Warner, Natasha & Weber, Andrea. 2001. Perception of epenthetic stops. Journal of Phonetics 29.1, 53–87.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew. 2012. Lexical contrast maintenance and the organization of sublexical contrast systems. Language and Cognition 4.4, 319–355.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew, Kaplan, Abby & Jackson, Scott. 2013. High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128.2, 179–186.Google Scholar
Westbury, John R. & Keating, Patricia A.. 1986. On the naturalness of stop consonant voicing. Journal of Linguistics 22.1, 145–166.Google Scholar
Whatmough, Joshua. 1937. The development of Indo-European labiovelars. Acta Jutlandica 9, 45–56.Google Scholar
White, James. 2013. Bias in phonological learning: Evidence from saltation. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
White, James. 2017. Accounting for the learnability of saltation in phonological theory: A maximum entropy model with a P-map bias. Language 93.1, 1–36.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30, 945–982.Google Scholar
Xromov, Al’bert. 1972. Jagnobskij jazyk. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Xromov, Al’bert. 1987. Jagnobskij jazyk. Osnovy iranskogo jazykoznanija: Novoiranskie jazyki: vostočnaja gruppa, 644–701. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Yoo, Isaiah WonHo & Blankenship, Barbara. 2003. Duration of epenthetic [t] in polysyllabic American English words. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33.2, 153–164.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Yutaka. 2016. Sogdian language: i. Description. In Encyclopædia iranica, Online edition. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sogdian-language-01(accessed 11 November 2016).Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2004. Explaining final obstruent voicing in Lezgian: Phonetics and history. Language 80, 73–97.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L.(ed.). 2013. Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zsiga, Elizabeth, Gouskova, Maria & Tlale, One. 2006. On the status of voiced stops in Tswana: Against *ND. In Davis, Christopher & Rose, Amy (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 721–734. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar