Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:27:02.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenging cross-linguistic typology: Right-edge consonantal prominence in Kaqchikel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2018

KUNIYA NASUKAWA ,
PHILLIP BACKLEY ,
YOSHIHO YASUGI  and
MASATOSHI KOIZUMI
KUNIYA NASUKAWA*
Affiliation:
Tohoku Gakuin University
PHILLIP BACKLEY*
Affiliation:
Tohoku Gakuin University
YOSHIHO YASUGI*
Affiliation:
National Museum of Ethnology, Japan
MASATOSHI KOIZUMI*
Affiliation:
Tohoku University
*
Author’s address: Department of English, Tohoku Gakuin University, 1-3-1 Tsuchitoi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan, 980-8511[email protected]
Author’s address: Department of English, Tohoku Gakuin University, 1-3-1 Tsuchitoi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan, 980-8511[email protected]
Author’s address: The National Museum of Ethnology, 10-1 Senri Expo Park, Suita, Osaka, Japan, 565-8511[email protected]
Author’s address: Graduate School of Arts and Letters, Tohoku University, 27-1 Kawauchi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Japan, 980-8576[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is known that consonants can act as boundary markers when they are located at the left edge of a prosodic domain, helping listeners to parse incoming speech. To achieve maximum efficiency in marking out boundaries, those markers should be acoustically salient. In Element Theory, domain markers are represented by the elements |H| and |ʔ|. Being inherently voiceless, these elements stand apart from the other elements, which are spontaneously voiced. Most languages show a preference for incorporating |H| or |ʔ| into segmental structures which stand at the left edge of domains. This paper challenges the universality of this view by analysing data from Kaqchikel, a K’iche’an language with a bias for marking the right edge of domains rather than the left. The marker in question is intense/prolonged noise which, in Element Theory is represented by |H|. The |H| element is present in fortis fricatives and aspirates, and in Kaqchikel it regularly appears in segments at the right edge of prosodic domains where it serves as a domain boundary marker. Boundary marking in Kaqchikel is analysed here using a Precedence-free Phonology approach to melodic structure (Nasukawa 2016) in which the linear ordering of segments is determined by the hierarchical organization of melodic units (elements) within a unified melodic–prosodic structure.

Keywords

aspirationElement TheoryKaqchikelPrecedence-free Phonologyprosodic domain markersright-edge prominence
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , 01 August 2019 , pp. 611 - 641
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

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2012 meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain (University of Salford, UK) the 145th meeting of the Japan Linguistic Society (Autumn 2012; Kyushu University, Japan) and the 10th Old World Conference in Phonology (2013; Boğaziçi University, Turkey). We are grateful to the conference participants for their feedback and to three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their insightful and instructive comments on an earlier draft. We alone are responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. We also thank Juan Esteban Ajsivinac Sian, Filiberto Patal Majzul, Lolmay Pedro Oscar García Mátzar and other supporting staff members and informants for providing data from Kaqchikel. This work was supported by the Japanese government (Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A), (B) and (C), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), grant numbers 15H02603, 26284067 and 15K02611).

References

Ajsivinac Sian, Juan Esteban, Oscar García Matzar, Lolmay Pedro & Gonzáles Choc, Ixsu’m Antonieta. 2004. Variación dialectal del idioma Kaqchikel. Guatemala: Comunidad Lingüística Kaqchikel de la Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Ewen, Colin J.. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles. 1974. Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10, 1–26.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip. 2011. An introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip. 2012. Variation in Element Theory. Linguistic Variation 12.1, 57–102.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2009a. Headship as melodic strength. In Nasukawa & Backley (eds.), 47–77.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2009b. Representing labials and velars: A single ‘dark’ element. Phonological Studies 12, 3–10.Google Scholar
Botma, Bert. 2004. Phonological aspects of nasality: An element-based dependency approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Botma, Bert, Kula, Nancy C. & Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2011. Features. In Kula, Nancy C., Botma, Bert & Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds.), The Continuum companion to phonology, 33–63. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Brandão de Carvalho, Joaquim, Scheer, Tobias & Ségéral, Philippe (eds.). 2008. Lenition and fortition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Breen, Gavan & Pensalfini, Rob. 1999. Arrernte: A language with no syllable onsets. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 1–25.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis F.. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6, 201–251.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis F.. 1992. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49, 155–180.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik. 2011. Dissimilation. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 1408–1433. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carr, Philip, Durand, Jacques & Ewen, Colin J. (eds.). 2005. Headhood, elements, specification and contrastivity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Charette, Monik. 1991. Conditions on phonological government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong & Jun, Sun-Ah. 2000. Domain-initial strengthening as featural enhancement: Aerodynamic evidence from Korean. In Okrent, Akira & Boyle, John P. (eds.), Papers from the 36th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 36 (CLS 36), vol. 1: The Main Session, 31–44. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Cho, Taehong & Keating, Patricia. 2009. Effects of initial position versus prominence in English. Journal of Phonetics 37, 466–485.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 239–297.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. In Ewen & Anderson (eds.), 225–252.Google Scholar
Comunidad de Lingüística Kaqchikel 2004. Ruchˈabˈexik ri Qachˈabˈal: Variación dialectal del idioma Kaqchikel. Chimaltenango, Guatemala: Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG).Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Megan. 1994. Prosodic alignment and misalignment in Diyari, Dyirbal, and Gooniyandi: An optimizing approach. In Raul Aranovich, William Byrne, Susanne Preuss & Martha Senturia (eds.), The Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 13), 16–31. [ROA-19]Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz. 1997. Resonance elements in phonology: A study in Munster Irish (PASE Studies and Monographs 3). Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz(ed.). 1998. Structure and interpretation: Studies in phonology. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar
Cyran, Eugeniusz. 2010. Complexity scales and licensing in phonology. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Davenport, Mike & Hannahs, S. J.. 1998. Introducing phonetics and phonology. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2006. Markedness: Reduction and preservation in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2014. Final devoicing of /l/ in Reykjavík Icelandic. In Campbell, Nick, Gibbon, Dafydd & Hirst, Daniel (eds.), Social and linguistic speech prosody: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 757–761.Google Scholar
Duanmu, San. 2016. A theory of phonological features. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunstan, E. 1969. Twelve Nigerian languages. New York: Africana Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Durand, Jacques & Katamba, Francis (eds.). 1995. Frontiers of phonology: Atoms, structures, derivations. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Ewen, Colin J. & Anderson, John M. (eds.). 1985. Phonology Yearbook 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cecile. 1999. Prosodically conditioned articulatory variations: A review. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97, 1–74.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cecile & Keating, Patricia A.. 1997. Articulatory strengthening at edges of prosodic domains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101.6, 3728–3740.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Koops, Robert. 1989. Double epenthesis and N-class in Chadic. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt (ed.), Current progress in Chadic linguistics, 233–250. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
García Matzar, Pedro Oscar, Cotzajay, Valerio Toj & Tuiz, Domingo Coc. 1999. Gramática Kaqchikel. Antigua, Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín.Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob & van der Hulst, Harry. 2013. Fixed stress locations. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Gurevich, Naomi. 2004. Lenition and contrast. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gussmann, Edmund. 2002. Phonology: Analysis and theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth & White Eagle, Josephine. 1980. A preliminary metrical account of Winnebago accent. International Journal of American Linguistics 46, 117–132.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7, 255–300.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 1994. English sound structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 2006. The phonology of being understood: further arguments against sonority. Lingua 116, 1483–1494.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 2009. Why final devoicing is weakening. In Nasukawa & Backley(eds.), 9–46.Google Scholar
Harris, John. 2012. Wide-domain $r$ -effects in English. Journal of Linguistics 49.2, 329–365.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Gussmann, Edmund. 1998. Final codas: Why the west was wrong. In Cyran (ed.), 139–162.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Gussmann, Edmund. 2002. Word-final onsets. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 1–42.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, Geoff. 1995. The elements of phonological representation. In Durand & Katamba (eds.), 34–79.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1986a. Inalterability in CV phonology. Language 62, 321–351.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1986b. Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 467–499.Google Scholar
Heinze, Ivonne L.2004. Kaqchikel and Spanish language contact: The case of bilingual Mayan children. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Hendrick Krueger, Roberta Anne. 1986. The verbal category system of Cakchiquel Mayan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Herbruger, Alfredo & Diaz Barrios, Eduardo. 1956. Método para aprender a hablar, leer y escribir la lengua cakchiquel. Guatemala: Tipografía Nacional.Google Scholar
Honeybone, Patrick. 2008. Lenition, weakening and consonantal strength: tracing concepts through the history of phonology. In de Carvalho, Brandão et al. (eds.), 9–93.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1995. Radical CV Phonology: The categorical gesture. In Durand & Katamba(eds.), 80–116.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2005. The molecular structure of phonological segments. In Carr et al. (eds.), 193–234.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress. In Hyman, Larry M. (ed.), Studies in stress and accent (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), 37–82. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Idsardi, William J. 1998. Tiberian Hebrew spirantization and phonological derivations. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 37–73.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar M. & Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman & Halle, Morris. 1956. Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Janda, Richard D.. 1988. On the unity of Sanskrit aspiration. Wiener Linguistische Gazette (supplement 6), 29–31.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Kang, Yoonjung. 2003. Perceptual similarity in loanword adaptation: English postvocalic word-final stops in Korean. Phonology 20, 219–273.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Terrence. 1975/1970. Proyecto de alfabetos y ortografías para escribir las lenguas mayances. Guatemala: Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D., Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1985. The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. In Ewen & Anderson (eds.), 305–328.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan D., Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7, 193–231.Google Scholar
Kraft, Charles H. & Kraft, Marguerite G.. 1973. Introductory Hausa. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy C.2002. The phonology of verbal derivation in Bemba. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Laidig, Carol J. 1992. Segments, syllables, and stress in Larike. In Barquest, Donald A. & Laidig, Wyn D. (eds.), Phonological studies in four languages of Maluku (Publications in Linguistics 108), 67–126. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa M. 2001. Consonant strength: Phonological patterns and phonetic manifestations. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar
Li, Fang-Kuei. 1946. Chipewyan. In Hoijer, Harry, Bloomfield, Leonard & Haas, Marry R. (eds.), Linguistic structures of native America (Viking Fund publications in Anthropology 6), 398–423. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation.Google Scholar
MacKay, Carolyn J. 1994. A sketch of Misantla Totonac phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 60, 369–419.Google Scholar
MacKay, Carolyn J. & Trechsel, Frank R.. 2013. A sketch of Pisaflores Tepehua phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 79, 189–218.Google Scholar
Mattys, Sven L. & Jusczyk, Peter W.. 2001. Do infants segment words or recurring contiguous patterns? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27, 644–655.Google Scholar
Narciso Cojtí, Macario. 1988. Mapa de los idiomas de Guatemala y Belice. Guatemala: Piedra Santa.Google Scholar
Narciso Cojtí, Macario & López, Margarita. 1990. Variación dialectal del idioma Kaqchikel. In England, Nora C. & Elliott, Stephen R. (eds.), Lecturas sobre la lingüística Maya, 193–220. Guatemala: Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 1998. An integrated approach to nasality and voicing. In Cyran(ed.), 205–225.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2004. Word-final consonants: Arguments against a coda analysis. Proceedings of the 58th Conference, Tohoku English Literary Society, 47–53.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2005. A unified approach to nasality and voicing. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2011. Representing phonology without precedence relations. English Linguistics 28, 278–300.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2014. Features and recursive structure. Nordlyd 41.1, 1–19.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2015. Recursion in the lexical structure of morphemes. In van Oostendorp, Marc & van Riemsdijk, Henk (eds.), Representing structure in phonology and syntax, 211–238. Berlin & Boston, MA: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2016. A precedence-free approach to (de-)palatalisation in Japanese. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1.1:9, 21.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya. 2017. Extending the application of Merge to elements in phonological representations. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 21, 59–70.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip. 2005. Dependency relations in Element Theory: Markedness and complexity. In Kula, Nancy C. & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Proceedings of the Government Phonology Workshop: Special issue of Leiden Papers in Linguistics 2.4, 77–93. [ULCL, Leiden University]Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip. 2008. Affrication as a performance device. Phonological Studies 11, 35–46.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip (eds.). 2009. Strength relations in phonology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip. 2012. Prosody controls melody. Phonological Studies 15, 11–18.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip. 2015a. Headship as melodic and prosodic prominence. In De Dominicis, Amedeo (ed.), pS-prominenceS: Prominences in Linguistics. Proceedings of the international conference, 59–75. University of Tuscia, Viterbo: Disucom Press.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip. 2015b. Heads and complements in phonology: A case of role reversal? Phonological Studies 18, 67–74.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip. 2017. Representing moraicity in Precedence-free Phonology. Phonological Studies 20, 55–62.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya, Yasugi, Yoshiho & Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2013. Syllable structure and the head parameter in Kaqchikel. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Studies in Kaqchikel grammar (MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 8), 81–95. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1992. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Ziolkowski, Michael, Noske, Manuela & Deaton, Karen (eds.), Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 26), vol. 2: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable, 319–338. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
OKMA [Oxlajuuj Keej Mayaˈ Ajtzˈiibˈ] 2003. Vocabulario comparativo de los idiomas Mayas de Guatemala. Guuatelama: Okma y Cholsamaj.Google Scholar
Pankratz, Leo & Pike, Eunice V.. 1967. Phonology and morphotonemics of Ayutla Mixtec. International Journal of American Linguistics 33, 287–299.Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen. 1994. Coda epenthesis in Huariapano. International Journal of American Linguistics 60, 95–119.Google Scholar
Parks, Douglas R. 1976. A grammar of Pawnee. New York & London: Garland.Google Scholar
Patal Majzul, Filiberto, Oscar García Matzar, Pedro & Espantzay Serech, Carmelina. 2000. Variación dialectal en Kaqchikel. Guatemala: Cholsamaj.Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. & Payne, Thomas E.. 1986. Yagua. In Derbyshire, Desmond C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian languages vol. 2, 249–474. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pensalfini, Rob. 1998. The development of (apparently) onsetless syllabification: A constraint-based approach. In Catherine Gruber, M., Higgins, Derrick, Olson, Kenneth S. & Wysocki, Tamra (eds.), Papers from the 34th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 34), vol. 2: The Panels, 167–178. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Peters, Ann. 1985. Language segmentation: Operating principles for the perception and analysis of language. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition vol. 2: Theoretical issues, 1029–1068. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petrova, Olga, Plapp, Rosemary, Ringen, Catherine & Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd. 2006. Voice and aspiration: Evidence from Russian, Hungarian, German, Swedish and Turkish. The Linguistic Review 23, 1–35.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Talkin, David. 1992. Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop. In Doherty, Gerard J. & Robert Ladd, D. (eds.), Gesture, segment, prosody (Papers in Laboratory Phonology 2), 90–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ploch, Stefan. 1999. Nasals on my mind: The phonetic and the cognitive approach to the phonology of nasality. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.Google Scholar
Pöchtrager, Marcus A.2006. The structure of length. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa & Diehl, Randy. 1999. The relative distinctiveness of initial and final consonants in CVC syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106.3, 1555–1565.Google Scholar
Reid, Lawrence A.(ed.). 1971. Philippine minor languages: Word lists and phonologies (Oceanic Linguistics special publication No. 8). Summer Institute of Linguistics & University of Hawai‘i. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Rennison, John R.1984. On tridirectional feature systems for vowels. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 33–34, 69–93. [Reprinted in Jacques Durand (ed.). 1986. Dependency and non-linear phonology, 281–303. London: Croom Helm.]Google Scholar
Rice, Keren D. 1989. A grammar of Slave. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Robertson, John S. 1998. A Ch’olti’an explanation for Ch’orti’an grammar: A postlude to the language of the Classic Maya. Mayab 11, 5–11.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 1996. Variable laryngeals and vowel lowering. Phonology 13, 73–117.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1984. The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1, 129–155.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 1995. Diphthongization in particle phonology. In Goldsmith, John A. (ed.), The handbook of phonological theory, 586–608. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford A. 2005. The aperture particle |a|: Its role and functions. In Carr et al. (eds.), 313–338.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology, vol. 1: What is CVCV and why should it be? Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Geoff. 2014. Which phonetics is phonological?In Szpyra-Kozłowska, Jolanta, Guz, Ewa, Steinbrich, Piotr & Święciński, Radosław (eds.), Recent developments in applied phonetics, 345–371. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Ségéral, Philippe & Scheer, Tobias. 2008. Positional factors in lenition and fortition. In de Carvalho, Brandão et al. (eds.), 131–172.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2005. Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sommer, Bruce. 1970. An Australian language without CV syllables. International Journal of American Linguistics 36, 57–58.Google Scholar
Sommer, Bruce. 1981. The shape of Kunjen syllables. In Goyvaerts, Didier L. (ed.), Phonology in the 1980s, 231–244. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Stonham, John. 1999. Aspects of Tsishaath Nootka phonetics and phonology. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Szigetvári, Péter. 2008. What and where. In de Carvalho, Brandão et al. (eds.), 93–130.Google Scholar
Tabain, Marija, Breen, Gavan & Butcher, Andrew. 2004. VC vs. CV syllables: A comparison of Aboriginal languages with English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 34, 175–200.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut. 1994. Conventional, biological, and environmental factors in speech communication: A modulation theory. Phonetica 51, 170–183.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S.1939. Grundzüge der phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. [Translated 1969 by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe as Principles of phonology. Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.]Google Scholar