Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T13:13:41.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harmonic Scales as Faithfulness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Darin Howe  and
Douglas Pulleyblank
Darin Howe
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Douglas Pulleyblank
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Optimality Theory predicts that harmonic scales can be encoded in grammar in one of two ways: either as markedeness hierarchies or else as faithfulness hierarchies. Although most current researchers assume that harmony is encoded as markedness, many investigators have argued that some harmonic relations are better captured as faithfulness hierarchies that prevent the deletion or insertion of less harmonic elements. We demonstrate that at least two perceptually-motivated harmonic scales — notably relative vowel height as well as consonant glottalisation — need to be encoded in the grammar as faithfulness hierarchies which require that more harmonic elements, which are also more perceptible, are more faithfully adhered to. Our harmony-as-faithfulness analysis captures the fact that the same elements which undergo deletion also undergo insertion.

Résumé

Résumé

La théorie d’optimalité prédit que les hiérarchies harmoniques peuvent être encodées dans la grammaire de deux façons : soit comme une hiérarchie de marquage, ou comme une hiérarchie de fiabilité. Malgré le fait que la plupart des chercheurs prennent pour acquis l’idée que l’harmonie est encodée en terme de marquage, plusieurs linguistes ont proposés qu’il est préférable de concevoir les relations harmoniques comme étant des hiérarchies de fiabilité qui empêchent l’élision ou l’insertion des éléments moins harmoniques. Nous démontrons qu’au moins deux hiérarchies harmoniques—notamment la hauteur relative des voyelles ainsi que la glottalisation des consonnes — doivent être encodées dans la grammaire comme des hiéarchies de fiabilité qui exigent que les éléments plus harmoniques, qui sont aussi plus perceptibles, sont respectées de façon plus fiable. Notre analyse d’harmonie-comme-fiabilité rends compte du fait que les mêmes éléments qui subissent l’élision subissent aussi l’insertion.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 1 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2004 

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.)

References

Abaurre, Maria Bernadete M., Galves, Charlotte, Mandel, Arnaldo, and Sandalo, Filomena. 2001. Secondary stress in two varieties of Portuguese and the Sotaq optimality based computer program. Ms., University of Sao Paulo.Google Scholar
Abu Salim, Issam. 1987. Vowel harmony in Palestinian Arabic: A metrical perspective. Journal of Linguistics 23: 1–24.Google Scholar
Adeniyi, Harrison Oluwadurotimi. 1988. Aspects of the phonology and morphology of Ekiti. Master’s thesis, University of Ibadan.Google Scholar
Ahn, Sang-Cheol. 1991. Vowel deletion and epenthesis: The vowel ɨ. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 21:1–18.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1993. Underspecification and the phonology of Yoruba /r/. Linguistic Inquiry 24:139–160.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1996. Featural Affixation. Journal of Linguistics 32:239–289.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi, and Urua, Eno E.. 2003. Foot structure in the Ibibio verb. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 24:119–160.Google Scholar
Alderete, John. 1999. Head dependence in stress-epenthesis interaction. In The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory, ed. Hermans, Ben and van Oostendorp, Marc, 29–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alderete, John, Beckman, Jill, Benua, Laura, Gnanadesikan, Amalia, McCarthy, John, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1999. Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30:327–364.Google Scholar
Angoujard, Jean-Pierre. 1990. Metrical structure of Arabic. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Arai, Takayuki. 1999. A case study of spontaneous speech in Japanese. Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS99), ed. Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel, and Bailey, Ashlee C., Vol. 1, 615–618. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana. 1988. Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, and Suzuki, Keiichiro. 1997. The Yokuts challenge. In Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. Roca, Iggy, 197–226. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, Muhammad A.R. 1964. Klamath grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Blake, Susan J. 1995. Glottalized resonants in Sliammon. Handout from the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association, Montreal, Quebec, June 1995.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1993. Klamath laryngeal phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 59:237–279.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John (ed.). The handbook of phonological theory, 206–244. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1997. Rules in Optimality Theory: Two case studies. In Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. Roca, Iggy, 227–260. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz. 1947. Kwakiutl grammar. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Bohas, Georges. 1979. Contribution à l’étude de la méthode des grammariens arabes en morphologie et en phonologie, d’après des grammariens arabes «tardifs». Doctoral thesis, Paris III.Google Scholar
Bohas, Georges. 1982. Quelques aspects de l’argumentation et de l’explication chez les grammariens arabes. Arabica 28:2–3.Google Scholar
Bowman, James P. Jr. 1971. The muscle spindle and neural control of the tongue: Implications for speech. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Bright, William O. 1975. The Dravidian enunciative vowel. In Dravidian phonological systems, ed. Schiffman, Harold F. and Eastman, Carol M., 11–46. Seattle: Institute for Comparative and Foreign Area Studies and University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen. 1982. On predicting the interaction of stress and epenthesis. Glossa 16:115–132.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen. 1992. Parametric variation in Arabic dialect phonology. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics IV: Papers from the Fourth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, ed. Broselow, Ellen, Eid, Mushira, and McCarthy, John J., 7–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, and McCarthy, John J.. 1983. A theory of internal reduplication. The Linguistic Review 3:25–88.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 1990. Glottalized and aspirated sonorants in Kashaya. In Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15 (Proceedings of the 1990 Hokan-Penutian Languages Workshop), ed. Redden, James E., 75–91. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 1994. Theoretical aspects of Kashaya phonology and morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 2003. Emergent vowels in Tigrinya templates. In Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II (Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Afro-Asiatic Linguistics), ed. Lecarme, Jacqueline, 104–125. New York: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73:493–533.Google Scholar
Clements, G.N., and Sezer, Engin. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. In The structure of phonological representations, ed. van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval, 213–255. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2001. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davies, John. 1981. Kobon. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1979. Hixkaryana. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dobrovolsky, Michael. 1996. Explaining coronal underspecification. Paper presented at the Western Conference on Linguistics, University of California, Santa Cruz, October 29.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J. 1999. Verbal reduplication in three Bantu languages. In The prosodymorphology interface, ed. Kager, René, van der Hulst, Harry, and Zonnefeld, Wim, 62–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dumas, Denis. 1987. Nos façons de parler: Les prononciations en français québécois. Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Eijk, Jan van. 1997. The Lillooet language. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Elías, José. 2000. El acento en Shipibo. Master’s thesis, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.Google Scholar
Fallon, Paul D. 2002. The synchronic and diachronic phonology of ejectives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1964. Baby talk in six languages. American Anthropologist 66:103–114.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory representations in phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1996. Laryngeal metathesis and deletion in Cherokee. In UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 16: Cherokee Papers from UCLA, ed. Munro, Pamela, 23–44.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18:7–44.Google Scholar
Foley, James. 1977. Foundations of theoretical phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frachtenberg, Leo J. 1922. Siuslawan. In Handbook of American Indian languages, Part 2, ed. Boas, Franz, 431–630. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Galloway, Brent. 1993. A grammar of Upriver Halkomelem. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gamble, Geoffrey. 1977. Nootkan glottalized resonants in Nitinat: A case of lexical diffusion. In The lexicon in phonological change, ed. Yang, William S.-Y., 266–278. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gendron, Jean-Denis. 1966. Tendances phonétiques du français parlé au Canada. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Gibson, Courtenay St. John, and Ringen, Catherine O.. 2000. Icelandic umlaut in Optimality Theory. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23:49–64.Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia. 1995. Markedness and faithfulness constraints in child phonology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul. 1997. Contextual metrical invisibility. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: PF: Papers at the Interface, ed. Bruening, Benjamin, Kang, Yoonjung, and McGinnis, Martha, 113–181.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1999. The phonology of English: A prosodic optimality-theoretic approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haraguchi, Shosuke. 2001. The accent of Tsuruoka Japanese reconsidered. In Issues in Japanese phonology and morphology, ed. van de Weijer, Jeroen and Nishihara, Tetsuo, 47–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, William J. 1976. Physiology of speech production. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hargus, Sharon. 2001. Quality-sensitive stress reconsidered. Paper presented at the University of British Columbia, April.Google Scholar
Hartkemeyer, Dale C. 2000. *V: An optimality-theoretic examination of vowel loss phenomena, with special reference to Latin, early Western Romance, and Basque. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. David. 1999. Vowel harmony and disharmony in Tuvan and Tofa. In Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW (2nd Asian Generative Linguistics in the Old World), ed. Saito, M., Abe, Y., Aoyagi, H., Arimoto, J., Murasugi, K., and Suzuki, T., 115–130. Nagoya, Japan: Asano Books.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 2000. On the (non-)existence of High Vowel Deletion. In Analogy, levelling markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology, ed. Lahiri, Aditi, 353–376. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1972. A note on inserted and deleted vowels. Stanford UWP Language Universals 10:141–144.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan Bybee. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin. 1996. Lenition and glottalisation in Nuuchahnulth. Paper presented at the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, August 10–11.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin. 1998. Aspects of Heiltsuk laryngeal phonology. Ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin. 2000. Oowekyala Segmental Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2001. Patterns and timing of glottalisation. Phonology 18:45–80.Google Scholar
Hudgins, Clarence V., and Stetson, Raymond H.. 1937. Relative speed of articulatory movements. Archives néerlandaises de phonétique expérimentale 13:85–94.Google Scholar
Isaacs, James, and Wolter, Lynsey. 2003. Vowel length, weight and stress in K’ichee’. Paper presented at the Trilateral Phonology Weekend, University of California, Santa Cruz, May 10.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1995. Japanese phonology. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John, 817–838. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1969. Origin of the Nootka pharyngeals. International Journal of American Linguistics 35:125–133.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel. 1918. An outline of English phonetics. Cambridge: W. Hefferand Sons.Google Scholar
Jun, Jong-Ho. 1995. Perceptual and articulatory factors in place assimilation: an optimality theoretic approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999a. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 1999b. Surface opacity of metrical structure in Optimality Theory. In The derivational residue in phonological Optimality Theory, ed. Herman, Ben and van Oostendorp, Marc, 207–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaneko, Ikuyo, and Kawahara, Shigeto. 2002. Positional Faithfulness Theory and the emergence of the unmarked: The case of Kagoshima Japanese. International Christian University English Studies 11:18–36.Google Scholar
Keer, Edward. 1996. Floating moras and epenthesis in Sinhala. Ms., Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1997. Quality-sensitive stress. Rivista di Linguistica 9:157–188.Google Scholar
Kent, Ray D., and Read, Charles. 2002. The acoustic analysis of speech, 2nd ed. Albany: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
Kess, Joseph F., and Kess, Anita Copeland. 1986. On Nootka baby talk. International Journal of American Linguistics 52:201–211.Google Scholar
Kibe, Nobuko. 2001. Sound changes in Kagoshima dialect. Journal of Phonetic Society of Japan 5:42–48.Google Scholar
Kidda, Mairo Elinor. 1993. Tangale phonology: A descriptive analysis. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar
Kim, Eun-Sook. 1999. Glottalisation in Nuuchahnulth and Nitinaht in Optimality Theory. Paper presented at the 14th Northwest Linguistics Conference, University of Victoria, BC, March 8–9.Google Scholar
Kim, Eun-Sook. 2002. Faithfulness and markedness in Southern Wakashan glottalisation. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas, University of Alberta, Edmonton, March 23.Google Scholar
Kingston, John. 1985. The phonetics and phonology of the timing of oral and glottal events. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10:421–441.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1994. Remarks on markedness. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Trilateral Phonology Weekend, University of California, Santa Cruz, January 22.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1997. Contrastiveness and faithfulness. Phonology 14:83–111.Google Scholar
Kisserberth, Charles W. 1972. Cyclical Rules in Klamath Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 3:3–34.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 1994. Kambera: A language of Eastern Indonesia. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Koul, Omkar N. 2003. Kashmiri: A grammatical sketch. Ms., Indian Institute of Language Studies, Delhi.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2000. Richness of the base and root fusion in Sino-Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9:147–185.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter, and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lawton, Ralph. 1993. Topics in the description of Kiriwina. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lynch, John. 1978. A grammar of Lenakel. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mah, Jennifer. 2001. An OT analysis of loanword adaptations in Japanese. Ms., University of Calgary.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1993. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marie, Jaap, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan S.. 1990. Prosodic morphology and templatic morphology. In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics II: Papers from the Second Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, ed. Eid, Mushira, and McCarthy, John J., 1–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McDonough, Joyce. 1996. Epenthesis in Navajo. In Athabaskan language studies: Essays in honor of Robert W. Young, ed. Jelinek, Eloise, Midgette, Sally, Rice, Keren, and Saxon, Leslie, 235–257. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Muhammad Khan, Mahr Noor. 1983. A study of European words in the Persian language. Pakistan: Institute of Persian Studies.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Toshihide. 1997. Discourse-pragmatic dynamism in Nuuchahnulth (Nootka) morphosyntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Nelson, Nicole. 2003. Asymmetric anchoring. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1944. The Yokuts language of California. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 2. New York.Google Scholar
Ola Orie, Olanike, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2002. Yoruba vowel elision: Minimality effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20:1, 101–156.Google Scholar
Omisore, Folasade Omolola. 1989. A comparative study of Ife, Ijesa and Ekiti dialects. Bachelor’s, long essay, University of Ilọorin.Google Scholar
Oreŝnik, Janez. 1972. On the epenthesis rule in modern Icelandic. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi 87:1–32.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole, and Jean-François, Prunet. Markedness and coronal structure. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 19, ed. Carter, Juli and Déchaine, Rose-Marie, 330–344. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Parker, Stephen G. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1997. Minimal violation and phonological development. Language Acquisition 6:201–253.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe, and Werle, Adam. 2003. Direction of assimilation in child consonant harmony. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 48:385–408.Google Scholar
Perrier, Pascal, Lœvenbruck, Hélène, and Payan, Yohan. 1996. Control of tongue movements in speech: The Equilibrium Point Hypothesis perspective. Journal of Phonetics 24:53–75.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne. 1991. Apocope and the licensing of empty-headed syllables. The Linguistic Review 8:287–318.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne. 1995. Epenthesis and syllable weight. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13:283–326.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1943. Phonetics: A critical analysis of phonetic theory and a technicfor the practical description of sounds. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 1983. The role of the syllable in Japanese phonology. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S., and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder. [Forthcoming, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.]Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1988. Vocalic underspeciflcation in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry 19:233–270.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. Neutral vowels in Optimality Theory: A comparison of Yoruba and Wolof. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41:295–347.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1997. Optimality Theory and features. In Optimality Theory: An overview, ed. Archangeli, Diana, and Langendoen, D. Terence, 59–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1998. Markedness-based feature-based faithfulness. Paper presented at the Southwest Optimality Theory Workshop 4, University of Arizona, April 5.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2003a. Yoruba vowel patterns: Asymmetries through phonological competition. Ms., University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2003b. Covert feature effects. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Garding, Gina, and Tsujimura, Mimu, 398–422. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Rath, John C. 1981. A practical Heiltsuk-English dictionary. Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren D. 1989. The phonology of Fort Nelson Slave stem tone: Syntactic implications. In Athapaskan linguistics: Current perspectives on a language family, ed. Cook, Eung-Do, and Rice, Keren D., 229–264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rose, Suzanne M. 1976. Lenition and glottalization in Nootka. Master’s thesis, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Salami, A. 1972. Vowel and consonant harmony and vowel restrictions in assimilated English loan words in Yoruba. African Language Studies 13:162–181.Google Scholar
Sapir, J. David. 1965. A grammar of Diola-Fogny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1986. Kilivila: The language of the Trobriand islanders. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.Google Scholar
Shademan, Shabnam. 2003. Epenthetic vowel harmony in Farsi. Paper presented at the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, University of California, San Diego, March 21.Google Scholar
Shank, Scott, and Wilson, Ian. 2000. Acoustic evidence for ʕ as a globalized pharyngeal glide in Nuu-chah-nulth. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 3:185–197.Google Scholar
Shaw, Patricia A., Blake, Susan J., Campbell, Jill, and Shepherd, Cody. 1999. Stress in hɘn’q’ɘmin’ɘm’ (Musqueam) Salish. In University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 4: Proceedings from the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas, vol. 2, 131–163.Google Scholar
Sherer, Tim. 1994. Prosodic phonotactics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1976. An areal-typological study of American Indian languages north of Mexico. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Shinohara, Shigeko. 2000. Default accentuation and foot structure in Japanese: Evidence from Japanese adaptations of French words. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9:55–96.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Harmony, markedness and phonological activity. Paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop 1, October 23.Google Scholar
Solnit, David B. 1992. Glottalized consonants as a genetic feature in Southeast Asia. Acta Linguistica Hafniensa 25:95–123.Google Scholar
Spaelti, Philip. 1996. Dimensions of variation in multi-pattern reduplication. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In The handbook of phonological theory, ed. Goldsmith, John, 114–174. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Sussman, Harvey M., MacNeilage, Peter F., and Hanson, Robert J.. 1973. Labial and mandibular dynamics during production of bilabial consonants: preliminary observations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 16:397–420.Google Scholar
Tarpent, Marie-Lucie. 1987. A grammar of Nisgha. Doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Tatsuki, Masaaki. 1987. On sound hierarchy: On phonological change in Japanese and English. [Doshisha Daigaku Eigo Eibungaku Kenky]. Doshisha Studies in English 42:104–124.Google Scholar
Velcheva, Boryana. 1988. Proto-Slavic and Old Bulgarian sound changes. Columbus: Slavica.Google Scholar
Walker, Douglas C. 1984. The pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Weber, David John. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
White, Robin Barbara Davis. 1973. Klamath phonology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Wise, Hillary. 1983. Some functionally motivated rules in Tunisian phonology. Journal of Linguistics 19:165–181.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Shohei. 1993. Licensing of empty nuclei: Thecaseof Palestinian vowel harmony. The Linguistic Review 10:127–159.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 2001. Segmental phonology in Yawelmani. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 427–457. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar