Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Position and stress as factors in long-distance consonant metathesis

  • EMAIL logo and
Published/Copyright: July 22, 2017
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information Explore this Subject
The Linguistic Review
From the journal The Linguistic Review Volume 34 Issue 4

Abstract

Long-distance consonant metathesis is less common than the metathesis of adjacent segments but is shown to occur in multiple languages (e.g. Māori kāheru∼kārehu ‘spade’) As words tend to be short, and examples rare, it is difficult to assess the tendencies of long-distance consonant metathesis. This paper gives the results of a production experiment with five-syllable nonce words set up to examine the effect of position within the word and stress-status for long-distance consonant/consonant metathesis. It is found that all positions but the initial one are equally likely to be involved in a metathesis, which is consistent with a previous finding that word-initial onsets resist metathesis in adjacent-segment metathesis. Onsets of stressed syllables are also less likely to participate in metathesis with consonants at greater distances than in an adjacent syllable. The findings suggest that long-distance consonant metathesis is not fundamentally different from adjacent-segment metathesis, although, unlike adjacent segment metathesis, it cannot occur as part of regular process.

Keywords: metathesis; locality; stress; word-initial position; onsets

Appendix

A Appendix

(10)

All stimuli, with cases of onset/onset metathesis

7
a.σˋσσσˊσCs switchedsubject
bìfuvə zípu2,521
dùpə visúnə3,5 x 214, 18
vˋsidutˊpi–
nˋzuvisˊmu3,514
tùzipə súbi3,423
tìzə sudípə3,4; 4,512; 3
tìmivudˊnu2,51
bùdutə fínə–
mˋbə sipúvi3,425
tìmudufˊpi2,37
dˋmisipúbə–
mìfə zə dúni3,426
sˋnupə vízi–
dìtə pivúnu2,314
tùvipumˊbə2,5 x 41, 3, 13, 21
8
b.σσˋσσˊσCs switchedsubject
nɪ pùdə vífu–
d℧ tˋvizúpə4,5; 2,312; 27
zə vìtufˊmi1,26
və fùsipˊtu1,2; 2,318; 19
b℧ vìnə múfi–
vɪ fˋtumíbə–
tɪ sìvunˊdu3,5 x 224, 25
t℧ vùfə píbə2,516
və dˋfizúni2,418
tɪ bùzufˊsi–
zə nìsibúpə4,5 x 55, 9, 12, 17, 31
f℧ mˋbə zúdi–
sə fùtə nívi2,3; 4,526; 29
pɪ vˋmizútu2,3; 3,523; 14
f℧ pìtudˊsə2,3; 3,516; 19
9
c.σˋσσˊσσCs switchedsubject
mìvufˊnitu–
sùpə dítumə4,521
bˋvifúnə di–
sˋtumíbə nu–
sùpimˊvuni4,531
pìzə dúbifə4,518
vìzidúsə mu–
dùvutˊbisə2,4 x4; 3,56, 16, 23, 25; 23
zˋnə tívumi–
vìsuzúpə di2,3 x312, 18, 26
fˋvinítumə–
tùdə sˊnuvi2,4 x2; 4,511, 19; 3
vˋbutˊdifi–
nìdə zívupu2,4; 4,51; 14
vùzibúpə mə3,412

Acknowledgements

We thank the University of Georgia’s Statistical Consulting Center, and specifically Kim Love-Myers, for the statistical analyses and helpful consultation. Additional thanks goes to Conner Kasten for writing the script to randomly select consonants for the stimuli. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions of as well as the audience at Phonetics and Phonology in Europe 2015. Kelsey Renoll’s work on the project was supported by the Charles Center of the College of William & Mary.

References

Beckman, J. 1998. Positional faithfulness. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Ph.D. thesis, 1998. Published by Garland, Outstanding Dissertations series, 1999.Search in Google Scholar

Blevins, J. & Garrett A. 2004. Place assimilation. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner & D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically-based phonology, 117–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486401.005Search in Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, P. & Weenink D. 2013. Praat: A doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.2.25. http://www.praat.org accessed 11 May 2011.Search in Google Scholar

Buckley, E. 2011. Metathesis. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume & K. Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 3, 1380–1407. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0059Search in Google Scholar

Coffman, I. 2013. Explaining long-distance liquid metathesis: Misperception vs. optimization. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 113–126.Search in Google Scholar

Gathercole, S. E., Willis C., Emslie H. & Baddeley A. 1991. The influences of number of syllables and wordlikeness on children’s repetition of nonwords. Applied Psycholinguistics 12(3). 349–367.10.1017/S0142716400009267Search in Google Scholar

Graff, P. & Scontras G. 2010. Metathesis as asymmetrical perceptual realignment. Poster presented at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28, University of Southern California.Search in Google Scholar

Harlow, R. 2007. Māori: A linguistic introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511618697Search in Google Scholar

Hartley, T. & Houghton G. 1996. A linguistically constrained model of short-term memory for nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 35(1). 1–31.10.1006/jmla.1996.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hooper, J. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. 1998. Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua 104(3). 147–186.10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00031-4Search in Google Scholar

Hume, E. 2001. Metathesis: Formal and functional considerations. In E. Hume, N. Smith & J. van de Weijer (eds.), Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing, 1–25. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Jun, J. 2004. Place assimilation. In B. Hayes, R. Kirchner & D. Steriade (eds.), Phonetically-based phonology, 88–116. Cambridge:\ Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486401.003Search in Google Scholar

Langdon, M. 1976. Metathesis in Yuman languages. Language 52. 866–883.10.2307/413299Search in Google Scholar

Makashay, M. 2001. Lexical effects in the perception of obstruent ordering. In E. Hume & K. Johnson (eds.), Studies on the interplay of speech perception and phonology (Working Papers in Linguistics No.\ 55.), 88–116. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.Search in Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, W. & Zwitserlood P. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology 15(3). 576–585.10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.576Search in Google Scholar

Mielke, J. & Hume E. 2001. Consequences of word recognition for metathesis. In E. Hume, N. Smith & J. van de Weijer (eds.), Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing, 135–158. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, D. 2014. Liquid metathesis. Poster presented at Sound Change in Interacting Human Systems, 3rd Biennial Workshop on Sound Change, UC Berkeley.Search in Google Scholar

Murray, R. & Vennemann T. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59. 514–528.10.2307/413901Search in Google Scholar

Noonan, M. 1997. Inverted roots in Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 63(4). 475–515.10.1086/466341Search in Google Scholar

Pratt, G. 1878. A grammar and dictionary of the Samoan language. London: Trübner and Co.Search in Google Scholar

Seo, M. & Hume E. 2001. A comparative account of metathesis in Faroese and Lithuanian. In E. Hume, N. Smith & J. van de Weijer (eds.), Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing, 210–229. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Ultan, R. 1978. A typological view of metathesis. In J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 2, 367–402. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-7-22
Published in Print: 2017-11-27

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  3. Deriving sonority from the structure, not the other way round: A Strict CV approach to consonant clusters
  4. Position and stress as factors in long-distance consonant metathesis
  5. Korean intervention effects are not a single phenomenon: Evidence from syntax-prosody interface
  6. Language without narrow syntax
https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2017-0013
Keywords for this article
metathesis; locality; stress; word-initial position; onsets

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  3. Deriving sonority from the structure, not the other way round: A Strict CV approach to consonant clusters
  4. Position and stress as factors in long-distance consonant metathesis
  5. Korean intervention effects are not a single phenomenon: Evidence from syntax-prosody interface
  6. Language without narrow syntax
Downloaded on 14.4.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2017-0013/html
Scroll to top button