Band 27, Heft 2 - Special Issue on Phonological Typology; Issue Editors: Steven Moran, Shelece Easterday and Eitan Grossman

What? Where? and Why? are the principal questions to ask in relation to linguistic typological patterns, in phonology as elsewhere. However, assembling sufficient and reliable information on a large diverse sample of languages presents challenges. Some of these issues are discussed in this paper, based on the practices seen in various database projects, including WALS and LAPSyD and in the wider literature. The challenge of recognizing areal convergence can be aided by simple mapping techniques. The most scientifically challenging issue is explaining ‘why’ as this requires considering multiple physiological, psychological, social, and other effects. Recent efforts to correlate phonological features with climatic and environmental factors offer a further potentially interesting way forward.

Typologists strive to compare like with like, but four dilemmas make this challenging in phonology: (1) the non-uniqueness of phonological analysis; and the existence of (2) multiple levels of analysis; (3) multiple theories of phonology; and (4) analytical interdependencies between phonological phenomena. Here I argue that the four dilemmas can be coherently related, and then addressed together. I introduce the concept of criterial conflicts, derived from notions in canonical typology. Criterial conflicts arise in the presence of an unexpected pairing of properties that pulls an analysis in two directions. This contradictory pull and its resolution in different directions leads by various paths to the four dilemmas. Concrete strategies are then discussed for countering the common, underlying problem. I observe that criterial conflicts are well handled by factorial analysis (i.e., multiple normalization) and multivariate analysis, but not by simple normalization. Illustrative examples are taken from the canonical typology of segments.

In this paper, we highlight the role of typology in providing an empirical basis for explanation within Evolutionary Phonology with a focus on rare sound patterns and extra-phonetic explanation. Broad typological surveys of sound patterns or macro-typologies that include phonetic detail may, at once, support universal tendencies and document rare sound patterns, offering arguments for theories in which universal tendencies based on phonetic explanation are emergent properties of markedness-free grammars. However, in order to explain rarity and explore extra-phonetic factors, targeted typologies, narrowed by specific structural properties or contact histories, may be necessary. In this study, the complementary roles of broad and targeted typologies are illustrated through recent case studies of three basic components of phonological systems—sound inventories, alternations, and phonotactics—, with a focus on non-phonetic explanations that have enhanced the predictive power of the Evolutionary framework.

This paper presents a preliminary survey of foot-sensitive phenomena and foot structure separate from prosodic prominence or classifications such as ‘iambic’ and ‘trochaic’. It considers the evidence for and structure of the foot in a sample of 30 languages which demonstrate at least one foot-sensitive phenomenon which cannot be attributed to prosodic prominence. It finds that in the sample, there is considerable diversity in terms of: a) the type of evidence for and role played by the foot, b) the extent to which there is evidence for the foot, and c) the segmental structure of the foot. These findings demonstrate that the role of the foot is more diverse than often characterised. The findings of this paper also demonstrate that cross-linguistic differences between foot structures are more fine-grained than differences in the distribution of prosodic prominence or syllable weight; accounting for the diversity observed requires reference to the segmental structure of feet. In light of these findings, this paper calls for more examination of the prosodic foot separate from prosodic prominence, and which takes into consideration the variables of cross-linguistic diversity documented here.

This article argues that the prosodic category stress in West Germanic languages, which implicitly underlies practically all work on stress, is a complex cluster concept consisting of at least six dimensions which in turn involve a number of subdimensions. Because of its complexity, this concept is not useful for cross-linguistic comparison. A promising starting point for further typological inquiry is one of the six dimensions, i.e. acoustic and auditory prominence. However, identifying acoustic and auditory prominence distinctions cross-linguistically is also not straightforward and requires considerable empirical effort. Nevertheless, cross-linguistic comparison is still possible in the case of ‘difficult’ cluster concepts such as stress and does not require the use of arbitrary comparative concepts.

It has been recently shown by Nikolaev and Grossman that it is possible to provide a fine-grained typological analysis of consonant inventories of the world’s languages by investigating co-occurrence classes of segments, i.e. groups of segments that tend to be found together in inventories. Nikolaev and Grossman argued that the structure of many of such co-occurrence classes is in contradiction with the Feature-Economy Principle. As a side product of this analysis, a new definition of the Basic Consonant Inventory (BCI)—a cluster of segments forming the bedrock of consonantal inventories of the world’s languages—was provided. This paper replicates the co-occurrence study in an arguably more robust way. In addition to making a methodological contribution, it shows that some of the co-occurrence classes defined by Nikolaev and Grossman, including the BCI, are not statistically stable and may be an artefact of the imbalance in the language sample used for the analysis. The findings of the authors regarding the Feature-Economy Principle, however, were corroborated.

The Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) is a fundamental governing principle of syllable structure; however, its details remain contested. This study aims to clarify the empirical status of the SSP in a cross-linguistic study of 496 languages. We adopt a phonetically-grounded definition of sonority – acoustic intensity – and examine how many languages contain SSP-violating clusters word-initially and word-finally. We consider the treatment of complex segments both as sonority units and as clusters. We find a significant proportion of languages violate the SSP: almost one half of the language sample. We examine which clusters cause the violations, and find a wide range: not only the notorious case of clusters with sibilants, but also with nasals, approximants and other obstruents. Violations in onsets and codas are not symmetrical, especially when complex segments are treated as units. We discuss where existing theoretical accounts of the SSP require further development to account for our crosslinguistic results.

We advocate for a diachronic typological approach to phonology, arguing that explanation for phonological structure must appeal to dynamic processes. We outline basic assumptions and explanatory mechanisms of this framework and demonstrate its utility by applying it to aspects of consonant phoneme inventory structure. Examining sound change paths through which palatal(ized) and ejective consonants emerge, we show that initial conditions in a language influence the likelihood of a sound change occurring, and that sound change trajectories may differ in their lifespans and the ease with which they are entered into. Regarding more general theoretical issues, we find that focusing on the dynamic processes that create inventories is more likely to produce accurate predictions about the patterns observed than structural generalizations such as feature economy. We conclude that further elucidating the details of sound change will lead to a fuller and more explanatory phonological typology.

It is widely known that implosives are prevalent in African languages. While Sindhi is considered a textbook example of implosives in Indo-Aryan, the exact distribution of implosives, their development, and place typology are still poorly understood. The present study investigates the typology and evolution of implosives in Indo-Aryan languages and shows that the relationship between implosion and place of articulation in these languages is different from what is seen in global studies. We argue that the relatively high frequency of retroflex implosives in Indo-Aryan languages is due to the high frequency of retroflexes in those languages in general. The findings also indicate that South Asia is another hotspot where languages possess typologically-overloaded inventories of implosives at bilabial, dental-alveolar, retroflex, palatal, and/or velar places of articulation. The aerodynamic constraints and articulatory similarities between implosives and voiced geminates indicate a plausible sound change which led to the evolution of implosives in Indo-Aryan languages.

In this paper, we combine several statistical techniques (multivariate probit models, Gaussian processes, and phylogenetic regression) into a new approach for exploring the areal patterns associated with the presence and absence of typological features. This model allows us to estimate and control for areal and genetic effects, the correlations between features, and their expected frequency of occurrence in the data. We use this model to explore the distribution of consonants in African languages, inferring several linguistic areas which have been proposed in the literature. Our results suggest that the combination of these methods is a promising new way of approaching language contact.

This paper is concerned with word-prosodic systems of Afro-European creole languages that show a correlation between the lexical origin (African vs. European) and prosodic pattern. The discussion is based on the evidence from four languages: Saramaccan, Nigerian Pidgin English, Pichi, and Lung’Ie. I examine how the study of word-prosodic systems of creoles can contribute to phonological typology and to the debate of whether creoles are different from non-creoles. I hypothesize that such systems are the result of extreme language contact and can only be found in creole languages. The existence of these systems further confirms that sociohistorical processes – such as historic contact – can shape phonological systems. Finally, I conclude that the analysis of African-origin words is crucial to further our understanding of creole phonology.

This article reports some results of the first large-scale, comprehensive survey of the phonological systems of the Khoisan languages of the Kalahari Basin Area. These languages are famous for their large sets of click phonemes, a typologically rare characteristic otherwise found only in a limited number of languages worldwide. They are also unique because the click phonemes carry a high functional load in terms of phonemic and lexical distinctions in the respective systems. Finally, these languages have strikingly similar and highly skewed root phonotactics. The article provides empirical support for a range of claims and speculations that have been made about these typologically rare systems of the Kalahari Basin Area.

The order of acquisition of consonants by children is impacted by both language-specific and species-wide factors. The latter factors also help to motivate the crosslinguistic commonness of some consonants. Here we explore the extent of overlap between crosslinguistic commonness and order of acquisition. We test how well the typological commonness of consonants is predictive of their order of acquisition in English, and vice versa, helping to shed light on the extent to which general cognitive and physical factors are explanatory vis-à-vis the acquisition of specific consonant types. We utilize several different sources to demonstrate that typological frequency and order of acquisition are indeed highly mutually predictive. We rely on acquisition data from English. We demonstrate that the crosslinguistic usage of a consonant is a better predictor of its order of acquisition than the language-specific factors tested.