Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Areas, Areal Features and Areality
- Part I Issues in Areal Linguistics
- 2 Why is it so Hard to Define a Linguistic Area?
- 3 Areas and Universals
- 4 Reassessing Sprachbunds: A View from the Balkans
- 5 Areal Sound Patterns: From Perceptual Magnets to Stone Soup
- 6 Convergence and Divergence in the Phonology of the Languages of Europe
- 7 Word Prominence and Areal Linguistics
- 8 Semantic Patterns from an Areal Perspective
- Part II Case Studies for Areal Linguistics
- Index
- References
5 - Areal Sound Patterns: From Perceptual Magnets to Stone Soup
from Part I - Issues in Areal Linguistics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2017
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Maps
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 Areas, Areal Features and Areality
- Part I Issues in Areal Linguistics
- 2 Why is it so Hard to Define a Linguistic Area?
- 3 Areas and Universals
- 4 Reassessing Sprachbunds: A View from the Balkans
- 5 Areal Sound Patterns: From Perceptual Magnets to Stone Soup
- 6 Convergence and Divergence in the Phonology of the Languages of Europe
- 7 Word Prominence and Areal Linguistics
- 8 Semantic Patterns from an Areal Perspective
- Part II Case Studies for Areal Linguistics
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics , pp. 88 - 121Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, 2002. Language Contact in Amazonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra and Dixon, R. M. W., 2006. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, W. Sidney, 1987. Vox Graeca: The Pronunciation of Classical Greek, third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Babel, Molly, Garrett, Andrew, Houser, Michael J. and Toosarvandani, Maziar, 2013. Descent and diffusion in language diversification: A study in Western Numic dialectology. International Journal of American Linguistics 79: 445–489.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, 2015. Distributional Typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, second edition, pp. 901–924. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bladon, Anthony, 1986. Phonetics for hearers. In McGregor, Graham (ed.), Language for Hearers, pp. 1–24. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds), 2009. Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2002. Notes on Yurok glottalized consonants. In Buszard-Welcher, Laura and Hinton, Leanne (eds), Proceedings of the Meeting of the Hokan-Penutian Workshop: Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, report 11, pp. 1–18. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2003. The phonology of Yurok glottalized sonorants: Segmental fission under syllabification. International Journal of American Linguistics 69: 371–396.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2006. A theoretical synopsis of Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 117–165.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2007. The importance of typology in explaining recurrent sound patterns. Linguistic Typology 11: 107–113.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2008. Natural and unnatural sound patterns: A pocket field guide. In Willems, Klaas and De Cuypere, Ludovic (eds), Naturalness and Iconicity in Language, pp. 121–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2009a. Another universal bites the dust: Northwest Mekeo lacks coronal phonemes. Oceanic Linguistics 48: 264–273.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2009b. Structure-preserving sound change: A look at unstressed vowel syncope in Austronesian. In Adelaar, Alexander and Pawley, Andrew (eds), Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: A Festschrift for Bob Blust, pp. 33–49. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, 2015. Evolutionary Phonology: A holistic approach to sound change typology. In Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology, pp. 485–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette and Grawunder, Sven, 2009. *Kl > Tl sound change in Germanic and elsewhere: Descriptions, explanations, and implications. Linguistic Typology 13: 267–303.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert, 1991. Patterns of sound change in the Austronesian languages. In Baldi, Philip (ed.), Patterns of Change, Change of Patterns: Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, pp. 129–165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert, 1999. Subgrouping, circularity and extinction: Some issues in Austronesian comparative linguistics. In Zeitoun, Elizabeth and Li, Paul J. K. (eds), Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, pp. 31–94. Taipei: Academia Sinica.Google Scholar
Blust, Robert, 2013. The Austronesian Languages, revised edition. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz, 1911. Introduction. In Boas, Franz (ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages, part 1, pp. 5–83. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Boas, Franz, 1920. The classification of American languages. American Anthropologist 22: 367–376.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire and Koch, Harold (eds), 2004. Australian Languages: Classification and the Comparative Method. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, second edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle, Kaufman, Terrence and Smith-Stark, Thomas, 1986. Meso-America as a linguistic area. Language 62: 530–570.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle and Langacker, Ronald, 1978. Proto-Aztecan vowels: part I. International Journal of American Linguistics 44: 85–102Google Scholar
Conathan, Lisa, 2004. Linguistic Ecology of Northwestern California: Contact, Functional Convergence and Dialectology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cresci, Michela, 2013. Camuno Sound Patterns. PhD dissertation, CUNY Graduate Center, New York.Google Scholar
Dediu, Dan and Ladd, D. Robert, 2007. Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 10944–10949.Google Scholar
Diffloth, Gérard, 1976. Minor-syllable vocalism in Senoic languages. In Jenner, Philip N., Thompson, Laurence C. and Starosta, Stanley (eds), Austroasiatic Studies, vol. I, pp. 229–248. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publication, vol. 13. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W., 2002. The Australian Languages: Their Nature and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds), 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library.Google Scholar
Edmondson, Jerold and Gregerson, Kenneth (eds), 1993. Tonality in Austronesian Languages. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Egurtzegi, Ander, 2013. Back vowel fronting in Souletin Basque. Manuscript, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Egurtzegi, Ander, 2014. Towards a Phonetically Grounded Diachronic Phonology of Basque. PhD dissertation, University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Fallon, Paul D., 2002. The Synchronic and Diachronic Phonology of Ejectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Faye, C. U., 1923–1925. The influence of the ‘Hlonipa’ on the Zulu clicks. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 3: 757–782.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor, 2004. Geg Albanian and Balkan dialectology. Paper presented at the 14th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature and Folklore.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul, 1971. Dialectal variation in Tarascan phonology. International Journal of American Linguistics 37: 164–187.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul, 1975. A Phonology of Tarascan. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives, 1979. Comparative Algonquian. In Campbell, Lyle and Mithun, Marianne (eds), The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment, pp. 70–132. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Mary R., 1976. The Northern Californian Linguistic Area. In Langdon, Margaret and Silver, Shirley (eds), Hokan Studies: Papers from the First Conference on Hokan Languages, pp. 347–359. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hajek, John and Stevens, Mary, 2004. Tonal activity in Kara, an Austronesian language spoken in New Britain. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, Macquarie University, Sydney, December 8 to 10, 2004. Australian Speech Science and Technology Association Inc.Google Scholar
Hall, Alan T., 1997. The historical development of retroflex consonants in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 102: 203–221.Google Scholar
Hamp, Eric, 1996. On the Indo-European origins of the retroflexes in Sanskrit. Journal of the American Oriental Society 116: 719–723.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar, 1999. Remains of a submerged continent: Preaspiration in the languages of Northwest Europe. In Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.), Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999, pp. 157–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haudricourt, André-Georges, 1965. Les mutations consonantiques des occlusives initiales en mon-khmer. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 60: 160–172.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey, 1978. Linguistic Diffusion in Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Helgason, Pétur, 2002. Preaspiration in the Nordic Languages: Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects. PhD dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Henderson, Michael M. T. Some ‘Indic’ features in Pashto. Manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph, 2006. On the typology of final laryngeal neutralization: Evolutionary Phonology and laryngeal realism. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 205–216.Google Scholar
Jansen, Wouter, 2004. Laryngeal Contrast and Phonetic Voicing: A Laboratory Phonology Approach to English, Hungarian, and Dutch. PhD dissertation, University of Gröningen.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian, 1983. The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian, 1992. The Balkan languages. In Bright, William (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, pp. 153–155. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, 2006. The amphichronic problem vs. Evolutionary Phonology. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 217–236.Google Scholar
Kossmann, Maarten, 2012. Pharyngealization and the vowel system of Tasawaq (Northern Songhay). Nordic Journal of African Studies 21: 21–33.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K., 1991. Human adults and human infants show a ‘perceptual magnet effect’ for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics 50 (2): 93–107.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K., 2000. Language, mind, and brain: Experience alters perception. In Gazzaniga, Michael S. (ed.), The New Cognitive Neurosciences, second edition, pp. 99–115. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K. and Iverson, Paul, 1995. Linguistic experience and the ‘perceptual magnet effect’. In Strange, Winifried (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research, pp. 121–154. Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K., Stevens, Erica, Hayashi, Akiko et al., 2006. Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science 9, F13–F21.Google Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K., Williams, Karen A., Lacerda, Francisco, Stevens, Kenneth N. and Lindblom, Björn, 1992. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 255: 606–608.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian, 1996. Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Longerich, Linda, 1998. Acoustic Conditioning for the RUKI Rule. Master’s thesis, Department of Linguistics, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian, 2013a. Glottalized consonants. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/7Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian, 2013b. Presence of uncommon consonants. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/19Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian, 2013c. Front rounded vowels. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/11Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian, 2013d. Tone. In Dryer, and Haspelmath, (eds). http://wals.info/chapter/13Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian and Precoda, Kristin, 1989. Updating UPSID. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Suppl. 1, 86: S19.Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A., 2006. Genetic vs. contact relationship: Prosodic diffusion in South-East Asian languages. In Aikhenvald, and Dixon, (eds), pp. 291–327.Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca, 1995. Contact, social variants, parameter setting, and pragmatic function: An example from the history of French syntax. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Language Change under Contact Conditions, pp. 217–236. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul, 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rivierre, Jean-Claude, 1993. Tonogenesis in New Caledonia. In Edmondson, and Gregerson, (eds), pp. 155–173.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm, 1993. Tonogenesis in the North Huon Gulf Chain. In Edmondson, and Gregerson, (eds), pp. 133–145.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R., 2011. Apical obstruents in pre-Proto-Tangkic and the origins of the non-zero absolutive. Proceedings of Berkeley Linguistics Society 32: 109–121.Google Scholar
Śarmā, Devīdatta, 2004. Tribal Languages of Ladakh, part III. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.Google Scholar
Simonet, Miquel, 2014. Phonetic consequences of dynamic cross-linguistic interference in proficient bilinguals. Journal of Phonetics 43: 26–37.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. and Kaufman, Terrence, 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Thordarson, Fridrik, 2009. Ossetic Language. In Encyclopedia Iranica OnLine. www.iranicaonline.org/articles/osseticGoogle Scholar
Thurgood, Graham, 1999. From Ancient Cham to Modern Dialects: Two Thousand Years of Language Contact and Change: With an Appendix of Chamic Reconstructions and Loanwords. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, no. 28. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergei, 1939. Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem. Acta Linguistica 1: 81–89.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter, 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsao, Feng-Ming, Liu, Huai-Mai and Kuhl, Patricia K., 2006. Perception of native and non-native affricate-fricative contrasts: Cross-language tests on adults and infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120: 2285–2294.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert, 2002. There was and wasn’t a Balkan Sprachbund. Paper presented at AIEA, Würzburg.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Willem R., 1979. Proto-Slavonic *u in Kajkavian. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 22 (1): 171–177.Google Scholar
Wagner, Heinrich, 1964. Nordeuropäische Lautgeographie. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 29: 224–298.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, 1953. Language in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wells, John C., 1982. Accents of English, three volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, Patrick C. M., Chandrasekaran, Barath and Zheng, Jing, 2012. The derived allele of ASPM is associated with lexical tone perception. PLoS ONE 7 (4): e34243.Google Scholar