Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Diagrams
- Tables
- Maps
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: Linguistic Typology – Setting the Scene
- Part I Domains of Linguistic Typology
- 2 Phonological Typology
- 3 Morphological Typology
- 4 Typology and Historical Linguistics
- 5 Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Structure and Linguistic Complexity
- 6 Typology and Grammaticalization
- 7 Sign Language Typology
- 8 Typology of Mixed Languages
- 9 Typology of Creole Languages
- 10 Typology of Secret Languages and Linguistic Taboos
- Part II Typology of Grammatical Categories
- Part III Typological Profiles of Linguistic Areas and Language Families
- Index of Authors
- Index of Languages, Language Families and Linguistic Areas
- Index of Subjects
- References
2 - Phonological Typology
from Part I - Domains of Linguistic Typology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 April 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Diagrams
- Tables
- Maps
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: Linguistic Typology – Setting the Scene
- Part I Domains of Linguistic Typology
- 2 Phonological Typology
- 3 Morphological Typology
- 4 Typology and Historical Linguistics
- 5 Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Structure and Linguistic Complexity
- 6 Typology and Grammaticalization
- 7 Sign Language Typology
- 8 Typology of Mixed Languages
- 9 Typology of Creole Languages
- 10 Typology of Secret Languages and Linguistic Taboos
- Part II Typology of Grammatical Categories
- Part III Typological Profiles of Linguistic Areas and Language Families
- Index of Authors
- Index of Languages, Language Families and Linguistic Areas
- Index of Subjects
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology , pp. 39 - 77Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Ahn, Mee-Jin. 2000. Phonetic and functional bases of syllable weight for stress assignment. PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2002. Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. In Dixon, and Aikhenvald, (eds.), pp. 42–78.Google Scholar
Altmann, Heidi and Kabak, Baris. 2011. Second language phonology. In Kula, et al. (eds.), pp. 298–319.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. and Ewen, Colin J.. 1987. Principles of dependency phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana and Pulleyblank, Douglas 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1993. Is a rhythm-based typology possible? A study of the role of prosody in phonological typology. KontRI Working paper no. 21. Freiburg.Google Scholar
Bagemihl, Bruce. 1988. Alternate phonologies and morphologies. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J. and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S.. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, (ed.), pp. 9–54.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Hildebrandt, Kristine A. and Schiering, René. 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Grijzenhout, and Kabak, (eds.), pp. 47–78.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, (ed.), pp. 206–44.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1978. Intonation across languages. In Greenberg, et al. (eds.), pp. 471–524.Google Scholar
Broecke, M. P. R.. 1976. Hierarchies and rank orders in distinctive features. Assen and Amsterdam: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Butskhrikidze, Marika. 2002. The consonant phonotactics of Georgian. HIL/LOT dissertation. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphic.Google Scholar
Caro Reina, Javier and Szczepaniak, Renata (eds.). 2014. Syllable and word languages. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 2003. [ATR] value asymmetries and underlying vowel inventory structure in Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan. Linguistic Typology 7: 307–82.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 2007. ATR harmony in African languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(3): 496–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2: 225–52.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. and Beckman, M. (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and physics of speech, pp. 283–333. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 2009. The role of features in speech sound inventories. In Raimy, Eric and Cairns, Charles (eds.), Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonological theory, pp. 19–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coetsem, Frans. 1996. Towards a typology of lexical accent: Stress accent and pitch accent in a renewed perspective. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Crothers, J. 1978. Typology and universals of vowel systems. In Greenberg, et al. (eds.), pp. 93–152.Google Scholar
Dauer, R. 1983. Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalyzed. Journal of Phonetics 11: 51–62.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The interaction of tone and stress in Optimality Theory. Phonology 19: 1–32.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul. (ed.). 2007. The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–72.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel and O’Connor, Kathleen M.. 2001. Typological predictions in developmental phonology. Journal of Child Language 28: 597–628.Google Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. and Gierut, Judith A. (eds.). 2008. Optimality Theory: Phonological acquisition and disorders. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. II: Grammatical topics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.). 2002a. Word. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002b. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, and Aikhenvald, (eds.), pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
Donegan, P. J. and Stampe, D.. 1983. Rhythm and the holistic organization of language structure. In Chicago Linguistic Society 19: Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax, pp. 337–53. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1985. The dynamics of derivation. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Edmonson, J. A., Bateman, J. and Miehle, H.. 1992. Tone contours and tone clusters in Iau. Berkeley Linguistics Society 18: 92–103.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn. 2009. Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26: 269–302.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 1985. Aspects of prosodic typology. Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics University of Leeds 3: 60–119.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 1995. Principles of intonational typology. In Lewis, Jack Windsor (ed.), Studies in general and English phonetics: Essays in honour of Professor J. D. O’Connor, pp. 187–210. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fox, Anthony. 2000. Prosodic features and prosodic structure. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, Stefan A. and Wright, Richard. 2002. The phonetics of phonological speech errors: An acoustic analysis of slips of the tongue. Journal of Phonetics 30: 139–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.). 1973. Speech errors as linguistic evidence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fudge, E. 1987. Branching structure within the syllable. Journal of Linguistics 23: 359–77.Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob. 2010. A typology of stress patterns. In van der Hulst, Harry, Goedemans, Rob and van Zanten, Ellen (eds.), A survey of word accentual systems in the language of the world, pp. 647–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005a. Fixed stress locations. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 62–5.Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005b. Weight-sensitive stress. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 66–9.Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005c. Weight factors in weight-sensitive stress systems. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 70–3.Google Scholar
Goedemans, Rob and van der Hulst, Harry. 2005d. Rhythm types. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 74–7.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (ed.). 1995. The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J. and Yu, A.. (eds.). 2011. The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2001. A typology of contour tone restrictions. Studies in Language 25: 405–44.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2007. Typology in optimality theory. Language and Linguistics Compass 1: 750–69.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2014. Disentangling stress and pitch accent: Toward a typology of prominence at different prosodic levels. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, pp. 83–118. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2016. Phonological typology: The cross-linguistic study of sound systems. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew and Applebaum, Ayla. 2006. Syllable weight: Phonetics, phonology, typology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. and Kashube, D.. 1976. Word prosodic systems: A preliminary report. Working Papers on Language Universals 20: 1–18.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph, Ferguson, Charles and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.). 1978. Universals of human language, Vol. II: Phonology. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Barış (eds.). 2009a. Phonological domains: Universals and deviations. Belin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Barış 2009b. Prosodic phonology: An appraisal. In Grijzenhout, and Kabak, (eds.), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1984. Intonation: A whole autosegmental language. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.), Advances in nonlinear phonology, pp. 117–32. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy A. 1999. The phonological word: A review. In Hall, and Kleinhenz, (eds.), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy A. and Kleinhenz, Ursula (eds.). 1999. Studies on the phonological word. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Ivy. 2012. Can consonants predict vowels? A typological study of the world’s languages. 2012 Surf Projects: Arts and Humanities. Available online at: www.unc.edu/depts/our/students/fellowship_supp/surf/2012/hauser12.pdf.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A metrical theory of stress rules. Cambridge, MA: Massachussetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory: Principles and case studies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2015. Words as phonological units. In Taylor, John R. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word, pp. 221–45. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel and Di Cristo, Alberto (eds.). 1998a. Intonation systems. In Hirst, and Di Cristo, (eds.), pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel and Di Cristo, Alberto (eds.). 1998b. Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry. 1984. Syllable structure and stress in Dutch. Dordrect: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry. 1996. Separating primary accent and secondary accent. In Goedemans, Rob, van der Hulst, Harry and Visch, Ellis (eds.), Stress patterns of the world, pp. 1–26. (HIL Publications 2). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry. 2000. Issues in foot typology. In Davenport, Michael and Hannahs, S. J. (eds.), Issues in phonological structure, pp. 95–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Also appeared in Toronto Working Papers in linguistics 16 (1997): 77–102.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry. 2011. Pitch Accent Systems. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 1003–27.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry. 2014. Word stress: Past, present and future. In van der Hulst, H. G. (ed.), Word stress: Theoretical and typological issues, pp. 3–55. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry. 2016. Phonological systems. In Allen, Keith (ed.), The Routledge handbook of linguistics, pp. 83–103. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry. Forthcoming. Word accent: A representational account. Ms. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry and Ritter, Nancy (eds.). 1999. The syllable: Views and facts. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hulst, Harry, Goedemans, Rob and van Zanten, E. (eds.). 2010. A survey of word accentual systems in the languages of the world. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett. 2011. The Iambic-Trochaic Law. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 1052–77.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress, in Hyman, Larry (ed.), USC studies in stress and accent. Los Angeles: USC Linguistics Department, 37–82.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2001. Tone systems. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international Handbook, Vol. II, pp. 1367–80. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 2007b. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent Language Sciences 31: 213–38.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, C. Gunnar M. and Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2005. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2014. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kang, Yoonjung. 2011. Loanword phonology. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), pp. 2258–82.Google Scholar
Kaun, Abigail. 1995. The typology of rounding harmony: An Optimality Theoretic approach. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Published as UCLA Dissertations in Linguistics, No. 8.Google Scholar
Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. and Vergnaud, J.-R.. 1985. The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305–28.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan and Lowenstamm, Jean. 1984. De la syllabicité. In Dell, François, Hirst, Daniel and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (eds.), La forme sonore du langage: Structure des représentations en phonologie, pp. 123–59. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. and Stevens, Kenneth N.. 2001. Enhancement revisited. In Kenstowicz, Michael J. (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, pp. 271–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, C. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.Google Scholar
Klein, T. B. 2011. The typology of creole phonology: Phoneme inventories and syllable templates. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Language 26 (1): 155–93. Also in Bhat, P. and Veenstra, T. (eds.), Creole languages and linguistic typology, pp. 207–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2013.Google Scholar
Kubozono, H. 2011. Japanese pitch accent. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. V, pp. 2879–907.Google Scholar
Kula, Nancy, Botma, Bert and Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds.). 2011. Continuum companion to phonology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Martin. 2015. The role of typology in historical phonology. In Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds.). The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, Part II. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. 2009. Intonational Phonology, 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter and Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The sounds of the world’s languages. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi and Plank, Frans. 2010. Phonological phrasing in Germanic: The judgment of history, confirmed through experiment. Transactions of the Philological Society 108(3): 370–98.Google Scholar
Lass, R. 1984. Vowel system universals and typology: Prologue to theory. Phonology Yearbook 1: 75–111.Google Scholar
Leitch, Myles. 1996. Vowel harmonies of the Congo Basin: An optimality theory analysis of variation in the Bantu zone C. Vancouver: University of British Columbia dissertation.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, J., and Lindblom, B.. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48(4): 839–62.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, J. and Jaeger, J. (eds.), Experimental phonology, pp. 13–44. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. and Maddieson, I. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Hyman, L., and Li, C. (eds.), Language, speech and mind, pp. 62–79. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1978. Universals of tone. In Greenberg, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 335–65.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1997. Phonetic universals. In Hardcastle, William J. and Laver, John (eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences, pp. 619–39. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2005a. Consonant inventories. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 10–13.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2005b. Vowel quality inventories. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2005c. Consonant-vowel ratio. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), pp. 18–21.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2007. Issues of phonological complexity: statistical analysis of the relationship between syllable structures, segment inventories, and tone contrasts. In Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter and Ohala, Manjari (eds.), Experimental Approaches to Phonology, pp. 93–103. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2011. Typology of phonological systems. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, pp. 534–48. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Paddem, Carol, Aronoff, Mark and Sandler, Wendy. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of language. Cognitive linguistics 24(2): 309–43.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. III: Word structure, pp. 297–334. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Robert W. and Vennemann, Theo. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59: 514–28.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. (Studies in Generative Grammar). Dordrecht, and Riverton, NJ: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina, Shukla, Mohinish and Mehler, Jacques. 2011. Stress-timed vs. syllable timed languages. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), Vol. II, pp. 1147–59.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy selection. In van Oostendorp, et al. (eds.), pp. 2357–82.Google Scholar
Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth and Rice, Keren. (eds.). 2011. The Blackwell companion to phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Thompson, Robin L. and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2007. Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology 1 (00227). Published online 31 December 2010. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1998. The co-variation of phonology with morphology and syntax: A hopeful history. Linguistic Typology 2: 195–230.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms. Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder. Published in 2004, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Riad, Tomas and Gussenhoven, Carlos (eds.). 2007. Typological studies in word and sentence prosody, 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rischel, Jorgen. 1978. Is there just one hierarchy of prosodic categories? In Dressler, W., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E. and Rennison, J. R. (eds.), Phonologica 1984, pp. 253–9. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Stephan. 2012 Phonological typology, rhythm types and the phonetics–phonolgy interface: A methodological overview and three case studies on Italo-Romance dialects. In Ender, Andrea, Leemann, Adrian and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Methods in contemporary linguistics, pp. 45–68. Berlin and New York, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Boë, Louis-Jean, Vallée, Nathalie and Abry, Christian. 1997. The dispersion-focalization theory of vowel systems. Journal of Phonetics 25: 255–86.Google Scholar
Sedlak, Philip. 1969. Typological considerations of vowel quality systems. Stanford University Working Papers on Language Universals 1: 1–40.Google Scholar
Seidl, Amanda. 2001. Minimal indirect reference: A theory of the syntax–phonology interface. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Song, J. J. (ed.). 2011. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, (ed.), pp. 114–74.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. 1989. On the quantal nature of speech. Journal of Phonetics 17: 3–45.Google Scholar
Tokizaki, Hisao. 2008. Symmetry and asymmetry in the syntax–phonology interface. Phonological Studies 11: 123–30.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939/1969. Principles of phonology. Trans. Baltaxe, Christiane A. M.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Originally published in 1939 as Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: van der Hoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert and Samuels, Bridget. 2015. Explaining vowel systems: Dispersion theory vs. natural selection. The Linguistic Review 32(3): 573–99.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Available online at: http://wals.info.Google Scholar
Vigário, Marina. 2003. The prosodic word in European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vogel, I. 2008. Universals of prosodic structure. In Scalise, S., Magni, E., Vineis, E. and Bisetto, A. (eds.), Universals of language today, pp. 59–82. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Vogel, Irene. 2009. The status of the clitic group. In Grijzenhout, and Kabak, (eds.), pp. 15–46.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic dtructure. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Published in 1994, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jie. 2002. The effects of duration and sonority on contour tone distribution: Typlogical survey and formal analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar