Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:21:56.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Steve Parker (ed.) (2012). The sonority controversy. (Phonology and Phonetics 18.) Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Pp. xvi + 487.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2016

Clàudia Pons-Moll
Clàudia Pons-Moll*
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona
*
E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review
Information
Phonology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 195 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

I gratefully acknowledge comments from Karen Baertsch, Outi Bat-El, Stuart Davis, Maria-Rosa Lloret, Aleksei Nazarov, Andrew Nevins, Steve Parker, Francesc Torres-Tamarit, Paul Tupper and Ruben van de Vijver. The usual disclaimers apply. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (FFI2013-46987-C3-1-P), the Catalan Government (2014SGR918) and the RecerCAIXA 2011 programme.

References

REFERENCES

Baertsch, Karen (2002). An optimality theoretic approach to syllable structure: the split margin hierarchy. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630.Google Scholar
Daland, Robert, Hayes, Bruce, White, James, Garellek, Marc, Davis, Andrea & Norrmann, Ingrid (2011). Explaining sonority projection effects. Phonology 28. 197–234.Google Scholar
Davis, Stuart & Baertsch, Karen (2011). On the relationship between codas and onset clusters. In Cairns, Charles E. & Raimy, Eric (eds.) Handbook of the syllable. Leiden & Boston: Brill. 71–97.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2004). Markedness conflation in Optimality Theory. Phonology 21. 145–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed (1985). Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7. 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumercy, Laurent, Lavigne, Frédéric, Scheer, Tobias & Ziková, Markéta (2014). Anything goes: Czech initial clusters in a dichotic experiment. Paper presented at the 22nd Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar
Gouskova, Maria (2004). Relational hierarchies in Optimality Theory: the case of syllable contact. Phonology 21. 201–250.Google Scholar
Hyde, Brett (2013). Review of Parker, Steve (ed.) (2012). The sonority controversy. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Lg 89. 976–979.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Sorace, Antonella & Smolensky, Paul (2006). The Optimality Theory–Harmonic Grammar connection. In Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (eds.) The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Vol. 2: Linguistic and philosophical implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 339–402.Google Scholar
Lloret, Maria-Rosa (1992). On the representation of ejectives and implosives. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Prinzhorn, Martin and Rennison, John R. (eds.) Phonologica 92: Proceedings of the 7th International Phonology Meeting. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. 123–133.Google Scholar
Luck, Geoff & Sloboda, John (2008). Exploring spatio-temporal properties of simple conducting gestures using a synchronization task. Music Perception 25. 225–239.Google Scholar
Nazarov, Aleksei (2014). A radically emergentist approach to phonological features: implications for grammars. Nordlyd 41. 21–58.Google Scholar
Parker, Steve (2008). Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. JPh 36. 55–90.Google Scholar
Pons-Moll, Clàudia (2008). Regarding the sonority of liquids. Paper presented at the 38th Linguistic Symposium in Romance languages, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Pons-Moll, Clàudia (2011). It is all downhill from here: a typological study of the role of Syllable Contact in Romance languages. Probus 23. 105–173.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan (1997). Stringency and the anti-Paninian hierarchies. Handout from LSA Linguistic Institute, Cornell University. Available (January 2016) at http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-alan-prince/gamma/talks/insthdt2.pdf.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ren, Jie, Gao, Liqun & Morgan, James L. (2010). Mandarin speakers’ knowledge of the Sonority Sequencing Principle. Paper presented at the 20th Colloquium of Generative Grammar, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard (1881). Grundzüge der Phonetik, zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul, Goldrick, Matthew & Mathis, Donald (2010). Optimization and quantization in gradient symbol systems: a framework for integrating the continuous and the discrete in cognition. Ms, Johns Hopkins University & Northwestern University. Available as ROA-1103 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (2009). The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. In Hanson, Kristin & Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of the word: studies in honor of Paul Kiparsky. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 151–179.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard (2004). A review of perceptual cues and robustness. In Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 34–57.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie (2007). The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation. Lg 83. 277–316.Google Scholar