We find greater accuracy for rising-sonority clusters, evidencing knowledge of markedness constraints favoring such onset clusters. As onset clusters of falling sonority are typologically marked relative to those of rising sonority ( Greenberg, 1978), we examine English speakers’ perception of nasal-initial clusters-lacking in English. An account of phonological perception sketched here entails that markedness constraints reveal their presence by inducing perceptual ‘repairs’ to structures ungrammatical in the hearer’s language. This subset of the model allows for languages in which C2 can only be a liquid, nasal, obstruent, or combination thereof.Optimality Theory explains typological markedness implications by proposing that all speakers possess universal constraints penalizing marked structure, irrespective of the evidence provided by their language ( Prince & Smolensky, 1993/2004). For instance, the following constraints target increasingly more inclusive combinations of onset clusters, with C2 fixed as a glide: *.
We conclude by showing how the preference scales of the MDO approach can be implemented using markedness constraint families in a stringency relationship (de Lacy 2004, 2006). We note many hypothetical language types it cannot produce. While the flexibility inherent in the MDO model is necessary, we argue that it is not overly powerful.
In contrast to this, the MDO proposal successfully accounts for the full array of language types. The results indicate that previous approaches massively undergenerate the attested typological combinations and are therefore too restrictive. For example, the glide offset continuum consists of a fixed ranking encoding the universal preference OG ≻ NG ≻ LG ≻ GG.Įach of these competing models is compared against a database listing the inventory of permissible onset clusters in over 300 languages worldwide. However, it further arranges onset cluster types into several continua with a constant C2 in each scale. Like MSD approaches it sets a minimum threshold for sonority distance between C2 and C1 in each language. In this paper we highlight a new model called Minimum Distance to Offset (MDO). All of these approaches are therefore partially right, yet partially wrong. Conversely, SD evaluates obstruent+liquid onsets (OL) as unmarked, so it cannot generate languages where C2 is always a glide. For example, MSD favors obstruent+glide (OG) clusters, so it cannot produce a language where C2 must be a liquid without additional mechanisms. However, none of them are able to handle the full range of empirical facts. MSD: Minimum Sonority Distance (Steriade 1982, Selkirk 1984, Levin 1985)Įach of these models calculates the gradient harmony of consonant clusters in terms of a different mathematical formula based on the distance between the sonority indices of C1, C2, and sometimes the following vowel.
Previous approaches to the phonotactics of consonant clusters include the following: When larger samples are considered, formal models fail to accommodate the attested combinations of syllable-initial consonant clusters (σ) in many languages. Part of the problem is that theories of onset cluster typology have not been tested against inventories from hundreds of languages. While such proposals account for many languages, they ultimately prove too weak when confronted with more exhaustive data sets. Most formal models of phonology invoke sonority to explain the set of consonant clusters allowed in specific languages.