Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T11:46:52.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergent Positional Privilege in Novel English Blends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Elliott Moreton,
Jennifer L. Smith,
Katya Pertsova,
Rachel Broad and
Brandon Prickett
Elliott Moreton*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Jennifer L. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Katya Pertsova*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Rachel Broad*
Affiliation:
OSISoft, LLC
Brandon Prickett*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
*
[moreton@email.unc.edu] (Moreton) [jlsmith@email.unc.edu] (Smith) [pertsova@email.unc.edu] (Pertsova) [rachel.e.broad@gmail.com] (Broad) [blprickett@outlook.com] (Prickett)
[moreton@email.unc.edu] (Moreton) [jlsmith@email.unc.edu] (Smith) [pertsova@email.unc.edu] (Pertsova) [rachel.e.broad@gmail.com] (Broad) [blprickett@outlook.com] (Prickett)
[moreton@email.unc.edu] (Moreton) [jlsmith@email.unc.edu] (Smith) [pertsova@email.unc.edu] (Pertsova) [rachel.e.broad@gmail.com] (Broad) [blprickett@outlook.com] (Prickett)
[moreton@email.unc.edu] (Moreton) [jlsmith@email.unc.edu] (Smith) [pertsova@email.unc.edu] (Pertsova) [rachel.e.broad@gmail.com] (Broad) [blprickett@outlook.com] (Prickett)
[moreton@email.unc.edu] (Moreton) [jlsmith@email.unc.edu] (Smith) [pertsova@email.unc.edu] (Pertsova) [rachel.e.broad@gmail.com] (Broad) [blprickett@outlook.com] (Prickett)
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present evidence from experiments on novel blend formation showing that adult English speakers have access to constraints that give phonological privilege to HEADS, NOUNS, and PROPER NOUNS, even though the nonblend phonology provides no evidence that such constraints are generally active in the grammar of English. Our results (i) demonstrate that these positional constraints are universally available; (ii) confirm that the lexical category ‘proper noun’ has the status of a strong position, which has broader implications for the role of lexical categories in positional privilege effects; and (iii) confirm that strong positions based on salience from nonphonetic sources (such as morphosyntactic, semantic, or psycholinguistic salience) participate in position-specific phonological phenomena.

Keywords

lexical blendspositional neutralizationemergent effectslexical categoriescategory-specific phonologynoun faithfulnessprominent positions

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , June 2017, pp. 347 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alber, Birgit, and Plag, Ingo. 2001. Epenthesis, deletion and the emergence of the optimal syllable in creole: The case of Sranan. Lingua 111. 811–40. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00051-6.10.1016/S0024-3841(00)00051-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John. 2001. Prosodic faithfulness in Cupeño. Indigenous languages, ed. by Benedicto, Elena, 1–27. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Algeo, John. 1977. Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech 52. 47–64. DOI: 10.2307/454719.10.2307/454719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Algeo, John. 1980. Where do all the new words come from? American Speech 55. 264–77. DOI: 10.2307/454567.10.2307/454567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological investigations. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. Why phonology isn't ‘natural’. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 493.ndash; 539. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178242.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine, and Plag, Ingo. 2013. The role of prosodic structure in the formation of English blends. English Language and Linguistics 17. 537–63. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674313000154.10.1017/S1360674313000154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard; and Gulickers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Barnes, Janet. 1996. Autosegments with three-way lexical contrasts in Tuyuca. International Journal of American Linguistics 62. 31–58. DOI: 10.1086/466274.10.1086/466274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2006. Strength and weakness at the interface: Positional neutralization in phonetics and phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2000. The grammaticality of ‘extragrammatical’ morphology. Extragrammatical and marginal morphology, ed. by Doleschal, Ursula and Thornton, Anna Maria, 61–81. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 2006. Blend. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., ed. by Brown, Keith, 66–70. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00109-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin; and Bolker, Ben. 2011. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42. Online: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1989. Vocabulary change in English. American Speech 64. 252–61. DOI: 10.2307/455593.10.2307/455593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2004. Adjectives, compounds, and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3 (1). 7–22. Online: http://ojs.ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/view/230.10.35360/njes.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2006. Compounds and minor word-formation types. The handbook of English linguistics, ed. by Aarts, Bas and McMahon, April, 483–506. Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470753002.ch21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2012. Blends: Core and periphery. In Renner et al., 11—22.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1998. Derivation. The handbook of morphology, ed. by Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 44–65. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, and Levine, Jonathan. 2013. Experigen—An online experiment platform. Online: http://becker.phonologist.org/experigen.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, Nevins, Andrew; and Levine, Jonathan. 2012. Asymmetries in generalizing alternations to and from initial syllables. Language 88. 231–68. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0049.10.1353/lan.2012.0049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralisation and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14. 1–46.10.1017/S0952675797003308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill N. 1999. Positional faithfulness. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris. 2013. The phonological mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17. 319–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.004.10.1016/j.tics.2013.05.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy; and Vaknin, Vered. 2007. What we know about what we have never heard: Evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591–630. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.015.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bisetto, Antonietta, and Scalise, Sergio. 2005. The classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio 4. 319–32. DOI: 10.1418/20728.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. Paradigms (optimal and otherwise): A case for skepticism. Inflectional identity, ed. by Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew, 29–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional phonology: Formalizing the interactions between articulatory and perceptual drives. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Weenink, David. 2013. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. Online: http://www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Broad, Rachel. 2015. Accent placement in Japanese blends. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina master's thesis.Google Scholar
Broselow, Ellen, Chen, Su-I; and Wang, Chilin. 1998. The emergence of the unmarked in second language phonology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20. 26180.10.1017/S0272263198002071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannon, Garland. 1987. Historical change and English word-formation. (American University studies, series IV: English language and literature 46.) New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1996. Resolving hiatus. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73. 493–533. DOI: 10.2307/415882.10.2307/415882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassidy, Kimberly Wright, and Kelly, Michael H.. 1991. Phonological information for grammatical category assignments. Journal of Memory and Language 30. 348–69. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90041-H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cohen, Marcel. 1964 [1939]. Catégories de mots et phonologie. Études phonologiques dédiées à la mémoire de M. le Prince N. S. Trubetzkoy, ed. by Reed, Carroll E., 36–42. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, John, and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. Third meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology: Proceedings of the workshop, ed. by Coleman, John, 49–56. East Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. A conceptual framework for grammatical categories (or: A taxonomy of propositional acts). Journal of Semantics 7. 245–79. DOI: 10.1093/jos/7.3.245.10.1093/jos/7.3.245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouse, Metta. 2016. Gender and headedness in Spanish blends. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, ms.Google Scholar
Crump, Matthew J. C., McDonnell, John V.; and Gureckis, Todd M.. 2013. Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE 8 (3):e57410. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.10.1371/journal.pone.0057410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Lisa. 2001. Hidden rankings in the final state of the English grammar. Ruling papers II, ed. by Horwood, Graham and Kim, Se-Kyung, 21–48. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa. 2010. Phonetic bases of similarities in cross-language production: Evidence from English and Catalan. Journal of Phonetics 38. 272–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekkers, Joost, van, Frank Leeuw, der; and van, Jeroen Weijer, de (eds.) 2000. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax, and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238430.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson, and Kučera, Henry. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew, and Johnson, Keith. 2013. Phonetic bias in sound change. Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization, ed. by Yu, Alan C. L., 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in optimality theory. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2004a. Shouldn't it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics 42. 639–67. DOI: 10.1515/ling.2004.021.10.1515/ling.2004.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2004b. Isn't that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English. Language, culture, and mind, ed. by Achard, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, 415–28. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In Renner et al., 145–67.Google Scholar
Guevara, Emiliano, and Scalise, Sergio. 2009. Searching for universals in compounding. Universals of language today, ed. by Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta, and Bisetto, Antonietta, 101–28. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark, and Reiss, Charles. 2000. ‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 157–69. DOI: 10.1162/002438900554334.10.1162/002438900554334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2008. Diachronic explanations of sound patterns. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 859–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00077.x.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00077.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce P. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. Formalism and functionalism in linguistics, vol. 1, ed. by Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, and Wheatley, Kathleen M., 243–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce P., and Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 379–440. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379.10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 2001. Covert generalizations in optimality theory: The role of stratal faithfulness constraints. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 7. 273–99. DOI: 10.17959/sppm.2001.7.2.273.Google Scholar
Jaber, Aziz S. 2011. High-vowel syncope in Jordanian Arabic: A positional faithfulness treatment. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, ms.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Haike, and Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2000. Loan phonology: Perception, salience, the lexicon and OT. In Dekkers et al., 193–210.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1986. Overlapping morphemes: A multilinear-morphological solution to the problem of phonesthemes, blends, and whatnot. Paper presented at the 11th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 1986.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen. 2014. A learning-based account of L1 vs. L2 cluster repair differences. Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012) 5. 10–21. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/galana/5/abstract3062.html.Google Scholar
Kager, René. 2000. Stem stress and peak correspondence in Dutch. In Dekkers et al., 121–50.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael H. 1992. Using sound to solve syntactic problems: The role of phonology in grammatical category assignments. Psychological Review 99. 349–64. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.349.10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.349CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, Michael H., and Bock, J. Kathryn. 1988. Stress in time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14. 389–403. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.389.Google ScholarPubMed
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Kisseberth, Charles. 1977. Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Universals constrain change, change results in typological generalizations. Linguistic universals and language change, ed. by Good, Jeff, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei. 2002. Production, perception, and emergent phonotactic patterns: A case of contrastive palatalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kochetov, Alexei. 2003. Positional markedness as a by-product of the learning situation. Berkeley Linguistics Society 29. 545–56. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v29i1.1002.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro; and Smolensky, Paul. 1990. Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic grammar, with an application. Chicago Linguistic Society 29 (1). 237–52.Google Scholar
Lynch, John D. 1978. A grammar of Lenakel. (Pacific linguistics B55.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Macmillan, Neil s., and Creelman, C. Douglas. 2004. Detection theory: A user S guide. 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410611147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew. 2007. The evolving lexicon. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1995. Extensions of faithfulness: Rotuman revisited. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, ms.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 2 (2). 333–79.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. Papers in optimality theory (University of Massachusetts occasional papers 18), ed. by Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott, Feng, Gary; and Smith, Jennifer L.. 2008. Syllabification, sonority, and perception: New data from a language game. Chicago Linguistic Society 41 (1). 341–55.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 2000. Boundary disputes: The distinction between phonetic and phonological sound patterns. Phonological knowledge: Conceptual and empirical issues, ed. by Burton-Roberts, Noel, Carr, Philip, and Docherty, Gerard, 245–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on language and behavior) 17 (2). 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1993. The phonetics of sound change. Historical linguistics: Problems and perspectives, ed. by Jones, Charles, 237–78. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 9991035. DOI: 10.1111/j.M551-6709.2009.01047.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo. 1999. Word-blending as a case of non-concatenative morphology in Spanish. Iowa City: University of Iowa, ms. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/353.Google Scholar
Piñeros, Carlos-Eduardo. 2004. The creation of portmanteaus in the extragrammatical morphology of Spanish. Probus 16. 203–40. DOI: 10.1515/prbs.2004.16.2.203.10.1515/prbs.2004.16.2.203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2006. The variability of compound stress in English: Structural, semantic, and analogical factors. English Language and Linguistics 10. 143–72. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674306001821.10.1017/S1360674306001821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo, Kunter, Gero, Lappe, Sabine; and Braun, Maria. 2008. The role of semantics, argument structure, and lexicalization in compound stress assignment in English. Language 84. 760–94. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0072.10.1353/lan.0.0072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul Μ. 1968. Aspects of phonological theory. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Pound, Louise. 1914. Blends—their relation to English word formation. Heidelberg: Anglistische Forschungen.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004 [1993]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent, Maniez, François; and Arnaud, Pierre J. L.. 2012. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110289572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi. 1999. Headmost accent wins: Head dominance and ideal prosodic form in lexical accent systems. Leiden: University of Leiden dissertation.Google Scholar
Roon, Kevin. 2006. Stress in Russian compound nouns: Head dominance or anti-faithfulness? Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton meeting 2005, ed. by Lavine, James E., Franks, Steven, Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila, and Filip, Hana, 319–30. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1972. Endstation Hauptwort: The category squish. Chicago Linguistic Society 8. 316–39.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. Leftward ho! A festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Steven R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 166–73. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Sezer, Engin. 1981. On non-final stress in Turkish. Journal of Turkish Studies 5. 6169.Google Scholar
Shaw, Katherine E. 2013. Head faithfulness in lexical blends: A positional approach to blend formation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina master's thesis.Google Scholar
Shaw, Katherine e., White, Andrew m., Moreton, Elliott; and Monrose, Fabian. 2014. Emergent faithfulness to morphological and semantic heads in lexical blends. Proceedings of the 2013 Meeting on Phonology. DOI: 10.3765/amp.v1i1.45.10.3765/amp.v1i1.45.10.3765/amp.v1i1.45.10.3765/amp.v1i1.45.10.3765/amp.v1i1.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2001. Lexical category and phonological contrast. Papers in experimental and theoretical linguistics 6: Workshop on the Lexicon in Phonetics and Phonology, ed. by Kirchner, Robert, Pater, Joe, and Wikely, Wolf, 61–72. Edmonton: University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2004. Making constraints positional: Toward a compositional model of Con. Lingua 114 (12). 1433–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.08.003.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2005. Phonological augmentation in prominent positions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer L. 2011. Category-specific effects. The Blackwell companion to phonology, ed. by Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin, Hume, Beth, and Rice, Keren, 2439–63. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1996. On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 27. 720–31. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178959.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul, and Legendre, Géraldine. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2011. A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods 43. 155–67. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-010-0039-7.10.3758/s13428-010-0039-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stampe, David. 1979. A dissertation on natural phonology. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics 22.) New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Steffens, Melanie c., Buchner, Axel; and Mecklenbräuker, Silvia. 2005. Gender bias in fame judgments: Implicit gender stereotyping or matching study phase fame? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12. 495–501. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193794.10.3758/BF03193794CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steriade, Donca. 1999. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 25–146.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001a. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001b. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. The role of speech perception in phonology, ed. by Hume, Elizabeth V. and Johnson, Keith, 219–50. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sugawara, Ayaka. 2012. Japanese accent is largely predictable: Evidence from given names. Proceedings of the 144th Meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1969 [1939]. Grundzüge der Phonologie [Principles of phonology]. (Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7.) Translated by Baltaxe, Christiane A. M.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ussishkin, Adam. 1999. Head dominance in Modern Hebrew prosodic morphology. Phonology at Santa Cruz 6. 71–82. Online: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9034q204.Google Scholar
Walker, Douglas C. 1984. The pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Weide, R. L. 1998. Carnegie-Mellon pronouncing dictionary. Release 0.6. Online: http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu.Google Scholar
Wentworth, Harold. 1934. Blend-words in English. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–82. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolff, Ekkehard. 1983. A grammar of the Lamang language. Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin.Google Scholar
Zhang, Hang. 2013. The acquisition of Mandarin Chinese tones by English, Japanese, and Korean speakers. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina dissertation.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the segment in a constraint-based framework. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional asymmetries and licensing. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/292.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl. 2004. Positional asymmetries and licensing. Optimality theory in phonology: A reader, ed. by McCarthy, John J., 365–78. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar