Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:58:21.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Indeterminacy/Attestation Model of Metathesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Elizabeth Hume
Elizabeth Hume*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
*
Department of Linguistics, 222 Oxley Hall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 [ehume@ling.osu.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses three key observations relating to crosslinguistic patterns of metathesis. First, the order of sounds resulting from metathesis can differ from language to language such that a similar combination of sounds can be realized in one order in one language, but in the reverse order in another language. Second, for some sound combinations, only one order is commonly attested as the result of metathesis, while for other combinations, either order can be observed. Third, the acoustic/auditory cues to the identification of the sequence resulting from metathesis are often better than those of the expected, yet nonoccurring, order. These patterns receive a straightforward explanation when we consider the phonetic nature of the sounds involved as well as the speaker/hearer's knowledge of native sound patterns and their frequency of occurrence. Neither factor alone is sufficient to provide a predictive account of metathesis. This study shows, however, that by taking into account both factors, we are able to understand why certain sound combinations tend to undergo metathesis, why others are common results of metathesis, why patterns of metathesis differ across languages, and, importantly, why metathesis occurs in the first place.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 203 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 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

Alexander, James. 1985. R-metathesis in English: A diachronic account. Journal of English Linguistics 18. 33–40.10.1177/007542428501800104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Mozainy, Hamza Qublan. 1981. Vowel alternations in a Bedouin Hijazi Arabic dialect: Abstractness and stress. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Al-Mozainy, Hamza Qublan, Bley-Vroman, Robert; and McCarthy, John J.. 1985. Stress shift and metrical structure. Linguistic Inquiry 16.1.135–44.Google Scholar
Ambrazas, Vytautas. 1997. Lithuanian grammar. Lithuania: Institute of the Lithuanian Language.Google Scholar
Aslin, Richard, Pisoni, David, Hennessy, Beth; and Perey, Alan. 1981. Discrimination of voice onset time by human infants: New findings and implications for the effects of early experience. Child Development 52. 1135–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. Harald, and Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–43.10.1515/ling.1991.29.5.801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James. 1970. Toward specifying constraints on phonological metathesis. Linguistic Inquiry 1.3.347–49.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 1988. Remarks on tier conflation. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3.477–85.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 1989. Phonology and word structure in Modern Hebrew. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Bat-El, Outi. 1992. Stem modification and cluster transfer in Modern Hebrew. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, ms.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary, and Edwards, Jan. 1990. Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary, 152–78. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627736.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 1987. An autosegmental approach to metathesis in Rotuman. Lingua 73. 201–23.10.1016/0024-3841(87)90008-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Catherine. 1994. The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words, ed. by Nusbaum, Howard C. and Goodman, Judith, 167–224. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Best, Catherine, McRoberts, Gerald; and Sithole, Nomathemba. 1988. Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14. 345–60.Google Scholar
Black, Paul. 1974. Regular metathesis in Gidole. Folia Orientalia 15. 47–54.Google Scholar
Bladon, Anthony. 1986. Phonetics for hearers. Language for hearers, ed. by McGregor, Graham, 1–24. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette, and Garrett, Andrew. 1998. The origin of consonant-vowel metathesis. Language 74.3.508–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein, Sheila, and Stevens, Kenneth. 1979. Acoustic invariance in speech production: Evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66. 1001–17.10.1121/1.383319CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bregman, Albert. 1990. Auditory scene analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/1486.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bregman, Albert, and Campbell, Jeffrey. 1971. Primary auditory stream segregation and perception of order in rapid sequences of tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology 89. 244–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broadbent, D. E., and Ladefoged, Peter. 1959. Auditory perception of temporal order. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31.1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunye, Maria Victoria R., and Yap, Elsa Paula. 1971. Cebuano grammar notes. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Bush, Nathan. 2001. Frequency effects and word-boundary palatalization in English. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul, 255–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butskhrikidze, Marika, and van, Jeroen Weijer, de. 2001. On v-metathesis in Modern Georgian. In Hume, et al. 2001, 91–101.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10.5.425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. Usage-based models of language, ed. by Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, 65–86. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, Dani. 1994. Articulatory timing in English consonant sequences. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Cheung, Johnny. 2002. Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism. Weisbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Coleman, John, and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. Computational phonology: Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the ACL special interest group in computational phonology, 49–56. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Conklin, Harold. 1953. Hanunóo-English vocabulary. (University of California publications in linguistics 9.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Connine, Cynthia M., Blasko, Dawn G.; and Titone, Debra. 1993. Do the beginnings of spoken words have special status in auditory word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language 32. 193–210.10.1006/jmla.1993.1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 1997. Phonetic salience and consonant cluster simplification. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 29. 229–62.Google Scholar
Crouch, Marjorie. 1994. The phonology of Deg. Ghana: Ghana Institute of Linguistics, Literacy and Bible Translation, ms.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1997. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, and Norris, Dennis. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14. 113–21.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Hawkins, John A.; and Gilligan, Gary. 1985. The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics 23. 723–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Joseph Orville Jr. 1977. A contrastive study of the grammatical structures of Aymara and Cuzco Kechua. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Delancey, Scott. 1989. Tibetan evidence for Nungish metathesis. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 12. 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, Gary S., Reed, Kristopher D., Adams, David R.; and Meyer, Antje S.. 2000. Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26.6.1355–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1979. Hixkaryana. (Lingua descriptive studies 1.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology. (SIL/UTA publications in linguistics 76.) Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit Jan. 1983. The Turkana language. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110869149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duménil, Annie. 1983. A rule account of metathesis in Gascon. Columbia: University of South Carolina dissertation.Google Scholar
Duménil, Annie. 1987. A rule account of metathesis in Gascon. Linguisticae Investigationes 11.1.81–113.10.1075/li.11.1.04dumCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Pallier, Christophe, Sebastian, Núria; and Mehler, Jacques. 1997. A destressing ‘deafness’ in French? Journal of Memory and Language 36. 406–21.10.1006/jmla.1996.2500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, Murray Barnson. 1967. The South Dravidian languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society 87. 365–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, Murray Barnson. 1970. Dravidian comparative phonology: A sketch. (Annamalai University publications in linguistics 22.) Tamil Nadu, India: Annamalainagar.Google Scholar
Fay, William. 1966. Temporal sequence in the perception of speech. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111352886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1995. Auditory features in phonology. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Foley, Lawrence. 1980. Phonological variation in Western Cherokee. London: Garland.Google Scholar
Francis, Alexander, and Nusbaum, Howard C.. 2002. Selective attention and the acquisition of new phonetic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28. 349–66.Google ScholarPubMed
Frisch, Stefan. 1996. Similarity and frequency in phonology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan, Large, Nathan; and Pisoni, David. 2000. Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 481–96.10.1006/jmla.1999.2692CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fujimura, Osamu, Macchi, M. J.; and Streeter, L. A.. 1978. Perception of stop consonants with conflicting transitional cues: A crosslinguistic study. Language and Speech 21.4.337–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grammont, Maurice. 1933. Traité de phonétique. Paris: Librairie Delagrave.Google Scholar
Hall, Christopher. 1992. Integrating diachronic and processing principles in explaining the suffixing preference. Morphology and mind: A unified approach to explanations in linguistics, ed. by Hall, Christopher, 321–49. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halle, M., Hughes, G. W.; and Radley, J.-P.. 1957. Acoustic properties of stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 29. 107–16.10.1121/1.1908634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallé, Pierre A., Segui, Juan, Frauenfelder, Uli; and Meunier, Christine. 1998. Processing of illegal consonant clusters: A case of perceptual assimilation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24.2.592–608.Google ScholarPubMed
Harnsberger, James. 2001. The perception of Malayalam nasal consonants by Marathi, Punjabi, Tamil, Oriya, Bengali, and American English listeners: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Phonetics 29. 303–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Sheldon. 1976. Mokilese reference grammar. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1976. Notes on the Rendille language. Afrika und Ubersee 59. 176–223.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1978. The Sam languages: A history of Rendille, Boni and Somali. Afroasiatic Linguistics 6.2.1–92.Google Scholar
Hewitt, Brian George. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/loall.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1985. Regular metathesis. Linguistics 23. 529–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Grover. 1975. Suppletion in the representation of alternations. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Hudson, Grover. 1995. Phonology of Ethiopian languages. Handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John, 782–97. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 1997a. Consonant clusters and articulatory timing in Deg. Columbus: The Ohio State University, ms.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 1997b. Metathesis in phonological theory: The case of Leti. Lingua 104. 147–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 1998. The role of perceptibility in consonant/consonant metathesis. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 17. 293–307.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2001. Metathesis: Formal and functional considerations. In Hume, et al. 2001, 1–25.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2002. Reconsidering the concept of markedness. Paper presented at the 4th International Phonology Meeting of the GDR, Grenoble, France, June 2002.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 2003. Language specific markedness: The case of place of articulation. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 19.2.295–310.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Johnson, Keith. 2001a. A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology. In Hume & Johnson 2001b, 3-26.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Johnson, Keith (eds.) 2001b. The role of speech perception in phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Johnson, Keith (eds.) 2001c. Studies on the interplay of speech perception and phonology. (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 55.) Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Johnson, Keith. 2003. The impact of impartial phonological contrast on speech perception. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 15. 2385–88.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, Johnson, Keith, Seo, Misun, Tserdanelis, Georgios; and Winters, Steve. 1999. A crosslinguistic study of stop place perception. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 14. 2069–72.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Seo, Misun. 2004. Metathesis in Faroese and Lithuanian: From speech perception to optimality theory. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27.1.1–26.10.1017/S0332586504001143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, Smith, Norval; and van, Jeroen Weijer, de (eds.) 2001. Surface syllable structure and segment sequencing. Leiden: Holland Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth, and Tserdanelis, Georgios. 2002. Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19.1.441–58.10.1017/S0952675703004421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isebaert, Lambert. 1988. Tocharian evidence for laryngeal metathesis in Indo-European. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 3. 39–46.10.1075/bjl.3.04iseCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, M. 1979. A grammar of the Kuvi language. (Dravidian Linguistics Association 27.) Trivandrum, India: Dravidian Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Jakobi, Angelika. 1990. A Fur grammar. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Mads Andreas, and Matras, Christian. 1961. Føroysk-Donsk Ordabók. Tórshavn: Føroya Fródskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 1984. Why morphological metathesis rules are rare: On the possibility of historical explanation in linguistics. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. 87–103.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Acoustic and auditory phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Place assimilation as the result of conflicting perceptual and articulatory constraints. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 14. 221–37.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, Peter. 1997. The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, Peter, and Aslin, Richard. 1995. Infants' detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology 29. 1–23.10.1006/cogp.1995.1010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, Peter, and Luce, Paul. 1994. Infants' sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 630–45.10.1006/jmla.1994.1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawasaki, Haruko. 1982. An acoustical basis for the universal constraints on sound sequences. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István, Vago, Robert; and Fenyvesi, Anna. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1972. Lithuanian phonology. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. 1975. Metathesis and Old English phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 377–411.Google Scholar
Kim, Mi-Ran Cho. 1994. Acoustic characteristics of Korean stops and perception of English stop consonants. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Madison dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1967. Sonorant clusters in Greek. Language 43. 619–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 1978. Areal and lexical diffusion of sound change: Evidence from Dravidian. Language 54.1.1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia, 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. 606–8.10.1126/science.1736364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lahiri, Aditi, and Marslen-Wilson, William. 1991. The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38. 245–94.10.1016/0010-0277(91)90008-RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langdon, Margaret. 1976. Metathesis in Yuman languages. Language 52.4.866–82.10.2307/413299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laycock, Don. 1982. Metathesis in Austronesian: Ririo and other cases. Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics 1: Currents in Oceanic (Pacific Linguistics C-74), ed. by Halim, Amran, Harrington, Lois, and Wurm, S. A., 269–81. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Lejeune, Michel. 1972. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf. 1963. Etymological dictionary of Harari. (University of California publications in Near Eastern studies 1.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Liljencrants, Johan, and Lindblom, Björn. 1972. Numerical simulation of vowel quality systems: The role of perceptual contrast. Language 48.4.839–62.10.2307/411991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. Speech production and speech modeling, ed. by Hardcastle, William and Marchal, Alain, 403–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloret-Romanyach, Maria-Rosa. 1988. Gemination and vowel length in Oromo morphophonology. Bloomington: Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William Burley. 1955. An introduction to Modern Faroese. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Luce, Paul. 1986. Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon. (Research on speech perception technical report 6.) Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Luce, Paul, and Pisoni, David. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19. 1–36.10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyche, Chantal. 1995. Schwa metathesis in Cajun French. Folia Linguistica 29. 369–93.10.1515/flin.1995.29.3-4.369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macuch, Rudolf. 1965. Handbook of classical and modern Mandaic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110818727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makashay, Matthew. 2001. Lexical effects in the perception of obstruent ordering. In Hume & Johnson 2001c, 88-116.Google Scholar
Malécot, André. 1956. Acoustic cues for nasal consonants: An experimental study involving a tape-slicing technique. Language 32. 274–84.10.2307/411004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Joseph. 1971. Systematic metathesis in Mandaic. Language 47. 394–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malone, Joseph. 1985. Classical Mandaic radical metathesis, radical assimilation and the devil's advocate. General Linguistics 25. 92–121.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William. 1989. Access and integration: Projecting sound onto meaning. Lexical representation and process, ed. by Marslen-Wilson, William, 3–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4213.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William, and Zwitserlood, Pienie. 1989. Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15. 576–85.Google Scholar
Martinez-Gil, Fernando. 1990. Topics in Spanish historical phonology. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Massaro, Dominic, and Cohen, Michael. 1983. Phonological constraints in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics 34. 338–48.10.3758/BF03203046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1989. Linear order in phonological representation. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 71–99.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 2000. The prosody of phase in Rotuman. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18. 147–97.10.1023/A:1006342918830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2002. Turkish /h/ deletion: Evidence for the interplay of speech perception and phonology. North Eastern Linguistic Society 32. 383–402.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2003. The interplay of speech perception and phonology: Experimental evidence from Turkish. Phonetica 60.3.208–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mielke, Jeff, and Hume, Elizabeth. 2001. Consequences of word recognition for metathesis. In Hume, et al. 2001, 135–58.Google Scholar
Moder, Carol. 1992. Productivity and categorization in morphological classes. Buffalo: State University of New York, Buffalo dissertation.Google Scholar
Mohr, B., and Wang, W. S.-Y.. 1968. Perceptual distance and specification of phonological features. Phonetica 18. 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montreuil, Jean-Pierre. 1981. The Romansch ‘brat’. Papers in Romance 3.1.67–76.Google Scholar
Moon, Christine, Cooper, Robin; and Fifer, William. 1993. Two-day old infants prefer native language. Infant Behavior and Development 16. 495–500.10.1016/0163-6383(93)80007-UCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Stanley. 1944. Yokuts language of California. (Viking Fund publication in anthropology 2.) New York: Viking Fund.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Chicago Linguistic Society 17. 178–203.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1992. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. Chicago Linguistic Society 26. 319–38.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1993. Sound change as nature's speech perception experiment. Speech Communication 13. 155–61.10.1016/0167-6393(93)90067-UCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1996. Speech perception is hearing sounds, not tongues. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99.3.1718–25.10.1121/1.414696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okrand, Marc. 1977. Mutsun grammar. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Oomen, Antoinette. 1981. Gender and plurality in Rendille. Afroasiatic Linguistics 8.1.35–75.Google Scholar
Otake, Takashi, Yoneyama, Kiyoko, Cutler, Anne; and van, Arie Lugt, der. 1996. The representation of Japanese moraic nasals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 100.6.3831–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padgett, Jaye. 2001. Contrast dispersion and Russian palatalization. In Hume & Johnson 2001b, 187-279.Google Scholar
Pallier, Christophe, Sebastian-Galles, Núria, Felguera, Teodora, Christophe, Anne; and Mehler, Jacques. 1993. Attentional allocation within the syllabic structure of spoken words. Journal of Memory and Language 32. 373–89.10.1006/jmla.1993.1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parks, Douglas R. 1976. A grammar of Pawnee. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1994. Knowledge of variation. Chicago Linguistic Society 30. 232–56.Google Scholar
Pitt, Mark. 1998. Phonological processes and the perception of phonotactically illegal consonant clusters. Perception and Psychophysics 60. 941–51.10.3758/BF03211930CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, Mark, and McQueen, James. 1998. Is compensation for coarticulation mediated by the lexicon? Journal of Memory and Language 39. 347–70.10.1006/jmla.1998.2571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, Mark, and Samuel, Arthur. 1990. Attentional allocation during speech perception: How fine is the focus? Journal of Memory and Language 29. 611–32.10.1016/0749-596X(90)90055-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, Mark, Smith, Katherine; and Klein, James. 1998. Syllabic effects in auditory word recognition: Evidence from the structural induction paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24. 1596–1611.Google Scholar
Polka, Linda, and Werker, Janet. 1994. Developmental changes in perception of non-native vowel contrasts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 20.2.421–35.Google Scholar
Polka, Linda, and Werker, Janet. 1997. Adult and infant perception of two English phones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 102. 3742–53.Google Scholar
Pollack, Irwin, Rubenstein, Herbert; and Decker, Louis. 1959. Intelligibility of known and unknown message sets. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31. 273–79.10.1121/1.1907712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, J. V. 1985. An occurrence of metathesis in Chimakuan. For Gordon H. Fairbanks, ed. by Acson, Veneeta Z. and Leed, Richard L., 105–10. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Powlison, Paul. 1962. Palatalization portmanteaus in Yagua (Peba-Yaguan). Word 18. 280–99.10.1080/00437956.1962.11659779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, and Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder, ms.Google Scholar
Rischel, Jørgen. 1972. Consonant reduction in Faroese noncompound wordforms. Studies for Einar Haugen presented by friends and colleagues, ed. by Firchow, Evelyn Scherabon, Grimstad, Kaaren, Hasselmo, Nils, and O'Neil, Wayne, 482–97. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N.; and Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274. 1926–28.10.1126/science.274.5294.1926CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, Jenny R., Newport, Elissa L.; and Aslin, Richard N.. 1996. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35. 606–21.10.1006/jmla.1996.0032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savin, Harris B. 1963. Word-frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35. 200–206.10.1121/1.1918432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Deborah. 1994. Phantom consonants in Basaa. Phonology 11. 149–78.10.1017/S0952675700001871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Wolfgang. 2002. Functional grammar of Udi. Munich: University of Munich, ms.Google Scholar
Semiloff-Zelasko, Holly. 1973. Glide metathesis. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 66–76.Google Scholar
Seo, Misun. 2003. A segment contact account of the patterning of sonorants in consonant clusters. Columbus: The Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Shaver, Dwight, and Shaver, Gwynne. 1989. Un bosquejo de la metatesis en el Quechua de Incahuasi. Lima, Peru: Instituto Linguistico de Verano y el Ministerio de Educacion.Google Scholar
Shetler, Joanne. 1976. Notes on Balangao grammar. (Language data, Asian-Pacific series 9.) Huntington Beach, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Shi, Rushin, Morgan, James; and Allopenna, Paul. 1998. Phonological and acoustic bases for earliest grammatical category assignment: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Child Language 25. 169–201.10.1017/S0305000997003395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silva, Clare. 1973. Metathesis of obstruent clusters. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 14. 77–84.Google Scholar
Silverman, Daniel. 1995. Phasing and recoverability. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Sim, Ronald J. 1981. Morphophonemics of the verb in Rendille. Afroasiatic Linguistics 8.1.1–33.Google Scholar
Péter, Siptár, and Törkenczy, Miklós. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Norval. 1984. All change on CV-tier: Developments in the history on Aŋt̪im and Anut̪ri. Linguistics in the Netherlands 1984, ed. by Bennis, Hans and van Lessen Kloeke, W. U. S., 169–78. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1980. Metathesis in Kwara'ae. Lingua 52. 305–23.10.1016/0024-3841(80)90039-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1996. Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995. Licensing retroflexion. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1997. Phonetics in phonology: The case of laryngeal neutralization. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in assimilation: A perceptual account. In Hume & Johnson 2001b, 219-78.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., and Blumstein, Sheila E.. 1978. Invariant cues for place of articulation in stop consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64. 1358–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stonham, John. 1990. Current issues in morphological theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Streeter, L. 1976. Language perception of 2-month old infants shows effects of both innate mechanisms and experience. Nature 259. 39–41.10.1038/259039a0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, Laurence, and Thompson, Terry. 1969. Metathesis as a grammatical device. International Journal of American Linguistics 35. 213–18.10.1086/465056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1985. The metathesis of liquid diphthongs in Upper Sorbian. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 31-32.417-30.Google Scholar
Trehub, S. 1976. The discrimination of foreign speech contrasts by infants and adults. Child Development 47. 466–72.10.2307/1128803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, and Danis, Catalina. 1988. Syllabification of intervocalic consonants. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 87–104.10.1016/0749-596X(88)90050-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ultan, Russell. 1978. A typological view of metathesis. Universals of human language 2, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph, 368–99. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vance, T. 1987. An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S., and Luce, Paul A.. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 40. 374–408.10.1006/jmla.1998.2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H. S., and Derwing, Bruce. 1994. Some vowel schemas in three English morphological classes: Experimental evidence. In honor of Professor William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change, ed. by Chen, M. and Tzeng, O., 561–75. Taipei: Pyramid Press.Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. 1959. Transition and release as perceptual cues for final plosives. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 3. 66–73.10.1044/jshr.0201.66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanner, Dieter. 1989. On metathesis in diachrony. Chicago Linguistic Society 25. 434–50.Google Scholar
Warren, Richard M. 1982. Auditory perception: A new synthesis. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Webb, Charlotte. 1974. Metathesis. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Werker, Janet, Gilbert, John, Humphrey, Keith; and Tees, Richard. 1981. Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Development 52. 349–55.10.2307/1129249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, Janet, and Tees, Richard. 1984. Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development 7. 49–63.10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80022-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werker, Janet, and Tees, Richard. 1999. Influences on infant speech processing: Towards a new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology 50. 509–35.10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M. D. 1988. The MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine readable dictionary, Version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 20.1.6–11.10.3758/BF03202594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfield, W. W. 1928. A grammar of the Kui language. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of Bengal.Google Scholar
Winters, Stephen. 2001. VCCV perception: Putting place in its place. In Hume, et al. 2001, 230–47.Google Scholar
Wolff, John U. 1972. A dictionary of Cebuano Visayan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Southeast Asia Program, and Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. 1996. Consonant clusters and cue preservation in Tsou. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. 2001. Perceptual cues in contrast maintenance. In Hume & Johnson 2001b, 251–77.Google Scholar
Zaborsky, Andrzej. 1986. The morphology of nominal plural in the Cushitic languages. Vienna: Institute für Afrikanistik und Agyptologie der Universität Wien.Google Scholar