Element contents
Series: Elements in Phonology
Phonology in Language Documentation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2025
Summary
This Element addresses the challenges and opportunities that arise in the study of sound systems of understudied languages within the context of language documentation, an expanding field that seeks to develop records of the world's languages and their patterns of use in their broader cultural and social context. The topics covered in this Element focus on different elements of language documentation and their relationship to phonological analysis, including lexicography, documentary corpora, music and the verbal arts, as well as grammar writing. For each of these areas, the authors examine methodological and theoretical implications for phonology. With growing concern in the field of language documentation and linguistics more generally for the distribution and implementation of the products of research and its impact for Indigenous language communities, this Element also discusses how phonological documentation may contribute to the development of resources for language communities.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in PhonologyOnline ISBN: 9781009543637Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 31 December 2025
References
Adams, O., Cohn, T., Neubig, G., Cruz, H., Bird, S. & Michaud, A. (2019). Evaluating phonemic transcription of low-resource tonal languages for language documentation. In Isahara, H., Maegaard, B., Piperidis, S., Cieri, C., Declerck, T., Hasida, K., Mazo, H., Choukri, K., Goggi, S., Mariani, J., Moreno, A., Calzolari, N., Odijk, J. and Tokunaga, T., eds., 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2018. European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 3356–3365.Google Scholar
Agodio, O., Bodji, S., Emil, S., Russell, K. & Sande, H. Guébie Fieldwork Collection, 2014–15. California Language Archive, Survey of California and Other Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7297/X208639V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agostinho, A. L. & Antunes de Araujo, G. (2021). Playing with language: Three language games in the Gulf of Guinea. Language Documentation and Conservation, 15, 219–238.Google Scholar
Aguilar, A., Caballero, C., Carroll, L. & Garellek, M. (2015). Multi-dimensionality in the tonal realization of Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Talk presented at the 2015 Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas, Portland, Oregon, January 8–11, 2015.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. (2003). A Grammar of Tariana. Cambridge Grammatical Descriptions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Albright, A. (2002). Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language, 78, 684–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameka, F. K., Dench, A. & Evans, N. (eds.). (2006). Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amith, J. (2020). Endangered language documentation: The challenges of interdisciplinary research in ethnobiology. In Penfield, S. D., ed., Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 21: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language Documentation. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’I Press, pp. 72–112.Google Scholar
Anttila, A. (2002). Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badenoch, N. (2019). The ethnopoetics of Sida animal names. 研究年報 [Journal of Research Institute], 60, 39–73.Google Scholar
Baese-Berk, M. & Goldrick, M. (2009). Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(4), 527–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagemihl, B. (1988). Alternate phonologies and morphologies. PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Baković, E. (2000). Harmony, dominance and control. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Baksh-Comeau, Y. & Winer, L. (2016). Grasping the nettle: Handling flora entries in dictionaries. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, 37(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, M. (2009). Phonological trends in the lexicon: The role of constraints. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Beier, C. & Michael, L. (2023). Community-participatory orthography development in the Máíjùnà communities of Peruvian Amazonia. In Kavitskaya, D. & Yu, A. C. L., eds., The Life Cycle of Language: Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R., Henderson, R. & Harvey, M. (2019). The interaction of tone and intonation in Uspanteko. In Calhoun, S., Escudero, P., Tabain, M. & Warren, P., eds., Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS) 2019. Canberra: ASSTA, pp. 452–456.Google Scholar
Bennett, R., Henderson, R. & Harvey, M. (2022). Tonal variability and marginal contrast: Lexical pitch accent in Uspanteko. In Kubozono, H., Ito, J. & Mester, A., eds., Prosody and Prosodic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berez-Kroeker, A. L., Gawne, L., Smythe Kung, S., Kelly, B. F., Heston, T., Holton, G., Pulsifer, P., Beaver, D. I., Chelliah, S., Dubinsky, S., Meier, R. P., Thieberger, N., Rice, K. & Woodbury, A. C. (2018). Reproducible research in linguistics: A position statement on data citation and attribution in our field. Linguistics, 56(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14(2–3), 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besdouri, F. Z., Zribi, I. & Hadrich Belguith, L. (2024). Challenges and progress in developing speech recognition systems for Dialectal Arabic. Speech Communication, 163, 103110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickford, J. A. & McKay-Cody, M. (2018). Endangerment and revitalization of sign languages. In Hinton, L., Huss, L. & Roche, G., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Language Revitalization. New York: Routledge, pp. 255–264.Google Scholar
Blasi, D. E., Wichmann, S., Hammarström, H., Stadler, P. & Christiansen, M. (2016). Sound–meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10818–10823.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenfeld, L. (2016). Generative metrics: An overview. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(9), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, F. (1911). Introduction. In Boas, F., ed., Handbook of American Indian Languages (vol. 1). Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40. Washington: Government Print Office, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 1–83.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. & Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(1), 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. & Pater, J. (2008/2016). Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for Harmonic Grammar. In McCarthy, J. J. & Pater, J., eds., Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. Sheffield: Equinox, pp. 389–434. [Original electronic distribution 2008.]Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2000). The phonology–morphology interface. In Cheng, L. & Sybesma, R., eds., The first Glot international state-of-the-article book. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braconnier, C. (1982). Le système tonal du dioula d’Odienné. Abidjan: Université d’Abidjan.Google Scholar
Braconnier, C. & Diaby, S. (1982). Dioula d’Odienné (parler de Samatiguila): matérial lexical. Abidjan: Institut de Linguistique Appliquée.Google Scholar
Brown, R., Manmurulu, D., Manmurulu, J., O’Keeffe, I. & Singer, R. (2017). Maintaining song traditions and languages together at Warruwi (western Arnhem Land). In Wafer, J. & Turpin, M., eds., Recirculating Songs: Revitalising the Singing Practices of Indigenous Australia. Sydney: Sydney University Press, pp. 268–285.Google Scholar
Brugman, H. & Russel, A. (2004). Annotating multimedia/multi-modal resources with ELAN. In Lino, M. T., Xavier, M. F., Ferreira, F., R. Costa & R. Silva, eds., Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Lisbon, 26–28 May, pp. 2065–2068.Google Scholar
Brunelle, M. (2009). Tone perception in Northern and Southern Vietnamese. Journal of Phonetics, 37(1), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunelle, M. (2012). Dialect experience and perceptual integrality in phonological registers: Fundamental frequency, voice quality and the first formant in Cham. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(4), 3088–3102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, G. (2011). Morphologically conditioned stress assignment in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Linguistics, 49(4), 749–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, G. (2015). Choguita Rarámuri description and documentation. Endangered Languages Archive. http://hdl.handle.net/2196/00-0000-0000-0001-86B4-0.Google Scholar
Caballero, G. (2022a). A Grammar of Choguita Rarámuri: In Collaboration with Luz Elena León Ramírez, Sebastián Fuentes Holguín, Bertha Fuentes Loya and Other Choguita Rarámuri Language Experts. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Caballero, G. (2022b). Audio files accompanying the linguistic examples in “A grammar of Choguita Rarámuri.” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7268366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, G. & Carroll, L. (2015). Tone and stress in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) word prosody. International Journal of American Linguistics, 81(4), 457–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, G., Chai, Y. & Garellek, M. (2022). Stress, tone, and intonation in Choguita Rarámuri. In Kubozono, H., Ito, J. & Mester, A., eds., Prosody and Prosodic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, G., Duarte Borquez, C., Juárez Chávez, C. & Yuan, M. (in press). Lexical and grammatical tone in San Juan Piñas Mixtec (Tò’ōn Ndá’ví). Phonological Data & Analysis.Google Scholar
Caballero, G. & German, A. (2021). Grammatical tone patterns in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). International Journal of American Linguistics, 87(2), 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, G., Chávez, C. Juárez & Yuan, M.. (2024). The representation of tone in San Juan Piñas Mixtec (Tò’ōn Ndá’ví): Phonological and orthographic implications. In G. de la Cruz Sanchez, R. W. Smith, L. Irizarry, T. Ni & H. Harley (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 35, pp. 294–302. Cascadilla Press: Somerville, MA.Google Scholar
Cahill, M. & Rice, R. (eds.). (2014). Developing Orthographies for Unwritten Languages. Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Campbell, E. W. (2020). Probing phonological structure in play language: Speaking backwards in Zenzontepec Chatino. Phonological Data and Analysis, 2(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., Guerin, A., Kaczmarek, M., Lawson, G., Lawson, K., Nathan, L. P. & Turin, M. (2021). Locally contingent and community-dependent: Tools and technologies for Indigenous language mobilization. In Link, A., Shelton, A. & Spero, P., eds., Indigenous Languages and the Promise of Archives. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press and The American Philosophical Society, pp. 125–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaparro Gardea, R. I., Fuentes Holguín, S., Fuentes Loya, B., Fuentes Moreno, G., Fuentes Palma, G., León Ramírez, L. E., Caballero, G. & Carroll, L. (2019). Materials of the Choguita Rarámuri Language Project, SCL 2019-01, Survey of California and Other Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7297/X2HH6H70.Google Scholar
Coetzee, A. W. (2009). Learning lexical indexation. Phonology, 26(1), 109–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. & Pierrehumbert, J. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. arXiv preprint: cmp-lg/9707017.Google Scholar
Coto-Solano, R., Akevai Nicholas, S., Datta, S., Quint, V., Wills, P., Ngakuravaru Powell, E., Koka’ua, L., Tanveer, S. & Feldman, I. (2022). Development of automatic speech recognition for the documentation of Cook Islands Māori. In Calzolari, N., Béchet, F., Blache, P., Choukri, K., Cieri, C., Declerck, T., Goggi, S., Isahara, H., Maegaard, B., Mariani, J., Mazo, H., Odijk, J. & Piperidis, S., eds, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Marseille, France, pp. 3872–3882.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, S. (2006). The organization of reference grammars: A typologist user’s point of view. In Ameka, F. K., Dench, A. & Evans, N., eds., Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz Cruz, E. (ed.). (2020). Theoretical reflections around the role of fieldwork in linguistics and linguistic anthropology: Contributions of Indigenous researchers from southern Mexico. Translation from Spanish of Reflexiones teóricas en torno a la función del trabajo de campo en lingüística-antropológica: contribuciones de investigadores indígenas del sur de México. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication 22. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘iGoogle Scholar
Cruz, E. & Woodbury, A. C. (2014). Finding a way into a family of tone languages: The story and methods of the Chatino Language Documentation Project. Language Documentation & Conservation, 8, 490–524.Google Scholar
Currie Hall, K. (2022). Corpora and phonological analysis. In Dresher, B. E. & van der Hulst, H., eds., The Oxford History of Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 619–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie Hall, K., Pine, A. & Schwan, M. D. (2018). Doing phonological corpus analysis in a fieldwork context. In Matthewson, L., Guntly, E., Huijsmans, M. & Rochemont, M., eds., Wa7 Xweysás i Nqwal’utteníha i Ucwalmícwa: He Loves the People’s Languages: Essays in Honour of Henry Davis. Vancouver: Pacific Northwest Languages and Literatures, pp. 615–630.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (2009). Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: Reflections on working within Canadian Indigenous communities. Language Documentation & Conservation, 3(1), 15–50.Google Scholar
Czaykowska-Higgins, E. (2018). Reflections on ethics: Re-humanizing linguistics, building relationships across difference. In McDonnell, B., Berez-Kroeker, A. L. & Holton, G., eds., Reflections on Language Documentation 20 Years After Himmelmann 1998. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication no. 15. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press, pp. 110–121.Google Scholar
Daly, J. P. & Hyman, L. (2007). On the representation of tone in Peñoles Mixtec. International Journal of American Linguistics, 73(2), 165–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H., Gillon, C. & Matthewson, L. (2014). How to investigate linguistic diversity: Lessons from the Pacific Northwest. Language, 90(4), e180–e226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. E. & McKay-Cody, M. (2010). Signed languages of American Indian communities: Considerations for interpreting work and research. In Locker McKee, R. & Davies, J. E., eds., Interpreting in Multilingual, Multicultural Contexts. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 119–157.Google Scholar
Di Carlo, P., Ojong Diba, R. A. & Good, J. (2021). Towards a coherent methodology for the documentation of small-scale multilingualism: Dealing with speech data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 25(4), 860–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2012). Advances in the cross‐linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(10), 654–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2018). Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1), 4.Google Scholar
Duarte Borquez, C. (2023). Tone, prosodic structure and grammatical structure in San Juan Piñas Mixtec (Tò’ōn Ndá’ví). Qualifying paper, UC San Diego.Google Scholar
Duarte Borquez, C., Juárez Chávez, C. & Caballero, G. (in press). Tonal upstep and downstep in San Juan Piñas Mixtec (Tò’ōn Ndá’ví). In Reisinger, D. K. E., ed., Proceedings of WSCLA 26, Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Elordieta, G. (2008). An overview of theories of the syntax–phonology interface. Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology, 42, 209–286.Google Scholar
Epps, P. L., Webster, A. K. & Woodbury, A. C. (2023). Documenting speech play and verbal art: A tutorial. Language Documentation and Conservation, 26, 175–242.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2012). Anything can happen: The verb lexicon and interdisciplinary fieldwork. In Thieberger, N., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 183–208.Google Scholar
Evans, N. & Dench, A. (2006). Introduction: Catching language. In Ameka, F. K., Dench, A. & Evans, N., eds., Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Farris-Trimble, A. W. (2008). Cumulative faithfulness effects in phonology. PhD dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Fenlon, J. & Hochgesang, J. A., eds. (2022). Signed Language Corpora. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, S. (2009). Sign language field methods: Approaches, techniques, and concerns. In Tai, J. H-Y & Tsay, J., eds., Taiwan Sign Language and Beyond. Chia-Yi, Taiwan: The Taiwan Institute for the Humanities, National Chung Cheng University, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (1977). Advances in the Creation and Revision of Writing Systems. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. M. (1998). The meter of Tohono O’odham songs. International Journal of American Linguistics, 64(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. M. (2013). Revisiting Tohono O’odham high vowels. In Bischoff, S. T., Cole, D., Fountain, A. V. & Miyashita, M., eds.,The Persistence of Language: Constructing and Confronting the Past and Present in the Voices of Jane H. Hill. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. M. (2017). Motivating the documentation of the verbal arts: Arguments from theory and practice. Language Documentation and Conservation, 11, 114–132.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (2001). Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology, 18, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, S. A. & Zawaydeh, B. A. (2001). The psychological reality of OCP-Place in Arabic. Language, 77(1), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garellek, M., Aguilar, A., Caballero, G. & Carroll, L. (2015). Lexical and post-lexical tone in Choguita Rarámuri. In Wolters, M., Livingstone, J., Beattie, B., Smith, R., MacMahon, M., Stuart-Smith, J. & Scobbie, J. M., eds., Proceedings of the 18th International Congress on Phonetic Sciences. Glasgow, Scotland, August 10–14. Glasgow: University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Garrett, A. (2023). The Unnaming of Kroeber Hall: Language, Memory and Indigenous California. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gippert, J., Himmelmann, N. P. & Mosel, U. (eds.). (2006). Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, P. E. (1904). Hupa Texts. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 1. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Goldwater, S. & Johnson, M. (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. In Spenader, J., Eriksson, A. & Dahl, O., eds., Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University, pp. 111–120.Google Scholar
Good, J. (2018). Ethics in language documentation and revitalization. In Rehg, K. L. & Campbell, L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 419–440.Google Scholar
Good, J. (2023). Adapting methods of language documentation to multilingual settings. Journal of Language Contact, 15(2), 341–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouskova, M. (2018). Morphology and phonotactics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Interactive Factory. http://doi.org/10/1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.Google Scholar
Grimm, N. (2022). Documentary approaches to lexicography. In Ekpenyong, M. E. & Udoh, I. I., eds., Current Issues in Descriptive Linguistics and Digital Humanities: A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Eno-Abasi Essien Urua. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, pp. 551–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinevald, C. (2003). Speakers and documentation of endangered languages. In Austin, P. K., ed., Language Documentation and Description (vol. 1). London: SOAS, pp. 52–72.Google Scholar
Guion, S. G., Amith, J. D., Doty, C. S. & Shport, I. A. (2010). Word-level prosody in Balsas Nahuatl: The origin, development, and acoustic correlates of tone in a stress accent language. Journal of Phonetics, 38(2), 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K., Krauss, M., Watahomigie, L. J., Yamamoto, A. Y., Craig, C., Masayesva, J. & England, N. (1992). Endangered languages. Language, 68, 1–42.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Keyser, S. J. (1966). Chaucer and the study of prosody. College English, 28(3), 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M. & Keyser, S. J. (1971). Illustration and defense of a theory of the iambic pentameter. College English, 33(2), 154–176.Google Scholar
Harrington, J. P. (1932). Tobacco Among the Karuk Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 94. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D., Lillehaugen, B. D. & Lopez, F. H. (2019). Zapotec language activism and Talking Dictionaries. In Kosem, I., Kuhn, T. Z., Correia, M., Ferreira, J. P., Jansen, M., Pereira, I., Kallas, J., Jakubíček, M., Krek, S. & Tiberius, C., eds., Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century: Smart Lexicography: Proceedings of the eLex 2019 Conference, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar
Hartmann, R. R. K. (1986). The History of Lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haude, K. (2006). A grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (2006). Documenting lexical knowledge. In Gippert, J., Himmelmann, N. & Mosel, U., eds., Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. (1989). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Kiparsky, P. & Youmans, G., eds., Rhythm and Meter, Volume 1: Phonetics and Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 201–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. & Cziráky Londe, Z. (2006). Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology, 23(1), 59–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. & Wilson, C. (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 379–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. & Schuh, R. G. (2019). Metrical structure and sung rhythm of the Hausa rajaz. Language, 95(2), e253–e299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B., Wilson, C. & Shisko, A. (2012). Maxent grammars for the metrics of Shakespeare and Milton. Language, 88(4), 691–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrera Zendejas, E. (2014). Formas sonoras: mapa fónico de las lenguas mexicanas. México, D.F.: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, K. A., Jany, C. & Silva, W. (2017). Introduction: Documenting variation in endangered languages. In Hildebrandt, K. A., Jany, C. & Silva, W., eds., Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 13: Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages. University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 1–5. http://nlfrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/.Google Scholar
Hill, J. (2006a). The ethnography of language and language documentation. In Gippert, J., Himmelmann, N. & Mosel, U., eds., Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. (2006b). Writing culture in grammar in the Americanist tradition. In Ameka, F. K., Dench, A. & Evans, N., eds., Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 609–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. H. & Nolasquez, R. (1973). Mulu’wetam, the First People: Cupeño Oral History and Language. Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (1998). Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics, 36, 161–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2006). Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? In Gippert, J., Himmelmann, N. & Mosel, U., eds., Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Hinton, L. (2014). Orthography wars. In Cahill, M. & Rice, K., eds., Developing Orthographies for Unwritten Languages. Dallas, TX: SIL International, pp. 139–168.Google Scholar
Hochgesang, J. A. (2019). Sign language description: A deaf retrospective and application of best practices from language documentation [Opening keynote presentation]. The 8th Meeting of Signed and Spoken Language Linguistics, National Museum of Ethnology, Minpaku, Osaka, Japan.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1966). The quantification of functional load: A linguistic problem. Report Number RM-5168-PR. Santa Monica: Rand Corp.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (2009). Relatively ethical: A comparison of linguistic research paradigms in Alaska and Indonesia. Language Documentation & Conservation, 3(2), 161–175.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (2018). Interdisciplinary language documentation. In Rehg, K. & Campbell, L., eds., Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 739–760.Google Scholar
Holton, G., Leonard, W. Y. & Pulsifer, P. L. (2022). Indigenous peoples, ethics, and linguistic data. In Berez-Kroeker, A. L., McDonnell, B., Koller, E. & Collister, L. B., eds., The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, L. L. Y-S. (2017). Negotiating language practices and language ideologies in fieldwork : A reflexive meta-documentation. In Kusters, A., de Meulder, M. & O’Brien, D., eds., Innovations in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 339–359.Google Scholar
Hou, L. (2018). Iconic patterns in San Juan Quiahije Chatino Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 18(4), 570–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, L. & Kusters, A. (2020). Linguistic ethnography of signed languages. In Tusting, K., ed., The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography. London: Routledge, pp. 340–355.Google Scholar
Hou, L. & de Vos, C. (2022). Classifications and typologies: Labeling sign languages and signing communities. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 26(1), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huaute, R. I. (2020). Expanding the documentation and description of conversational Cahuilla. Endangered Languages Archive. http://hdl.handle.net/2196/80d1c08f-52d7-464f-b243-0460edf84e38.Google Scholar
Huaute, R. I. (2022). A preliminary intonation model of Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla. In Frota, S., Cruz, M. & Vigári, M., eds., Proceedings of Speech Prosody, May 23–26, 2022, Lisbon, Portugal. Lisbon: University of Lisbon, pp. 254–258.Google Scholar
Huaute, R. I. (2023). Topics in the phonology and morphology of Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla. PhD dissertation, UC San Diego.Google Scholar
Huff, T. & Lapierre, M. (2021). The typologically rare approximant inventory of Kajkwakhrattxi: A series of natural sound changes. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, 6(1), 855–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (2011). Tone: Is it different? In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J. & Yu, A., ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn. London: Blackwell, pp. 197–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. (2018). Why underlying representations? Journal of Linguistics, 54(3), 591–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1971). The contribution of folklore to sociolinguistic research. The Journal of American Folklore, 84(331), 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkelas, S. (1997). The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study of dominance effects. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 121–155.Google Scholar
Inkelas, S. (2014). The Interplay of Morphology and Phonology (vol. 8). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, J. & Mester, A. (2003). Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Series 41. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juárez Chávez, C., Caballero, G., Duarte Borquez, C., Fernández Guerrero, J. A., Huaute, R., Iyer, A., Tedeschi, N., Van Doren, M. & Yuan, M. (2022). an Juan Piñas Mixtec (Tò’ōn Ndā’ví) Talking Dictionary. Swarthmore College. www.talkingdictionary.org/sanjuanpinas.Google Scholar
Juárez Chávez, C., Pérez Morelos, B., Pérez Morelos, C., Caballero, G., Duarte Borquez, C., Kameda, T. & Yuan, M. (in press). Materials of the San Juan Piñas Mixtec Language Project. Survey of California and Other Indian Languages, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Jun, S. A. & Fletcher, J. (2014). Methodology of studying intonation: From data collection to data analysis. In Jun, S.-A., ed., Prosodic Typology II: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 493–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. (2010). Compression effects, perceptual asymmetries, and the grammar of timing. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Katz, J. (2015). Hip-hop rhymes reiterate phonological typology. Lingua, 160, 54–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawahara, S. (2020). Sound symbolism and theoretical phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 14(8), e12372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawahara, S., Katsuda, H. & Kumagai, G. (2019). Accounting for the stochastic nature of sound symbolism using Maximum Entropy model. Open Linguistics, 5(1), 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, G. (2015). Rhyming grammars and Celtic phonology. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1977). The rhythmic structure of English verse. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(2), 189–247.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology, 2, 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, J. & Ladd, D. R. (2016). Tone–melody correspondence in Vietnamese popular song. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, ms.Google Scholar
Knoop, C. A., Blohm, S., Kraxenberger, M. & Menninghaus, W. (2021). How perfect are imperfect rhymes? Effects of phonological similarity and verse context on rhyme perception. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(3), 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, M. (2018). Underlying Representations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, R. (2010). The Amharic definite marker and the syntax–morphology interface. Syntax, 13(3), 196–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kresge, L. (2007). Indigenous Oaxacan Communities in California: An Overview. Davis, CA: California Institute for Rural Studies.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L. (1900). Cheyenne tales. Journal of American Folklore, 13, 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuang, J. & Cui, A. (2018). Relative cue weighting in production and perception of an ongoing sound change in Southern Yi. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 194–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, A. & Hou, L. (2020). Linguistic ethnography and sign language studies. Sign Language Studies, 20(4), 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (2008). Intonational phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapierre, M. (2023a). The phonology of Panãra: A segmental analysis. International Journal of American Linguistics, 89(2), 183–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapierre, M. (2023b). The phonology of Panãra: A prosodic analysis. International Journal of American Linguistics, 89(3), 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapierre, M. (2023c). Two types of [NT] s in Panãra: Evidence for temporally ordered subsegmental units. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 8(1).Google Scholar
Laycock, D. (1972). Towards a typology of ludlings, or play languages. Linguistic Communications, 6, 61‒113.Google Scholar
Lee, A. P. (2017). Ideophones, interjections, and sound symbolism in Seediq. Oceanic Linguistics, 56(1), 181–209. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26408528.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, M. (2017). Maxent Harmonic Grammars and phonetic duration. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Leonard, W. Y. (2018). Reflections on (de) colonialism in language documentation. In McDonnell, B., Berez-Kroeker, A. L. & Holton, G., eds., Reflections on Language Documentation 20 Years after Himmelmann 1998. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 15, pp. 55–65.Google Scholar
Lin, I. (2019) Functional load, perception, and the learning of phonological alternations. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. (1986). Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, J. & Jaeger, J., eds., Experimental Phonology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 13–44.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, A. (2005). Locality of conjunction. In Alderete, J., Han, C. & Kochetov, A., eds., Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistic. Somerville: Cascadilla Press, pp. 254–262.Google Scholar
Marsaja, I. G. (2008). Desa Kolok: A Deaf Village and Its Sign Language in Bali, Indonesia. Nijmegen: Ishara Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. B. (2011). A Grammar of Creek (Muskogee). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiot, M. (1973). A Dictionary of Papago Usage. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
McKay-Cody, M. R. (1996). Plains Indian Sign Language: A Comparative Study of Alternate and Primary Signers. Masters thesis, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. (2017a). Multiple feature affixation in Seenku plural formation. Morphology, 27, 217–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, L. (2017b). Tone features revisited: Evidence from Seenku. In Kandybowicz, J. & Torrence, H., eds., Diversity in African languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 297–320.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. (2018a). Documenting Seenku (Mande, Burkina Faso) Language and Music, with Special Attention to Tone. Endangered Languages Archive. http://hdl.handle.net/2196/00-0000-0000-0010-7D06-3.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. (2018b). The talking Balafon of the Sambla. Anthropological Linguistics, 60(3), 255–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, L. (2019a). Seenku argument-head tone sandhi: Allomorph selection in a cyclic grammar. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1), 22.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. (2019b). Musical adaptation as phonological evidence: Case studies from textsetting, rhyme, and musical surrogates. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(12), e12359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, L. (in press, a). A collaborative methodology for grammatical tone acquisition in Seenku. In Carstens, V., Russell, K., Akingbade, O., Morton, D. & Diercks, M., eds., Selected Papers from the 54th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Language Science Press.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. (in press, b). The acquisition of verbal tone in Seenku (Mande, Burkina Faso). First Language.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. & James, L. (2021). Artistic adaptation of Seenku tone: Musical surrogates vs. vocal music. In Akinlabi, A., Bickmore, L., Cahill, M., Diercks, M., Downing, L. J., Essegbey, J., Franich, K., McPherson, L. & Rose, S., eds., Celebrating 50 Years of ACAL: Selected Papers from the 50th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (Contemporary African Linguistics 7). Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 203–223.Google Scholar
McPherson, L. & Ryan, K. M. (2018). Tone–tune association in Tommo So (Dogon) folk songs. Language, 94(1), 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, L. & Winter, Y. (2022). Surrogate languages and the grammar of language-based music. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 838286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, L. (2019). Lines in Nanti karintaa chants: An areal poetic typological perspective (An essay in honor of Joel Sherzer). Cadernos de Etnolingüística: Estudos de Lingüística Sul-Americana, 7(1), 56–64.Google Scholar
Miyashita, M. (2011). Five Blackfoot lullabies. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 155(3), 276–293.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical phonology. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Morgan, H. E. (2022). A Phonological Grammar of Kenyan Sign Language (vol. 11). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosel, U. (2006). Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammars. In Ameka, F. K., Dench, A. & Evans, N., eds., Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosel, U. (2011). Lexicography in endangered language communities. In Austin, P. & Sallabank, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337–353.Google Scholar
Mosel, U. (2014). Corpus linguistic and documentary approaches in writing a grammar of a previously undescribed language. In Nakayama, T. & Rice, K., eds., Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 8: The Art and Practice of Grammar Writing. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 135–157.Google Scholar
Mosel, U. (2018). Corpus compilation and exploitation in language documentation projects. In Rehg, K. L. & Campbell, L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 248–270.Google Scholar
Nakayama, T. & Rice, K. (eds.). (2014). The Art and Practice of Grammar Writing. Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication No. 8. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, N. R. & Wedel, A. (2017). The phonetic specificity of competition: Contrastive hyperarticulation of voice onset time in conversational English. Journal of Phonetics, 64, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, H. (2018). The syntax–phonology interface in Rule-Based Phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. & Bosch, A. R. K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 197–225.Google Scholar
Nigmatulina, I., Kew, T. & Samardzic, T. (2020). ASR for non-standardised languages with dialectal variation: The case of Swiss German. In Zampieri, M., Nakov, P., Ljubešić, N., Tiedemann, J. & Scherrer, Y, eds., Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on NLP for Similar Languages, Varieties and Dialects. International Committee on Computational Linguistics (ICCL), pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
Nyst, V. (2007). A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe sign language (Ghana). PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Nyst, V. (2015). Sign language fieldwork. In Orfanidou, E., Woll, B. & Morgan, G., eds., Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
Nyst, V. (2019). The impact of cross-linguistic variation in gesture on sign language phonology and morphology: The case of size and shape specifiers. Gesture, 18(2–3), 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyst, V. A. S., Baker, A. E., Bogaerde, B. & Crasborn, O. A. (2003). The phonology of name signs: A comparison between the sign languages of Uganda, Mali, Adamorobe and the Netherlands. In Baker, A., van den Bogaerde, B. & Alex Crasborn, O., eds., Cross-Linguistic Perspectives in Sign Language Research. Selected Papers from TISLR 2000. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press, pp. 71–80.Google Scholar
Odden, D. A. & Bickmore, L. (2014). Melodic tone in Bantu: Overview. Africana Linguistica, 20(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Y. M., Coupé, C., Marsico, E. & Pellegrino, F. (2015). Bridging phonological system and lexicon: Insights from a corpus study of functional load. Journal of Phonetics, 53, 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, C. (2015). Methods of research on sign language grammars. In Orfanidou, E., Woll, B. & Morgan, G., eds., Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 141–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palancar, E. L. (2016). A typology of tone and inflection: A view from the Oto-Manguean languages of Mexico. In Palancar, E. L. & Léonard, J.-L., eds., Tone and Inflection: New Facts and New Perspectives. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, pp. 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palancar, E. L., Amith, J. D. & Castillo García, R. (2016). Verbal inflection in Yoloxóchitl Mixtec. In Palancar, E. L. & Léonard, J.-L., eds., Tone and Inflection: New Facts and New Perspectives. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, pp. 295–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, J. (2010). Morpheme-specific phonology: Constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Parker, S., ed., Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 123–154.Google Scholar
Pater, J. (2016). Universal Grammar with weighted constraints. In McCarthy, J. J. & Pater, J., eds., Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
Payne, T. E. & Weber, D. J. (eds.). (2007). Perspectives on Grammar Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peust, C. (2014). Towards a typology of poetic rhyme. In Grossman, E., Haspelmath, M., Richter, T. S., eds., EgyptianCoptic Linguistics in Typological Perspective (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology [EALT] 55), Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 341–385.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. & Beckman, M. (1988). Japanese Tone Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pike, E. V. & Wistrand, K. (1974). Step-up terrace tone in Acatlán Mixtec. In Brend, R., ed., Advances in Tagmemics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
Poser, W. J. (1984). The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Potts, C., Pater, J., Jesney, K., Bhatt, R. & Becker, M. (2010). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: From linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology, 27, 77–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prud’hommeaux, E., Jimerson, R., Hatcher, R. & Michelson, K. (2021). Automatic speech recognition for supporting endangered language documentation. Language Documentation & Conservation, 15, 491–513.Google Scholar
Pye, C., Ingram, D. & List, H. (1987). A comparison of initial consonant acquisition in English and Quiché. In Nelson, K. & Van Kleek, A., eds., Children’s Language (vol. 6). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum, pp. 175–190.Google Scholar
Rainie, S. C., Kukutai, T., Walter, M., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Walker, J. & Axelsson, P. (2019). Issues in open data: Indigenous data sovereignty. In Davies, T., Walker, S. B., Rubinstein, M. & Perini, F., eds., State of Open Data. Cape Town: African Minds, pp. 300–319. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2677801.Google Scholar
Rarrick, S. & Wilson, B. (2016). Documenting Hawai‘i’s sign languages. Language Documentation & Conservation, 10, 337–346.Google Scholar
Remijsen, B. & Ayoker, O. G. (2021). The noun phrase in Shilluk. In Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 14: A Grammar of Shilluk. Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 1–91.Google Scholar
Rice, K. (2010). The linguist’s responsibilities to the community of speakers: Community-based research. In Grenoble, L. A. & Louanna Furbee, N., eds., Language Documentation: Practice and Values. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, K. (2011a). Ethics in fieldwork. In Thieberger, N., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 407–429.Google Scholar
Rice, K. (2011b). Documentary linguistics and community relations. Language Documentation & Conservation, 5, 187–207.Google Scholar
Rice, K. (2018). Reflections on documenting the lexicon. In McDonnell, B., Berez-Kroeker, A. L. & Holton, G., eds., Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 15: Reflections on Language Documentation 20 Years After Himmelmann 1998. Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 183–190.Google Scholar
Rice, R. (2014). Sounds in grammar writing. In Nakayama, T. & Rice, K., eds., Language Documentation & Conservation Special Issue: The Art and Practice of Grammar Writing. Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 69–89.Google Scholar
Rueda Chaves, J. E. (2019). La interacción entre el tono y el acento en el mixteco de San Jerónimo de Xayacatlán. PhD dissertation, El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Ryan, K. M. (2011). Gradient syllable weight and weight universals in quantitative metrics. Phonology, 28(3), 413–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, K. M. (2014). Onsets contribute to syllable weight: Statistical evidence from stress and meter. Language, 90(2), 309–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sande, H. (2019). Phonologically determined nominal concord as post-syntactic: Evidence from Guébie. Journal of Linguistics, 55(4), 831–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E. (1910). Yana Texts. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 9. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1912). The Takelma language of southwestern Oregon. Handbook of American Indian Language, Bulletin 40. Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 1–296.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Sauvel, K. S. & Munro, , P. (1981). ‘Chem’ivillu’ (Let’s Speak Cahuilla). Los Angeles, CA: American Indian Studies Center, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, M. (2012). Does language determine music in tone languages?. Ethnomusicology, 56(2), 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmaling, C. (2000). Maganar Hannu, Language of the Hands: A Descriptive Analysis of Hausa Sign Language. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography Around the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidl, A. (2013). Minimal Indirect Reference: A Theory of the Syntax–Phonology Interface. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifart, F., Evans, N., Hammarström, H. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Language documentation twenty-five years on. Language, 94(4), e324–e345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiler, H. (1965). Accent and morphophonemics in Cahuilla and in Uto-Aztecan. International Journal of American Linguistics, 31(1), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiler, H. (1970). Cahuilla texts with an introduction (vol. 6). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. (2011). The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, J., Riggle, J. & Yu, A. C. L., eds., The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell, pp. 435–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, J. (2002). Speech Play and Verbal Art. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, S. (2017). Constraint conjunction in weighted probabilistic grammar. Phonology, 34(2), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Si, A. (2011). Biology in language documentation. Language Documentation and Conservation, 5, 169–186.Google Scholar
Skilton, A. (2017). Three speakers, four dialects: Documenting variation in an endangered Amazonian language. In Hildebrandt, K. A., Jany, C. & Silva, W., eds., Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 13: Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages. Manoa, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, pp. 94–115.Google Scholar
Sleeper, M. & Reyes Basurto, G. (2022). Musicolinguistic documentation: Tone & tune in Tlahuapa Tù’un Sàví songs. Language Documentation & Conservation, 16, 168–208.Google Scholar
Smith, J. L. (2011). Category-specific effects. In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, E. & Rice, K., eds., The Blackwell Companion to Phonology (vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 2439–2463.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (2006). Optimality in phonology II: Harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness. In Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G., eds., The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar. Volume 2: Linguistic and Philosophical Implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 27–160.Google Scholar
Snider, K. L. (1988) Towards the representation of tone: A three dimensional approach. In van der Hulst, H. & Smith, N., eds., Features, Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes (vol. 1). Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 237–269.Google Scholar
Snider, K. (2014). Orthography and phonological depth. In Cahill, M. & Rice, K., eds., Developing Orthographies for Unwritten Languages. Dallas, TX: SIL International Publications in Language Use and Education, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Snider, K. L. (2018). Tone Analysis for Field Linguists. Dallas, TX: SIL International Publications.Google Scholar
Stanford, J. N. & Preston, D. R. (eds.). (2009). Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, H. (2007). The syntax–phonology interface. In de Lacy, P., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, R. (2024). Lexicography and language documentation: Urgency, challenges, possibilities. Lexicography. https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.27796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Severen, L., Gillis, J. J., Molemans, I., Van Den Berg, R., De Maeyer, S. & Gillis, S. (2012). The relation between order of acquisition, segmental frequency and function: The case of word-initial consonants in Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 40(4), 703–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voegelin, C. F. (1935). Tübatalabal texts. University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 34, 191–246.Google Scholar
Walshaw, C. (2011). The abc music standard 2.1. http://abcnotation.com/wiki/abc:standard:v2.1 (accessed May 20, 2018).Google Scholar
Wassink, A. B., Gansen, C. & Bartholomew, I. (2022). Uneven success: Automatic speech recognition and ethnicity-related dialects. Speech Communication, 140, 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, A., Kaplan, A. & Jackson, S. (2013). High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition, 128(2), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeda, D. S. (1992). Word truncation in prosodic morphology. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Whalen, D. H. & McDonough, J. (2019). Under-researched languages: Phonetic results from language archives. In Katz, W. F. & Assman, P. F., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Phonetics. London: Routledge, pp. 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, P. C. M. & Diehl, R. D. (2002). How can the lyrics of a song in a tone language be understood?. Psychology of Music, 30(2), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, A. (2003). Defining documentary linguistics. Language Documentation and Description, 1, 35–51.Google Scholar
Woodbury, A. (2011). Language documentation. In Austin, P. & Sallabank, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–186.Google Scholar
Zeshan, U. 2000. Sign Language in Indo-Pakistan: A Description of a Signed Language. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, K. R. (2000). Patterned exceptions in phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zymet, J. (2018). Lexical propensities in phonology: Corpus and experimental evidence, grammar, and learning. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this Element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.