Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-mk7jb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T01:47:58.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Operationalizing borrowability: Phonological segments as a case study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Steven Moran ,
Elad Eisen ,
Dmitry Nikolaev  and
Eitan Grossman
Steven Moran*
Affiliation:
University of Neuchâtel and University of Miami
Elad Eisen*
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dmitry Nikolaev*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Eitan Grossman
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
*
[steven.moran@unine.ch]
[elad.eisen@mail.huji.ac.il]
[dmitry.nikolaev@manchester.ac.uk]
Get access

Abstract

This study provides two mathematical formalizations of borrowability. These operationalizations allow us to quantitatively evaluate the borrowability of phonological segments and to make predictions about the likelihood that speech sounds will be borrowed in language contact situations. Our approach departs from traditional borrowability hierarchies based on qualitative observations and instead provides empirically motivated models based on probability theory and statistics. Our study uses as input two large crosslinguistic segment inventory databases, and our results show that segments have markedly different borrowability profiles, highlighting their different diffusion patterns through space and time.

Keywords

borrowabilitylanguage contactphonologyprobability theorydiachronyareality

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 100 , Issue 4 , December 2024 , pp. 671 - 698
Copyright
Copyright © 2024 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

Atkinson, Quentin D. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa. Science 332. 346–59. DOI: 10.1126/science.1199295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, Alan. 1978. Language samples. Universals of human language, vol. 1: Method and theory, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 123–56. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Blasi, Damian E., Moran, Steven, Moisik, Scott R., Widmer, Paul, Dediu, Dan; and Bickel, Balthasar. 2019. Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363(6432):eaav3218. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav3218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouchon, Camillia. 2014. Functional asymmetry between consonants and vowels from birth to 6 months of age: Cerebral imaging and behavioral data. Paris: Université Paris Descartes (Paris 5) dissertation.Google Scholar
Bowden, John. 1997. Taba (Makian Dalam): Description of an Austronesian language from Eastern Indonesia. Melbourne: University of Melbourne dissertation.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2018. Computational phylogenetics. Annual Review of Linguistics 4. 281–96. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Easterday, Shelece. 2022. Primal consonants and the evolution of consonant inventories. Language Dynamics and Change 13(1). 1–33. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-bja10020.10.1163/22105832-bja10020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cathcart, Chundra Aroor. 2018. Modeling linguistic evolution: A look under the hood. Linguistics Vanguard 4(1):20170043. DOI: 10.1515/lingvan-2017-0043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Fei, Wong, Michelle L. Y., Zhu, Shufeng; and Wong, Lena L. N.. 2015. Relative contributions of vowels and consonants in recognizing isolated Mandarin words. Journal of Phonetics 52. 26–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.003.10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleveland, William S. 1979. Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74(368). 829–36. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1979.10481038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2004. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Alqosh. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.Google Scholar
Creanza, Nicole, Ruhlen, Merritt, Pemberton, Trevor J., Rosenberg, Noah A., Feldman, Marcus W.; and Ramachandran, Sohini. 2015. A comparison of worldwide phonemic and genetic variation in human populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(5). 1265–57. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1424033112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crothers, John H. 1978. Typology and universals of vowel systems in phonology. In Greenberg et al., 93–152.Google Scholar
Crothers, John H., Lorentz, James P., Sherman, Donald A.; and Vihman, Marilyn M.. 1979. Handbook of phonological data from a sample of the world's languages: A report of the Stanford Phonology Archive. Stanford, CA: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Sebastián-Galles, Nuria, Soler-Vilageliu, Olga; and Van Ooijen, Brit. 2000. Constraints of vowels and consonants on lexical selection: Cross- linguistic comparisons. Memory & Cognition 28(5). 746–55. DOI: 10.3758/BF03198409.10.3758/BF03198409CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Quantitative methods in typology. Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook, ed. by Köhler, Reinhard, Altmann, Gabriel, and Piotrowski, Rajmund G., 554–78. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael, and Good, Jeff. 2013. Languoid, doculect, and glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language’. Language Documentation & Conservation 7. 331–59. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4606.Google Scholar
Dediu, Dan. 2021. Tone and genes: New cross-linguistic data and methods support the weak negative effect of the ‘derived’ allele of ASPM on tone, but not of Microcephalin. PLOS ONE 16(6):e0253546. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253546.10.1371/journal.pone.0253546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dediu, Dan, Janssen, Rick; and Moisik, Scott R.. 2017. Language is not isolated from its wider environment: Vocal tract influences on the evolution of speech and language. Language & Communication 54. 9–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dediu, Dan, and Ladd, Robert. 2007. Linguistic tone is related to the population frequency of the adaptive haplogroups of two brain size genes, ASPM and Microcephalin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(26). 10944–949. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0610848104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaunay, Boris. 1934. Sur la sphère vide: A la mémoire de Georges Voronoï. Bulletin de l'Academié des Sciences de l'URSS, Classe des Sciences Mathmatiques et Naturelles 1934(6). 793–800. Online: http://mi.mathnet.ru/im4937.Google Scholar
Delle Luche, Claire, Poltrock, Silvana, Goslin, Jeremy, New, Boris, Floccia, Caroline; and Nazzi, Thierry. 2014. Differential processing of consonants and vowels in the auditory modality: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Memory and Language 72. 1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Garbo, Francesca, Kashima, Eri, Napoleaõ, Ricardo, Souza, de; and Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2021. Concepts and methods for integrating language typology and sociolinguistics. Tipologia e sociolinguistica: Verso un approccio integrato allo studio della variazione: Atti del Workshop della Società Linguistica Italiana, 143–76. DOI: 10.17469/O2105SLI000005.10.17469/O2105SLI000005.10.17469/O2105SLI000005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark, and Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Does phoneme inventory size correlate with population size? Linguistic Typology 15(2). 161–70. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2011.011.10.1515/lity.2011.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, Elad. 2019. The typology of phonological segment borrowing. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem MA thesis. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36245.55529.Google Scholar
Everett, Caleb. 2013. Evidence for direct geographic influences on linguistic sounds: The case of ejectives. PLOS ONE 8(6):e65275. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065275.10.1371/journal.pone.0065275CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, Caleb, Blasi, Damián E.; and Roberts, Seán G.. 2015. Climate, vocal folds, and tonal languages: Connecting the physiological and geographic dots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(5). 1322–22. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1417413112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, Caleb, Blasi, Damián E.; and Roberts, Seán G.. 2016. Language evolution and climate: The case of desiccation and tone. Journal of Language Evolution 1. 33–46. DOI: 10.1093/jole/lzv004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Caleb, and Chen, Sihan. 2021. Speech adapts to differences in dentition within and across populations. Scientific Reports 11:1066. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-80190-8.10.1038/s41598-020-80190-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, Caleb, and Schwartz, Sophie. 2023. The typological frequency of consonants is highly predictive of their order of acquisition in English. Linguistic Typology 27(2). 537–52. DOI: 10.1515/lingty-2022-0033.10.1515/lingty-2022-0033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. 1982. Phonetic rarities in Pirahã. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 12(2). 94–96. DOI: 10.1017/S0025100300002498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firchow, Irwin, and Firchow, Jacqueline. 1969. An abbreviated phoneme inventory. Anthropological Linguistics 11. 271–76. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30029468.Google Scholar
Forkel, Robert, List, Johann-Mattis, Greenhill, Simon J., Rzymski, Christoph, Bank, Sebastian, Cysouw, Michael, Hammarström, Harald, Haspelmath, Martin, Kaiping, Gereon A.; and Gray, Russell D.. 2018. Cross-linguistic data formats, advancing data sharing and re-use in comparative linguistics. Scientific Data 5(1): 180205. DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2018.205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fry, D. B., Abramson, Arthur S., Eimas, Peter D.; and Liberman, Alvin M.. 1962. The identification and discrimination of synthetic vowels. Language and Speech 5(4). 171–89. DOI: 10.1177/002383096200500401.10.1177/002383096200500401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, David M., Mok, Peggy, Ordin, Mikhail, Mehler, Jacques; and Nespor, Marina. 2018. Statistical speech segmentation in tone languages: The role of lexical tones. Language and Speech 61(1). 84–96. DOI: 10.1177/0023830917706529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A.; and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.) 1978. Universals of human language, vol. 2: Phonology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J. 2014. Demographic correlates of language diversity. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Bowern, Claire and Evans, Bethwyn, 557–78. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315794013-31.Google Scholar
Grossman, Eitan, Eisen, Elad, Nikolaev, Dmitry; and Moran, Steven. 2020. SEGBO: A database of borrowed sounds in the world's language. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2020), 5316–62. Online: https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.654.Google Scholar
Hall, Kathleen Currie. 2013. A typology of intermediate phonological relationships. The Linguistic Review 30(2). 215–75. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2013-0008.10.1515/tlr-2013-0008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Forkel, Robert, Haspelmath, Martin; and Bank, Sebastian. 2023. Glottolog 4.8. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online: https://glottolog.org/.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Frederik, Roberts, Seán G., Valdes, Paul; and Grollemund, Rebecca. 2024. Investigating environmental effects on phonology using diachronic models. Evolutionary Human Sciences 6:e8. DOI: 10.1017/ehs.2023.33.10.1017/ehs.2023.33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Loanword typology: Steps toward a systematic cross-linguistic study of lexical borrowability. Aspects of language contact: New theoretical, methodological and empirical findings with special focus on Romancisation processes, ed. by Stolz, Thomas, Bakker, Dik, and Palomo, Rosa Salas, 43–62. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110206043.43.10.1515/9783110206043.43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. Loanwords in the world's languages: A comparative handbook, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin and Tadmor, Uri, 35–54. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110218442.35.10.1515/9783110218442.35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Tadmor, Uri (eds.) 2009. The world loanword database (WOLD). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online: https://wold.clld.org/.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26(2). 210–31. DOI: 10.2307/410058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, and Bauer, Laurie. 2007. Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language 83(2). 388–400. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2007.0071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1985. Distinguished lecture: F. American Anthropologist 87(2). 263–81. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1985.87.2.02a00020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofling, Charles A. 2000. Itzaj Maya grammar. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. DOI: 10.1353/book41400.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25. 83–137. DOI: 10.1515/TLIR.2008.003.10.1515/TLIR.2008.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, Dirk P., Bickel, Balthasar; and Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Randomization tests in language typology. Linguistic Typology 10(3). 419–40. DOI: 10.1515/LINGTY.2006.013.10.1515/LINGTY.2006.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelaska, Zrinka, and Machata, Milvia Gulešić. 2005. Prototypicality and the concept of phoneme. Glossos 6. 1–13. Online: https://slaviccenters.duke.edu/sites/slaviccenters.duke.edu/files/site-images/6machata%20x.pdf.Google Scholar
Khalilova, Zaira. 2009. A grammar of Khwarshi. Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14522.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2018. Formal and empirical issues in phonological typology. Phonological typology, ed. by Hyman, Larry M. and Plank, Frans, 54–106. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110451931-003.10.1515/9783110451931-003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2011. A short grammar of Alorese (Austronesian). Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Rosenfelder, Ingrid; and Fruehwald, Josef. 2013. One hundred years of sound change in Philadelphia: Linear incrementation, reversal, and reanalysis. Language 89(1). 30–65. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Yuzhu, Wang, Lining, Wichmann, Søren, Xia, Quansheng, Wang, Shuai, Ding, Jun, Wang, Tian-heng; and Ran, Qibin. 2023. Languages in China link climate, voice quality, and tone in a causal chain. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:453. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-01969-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., Harris, Katherine Safford, Hoffman, Howard S.; and Griffith, Belver C.. 1957. The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54(5). 358–68. DOI: 10.1037/h0044417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindblom, Björn, and Maddieson, Ian. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. Language, speech, and mind: Studies in honour of Victoria A. Fromkin, ed. by Hyman, Larry M. and Li, Charles N., 62–78. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lupyan, Gary, and Dale, Rick. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PLOS ONE 5(1):e8559. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511753459.10.1017/CBO9780511753459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1986. The size and structure of phonological inventories: Analysis of UPSID. Experimental phonology, ed. by Ohala, John J. and Jaeger, Jeri J., 105–23. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 1997. Phonetic universals. The handbook of phonetic sciences, ed. by Hardcastle, William J. and Laver, John, 619–39. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2005. Vowel inventories. The world atlas of language structures, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard. Press, Oxford: Oxford University. Online: https://wals.info/chapter/2.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian, and Benedict, Karl. 2023. Demonstrating environmental impacts on the sound structure of languages: Challenges and solutions. Frontiers in Psychology 14:1200463. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1200463.10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1200463CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddieson, Ian, and Precoda, Kristin. 1989. Updating UPSID. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 74. 104–11. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/71s1701m.Google Scholar
Marsico, Egidio, Flavier, Sebastien, Verkerk, Annemarie; and Moran, Steven. 2018. BDPROTO: A database of phonological inventories from ancient and reconstructed languages. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), 1654–45. Online: https://aclanthology.org/L18-1262.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Matras, Yaron and Sakel, Jeanette, 31–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110199192.31.10.1515/9783110199192.31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511809873.10.1017/CBO9780511809873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2011. Universals of structural borrowing. Linguistic universals and language variation, ed. by Siemund, Peter, 204–33. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110238068.204.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron, and Sakel, Jeanette (eds.) 2007a. Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110199192.10.1515/9783110199192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron, and Sakel, Jeanette. 2007b. Investigating the mechanisms of pattern replication in language convergence. Studies in Language 31(4). 829–65. DOI: 10.1075/sl.31.4.05mat.10.1075/sl.31.4.05matCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMurray, Bob. 2022. The myth of categorical perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 152(6). 3819–94. DOI: 10.1121/10.0016614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesgarani, Nima, Cheung, Connie, Johnson, Keith; and Chang, Edward F.. 2014. Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science 343(6174). 1006–61. DOI: 10.1126/science.1245994.10.1126/science.1245994CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, Amy Whitmore. 1990. A grammar of Jamul Dieguenõ. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Moisik, Scott R., and Dediu, Dan. 2015. Anatomical biasing and clicks: Preliminary biomechanical modelling. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS 2015) satellite event: The evolution of phonetic capabilities: Causes, constraints, consequences, 8–13. Online: https://www.mpi.nl/publications/item_2351030.Google Scholar
Moisik, Scott Reid, and Dediu, Dan. 2017. Anatomical biasing and clicks: Evidence from biomechanical modeling. Journal of Language Evolution 2(1). 37–51. DOI: 10.1093/jole/lzx004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Steven. 2012. Phonetics information base and lexicon. Seattle: University of Washington dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1773/22452.Google Scholar
Moran, Steven, Easterday, Shelece; and Grossman, Eitan. 2023. Current research in phonological typology. Linguistic Typology 27(2). 223–43. DOI: 10.1515/lingty-2022-0069.10.1515/lingty-2022-0069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, Steven, Lester, Nicholas A.; and Grossman, Eitan. 2021. Inferring recent evolutionary changes in speech sounds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 376:20200198. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, Steven, and McCloy, Daniel. 2019. PHOIBLE 2.0. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Online: https://phoible.org/.Google Scholar
Moran, Steven, McCloy;, Daniel and Wright, Richard. 2012. Revisiting population size vs. phoneme inventory size. Language 88(4). 877–93. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0087.10.1353/lan.2012.0087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1975. Borrowed verbs. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 8. 3–30.Google Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 1999. Three processes of borrowing: Borrowability revisited. Bilingualism and migration, ed. by Extra, Guus and Verhoeven, Ludo, 229–46. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110807820.229.Google Scholar
Nazzi, Thierry, Floccia, Caroline, Moquet, Bérangère; and Butler, Joseph. 2009. Bias for consonantal information over vocalic information in 30-month-olds: Cross-linguistic evidence from French and English. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102(4). 522–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.003.10.1016/j.jecp.2008.05.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nazzi, Thierry, Poltrock, Silvana; and Holzen, Katie Von. 2016. The developmental origins of the consonant bias in lexical processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science 25(4). 291–96. DOI: 10.1177/0963721416655786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, Peña, Marcela; and Mehler, Jacques. 2003. On the different roles of vowels and consonants in speech processing and language acquisition. Lingue e Linguaggio 2(2). 203–30. DOI: 10.1418/10879.Google Scholar
Nikolaev, Dmitry. 2019. Areal dependency of consonant inventories. Language Dynamics and Change 9(1). 104–26. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-00901001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, Yoon Mi, Coupé, Christophe, Marsico, Egidio; and Pellegrino, François. 2015. Bridging phonological system and lexicon: Insights from a corpus study of functional load. Journal of Phonetics 53. 153–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.08.003.10.1016/j.wocn.2015.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pericliev, Vladimir. 2004. There is no correlation between the size of a community speaking a language and the size of the phonological inventory of that language. Linguistic Typology 8(3). 376–83. DOI: 10.1515/lity.2004.8.3.376.10.1515/lity.2004.8.3.376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan, Bakker, Dik, Hengeveld, Kees; and Kahrel, Peter. 1993. A method of language sampling. Studies in Language 17(1). 169–203. DOI: 10.1075/sl.17.1.07rij.10.1075/sl.17.1.07rijCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, A. D. 1980. Contribuicoes das linguas brasileiras para a fonetica e a fonologia. XII Reuniao Brasileira de Antropologia, Rio de Janeiro, 263–67.Google Scholar
Schwarzwald, Ora (Rodrigue). 2011. Modern Hebrew. The Semitic languages: An international handbook, ed. by Weninger, Stefan, 523–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110251586.523.Google Scholar
Sheldon, Stephen N. 1974. Some morphophonemic and tone perturbation rules in Mura-Pirahã. International Journal of American Linguistics 40. 279–82. DOI: 10.1086/465324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Donald. 1975. Stop and fricative systems: A discussion of paradigmatic gaps and the question of language sampling. Working Papers on Language Universals 17. 1–31.Google Scholar
Silva, Carlos. 2024. Consonant stability of Portuguese-based creoles. Porto: University of Porto dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/10216/157550.Google Scholar
Simpson, Adrian P. 1999. Fundamental problems in comparative phonetics and phonology: Does UPSID help to solve them? Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), San Francisco, 349–52. Online: https://www.international phoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS1999/p14_0349.html.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Libermann, Alvin M., Studdert-Kennedy, Michael; and Öhman, S. E. G.. 1969. Crosslanguage study of vowel perception. Language and Speech 12(1). 1–23. DOI: 10.1177/002383096901200101.10.1177/002383096901200101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stolz, Thomas, and Levkovych, Nataliya. 2021. Areal linguistics within the Phonological Atlas of Europe: Loan phonemes and their distribution. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110672602.10.1515/9783110672602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world's languages: Findings and results. Loanwords in the world's languages: A comparative handbook, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin and Tadmor, Uri, 55–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110218442.55.10.1515/9783110218442.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadmor, Uri, Haspelmath, Martin; and Taylor, Bradley. 2010. Borrowability and the notion of basic vocabulary. Diachronica 27(2). 226–46. DOI: 10.1075/dia.27.2.04tad.10.1075/dia.27.2.04tadCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey, and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traill, Anthony 2009. A !Xóõ dictionary. Cologne: Rüdiger Koppe.Google Scholar
van Hout, Roeland, and Muysken, Pieter. 1994. Modeling lexical borrowability. Language Variation and Change 6(1). 39–62. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394500001575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2009. The role of features in a symbolic theory of phonology. Contemporary views on architecture and representations in phonology, ed. by Raimy, Eric and Cairns, Charles E., 75–97. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/7997.003.0007.10.7551/mitpress/7997.003.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1979. Languages in contact: Findings and problems. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110802177.10.1515/9783110802177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Sören, Holman, Eric W.; and Brown, Cecil H.. 2020. ASJP database (version 19). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Online: https://asjp.clld.org.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard A. 2004. A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. Phonetically based phonology, ed. by Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca, 34–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486401.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Moran et al. supplementary material

Moran et al. supplementary material
Download Moran et al. supplementary material(File)
File 6.5 MB