Skip to main content Accessibility help

Explaining sonority projection effects*

  • Robert Daland (a1), Bruce Hayes (a1), James White (a1), Marc Garellek (a1), Andrea Davis (a2) and Ingrid Norrmann (a1)...


The term sonority projection refers to behavioural distinctions speakers make between unattested phonological sequences on the basis of sonority. For example, among onset clusters, the well-formedness relation [bn]>[lb] is observed in speech perception, speech production and non-word acceptability (Davidson 2006, 2007, Berent et al. 2007, Albright, ms). We begin by replicating the sonority projection effects in a non-word acceptability study. Then we evaluate the extent to which sonority projection is predicted by existing computational models of phonotactics (Coleman & Pierrehumbert 1997, Hayes & Wilson 2008, inter alia). We show that a model based only on lexical statistics can explain sonority projection in English without a pre-existing sonority sequencing principle. To do this, a model must possess (i) a featural system supporting sonority-based generalisations, and (ii) a context representation including syllabification or equivalent information.



Hide All
Albright, Adam (2009). Feature-based generalisation as a source of gradient acceptability. Phonology 26. 9–41.
Albright, Adam (ms). Natural classes are not enough: biased generalization in novel onset clusters. MIT.
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Douglas J. & Bates, Douglas M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 390412.
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard & Rijn, Hedderik van (1995). The CELEX lexical database. [CD-ROM: Release 2.] Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. LI 10. 533581.
Bailey, Todd M. & Hahn, Ulrike (2001). Determinants of wordlikeness: phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods? Journal of Memory and Language 44. 568591.
Baroni, Marco (2001). How do languages get crazy constraints? Phonetically-based phonology and the evolution of the Galeata Romagnolo vowel system. UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7: Papers in Phonology 5. 152178.
Bates, David & Maechler, Martin (2009). Package ‘lme4’ (Version 0.999375-32): linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Available (April 2011) at
Berent, Iris (2008). Are phonological representations of printed and spoken language isomorphic? Evidence from the restrictions on unattested onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34. 12881304.
Berent, Iris, Lennertz, Tracy, Jun, Jongho, Moreno, Miguel A. & Smolensky, Paul (2008). Language universals in human brains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105. 53215325.
Berent, Iris, Steriade, Donca, Lennertz, Tracy & Vaknin, Vered (2007). What we know about what we have never heard: evidence from perceptual illusions. Cognition 104. 591630.
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.
Clements, G. N. (1992). The Sonority Cycle and syllable organization. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E. & Rennison, John R. (eds.) Phonologica 1988. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 6376.
Coady, Jeffry A. & Evans, Julia L. (2008). Uses and interpretations of non-word repetition tasks in children with and without specific language impairments (SLI). International Journal of Language Communication Disorders 43. 140.
Coetzee, Andries W. (2008). Grammaticality and ungrammaticality in phonology. Lg 84. 218257.
Coetzee, Andries W. (2009). Grammar is both categorical and gradient. In Parker, Stephen G. (ed.) Phonological argumentation: essays on evidence and motivation. London: Equinox. 9–42.
Coleman, John & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (1997). Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. In Coleman, John (ed.) Proceedings of the 3rd Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology. Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics. 4956.
Coppieters, René (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Lg 63. 544573.
Daland, Robert & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2011). Learning diphone-based segmentation. Cognitive Science 35. 119155.
Davidson, Lisa (2006). Phonology, phonetics, or frequency: influences on the production of non-native sequences. JPh 34. 104137.
Davidson, Lisa (2007). The relationship between the perception of non-native phonotactics and loanword adaptation. Phonology 24. 261286.
Davidson, Lisa (2010). Phonetic bases of similarities in cross-language production: evidence from English and Catalan. JPh 38. 272288.
Della Pietra, Stephen, Pietra, Vincent Della & Lafferty, John (1997). Inducing features of random fields. IEEE Transactions: Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 19. 380393.
Duanmu, San (2000). The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dupoux, Emmanuel, Kakehi, Kazuhiko, Hirose, Yuki, Pallier, Christophe & Mehler, Jacques (1999). Epenthetic vowels in Japanese: a perceptual illusion? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25. 15681578.
Edwards, Jan, Beckman, Mary E. & Munson, Benjamin (2004). The interaction between vocabulary size and phonotactic probability effects on children's production accuracy and fluency in nonword repetition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47. 421436.
Frisch, Stefan A., Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Broe, Michael B. (2004). Similarity avoidance and the OCP. NLLT 22. 179228.
Frisch, Stefan A. & Zawaydeh, Bushra Adnan (2001). The psychological reality of OCP-place in Arabic. Lg 77. 91–106.
Gale, William A. & Sampson, Geoffrey (1995). Good-Turing frequency estimation without tears. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 2. 217237.
Goldrick, Matthew (in press). Utilizing psychological realism to advance phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goldsmith, John & Riggle, Jason (to appear). Information theoretic approaches to phonological structure: the case of vowel harmony. NLLT.
Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark (2003). Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenador, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.) Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory. Stockholm: Stockholm University. 111120.
Hay, Jennifer, Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Beckman, Mary E. (2003). Speech perception, well-formedness and the statistics of the lexicon. In Local, John, Ogden, Richard & Temple, Rosalind (eds.) Phonetic interpretation: papers in laboratory phonology VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 5874.
Hayes, Bruce (in press). Interpreting sonority-projection experiments: the role of phonotactic modeling. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences.
Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert & Steriade, Donca (eds.) (2004). Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, Bruce & Steriade, Donca (2004). Introduction: the phonetic bases of phonological Markedness. In Hayes, et al. . (2004). 133.
Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin (2008). A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. LI 39. 379440.
Hockett, Charles F. (1947). Peiping phonology. Journal of the American Oriental Society 67. 253267. Reprinted in Martin Joos (ed.) (1966). Readings in linguistics I. 4th edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 217–228.
Hooper, Joan B. (1976). An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.
Jespersen, Otto (1904). Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.
Joseph, John E. (1995). Natural grammar, arbitrary lexicon: an enduring parallel in the history of linguistic thought. Language and Communication 15. 213225.
Jurafsky, Daniel & Martin, James H. (2009). Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. 2nd edn. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kager, René & Pater, Joe (ms). Phonotactics as phonology: knowledge of a complex restriction in Dutch. University of Utrecht & University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Kawahara, Shigeto (2008). Phonetic naturalness and unnaturalness in Japanese loanword phonology. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17. 317330.
Kawahara, Shigeto (2011). Modes of phonological judgment. Ms, Rutgers University. Available as ROA-1140 from the Rutgers Optimality Archive.
Koo, Hahn & Cole, Jennifer (2006). On learnability and naturalness as constraints on phonological grammar. In Botinis, Antonis (ed.) Proceedings of ISCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics. Athens: University of Athens. 165168.
Lee, Yongsung (1994). Onset analysis of Korean on-glides. In Kim-Renaud, Young-Key (ed.) Theoretical issues in Korean linguistics. Stanford: CSLI. 133–156.
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro & Smolensky, Paul (1990). Harmonic Grammar: a formal multi-level connectionist theory of linguistic well-formedness: an application. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. 884891.
McFadden, Daniel (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Zarembka, Paul (ed.) Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press. 105142.
Manning, Christopher D. & Schütze, Hinrich (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Parker, Stephen G. (2002). Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available (May 2011) at
Pater, Joe (2009). Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science 33. 999–1035.
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2006). The statistical basis of an unnatural alternation. In Goldstein, Louis, Whalen, D. H. & Best, Catherine T. (eds.) Laboratory Phonology 8. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 81–106.
Potts, Christopher, Pater, Joe, Jesney, Karen, Bhatt, Rajesh & Becker, Michael (2010). Harmonic Grammar with linear programming: from linear systems to linguistic typology. Phonology 27. 77–117.
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.
R Development Core Team (2006). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available (May 2011) at
Ren, Jie, Gao, Liqun & Morgan, James L. (2010). Mandarin speakers' knowledge of the sonority sequencing principle. Paper presented at the 20th Colloquium on Generative Grammar, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.
Selkirk, Elizabeth (1982). The syllable. In Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval (eds.) The structure of phonological representations. Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris. 337383.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1984). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Aronoff, Mark & Oerhle, Richard T. (eds.) Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 107136.
Sievers, Eduard (1881). Grundzüge der Phonetik, zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.
Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine (2006). The harmonic mind: from neural computation to optimality-theoretic grammar. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Vitevitch, Michael S. & Luce, Paul A. (2004). A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36. 481487.
Wilson, Colin & Davidson, Lisa (in press). Bayesian analysis of non-native cluster production. NELS 40.
Wright, Richard (2004). A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness. In Hayes, et al. (2004). 3457.
Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Daland et al. supplementary data
Training set

 Unknown (238 KB)
238 KB
Supplementary materials

Daland supplementary material
Supplementary information

 PDF (35 KB)
35 KB

Explaining sonority projection effects*

  • Robert Daland (a1), Bruce Hayes (a1), James White (a1), Marc Garellek (a1), Andrea Davis (a2) and Ingrid Norrmann (a1)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed