Bridget Samuels

Laryngeal markedness and aspiration

We argue that the common phonological assumptions that (i) plain voiceless consonants are less marked than voiceless aspirates and (ii) the unmarked twoway stop system opposes unaspirated voiced and voiceless members are incorrect. A wide range of phonetic and internal and external phonological evidence suggests instead that (i) the maximally unmarked single-series stop is unspecified for laryngeal features and (ii) the unmarked two-way stop system opposes aspirated and unaspirated stops, and the aspirated series may be the unmarked member of this set.

Explaining vowel systems: dispersion theory vs natural selection

Abstract We argue that the cross-linguistic distribution of vowel systems is best accounted for by grammar-external forces of learnability operating in tandem with cognitive constraints on phonological computation, as argued for other phonological phenomena by Blevins (2004). On this view, the range of possible vowel systems is constrained only by what is computable and learnable; the range of attested vowel systems is a subset of this, constrained by relative learnability (Hale and Reiss 2000a, Hale and Reiss 2000b; Newmeyer 2005). A system that is easier to learn (e.g., one whose members are more dispersed in perceptual space) is predicted by our model to become more common cross-linguistically over evolutionary time than its less learnable competitors. This analysis efficiently accounts for both the typological patterns found in vowel systems and the existence of a non-trivial number of “unnatural” systems in the world’s languages. We compare this model with the leading forms of Dispersion Theory (notably Flemming’s (1995) implementation in Optimality Theory), which seek to explain sound patterns in terms of interaction between conflicting functional constraints on maximization of perceptual contrast and minimization of articulatory effort. Dispersion Theory is shown to be unable to generate the attested range of vowel systems or predict their interesting properties, such as the centralization typically found in two-vowel systems and the quality of epenthetic segments.

The topology of infixation and reduplication

Abstract This article is concerned with how to characterize and constrain the typology of reduplication and affixation, given Raimys (Representing reduplication, University of Delaware dissertation, 1999 et seq.) precedence-based theory of phonological representations as directed graphs. First, we establish a typology of attested reduplication and infixation anchor points based on an empirical survey. We then extend the search and copy algorithms proposed by Mailhot & Reiss (Biolinguistics 1: 28–48, 2007) for long-distance assimilation (harmony) processes to the morphological domain, proposing modifications to reconcile this formalism with Raimys. Finally, we argue for an amended version of a proposal by Idsardi & Shorey (Unwinding morphology, 2007) regarding the process by which ‘looped’ representations created during the course of morphological concatenation are linearized.

Correction: Self-domestication in Homo sapiens: Insights from comparative genomics

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185306.].