## 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

languages are more likely than any of the other categories to have syllabic consonants – is not driven by the inclusion of syllabic obstruents in the definition of that category, or skewed by potential misanalyses which confound syllabic obstruents and large tautosyllabic clusters. The trend can be obtained from the syllabic nasal and liquid patterns in the sample.

While the analyses presented above are for the invariant syllabic consonant patterns observed in the sample, there were also several cases in which syllabic consonants were reported to occur in variation with CV or VC sequences, as illustrated by (17–18).

(17) Sichuan Yi (Sino-Tibetan; China)

Nasals and laterals preceding [i] occur in free variation with syllabic consonants.

/li/

[li]~[l] (Gerner 2013: 31)

(18) Mamaindê (Nambiquaran; Brazil)

When an unstressed vowel is lost resulting in a sequence of nasal plus consonant, a preceding nasal becomes syllabic.

/'johnalatʰawa/

['johatʰwa]

'it is low' (Eberhard 2009: 262–263)

<table><caption>Table 3.7: Distribution of languages in sample with syllabic nasals, liquids, and obstruents occurring in variation with VC or CV structures.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Languages with variable:</th><th colspan="4">Syllable Structure Complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>1 lg.</th><th>MC<br>3 lgs.</th><th>C<br>2 lgs.</th><th>HC<br>3 lgs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Syllabic nasals</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Syllabic liquids</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Syllabic obstruents</td><td>-</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>

Table 3.7 shows the distribution of variable processes producing syllabic consonants in the data. Though the data set is very small, it is interesting that the general distributional pattern is similar to that presented in Table 3.6. The occurrence of syllabic consonants in variation with VC or CV structures is least
frequent among languages with Simple syllable structure, and in all categories
nasals are the most common syllabic consonant to result. Variable syllabic ob-
struents occur in two languages. In Paiwan (Moderately Complex), syllabic ob-
struents may occur when schwa is reduced immediately after a sibilant in rapid
speech, and in Kabardian (Highly Complex), they occur as the result of an op-
tional process of high vowel contraction (19–20):

(19) Paiwan (Austronesian; Taiwan)
/səkam/
[səkam]~[şkam]
‘mattress’ (Chang 2006: 41)

(20) Kabardian (Abkhaz-Adyge; Russia, Turkey)
/ʌ’əʒ/
[ʌ’iʒ]~[ʌ’ʒ]
‘old man’ (Kuipers 1960: 24)

Kabardian is also the only language in the sample reported to have both invari-
ant syllabic consonants (for sonorants in certain consonant environments) and
variable syllabic consonants as a result of synchronic phonetic processes like the
one illustrated above.

Returning to the hypothesis stated at the beginning of this section, there is
evidence that languages with more complex syllable structure are more likely to
have syllabic consonant patterns. Specifically, languages with Highly Complex
syllable structure are the most likely of all those in the sample to have invariant
syllabic consonants, while languages with Simple syllable structure are the least
likely. Variable processes resulting in syllabic consonants are also relatively more
frequent in languages with non-Simple syllable structure.

**3.3.6 Morphological patterns**

In this section I analyze the morphological patterns associated with syllable pat-
terns in the language sample. First, I report the morphological constituency pat-
terns observed in the maximal onset and coda structures in each language. Then
I present an analysis of the kinds of morphemes (lexical or grammatical) in which
syllabic consonants in the language sample occur. I test the hypotheses formu-
lated in §3.1.2 with respect to these patterns: first, that as syllable structure com-
plexity increases, so does the likelihood that the largest syllable margin types in a
language will be morphologically complex; and second, that as syllable structure
complexity increases, so does the likelihood that syllabic consonants occurring
in a language will belong to grammatical elements.
### 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

Since morphologically complex instances of syllable patterns are often not explicitly described and must be gathered from the examples, it was impractical and in many cases impossible to find morpheme-internal and morphologically complex instances of the same specific consonant sequence in each language, especially for the larger clusters. The patterns analyzed here are for the maximal onset and coda *types*, e.g. CC. For example, the maximal coda in Gaam is two consonants. The word-final patterns shown in the examples below would be taken as evidence that the maximal coda occurs in both morpheme-internal (21a) and morphologically complex (21b) contexts.

#### (21) Gaam (Eastern Jebel; Sudan)

a. bāgḍārs
‘lizard type’

b. gəūr-ḍ
stomach-sg
‘stomach’ (Stirtz 2011: 32, 37)

Note also that the definition of *morphologically complex* here refers to sequences derived by any morphological process. That is, sequences derived through reduplication or nonconcatenative processes such as subtractive morphology are also considered to be morphologically complex, even though they don’t involve more than one distinct morpheme.

First I test Greenberg’s (1978) prediction in the data: as the size of a syllable margin increases, so does the probability that it contains morpheme boundaries. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show morphological constituency patterns in maximal onset and coda types in the data.

For both maximal onset and maximal coda patterns in the data, the proportion of languages having these clusters solely in morphologically complex contexts increases with cluster size. However, morphologically complex patterns also occur alongside morpheme-internal patterns in the maximal margins for a number of languages (the “Both patterns” trend in Figures 3.3 and 3.4). When this trend is additionally considered, we find that maximal coda cluster types are generally more likely than maximal onset types to exhibit morphologically complex patterns. We also find that all maximal cluster types of five consonants or larger are found only in morphologically complex contexts.

Interestingly, there are some language-internal patterns in the data which go against Greenberg’s prediction. In Lelepa there are biconsonantal onsets showing both morphological patterns, but the only attested triconsonantal onsets are within morphemes (22a–c).
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Figure 3.3: Morphological constituency patterns in maximal onset types in data. For each maximal onset type, figure shows proportion of languages exhibiting the given morphological patterns for that type.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Figure 3.4: Morphological constituency patterns in maximal coda types in data. For each maximal coda type, figure shows proportion of languages exhibiting the given morphological patterns for that type.

(22) Lelepa (Austronesian; Vanuatu)

a. n-malogo
NMLZ-darken
‘darkness’

b. nmal
‘trunk’

c. psruki
'speak'
(Lacrampe 2014: 107, 207, 42)

The analyses presented in Figures 3.3–3.4 test Greenberg’s specific predictions regarding cluster size. However, the hypothesis in (4a) is formulated with respect
### 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

to syllable structure complexity, which is a slightly different question, though we expect to find a similar pattern due to how the categories are defined. In Figures 3.5–3.6 I present the morphological constituency patterns observed by syllable structure complexity category. Note that these figures only include the languages from each category which have complex onsets or complex codas, respectively.

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.5: Morphological constituency patterns in maximal complex onsets, by syllable structure complexity category. For each category, the figure shows the proportion of languages exhibiting the given morphological patterns in its complex onsets.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.6: Morphological constituency patterns in maximal complex codas, by syllable structure complexity category. For each category, the figure shows the proportion of languages exhibiting the given morphological patterns in its complex onsets. Note that the one language with complex codas from the Moderately Complex category – Eastern Khanty – is not included in the figure. Its very marginal complex codas are always morphologically complex.</figcaption></figure>

The figures show that as syllable structure complexity increases, both maximal onset and maximal coda clusters are more likely to have morphologically complex patterns, confirming the hypothesis in (4a).

The patterns in Figures 3.5–3.6 are combined in Figure 3.7 in order to show the general trend for morphologically complex patterns in maximal syllable-marginal clusters with respect to syllable structure complexity in the language sam-
ple. In this figure onset and coda patterns are collapsed, and the “both contexts” and “only morphologically complex” patterns are combined. For each category, the figure shows the percentage of languages with complex syllable margins for which morphologically complex patterns occur in either or both maximal syllable margins.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3.7: Percentage of languages in each category exhibiting morphologically complex patterns in either or both of their maximal syllable margins.</figcaption></figure>

Morphologically complex patterns can be found in the maximal syllable margins of most languages from the Highly Complex category, and this pattern is statistically significant when compared against the patterns in the other two categories combined ($p < 0.01$ in Fisher's exact test). However, there are six languages in this category for which I could determine only morpheme-internal patterns. In Wutung, the maximal margin is explicitly described as occurring within a few apparently single-morpheme lexical items. In Kunjen and Lezgian, maximal coda and onset clusters, respectively, seem to be limited to single-morpheme lexical items, though the references consulted do not explicitly state this. In Menya, the only morphologically complex instance of a maximal cluster that could be found was in an abstract phonemic transcription for which the phonetic form was unclear. In Passamaquoddy-Maliseet, examples of morphologically complex instances of maximal clusters could not be found, though it seems as though the morphology could produce them. The remaining language, Semai, has syllabic consonants and will be discussed below.

Recall that there are four languages in the Highly Complex portion of the sample for which the largest word-marginal obstruent sequences include syllabic consonants. The maximal “true” onset/coda clusters reported for these languages (cf. Table 3.2) were included in the previous analyses in this section, but the maximal word-marginal sequences were not. I present the morphological patterns for these sequences in Table 3.8.
### 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

<table><caption>Table 3.8: Morphological patterns of maximal word-marginal obstruent sequences in languages with syllabic obstruents in Highly Complex category.</caption><thead><tr><th>Language</th><th>Maximal #<br>obstruent string</th><th>Morphol.<br>pattern</th><th>Maximal #<br>obstruent string</th><th>Morphol.<br>pattern</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cocopa</td><td>5</td><td>complex</td><td>3</td><td>complex</td></tr><tr><td>Semai</td><td>4</td><td>complex</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Tashlhiyt</td><td><sup>a</sup></td><td>complex</td><td><sup>a</sup></td><td>complex</td></tr><tr><td>Tehuelche</td><td>3</td><td>complex</td><td>&gt;3</td><td>complex</td></tr></tbody></table>

All of the maximal word-marginal obstruent sequences in the languages in Table 3.8 occur in morphologically complex contexts. For example, in Semai, all maximal word-initial consonant sequences, and indeed all word-initial sequences of more than two consonants, are derived through reduplication processes (23).

(23) Semai (Austroasiatic; Malaysia)

gp.g.hup (< ghup )

'irritation on skin (e.g. from bamboo hair)'

(Sloan 1988: 320; Difflath 1976a: 256)

Though maximal word-marginal obstruent string length cannot be determined in Tashlhiyt due to the occurrence of many words consisting entirely of obstruents in this language, the longest such words are morphologically complex (24).

(24) Tashlhiyt (Afro-Asiatic; Morocco)

t-s:-k)f-f-t:=st:

ts.sk.jf.tst:

'you dried it (F)'

(Ridouane 2008: 332; interlinear gloss not provided)

Now we turn to the hypothesis in (4b): as syllable structure complexity increases, so does the likelihood that syllabic consonants occurring in a language will belong to grammatical elements. This is based partly on Bell's (1978b) observation that the syllabic consonants in his typological survey were often restricted to grammatical particles and affixes.

Only the languages reported in §3.3.5 as having invariant syllabic consonant patterns are included in the analysis here. Additionally, Kabardian is excluded

<footnote><sup>a</sup>(words without vowels)</footnote>
from the present analysis because its precise patterns could not be determined. For each kind of syllabic consonant analyzed (nasal, liquid, and obstruent), I determine whether that type occurs in lexical morphemes, grammatical morphemes, or both. For example, in Bench, syllabic nasals can be found in both lexical and grammatical morphemes (25).

(25) Bench (*Ta-Ne-Omotic*; Ethiopia)

a. gũpĩ
'foam'

b. njā-ñd
child-pl

'children'

(Rapold 2006: 107, 111)

In Tables 3.9–3.11 I present analyses for the morphological patterns of each kind of syllabic consonant (nasal, liquid, and obstruent) observed in the data.

<table><caption>Table 3.9: Morphological patterns of syllabic nasals in sample, by syllable structure complexity. Kabardian (Highly Complex) is omitted as its pattern could not be determined.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Languages with<br>syllabic nasals in:</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>2 lgs.</th><th>MC<br>5 lgs.</th><th>C<br>6 lgs.</th><th>HC<br>9 lgs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lexical morphemes only</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Lex. and gram. morphemes</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Gram. morphemes only</td><td>1</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3.10: Morphological patterns of syllabic liquids in sample, by syllable structure complexity. Kabardian (Highly Complex) is omitted as its pattern could not be determined.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Languages with<br>syllabic liquids in:</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>0 lgs.</th><th>MC<br>2 lgs.</th><th>C<br>1 lg.</th><th>HC<br>5 lgs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lexical morphemes only</td><td>-</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Lex. and gram. morphemes</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Gram. morphemes only</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table>
### 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

<table><caption>Table 3.11: Morphological patterns of syllabic obstruents in sample, by syllable structure complexity.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Languages with<br>syllabic obstruents in:</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>0 lgs.</th><th>MC<br>0 lgs.</th><th>C<br>0 lgs.</th><th>HC<br>5 lgs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lexical morphemes only</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Lex. and gram. morphemes</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Gram. morphemes only</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>4</td></tr></tbody></table>

In general, the pattern by which syllabic consonants are found to occur in grammatical morphemes, either exclusively or in addition to lexical morphemes, is the dominant one in the data. This is the case for 15/22 languages with syllabic nasals and all of the languages with syllabic obstruents, though this trend does not hold for languages with syllabic liquids. Within this very small data set, the trend also appears to increase with syllable structure complexity, suggesting support for the hypothesis.

In fact most of the languages with syllabic consonants in the Highly Complex category have these sounds in grammatical items. In Tehuelche, for example, *all* syllabic consonants correspond to or belong to grammatical morphemes (26).

(26) Tehuelche (*Chonan*; Argentina)

k.tʃaʔʃp.ʃ.k'n

k-tʃaʔʃp-ʃ-k'n

REFL-wash-PS-REALIS

‘it is being washed’ (Fernández Garay & Hernández 2006: 13)<fnref n="7" />

To summarize, in this section the morphological patterns of maximal onset types, maximal coda types, and syllabic consonant inventories in the sample have been examined. In both cases there is support for the hypotheses in (4). Clearly morphology contributes an important role to the development of complex syllable patterns. While this point will be only briefly revisited in the discussion in §3.5, it will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 8.

<footnote n="7">⁷Syllabic diacritics are not used in the transcription of this word in the source cited, but affixes of shapes C and CC, when attaching to a C in the stem, are transcribed as corresponding to their own syllables in Tehuelche (Fernández Garay 1998: 101–102).</footnote>
### 3.4 Properties of highly complex syllable structure

Having described the general patterns of maximal onsets, maximal codas, and syllabic consonants in the data, I now turn to an examination of the properties of syllable structure in the languages in the Highly Complex portion of the sample. In §3.4.1 I give examples of the syllable patterns occurring in each of these languages. In §3.4.2 I attempt to characterize the prevalence of Highly Complex structures within each of the languages by examining restrictions on consonant combinations and reported frequency patterns. In §3.4.3 I present information on the acoustic and perceptual properties of Highly Complex structures.

#### 3.4.1 Examples of Highly Complex syllable patterns in sample

In order to provide a better picture of what specific syllable patterns occur in the languages of the Highly Complex portion of the sample, I list some representative structures in Table 3.12. The definition of Highly Complex syllable structure includes any onset or coda structure of three obstruents, or of four consonants or more in length. It also includes any word-marginal sequence containing syllabic obstruents such that a sequence of three or more obstruents occurs at a word margin. For each language I give a set of examples for each onset, coda, and/or word-marginal cluster that occurs at each of the following lengths: three consonants, four consonants, and five or more consonants. For Tashlhiyt, I have given some examples of vowelless words in the rightmost column, but have not assigned them to a word margin.

<table><caption>Table 3.12: Representative sample of Highly Complex patterns occurring in data. (–) indicates that there are no reported patterns of this kind in the given language. The Yine patterns are in parentheses because they are representative triconsonantal clusters for the language but do not contain three obstruents (see discussion in §3.2.3).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Language</th><th colspan="3">Highly Complex structures</th></tr><tr><th>3-obstruent</th><th>4-C</th><th>5-C and larger</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alamblak</td><td>O: tkb</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Bench</td><td>Cd: pst</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Menya</td><td>O: tpq, ptq</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Kabardian</td><td>O: zby, pct, psk'</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Lezgian</td><td>O: jtk, kst, ktk</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Yine</td><td>O: (pcr, ntsp, ntjk)</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Camsá</td><td>O: stx, stfb, stfs</td><td>O: φstx</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Semai</td><td>#.: st.s</td><td>#.: gp.g.h</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>
3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

<table><thead><tr><th>Language</th><th>3-obstruent</th><th>4-C</th><th>5-C and larger</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Nuu-chah-nulth</td><td>Cd: tʃtq, kqs, qtʃs, thts</td><td>Cd: mtqʃ, ḫsqh, nkqh</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Wutung</td><td>–</td><td>O: hmbl</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Doyayo</td><td>–</td><td>Cd: βlts, γldz, mnts</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Kunjen</td><td>–</td><td>Cd: lbmb, 1dnd, jgŋŋ</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Passamaquoddy-Maliseet</td><td>O: psk, ksp, pskw<br>Cd: pskw, kskw</td><td>–</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Qawasqar</td><td>O: qsq, qst, qsk<br>Cd: qsq</td><td>O: qsqj</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Tehuelche</td><td>_#: kʃ.x, kʃ.?<br>Cd: ?ʃp</td><td>_#: ʃp.ʃ.k'</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Albanian</td><td>O: skt, pʃt<br>Cd: pft, kst</td><td>O: tʃmpl, zmbr</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Mohawk</td><td>O: ksk, kts, kst, kht<br>Cd: ?ks, ?ts, kst</td><td>O: shnj, khnj</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Yakima</td><td>O: pʃχ, tkws, q'ʃp</td><td>O: ʃtχn, ksks</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Sahaptin</td><td>Cd: tks, stk, pt1k</td><td>Cd: wtkwʃ, wq'χʃ, jlps</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Tohono<br>O'odham</td><td>Cd: gsp, tpk, bstʃ, psk</td><td>O: nds?<br>Cd: tʃtktʃ, tʃspk, gssp</td><td>–</td></tr><tr><td>Polish</td><td>O: pft, xft, tkf<br>Cd: psk, stf, tʃfp</td><td>O: ps tf, fksf, vzgl<br>Cd: pstf, tstf, rstf, pstf</td><td>O: spstr<br>Cd: mpstf</td></tr><tr><td>Thompson</td><td>O: spt, sts'k<br>Cd: xwkt, xwsts, psts</td><td>Cd: tsssts, jxsts, ikst</td><td>Cd: tqsxtxw</td></tr><tr><td>Itelmen</td><td>O: kth, kp'k', 1qz<br>Cd: p1h, sht</td><td>O: ttxn, ksxw, ktxl<br>Cd: ntʃpx, mp1x, 1txtʃ</td><td>O: kp1kn, tksxqz, kstk'1kn<br>Cd: nx1xtʃ, mstxtʃ</td></tr><tr><td>Georgian</td><td>O: t'k'b, p'ts'k', psk'</td><td>O: txzβ, ts'q'rt, brts'q'<br>Cd: rtxl, rt'q'l, ntʃxl</td><td>O: p'rts'k'β, gβprtskβn<br>Cd: ntʃxls, rts'q'βs, rt'k'ls</td></tr><tr><td>Cocopa</td><td>O: sxt, pskw, xps<br>Cd: qsk, gsk, xsk</td><td>O: stʃx?, pstʃ?</td><td>_#: pk.ʃkw</td></tr><tr><td>Tashlhiyt</td><td>_#: ts.t<br>_#: kwtt, ʃ.kd</td><td>_#: p.tʃx.m<br>_#: ts:χs<br>_#: stst:</td><td>(V-less wds:) ts:ftχt,<br>tftktst.; ts:kʃftst:</td></tr></tbody></table>

The languages in Table 3.12 are organized so as to highlight several coherent patterns in the data. In the first set of languages (Alamblak, Bench, Menya, Kabardian, Lezgian, Yine, Camsá, Semai, and Nuu-chah-nulth), Highly Complex patterns are limited to one syllable or word margin, usually the onset/initial context. The Highly Complex patterns in these languages are typically limited to triconsonantal clusters, though four-consonant clusters occur in Camsá, Semai, and Nuu-chah-nulth. In the second group of languages (Wutung, Doyayo, and
3.4 Properties of highly complex syllable structure

Kunjen), four-consonant clusters occur at one syllable margin, but triconsonantal patterns falling under the definition of Highly Complex (that is, sequences of three obstruents) do not occur. In this group, the CCCC clusters include at least one, but usually two, sonorants. Finally, in the remaining 13 languages, Highly Complex patterns occur in both margins and almost always include clusters of various sizes.

It is typically the case in the language sample that if a language has syllable margins of three obstruents, then any larger margins which occur in the language may also include sequences of three or more obstruents. The only apparent exceptions to this trend are four-consonant onsets in Albanian and Mohawk, and four-consonant codas in Georgian. In these cases, the larger clusters always include more than one sonorant, such that sequences of more than two obstruents do not occur, e.g. Georgian coda /rtʻqʼl/. In all other languages with both triconsonantal and larger Highly Complex structures, long strings of obstruents are a hallmark characteristic of the larger structures. That is, the patterns in the third group of languages described above are not simply an amalgamation of the patterns from the first and second groups of languages described above. The second group (Wutung, Doyoyo, and Kunjen) represents a minority pattern in that the only Highly Complex structures occurring in these languages do not involve strings of more than two obstruents.

It should also be noted that languages with syllabic consonants do not behave
as a group apart from the other languages with respect to the distribution of their
Highly Complex sequences. Semai patterns with the first group of languages,
while Tehuelche, Cocopa, and Tashlhiyt pattern with the third group.

Table 3.12 does not provide an exhaustive list of Highly Complex structures for each language; however, for a few languages for which this is a minor pattern, an exhaustive or near-exhaustive list is given. This is the case for Alamblak and Menya. The Highly Complex onsets listed for these languages are not explicitly stated in the references to be the only structures of this sort, but a search of the examples and texts yielded only these patterns. In Bench and Wutung, the single onset given for each language is explicitly stated to be the only one occurring. For other languages, the lists given for larger structures may be exhaustive, but those given for smaller structures may be a tiny representative sample. This is the case for Polish, which has few onsets and codas of five consonants, but a much larger variety of smaller clusters than what is shown here. In the next section, I will discuss issues of the prevalence of Highly Complex syllable patterns in more detail.
#### 3.4.2 Prevalence of Highly Complex syllable patterns within languages

Here I attempt to characterize the prevalence of Highly Complex syllable patterns in the sample. First I examine restrictions on the combinations of consonants occurring in Highly Complex structures in each language. Then I present information on the relative frequency (either quantified or impressionistic) of these patterns as reported in the language descriptions. Together, these measures provide a rough diagnostic for the relative prevalence of the target syllable patterns within the Highly Complex languages of the sample.

The analysis of restrictions on consonant combinations presented below is based primarily on the patterns of the smaller Highly Complex structures in each language. This is because the point here is to characterize the prevalence of Highly Complex patterns in general, and not just the maximal patterns occurring in each language. The analysis of restrictions on consonant combinations relies on patterns explicitly reported by the author. In some cases, no explicit description of consonant combinations is given, and I rely on patterns gleaned from the available examples.

For each language, I have classified the Highly Complex patterns which occur into three categories based on their combinatorial restrictions: Severely Restricted, Relatively Restricted, and Relatively Free. Where a language has Highly Complex structures in both margins and the patterns are qualitatively different, I examine the onset and coda separately. In (27-29) I give the definition for each category and illustrative examples from the data. The raw number of potential consonant combinations in a language is, of course, a function of the number of consonants in its phoneme inventory. I have attempted to define these categories so that they do not refer to or depend heavily upon the size of the consonant inventory of the given language.

(27) **Severely Restricted:** Just a handful (< 5) of Highly Complex sequences occur, and/or every member of the sequence has specific restrictions.

a. Wutung (Sko; Papua New Guinea)

Restrictions on onsets of four consonants:

Only /hmbl/ occurs.<fnref n="8" />

e.g. *hmblie*

‘left hand’

(Marmion 2010: 69)

<footnote n="8">⁸The /h/ here appears to be a separate consonant segment and does not represent a modification of the phonation of the following nasal. Marmion (2010: 54) describes it as a segment which can optionally elide preceding sonorant consonants.</footnote>
b. Doyayo (*Atlantic-Congo*; Cameroon)

Restrictions on codas of four consonants:

C₁: must be /b g m ŋ/ (/b g/ usually realized as [β γ] in clusters)

C₂: must be /l r n/

C₃: must be /d t/

C₄: must be /s z/

Additionally, C₃ and C₄ must match in voicing.

e.g. *deβrts*

‘be cut off for’ (Wiering & Wiering 1994: 41–42)

(28) **Relatively Restricted:** There are general restrictions on the voicing, place, or manner of some or all members, and/or specific restrictions on one or two (but not all) members.

a. Lezgian (*Nakh-Daghestanian*; Russia, Azerbaijan)

Restrictions on onsets of three consonants:

C₁: voiceless obstruent

C₂: voiceless obstruent or /r/

C₃: voiceless obstruent or sonorant

e.g. *kʰstɑχ*

‘spoiled child’ (Haspelmath 1993: 37)

b. Passamaquoddy-Maliseet (*Algic*; Canada, USA)

Restrictions on onsets of three consonants:

Apart from a few exceptions, triconsonantal onsets or codas are always of the form CsC.

e.g. *kspison*

‘belt’ (LeSourd 1993: 121)

(29) **Relatively Free:** There may be a few abstract restrictions on consonant combinations, and/or combinations are described by author as free or unrestricted.

Yakima Sahaptin (*Sahaptian*; USA)

Restrictions on codas of three and four consonants:

Clusters of glottalized or labialized obstruents do not occur.

e.g. *χʰpχp*

*tawq*’χf’

‘cottonwood’

‘kerchief, neck scarf’

(Hargus & Beavert 2002: 270–271)
## 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

<table><caption>Table 3.13: Degree of restriction on consonant combinations in Highly Complex syllable patterns.</caption><thead><tr><th>Severely restricted</th><th>Relatively restricted</th><th>Relatively free</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alamblak</td><td>Albanian</td><td>Cocopa</td></tr><tr><td>Bench</td><td>Camsá</td><td>Itelmen</td></tr><tr><td>Doyayo</td><td>Georgian</td><td>Nuu-chah-nulth</td></tr><tr><td>Kunjen</td><td>Kabardian</td><td>Polish (onsets)</td></tr><tr><td>Menya</td><td>Lezgian</td><td>Tashlhiyt</td></tr><tr><td>Qawasqar (codas)</td><td>Mohawk</td><td>Thompson</td></tr><tr><td>Wutung</td><td>Passamaquoddy-<br>Maliseet<br>Polish (codas)<br>Qawasqar (onsets)<br>Semai<br>Tehuelche<br>Tohono O'odham</td><td>Yakima Sahaptin<br>Yine</td></tr></tbody></table>

The distribution of the languages with respect to the three categories above is given in Table 3.13.

There are two languages – Polish and Qawasqar – which have different degrees of restriction in their Highly Complex onset and coda patterns. Besides Qawasqar, there are six languages for which all Highly Complex patterns are severely restricted. Interestingly, in only one of these (Doyayo) are the severely restricted patterns associated with specific morphologically complex sequences; in the others, they occur within morphemes. Most often, languages have Highly Complex structures that are relatively restricted in their consonant combinations. Besides Polish and Qawasqar, there are ten languages which have this pattern. Finally, there are seven languages besides Polish which have relatively free consonant combinations in their Highly Complex structures. It is striking that the set of languages with relatively free patterns is similar in size to the set of languages with severely restricted patterns, given the general rarity of languages with Highly Complex syllable structure.

Below I present information on the frequency of Highly Complex structures in the languages of the sample. Frequency of syllable patterns is explicitly remarked upon for only 16 of the 25 languages in this category. Most often, reports are impressionistic in nature, but occasionally a researcher provides type frequency
3.4 Properties of highly complex syllable structure

data for patterns in the syllable inventory, lexicon, or running text. In Table 3.14 I
note the nature of the frequency data given for each language. Note that not all of
the patterns reported below are strictly Highly Complex patterns; authors often
did not make a distinction between different kinds of triconsonantal clusters, for
instance.

Comparing the relative frequency patterns in Table 3.14 to the combinatorial
restriction patterns in Table 3.13, we find some correspondences between pat-
terns which are not all that surprising. For example, it follows that Wutung,
whose Highly Complex syllable patterns are restricted to a single four-consonant
onset (27a), would also have a very low type frequency of this pattern in its
syllable inventory. Similarly, it is expected that Georgian and Polish, both of
which have larger clusters and fewer restrictions on consonant combinations,
should have a higher type frequency of these patterns in their syllable invento-
ries.<fnref n="9" /> The other kinds of frequency data – type frequency in the lexicon and in
running text – also show this correspondence, with higher frequencies typically
corresponding to languages with freer consonant combinations in their Highly
Complex patterns. It should also be noted that frequency patterns are reported
for all but one language with relatively free consonant combinations (Nuu-chah-
nulth). Though quantitative type frequency data isn’t given for Cocopa, Itelmen,
or Thompson, the authors make a point of mentioning the high frequency and
commonplace nature of Highly Complex structures in these languages.

Combining the results of the analyses in this section and §3.4.1, we can iden-
tify two extreme patterns in the prevalence of Highly Complex patterns in the
data. On one extreme, there is a group of languages for which Highly Complex
structures are a minor pattern. These languages have Highly Complex structures
at only one syllable/word margin. The structures consist of three or maximally
four consonants which are severely restricted in their combination, and have rel-
atively low type frequencies (Table 3.15). On the other extreme, there is a group
of languages for which Highly Complex structures are a prevalent pattern. These
languages have Highly Complex structures at both syllable/word margins. The
structures may be more than four consonants in length, are relatively free in their
combination, and have relatively high type frequencies (Table 3.16).

<footnote n="9">⁹Mohawk presents an unexpected pattern, in that its cluster patterns are relatively restricted but it has a type frequency of Highly Complex clusters which is on par with that of Georgian and Polish. This is due to the very small consonant phoneme inventory of the language (ten consonants), which limits the overall size of the syllable inventory.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 3.14: Reported frequency of Highly Complex syllable patterns. Emphasis my own in all quotations. Abbreviations in the second column: Nfd – Nature of frequency data, 1 – *Impressionistic*, 2a – *Type frequency in syllable inventory*, 2b – *Type frequency in text*, 2c – *Type frequency in lexicon*.</caption><thead><tr><th>Language</th><th>Nfd</th><th>Reported frequency of HC patterns</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Bench</td><td>1</td><td>"Syllable patterns ending in [CCC] have thus a very limited actual occurrence" (Rapold 2006: 92)</td></tr><tr><td>Camsá</td><td>1</td><td>"Consonant clusters are very common in Camsá. [...] Clusters of three consonants are not as common in the language as clusters of two." (Howard 1967: 81–84)</td></tr><tr><td>Cocopa</td><td>1</td><td>"[i]t is quite common to find Cocopa words consisting of a single vowel preceded by several consonants." (Bendixen 1980: 1)</td></tr><tr><td>Georgian</td><td>2a</td><td>28/276 (10%) of onset patterns occurring stem-initially are HC (calculated from data by Butskhrikidze 2002: 197–205). In an excerpt of descriptive prose, 24/550 (4.4%) of #_ patterns consist of three or more consonants (Vogt 1958: 79–80).</td></tr><tr><td>Kabardian</td><td>1</td><td>"Clusters consist of not more than three, and in the large majority of cases, of two consonants." (Kuipers 1960: 29)</td></tr><tr><td>Kunjen</td><td>2c</td><td>"VCCCC syllables occur only as the initial syllable of the word, and have been recorded in only twenty words." (Sommer 1969: 35)</td></tr><tr><td>Itelmen</td><td>1</td><td>"The frequent occurrence of complex consonant clusters is one of the most notable traits of Itelmen phonology." (Georg & Volodin 1999: 38; translation TZ)</td></tr><tr><td>Lezgian</td><td>1</td><td>"[w]ord-initial CC- and even CCC- clusters are now common." (Haspelmath 1993: 46)</td></tr><tr><td>Mohawk</td><td>2a</td><td>6/43 (14%) of #_ onsets and 3/25 (12%) of #_ codas are HC (calculated from data by Michelson 1988: 12–13).</td></tr><tr><td>Polish</td><td>2a</td><td>64/426 (15%) of onset patterns occurring word-initially are HC, 18/141 (13%) of coda patterns occurring word-finally are HC (calculated from data by Bargielowna 1950).</td></tr><tr><td>Tashlhiyt</td><td>2b</td><td>451/5700 (7.9%) of syntactic words in running text are composed of voiceless obstruents only (Ridouane 2008: 328f).</td></tr><tr><td>Thompson</td><td>1</td><td>"Sequences of six obstruents are not uncommon." (Thompson & Thompson 1992: 25)</td></tr><tr><td>Tohono O'odham</td><td>1</td><td>Morphological and phonological processes 'yield a high frequency of complex moras and very intricate syllables' (Hill & Zepeda 1992: 355)</td></tr><tr><td>Wutung</td><td>2a</td><td>1/40 (2.5%) of onset patterns are HC (calculated from data by Marmion 2010).</td></tr><tr><td>Yakima Sa-haptin</td><td>2c</td><td>13/295 (4.4%) of underived nouns and adjectives have onsets of three or four Cs, 8/295 (3%) have codas of three or four Cs (calculated from data by Hargus & Beavert 2006).</td></tr><tr><td>Yine</td><td>2c</td><td>"A little less than one-third of the total number of syllable margins consists of C²C¹; not more than one in several hundred, of C³C¹. The present count of clusters of three consonants shows lower frequency than a similar count made ten years ago." (Matteson 1965: 24)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>1</td><td>"Words beginning with three consonants in sequence are very common." (Hanson 2010: 26)</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.4 Properties of highly complex syllable structure

<table><caption>Table 3.15: Languages with minor Highly Complex patterns.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Family</td><td>Region</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alamblak</td><td>Sepik</td><td>AUSTRALIA &amp; NEW GUINEA</td></tr><tr><td>Bench</td><td>Ta-Ne-Omotic</td><td>AFRICA</td></tr><tr><td>Doyayo</td><td>Atlantic-Congo</td><td>AFRICA</td></tr><tr><td>Kunjen</td><td>Pama-Nyungan</td><td>AUSTRALIA &amp; NEW GUINEA</td></tr><tr><td>Menya</td><td>Angan</td><td>AUSTRALIA &amp; NEW GUINEA</td></tr><tr><td>Wutung</td><td>Sko</td><td>AUSTRALIA &amp; NEW GUINEA</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3.16: Languages with prevalent Highly Complex patterns.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Family</td><td>Region</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cocopa</td><td>Cochimi-Yuman</td><td>NORTH AMERICA</td></tr><tr><td>Georgian</td><td>Kartvelian</td><td>EURASIA</td></tr><tr><td>Itelmen</td><td>Chukotko-Kamchatkan</td><td>EURASIA</td></tr><tr><td>Polish</td><td>Indo-European</td><td>EURASIA</td></tr><tr><td>Tashlhiyt</td><td>Afro-Asiatic</td><td>AFRICA</td></tr><tr><td>Thompson</td><td>Salishan</td><td>NORTH AMERICA</td></tr><tr><td>Tohono O'odham</td><td>Uto-Aztecan</td><td>NORTH AMERICA</td></tr><tr><td>Yakima Sahaptin</td><td>Sahaptian</td><td>NORTH AMERICA</td></tr></tbody></table>

Over half of the languages in the Highly Complex portion of the sample have syllable patterns which are at one of these extremes. There are different areal distributions for the two groups of languages. The languages with Highly Complex syllable structure as a very minor pattern include all those from the Australia & New Guinea macro-area, as well as two languages from Africa. The languages with prevalent Highly Complex patterns are spoken in parts of Eurasia, North America, and the Atlas Mountain region of Africa; i.e. regions identified in Chapter 1 as being well-known for their complex syllable patterns. I will return to discussion of these patterns in §3.5.

### 3.4.3 Acoustic and perceptual characteristics

Researchers often remark upon the phonetic characteristics of the long tautosyllabic clusters of obstruents which are characteristic of most languages with
## 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

Highly Complex syllable structure. Descriptions typically note the presence of salient release or aspiration of stops, transitional vocalic elements between consonants at different places or with different manners of articulation, and lengthened consonant articulation for syllabic obstruents. These descriptions are relevant in the establishment of Highly Complex syllable structure as a language type which may have specific acoustic characteristics in addition to abstract phonological characteristics. It is also possible that clues to the development of Highly Complex syllable structure may be found in the acoustic and perceptual properties of these clusters. For example, it has been found that clusters resulting from historically recent processes of vowel syncope may retain traces of the previous vowel in the transitions between consonants (cf. Chitoran & Babaliyeva 2007 for Lezgian).

Descriptions of the acoustic and perceptual characteristics are available for 18/25 of the languages in the Highly Complex portion of the sample. This is somewhat remarkable, given that many of the languages are underdescribed, and that such detailed phonetic descriptions of consonant clusters are not a standard topic for inclusion in language references. These descriptions are presented in Table 3.17.

<table><caption>Table 3.17: Descriptions of acoustic and perceptual characteristics of clusters in languages with Highly Complex syllable structure. Languages omitted due to lack of description are Bench, Doyayo, Kabarian, Passamaquoddy-Maliseet, Polish, Qawasqar, and Wutung. * indicates that reported pattern is for syllables with obstruent nuclei.</caption><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Description of phonetic realization of consonant clusters</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alamblak</td><td>“Open transition,” transcribed as [i], varies freely with release in obstruent and other sequences (Bruce 1984: 56–59).</td></tr><tr><td>Albanian</td><td>Release between obstruents varies freely with much rarer epenthetic [ə] in slow or careful speech (Klippenstein 2010: 24–26).</td></tr><tr><td>Camsá</td><td>“Nonphonemic transitional vocoid [ə]” occurs between stops or consonant plus nasal at different points of articulation; initial fricatives are lengthened and may have voiceless or voiced off-glide, transcribed as [ɔ] or [ɔ], before a non-fricative consonant at a different place of articulation (Howard 1967: 81).</td></tr><tr><td>*Cocopa</td><td>Consonants in some sequences separated by “anaptyctic phonetic vowel” or “indistinct ‘murmur’ vowel” whose quality, transcribed [i], [a], or [u], is determined by surrounding consonants (Crawford Jr 1966: 37–45).</td></tr></tbody></table>
3.4 Properties of highly complex syllable structure

<table><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Description of phonetic realization of consonant clusters</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Georgian</td><td>Stops in sequences nearly always released, sometimes with voicing if both are voiced; voiceless stops and affricates have strongly aspirated release; length of interval between C<sub>1</sub> and C<sub>2</sub> release depends on relative place of articulation of the consonants (Chitoran 1999).</td></tr><tr><td>Itelmen</td><td>Indeterminant “overtone” transcribed as [ə] and described as “extremely short, with an overtone indeterminant in quality” occurs in words without vowels and certain consonant combinations (Volodin 1976: 40–41; translation SME).</td></tr><tr><td>Kunjen</td><td>“Brief transitional vocoids” may sometimes be heard between consonants in a cluster. (Sommer 1969: 33)</td></tr><tr><td>Lezgian</td><td>Before a voiceless stop or fricative, voiceless stops are always aspirated (Haspelmath 1993: 47); in clusters resulting from historical or synchronic syncope, traces of previous vowel remain audible in stop release and fricative noise (Chitoran & Babaliyeva 2007).</td></tr><tr><td>Menya</td><td>“Non-homorganic consonants are phonetically separated by extremely short vocalic segments which are more and more not being written”; quality of short segments is conditioned by surrounding consonants and vowels (Whitehead 2004: 9, 226).</td></tr><tr><td>Mohawk</td><td>Stops are “strongly aspirated” before another (non-identical) consonant (Bonvillain 1973: 28).</td></tr><tr><td>Nuu-chah-nulth</td><td>The first stop or affricate of a like sequence has “a release typical for such consonants” (Kim 2003: 163–164). Epenthetic [ɪ] occurs between a nasal and back stop or affricate (Rose 1981: 26–27). Voiceless plain stops are aspirated when they appear in syllable coda clusters (Davidson 2002: 12).</td></tr><tr><td>*Semai</td><td>Minor syllables consisting of consonants are “clearly heard and perceived as distinct syllables.” (Sloan 1988: 321). Vocalic element in consonantal minor syllable “usually a very short, non-phonemic, epenthetic [ə]”, but can vary in quality, and is “optional if the two consonants are easily pronounced without the epenthetic vowel” (Philips 2007: 2).</td></tr></tbody></table>
3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

<table><thead><tr><th>Language</th><th>Description of phonetic realization of consonant clusters</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>*Tashlhiyt</td><td>Short “voiced transitional vocoids” whose quality is predictable by surrounding vowels split consonant sequences when one is voiced (Dell & Elmedlaoui 2002: 16); Gordon & Nafi (2012: 16) report this for occasional sequences of voiceless consonants. Ri-douane (2008: 210) reports that “stop release is obligatory be-for another stop which is not homorganic with it” and Grice et al. (2015) find that the “vocoid” is not entirely predictable from the voicing properties of surrounding Cs and that its presence is partly conditioned by intonational prominence.</td></tr><tr><td>*Tehuelche</td><td>The “accumulation of consonants is made possible by the de-velopment of [...] “supporting vowels.”” These have “a neutral vowel quality which play the role of lubricator and which cor-responds to the neutralization of all other vowels,” and are tran-scribed as [ə] or [ʊ] depending upon consonantal environment (Fernández Garay & Hernández 2006: 13; Fernández Garay 1998; translation RNS).</td></tr><tr><td>Thompson</td><td>Plain stops are “somewhat aspirated” before another stop and often before spirants, and strongly aspirated syllable-finally (Thompson & Thompson 1992: 4). “Laryngeals are usually sep-arated from preceding obstruents by a brief central vowel” whose precise quality is determined by the consonantal envi-ronment (1992: 44).</td></tr><tr><td>Tohono O'odham</td><td>Surface clusters resulting from historical vowel deletion have “very short, voiceless elements”, phonetically transcribed as [h] but which may retain previous vowel quality coloration in the case of high vowels (Hill & Zepeda 1992: 356). Combinations of voiceless stops “might be considered as separated by a voiceless epenthetic” (Mason 1950: 81f).</td></tr><tr><td>Yakima Sahaptin</td><td>Excrescent [i] is possible in some consonant combinations, such as when a fricative precedes two stops (Hargus & Beavert 2002); aspiration accompanying voiceless stops has “formant structure that may superficially resemble” that of [i] (2002: 273–274f.).</td></tr></tbody></table>
3.4 Properties of highly complex syllable structure

<table><thead><tr><td>Language</td><td>Description of phonetic realization of consonant clusters</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Yine</td><td>"A very salient feature of Yine consonant clusters is the prevalence of an audible interval between the release of the first consonant (C<sub>1</sub>) and the closure of the second consonant (C<sub>2</sub>)." This "intra-cluster release" varies in duration, quality, and voicing, and is never obligatory (Hanson 2010: 28–29). Matteson & Pike (1958) describe the properties of these "non-phonemic transition vocoids" at length.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Even though many of the descriptions make mention of “epenthetic” vowels, the patterns described above are consistent with those features listed by Hall (2006) as being associated with intrusive vowels. The transitional elements in these clusters are characterized by neutral vowel qualities that may be heavily influenced by surrounding consonants, and may vary in their duration and voicing. In some cases the transitions are described as occurring between specific combinations of consonants with different places of articulation.

Most of the references consulted for the above analysis were written by researchers who are not native speakers, and for whom the different timing patterns in consonant sequences in these languages may be especially salient.<fnref n="10" /> As mentioned in §3.2.2, native speakers are often unaware of the presence of these transitional elements, and when they are aware of them, view them as optional. Menya provides an interesting illustration of this in its writing conventions. The short vocalic elements between non-homorganic consonants in the language are written only sporadically by literate native speakers, and when they are written, there is unsystematic variation in the grapheme used (Whitehead 2004: 9, 226; the quote given in Table 3.17 may also be suggestive of a recent process of vowel reduction). Another piece of evidence for determining the intrusive nature of a vowel is in its “invisibility” to phonological processes. In some cases, explicit descriptions of this are given. For example, the vocalic element transcribed as [r] that occurs between nasals and back stops or affricates in Nuu-chah-nulth is explicitly described as not being included in the syllable count which determines a vowel lengthening pattern in the language (Rose 1981: 27).

The striking similarities in the phonetic descriptions of Highly Complex structures in the 18 languages in Table 3.17 indicate that the languages of this category

<footnote n="10">¹⁰It is interesting to note that for Polish, which has a wealth of available descriptive material written in English by native speakers of Polish, I could find few details on the phonetic characteristics of clusters.</footnote>
share more in common than just phonological structure. The presence of transi-
tional elements is a prominent phonetic characteristic of Highly Complex sylla-
ble structure. It is also notable that the phonetic descriptions of syllabic obstru-
ents in Cocopa, Semai, Tashlhiyt, and Tehuelche are virtually indistinguishable
from the phonetic descriptions of tautosyllabic clusters in the other languages.
This recalls Hall's observation that vowel intrusion and syllabic consonants are
motivated by similar processes of gestural overlap, and is further justification for
grouping these languages together with the others.

## 3.5 Discussion

As mentioned in §3.1, the studies in this chapter serve two purposes: first, to provide a baseline characterization of syllable patterns in the language sample as a whole; and second, to elucidate in greater detail the specific patterns occurring in languages with Highly Complex syllable structure.

In Table 3.18 I summarize the results from §3.3 regarding syllable patterns in the language sample as a whole, and describe how the findings relate to syllable structure complexity. An asterisk (*) indicates that the pattern was found to be statistically significant.

Some of the analyses presented in §3.3, corresponding to the findings in lines 1–3 of Table 3.18, were exploratory and conducted without any underlying hypotheses. Nevertheless these analyses yielded relevant results with respect to syllable structure complexity.

The relationship between maximal onset and coda complexity, in which the presence of large (four or more consonants) sequences at one syllable margin in a language typically implies the presence of large sequences at the other margin, is especially interesting. This is not an expected pattern in terms of probabilistic distribution: if onsets and codas are independent structures, then we would expect to observe a wider range of combinations in maximal onset and coda sizes. However, if syllable structure is viewed not as an entity with abstract phonological motivations, but as a phenomenon reflecting articulatory routines carried out over many generations in the history of a language, this pattern may not be surprising. It is reasonable to imagine, for instance, a scenario in which a strong tendency toward vowel reduction in a language with prefixation and suffixation on stress-carrying stems might result in the eventual complete gestural overlap and deletion of many or most unstressed vowels, yielding long clusters of consonants in both word-marginal contexts. This issue will be discussed further in Chapters 5, 6, and 8.
<table><caption>Table 3.18: Summary of findings regarding syllable patterns in language sample as a whole.</caption><thead><tr><td>Aspect of syllable structure</td><td>Finding</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Relationship between maximal onset and coda complexity (§3.3.2)</td><td>A large cluster at one margin typically implies a large cluster at the other margin.</td></tr><tr><td>2.* Obligatoriness of syllable margins (§3.3.3)</td><td>Least common in S lgs, most common in HC languages.</td></tr><tr><td>3. Complex vocalic nuclei (§3.3.4)</td><td>Much less likely to occur in S languages.</td></tr><tr><td>4.* Presence of syllabic consonants (§3.3.5)</td><td>Least common in S lgs, most common in HC languages.</td></tr><tr><td>5. Morphological constituency patterns (§3.3.6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>a.* of maximal syllable margins</td><td>Morphologically complex patterns increase with syllable structure complexity.</td></tr><tr><td>b. of syllabic consonants</td><td>More likely to be found in grammatical items as syllable structure increases.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Similarly, the pattern observed with respect to obligatory syllable margins and syllable structure complexity is not necessarily expected. In languages with Simple syllable structure, obligatory onsets significantly limit the size of the syllable inventory. However, this effect on the syllable inventory would be much smaller in languages in the other syllable structure complexity categories. It does not necessarily follow that the Highly Complex category should have a higher rate of obligatory margins than the other categories. Three of the languages with obligatory onsets in the Highly Complex category (Thompson, Tohono O'odham, and Yakima Sahaptin), as well as one language in this group which likely had obligatory onsets historically (Itelmen), also happen to be in the group of languages whose Highly Complex patterns are most prevalent (§3.4.2). Placed in the context of languages in which large consonant clusters are prevalent and the consonant to vowel ratio in speech is presumably higher than average, perhaps the high rate of obligatory syllable margins is not surprising for this category.

Greater syllable structure complexity is also associated with a greater likelihood of a language having complex vocalic nuclei (long vowels, diphthongs, or
### 3 Syllable structure patterns in sample

vowel sequences) and/or syllabic consonants. The specific combinatorial restrictions between syllable margins and nuclei are not explored or quantified here. However, the general effect of these patterns could be that as syllable structure complexity increases, so does the range of possible syllable types, and not just as a result of increased consonant combinations. The diversity in syllable margins which provide the basis for the definitions of syllable structure complexity may be accompanied by greater diversity in syllable nuclei as syllable structure complexity increases. This issue will be explored in greater depth in §4.3.

The data here confirms the hypothesis that languages with more complex syllable structure are more likely to have syllabic consonants. This pattern is strongly present even when syllabic obstruents are not considered. These results are not in line with the predictions of Isačenko (1939), who observed that “vocalic” languages – a term defined in part by a low consonant to vowel ratio and simpler syllable patterns – are more likely to develop syllabic sonorants. Isačenko’s study is limited to Slavic languages, so it is possible that this group of languages presents an exception to the crosslinguistic pattern. However, the findings of the current study should be considered in the context of Isačenko’s larger point that “vocalic” and “consonantal” languages are characterized not only by different segmental inventory and syllable patterns, but also by different diachronic and synchronic processes of language change. It is known that syllabic consonants often come about through vowel reduction (Bell 1978b), and indeed we observe a set of variable syllabic consonants in the data which come about through vowel reduction. Independently of the observation that vowel reduction is known to create tautosyllabic clusters in some languages, the syllabic consonant patterns here suggest a higher occurrence of vowel reduction processes, both diachronic and synchronic, in languages with more complex syllable structure. This issue will be explored in greater detail in Chapter 6.

The hypothesis with respect to morphological patterns in the data was also confirmed. As syllable structure increases, maximal onset and coda clusters are more likely to exhibit morphologically complex patterns, and syllabic consonant inventories are more likely to have members which correspond to grammatical morphemes. These findings point toward a strong influence of morphology in the emergence of more complex, and specifically Highly Complex, syllable structures. The studies here are largely limited to phonological systems and do not allow for an in-depth study of the morphological patterns of the language sample. However, the issue of the role of morphology in the syllable patterns of languages in the Highly Complex group will be revisited in Chapter 8.

The analysis of the Highly Complex patterns in §3.4 reveals important patterns within this group of languages that should be considered in the coming chapters.
The first is that there are measures by which this is not a coherent group of lan-
guages. Analyses of the specific syllable structures occurring in these languages,
as well as the restrictions on these structures and their frequency of occurrence,
suggests that there are instead several groups. In one group of six languages
from Africa and Australia & New Guinea, Highly Complex syllable structure is
an extremely minor pattern, and includes low frequencies of highly restricted
structures, often containing several sonorants, at one syllable margin. In another
group of eight languages, mostly from Eurasia and North America, Highly Com-
plex syllable structure is a prevalent pattern, and involves high frequencies of
long, fairly unrestricted strings of obstruents at both syllable margins. While not
explicitly discussed in §3.4, these two groups also have different morphological
patterns in their maximal syllable structures. Most of the languages with minor
Highly Complex patterns have morpheme-internal patterns for their maximal
syllable margins (the two exceptions being Bench and Doyayo). By comparison,
all of the languages with prevalent Highly Complex patterns have morphologi-
cally complex patterns for their maximal syllable/word margins.

Thus there are two extreme groups within the Highly Complex category which
can be set apart from the rest on the basis of having different sets of coherent
behavior in their syllable patterns. The other 11 languages of the sample fall some-
where between these two extremes. In the upcoming studies it will be discussed
how languages on the two extremes of the Highly Complex category also exhibit
coherent differences in their segmental inventories, stress patterns, and phono-
logical processes, and how the languages in between the extremes behave more
like one group or another.

The second important finding in §3.4 is that there is another measure by which
the languages of the Highly Complex category *are* a coherent group of languages.
In all languages for which phonetic properties of clusters were described, Highly
Complex clusters were described as having largely similar acoustic and percep-
tual characteristics. This is true of both languages with large tautosyllabic clus-
ters and those with syllabic obstruents, suggesting that these phenomena are
qualitatively similar and/or have similar origins. This point will be revisited in
Chapter 8.
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>
# 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

The central research questions of this book seek to (i) establish whether highly complex syllable structure is associated with other phonological features such that it can be identified as a coherent linguistic type, and (ii) use these findings to inform diachronic paths of development for these structures. The purpose of this chapter and the ones that follow is to address these research questions by examining other phonological properties of the language sample as they relate to syllable structure complexity. In this chapter I examine the properties of segment inventories in the language sample. Specifically, I test several hypotheses relating the size and constituency of vowel, and especially consonant, inventories to syllable structure complexity.

The chapter is organized as follows. In §4.1 I discuss previous findings in the literature regarding properties of consonant and vowel inventories, and accounts put forth to explain predominant crosslinguistic trends in the patterns observed. I then discuss relevant findings relating the structure of sound inventories to syllable structure complexity, and introduce the hypotheses to be tested in the current study. In §4.2 I describe the methodology behind the data collection and the coding process. In §4.3 I present a brief analysis of vowel inventory properties and test the hypothesis that syllable structure complexity is associated with larger vocalic nucleus inventories. §4.4 is a longer section presenting several different analyses testing hypotheses regarding the size and makeup of consonant inventories with respect to syllable structure complexity. In §4.5 I discuss the results as they relate to highly complex syllable structure, its development, and syllable structure-based phonological typologies more generally.

## 4.1 Introduction

The scope of the current study is limited to examining the properties of segmental phonemes, the more or less discrete units corresponding to contrastive sounds in a language. Suprasegmental properties, including stress and tone, will be considered in Chapter 5. Certain kinds of variation in segments, including
vowel reduction and specific kinds of consonant allophony, will be considered
in Chapters 6 and 7.

A segmental phoneme is an abstract unit corresponding to a set of sounds, usu-
ally phonetically similar to one another, which have some functional, cognitive,
and/or perceptual equivalence in a language. A language's phoneme inventory
is the group of such units which meaningfully contrast with one another in that
language, e.g. /l/ and /b/ in the English pair *leek* and *beak*. This concept is well
over a century old and has been modified over the years (e.g. Sapir 1925; Chom-
sky & Halle 1968), but is still widely used in both theoretical models and language
descriptions.

A disadvantage of phonemic analysis is that it forces a discrete linear analysis on the continuous speech stream. The result of this segmental analysis, some argue, is a theoretical representation which is more reflective of the alphabetic scripts used by many linguists in everyday life than it is of any real property of spoken language (Port 2006, Moreno Cabrera 2008). Noting these problems, some models posit that phonological structures are emergent from more general speech processes. For example, in the Articulatory Phonology framework (Browman & Goldstein 1992b), syllable patterns emerge from the coordination and phasing of gestures. In Lindblom's (2000) model, segments and gestures themselves are adaptations to biophysical constraints on perception and production, as well as cognitive processes of memory encoding. Indeed, alternative views such as Articulatory Phonology and exemplar models of language (Bybee 2001) may provide more satisfactory accounts for the fine-grained and gradient nature of sound variation and change. Nevertheless, for all the problematic aspects of phonemic analysis, segment inventories are useful points of comparison in typological studies like the current work. Most language references provide such an analysis at the very minimum, even if no other phonetic or phonological description is given.

Phoneme inventories are perhaps the best-researched topic in phonological
typology, with numerous large-scale surveys dedicated to their study. Standard
works on the typology of phoneme inventories occur as early as the mid-20th
century (e.g. Hockett 1955). The Stanford Phonology Archive (Crothers et al.
1979), a project undertaken in connection to the Stanford Universals Project,
was the first computerized database of phoneme inventories. Maddieson (1984)
drew upon this work in his survey of 317 genealogically balanced languages,
the UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database (UPSID). Since then, many
such large typological surveys of phoneme inventories have been developed, in-
cluding an expanded version of UPSID (451 languages, Maddieson & Precoda
1992), the Lyon-Albuquerque Phonological Systems Database (LAPSyD, ~700 languages, Maddieson et al. 2013), PHOIBLE (1,672 languages, Moran et al. 2014), and portions of the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS, ~565 languages, Maddieson 2013a,d, inter alia). In addition to these, there have been extensive surveys of phoneme inventories in specific geographical areas (e.g. Michael et al. 2015 for South America, Gasser & Bowern 2014 for Australia). There are also a great many crosslinguistic studies examining the properties and patterns of specific kinds of sounds, including nasalized vowels (Hajek 2013), non-modal vowels (Gordon 1998), ejectives (Fallon 2002), consonants with secondary palatalization (Hall 2000), affricates (Berns 2013), and post-velar consonants (Sylak-Glassman 2014).

### 4.1.1 Crosslinguistic patterns in consonant inventories

In articulatory terms, consonants and vowels are distinguished from one another by the degree to which the vocal tract is constricted in their production, with consonants having greater constriction than vowels. Consonants are typically classified by their articulatory characteristics which include phonation, the place of constriction in the vocal tract, and the manner of constriction.

Consonant phoneme inventory size is a common point of comparison in cross-linguistic studies of phonological systems. In the 563-language sample in Maddieson (2013a), the languages have an average of 22.7 consonant phonemes, though values range widely from six consonants (in Rotokas) to 122 consonants (in !Xóõ). There are areal patterns to the distribution of consonant inventory size. Small inventories (6–14 consonants) are common in New Guinea and the Amazon region of South America. Large consonant inventories (26 or more consonants) are concentrated in the Pacific Northwest and northern coast of North America, northern Europe, the Caucasus region, and regions of Africa.

One of the contributions of the 317-language survey in Maddieson (1984) was the establishment of crosslinguistic frequency patterns for consonant phonemes. The following consonants are the 20 most frequently present in the inventories of the language sample (* indicates that dental and alveolar consonants have been pooled).

$$ (1) \ /p b *t *d k g ? \hat{t} f *s \mathcal{h} m *n \mathcal{j} \mathcal{n} w *l *r j/ \text{ (Maddieson 1984: 12)} $$

None of the consonants in (1) were found to occur in every language in the sample, and some ($/\hat{t}f \mathcal{h} \mathcal{j}r/)$ were found in fewer than half of the languages.
It follows that strict implicational hierarchies derived from these frequency measures do not accurately predict the makeup of observed consonant phoneme inventories, small or large. Nevertheless, all spoken languages have at least several of these consonants, even though there are hundreds of other consonants from which inventories could hypothetically be entirely drawn. The constituency of this set of consonants in terms of numbers of stops, fricatives, nasals, and so on closely resembles the modal makeup of consonant inventories in the sample overall. Lindblom & Maddieson (1988) note that this set of consonants is nearly identical to that reported for stages of early speech and babbling. Furthermore, in a sample of 32 diverse languages, Gordon (2016: 73–74) finds that there is a strong positive correlation between the frequency of these consonants crosslinguistically (that is, across consonant inventories) and the type frequency of these consonants within languages.

The convergence of these patterns suggests a phonetic naturalness to the consonants in (1) which many researchers have attempted to account for. Stevens (1989) shows that there are configurations of articulators within the vocal tract where the acoustic and auditory properties of the sound produced there are fairly stable with respect to variations in the articulation. He suggests that these regions of acoustic-perceptual stability underlie the common distinctions found in phoneme inventories. Maddieson (1996) proposes that phonological patterns are motivated by gestural economy, in that optimal contrastive sounds will involve gestures which are both inherently efficient in their motor requirements and have a high degree of auditory distinctiveness. Other accounts take a more abstract approach. Ohala (1979) observes that consonants in small phoneme inventories may be perceptually close to one another and differ by a minimum rather than maximum of distinctive features. On the basis of this he proposes that consonant phoneme inventories are motivated by a principle of *Maximum Utilization of Available Features* (MUAF). In a similar vein, Clements (2003) proposes that consonant inventories tend towards economy in their constituency; that is, sounds are less likely to occur in a language if their distinctive features are not employed elsewhere in the phoneme inventory, and more likely to occur if all their distinctive features occur elsewhere in the phoneme inventory. The set of consonants in (1) is quite coherent in this respect. A typological study of borrowed sounds lends support to these accounts: Maddieson (1985) finds that borrowed sounds are statistically much more likely to fill gaps in the phonological inventory of the recipient language than to alter the basic contrasts of the system.

Lindblom & Maddieson (1988) propose an account for the observed crosslinguistic tendencies which is rooted in properties of articulatory complexity. In
their model, consonants are divided into three sets: Set I, basic articulations which often correspond to those in (1); Set II, elaborated articulations corresponding to properties described below; and Set III, complex articulations, consisting of combinations of elaborated articulations. Elaborated articulations are defined as those which depart from default modes of phonation and manner (especially airstream mechanism), as well as place articulations which depart from the neutral near-rest positions of active articulators in the vocal tract. A list of these elaborations is reproduced in Table 4.1.

<table><caption>Table 4.1: Elaborated consonant articulations, as presented in Lindblom & Maddieson (1988: 67).</caption><thead><tr><th>Phonation</th><th>Manner</th><th>Place</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>breathy voice</td><td>prenasalization</td><td>labiodental</td></tr><tr><td>creaky voice</td><td>nasal release</td><td>palatoalveolar</td></tr><tr><td>voiced fricatives/affricates</td><td>lateral release</td><td>retroflex</td></tr><tr><td>voiceless sonorants</td><td>ejectives</td><td>uvular</td></tr><tr><td>pre-aspiration</td><td>implosives</td><td>pharyngeal</td></tr><tr><td>post-aspiration</td><td>clicks</td><td>palatalization<br>labialization<br>pharyngealization<br>velarization</td></tr></tbody></table>

The model predicts that as consonant inventory sizes increase, languages will include phonemes from Set I (e.g. /k/) until that set is more or less exhausted, at which point Set II consonants (e.g. /kʷ/) and then eventually Set III consonants (e.g. /kʷ/’) may occur. Lindblom & Maddieson show that this prediction is borne out in the obstruent inventories of the 317-language sample from Maddieson (1984). They suggest that these patterns, at all levels of consonant inventory size, reflect a balance between competing pressures to keep articulatory complexity low while maintaining a sufficient level of perceptual contrast in the system (Lindblom & Maddieson 1988: 72).

There are of course many other issues related to consonant inventory patterns which are too numerous to discuss here (e.g. common gaps in stop inventories with respect to place of articulation and voicing). An overview of many such patterns and proposed phonetic accounts for them can be found in Ohala (1983).

The issues of consonant phoneme inventory size and elaborated articulations will be revisited in §4.1.3 and §4.1.4. In the following section I discuss reported typological patterns of vowel phoneme inventories.
4.1.2 Crosslinguistic patterns in vowel inventories

As described above, vowels are speech articulations which involve relatively less constriction in the vocal tract than consonants. Vowels are typically classified according to the height and backness of the tongue body and the rounding of the lips, which together constitute vowel “quality”. Other articulatory characteristics, such as length, nasalization, and voicing may also be contrastive for these sounds, but only in addition to vowel quality.

Perhaps the most common point of typological comparison for vowel phoneme
systems is the number and nature of vowel qualities present. Over half of the lan-
guages in the 564-language survey in Maddieson (2013d) have five or six vowel
qualities present in their phoneme inventories. Like consonant phoneme inven-
tory size, vowel quality inventory size has strong areal patterns with respect to
its distribution. Smaller than average systems are common in the Americas, Aus-
tralia, and isolated smaller regions. Larger than average systems are common
in the central belt region of Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of Eurasia. Areal
patterning may also be observed in other vowel features, including contrastive
nasalization, which is predominantly concentrated in Western Africa and the
Amazon region.

The five most common vowel quality phonemes in Maddieson's (1984) survey are /i a u "o" "e"/ (where quotations indicate that these may not be distinguishable from other vowels in the mid area in the references consulted). Unlike the situation with consonants above, there are many languages which have a triangular system of five vowels corresponding exactly to this set (1984: 136). Generally speaking, there are strong crosslinguistic tendencies relating the size of vowel quality inventories to the vowel qualities observed to occur. For example: for example, three-vowel systems are most often of the shape /i a u/.

As with crosslinguistic tendencies in consonant inventories, both acoustic/per-
ceptual and articulatory accounts have been put forward to explain the observed
patterns in vowel quality inventories. Liljencrants & Lindblom (1972) test the
hypothesis that vowel inventories pattern in such a way as to maximize percep-
tual distance, measured as a function of formant values. The predictions of their
model match very closely the most common vowel quality inventories for vowel
systems of three, four, and five vowels, but for larger inventories, there are dis-
crepancies between the model and observed crosslinguistic patterns. The study
by Stevens (1989) mentioned above considered vowel systems in addition to con-
sonant systems, and determined /i a u/ to be regions of acoustic/perceptual sta-
bility with respect to articulatory variation. Lindblom & Maddieson (1988) also
explored vowel inventory patterns and concluded that as with consonant sys-
tems, common vowel system patterns reflect competing pressures of maximization of perceptual contrast and minimization of articulatory complexity. Thus it is not expected that articulatorily “complex” contrasts such as those involving phonation, nasalization, length, and so on would be present in a system of five total vowels, where perceptual distinctiveness can be easily achieved by vowel quality differences alone. Analogous to their model of consonant elaborations, differences in phonation, nasalization, and so on should be expected to occur only in larger systems where vowel quality contrasts have already been exploited. From a diachronic point of view, such contrasts in vowel systems typically imply larger vowel inventories because they come about through sound changes that are systematic across the vowel system or large portions of the vowel system.

### 4.1.3 Segmental inventories and syllable structure complexity

The crosslinguistic patterns described above and the proposed accounts for them are limited to phoneme inventories themselves and do not consider possible interactions between phoneme inventories and other aspects of language structure. Yet a number of correlations between phoneme inventories and other phonological structures, most notably syllable structure complexity, have been found.

Maddieson (2006) determined that there is a highly significant positive correlation between consonant phoneme inventory size and syllable structure complexity in a sample of roughly 520 languages. In that study, it was found that languages with Simple syllable structure had an average of 19.3, languages with Moderately Complex syllable structure an average of 21.8, and languages with Complex syllable structure an average of 25.7 consonant phonemes (Maddieson 2013b reports similar findings). Within that sample, there are some overlapping geographical distributions of small consonant inventories and simpler syllable structures on the one hand and large consonant inventories and more complex syllable structure on the other hand. The Pacific Northwest region of North America is an example of a region with the latter pattern, and the Amazon Basin is an example of a region with the former pattern. However, Maddieson rejects the idea that the overall correlation was the result of several small-scale patterns, finding the general trend to hold up significantly in all but one of the large geographical regions examined. He concludes that the association between consonant phoneme inventory size and syllable structure complexity is crosslinguistically robust and suggests that “paths of natural historical linguistic change” may be behind this mutually reinforcing pattern of complexity (2006: 118).

Consonant phoneme inventory size is positively correlated with syllable structure complexity when it is measured in non-categorical ways, too. Maddieson
4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

(2011) reports a positive correlation between consonant inventory size and Syl-
lable Index values. The Syllable Index is a sum of maximal onset, nucleus, and
coda complexity values, closely but not perfectly corresponding to the number of
segments in the maximal syllable type. Gordon (2016) plots consonant inventory
size against the sum of maximal syllable margins for each language in the mod-
ified WALS 100-language sample and finds an increasing, if not stepwise trend.
He reports similar results for analyses considering only onset or coda size.

There has been limited research into the patterns of specific segment types
and syllable structure complexity. Maddieson et al. (2013) report a relationship
between segmental complexity in phoneme inventories and syllable structure
complexity in the ~700-language LAPSyD sample. In that study they consider
the number of consonants with one or more elaborated articulations, as defined
by Lindblom & Maddieson (1988) and listed in Table 4.1 above. They find that
languages with Complex syllable structure have a mean of 9.6 consonants with
elaborated articulations, as compared to means of 6.2 and 4.8 such consonants
in the Moderately Complex and Simple categories, respectively. The difference
between the Complex pattern and the two other patterns combined was found
to be statistically significant.

There have also been suggestions of correlations between phoneme inven-
tory properties and other phonological features at smaller scales, within regions
or language families. In his holistic phonological typology of Slavic languages,
Isačenko (1939) notes that “consonantal” languages are defined by a collection of
features, including more complex syllable structure, a larger proportion of con-
sonants in the phoneme inventory, and the presence of contrastive secondary
palatalization at various places of articulation. Russian and Polish are prototypi-
cal examples of such languages. By comparison, “vocalic” languages have simpler
syllable structure, smaller proportions of consonants in the phoneme inventory,
and secondary palatalization which is limited to dental consonants or altogether
absent. The Ljubljana dialect of Slovene exemplifies this type. Chirikba (2008: 43)
calls all languages of the Caucasus “consonant-type languages”, a term which en-
compasses a heavy dominance of consonants over vowels in the speech signal,
rich consonant inventories, and restricted vowel systems. Chirikba specifically
notes the typologically unusual nature of consonant systems in the languages of
the region, which include ejectives and richly elaborated sibilant and post-velar
articulations.

The above observations bring up another relationship worth mentioning,
which is that between consonant inventory size and vowel inventory size. While
no correlation has ever been established between consonant inventory size and
vowel quality inventory size (Maddieson 2013d), a positive correlation has been
found between consonant inventory size and *total vowel* inventory size (Maddieson 2011). In that study, the “total vowel inventory” includes vowels which contrast in length, nasalization, and phonation properties, as well as diphthongs analyzed as unitary, but does not include tautosyllabic vowel sequences or diphthongs that can be parsed into constituents corresponding to basic vowels in the language.

### 4.1.4 The current study and hypotheses

The findings described above indicate that the relationship between properties of segment, and especially consonant, inventories and syllable structure complexity is notable at global, regional, and family levels, and thus worthy of further investigation. The hypotheses I introduce and test here build on the previous findings by investigating the relationships between more specific properties of phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity. Depending on their nature, these findings may help to shed light on those paths of language change suggested by Maddieson (2006) to motivate the observed correlations.

The first hypothesis concerns vocalic nucleus inventory size and syllable structure complexity. Recall that in §3.3.4 it was found that complex vocalic nuclei, defined there as long vowels, diphthongs, and/or tautosyllabic vowel sequences, were more frequently present in languages with more complex syllable structure. There is reason to explore this pattern in more depth here. As noted above, a positive correlation between total vowel inventory size and consonant phoneme inventory size has been established in the literature (Maddieson 2011). However, the measure of total vowel inventory size did not include tautosyllabic vowel sequences or diphthongs that can be alternatively analyzed as sequences of segments. Thus it would be interesting to test whether a relationship exists between the *total number of vocalic nuclei* in a language and syllable structure complexity. If such a relationship is found, it would suggest that higher syllable margin diversity is accompanied by higher nucleic diversity in languages with more complex syllable structure, a fact that would have to be considered in any diachronic account of the development of highly complex syllable structure. The hypothesis is formulated in (2).

(2) As syllable structure complexity increases, languages will have larger inventories of vocalic nuclei.

This is the only hypothesis regarding vowel patterns in the sample. The remaining hypotheses are concerned with consonant patterns. The second hypoth-
4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

esis follows the findings of Maddieson (2006), and simply predicts that the pre-
viously determined positive association between syllable structure complexity
and consonant phoneme inventory size will be upheld when the additional cate-
gory of Highly Complex syllable structure is included in the analysis. Following
observations by Gordon (2016), I also expect that consonant phoneme inventory
size will increase with syllable structure complexity when it is measured not just
categorically but also as a sum of maximal syllable margins. This hypothesis is
given in (3).

(3) As syllable structure complexity increases, so does the size of consonant phoneme inventories.

The third hypothesis is aimed at quantifying the number of articulatory elabo-
rations present in the consonant inventories of languages with different syllable
structure complexity. Maddieson et al. (2013) found a higher mean number of
consonants with elaborated articulations in languages with more complex syl-
lable structure. However, the reported findings of that study did not consider
whether languages with more complex syllable structure also had more distinct
elaborations present in their consonant inventories. That is, the findings do not
indicate whether languages with more complex syllable structure have more elab-
orations in general, or just more consonants sharing the same elaboration. Re-
ported phonological patterns for areas well-known for having complex syllable
patterns suggest the presence of more elaborations in their consonant invento-
ries (e.g. ejectives and uvulars in the Caucasus, lateral release and ejectives in
the Pacific Northwest). This would also follow indirectly from Lindblom & Mad-
dieson (1988), who found consonants with combinations of elaborated articula-
tions in languages with large consonant inventories. This leads to the formula-
tion of a third hypothesis, given in (4).

(4) As syllable structure complexity increases, so does the number of articulatory elaborations present in consonant phoneme inventories.

The final hypothesis relates syllable structure complexity to the occurrence of
specific consonant types. This hypothesis is motivated by the observation that
there are certain consonants which seem characteristic of languages with more
complex syllable structure. Specifically, post-velar and especially uvular conso-
nants, though crosslinguistically rare, are common in regions also famous for
complex syllable structure, including the Pacific Northwest, the Caucasus, and
the Atlas Mountain region. Similarly, it is my observation that ejectives are of-
ten found in languages with complex syllable structure, and often co-occur with
uvular consonants in those languages. Based on these observations, a fourth hypothesis is formulated.

(5) Languages with differing degrees of syllable structure complexity will exhibit different consonant contrasts in their phoneme inventories.

The data analyses addressing these hypotheses will be presented in §4.3 and §4.4. In the next section I describe the methodology behind the data collection and coding for these analyses.

# 4.2 Methodology

## 4.2.1 Patterns considered

In this chapter, only the segmental patterns of the language sample are considered. While most of the analyses here will treat specific articulations that do not constitute segments on their own (i.e. those associated with place, manner, voicing, length, etc.), it must take as a starting point the consonant and vowel phoneme inventories of the language sample. These are understood to be the more or less discrete units which are mostly unpredictable in their distribution and meaningfully contrastive in the native lexicon and grammar of a language. Though consonant and vowel phoneme inventories are reliably reported in most language references, phonemic analysis is not always a straightforward endeavor. Here I discuss some issues that arise in determining phoneme inventory patterns.

Phonemic inventories are always the result of an analysis. It is common for there to be slight disagreements regarding the composition of the phoneme inventory in different descriptive materials for the same language. Authors may be writing in different time periods, describing different dialects and/or speech styles, or, in the case of highly endangered languages, working with speakers with varying degrees of proficiency in the language. When sources disagree on just a few elements of the phoneme inventory, I take these factors into consideration. For example, two of the sources on Nuu-chah-nulth, Stonham (1999) and Davidson (2002), list uvular ejectives /q’ qʷ/ in the consonant phoneme inventory, but a third source (Kim 2003) does not. The former analyses are based primarily on the field notes of Edward Sapir, who worked with the language from 1914–1924. Kim (2003) shows that ejective uvulars have long since merged with pharyngeal /ɣ/ in the present language. I take the more recent analysis to be accurate for the current state of the language.
Of course, the choices made in a phonemic analysis may reflect a number
of other factors, including the data available and the author's own theoretical
training and native language biases. When sources present dramatically different
phoneme inventories, I accept the source which supports the analysis more thor-
oughly with illustrative language-internal data. For example, Cunha de Oliveira
(2005) presents a consonant phoneme inventory for Apinayé which includes an
entire prenasalized consonant series which is not listed in Burgess & Ham (1968),
who take a more abstract approach. Cunha de Oliveira shows that although pre-
nasalized consonants are often in complementary distribution with nasals in the
language, there are minimal pairs showing that these sounds are meaningfully
contrastive in some environments, an observation that is reinforced by reported
native speaker intuition about the forms.

Sounds which are limited to recent loanwords, the speech of bilinguals, and
certain speech styles were not included in the present study. For instance, in
Cocopa, mid front vowel /e/ is described as occurring only in loanwords from
Spanish and English, and even then is often replaced by native /i/ (Crawford Jr
1966: 26). In Tzeltal, voiceless labial fricative /f/ and alveolar trill /r/ are reported
to occur only in loanwords in the speech of “acculturated” Spanish bilinguals
(Kaufman 1971: 13). In Chipaya, glottal stop /?/ occurs in one obsolescing mor-
pheme, -?a, a declarative suffix formerly used by women to address other women
(Cerrón-Palomino 2006: 55–56). In all these and similar cases, the given sounds
were omitted from the current analysis.

Authors of language descriptions often present marginal phonemes – those
occurring with very low frequency, highly limited distributions, or in just a few
lexical items – in addition to more straightforward ones. Where authors show
these to be contrastive in lexical items, I have generally included such phonemes
here. Where a marginal phoneme is described as clearly obsolescing or merging
with another sound to the point that the contrast is no longer meaningful for
most speakers of the variety examined, I have excluded it.

As mentioned in §3.2.1, sounds with multiple articulations, such as labialized
consonants, affricates, or diphthongs, present obvious complications for a study
of this sort. The analysis of a phonetic sequence, such as [mb], as either a se-
quence of two simple segments or as a single complex segment can in turn affect
how the canonical syllable patterns of a language are analyzed.<fnref n="1" /> Because issues
such as these may create a potential confound in how we interpret associations

<footnote n="1">¹Of course, these issues may not prove so problematic in an Articulatory Phonology framework, or any model which does not force a discrete segmental analysis upon sound and syllable patterns.</footnote>
between syllable structure complexity and segmental inventories, it is important
that competing analyses be carefully evaluated.

Instrumental data can be used to support either a complex segment analysis
or a sequential analysis in such a scenario. For example, if a phonetic sequence
of homorganic nasal+stop has a durational pattern comparable to that of a sim-
ple voiceless stop in a language, this might be taken as evidence for a complex
segment analysis (e.g. as shown for Fijian by Maddieson 1989b; though Lade-
foged & Maddieson 1996 note that there is wide crosslinguistic variation in tim-
ing patterns in prenasalized consonants). There are a few studies on such issues
in languages of the current sample. For example, Chitoran (1998) uses acoustic
evidence to argue that Georgian harmonic clusters (e.g. [dg], [tʰkʰ]) are better an-
alyzed as sequences than as complex segments, as some have claimed. She shows
that each member of a harmonic cluster has a release burst, and that the dura-
tional properties of these clusters word-internally do not differ significantly from
identical sequences found across word boundaries. However, it is generally very
rare in the language descriptions consulted here for authors to present acoustic
or articulatory evidence supporting one analysis over another in such situations.
In the absence of instrumental data, authors often rely on phonological criteria
to support their analyses.

Sometimes authors base their analyses on distributional data. Erickson (2001: 135–138) argues that phonetic C+[w] structures in Lao are in fact labialized consonants and not onset clusters. He observes that no corresponding C+[j] sequences (or palatalized consonants, for that matter) occur as onsets in the language, and that C+[w] structures are infrequent and limited in their distribution, occurring almost entirely before the low vowel /ə/ and never before rounded vowels. These facts suggest a historical process by which the consonant in C+[u] sequences may have taken on the rounding of the high back vowel, a crosslinguistically common type of assimilation. Note that in this case, either analysis puts the language in the Moderately Complex category in the current study.

Similar criteria are used to posit a series of prenasalized consonants in Tukang
Besi. If these structures were considered to be sequences, then they would be the
only consonant clusters occurring in the language, which otherwise has canon-
ical (C)V structure. Prenasalized consonants behave as a unit in reduplication
processes; that is, words like *karambau* have *kara-karambau* as a reduplicated
form, instead of *karam-karambau*. (This argument assumes a syllabification of
*ka.ram.bau* in the scenario that [mb] is a sequence and not a complex segment).
Additionally, native speakers put syllable breaks before the nasal+C sequences
when dividing words into syllables (Donohue 1999: 30–31).
4 *Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity*

The Tukang Besi evidence is not strictly conclusive. The language could be analyzed as having (C)(C)V syllable structure which has very specific restrictions on C₂ and C₁. In this case the ambiguous interpretation has important consequences for syllable structure complexity: one interpretation puts the language into the Simple category, while the other puts it into the Complex category. There is just one language in the Complex category, Lunda, which has biconsonantal onset patterns fitting the hypothetical (C)(C)V pattern for Tukang Besi. However, in Lunda other biconsonantal onsets, like C+glide sequences, also occur, and the nasal+C sequences may come about through morphological processes (that is, some are morphologically separable; example 6).

(6) Lunda (Atlantic-Congo; Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Zambia)
/ku-n-ʒikwila/
INF-1.SG-uncover
[ku.nʒi.kwi.la]
'to uncover for me' (Kawasha 2003: 24)

In Lunda onsets, nasals may combine with a wide variety of consonants, including all plosives, oral fricatives, /h/, /l/, and /w/. In Tukang Besi, the C in nasal+C structures is always an oral plosive or /s/, though other fricatives and sonorants occur in the language. There is persuasive evidence that nasal+C structures are sequences in Lunda. The nasal+C structures in Tukang Besi do not have much in common with those of Lunda in terms of their behavior. Though the evidence for the unitary status of prenasalized consonants in Tukang Besi is not entirely conclusive, I follow the author's analysis here, coding these structures as complex segments and classifying the language as having Simple syllable structure.

A similar issue arises in interpreting a phonetic sequence of a mid or low vowel followed by a high offset. This can be analyzed as a diphthong, in which case the entire structure functions as a syllable nucleus, or a sequence of V+glide, in which case the glide is a member of the coda. Competing analyses for such structures can be found in Yakima Sahaptin. Structures represented orthographically as <ay>, <aw> <uy>, and so on, are described as diphthongs by Jansen (2010) and Rigsby & Rude (1996). However, Hargus & Beavert (2006) present evidence that the structures ending in the high front articulation may be better analyzed as V+/j/ sequences. Preceding /m/, these structures trigger a vowel epenthesis process that is also conditioned by other sonorant consonants, but not vowels, in the language (7).
(7) Yakima Sahaptin (Sahaptian; USA)

a. /t͡jálm/
[t͡jálm]
'Cle Elum (place name)'

b. /talújm/
[talújm]
'nail'

c. /naknúwim/
[naknúwim]
'take care of me' (Hargus & Beavert 2006: 28)

This is presented as evidence that the high front element in these structures behaves as a consonant. Though the /w/ component of such sequences is not reported to trigger the epenthesis process in (7), it is reported to pattern with /j/ in other morphophonemic contexts, and Hargus & Beavert (2006) treat it as a consonant in their analysis. This analysis has the effect of increasing the maximal coda pattern of the language to four, in which all four-consonant codas begin with a glide, e.g. sajlhs 'kidney'. However, due to other syllable patterns in the language, it does not affect the syllable structure complexity classification, which in either case is Highly Complex.

Kunjen presents an example of a language for which a sequential analysis rather than a complex segment analysis results in patterns which directly affect its syllable structure complexity classification. Sommer (1969: 34) rejects a prenasalized stop analysis for structures such as [mb] and [ŋg] on the basis that reverse sequences occur and all component segments may occur separately. This analysis is what allows Kunjen to be classified as having Highly Complex syllable structure in the current study, as nasal+stop sequences are always present in the four-consonant codas in the language, which are also the only Highly Complex structures occurring (8).

(8) Kunjen (Pama-Nyungan; Australia)
/albmb/
'opossum' (Sommer 1969: 33)

It should be noted that it was generally rare for ambiguous segmental analyses to affect the analysis of syllable structure to the point where a language might be classified in a different syllable structure complexity category. In fact the Tukang Besi and Kunjen examples discussed here are the most potentially problematic cases in the entire language sample.
4.2.2 Coding

After the above criteria were considered and segmental inventories determined,
properties of the vowel and consonant inventories were coded as described here.

Vowel inventories were coded for all reported contrasts. First, the number of
vowel quality distinctions was noted. Every vowel inventory was additionally
coded for the presence or absence of contrastive vowel length, nasalization, and
other less common contrasts, such as voicing and glottalization. Where such con-
trasts were present, it was noted whether the contrast was distinctive for all or
some vowels.

I also noted the presence of diphthongs and/or tautosyllabic vowel sequences
and recorded the number and specific forms of these structures. Because they
are so often analyzed as phonological sequences which surface phonetically as
diphthongs, diphthongs present complications in establishing vowel phoneme
inventory patterns (Maddieson 1984: 133). Recall that the purpose of considering
patterns of diphthongs and tautosyllabic vowel sequences here is to establish
the size of the full vocalic nucleus inventory for each language in order to test
the hypothesis in (2). Therefore the diphthongs and tautosyllabic vowel sequen-
ces included in the inventories are not necessarily meant to be interpreted as
phonologically unitary segments, but as possible nucleus patterns if reported as
occurring as such.

In (9) I illustrate the coding with the vowel phoneme inventory of Pinotepa
Mixtec, a language with Simple syllable structure.

(9) Pinotepa Mixtec (Otomanguean; Mexico)

V phoneme inventory: /ieaouīēãõũіęąǔіęąǔ/

N vowel qualities: 5

Diphthongs or vowel sequences: None

Contrastive length: None

Contrastive nasalization: All

Other contrasts: Glottalization (All)

For each consonant inventory, the number of non-geminate consonants was
recorded. Each consonant inventory was first coded for primary distinctions in
voicing, place, and manner of articulation; here I use the term "primary" to refer
to those distinctions represented in the standard chart for non-pulmonic con-
sonants in the International Phonetic Alphabet (International Phonetic Associ-
ation 2015).<fnref n="2" /> The presence of a primary voiced/voiceless distinction was noted

<footnote n="2">²Note that I use different terminology than IPA in some cases: “stop” instead of “plosive”, and “palato-alveolar” instead of “postalveolar”.</footnote>
separately for obstruents and sonorants; voicing had to be the sole distinguishing feature for at least one pair of consonants in order for this distinction to be counted (e.g. /k/ and /g/, /m/ and /m/). All primary manners of articulation in the inventory were recorded, as were the primary places of articulation for all non-glide consonants. Additionally, I recorded the presence of elaborated articulations related to phonation, manner, and place, as defined by Lindblom & Maddieson (1988) and listed in Table 4.1 above. Note that there is some overlap in what I take to be primary articulations and the articulations classified as elaborations by Lindblom & Maddieson (e.g. labiodental, uvular); in the coding such articulations are included in both the place/manner lists and in the list of elaborations.

In (10) I illustrate the coding with the consonant phoneme inventory of Lepcha, a language with Complex syllable structure.

(10) Lepcha (Sino-Tibetan; Bhutan, India, Nepal)

C phoneme inventory:

/pʰbtilʰdtthdccʰkʰgʔtsʰfvszʃʒhmnr|β, j/

N consonant phonemes: 32

Geminates: N/A

Voicing contrasts: Obstruents

Places: Bilabial, Labiodental, Dental, Alveolar, Palato-alveolar, Retroflex, Palatal, Velar, Glottal

Manners: Stop, Affricate, Fricative, Nasal, Trill, Central approximant, Lateral approximant

N elaborations: 5

Elaborations: Voiced fricatives/affricates, Post-aspiration, Labiodental, Palato-alveolar, Retroflex

Dental and alveolar places of articulation are not always reliably distinguished in reference materials (Maddieson 1984: 31–32). Sometimes authors even use the joint label “dental/alveolar” as a cover term for a series of consonants in that general area in the vocal tract. In such cases, I characterize the place of the consonants in question as Dental/Alveolar (11).

(11) Southern Grebo (Atlantic-Congo; Liberia)

C phoneme inventory:

/pbtcdjkgkp ĝ gbfsʰmn n n ɲ ɲm| lw j/

Places: Labial-velar, Bilabial, Dental/Alveolar, Palatal, Velar, Glottal
4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

The current study considers only non-geminate consonant phonemes. Geminates are not always given the same treatment as consonants of normal length in phonological descriptions, as they often occur in specific morphological contexts. While there are languages in which consonant gemination is contrastive within morphemes, there are many more in which gemination is contrastive at the lexical level but only in morphologically complex contexts. As a result of this, discussions of gemination are often presented in the context of morphological processes, and comprehensive lists of geminate consonants may not be given and sometimes must be inferred. As the hypotheses in this chapter are concerned with phonation, place, and manner articulations, issues of consonant gemination are not considered in any depth. However, the reported presence of gemination in consonant inventories is noted in the coding in Appendix B.

The phoneme inventory coding for each language in the sample, along with other notes on the consonant and vowel systems, can be found in Appendix B. In the following sections I present the results of the analyses of consonant and vowel inventories. Because only one of the hypotheses in the current chapter relates to vowel inventories, I present this study first.

4.3 Results: Vowel inventories

In this section, I describe vowel inventory patterns in the language sample. The purpose of the study here is twofold: first, to test the hypothesis in (2) regarding vocalic nucleus inventory size and syllable structure, and second, to explore general features of vowel contrast with respect to syllable structure complexity. For the latter, there are no explicit hypotheses, but any patterns uncovered will be noted in the event that they might help shed light on the development of syllable structure complexity.

4.3.1 Vowel quality inventory size

The distribution of vowel quality inventory sizes in the languages of the sample can be found in Figure 4.1.

The average number of distinctive vowel qualities for languages in the sample is 5.9. The range is 2–13, with the extremes being Kabardian (two vowel qualities) and Eastern Khanty (13 vowel qualities). Over one-third (34) of the languages have systems with five contrastive vowel qualities. The next most common pattern is for languages to have six contrastive vowel qualities. These proportions are nearly identical to those reported for the 564-language sample in Maddieson (2013d).
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.1: Languages of sample distributed according to the number of distinctive vowel qualities in their phoneme inventories.</figcaption></figure>

The mean, median, and range of vowel quality inventory sizes for the languages in each category of syllable structure complexity can be found in Table 4.2.

<table><caption>Table 4.2: Vowel quality inventory sizes in each syllable structure complexity category.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">N vowel qualities</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>24 lgs.</th><th>MC<br>26 lgs.</th><th>C<br>25 lgs.</th><th>HC<br>25 lgs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Mean</th><td>5.8</td><td>6.2</td><td>6.2</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><th>Median</th><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><th>Range</th><td>4–9</td><td>3–13</td><td>4–10</td><td>2–9</td></tr></tbody></table>

There are no clear trends with respect to mean or median vowel quality inventory size and syllable structure complexity. Statistical analysis shows no significant correlation between vowel quality inventory size and syllable structure complexity, measured either categorically ($r(100) = -0.078, p > 0.05$) or as a sum of maximal syllable margin sizes ($r(100) = -0.038, p > 0.05$).

### 4.3.2 Contrastive vowel length

In this section, I examine patterns of contrastive vowel length in the sample. Here I include all languages reported to have contrastive vowel length for some
4 *Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity*

or all vowel qualities. I also include six languages (Ewe, Fur, Kambaata, Maori, Maybrat, and Nimboran) which are described as having tautosyllabic sequences of identical vowels, and two languages (Carib and Selepet) which are described as having diphthongs consisting of identical vowels. In the latter groups of languages, other non-identical vowel sequences or diphthongs are typically present, and phonetically long vowels are often found in morphologically complex contexts. Together, these facts are often used by authors to justify a sequential analysis rather than a contrastive vowel length analysis. I include these languages in the current analysis because the structures in question are reported to be produced as phonetically long vowels which may meaningfully contrast with short vowels (12a–b).

(12) Maybrat (Maybrat-Karon; Indonesia)

a. /puut/
[pu:t]
‘we climb’

b. /put/
[put]
‘leech’ (Dol 2007: 29)

The distribution of contrastive vowel length in the languages of the sample according syllable structure complexity can be found in Table 4.3.

Over half of the languages in the sample (53/100) do not have contrastive vowel length. Vowel length distinctions are somewhat less common in the languages of the Simple category than those of the other categories; however, this trend is not significant in a chi-square test. In terms of geographic distribution, all six macro-areas examined here have four or more languages with vowel length contrasts, with this pattern being most common in North America (12 languages) and least common in Eurasia (four languages).

The above analysis does not distinguish between languages which have vowel length contrasts for all vowel qualities and those that have them for only some. In Figure 4.2 below, I present such an analysis, examining only those languages with contrastive vowel length, including those with tautosyllabic sequences or diphthongs of identical vowels.

In all categories, languages with vowel length contrasts are generally more likely to have these contrasts for all rather than just some vowel qualities. However, there is an interesting result with respect to vowel length contrasts in the Simple syllable structure category. Although languages with Simple syllable
<table><caption>Table 4.3: Contrastive vowel length in the sample. Note that Maori (in the Simple category) is reported to have contrastive vowel length for one vowel quality, but tautosyllabic sequences of identical vowels for other vowel qualities. (In Maori, nearly all possible combinations of two vowels can be found to occur tautosyllabically in normal speech. Bauer (1999: 524–528) uses this distribution to justify the analysis of all phonetically long vowels as sequences of identical vowels. However, phonetic [a:] has a much higher frequency than would be expected if a sequential analysis were accepted, so Bauer analyzes this particular vowel quality as having contrastive length, while [i:] [ɛ:] etc. are taken to be sequences.) Therefore the numbers in the Simple column add up to 25.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Vowel length</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br/>N = 24</th><th>MC<br/>N = 26</th><th>C<br/>N = 25</th><th>HC<br/>N = 25</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Contrastive</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>13</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Tautosyllabic sequences or diphthongs<br/>of identical Vs</td><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Non-contrastive</td><td>16</td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>14</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.2: Proportion of languages in each syllable structure complexity category which have contrastive vowel length for some or all vowel qualities (VQs).</figcaption></figure>
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

structure are overall less likely to have vowel length contrasts, if they do have a contrast they are also most likely to have this contrast for all vowel qualities. In fact, this pattern is without exception in the language sample.

Below I illustrate the prominent patterns in vowel length distinctions with the vowel inventories of two languages: Rotokas, which has Simple syllable structure and length contrasts for all qualities, and Dizin, which has Complex syllable structure but length contrasts only for a subset of vowels (13–14).

### (13) Rotokas (North Bougainville; Papua New Guinea)

V phoneme inventory: /i e a o u i: e: a: o: u:/

### (14) Dizin (Dizoid; Ethiopia)

V phoneme inventory: /i e ε i a o u i: e: α: o: u:/

### 4.3.3 Other vowel contrasts

Here I present analyses of other contrastive properties present in the vowel inventories of the language sample, namely nasalization and phonation contrasts. See Table 4.4 for the distribution of languages in the sample with respect to contrastive vowel nasalization.

<table><caption>Table 4.4: Vowel nasalization contrasts in the sample</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Vowel nasalization</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity.</th></tr><tr><th>S<br/>N = 24</th><th>MC<br/>N = 26</th><th>C<br/>N = 25</th><th>HC<br/>N = 25</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Contrastive</td><td>9</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Non-contrastive</td><td>15</td><td>22</td><td>21</td><td>21</td></tr></tbody></table>

Roughly one-fifth of the languages (21/100) have a vowel nasalization contrast for some or all vowel qualities. This feature is much more common in languages with Simple syllable structure, occurring in over a third of languages in that category, as compared to a much smaller proportion of languages in the other categories; this trend is statistically significant in Fisher's exact test (*p* = 0.04). Contrastive vowel nasalization is also strongly associated with particular geographic regions in the current sample: all but four of the languages with this feature are found in Africa, North America, and South America. This distribution closely mirrors the areal patterns noted by Hajek (2013) in a 244-language
sample. As compared to the analysis of vowel length contrasts in §4.3.2, there is no clear pattern in the sample with respect to the presence of nasalization contrasts for some or all vowel qualities and syllable structure complexity.

We now turn to an analysis of phonation contrasts in the vowel inventory data. These are not common, but do occur in six languages in the sample, listed in Table 4.5 by the specific kind of phonation contrast and syllable structure complexity.

<table><caption>Table 4.5: Languages in sample with distinctive phonation contrasts in vowel inventories, according to syllable structure complexity. The phonological status of voiceless vowels in Kambaata is not fully determined: it is not entirely predictable, but neither is it contrastive in the traditional sense (that is, participating in clear minimal pairs, Treis 2008: 20–22).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Other vowel contrasts</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>Simple</th><th>Moderately Complex</th><th>Complex</th><th>Highly Complex</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Contrastive voicing</td><td>Ute</td><td>(Kambaata)</td><td>–</td><td>Tohono O’odham</td></tr><tr><td>Contrastive glottalization/creaky voice</td><td>Pinotepa Mixtec Sichuan Yi</td><td>Pacoh</td><td>Mamaindê</td><td>–</td></tr></tbody></table>

In this very small data set, contrastive phonation in vowel inventories is more likely to be found in languages with Simple or Moderately Complex syllable structure. Nearly every language with a phonation contrast in its vowel inventory also has an additional contrast besides vowel quality: either vowel nasalization (two languages) or vowel length (four languages). The only exception to this trend is Sichuan Yi. I illustrate these patterns with the vowel phoneme inventories of Ute and Mamaindê (15–16).

(15) Ute (Uto-Aztecan; USA)

V phoneme inventory: /i œ a w u i: œ: a: w: u: i œ ə w̥ u/

(16) Mamaindê (Nambiquaran; Brazil)

V phoneme inventory: /i e a o u ĩ ĕ ə ō ŭ i ɛ a o ŭ ĩ ĕ ə ō ŭ/
4.3.4 Diphthongs and vowel sequences

In this section I analyze other vocalic nucleus patterns in the sample, specifically patterns of diphthongs and tautosyllabic vowel sequences. This analysis excludes the diphthongs or vowel sequences made up of identical vowels that were included in the analysis of contrastive vowel length in §4.3.2. I group together diphthongs and vowel sequences here because the terms are often used interchangeably to refer to the same or very similar tautosyllabic structures, sometimes even within the same language reference. See Table 4.6 for the distribution of languages according to syllable structure complexity and the presence or absence of diphthongs or vowel sequences.

<table><caption>Table 4.6: Languages of the sample, distributed according to syllable structure complexity and the presence or absence of diphthongs or tautosyllabic vowel sequences.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Diphthongs or vowel sequences</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>N = 24</th><th>MC<br>N = 26</th><th>C<br>N = 25</th><th>HC<br>N = 25</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Present</td><td>8</td><td>14</td><td>8</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Absent</td><td>16</td><td>12</td><td>17</td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table>

Languages with Moderately Complex syllable structure are much more likely than languages from the other categories to have diphthongs or vowel sequences (just over half of the languages in this category have these patterns, as compared to roughly one-third of the languages in the other categories).

There is a very wide range in the size of diphthong and tautosyllabic vowel sequence inventories in the languages of the sample. Extremely large inventories of diphthongs or vowel sequences, as illustrated by the 23-diphthong system of Selepet, are rare (17). Selepet has six vowel qualities, and nearly all possible combinations of vowels are reported to occur, either as diphthongs or sequences of identical vowels (which were included in the analyses in §4.3.2). The modal value for the 38 languages in the sample with diphthongs or tautosyllabic vowel sequences is just two such structures, as illustrated for Telugu (18).

(17) Selepet (Nuclear Trans New Guinea; Papua New Guinea)

Diphthongs:

/ie ia iɔ io iu ei eu ai ae ao au ɔi œe ɔo ɔu oi oe ou ui ue ua uɔ uo/
(18) Telugu (Dravidian; India)

Diphthongs: /ai au/

### 4.3.5 Vocalic nucleus inventories and syllable structure complexity

Here I combine the results of the above analyses in order to determine whether there is any positive correlation between the size of vocalic nucleus inventories and syllable structure complexity, as hypothesized in §4.1.4.

This hypothesis was motivated by observations in §3.3.4, where it was found that greater syllable structure complexity was associated with a higher likelihood of a language having complex vocalic nuclei, defined there as long vowels, diphthongs, and/or tautosyllabic vowel sequences. It was assumed that the stronger presence of complex vocalic nuclei might correspond to overall larger vocalic nucleus inventories in languages with more complex syllable structure, revealing a relationship between vowel inventories and syllable structure complexity which has not been previously reported. However, the results in §§4.3.2–4.3.3 show that certain vowel contrasts show strong patterns with respect to syllable structure complexity which may even out this expected effect. While vowel length contrasts are much more frequent in languages with Moderately Complex, Complex, and Highly Complex syllable structure, it is most common to find that vowel length is contrastive for *all* vowel qualities in languages with Simple syllable structure. Meanwhile, contrastive nasalization and phonation are more commonly found in the vowel systems of languages with Simple syllable structure. Here I examine vocalic nucleus inventories to see whether the hypothesized trend is borne out.

In this analysis, I include all distinctive vocalic nucleus patterns reported for each language, including all quality, length, nasalization, and phonation contrasts in addition to diphthong and tautosyllabic vowel sequence patterns. For example, the vocalic nucleus inventory of Budai Rukai is given below (19).

(19) Budai Rukai (Austronesian; Taiwan)

Vocalic nucleus inventory: /i ə a u i: e: a: u: au ai ia ua/

In Table 4.7 I present the mean, median, and range values for vocalic nucleus inventory sizes in the language sample.

Examining the mean and median values for each category of languages, we find that vocalic nucleus inventory size generally decreases as syllable structure complexity increases, a trend which goes against the prediction of the hypothesis. However, due to the great range in vocalic nucleus inventory size observed
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

<table><caption>Table 4.7: Mean, median, and range values for vocalic nucleus inventory sizes in sample, by syllable structure complexity.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Vocalic nucleus inventory size</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>N = 24</th><th>MC<br>N = 26</th><th>C<br>N = 25</th><th>HC<br>N = 25</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Mean</th><td>12.7</td><td>13.3</td><td>12.1</td><td>10.4</td></tr><tr><th>Median</th><td>11.5</td><td>10.5</td><td>9</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><th>Range</th><td>4–31</td><td>3–31</td><td>5–35</td><td>3–31</td></tr></tbody></table>

throughout the sample, there is ultimately no statistically significant correlation between this feature and syllable structure complexity, measured either categorically ($r(100) = -0.116, p > 0.05$) or as a sum of maximal syllable margin sizes ($r(100) = -0.126, p > 0.05$).

### 4.3.6 Summary of vowel patterns in sample

While vocalic nucleus inventories may have different prototypical characteristics in languages with different syllable patterns, showing different rates and effects of length, nasalization, diphthongs, and other contrasts, their overall size appears to bear no relation to syllable structure complexity. However, the patterns associating specific contrastive properties of vowels with syllable structure complexity are worth noting. I summarize these findings in Table 4.8.

<table><caption>Table 4.8: Properties of vowel inventories showing some relationship to syllable structure complexity.</caption><thead><tr><th>Positive trends (increases with syllable structure complexity)</th><th>Negative trends (decreases with syllable structure complexity)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Presence of vowel length contrast</td><td>Vowel length contrast in all vowels<br>Presence of vowel nasalization contrast<br>Presence of vowel phonation contrast</td></tr></tbody></table>

There is no obvious reason why the vowel patterns above should bear any direct relationship to syllable structure complexity as defined here. Nevertheless,
it is important to note these because they may hold information about the history of the languages in which they are spoken. Patterns of phonemic contrast may be a result of the phonologization of historical phonetic processes, which may themselves be relevant to the development of syllable patterns. I will return to this point in the general discussion of results in §4.5.

## 4.4 Results: Consonant inventories

### 4.4.1 Consonant phoneme inventory size

Here I present a basic analysis of consonant phoneme inventory sizes in the language sample and test the hypothesis that as syllable structure complexity increases, so does the size of consonant phoneme inventories.

A positive correlation between these features has previously been established in Maddieson (2006; 2013b), which both use a three-point system for categorizing syllable structure complexity. The hypothesis predicts that the trend will hold for the four-category system used in the current work. It also predicts that the effect will be found when syllable structure complexity is measured as a sum of maximal syllable margins, as suggested by Gordon (2016) for the modified 100-language WALS sample.

In Table 4.9 I present the mean, median, and range values for the consonant phoneme inventory sizes in the language sample, by category of syllable structure complexity.

<table><caption>Table 4.9: Mean, median, and range values for non-geminate consonant phoneme inventory sizes in the language sample, by syllable structure complexity.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">C phoneme inventory size</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>N = 24</th><th>MC<br>N = 26</th><th>C<br>N = 25</th><th>HC<br>N = 25</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Mean</th><td>20.8</td><td>21.7</td><td>21.8</td><td>26.1</td></tr><tr><th>Median</th><td>17</td><td>21.5</td><td>21</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><th>Range</th><td>6–55</td><td>11–32</td><td>12–40</td><td>10–54</td></tr></tbody></table>

In Table 4.9, both mean and median values for consonant phoneme inventory size increase with syllable structure complexity. Languages in the Highly Complex category have on average about five more consonants than languages in
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

the Simple category. However, there is a wide range of inventory sizes in the language sample as a whole and within each category of syllable structure complexity, such that there is considerable overlap in this feature among the different categories. In fact, the largest inventory in the sample is found in Hadza, a language with Simple syllable structure (20), and the third smallest inventory is found in Mohawk, a language with Highly Complex syllable structure (21).

(20) Hadza (isolate; Tanzania)

C phoneme inventory: /pʰ p b tʰ t d kʰ k g kʰw kʷ gʷ ? p’ k’ k’w k| k! k|| m
n ɲ ɲ ŋ w ŋ|’ ŋ| ŋ!’ ŋ||’ ŋ|| m pʰ m b n tʰ n d ɲ kʰ ŋ g n tʃ n dż ɲ dʒ ts dʒ tʃ’ tʃ́ tɔ́ ts’ tʃ|’ tɔ́’ f s ł∫ l j w fi/

N consonant phonemes: 55

(21) Mohawk (Iroquoian; Canada, USA)

C phoneme inventory: /t k ? dʒ s h n l j w/

N consonant phonemes: 10

Despite this wide range of variation, there is a positive correlation between consonant phoneme inventory size and syllable structure complexity. When syllable structure complexity is measured categorically, the correlation is weakly positive but not quite significant ($r(100) = 0.190, p = 0.06$). The result is statistically significant when syllable structure complexity is measured as a sum of maximal syllable margins ($r(100) = 0.202, p = 0.04$).

Thus the hypothesis is supported by the patterns in the current study, even though the sample is much smaller than those of previous works which reported similar findings. When Hadza is excluded as an outlier, the correlations between consonant phoneme inventory size and syllable structure complexity become stronger ($r(99) = 0.256, p = 0.01$) for syllable structure complexity measured categorically, and virtually the same result when it is measured as a sum of maximal syllable margins).

In (22–25) I illustrate typical consonant inventory sizes with a language from each category of syllable structure complexity in the sample.

(22) Rukai (Austronesian; Taiwan)

Syllable structure complexity category: Simple

C phoneme inventory: /p b t d ɲ k g til v θ ð s m n ŋ r l l w j/

N consonant phonemes: 20

(23) Kim Mun (Hmong-Mien; Vietnam)

Syllable structure complexity category: Moderately Complex
C phoneme inventory: /p b t d c j k g f v θ s h m n j η l ʌ w j/

N consonant phonemes: 21

(24) Lunda (Atlantic-Congo; Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Zambia)

Syllable structure complexity category: Complex

C phoneme inventory: /p b t d k g tʃ氶dʒ f v s z氶ʒ h m n j η l w j/

N consonant phonemes: 22

(25) Tehuelche (Chonan; Argentina)

Syllable structure complexity category: Highly Complex

C phoneme inventory: /p b ty dk g q G ? p’ t’ k’ q’ tʃ氶tʃ氶 s∫x χ m n l r w j/

N consonant phonemes: 25

It was previously noted that the association between syllable structure com-
plexity and consonant phoneme inventory size may reflect the overlapping geo-
graphical distributions of the two properties. Specifically, Simple syllable struc-
ture is most commonly found in equatorial regions, including Africa, New
Guinea, and South America. Complex syllable patterns (as defined in that study)
are most often found in northern North America, northern Eurasia, and north-
ern Australia. The latter areas, besides Australia, are associated with large conso-
nant inventories, and the former with small consonant inventories. Therefore the
global positive correlation between syllable structure complexity and consonant
inventory size may be a reflection of specific genealogical or areal trends within
these regions. Maddieson (2006) rejected this scenario, finding that the pattern
linking syllable structure complexity and consonant phoneme inventory size was
significant within most of the geographical regions examined there. This issue
is worth investigating here in a language sample with different design features.

Below, I examine whether the association between consonant inventory size
and syllable structure complexity, with the added category of Highly Complex,
can be found within geographical regions in the current sample. This analysis
is necessarily impressionistic: because the already moderate sample size is split
roughly evenly between six macro-areas, it is difficult to statistically test the
patterns. In Figure 4.3, the median consonant inventory sizes are plotted against
syllable structure complexity for the languages in each macro-area.

The trends in Figure 4.3 are not all linear; this fact may reflect the small sample
size for each region (16 or 17 languages each) as much as it does regional trends.
However, we do find that in all but one region – Southeast Asia & Oceania –
there are general, if not monotonic, trends by which the median consonant in-
ventory size of languages in the Highly Complex category is higher than that of
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.3: Median consonant phoneme inventory sizes by syllable structure complexity, for each macro-area represented in the sample.</figcaption></figure>

languages in the Simple category (or Moderately Complex, in the case of Eurasia). Southeast Asia & Oceania shows an increase in consonant phoneme inventory size from Simple to Complex syllable structure and then a sharp decline in the Highly Complex category, which is represented by only one language in that region (Semai).

While the patterns here are by no means conclusive, they do suggest that the relationship between consonant phoneme inventory size and syllable structure complexity may occur on regional scales in addition to a global scale, even when the Highly Complex category is included. For example, while South America has generally smaller consonant inventories than languages in other regions, it nevertheless shows increasing inventory size with increasing syllable structure complexity. It is also notable that none of the six regions show a strong negative association between consonant inventory size and syllable structure complexity.

### 4.4.2 Elaborations

Here I examine general patterns with respect to the presence of articulatory elaborations in the consonant phoneme inventories of the sample. Specifically, I test the hypothesis formulated in (4): as syllable structure complexity increases, so does the number of articulatory elaborations present in consonant phoneme inventories.

As discussed above, there are two motivations for this hypothesis. The first is the observation that many languages with famously complex syllable structure also tend to have several specific kinds of rare consonants in their phoneme inventories, corresponding to some of the elaborations in the typology put forth by Lindblom & Maddieson (1988). Additionally, the hypothesis is motivated by the
findings of Maddieson et al. (2013). In the 700-language LAPSyD sample, it was found that languages with Complex syllable structure tend to have more consonants with elaborated articulations than languages with Simple or Moderately Complex syllable structure. While that study reported on numbers of elaborated consonant phonemes rather than the elaborations themselves, I expect the two patterns to be similar, and also for the trend to hold with the additional category of Highly Complex syllable structure.

First I briefly present an analysis similar to that conducted in Maddieson et al. (2013). The elaborations considered are those listed in Table 4.1. Here, as in that study, consonants having just one elaboration (e.g. Labialization for /kʷ/) have been grouped together with consonants having more than one elaboration (e.g. Uvular, Labialization, and Ejective for /qʷ/). An example of this coding can be found in (26).

(26) Lakota (Siouan; USA)

C phoneme inventory:

/p pʰ b t tʰ k kʰʔ pʻ tʻ kʻ ова ҫа ҫаʻ s z∫з х γ h m n l w j/

Elaborated consonants: /pʰ tʰ kʰ pʻ tʻ kʻ ова ҫа ҫаʻ z∫з γ/

N elaborated consonants: 13

Table 4.10 shows the mean, median, and range in number of elaborated consonants for the languages of the sample. As expected, the median numbers of elaborated consonant phonemes rise with increasing syllable structure complexity. Languages in the Highly Complex category have a much higher average number of elaborated consonants than the three other categories, which have comparable average values.

<table><caption>Table 4.10: Mean, median, and range in number of elaborated consonants in phoneme inventories of languages of sample, by syllable structure complexity.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">N elaborated consonants</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>24 lgs.</th><th>MC<br>26 lgs.</th><th>C<br>25 lgs.</th><th>HC<br>25 lgs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mean</td><td>7.3</td><td>7.0</td><td>7.0</td><td>11.8</td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>3</td><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Range</td><td>0–38</td><td>1–16</td><td>1–24</td><td>0–37</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

Now we turn to a direct test of the hypothesis, which is concerned with articulatory elaborations themselves, rather than elaborated consonants. Table 4.11 lists the mean, median, and range values of the number of elaborations present in the languages of the sample according to syllable structure complexity.

<table><caption>Table 4.11: Mean, median, and range values for number of elaborations present in consonant inventories in each category of syllable structure complexity.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">N elaborations in C inventory</th><th colspan="4">Syllable structure complexity</th></tr><tr><th>S<br>24 lgs.</th><th>MC<br>26 lgs.</th><th>C<br>25 lgs.</th><th>HC<br>25 lgs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mean</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.6</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td>2</td><td>2.5</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Range</td><td>0–10</td><td>1–8</td><td>1–6</td><td>0–7</td></tr></tbody></table>

As predicted, the mean and median number of elaborations rises from the Simple category to the Highly Complex category, though the trend is not linear. Nearly all of the languages in the sample have at least one elaboration in their consonant phoneme inventories.<fnref n="3" /> Here, as in the analysis of consonant phoneme inventory size in §4.4.1, wide ranges may be observed in the number of elaborations present in the languages of the sample. The largest number of elaborations is found again in Hadza, a language with Simple syllable structure (27).

### (27) Hadza (isolate; Tanzania)

C phoneme inventory: /pʰ p b t d kʰ k g kʰw kʷ gʷʔ p’ k’ʷ k| k! k|| m
n ɲ ɲ ŋ w ŋ|’ ŋ| ŋ!’ ŋ! ŋ|| ŋ|| m pʰ m b n tʰ n d ŋ kʰ ŋ g n̂ ts n̂ d̂ z n̂ dʒ ts d̂ z tʃ̂ tɔ̃
dʒ̂ ts’ tʃ’ tɔ̃’ f s ʃ l j w fi/

Elaborations: Voiced fricatives/affricates, Voiceless sonorants, Prenasalization, Post-aspiration, Lateral release, Ejective, Click, Labiodental, Palato-alveolar, Labialization

N elaborations: 10

The largest numbers of consonant elaborations are found in languages with Simple and Moderately Complex syllable structure, and the range in number of elaborations is somewhat narrower for languages with Complex and Highly

<footnote n="3">³There are just two exceptions to this pattern, both from the Southeast Asia & Oceania macro-area: Maori (Simple) and Semai (Highly Complex).</footnote>
Complex syllable structure. Nevertheless, there is a positive correlation between the number of elaborations present in consonant inventories and syllable structure complexity in the language sample. This correlation is weak but statistically significant ($r(100) = 0.198, p = 0.04$ when syllable complexity is measured as a sum of maximal syllable margins).

In (28–31) I illustrate typical numbers of consonant elaborations for each syllable structure complexity category.

(28) Savosavo (*isolate*; Solomon Islands)
Syllable structure complexity category: Simple
C phoneme inventory: /pʰbʰtʰdʰʃkʰŋgʰmʰnʰŋsʰzʰrʰlʰβ, ψ/
Elaborations: Voiced fricatives/affricates, Prenasalization
N elaborations: 2

(29) Kamasau (*Nuclear Torricelli*; Papua New Guinea)
Syllable structure complexity category: Moderately Complex
C phoneme inventory:
/bʰtʰdʰʃdʒkʰgʔʰmʰdʰʃdʒŋgφʰβsɣmʰnʰŋrʰwj/
Elaborations: Voiced fricatives/affricates, Prenasalization, Palato-alveolar
N elaborations: 3

(30) Tzeltal (*Mayan*; Mexico)
Syllable structure complexity category: Complex
C phoneme inventory: /pʰbʰtʰkʔpʻtʻkʻtʃsʰtʃtʃsʻtʃʃs∫hmn∫rlʃwj/
Elaborations: Ejective, Palato-alveolar
N elaborations: 2

(31) Itelmen (*Chukotko-Kamchatkan*; Russia)
Syllable Structure Complexity Category: Highly Complex
C phoneme inventory: /pʰtʰqʔpʻtʻkʻqʻtʃtʃφβszkxχmʰŋlʃ/
Elaborations: Voiced fricatives/affricates, Ejective, Palato-alveolar, Uvular
N elaborations: 4

The results presented here support the hypothesis that the number of articulatory elaborations present in consonant phoneme inventories is higher in languages with more complex syllable structure. An additional finding is that nearly every language in the sample has at least one consonant elaboration. In fact, the normal scenario, based on the data presented in Table 4.11, is for languages of
all categories to have at least two elaborations. Considering these patterns, re-
call the fourth hypothesis of the current chapter, first presented in (5): languages
with differing degrees of syllable structure complexity will exhibit different con-
sonant contrasts in their phoneme inventories.

In light of the findings here, the predictions of the hypothesis can be refined
with respect to its initial formulation in §4.1.4. We find that languages from all cat-
egories of syllable structure complexity tend more often than not to have two or
three elaborations, and that the difference in the typical number of elaborations
between the Simple and Highly Complex categories is not dramatic: the mean is
2.9 in the Simple category and 3.9 in the Highly Complex category. This small
gap in the means does not leave room for an average of even two additional
elaborations in languages of the Highly Complex category. But recall that the
apparent prevalence of both uvular and ejective articulations in languages with
more complex syllable structure, not to mention the frequent co-occurrence of
these with other elaborated articulations such as secondary labialization, is in
part what motivated the hypothesis.

This suggests that the hypothesis, if borne out in the data, may manifest in
a different way than originally expected. It was expected that languages with
more complex syllable structure would tend to have several kinds of articula-
tions, corresponding to elaborations, that tend not to be found in languages with
simpler syllable structure. In light of these results, it may be more appropriate
to expect that languages with more complex syllable structure tend to have not
only *more* elaborations, but also *different kinds* of elaborations than languages
with simpler syllable structure. There is also the possibility that the distribution
of elaborations in the consonant inventories of the sample is predicted by factors
other than syllable structure complexity (i.e. genealogical or areal).

The hypothesis in (5) is in fact not limited to elaborated consonants, but con-
siders these in addition to other consonant patterns, including basic distinctions
in voicing, place, and manner. In the following three sections, I test this, examin-
ing properties of the consonant inventories in the language sample. The results
are then summarized and related to the predictions of the hypothesis and the
discussion above.

4.4.3 Phonation features

In this section I present an analysis of phonation features in the consonant pho-
neme inventories of the language sample. In Table 4.12 I list the basic and elabo-
rated phonation features which are considered. Note that I use the term “basic”
here to refer to distinctions made in the standard IPA chart of pulmonic consonants, but which are not included in Lindblom & Maddieson's (1988) list of elaborated articulations. Thus the list of basic features is equivalent to the list of primary articulatory features described in §4.2.2, minus any of those features considered by Lindblom & Maddieson to be elaborated.<fnref n="4" />

<table><caption>Table 4.12: Basic and elaborated phonation features examined here.</caption><thead><tr><th>Basic</th><th>Elaborated</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>voicing contrast in obstruents</td><td>breathy voice</td></tr><tr><td>voicing contrast in sonorants</td><td>creaky voice</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>voiced fricatives/affricates</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>voiceless sonorants</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>pre-aspiration</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>post-aspiration</td></tr></tbody></table>

In Figure 4.4 I show the number of languages in the sample which have the given phonation feature in their consonant inventories.

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.4: Phonation features in consonant inventories, by number of languages in which they are present.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="4">⁴This distinction is more clearly apparent in Table 4.13 in §4.4.4.</footnote>
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

Most of the phonation features examined here are found in ten or fewer languages. I briefly discuss those results here. None of the languages of the sample have *pre-aspiration*. *Breathy voice* is present in only four languages: Darai, Kharia, Sumi Naga, and Telugu. All of these languages are from the Indian sub-continent, where this feature is prevalent (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 57–58). *Creaky voice* occurs in four languages in the language sample. Here this term always refers to consonants described as glottalized sonorants which are often transcribed with an ejective or glottalization diacritic (e.g. /u̥OMIC/, /w̥OMIC/). This feature is strongly associated with northern North America, occurring in Nuu-chah-nulth, North Slavey, and Thompson, but also occurs in one language from Southeast Asia & Oceania (Pacoh). Finally, there are six languages with *voiceless sonorants*: Hadza, Kambaata, Kunjen, Nivkh, Sichuan Yi, and Southern Grebo. In all of these except for Kunjen, a *voicing contrast in sonorants* occurs such that at least one pair of these consonants is distinguished solely by a modal voicing/voiceless contrast.

There are three other phonation features – *voicing contrast in obstruents*, *voiced fricatives/affricates*, and *post-aspiration* – which occur in more than ten languages each. Figure 4.5 attempts to capture any trends that exist with respect to the presence of these features and syllable structure complexity. The figure shows the percentage of languages in each category of syllable structure which have the given phonation feature in their consonant inventories.

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.5: Percentage of languages in each category of syllable structure complexity having the given phonation feature in their consonant inventories. For the calculation of the *voiced fricatives/affricates* trend, four languages which have neither fricatives nor affricates have been excluded (see §4.4.5)</figcaption></figure>

Only the *voicing contrast in obstruents* feature has a near-monotonic, albeit weak, trend with respect to syllable structure complexity. While having a voicing contrast in obstruents is the norm for languages in all four categories of sylla-
ble structure, this feature is found with the highest frequency in languages from the Simple category and with lowest frequency in languages from the Highly Complex category. This trend is no doubt strongly influenced by the high representation of languages from the Americas in this category. See Figure 4.6 for a map of the geographical distribution of the languages lacking a voicing contrast in obstruents, which are heavily concentrated in the Americas. Most (6/9) of the languages without this feature in the Highly Complex category are from this region.

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.6: Areal distribution of languages in sample with no voicing contrast in obstruents.</figcaption></figure>

Indeed, the trend with respect to the *voicing contrast in obstruents* feature is not significant in chi-square tests. Thus we do not find strong evidence for a relationship between phonation features and syllable structure complexity in this language sample.

### 4.4.4 Place features

In this section I present an analysis of place features in the consonant phoneme inventories of the language sample. This analysis considers only the patterns of non-glide consonants. In Table 4.13 I list the place features considered.

Figure 4.7 shows how many languages in the sample each place feature is found in. Note that in the figure I have merged languages which have dental, alveolar or dental/alveolar articulations into one category of *dental/alveolar*. This is
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

<table><caption>Table 4.13: Basic and elaborated place features examined here.</caption><thead><tr><th>Basic</th><th>Elaborated</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>labial-velar</td><td>labiodental</td></tr><tr><td>bilabial</td><td>palato-alveolar</td></tr><tr><td>dental</td><td>retroflex</td></tr><tr><td>alveolar</td><td>uvular</td></tr><tr><td>dental/alveolar</td><td>pharyngeal</td></tr><tr><td>alveolo-palatal</td><td>palatalization</td></tr><tr><td>palatal</td><td>labialization</td></tr><tr><td>velar</td><td>pharyngealization</td></tr><tr><td>glottal</td><td>velarization</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.7: Place features in consonant inventories, by number of languages in which they are present.</figcaption></figure>

to distinguish languages reported to have only one of these places of articulation from those reported to have both dental and alveolar articulations (the *dental and alveolar* category).

Several of the place features are (nearly) universal in the sample. All languages except for Mohawk have *bilabial* consonants, and all but Wutung have *velar* consonants. All languages in the sample have either *dental/alveolar* or *dental and alveolar* consonants; there is no trend with respect to syllable structure complexity for either of these features.
There are five place features in the sample that are present in fewer than ten languages. The *labial-velar* feature occurs in seven languages, six of which are spoken in Africa (Southern Bobo Madaré, Doyayo, Ewe, Southern Grebo, Lelepa, Ma’di, and Yoruba). Secondary *palatalization* is present in six languages (Cocopa, Pinotepa Mixtec, Polish, Paiwan, Towa, and Urarina). The remaining rare place features are found only in languages with Highly Complex syllable structure. Secondary *pharyngealization* and *velarization* are present in one language each (Tashlhiyt and Albanian, respectively). *Pharyngeal* consonants are found in languages from areas which are famous “hotspots” of complex syllable structure: the Pacific Northwest (Nuu-chah-nulth, Thompson), the Caucasus (Kabardian), and the Atlas Mountains (Tashlhiyt).<fnref n="5" />

The remaining eight place features – *labiodental*, *alveolo-palatal*, *palato-alveolar*, *retroflex*, *palatal*, *uvular*, *glottal*, and secondary *labialization* – are found in more than ten languages each. Of these, there are three features which show a (near-) monotonic increase or decrease in frequency with respect to syllable structure complexity. These are shown in Figure 4.8.

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.8: Percentage of languages in each category of syllable structure complexity having the given place feature.</figcaption></figure>

There are two features in Figure 4.8 which show strong positive trends with respect to syllable structure complexity. *Palato-alveolars*, which are generally frequent in the language sample, are strongly associated with Highly Complex syllable structure, though the trend in this feature is not strictly linear between the Simple to Complex categories. This trend is statistically significant: $\chi^2(3, N = 100) = 14.59, p = 0.002$. The *uvular* pattern is especially striking. This place feature is distinctive in just one language (Sumi Naga) from the Simple category, yet

<footnote n="5">⁵Here the term *pharyngeal* also includes epiglottal consonants.</footnote>
its frequency of occurrence rises monotonically with syllable structure complexity to the extent that nearly half of the languages with Highly Complex syllable structure have consonants at this place of articulation. This trend is highly significant: $\chi^2(3, N = 100) = 16.01, p = 0.001$.

The geographical distribution of uvulars is shown in Figure 4.9. While the prevalence of this feature in the Highly Complex syllable structure is boosted by its concentration in areas such as the Pacific Northwest and the Caucasus, it is notable that uvulars are also found to co-occur with Highly Complex syllable structure in regions as far-flung as New Guinea, Northeast Asia, and Patagonia.

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.9: Areal distribution of languages in sample with uvular consonants.</figcaption></figure>

The *palatal* articulation shows a negative trend with respect to syllable structure complexity. While this trend is not significant in a chi-square test, it is interesting that it runs counter to that established for *palato-alveolars*. This observation brings up an important issue of terminology and description. It is not uncommon for authors of language descriptions to use the term “palatal” in classifying the place of a series of consonants, but transcribe the consonants with the symbols used for palato-alveolars. Similarly, the terms “alveolo-palatal” and “alveo-palatal” may be used in prose descriptions, while palato-alveolar symbols are used in transcription. In her crosslinguistic study of palatalization, Bateman (2007) notes that there is often disagreement on the transcription conventions used for secondarily palatalized velars, fronted velars, and palatal consonants. It is understandable that there is some inconsistency and interchangeability in
the use of these terms: the area of contact between the tongue body and the hard palate may be large and variable in consonants articulated in this region, making it difficult to select a place classification (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 30–33). Since palato-alveolar and palatal places of articulation are not always reliably distinguished from one another or other similar articulations, we must consider the possibility that the trends with respect to these features in Figure 4.8 effectively cancel each other out. In such a scenario, there would be no trend with respect to consonant articulations in this region of the vocal tract and syllable structure complexity.

In order to clarify this issue, five places in the general region of the hard palate are examined: *palato-alveolar*, *palatal*, *palatalized alveolar and/or velar*, and *alveolo-palatal*. For each language, the number of places in which consonants are produced in this region is noted. For example, the phoneme inventory of Polish has consonants in three distinct places in this region: palato-alveolar, alveolo-palatal, and palatalized velar (32).

(32) Polish (Indo-European; Poland)

C phoneme inventory: /p b p̪ b̪ t̪ d k g k̪ g̪ ťs d̄z t̄f dʒ tco dʒ f v f̪ v̪ s zʃ
ʒ c z x m m̪ n n̪ r l j w/

Figure 4.10 shows the distribution of languages in the sample with respect to how many places are utilized in the region of the hard palate.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.10: Number of place distinctions made in the region of the hard palate in languages with different syllable structure complexity. Place distinctions considered here are *palato-alveolar*, *palatal*, *palatalized alveolar and/or velar*, and *alveolo-palatal*. For each category of syllable structure complexity, I show the percentage of languages having one, two, three, or none of these places represented in their consonant inventories.</figcaption></figure>

In all categories, most languages have at least one place articulation in the region of the hard palate. Crucially, the patterns in Figure 4.10 show that the
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

percentage of languages having one or more articulations in the region of the hard palate increases steadily with syllable structure complexity. That is, the trend favoring purported “palatal” articulations in languages with simpler syllable structure does not cancel out the trend favoring purported “palato-alveolar” articulations in languages with more complex syllable structure.

Below I present another analysis of the proliferation of place distinctions in a large region of the vocal tract. In this case, the number of place distinctions made in the post-velar region is considered. The distinctions considered here are the *uvular*, *labialized uvular*, *pharyngeal*, *pharyngealized*, and *glottal* places of articulation. Figure 4.11 shows how the number of post-velar distinctions patterns with respect to syllable structure.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.11: Number of place distinctions made in the post-velar region in languages with different syllable structure complexity. Place distinctions considered here are *uvular*, *labialized uvular*, *pharyngeal*, *pharyngealization*, and *glottal*. For each category of syllable structure complexity, I show the percentage of languages having 1, 2, ≥3, or none of these places represented in their consonant inventories.</figcaption></figure>

In all categories of syllable structure complexity, roughly similar proportions of languages have at least one post-velar place of articulation, usually glottal. However, in the Complex and Highly Complex categories, one-fifth and one-half of languages, respectively, have consonants at more than one place in the post-velar region. In fact, in the Highly Complex category, some languages have consonant systems which make use of four post-velar places (Kabardian, Nuu-chah-nulth, and Thompson), and one language (Tashlhiyt) has consonants at all five post-velar places. Below I show the consonant phoneme inventory of Nuu-chah-nulth, which has consonants at *uvular*, *labialized uvular*, *pharyngeal*, and *glottal* places of articulation (33).

(33) Nuu-chah-nulth (Wakashan; Canada)

C phoneme inventory: /p t k kʷ q qʷ ʔ ʔ p’ t’ k’ k’ʷ til ts til ts’ tʃ’ tʃ’ s ʔ l ʃ x
xʷ χ χʷ ʔ h m n m’ n’ j w j’ w’/
In this section we have found that there are two place features of consonants which have statistically significant positive trends with respect to syllable structure complexity: *uvular* and *palato-alveolar* articulations (or at least one place in the region of the hard palate). Languages with more complex syllable structure also tend to have more consonant place articulations in the post-velar region, and infrequent post-velar articulations *pharyngeal*, *pharyngealization*, and *velarization* are found only in languages with Highly Complex syllable structure in the current sample.

### 4.4.5 Manner features

Here the manner features in the consonant phoneme inventories of the language sample are analyzed. In Table 4.14 I list the manner features considered.

<table><caption>Table 4.14: Basic and elaborated manner features examined here. “Cental approximants” include non-lateral approximants such as glides but also “rhotic” approximants like /ɪ/.</caption><thead><tr><th>Basic</th><th>Elaborated</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>stop</td><td>prenasalization</td></tr><tr><td>affricate</td><td>nasal release</td></tr><tr><td>fricative</td><td>lateral release</td></tr><tr><td>nasal</td><td>ejective</td></tr><tr><td>flap/tap</td><td>implosive</td></tr><tr><td>trill</td><td>click</td></tr><tr><td>central approximant</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>lateral affricate</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>lateral fricative</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>lateral flap</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>lateral approximant</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Figure 4.12 shows how many languages in the sample have each manner feature. Because all instances of lateral release in the data were lateral affricates, these features have been merged so that only *lateral release* is represented in the figure. *Lateral flap* has also been merged with the more frequent (non-lateral) *flap/tap* articulation.

As with place features, there are several manner features which are (nearly) universal in the sample. *Stops* occur in every language. *Nasals* occur in all but two languages (Cubeo and Rotokas). There are four languages lacking *fricatives*:
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.12: Manner features in consonant inventories, by number of languages in which they are present.</figcaption></figure>

Alyawarra, Bardi, Mangarrayi, and Ngarinyin. All of these languages are spoken in Australia, a region where this rare typological feature is common (Maddieson 1984: 42). *Central approximants* are reported to be absent in nine languages. However, in at least some of these languages, phonetic glides occur in complementary distribution with other sounds (e.g. Urarina, Olawsky 2006: 37).

There are five manner features occurring in ten or fewer languages in the sample. *Clicks* and *nasal release* occur in one language each (Hadza and Alyawarra, respectively). *Implosives* are present in the consonant inventories of five languages, all from Africa and Southeast Asia & Oceania: Doyayo, Tukang Besi, Sre, Ma'di, and Mpade. *Lateral release*, which corresponds to lateral affricates, is found in only five languages, mostly from North America: Hadza, Nuu-chah-nulth, North Slavey, Thompson, and Yakima Sahaptin.

The remaining seven manner features considered here – *affricate*, *flap/tap*, *trill*, *lateral fricative*, *lateral approximant*, *ejective*, *prenasalization* – occur in more than ten languages each. Three of these – *flap/tap*, *prenasalization*, and *ejective* – show a (near-)monotonic increase or decrease with respect to syllable structure complexity. While the feature *affricate* does not show a linear trend, it does show a large overall increase in frequency between the Simple and Highly Complex categories. The patterning of these four features with respect to syllable structure complexity can be found in Figure 4.13.

There are two manner features whose frequency in inventories is associated with increasing syllable structure complexity. The trend in *affricates*, though not
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.13: Percentage of languages in each category of syllable structure complexity having the given manner feature.</figcaption></figure>

linear, is nevertheless significant: $\chi^2(3, N = 100) = 8.89, p = 0.03$. The *ejectives* trend is statistically significant when the data from the Simple and Moderately Complex categories is combined and compared against that of the Complex and Highly Complex categories combined (*p* = 0.006 in Fisher's exact test). There is a heavy areal distribution of this feature: over half (10/19) of the languages with ejectives in the sample are found in the Americas. Outside the Americas, ejectives are also found to co-occur with Highly Complex syllable structure in the Caucasus region, Ethiopian Highlands, and Northeast Asia (see Figure 4.14).

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.14: Areal distribution of languages in sample with ejective consonants.</figcaption></figure>
4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

The proportion of languages with *prenasalization* contrasts in their consonant phoneme inventories decreases with syllable structure complexity, though this trend is not statistically significant in a chi-square test. This trend is not clearly driven by any particular regional patterns: while roughly half (7/15) of languages with these articulations are from the region of Australia & New Guinea, the distribution of those languages among the categories of syllable structure complexity is even. Further, the trend favoring prenasalization in languages with Simple syllable structure is not limited to a single region. The seven languages with Simple syllable structure and prenasalization are from four different macro-areas: Africa (Hadza, Ma’di), Australia & New Guinea (East Kewa, Savosavo), North America (Pinotepa Mixtec), and Southeast Asia & Oceania (Tukang Besi, Sichuan Yi). It is interesting to note that, like Simple syllable patterns, prenasalization contrasts tend to be found in languages spoken in close proximity to the equator (Figure 4.15).

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.15: Areal distribution of languages in sample with prenasalized consonants.</figcaption></figure>

The *flap/tap* feature also has a negative relationship with syllable structure complexity in the language sample, although this trend is not statistically significant in a chi-square test. Examining the geographical distribution of languages with flap or tap articulations, we find that this trend can be found within most of the macro-areas in the sample (Figure 4.16).

Flap and tap articulations differ from trill articulations in important ways. Flaps and taps are produced with a single rapid movement of the active articulator, usually the tongue tip, making brief contact with the passive articulator,
<figure><img src="image_36.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.16: Areal distribution of languages in sample with flap/tap consonants.</figcaption></figure>

usually the alveolar ridge. Trills in the coronal region often have the same config-
uration of articulators, but the movement of the active articulator is a vibration
driven by aerodynamic currents rather than muscular movements (Ladefoged
& Maddieson 1996: 217–232). However, taps and flaps can vary allophonically
with trills in some languages. We must allow for the possibility that the trend
noted above reflects an analytical preference, in languages with simpler syllable-
ble structure, by which the flap/tap articulation is considered primary in such
cases of allophonic variation. Figure 4.17 shows how flap/tap and coronal trill
articulations are distributed among languages with different syllable structure
complexity. Even in the most liberal interpretation of the analytical preference
scenario, the pattern with trill articulations does not clearly neutralize the pat-
tern of flap/tap articulations.

In this section we have found statistically significant trends positively associat-
ing *affricate* and *ejective* manners of articulation with syllable structure complex-
ity. We also find weaker trends which are not statistically significant showing a
negative association between the presence of *flap/tap* and *prenasalized* articula-
tions and syllable structure complexity.

4.4.6 Summary of consonant patterns in sample

Three hypotheses were formulated in §4.1.4 with respect to consonant inventory
patterns and syllable structure complexity. First, it was hypothesized that conso-
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.17: Distribution of languages with flap/tap and trill articulations, by syllable structure complexity.</figcaption></figure>

nant phoneme inventory size would increase with syllable structure complexity. This relationship was upheld in the current sample and was found to be statistically significant. Second, it was hypothesized that the number of elaborated articulations present in consonant phoneme inventories would increase with syllable structure complexity. As expected, this correlation was found to be positive and significant, though the difference in average number of elaborations was not dramatic between the categories at the two extremes of syllable structure complexity. Finally, it was hypothesized that languages with more complex syllable structure would have different kinds of consonants in their inventories than languages with simpler syllable structure. The results of the analyses in §4.4.3–4.4.5 suggest that this is the case, as there are specific consonant articulations which are more frequently present in languages of the Complex and Highly Complex categories. However, it was also found that there are consonant types which occur more frequently in languages with simpler syllable structures. Thus it can be said, more generally, that languages with different syllable patterns also tend to have different kinds of consonants in their phoneme inventories.

Trends positively associating *uvular, palato-alveolar, affricate, and ejective* articulations with syllable structure complexity were found to be statistically significant in the current language sample, while trends negatively associating a *voicing contrast in obstruents, palatals, flaps/taps and prenasalization* with syllable complexity were not found to be statistically significant. However, given the relatively small sample size considered, it is possible that different results might be found for all of these trends in a larger sample. The robustness of each of these trends was investigated in the 501-language LAPSyD sample (Maddieson et al. 2013). Within LAPSyD, it was found that most of these articulations – all except for *voicing contrast in obstruents and palatals* – have weak but highly significant positive or negative correlations with syllable structure complexity (measured as
the sum of maximal syllable margins). These verified correlations, which correspond in directionality to those patterns established above, are listed and marked by asterisks in Table 4.15. Additionally, the table lists in italics two general trends established in the present study with respect to articulations in the palatal and postvelar regions.

<table><caption>Table 4.15: Features of consonantal systems associated positively or negatively with syllable structure complexity. Where relevant, the statistically significant correlation in LAPSyD (Maddieson et al. 2013) is given.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Type of feature</th><th rowspan="2">Articulation</th><th colspan="2">Correlation in LAPSyD</th></tr><tr><th>r(501)</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Place</td><td>*Palato-alveolar</td><td>0.162</td><td>&lt;5 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>*Uvular<br/>At least one distinction in palatal region<br/>More post-velar distinctions</td><td>0.282</td><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-5</sup></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Manner</td><td>*Affricate</td><td>0.156</td><td>&lt;5 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>*Ejective</td><td>0.180</td><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr><tr><td>*Flap/tap</td><td>-0.136</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>*Prenasalization</td><td>-0.175</td><td>&lt;1 × 10<sup>-4</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

There is an important general observation to be made regarding the patterns uncovered here. This is that the three standard aspects of consonant articulation examined here – phonation, place, and manner – pattern differently with respect to syllable structure complexity. Phonation features do not seem to be correlated with syllable structure complexity. The presence of certain place features is associated with more complex syllable structure. Both ends of the syllable structure complexity scale are associated with specific manner features, but very different kinds. The manners of articulation associated with more complex syllable structure (affricates and ejectives) are obstruents, while the manner features associated with simpler syllable structure are either sonorants (flap/tap), or arguably have a sonorant component (prenasalized consonants). These patterns may have important implications for uncovering the development of highly complex syllable structure, as well as for establishing a syllable structure-based phonological typology of languages. These issues will be discussed further in §4.5.
## 4.5 Discussion

### 4.5.1 Segmental inventory patterns and syllable structure complexity

In light of the findings presented in the current chapter, we revisit the first broad research goal of this work, which is to determine whether languages with highly complex syllable structure share other characteristics such that this group can be classified as a holistic language type.

The results indicate that there are a number of specific segmental patterns associated with highly complex syllable structure, all of which are related to consonants. These are summarized in (34). The terms “absence” and “presence” are used here not in a categorical sense, but to mean relative absence or presence of a property in the Highly Complex group as compared to the other syllable structure complexity groups.

#### (34) Segmental patterns associated with Highly Complex category

* Mean of 26 consonant phonemes

* Mean of 4 elaborations in consonant phoneme inventory

* Absence of prenasalized consonants

* Absence of flap/tap consonants

* Presence of palato-alveolar consonants

* Presence of uvular consonants

* Presence of affricate consonants

* Presence of ejective consonants

This list does not include two more general segmental patterns of languages with Highly Complex syllable structure: at least one place distinction in the region of the hard palate, and a more richly elaborated set of place distinctions in the post-velar region.

Recall the analyses in §3.4.1–3.4.2 which established two different distributions in the languages of the Highly Complex category. In eight languages – Cocopa, Georgian, Itelmen, Polish, Tashlhiyt, Thompson, Tohono O’odham, and Yakima Sahaptin – Highly Complex structures were found to be a prevalent pattern. In six languages – Alamblak, Bench, Doyayo, Kunjen, Menya, and Wutung – Highly Complex structures were found to be a minor pattern. As discussed in Chapter 3, the languages within each of these groups share similar patterns with respect to the occurrence of Highly Complex structures at each syllable margin, restrictions on consonant combinations in these structures, and the relative frequency of these structures. The 11 languages which belong to neither group – Al-
banian, Camsá, Kabardian, Lezgian, Mohawk, Nuu-chah-nulth, Passamaquoddy-Maliseet, Yine, Qawasqar, Semai, and Tehuelche – have syllable patterns which vary with respect to the different features examined or which fall somewhere in between the patterns of the two extreme groups.

It is reasonable to expect that if highly complex syllable structure has other phonetic and phonological correlates, then languages which differ in the extent to which these syllable structures are prominent might also exhibit the other correlates to different degrees. In Table 4.16 the languages of the Highly Complex portion of the sample are divided into the three groups described above. The properties of vowel and consonant inventories associated with Highly Complex syllable structure and listed in (34) above are given in the columns. A check mark indicates that a language has the expected property; a shaded cell indicates that it does not. For consonant phoneme inventory size and number of elaborations, I have designated a value greater than or equal to the mean for the category to be the expected property.

The visual pattern in Table 4.16 indicates that the expectations are borne out. Languages which have Highly Complex syllable structure as a prevalent pattern also tend to have more of the established segmental correlates of Highly Complex syllable structure. Languages which have Highly Complex syllable structure as a minor pattern tend to have fewer of the segmental correlates. The “intermediate” languages have a pattern that is intermediate between the two. It is striking that the three subtypes of Highly Complex syllable structure, which were defined entirely by reference to their syllable patterns, show the predicted patterns with respect to the presence of segmental correlates of Highly Complex syllable structure.

Five languages have all of the established segmental correlates of Highly Complex syllable structure. Their consonant inventories might be considered to be prototypical of the Highly Complex category. To illustrate, I give the consonant inventory of Yakima Sahaptin in (35).

(35) Yakima Sahaptin (Sahaptin; USA)
C phoneme inventory: /p t k kʷ q qʷʔ pʼtʼkʼkʼʷqʼqʼʷt͡łts̥tʃt͡łtsʼtʃʼt͡łs̥∫x xʷχχʷh m n l w j/

The results of the analyses in this chapter also reveal tendencies in the segmental patterns of languages on the Simple end of the syllable structure complexity cline. In most cases these patterns are the opposite of those consonantal properties given in (34) for the Highly Complex category. However, some of the segmental patterns observed in this category are more extreme than others. In
## 4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

<table><caption>Table 4.16: Highly Complex languages, divided into three groups according to the prominence of their Highly Complex patterns. Check mark indicates that the given language has the expected segmental property; shaded cell indicates it does not.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>≥ 26 Cs</th><th>≥ 4 elabs.</th><th>Prenasalization absent</th><th>Flap/tap absent</th><th>Palato-alveolar present</th><th>Uvular present</th><th>Affricate present</th><th>Ejective present</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th colspan="9">Languages with prevalent Highly Complex patterns</th></tr><tr><td>Cocopa</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Georgian</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Itelmen</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Polish</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tashlhiyt</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thompson</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>T. O'odham</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Y. Sahaptin</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><th colspan="9">Languages with intermediate Highly Complex patterns</th></tr><tr><td>Albanian</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Camsá</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kabardian</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Lezgian</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Mohawk</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nuuchahnulth</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>P.-Maliseet</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yine</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Qawasqar</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Semai</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tehuelche</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><th colspan="9">Languages with minor Highly Complex patterns</th></tr><tr><td>Alamblak</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bench</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Doyayo</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kunjen</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Menya</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Wutung</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
the case of uvulars and ejectives, there is a near absence of this consonant type in languages with Simple syllable structure. Additionally, there are three segmental properties of vowels, including the absence of a length contrast of vowels, the presence of a nasalization contrast in vowels, and the presence of a vowel phonation contrast, which show patterns favoring Simple syllable structure. Finally, languages with Simple syllable structure have the lowest mean number of consonant phonemes (21 consonants) of all the categories examined here.

It is important to keep in mind that the findings reported here are tendencies, some of them quite subtle. Languages in the sample also show wide variation in the structuring of their segmental inventories, resulting in many exceptions to the general patterns. Hadza is in the Simple category, yet has the largest consonant inventory and number of elaborations of all the languages.<fnref n="6" /> Mohawk and Passamaquoddy-Maliseeet are in the Highly Complex category, yet have very small consonant inventories and few articulatory elaborations. However, it is encouraging for the wider implications of this study that several of the general findings, such as those regarding consonant phoneme inventory size and consonant elaborations, replicate the results of previous studies with much larger sample sizes or can be verified in LAPSyD (Maddieson et al. 2013, 501 languages). It is also notable that the distribution of features correlated with languages at either end of the syllable structure complexity cline does not appear to be random. The Highly Complex category is coherently associated with a group of consonant place features and manner features related to obstruents. The Simple category is coherently associated with two manner features related to sonorants. This point will be discussed further in the following sections.

Having established segmental correlates of syllable structure complexity, we revisit the second research question of the book: how does highly complex syllable structure develop over time? The segment inventory of a language reflects, at least in part, sound changes which occurred at some point in the history of the language. Some typologically frequent speech sounds – for instance, voiceless stops at labial, dental/alveolar, and velar places of articulation – tend to persist within sound systems over the history of a language, and are not often observed

<footnote n="6">⁶Borrowing may account for some of the sounds in the Hadza phoneme inventory. Bonny Sands (p.c.) notes that it is possible that some click articulations have been borrowed from other click languages, in the same way that some Bantu languages have borrowed clicks from neighboring Khoisan languages. Kirk Miller (p.c.) suggests that Hadza seems to have borrowed its initial prenasalized consonants and all voiced obstruents besides /b/. Even excluding clicks and non-bilabial voiced obstruents, the language would have a consonant inventory of 41 segments, which is still quite large. Sands and Miller agree that, apart from the presence of clicks, the phoneme inventory of Hadza is not atypical for an East African, and particularly Cushitic, language.</footnote>
to come about from other sounds as the result of allophonic processes (Bybee 2015a; see also discussion in §4.1.1). This tendency may reflect general biological constraints on the vocal tract and/or the perceptual robustness of these sounds. However, for many other sounds, there is evidence for how they tend to develop through phonetic mechanisms in language use.

In §4.5.2 I discuss reported processes of sound change which result in the consonantal patterns associated with Highly Complex syllable structure. In §4.5.3 I discuss reported processes resulting in the consonantal patterns associated with Simple syllable structure. In the following I include historical, comparative, and synchronic accounts of sound change processes. Although historical evidence is best because it involves more or less direct observation, the history of written language is such that there are very few languages, language families, and regions for which such evidence exists on a deep time scale. Including reports of synchronic and comparative processes greatly expands the range of data available, but it does come with the caveat that the reported patterns may have other possible analyses. Many of the synchronic processes reported here are from AlloPhon, a database of over 800 phonetically-conditioned processes in 81 diverse languages (Bybee & Easterday 2019).

In §4.5.4, I compare the patterns reported in §4.5.2–4.5.3 and discuss their broad implications with respect to the diachronic development of highly complex syllable structure and syllable typology more generally.

## 4.5.2 Articulations and contrasts characteristic of the Highly Complex category

In this section I present historical, comparative, and synchronic accounts of processes resulting in articulations and contrasts associated with the Highly Complex category, specifically palato-alveolars, uvulars, ejectives, and affricates. Additionally, as a more richly elaborated set of post-velar consonant distinctions is associated with this category, I also discuss the historical development of pharyngeals. As will be discussed in §4.5.4, all of these articulations commonly result from the place assimilation of consonants to vowels and strengthening processes.

### 4.5.2.1 Palato-alveolars

Palato-alveolars are articulations made with the tongue blade in the area of the hard palate behind the alveolar ridge. These are known to develop from many different kinds of consonants. The most common conditioning environments for the development of these sounds are front, especially high front, vowels and
palatal glides. Thus palato-alveolars are often a product of the crosslinguistically common process of palatalization (Bhat 1978; Bateman 2007; Bybee & Easterday 2019). Typically, the consonant undergoing palatalization precedes the condition- ing vowel or glide. In a common type of process, palato-alveolars may develop out of alveolar consonants preceding a high front vowel, as in synchronic pro- cesses in Cantonese (36) and Logba (37).

(36) Cantonese (Sino-Tibetan; China)
/tsy/
[tʃy]
‘live’ (Matthews & Yip 1994: 14)

(37) Logba (Atlantic-Congo; Ghana)
/onzie/
[onʒie]
‘owl’ (Dorvlo 2008: 18)

Palato-alveolars are also known to develop out of velar consonants. The usual situation involves a velar stop becoming a palato-alveolar affricate preceding a high front vowel or glide. A well-known example of this occurred in the late stages of Latin and early stages of Romance, when velar stops were fronted pre- ceding front vowels, then eventually became palato-alveolar affricates in some of the daughter languages, e.g. Latin [k] *ivitate* > Italian [tʃ] *ittà* ‘city’ (Posner 1996: 113). Bhat (1978) lists many examples, mostly historical, of velar palatalization resulting in palato-alveolar affricates preceding front vowels.

Synchronic instances of velar palatalization resulting in palato-alveolar affri- cates are relatively rare: in the AlloPhon database, there is only one phonetical- ly-conditioned process fitting this description out of approximately 50 palataliza- tion processes in 45 languages (Bybee & Easterday 2019). Bateman (2007) reports a higher proportion of such processes in her survey of 58 languages with palatal- ization, though she additionally considers morphophonological processes. These facts suggest that the palato-alveolar outcome from velars typically follows a long chain of incremental palatalization in the history of a language.

More rarely, palato-alveolar consonants may develop from glide strengthening. This is the process by which a glide becomes more constricted in its articulation, sometimes becoming a fricative, affricate, or even a stop. This typically occurs in syllable-initial position (Bybee & Easterday 2019). A process of this sort has occurred recently in Argentinean Spanish, where the sound corresponding to palatal approximant /j/ in other major dialects is now realized as [ʃ] or [ʒ], among
other obstruent variants, in syllable-initial position: e.g. Castilian Spanish *a[j]er*
corresponds to Argentinean Spanish *a[ʒ]er*~ *a[ʃ]er* ‘yesterday’ (Harris & Kaisse
1999: 118).

Very rarely, palato-alveolars may develop out of labial consonants. Such a pro-
cess can be found in Romanian; e.g. Standard Romanian /fjer/ corresponds to Mol-
davian /jer/ ‘iron’ (Bateman 2007: 108). Bateman argues that full palatalization of
labial consonants is better analyzed as a strengthening of the palatal articulation
following the labial, and subsequent weakening and deletion of the labial gesture.
In her sample, labial palatalization always occurs in specific morphophonological
contexts, and is always the outcome of a series of historical developments. Ohala
(1978) argues for a perceptual basis for a similar phenomenon of full palataliza-
tion of labials in Southern Bantu, noting that labial-palatal sequences can be mis-
perceived as palato-alveolar consonants.

Palato-alveolars may also develop out of alveolars with secondary palataliza-
tion, as in the example of free variation in Dan (38).

(38) Dan (*Mande*; Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Liberia)
/s্a5/
[s্a5]~[ʃa5]
‘to indicate’ (Bearth & Zemp 1967: 17)

Like the glide strengthening and velar fronting and affrication processes de-
scribed above, the process in Dan appears to be the end result of a chain of
palatalization processes. The presence of consonant phonemes with secondary
palatalization implies that palatalization has a long history in the language.

Finally, palato-alveolars may develop out of free variation with other sounds
having a palatal articulation. Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996: 31–33) note that
palatal stops are often produced with affrication due to the large surface area
required for stop in this region, and as a result may vary with palato-alveolar
affricates in a language.

The free variation of palatal stops with palato-alveolar affricates can be seen
as a weakening of the abrupt stop release, and therefore a case of lenition. How-
ever, we find that the most common sound change processes leading to the de-
velopment of palato-alveolar consonants are assimilation, usually anticipatory,
to a high and/or front vowel or glide, and fortition of palatal glides. Both artic-
ulatory and perceptual accounts have been put forward to account for the high
crosslinguistic frequency of these palatalization processes. Fronted velar stops
and palato-alveolar affricates have acoustic similarities in their release bursts,
which has led some to argue that this sound change is a result of perceptual
reanalysis (Guion 1998). In articulatory terms, palatalization which has a palato-alveolar outcome results from extreme temporal overlap of the tongue gestures used for the articulation of the consonant and the (high) front vowel (Bateman 2007). The high front tongue position is known to be particularly strong, in that it is likely to both affect and resist the effects of neighboring articulations, especially in syllable-initial position (Recasens & Espinosa 2009; Recasens 2014). This fact explains the prevalence of palatalization processes but may also contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms behind palatal glide strengthening (Bybee & Easterday 2019).

### 4.5.2.2 Uvulars

Uvulars are articulations made with the tongue body in the region of the uvula. Direct historical accounts of the development of uvular consonants are few. This is probably largely due to the limited geographical distribution of uvulars, which tend to be found in regions where writing is a recent development, apart from the Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus regions.<fnref n="7" /> However, synchronic and comparative accounts of these developments may be found. Uvular stops, affricates, and nasals apparently always develop out of velar consonants.

In Yongning Na, uvular stops are marginally contrastive with velars in just two limited vocalic environments. Otherwise the distribution is predictable, with uvular allophones of the velar stops occurring in environments preceding low vowels (39). This suggests a recent phonologization of uvular articulations in the language (Lidz 2010: 28).

(39) Yongning Na (Sino-Tibetan; China)
/kʰa33/
[qʰa33]
‘however many, several’ (Lidz 2010: 80)

Adjacent back vowels may also condition such processes, as in the Uyghur example shown here (40).

(40) Uyghur (Turkic; China)
/tʃoŋ/
[tʃoŋ]
‘big’ (Hahn 1991: 76)

<footnote n="7">⁷In both Biblical Hebrew and Old Georgian the velar/uvular distinction already existed by the time that written records of the languages began (Rendsburg 1997; Butskhrikidze 2002).</footnote>
4 Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity

Fortescue (1998: 72,91) describes the presence of uvular consonants as an areal feature of languages in the Bering Strait region. He reports that a common phonological pattern in the region is for uvular variants of velar stops to occur adjacent to back and/or low vowels, eventually phonemicizing as the conditioning vowels undergo their own shifts. Such processes appear to have occurred in the history of Nivkh, Ket, and many languages on the North American side of the region, and the pattern is still allophonic in Even and Yakut.

The term “back velar” is sometimes used interchangeably with the term “uvu-
lar” in language references and can also be used more generally to describe the
region behind the area of the velum that is typically used in velar articulations.
van den Berg (1995: 20) states that in Hunzib, “strictly speaking, the uvulars are
back velar consonants”. Similarly, references for languages spoken in the Pacific
Northwest and California often describe a front velar/back velar place distinc-
tion in consonants (cf. Kinkade 1963 for Upper Chehalis, Harris 1981 for Comox,
Golla 1970 for Hupa). It is somewhat easier to find synchronic processes which
result in purported back or backed velars than those which result in uvulars. In
the AlloPhon database, back(ed) velars are reported outcomes of allophonic pro-
cesses in just three languages, but uvulars are very rarely reported as an outcome
(Bybee & Easterday 2019). Like uvulars, allophonic back(ed) velars are produced
in the environment of back and/or low vowels (41).

(41) Moro (Heibanic; Sudan)
/kuku/
[kuku]
‘boy’s name’
(Black & Black 1971: 2)

The fact that synchronic processes resulting in back(ed) velars are crosslin-
guistically more common than those resulting in uvulars suggests that the sound
change from velar to uvular may not often be direct but instead may come about
slowly over the history of a language, like the palatalization and affrication of
velar stops described above.

It should be noted that uvular trills occur in some languages, especially those
of Western Europe. These are the source of the uvular fricatives and approxi-
mants which now function as rhotics in non-conservative varieties of Standard
French and Standard German (Ladefoged & Maddieson 1996: 225). While it is
likely judging from comparative Indo-European data that the uvular trill in con-
servative varieties of these and other languages arose from an apico-alveolar trill,
there is much debate over the particular path(s) of development taken by this his-
torical change (Schiller 1999).

Most of the processes described here for the development of uvulars would
fall under the definition of assimilation. In gestural terms, the low and/or back
tongue body configuration for the vowel articulation has the effect of pulling the
consonant articulation away from the central part of the velum and towards the
back velum or uvula. Unlike the case of the palato-alveolars, there does not seem
to be a strong directional tendency for this assimilation; it occurs both preceding
and following the conditioning vowels in the examples given above. In the case
of the Western European uvular trill, at least some accounts propose a weaken-
ing of the apical gesture and strengthening of the domed tongue body gesture
for the rhotic (Schiller 1999), which could perhaps be analyzed as simultaneous
processes of lenition and fortition.

4.5.2.3 Ejectives

Ejectives are consonants which involve a simultaneous closure by the glottis and a constriction in the oral part of the vocal tract. During the consonant articulation, the closed glottis is raised, increasing the air pressure so that the release of the oral constriction is accompanied by a salient burst of air, though the specific phonetic properties of this articulation may vary widely crosslinguistically (Lindau 1984). Ejectives are often analyzed as sequences of obstruents and glottal stops, especially in phonological analyses which seek to maximize the economy of phoneme inventories. For example, Zuni has phonetic ejective stops and affricates, which are analyzed by Newman to be phonemic sequences (42).

(42) Zuni (isolate; USA)
/kʔo:fi/
[k’o:fi]
‘Joshua cactus’ (Newman 1965: 16)

Again, due in part to their geographical distribution, direct historical accounts
of the development of ejective phonemes are rare. However, comparative, mor-
phological, and allophonic patterns in many languages show these sounds de-
veloping from the “fusion” of sequences of obstruents and glottal stops. Haida
dialects show evidence of such a process: Southern Haida /t’ʌpʔʌt/ corresponds
to Alaskan Haida /t’əp’ət/ ‘snap, break’ (Fallon 2002: 312). In Nuu-chah-nulth,
ejectives are produced when glottal stop-initial suffixes attach to obstruent-final
stems (43).
4 *Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity*

(43) Nuu-chah-nulth (*Wakashan*; Canada)
/wik-ʔap-weʔin/
not-CAUS-3s.QT
[wik'apweʔin]
‘it hadn’t been’ (Stonham 1999: 69)

In both the Haida and Nuu-chah-nulth examples, ejectives already occur as
contrastive phonemes in the languages, indicating that these processes or some-
thing like them have operated in the languages for long periods of time. An exam-
ple of the new emergence of ejectives in a language may be found in the history
of Upper Necaxa Totonac. Comparative and language-internal evidence suggest
a diachronic path by which uvular stops first became debuccalized, then fused
with preceding fricatives to form crosslinguistically rare ejective fricatives in the
language: e.g. Apapantilla /ʃqa:m/ corresponds to Upper Necaxa Totonac /ʃa:m/
‘corn husk’ (Beck 2006: 6).

Ejectives may also occur as optional allophonic variants of voiceless stops in many languages. In many dialects of English, utterance-final voiceless stops may be realized as ejectives for emphatic affect: e.g. *Wha[t']!?* (Fallon 2002: 7–8, citing Taylor 1995: 224). A similar optional process in Pilagá has a wider application. Vidal (2001) notes that a characteristic phonetic feature of this language is the common occurrence of an optional glottal stop after almost any consonant, including sonorants. The closure of the glottis is most notable with voiceless obstruents, and may result in an ejective when these sequences occur in syllable-initial position (44).

(44) Pilagá (Guaicuruan; Argentina)
/qaepa/
[qaepa]~[q’aepa]
‘eyebrow’ (Vidal 2001: 36)

In nearly all languages for which the synchronic, morphophonological, or com-
parative evidence exists, ejectives come about from sequences of obstruents and
glottal stops. In his typological study of ejectives, Fallon (2002: 314) observes
that fusion overwhelmingly occurs when the glottal stop follows the obstruent;
there are just a few historical examples, always inferred from morphophonolog-
ical data, in which the glottal stop may have preceded the obstruent. Therefore
this process is overwhelmingly one of anticipatory assimilation. Fallon describes
it as a temporal overlap of glottal and oral articulations: because plain voiceless