Sonority substitutions in Broca's and conduction aphasia

On the nature of sonority in spoken word production: Evidence from neuropsychology

“…Both within languages and cross-linguistically, unmarked syllables tend to outnumber marked syllables (Blevins, 1995;Greenberg, 1978). Further, empirical studies of both language acquisition and language loss have also revealed that errors tend to concentrate on marked sequences (e.g., Bastiaanse, Gilbers, & van der Linde, 1994;Béland, Caplan, & Nespoulous, 1990;Buchwald, 2009;Buckingham, 1986;Christman, 1994;Ohala, 1999;Romani & Calabrese, 1998;Romani, Galluzzi, Bureca, & Olson, 2011). In addition, recognition has been reported to be more accurate for unmarked than marked syllables in experimental conditions hindering perception (e.g., by introducing of noise; Berent et al, 2008), although sonority does not account for all differences that were related to perceptual change (Davidson, 2011;Davidson & Shaw, 2012), indicating that sonority is one factor affecting sound structure processing.…”

“…Within theoretical linguistics, the concept of sonority has been argued to explain such diverse phenomena as syllable structure (e.g., Clements, 1990;Selkirk, 1982;Zec, 1995), phonotactic rules (e.g., Blevins, 1995), the emergence of prosodic features (e.g., Rialland, 1994), cross-linguistic variation (Greenberg, 1978), and diachronic changes (Crowley & Bowern, 2010). In turn, a number of experimental investigations has revealed sonority as one of the factors predicting the chronology of sequences mastered by young children (e.g., Goad, in press;Locke, 1983;Ohala, 1999;Pater, 2009), the rate and type of errors observed in individuals with developmental or acquired language impairments (e.g., Bastiaanse, Gilbers, & van der Linde, 1994;Buckingham, 1986;Béland, Caplan, & Nespoulous, 1990;Christman, 1994;Romani & Calabrese, 1998;Romani & Galluzzi, 2005;Romani, Olson, Semenza, & Granà, 2002;Stenneken, Bastiaanse, Huber, & Jacobs, 2005), and aspects of speakers' implicit knowledge of phonological grammar as measured by perception and production tasks (Berent, Lennertz, Jun, Moreno, & Smolensky, 2008;Daland et al, 2011) although it has been noted that sonority does not account for the entire range of variation in these investigations (Davidson, 2011;Davidson & Shaw, 2012). Despite the explanatory power of this notion, there is not clear agreement on exactly what sonority represents, with one prominent researcher (Clements, 2009) describing the current state of knowledge on the nature of sonority as ''elusive' ' (p. 165).…”

On the sonority levels of fricatives and stops

“…A large body of research suggests that people are sensitive to the sonority distance of onset clusters that occur in their language. Attested, ill-formed onsets with small sonority distances are more difficult to produce in first-language acquisition (Barlow, 2001a(Barlow, , 2005Bat-El, 2012;Gierut, 1999;Gnanadesikan, 2004;Ohala, 1999;Pater & Barlow, 2003) and they are less likely to be retained in aphasic speech (Bastiaanse, Gilbers, & van der Linde, 1994;Christman, 1992;Code & Ball, 1994;Romani & Calabrese, 1998;Stenneken, Bastiaanse, Huber, & Jacobs, 2005). Other findings suggest that sonority distance constrains performance in lexical decision tasks (Alonzo and Taft, 2002), and word games (Fowler, Treiman, & Gross, 1993;Moreton, Feng, & Smith, 2005;Treiman, 1984;Treiman, Bowey, & Bourassa, 2002;Treiman & Cassar, 1997;Treiman & Danis, 1988;Treiman & Zukowski, 1990;Yavas & Gogate, 1999).…”

Linking Speech Errors and Generative Phonological Theory

“…1993; Favreau et al. 1990; Nespoulous and Moreau 1997, 1998), including a number of studies with a more specific emphasis on sonority‐based markedness and syllable structure (Dutch: Bastiaanse et al. 1994; Stenneken et al.…”