Linguistic Typology 2021; 25(2): 389–400

Home , Cluster reduction, Fortition, Journal of Linguistics, Journal of Phonetics

Book Review

Easterday, Shelece. 2019. Highly complex syllable structure: A typological and diachronic study (Studies in Laboratory Phonology 9), 389 p. Berlin: Language Science Press. ISBN: 978-3-96110-194-8, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 3268721. https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/25953

Reviewed by Natalia Kuznetsova [nɑˈtaliə kʊznʲəˈʦovə], Faculty of Linguistic Sciences and Foreign Literatures, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 1, 20123 Milano, MI, Italy; and Institute for Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tuchkov per. 9, 199053 St. Petersburg, Russia, E-mail: [email protected] https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2066

Although this book was published in the “Studies in Laboratory Phonology” series, you will find hardly any laboratory phonologyinit.Instead,youwilldiscoverplentyof excellent phonological typology intertwined with historical phonology — probably amuchrarerfind. Until very recently, phonological typology was only marginally present within mainstream linguistic typology, being barely recognised as a subfield in its own right. The last few years have seen a gradual change: two synthesising volumes, both entitled Phonological Typology, have appeared (Gordon 2016; Hyman and Plank 2018) and the first workshop on this topic was held at ALT 2019 (Grossman and Moran 2019). At that meeting, the very first Greenberg Award (a prize of the Association for Linguistic Typology for outstanding typological dissertations) was given out in phonology — anditwenttothethesisonwhichthepresentbookisbased. The task of reviewing the resulting volume is both pleasant and challenging: this open-access volume appears as a new landmark in typological studies on syllable structure and a sine qua non for future research in the field. The main part (326 pages) of the work is arranged into eight chapters followed by two appendices with a full typological database which formed the basis for the study (220 pages). The primary object of study is Highly Complex Syllable Structure (HCSS): syllabic margins containing ≥3 obstruents or ≥4 of any consonants, to which the book presents a holistic rather than a partial typological approach (viz. Himmelmann 2000). HCSS is analysed in connection with other aspects of language structure: sound inventories, word-prosodic units, vowel reduction processes, the complexity of inflection. Moreover, a significant part of the book is devoted to a detailed multidimensional comparison of the four types of syllabic structure distinguished by the author, where the HCSS represents just one type along with the simple, moderately complex, and complex syllable structure. Chapter 1 “Syllables and syllable structure” sets the theoretical and typological scene with a thorough overview of theoretical models of the syllable and cross-

linguistic trends in its composition. The notion of the syllable has had a long life in linguistics, but the principal scheme of its internal structure has remained nearly unchanged since the 1940s (e.g. Kuryłovicz 1948). However, as the author points out, the syllable eludes precise definition and has no cross-linguistically consis- tent phonetic, phonological, or physiological correlates. Several points stand out in the choice of HCSS as the main object of the study. One reason is a sociolinguistic one: the endangered status of many languages with HCSS. This is in line with one of the latest trends in phonetic and phonological studies: a search for new theoretical inputs in understudied languages (Tucker and Wright 2020; Whalen and McDonough 2019). Another reason answers to a current trend in typology: making it more geographically and historically grounded (the “what’s where why?” of Bickel 2007, 2015). The book offers an insight into the paths of emergence of HCSS and reflects on its stability over time. The third and fourth reasons are especially remarkable: the cross-linguistic rarity of highly complex syllables and their theoretical marginalisation due to various issues they create for analysis within existing frameworks. Rare features can challenge theories in a particularly efficient way, and a specific interest towards them arose in typology from the beginning of the 2000s (Golovko et al. 2015; Plank 2000; Simon and Wiese 2011; Wohlgemuth and Cysouw 2010a, 2010b). Two types of rarities have been distinguished: absolute rarities and those features which are rare worldwide but frequent in certain genetic groupings. HCSS belongs to the first type, although some genealogical and areal biases in its distribution can be observed (e.g. towards the Caucasus and the Pacific Northwest and away from the equator, p. 29). Rarities can be ignored by a general theory, re-analysed as regular, or incor- porated by changing the theory (Simon and Wiese 2011: 9–14). While previous accounts of HCSS chose one of the first two methods, the volume in question chooses rather the latter approach. Originally, rarities were seen as something unnatural with respect to the “natural” laws of language. This book is a shining example of a recent tendency towards their de-exoticisation by expanding the theory (other examples in phonology include Anderson 2016; Blevins 2018; Kuznetsova 2018). The trend could be linked, first, to the exponential rise of research on the evolutionary aspect of both universals and rarities, attempts to explain them through the typical paths of their emergence or disappearance (Blevins 2004, 2015; Round 2019). Second, rarities, for various reasons, are often concentrated in lesser-studied languages (e.g. Mithun 2007; Mansfield and Stan- ford 2017; Jäger, forthcoming), which are progressively coming under investigation and changing our understanding of what is rare or typical, possible or impossible. The third factor is a spread of parametric methods in typology and a shift from languages as the minimal units of analysis to the features of languages, and further Book Review 391

to the parameters of these features. Multidimensional approaches include Canonical Typology (e.g. Corbett 2007; Hyman 2014; Round and Corbett 2020) and Multivariate (or Distributional) Typology (e.g. Bickel 2015; Tallman 2020). Pre- senting marginal cases as possible but rare combinations of universal parameters rather than logically impossible cases also favours their de-exoticisation. Chapter 2 “Language sample” thoroughly describes the principles and the composition of the typological sample of the study, given in Appendix A “Language sample” and B “Data”. The sample is intended to be big enough for meaningful quantitative analysis but small enough to enable in-depth qualitative study, and as balanced as possible in terms of genealogical and geographic biases and the proportions of each of the four distinguished syllable complexity groups. The author has generally succeeded in these tasks, although a perfect balance was apparently unviable given the rarity not only of HCSS but also of simple syllable structure. For example, the simple category in her sample lacks languages from Eurasia altogether and includes fewer languages from North America while more from Southeast Asia as compared to the highly complex category of the sample. Easterday also addresses the third important bias which could not be entirely avoided: the literary or sociolinguistic one, whereby big literary languages with a long tradition of study are compared to small rural under-described languages. Complex syllables structures are concentrated in the latter group, which, according to the author, is also one of the reasons for their theoretical marginalisation. The whole sample comprises 100 languages, which is less than is usual in typological databases but more than is usual in samples on rarities, cf. e.g. 55 examples of non-modal vowels in Gordon (1998) or 13 language groupings on minimal vowel systems in Anderson (2016). Small databases are also used when the author is not interested in cross-linguistic frequencies (Himmelmann 2000), rather focusing on a very detailed, often holistic study, cf. 15 languages in Corbett (2003) or 40 in Nedjalkov (2007). The medium-sized database of the present volume seeks to mediate between the qualitative and the quantitative demands of typological research. Chapters 3–7 contain core quantitative studies on the sample. Each of them starts with a list of hypotheses, proceeds with testing of these hypotheses, and discusses the results. Chapter 3 examines the syllable structures themselves, while the following three chapters contribute to the holistic nature of this study by investigating other phonological properties possibly correlating with the syllabic complexity: phonemic inventories, lexical prosody and vowel reduction. Chapter 7 explores the dynamic phonetic processes which could have led to the emergence of these associations. The most important findings of these chapters are outlined below. 392 Book Review

Chapter 3 “Syllable structure patterns in sample” discusses the phonotactic, distributional, and phonetic properties of the attested syllable structures. An in-depth analysis focuses only on those properties which may correlate with other linguistic features or shed light on the development of HCSS. Some features were studied across the whole sample in a confirmatory manner. The following hypotheses were tested and confirmed: with an increase of the syllabic complexity, there is a higher likelihood (1) of syllabic consonants, (2) of the morphological complexity of maximal syllable margins, (3) that syllabic consonants belong to grammatical elements. For example, both syllable margins containing five or more consonants were always morphologically complex. This is also one of the reasons why HCSS is not recognised as such in many theoretical frameworks. The following analysis of the specific HCSS properties is, in turn, exploratory. The maximal onsets in this group ranged from one to eight and codas from zero to six. Importantly, in over half the languages, sequences of more than three consonants could occur on both syllable margins. Two main types of feature clustering could be observed. In a more frequent pattern, especially typical of North America and Eurasia, the HCSS has high text frequency, occurs on both syllable margins, and has little restrictions on the combinations of consonantal types within clusters. Many such cluster types are not predicted by the abstract universal sequencing principles postulated in the literature, which is yet another reason for the theoretical marginalisation of the HCSS. A minor pattern, where HCSS has severe phonotactic restrictions and low text frequency and occurs on only one of the syllable margins, is rather characteristic of Australia and New Guinea. Finally, this chapter touches upon the important issue of epenthetic vowels, which often occur between consonants in complex clusters and have also contributed to the theoretical confusion around HCSS. The decision whether to consider them as true vowels or auxiliary phonetic elements simplifying the pro- nunciation of complex clusters directly influences the level of syllable complexity admitted for a given language. Therefore, a strict and uniform procedure of distinguishing between the two cases is especially important in a typological study (the author follows the algorithm of Hall 2006). The issue of vowel elision, which can also create complex consonantal clusters and is discussed in Chapter 6, is similar in this respect. Interpretation of reduced vowels as still present or already absent from the phonological structure of words directly inﬂuences the complexity of the consonantal clusters postulated for a language and the outcomes of popular rhythm metrics like PVI etc. (Romano 2020). Chapter 4 “Phoneme inventories and syllable structure complexity” in- vestigates a series of hypotheses on correlations between an increasing syllable complexity and an increase in (1) vocalic and (2) consonantal inventories, including (3) a rise in the number of articulatory elaborations in consonants. The Book Review 393

fourth hypothesis presumes that different syllable complexity would correlate with differing types of contrasts in the consonantal inventory. The author clearly ex- plicates and discusses at length as applied to her data a common problem of typological studies on phonemic systems. Each inventory is a result of multiple analytical choices of a researcher, and phonological paradigms differ so much that the outcomes of the analyses become incommensurable (Anderson et al. 2018). A given phonemic inventory can have several times more or fewer phonemes when analysed in different paradigms. The findings showed no correlation between the size of phonemic inventory and the syllable complexity for vowels and a weak positive correlation for consonants. Of consonantal articulatory elaborations, only those related to consonantal assimilation and fortition (palatalisation, glide strengthening, assibilation, backing of ve- lars, fusion of consonants with a glottal stop), i.e. palato-alveolars, uvulars, affricates and ejectives, correlated positively with syllable complexity. In turn, flaps, taps, and prenasalised consonants, which usually arise through lenition and sonorisation, were more numerous in languages with a simpler syllable structure. These findings, some of which resulted as being insignificant, were additionally verified on a larger sample of LAPSyD (Maddieson 2014). Chapters 5 “Suprasegmental patterns” and 6 “Vowel reduction and syllable structure complexity” investigate two sides of the same coin: a progressive strengthening of metrically prominent syllables and a progressive weakening of the weak ones. An increase in syllable complexity was expected to correlate positively with both processes. A study on the distribution of two central word- prosodic categories, tone and lexical stress, showed a growing likelihood of the absence of tone and the presence of stress together with an increase in syllable structure complexity. Specific hypotheses on stress linked increasing syllable structure complexity to a higher likelihood of (1) unpredictable stress, (2) stronger phonetic and phonological effects of stress, (3) vowel duration as a phonetic correlate of stress, (4) an increasing number of stress cues. While the first hypothesis did not receive support, the second one showed a growing number of vowel reduction cases together with an increase in syllable complexity. Further analysis of this hypothesis in Chapter 6 showed a strong positive correlation between an increase in syllable complexity and a higher number of vowel reduction types (vowel quality and quantity reduction, devoicing, deletion), more extreme phonological outcomes of reduction, and a tendency to create tauto- syllabic clusters. These findings constitute an important contribution to a holistic and frequency-based typological understanding of vowel reduction and its possible phonological and morphological consequences, a still undersudied field (cf. Kuznetsova and Anderson 2020). 394 Book Review

The remaining two hypotheses could be traced only as weak trends, although there was a statistically significant decrease of the likelihood to have pitch as the stress correlate with an increase in the syllable structure complexity. The latter trend may be linked to an increased likelihood of languages in the simple category to have phonological tone. Somewhat unclear results of the quantitative ministudies on stress, apart from general statistical issues pertinent to a small sample, might also be an indicator that the general incommensurability issue outlined above for typological studies on phonemic inventories is even heavier for studies on lexical prosody. Stress is poorly described even in recent field-based studies (e.g. Whalen et al. 2020), and word-prosodic typology still suffers from a number of conceptual controversies (cf. Kuznetsova 2018). The perception and description of stress is not well-taught to ﬁeld linguists (Tabain 2020), and the effects of their background languages on the perception of stress in the languages they explore —“stress deafness” (Dupoux et al. 2008) or “stress ghosting” (Tabain et al. 2014) — seem more common than in the case of phoneme inventories. Recent research has identiﬁed a growing number of “intonation-only” languages which had been traditionally seen as having word stress (Gordon and van der Hulst 2020), and even such well-studied cases as English are being reanalysed (Plag et al. 2011). As also becomes evident from Appendix B, in the majority of cases the stress descriptions for the book’s sample languages, if at all present, were impressionistic rather than instrumental. Therefore, the relation between the stress and the syllable complexity will likely need further investigation after an accumulation of better individual descriptions of word prosody. Chapter 7 “Consonant allophony” adds to the description of relationships between phonemic inventories and syllable complexity by dwelling on ongoing sound changes and allophonic variability in consonants. It builds on the historical sound changes found in Chapter 4 to be associated with HCSS development (consonantal assimilation and fortition) and tests a couple of further hypotheses. If HCSS is an already phonologised result of these two types of processes, then in languages with a simpler syllable structure, which likely represent previous evolutionary stages, we should observe more such processes as living phonetic tendencies producing consonantal allophony. Some associations of the kind were discovered, although no statistical significance tests are reported in this chapter. First, the overall number of active allophonic processes was remarkably lower in the HCSS group as compared to all other groups. Second, with an increase of syllable structure complexity, there was a decrease in processes leading to the formation of palato-alveolars and affricates, as well as in one type of consonatal assimilations (palatalisation) and in some fortition processes leading to increased constriction. At the same time, there was an increase in some lenition processes: Book Review 395

obstruent voicing and spirantisation. In general, however, the overall picture was more complex than expected and suggested no definitive conclusions. The synthesising Chapter 8 “Highly complex syllable structure: Characteris- tics, development, and stability” is the only chapter entirely devoted solely to highly complex syllable structure. First, it looks into a correlation between the level of the syllabic complexity and the degree of morphological synthesis (number of morphemes per word), which was found to be weakly significantly positive (cf. also Plank 1998 for an overview). Easterday then proceeds towards a general discussion on whether HCSS could be used as a label for a holistic language type characterised by a convergence of numerous linguistic features. “More often than not, the analyses revealed associations” (p. 283) between various segmental, suprasegmental, and morphological patterns, as well as a partial overlap with other types of holistic labels like “stress-timed”, “consonantal”, and “agglutinative” languages. The author seems to be in favour of using HCSS as a holistic label for a language type. However, labels like this are often vague and would ideally need explicit definitions every time they are used. In modern typology, such holistic types are being progressively decomposed into single parameters, each of which can have different values, which can combine in different ways across languages. On the other hand, the approach, for example, of Canonical Typology is more similar to the one favoured by Easterday. Canonical Typology sees certain values of those parameters as canonical, and when the canonical values of different parameters converge, a holistic canonical type of a given feature is postulated (e.g. tone and stress in Hyman 2014). However, here, too, it is unclear whether an exact number of such converging parameters can be defined and which values on what ground should be considered as canonical. The question of the validity of holistic language types is even more complex, as it implies an additional higher-lever convergence of these canonical features. Additionally, in case when such a convergence is indeed observed, which feature should be chosen as a label for a holistic language type (the syllable structure would be just one of several converging features, along e.g. the type of inflection or the type of lexical prosody)? Or maybe we can go along with a simple indication that certain parameters and their values statistically converge above chance and can just calculate an exact level of this convergence for a given language (like in Tallman 2020), without necessarily imposing any holistic labels. The second general issue of Chapter 8 is the HCSS development and stability. Remarkably, Easterday sees the emergence of HCSS as a unidirectional process: a language obtains a progressively more complex syllable structure through inten- sive vowel reduction which affects various prosodic positions and vowel types. “A high degree of complexity may be introduced quite rapidly into the system, but once there, it is difficult to completely remove” (p. 322). 396 Book Review

The author admits, though, that an opposing scenario (a syllable structure simplification) was not looked into in equal detail, and also poses an important question: if the process is indeed unidirectional towards the loss of simplicity, and the HCSS is a natural and stable pattern for speakers, why is it so rare across languages? An alternative to the unidirectionality hypothesis is also mentioned: syllable structure simplification processes might get phonologised more rapidly than vowel reduction processes, which increase complexity. To my mind, this alternative explanation should not be easily discarded. For example, in our study on the languages of Ingria (Kuznetsova and Verkhodanova 2019), a massive reduction brings along the loss of final vowels and, therefore, an increase in cluster complexity and in the number of articulatory elaborations of consonants. Up to four series of elaborations, which are in the course of phono- logisation, could be distinguished for consonants in certain varieties: aspiration, palatalisation, labialisation, and labio-palatalisation. However, the majority of them show a trend towards immediate loss — only palatalisation of some dental consonants (l′ and t′) actually tends to be further preserved. We hypothesised that possible reasons for a rapid loss of these articulations rather than their full pho- nologisation could lie in the challenges they present for both production and perception. I also believe that the history of ancient languages, not covered in the book, might provide some possible counterexamples to the unidirectionality hypothesis. For example, Proto-Indo-European (PIE) is reconstructed as sharing many features of the holistic HCSS type proposed by Easterday: it had a very complex syllable structure, a rich consonantal system, with elaborate secondary articulations and syllabic consonants, but an extremely poor vocalic inventory, rich inflection, and free stress placement. Many of its current daughters are much simpler in this respect. Roots like PIE *Hrt̥hk̑h- ‘large predator’ underwent syllable structure simplification through vowel epenthesis and/or consonantal cluster reduction, cf. e.g. Hitt. ḫartagga-, Avestan arəšō, Gr. árktos, Lat. ursus, Skt. ŕk̥ṣaḥ, Arm. arj̆, MIr. art ‘bear’ (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995: 417). In Classical Sanskrit, several cen- turies after PIE, we still find very complex syllable patterns, e.g. pitṝṇxsām ‘father:GEN:PL’ (Cardona and Luraghi 2009: 385), which might support the author’s argumentation that HCSS can be preserved in languages for a long time. However, these structures did not survive into the modern languages. Those of them which now exhibit HCSS (e.g. Polish, considered in the book), have developed it from a syllable structure which was simpler than that of PIE. For example, Proto-Slavic is reconstructed as having four guttural stops instead of the nine PIE ones, no la- ryngeals and no syllabic sonorants but with many more vowels and a tendency towards an open syllable, which solicited the loss of word-final consonants (Shevelov 1964). The syllable structure of modern Polish has developed from this Book Review 397

simpler pattern through new processes and has little to do with the original PIE pattern. Such a development looks cyclic rather than unidirectional. In fact, changes in holistic linguistic types are often represented as cycles, e.g. isolating (analytic) morphology > agglutinative (fusional) > inﬂectional > back to isolating (cf. overview in van Gelderen 2013). Also for the syllable structure complexity evolution, a hypothesis on a cyclic development might be considered as a viable alternative to unidirectionality. Anyway, none of these minor issues undermine the importance of this book. The study presents a synthesis of all the essential typological issues about syllable structure complexity. It also brings the field forward by focusing on rare and understudied patterns and on their place among more frequent types, on the one hand, and within the entire language structure, on the other. The author is explicit and very detailed about her methodology, which makes the study falsifiable, allows challenging issues to surface clearly, and means that new hypotheses to be tested in the future can easily be put forward on the basis of this study.

References

Anderson, Cormac. 2016. Consonant colour and vocalism in the history of Irish. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań Doctoral Thesis. Anderson, Cormac, Tiago Tresoldi, Thiago Chacon, Fehn Anne-Maria, Mary Walworth, Robert Forkel & List Johann-Mattis. 2018. A cross-linguistic database of phonetic transcription systems. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 4(1). 21–53. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11(1). 239–251. Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In Bernd Heine, Heiko Narrog & Balthasar Bickel (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 2nd edn., 901–923. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199677078.001.0001/ oxfordhb-9780199677078-e-46. Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blevins, Juliette. 2015. Evolutionary phonology: A holistic approach to sound change typology. In Patrick Honeybone & Salmons Joseph (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 485–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://julietteblevins.ws.gc.cuny.edu/ﬁles/ 2016/10/Blevins2012_EPHolisticApproachTypology.pdf. Blevins, Juliette. 2018. Evolutionary phonology and the life cycle of voiceless sonorants. In Sonia Cristofaro & Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony (Typological studies in language 121),29–60. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.121 16 October 2020). Cardona, Giorgio & Silvia Luraghi. 2009. 21. Sanskrit. In Comrie Bernard (ed.), The world’s major languages, 2nd edn., 380–398. London, New York: Routledge. 398 Book Review

Corbett, Greville G. 2003. Agreement: The range of the phenomenon and the principles of the Surrey Database of Agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(2). 155–202. Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83(1). 8–42. Dupoux, Emmanuel, Núria Sebastián-Gallés, Eduardo Navarrete & Sharon Peperkamp. 2008. Persistent stress ‘deafness’: The case of French learners of Spanish. Cognition 106(2). 682–706. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. & V. Ivanov Vjačeslav. 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and proto-culture (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 80). Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110815030, https://www.degruyter.com/view/title/4937 (accessed 23 October 2020). Gelderen, Elly van. 2013. The linguistic cycle and the language faculty. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(4). 233–250. Golovko, Evgeniy V., Mehmet Z. Muslimov, Soﬁa A. Oskolskaya & Aleksandr M. Pevnov (eds.). 2015. Jazykovoe raznoobrazie v Rossijskoj Federacii (Acta Linguistica Petropolitana XI), Vol. 2. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Gordon, Matthew. 1998. The phonetics and phonology of non-modal vowels: A cross-linguistic perspective. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 24(1). 93–105. Gordon, Matthew K. 2016. Phonological typology (Oxford survey in phonology and phonetics). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Gordon, Matthew K. & Harry van der Hulst. 2020. Word stress. In Carlos Gussenhoven & Aoju Chen (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language prosody (Oxford handbooks). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Grossman, Eitan & Steven Moran. 2019. Current research in phonological typology. Google Docs. https://drive.google.com/ﬁle/d/1US5SKPgrAbpRS5wIykTf_o7qdgj_RDAx/view?usp=drive_ open&usp=embed_facebook (accessed 15 November 2019). Hall, Nancy. 2006. Cross-linguistic patterns of vowel intrusion. Phonology 23(3). 387–429. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2000. Towards a typology of typologies. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 53(1). 5–12. Hyman, Larry M. 2014. Towards a canonical typology of prosodic systems. In Esther Herrera Zendejas (ed.), Tono, accento y estructuras métricas en lenguas mexicanas, 12–38. Mexico: El Colegio de Mexico AC. https://books.google.it/books?id=I31ICgAAQBAJ& printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Hyman, Larry M. & Frans Plank (eds.). 2018. Phonological typology (Phonology and phonetics 23). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110451931, https://www. degruyter.com/view/product/465362 (accessed 15 November 2019). Jäger, Gerhard. forthcoming. Can language evolution lead to change for the worse? In Dankmar W. Enke, Larry M. Hyman, Johanna Nichols, Seiler Guido & Thilo Weber (eds.), Language change for the worse (Studies in diversity linguistics). Berlin: Language Science Press. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/∼gjaeger/publications/changeForTheWorse.pdf (accessed 19 July 2020). Kuryłovicz, Jerzy. 1948. Contribution à la théorie de la syllabe. Bulletin de la Societe Polonaise de Linguistique 8. 80–114. Kuznetsova, Natalia. 2018. What Danish and Estonian can show to a modern word-prosodic typology. In Rob Goedemans, Jeffrey Heinz & Harry van der Hulst (eds.), The study of word stress and accent: Theories, methods and data (Conceptual foundations of language science), 102–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316683101. Book Review 399

005/core/books/study-of-word-stress-and-accent/what-danish-and-estonian-can-show-to-a- modern-wordprosodic-typology/DB99FA2309C58AABD744262E6ADF292E. Kuznetsova, Natalia & Cormac Anderson. 2020. Vowel reduction and loss: Challenges and perspectives. Italian Journal of Linguistics 32(1). 3–16. Kuznetsova, Natalia & Vasilisa Verkhodanova. 2019. Phonetic realisation and phonemic categorisation of the ﬁnal reduced corner vowels in the Finnic languages of Ingria. Phonetica 76(2–3). 201–233. Maddieson, Ian. 2014. LAPSyD — Lyon-Albuquerque Phonological Systems Database. http://www.lapsyd.ddl.cnrs.fr/lapsyd/ (accessed 18 November 2019). Mansﬁeld, John & James N. Stanford. 2017. Documenting sociolinguistic variation in lesser- studied indigenous communities: Challenges and practical solutions. Language Documentation and Conservation 13. 116–136. Mithun, Marianne. 2007. Linguistics in the face of language endangerment. In Leo W. Wetzels (ed.), Language endangerment and endangered languages: Linguistic and anthropological studies with special emphasis on the languages and cultures of the Andean-Amazonian border area (Indigenous Languages of Latin America (ILLA); Publications of the Research School of Asian, African, and Amerindian Studies (CNWS) 154), Vol. 5, 15–35. Leiden: Research School CNWS, Leiden University. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.). 2007. Reciprocal constructions (Typological studies in language 71), Vol. 5. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Plag, Ingo, Gero Kunter & Mareile Schramm. 2011. Acoustic correlates of primary and secondary stress in North American English. Journal of Phonetics (Speech Reduction) 39(3). 362–374. Plank, Frans. 1998. The co-variation of phonology with morphology and syntax: A hopeful history. Linguistic Typology 2(2). 195–230. Plank, Frans. 2000. Das grammatische Raritätenkabinett: A leisurely collection to entertain and instruct. Universität Konstanz. https://typo.uni-konstanz.de/rara/intro/ (accessed 16 October 2020). Romano, Antonio. 2020. Vowel reduction and deletion in Apulian and Lucanian dialects with reference to speech rhythm. Italian Journal of Linguistics 32(1). 85–102. Round, Erich R. 2019. Rara and theory testing in typology: The natural evolution of non-canonical agreement. In Baerman Matthew, Oliver Bond & Andrew Hippisley (eds.), Morphological perspectives: Papers in honour of Greville G. Corbett, 414–446. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Round, Erich R. & Greville G. Corbett. 2020. Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics. Linguistic Typology 24(3). 489–525. Shevelov, George Y. 1964. A prehistory of Slavic: The historical phonology of common Slavic. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Simon, Horst J. & Heike Wiese. 2011. Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs 216). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unicatt-ebooks/detail.action?docID=690589 (accessed 16 October 2020). Tabain, Marija. 2020. Languages on the margins – some thoughts. Invited talk presented at the Laboratory Phonology, Vol. 17. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. https://www. dropbox.com/sh/qko00kt4jxybh5z/AAAfBJ-_xWCjVa-ALYT9skSra?dl=0&preview=LabPhon_ 2020.pdf (accessed 20 October 2020). Tabain, Marija, Janet Fletcher & Andrew Butcher. 2014. Lexical stress in Pitjantjatjara. Journal of Phonetics 42. 52–66. 400 Book Review

Tallman, Adam J. R. 2020. Beyond grammatical and phonological words. Language and Linguistics Compass 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12364. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/lnc3.12364 (accessed 16 October 2020). Tucker, Benjamin V. & Richard Wright. 2020. Introduction to the special issue on the phonetics of under-documented languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 147(4). 2741–2744. Whalen, Douglas H., Christian DiCanio & Rikker Dockum. 2020. Phonetic documentation in three collections: Topics and evolution. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100320000079. https://www.cambridge.org/core/ journals/journal-of-the-international-phonetic-association/article/abs/phonetic- documentation-in-three-collections-topics-and-evolution/ 907D6CBC756788FCE0F8C19E87FBEAC6. Whalen, Douglas H. & Joyce McDonough. 2019. Under-researched languages: Phonetic results from language archives. In William F. Katz & Peter F. Assmann (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonetics, 1st edn., 51–72. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056253-4, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/97804 29508561 (accessed 11 July 2020). Wohlgemuth, Jan & Michael Cysouw (eds.). 2010a. Rara and Rarissima: Documenting the fringes of linguistic diversity (Empirical approaches to language typology 46). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unicatt-ebooks/detail.action? docID=689654 (accessed 16 October 2020). Wohlgemuth, Jan & Michael Cysouw (eds.). 2010b. Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory (Empirical approaches to language typology 45). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unicatt-ebooks/detail.action? docID=516521 (accessed 16 October 2020).