2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11049-019-09452-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Postalveolar co-occurrence restrictions in Slovenian

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, Ernestus & Baayen (2003) show that Dutch speakers' productions of nonce words reflect distributional characteristics of the Dutch lexicon, with velars in root-final position eliciting relatively more voicing than labials and coronals. For Slovenian, Jurgec & Schertz (2020) show that velar palatalization at the rootsuffix boundary is disfavoured when the steam contains another postalveolar due to a consonant co-occurrence restriction confirmed on corpus data (Jurgec 2016).…”
Section: Wug-test Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…For instance, Ernestus & Baayen (2003) show that Dutch speakers' productions of nonce words reflect distributional characteristics of the Dutch lexicon, with velars in root-final position eliciting relatively more voicing than labials and coronals. For Slovenian, Jurgec & Schertz (2020) show that velar palatalization at the rootsuffix boundary is disfavoured when the steam contains another postalveolar due to a consonant co-occurrence restriction confirmed on corpus data (Jurgec 2016).…”
Section: Wug-test Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Our intuition is that it is all but clear that modern speakers can derive the initial consonants in ˈɡnati~ˈʒɛnemo from the same underlying segment. While there is growing body of evidence that velar palatalisation is productive at the morpheme boundary (Jurgec 2016;Zymet 2018;Jurgec & Schertz 2020), we are not aware of any robust evidence for active rootinternal velar palatalisation, which would lead the speakers towards the analysis assumed by the reviewer. Jurgec & Schertz (2020) do show that in nonce words speakers prefer postalveolars over velars morpheme-internally, but this cannot be taken as direct evidence of active morphemeinternal palatalisation, since speakers can also assume underlying postalveolars in such words.…”
Section: Residual Issues: Similarities Between the Allomorphs And Int...mentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Becker et al (2011) demonstrate that variable laryngeal alternations in Turkish depend on word length and consonant place. Jurgec & Schertz (2020) show that variable velar palatalization in Slovenian depends on the suffix and is restricted by a consonant co-occurrence restriction on postalveolars. Persian hiatus constitutes another example.This paper is organized as follows.…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%