Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton July 28, 2019

On the structure, survival and change of consonant clusters

  • Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk EMAIL logo
From the journal Folia Linguistica


This paper shows how preferability measures can help to explain the cross-linguistic distribution of consonant clusters, their acquisition, as well as aspects of their diachronic development. Phonological preferability is measured in terms of cluster size and Net Auditory Distance, which interact with morphological complexity and frequency. Predictions derived from the preferability of clusters are tested against the evidence of language specific phonotactics, language use, language acquisition, psycholinguistic processing, and language change.


I thank the reviewers and the editors for insightful and constructive comments and my colleague dr Jarek Weckwerth for editorial help. I thank Paulina Zydorowicz, Paula Orzechowska, Michał Jankowski and Alona Kononenko for contributing to the creation of the tables.


Ball, Martin J. & Nicole Müller (eds.). 2016. Challenging sonority. Cross-linguistic evidence. Sheffield: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Bartnicka, Barbara & Roxana. Sinielnikoff. 1999. Słownik Podstawowy Języka Polskiego dla Cudzoziemców. Kielce: Wydawnictwo Takt.Search in Google Scholar

Baumann, Andreas, Nikolaus Ritt & Christina Prömer. 2016. Diachronic dynamics of Middle English phonotactics provide evidence for analogy effects among lexical and morphonotactic consonant clusters. Papers in Historical Phonology 1. 50–75.10.2218/pihph.1.2016.1693Search in Google Scholar

Baumann, Andreas & Daan Wissing. 2018. Stabilizing determinants in the transmission of phonotactic systems: On the emergence of the Afrikaans consonant-cluster inventory. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 55. 77–107.10.5842/55-0-780Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present (COCA). (accessed 12 February 12 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Donegan, Patricia Jane & David Stampe. 1979. The study of natural phonology. In Daniel A. Dinnsen (ed.), Current approaches to phonological theory, 126–173. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1996. Principles of naturalness in phonology and across components. In Bernard Hurch & Richard Rhodes (eds.), Natural phonology: The state of the art, 41–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2002. Beats-and-Binding phonology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2005. Phonotactics of consonant clusters in the history of English. In Antonio Bertacca (ed.), Historical linguistic studies of spoken English, 15–34. Pisa: PLUS (Pisana Libraria Universitatis Studiorum), Pisa University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2009. NP extension: B&B phonotactics. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 45(1). 55–71.10.2478/v10010-009-0011-9Search in Google Scholar

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2014. Explaining phonotactics using NAD. Language Sciences 46(special issue). 6–17.10.1016/j.langsci.2014.06.003Search in Google Scholar

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna, Dawid Pietrala & Grzegorz Aperliński. 2018. The NAD phonotactic calculator – An online tool to calculate cluster preference in English. Polish and Other Languages 12(February). 2019. (accessed 12 February 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Glain, Olivier. 2012. The yod /j/: palatalise it or drop it! how traditional yod forms are disappearing from contemporary English. Cercles 22. 4–24.Search in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2008. Universals in phonology. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2). 83–137.10.1515/TLIR.2008.003Search in Google Scholar

Kjellmer, Göran. 1995. Unstable fricatives: On Gothic pliuhan and Old English. FlēOn. Word 46(2). 207–223.10.1080/00437956.1995.11435942Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1. Internal factors. Blackwell: Oxford.Search in Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter. 2006. A course in phonetics, 5th edn. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Search in Google Scholar

Lijewska, Agnieszka, Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Bartosz Brzoza & Paulina Zydorowicz. 2016. Phonological properties of word-medial consonantal clusters as predictors of the lexicalization of compounds. Paper presented at New Sounds 2016. University of Aarhus.Search in Google Scholar

Luick, Karl. 1914/1921. Historische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Leipzig: Tauchnitz.10.1515/angl.1921.1921.45.132Search in Google Scholar

Lutz, Angelika. 1988. On the historical phonotactics of English. In Dieter Kastovsky & Gero Bauer (eds.), Luick revisited, 221–240. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Lutz, Angelika. 1991. Phonotaktisch gesteuerte Konsonantenveränderungen in der Geschichte des Englischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.10.1515/9783111353876Search in Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 1999. In search of universals. In John J. Ohala, Yoko Hasegawa, Manjari Ohala, Daniel Granville & Ashlee C. Bailey (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 1999, vol. 3. 2521–2528.Search in Google Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 2009. Calculating phonological complexity. In François Pellegrino, Egidio Marsico, Ioana Chitoran & Christophe Coupé (eds.), Approaches to phonological complexity, 85–109. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110223958.83Search in Google Scholar

Mazzon, Gabriella. 1997. The study of language varieties in diachrony and synchrony, or: On methodological cross-fertilization. In Olga Fischer & Nikolaus Ritt (eds.), Target papers and commentaries prepared for the ESSE workshop on applying historical linguistics. (accessed 12 February 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Mazzon, Gabriella. 2000. Describing language variation in synchrony and diachrony: Some methodological considerations. VIEWS – Vienna English Working Papers (University of Vienna) 9(2). 82–103.Search in Google Scholar

Milroy, James. 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Mitton, Roger. 1986. Computer usable version of the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (CUVOALD). Oxford: Oxford Text Archive.Search in Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Ohala, John & Haruko Kawasaki. 1984. Prosodic phonology and phonetics. Phonology Yearbook 11. 113–129.10.1017/S0952675700000312Search in Google Scholar

Ohala, John J. 1990a. Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. The parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology. CLS 26(2). 319–338.Search in Google Scholar

Ohala, John J. 1990b. The phonetics and phonology of aspects of assimilation. In John Kingston & Mary Beckman (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology I, 258–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627736.014Search in Google Scholar

Orzechowska, Paula & Richard Wiese. 2015. Preferences and variation in word-initial phonotactics: A multidimensional evaluation of German and Polish. Folia Linguistica 49(2). 439–486.10.1515/flin-2015-0016Search in Google Scholar

Parker, Steve. 2008. Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority. Journal of Phonetics 36. 55–90.10.1016/j.wocn.2007.09.003Search in Google Scholar

Parker, Steve. 2017. Sounding out sonority. Language and Linguistics Compass 11. e12248.10.1111/lnc3.12248Search in Google Scholar

Ritt, Nikolaus. 2004. Selfish sounds and linguistic evolution: A Darwinian approach to language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486449Search in Google Scholar

Ritt, Nikolaus & Kamil Kaźmierski. 2016. How rarities like gold came to exist: On co-evolutionary interactions between morphology and lexical phonotactics. English Language and Linguistics 20(1). 1–29.10.1017/S1360674315000040Search in Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511720130Search in Google Scholar

Treiman, Rebecca, Brett Kessler, Stephanie Knewasser, Ruth Tincoff & Margo Bowman. 2000. English speakers’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns. In Michael B. Broe & Janet B. Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Acquisition and the lexicon, 269–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change. Berlin: Mouton.10.1515/9783110849608Search in Google Scholar

Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611759Search in Google Scholar

Yavaş, Mehmet & Marta Marecka. 2013. Acquisition of Polish #sc clusters in typically-developing children and in children with phonological disorders. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 16(2). 132–141.10.3109/17549507.2013.794862Search in Google Scholar

Zydorowicz, Paulina, Paula Orzechowska, Michał Jankowski, Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Piotr Wierzchoń & Dawid Pietrala. 2016. Phonotactics and morphonotactics of Polish and English. Theory, description, tools and applications. Poznań: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2018-05-05
Revised: 2018-11-11
Accepted: 2018-12-18
Published Online: 2019-07-28
Published in Print: 2019-07-26

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 9.12.2023 from
Scroll to top button