Geographical Distribution of Phonological Complexity. Maddieson Et Al

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR
Geographical distribution of phonological complexity
IAN MADDIESON, TANMOY BHATTACHARYA, D. ERIC SMITH, and

WILLIAM CROFT
1. Introduction
Atkinson’s intriguing article in Science suggests that there is a signal to be
found in the global distribution of the richness of phonological contrasts across
a large sample of languages which reflects the process of the spread of anatom-
ically modern humans across the habitable areas of our planet from an origin
in Africa. In our commentary we will focus on three principal issues. The first
has to do with what the signal is based on and whether it seems to be reliable.
The second has to do with whether the concept of a serial founder effect is a
persuasive explanation for the global patterns found. The third has to do with
considering whether there are alternative explanations which might account for
the patterns found.1
2. On the signal and the data

Atkinson’s primary linguistic data concerns a variable he refers to as phoneme
diversity. This is the mean by language of the normalized values of three ordi-
nal variables from chapters in the World atlas of linguistic structures (WALS;
Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2011). The first variable reflects the size of the con-
sonant inventory divided into five bins, the second is the size of the inventory of
basic vowel qualities divided into three bins, and the third reflects the presence
or absence and, if present, the complexity of the tone system, again in three
bins. The first two of these variables have approximately normal distributions
1. A few details in this commentary were changed after the author of the target paper had seen
it. Specifically, a note was added about which languages create the major peaks and valleys
seen in Figure 2, and an improved method of calculating east-west distances in the Americas
was used. These changes do not affect any of the major points made in this commentary and
are not of a nature to require a separate response from the target author.
Linguistic Typology 15 (2011), 267–279 1430–0532/2011/015-0267

DOI 10.1515/LITY.2011.020 ©Walter de Gruyter

268 Ian Maddieson et al.
(the central bin contains the largest number of languages and the numbers de-
crease away from the center). The third is highly skewed in that about 60 % of
the languages fall in the lowest bin, having no tone contrasts.
As we will show below, there seems to be a real statistical relationship be-
tween Atkinson’s phoneme diversity variable, its components, and the mea-
sures that underlie these components and distance from Africa calculated
through certain travel nodes. However, it is worth noting that the label phoneme
diversity is potentially misleading in two ways. The full set of phoneme and
prosodic contrasts is not taken into account, and the internal diversity of the
phoneme set is not considered. Notably, the WALS variable of “basic vowel in-
ventory” strips away contrasts among matching vowels which differ in length,
nasalization, voice quality, and other properties. For example, Navajo has 4 ba-
sic vowel qualities /i, e, a, o/, but each of these can be long or short, and oral or
nasalized. So this North American language has 16 vowel phonemes, but falls
into the “small” bin in terms of its basic vowel inventory. On the other hand,
the West African language Igbo has 8 basic vowel qualities which equals its
total number of vowel phonemes, so it falls into the large bin, even though it
has only half the number of vowel phonemes as Navajo.
Adding tone to the phoneme diversity calculation incorporates one way in
which the syllable inventory of a language can be enriched, but much greater
phonological variation between languages is created by differences in permit-
ted phonotactic combinations (Maddieson 1984, Shosted 2006). A language
that has 10 consonants and 5 vowels but allows only CV syllables can con-
struct only 50 syllables. But if the same inventory can be freely deployed in a
(C)V(C) template the number of possible syllables is 605.
The phoneme diversity variable Atkinson calculates is thus neither a true
measure of the size of the phoneme inventory, nor of the phonotactic possi-
bilities in the languages concerned, but a hybrid touching on some aspects of
these properties. Further, it concerns only the number of distinctions, whereas
the term diversity might more readily be understood to refer to the content of
an inventory, rather than its size. The set of consonants in (1a) has less diversity
than the set in (1b), as the same few properties are re-combined in (1a) whereas
most of the consonants in (1b) have unique properties. In terms of the number
of phonetic traits exploited, the set in (1c) is equally diverse as that in (1a),
even though it has fewer members.
(1) a. p t k b. p ts q c. t k
b d g á nd k’ b
m n N m R ì n
However, although we consider the measure Atkinson uses to be rather an
odd construct and would have preferred that it not be labeled “diversity”, the
signal he has discovered seems to be valid. The most important part of this

Geographical distribution of phonological complexity 269
Table 1. Fit between phonological variables and best-origin distance (simple regression
on means by language family, n = 49)
Variable R2 Significance level

Consonant inventory .182 .0023
Basic vowel inventory .048 .1300
Tone system .097 .0293
Combined variable .257 .0002
signal comes from the size of the consonant inventory.2 We have conducted
several examinations of the data that Atkinson provides and also of the un-
derlying data that forms the basis for the material in the WALS chapters that
he used. Table 1 shows the individual correlations of the three constituents of
his “diversity” measure, and their combination, with the best-origin distance
from Africa using data taken directly from Atkinson’s Table S2. This table
lists the means by language family for all families recognized which have two
or more members in the sample (using the classification given in WALS). One
language family listed in the table, Yanomam, has been omitted as there is only
one Yanomami language in the dataset – the Arawakan language Shiriana (ISO
639-3 code xir) was misidentified and wrongly counted as Yanomami. We did
not correct for another error, the inclusion of the Tai-Kadai language Po-Ai in
the Austronesian family. Since there are 41 Austronesian languages this error
will have little impact on the means.
Taken in isolation, the mean size of the basic vowel inventory does not corre-
late significantly with mean distance by family, and the role of tone is marginal.
When the three variables are simultaneously considered in a multiple regres-
sion the role of tone is negligible, and that of basic vowel inventory is marginal.
Results are shown in Table 2. In both analyses, the influence of the consonant
inventory size is paramount.
To further examine this issue we calculated the correlation between the best-
fit distance for individual languages and normalized values of the raw data
which underlies the binned values for consonant and vowel inventory that are
reported in WALS and were used by Atkinson. In addition, normalized val-
2. Largely because of the attention drawn by Atkinson’s article it came to light that a number
of errors had crept into the WALS data on consonant inventory size due to misalignment of
multiple data columns in a single spreadsheet. These errors affect 63 of the 504 languages
(12.5 %) used in Atkinson’s analysis, and have marginal impact on the results. We have re-
peated the analysis of the total diversity measure using corrected values and find the relation-
ship between this and the best-fit distance remains robust both across the set of languages
individually (F(1,502) = 255.9, p < .0001; R2 = .338), and across language families (using
those with three or more members – F(1,30) = 22.1, p < .0001; R2 = .424).

Table 2. Fit between phonological variables and best-origin distance (multiple regres-
sion on means by language family)
Variable Significance level

Consonant inventory .0005
Basic vowel inventory .0209
Tone system .2709
ues of the total vowel inventory and of a four-step tone index and an 8-step
index of syllable complexity were analyzed. The tone index distinguishes lan-
guages with simple (2 tones), moderately complex (3 tones), and complex (4
or more tones) tone systems from those which are not tonal (58 %). The syl-
lable complexity index is the sum of values assigned to the onset (range 0–3),
nucleus (range 1–2), and coda (range 0–3). A language which allows nothing
more complex than CV syllables and has no complex nuclei earns a score of 1.
A language which allows elaborate onsets and codas and has complex nuclei
(long vowels and/or diphthongs), such as English, earns a score of 8.
We were able to identify data for 495 of the 504 languages that Atkinson
lists in his Table S2. Not all data points are available for all the languages,
and values for some are undoubtedly disputable. As Table 3 shows, consonant
and vowel inventories and tone system complexity all individually correlate
to a highly significant degree with Atkinson’s best-fit distance from Africa,
although the R2 values are not especially high. The highest R2 value is with
the tone index, a reflection of the fact that 109 of the 123 languages in families
of Africa in this data are tonal (89 %), whereas in all other continent-sized
areas tonal languages are a minority. In a stepwise regression analysis, the tone
variable is the first to enter, but consonant inventory, basic vowel inventory,
and total vowel inventory all make significant independent contributions (in
diminishing order of significance) to the model, which yields a cumulative R2
value of .331 (n = 426). Strikingly, the syllable index shows no relationship
to distance from the best-fit origin in Africa. In other words, what is arguably
the greatest contributor to phonological diversity among languages patterns
geographically quite unlike the variables that relate to paradigmatic distinctions
among segments and tones.
The relative importance of consonant inventory and tone system complex-
ity differs notably between the analysis of the binned data at language family
level, and the analysis of the individual language data (using the raw conso-
nant inventory size and a 4-level tone index). The low significance of the tone
system variable in the family-level analysis may be due to the fact that Africa
reduces to five families (the familiar four – Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, Afro-
Asiatic, and the disputed Khoisan, plus Kadugli which WALS treats as separate

Table 3. Fit between phonological variables and best-origin distance (simple regression
on normalized individual language values)
Variable R2 Significance level n

Consonant inventory .100 < .0001 493
Basic vowel inventory .125 < .0001 494
Tone system .136 < .0001 468
Total vowel inventory .034 < .0001 494
Syllable index .000 .6545 448
from Nilo-Saharan), whereas the Americas contain 26 families – more than

half the total, 10 of which consist of just two languages. These American lan-
guage families range from those with a very high mean normalized value for
the tone system variable (Oto-Manguean 1.570) to those with the minimum
value (e.g., Eskimo-Aleut, Aymaran, Chon −0.769). There is thus little geo-
graphical pattern to the tone variable at the family level. On the other hand, 20
of the American language families fall at or below the median of the mean con-
sonant inventory variable, as does the Australian family and two of the three
“Papuan” groups in WALS, all of these distant from Africa.
Our examination of the geographical pattern suggested by Atkinson, espe-
cially the results shown in Table 3, indicates that there is merit in the idea that
certain elements of phonological complexity diminish with distance from an
origin in Africa as calculated through the five choke-points used by Atkinson
(the Sinai, the Bosphorus, the Mekong delta, the Bering Strait, and the Isthmus
of Panama). In the next section we will discuss how far the idea of a founder
effect is an appealing explanation for this pattern. In the final section we will
consider whether alternatives might be plausibly considered.
3. On the appropriateness of the idea of a founder effect on language

diversity
A founder effect in genetics occurs because when a subset of a population sep-
arates itself from the larger group that subset will likely include a smaller range
of genetic variation than the larger population from which it splits. Descendant
groups will therefore start with this smaller pool of genetic variability. If these
descendant groups then themselves split, a further reduction of genetic diver-
sity would then follow. The concept of a serial founder effect with an origin in
Africa is generally accepted as underlying a very significant part of the global
pattern of human genetic diversity. For example, Ramachandran et al.’s (2005)
study of 783 autosomal microsatellite sites in 53 populations showed a very
high correlation (R2 = .78) between lower heterozygosity and distance from
Africa – in this case measured from an arbitrary origin in Addis Ababa via

similar choke-points. Atkinson argues that a somewhat parallel process may

explain the pattern he has found, with serial reductions in phonological com-
plexity as humans spread from Africa. He seems to suggest that the effect is
not directly analogous to the effect seen in the genetic record, but is rather
an indirect effect of population size. Founder populations are presumed to be
small, and a link is assumed between population size and linguistic properties.
As he puts it, “[i]f phoneme distinctions are more likely to be lost in small
founder populations, then a succession of founder events during range expan-
sion should progressively reduce phonemic diversity with increasing distance
from the point of origin” (Atkinson 2011: 346).
Expressing the relationship as one indirectly due to population size seems
prudent. After all, a subgroup of speakers of a given language does not use
a subset of the phonemes of the language, but all of them. Hence the basis
for expecting an effect at the phonological level that is directly analogous to a
founder effect in genetic terms is questionable. Moreover, a language’s inven-
tory of tones and phonemes is a property that emerges from the language’s lex-
icon, rather than being a property that exists independently. To lose a phoneme
simply by the act of founding a new population would entail highly selective
loss of the particular lexical items containing that phoneme. However, there is
an alternative perspective in which the linguistic effect could be more closely
analogous to the genetic effect. If we posit that early human populations before
leaving Africa already spoke a wide diversity of languages, then any departing
group would speak only a subset of these languages. In general, a larger set of
languages will make use of a larger total set of contrastive sounds (and tones)
than a smaller set simply because some sounds will appear in one or more of
the languages that are absent in others. Note that this effect would not concern
the size of inventories in individual languages, but the summed diversity across
a set of languages, and hence is not modeled by the proposal put forward by
Atkinson.
If it is the case that Africa held the greatest diversity of languages at the
origin, and subsequent spread of modern humans to the rest of the world led to
progressive reduction in their diversity, it is surprising that standard methods of
linguistic comparison converge on the idea that there are few language families
in Africa today. Although this consensus has been more recently challenged
(see, e.g., Mous 2003, Sands 2009), even the suggested higher estimates for
the number of language families in Africa are far lower than the number of
families that exist outside Africa, and are lower than the number of language
families in the Americas by itself in particular.
If there is a signal of an African origin in the phonological complexity of
languages, we might expect that a similar signal might also be detectable in
lexical, morphological, or syntactic patterns. So far, this has certainly not been
the case. For example, all of the three most rare orders of Subject, Object, and

Verb (VOS, OVS, OSV) are predominently found far from Africa (Feature 81A
in WALS; Dryer 2011). In the WALS chapter on this issue all examples of the
VOS order are outside Africa (including Madagascar, counted as part of South-
East Asia by Atkinson). None of these less common orders occur anywhere in
mainland Eurasia. Most cases of the OVS order are found in South America,
where all six possible orders occur. If linguistic complexity in general declines
with distance from Africa, this distribution would be unexpected.
That there is no obvious signal of an African origin in the traits that con-
ventional historical linguists have been studying for more than a century and
a half could be due to large-scale language replacement having occurred in
Africa, resulting in loss of much of its earlier linguistic diversity (see Blench
2006 for discussion, also Nettle 1999). For example, the vast geographical
range of the Niger-Congo family in West and Central Africa suggests such re-
placement was in progress well before the more recent “Bantu expansion”, and
the distribution of Semitic languages in Africa is due to comparatively recent
back-migrations from Arabia. Given an assumption of replacement, the small
number of language families currently found in Africa would fail to reflect its
earlier linguistic richness. Under these circumstances, phonological richness in
surviving individual language could certainly be a trace of an earlier situation,
maintained through both continuity and cross-language contact. However, for
phonological richness – specifically phoneme inventory size – to decline with
distance from Africa, two things must be true. Processes that reduce the size of
a phoneme inventory must be more frequent overall than those that increase it.
And a mechanism must exist to increase loss that has some relation to distance.
Both internal processes and contact can lead to increases or decreases in the
number of distinct segments (or tones) a language uses. For example, Stan-
dard French in the last generation or so has lost a vowel through the merger
of /œ̃/ with /Ẽ/ and has gained a consonant /N/ through nativization of the En-
glish suffix -ing. There seems nothing in the linguistic processes themselves
that would lead loss to be more frequent than gain. Atkinson, relying inter alia
on Hay & Bauer 2007, argues that the imbalance between loss and gain is me-
diated through an indirect effect of community size. On the leading edge of
modern humans’ spread through new territories each new founder community
is assumed, reasonably enough, to be of small size. Small community size is
taken to be correlated with reduced phonological complexity, though the pre-
cise mechanism by which this transpires is not specified. We are inclined to
the opinion that data on the sizes of speaker populations are far too compro-
mised by the distortions due to decimation of indigenous populations through
disease, displacement, assimilation, and other tribulations following European,
Chinese, and other colonial expansions for any reliable “natural” signal of a
link between phoneme inventory size and population size to be recoverable.
The most severely affected peoples include those of the Americas, Australia,

Taiwan, and Siberia and the Russian Far East (cf. Butlin 1983, Stannard 1992,
Shepherd 1993), all areas quite distant from Africa. In view of this scepti-
cism, we have not conducted any reanalysis related to the population figures
that Atkinson used. Several authors (e.g., Haudricourt 1961, Trudgill 2004,
McWhorter 2008) have suggested that population size in itself does not predict
linguistic complexity, but rather the nature of the broad social setting of lan-
guage use may have varied impacts. In fact, small populations may favor the
preservation of complex and idiosyncratic linguistic features.
4. Are there alternatives to the African origin hypothesis?

From our perspective the distribution of phonological complexity seems to
much more “lumpy” rather than smoothly clinal. This can be seen in Atkin-
son’s Figure 3. In Figure 1 we show a comparable plot using our own data on
the size of consonant inventory, basic vowel inventory, and tone index, each
normalized and then summed. This index is plotted against the best-fit dis-
tances provided by Atkinson for 491 languages. A linear fit is plotted (grey
line, R2 = .292), as well as a smoothed cubic spline (black line, λ = 107 ),
which reflects the occurrence of clusters of high values in the distribution, no-
tably at distances of around 11,000 and 21,000 km from the best origin, as well
as a salient low at around 4,500 km, not far from the origin. The first peak
is primarily due to Sino-Tibetan and Tai-Kadai languages, the second to Oto-
Manguean, Chibchan, and other Meso-American languages, and the salient low
to non-Chadic Afro-Asiatic languages. Variations in tonal complexity seem to
be playing a major role in defining these clusters.
Figure 2 plots a more inclusive index of phonological complexity against
the same distance values for 424 languages. This index includes the size of the
consonant inventory, the size of the total vowel inventory, the tone index, and
the syllable complexity index, all normalized and then summed. The linear fit
accounts for much less of the variance in this data (grey line, R2 = .164), but
peaks are again apparent around 11,000 and 21,000 km, and the low around
4,500 km is still marked. Although an overall “out of Africa” effect can still be
detected, more local effects are strongly visible and the possibility exists that
the overall effect is an artifact of the summation of independent local effects.
Phonological systems are broadly speaking more elaborated in certain areas
such as Northwest Europe, the Caucasus, and in Southern Africa (in contrast
to the rest of the continent) and are simpler in others such as Polynesia and
Australia. In the Americas there is an interesting impression of a primarily
east-west divide. Western North America has high phonological complexity,
but eastern North America has relatively low phonological complexity with
the western mountain chains, e.g., the Rockies, providing the approximate di-
viding line. Meso-America has mostly relatively high phonological complex-

Figure 1. Sum of normalized consonant, basic vowel inventory, and tone values against
best-origin distance; linear and cubic spline fits
Figure 2. Sum of normalized consonant, total vowel inventory, tone, and syllable com-
plexity values against best-origin distance; linear and cubic spline fits
ity. In South America, the Caribbean coast and the Amazon basin generally
have low phonological complexity but along the Andean spine and the Pa-
cific coast the phonological complexity is higher. In the Southern cone (Chile
and Argentina) where there are very few indigenous languages phonological
complexity is high. If these local variations are overlooked to concentrate on
a broad overall pattern, a general decline in phonological complexity corre-
lated with distance from an assumed point of entry in the Bering Strait would
be found, given that eastern locations are further from the Bering Strait than
locations at the same latitude in the west, and Atkinson (2011: 348) indeed
specifically notes that “distance from the Bering Strait is inversely correlated

with phoneme inventory size within the Americas after controlling for popula-
tion size (rdistance = −0.173, P = 0.043)”.
An alternative model might focus on noting that the eastern side of the Amer-
icas is less complex than the west; where the land-mass is narrow in Meso-
America the east-west division is neutralized. This might be readily congru-
ent with scenarios for the peopling of the Americas that posit multiple early
routes of entry (for discussion see Dillehay 2009), with therefore likely dif-
ferent linguistic characteristics. As a simple-minded exploratory examination
of this idea, we analyzed the two phonological indices that show a systematic
relationship with Atkinson’s best-fit distance in the Americas, the size of the
consonant inventory and the syllable index (the vowel inventory measures ac-
tually show an increasing trend with distance from the Bering Strait, tone
shows no correlation) using the latitude and longitude coordinates of the lan-
guages. The sum of the standardized values of these variables correlates pos-
itively (R2 = .190, p < .0001, n = 116) with higher latitude, which is a good
approximation to strictly north-south distance. Since the western coast of the
Americas follows a broadly north-west/south-east slant, we used a slanted line
fitted approximately along the coast to “correct” the longitude values for each
language based on its latitude, so that the adjusted values are roughly propor-
tionate to distance from the west coast in degrees. We then used a linear approx-
imation to distance per degree of longitude at a given latitude (95 % accurate)
to estimate east-west distance. There is a highly significant correlation between
these calculated distances and the phonological index (R2 = .209, p < .0001)
reflecting lower complexity at more easterly locations. In a stepwise multiple
regression with distance from the Bering Strait, latitude, and “corrected” lon-
gitudinal distances as predictors of the summed consonant/syllable index, the
approximated east-west distance is the first to enter, a significant improvement
to the model is made by adding latitude (cumulative R2 = .336, p < .00001),
whereas distance from the Bering Strait makes no contribution (p = .5239).
There are hints here that the single cline found by Atkinson might better be
“parsed” into two separate ones.
It is obvious that there are other factors underlying the pattern of distribution
of phonological complexity beyond a straightforward reduction in complexity
with distance from Africa. It is even possible that the “African origin” effect is a
proxy for some combination of these other factors. One possibility is related to
the acoustic adaptation hypothesis (Morton 1975, Wiley & Richards 1978, Pe-
ters & Peters 2010) which suggests that animal vocal communication systems
(avian and mammalian) are adapted to the climatic/ecological environment in
which they operate, optimizing for the transmission characteristics of the envi-
ronment. Several studies have argued for a similar effect in human languages
(e.g., Munroe et al. 2009). Temperate environments with open vegetation facil-
itate transmission of higher frequency signals more than warmer more densely

Figure 3. Sum of normalized consonant inventory and syllable complexity values against
distance from temperate zone (centered at ±45° decimal latitude); linear fit
vegetated environments. Hence, languages in the first setting will tend to be

more consonant-heavy (more consonant contrasts, more consonant-heavy syl-
lables), whereas those in the second are likely to be more vocalic and to have
simpler syllable structures. A crude test of this idea is shown in Figure 3. This
plots the sum of normalized consonant inventory size and syllable index against
a rough measure of a language’s closeness to the temperate zone. This measure
is the absolute value of the language’s point location in Latitude minus 45. A
language whose point location is given as 45° N or 45° S has a value of 0 on
this measure, one at the equator (or at the poles!) has a value of 45. There is a
highly significant correlation between this phonological index and the distance
from the central latitude of the world’s temperate zones (p < .0001, R2 = .210),
with decreasing values correlating with increasing distance from the temperate
zone. The relationship is plotted in Figure 3. Note that most of the areas noted
above as having more complex phonological patterns are in or close to the
temperate zone as defined here.
If such a crude model can capture as much of the cross-language variabil-
ity in phonological complexity as it does – approaching as much as the model
illustrated in Figure 1 based on Atkinson’s distance measures – then we won-
der whether a more refined analysis of relationships between environmental
factors and phonological complexity which also controlled for the inertial ef-
fects of language family membership might not subsume any apparent effect
of distance from Africa.
Received: 13 June 2011 University of New Mexico

Revised: 25 July 2011 Los Alamos National Laboratories
Santa Fe Institute

Correspondence addresses: (Maddieson, corresponding author) MSC03 2130, Linguistics, Uni-

versity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001, U.S.A.; e-mail: ianm@berkeley.edu;
(Bhattacharya) T-8 (MS B285), P.O Box 1663, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
NM 87545-0285, U.S.A.; e-mail: tanmoy@qcd.lanl.gov; (Smith) Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde
Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, U.S.A.; e-mail: desmith@santafe.edu; (Croft) MSC03 2130, Lin-
guistics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM 87131-0001, U.S.A.; e-mail: wcroft@unm.
edu
References
Atkinson, Quentin D. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language
expansion from Africa. Science 332. 346–349.
Blench, Roger. 2006. Archaeology, language and the African past. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
Butlin, Noel. 1983. Our original aggression: Aboriginal populations of southeastern Australia
1788–1850. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Dillehay, Tom D. 2009. Probing deeper into first American studies. PNAS 106(4). 971–978.
Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2011. The world atlas of language structures
online. München: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011. Order of subject, object and verb. In Dryer & Haspelmath (eds.) 2011,
Chapter 81. http://wals.info/chapter/81 (accessed 4 June 2011)
Haudricourt, André-Georges. 1961. Richesse en phonèmes et richesse en locuteurs. L’Homme 1.
5–10.
Hay, Jennifer & Laurie Bauer. 2007. Phoneme inventory size and population size. Language 83.
388–400.
Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McWhorter, John. 2008. Why does a language undress? Strange cases in Indonesia. In Matti Mi-
estamo, Kaius Sinnemäki & Fred Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact,
change, 167–190. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Morton, Eugene S. 1975. Ecological sources of selection on avian sounds. American Naturalist
109(965). 17–34.
Mous, Maarten. 2003. Loss of linguistic diversity in Africa. In Mark Janse & Sijmen Tol (eds.),
Language death and language maintenance: Theoretical, practical and descriptive ap-
proaches, 157–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Munroe Robert L., John G. Fought & Ronald K. S. Macaulay. 2009. Warm climates and sonority
classes: Not simply more vowels and fewer consonants. Cross-Cultural Research 43. 123–
133.
Nettle, Daniel. 1999. Linguistic diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peters, Gustav & Marcell K. Peters. 2010. Long-distance call evolution in the Felidae: Effects
of body weight, habitat, and phylogeny. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 101(2)
487–500.
Ramachandran, Sohini, Omkar Deshpande, Charles C. Roseman, Noah A. Rosenberg, Marcus
W. Feldman & L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. 2005. Support from the relationship of genetic and
geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa.
PNAS 102(44). 15942–15947.
Sands, Bonny, 2009. Africa’s linguistic diversity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(2). 559–
580. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00124.x/full
Shepherd, John R. 1993. Statecraft and political economy on the Taiwan frontier, 1600–1800.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Shosted, Ryan. 2006. Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Linguistic Typology 10.
1–40.
Stannard, David. 1992. American Holocaust: Columbus and the conquest of the New World. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Trudgill, Peter. 2004. Linguistic and social typology: The Austronesian migrations and phoneme
inventories. Linguistic Typology 8. 305–320.
Wiley, R. Haven & Douglas G. Richards. 1978. Physical constraints on acoustic communication in
the atmosphere: Implications for the evolution of animal vocalizations. Behavioral Ecology
and Sociobiology 3. 69–94.

Geographical Distribution of Phonological Complexity. Maddieson Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geographical Distribution of Phonological Complexity. Maddieson Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR