Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Sonority hierarchy

The sonority hierarchy is a fundamental concept in phonology that ranks speech sounds according to their relative sonority, defined as a measure of acoustic prominence or inherent loudness, often correlated with intensity in decibels.^[1] This hierarchy typically orders sounds from highest to lowest sonority as vowels (most sonorous), followed by glides or approximants, liquids (such as rhotics and laterals), nasals, and obstruents (least sonorous, including stops, fricatives, and affricates).^[2] Unlike binary phonological features, sonority functions as a non-binary, scalar property that influences the organization of syllables and phonotactic constraints across languages.^[3] In phonological theory, the sonority hierarchy underpins principles such as the Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP), which posits that sonority rises from the onset to the nucleus and falls from the nucleus to the coda within a syllable, thereby shaping permissible sound sequences and syllable structures.^[1] It also informs related constraints like the Syllable Contact Law, which favors rising sonority across adjacent syllables, and the Sonority Dispersion Principle, which maximizes contrasts in sonority for perceptual clarity.^[1] Empirical support for the hierarchy derives from phonetic correlates, including positive correlations with intensity (r = 0.97–0.98) and negative correlations with intraoral air pressure, as quantified in cross-linguistic studies.^[1] While the hierarchy exhibits universal tendencies—such as vowels universally ranking highest and obstruents lowest—language-specific variations occur, particularly in the relative ordering of subcategories like voiced versus voiceless obstruents or certain liquids.^[1] Proposed as a primitive of Universal Grammar, it has been integrated into frameworks like Optimality Theory as ranked, violable constraints, with evidence from phonological inventories showing independent subsystem sizes for obstruents, sonorants, and vowels across 628 language varieties.^[1]^[3] Key proponents, including G. N. Clements and Steve Parker, have advanced acoustic and typological validations, though debates persist regarding its precise phonetic basis and universality.^[1]

Fundamentals of Sonority

Definition of Sonority

Sonority refers to the relative loudness, resonance, or acoustic prominence of speech sounds when articulated under comparable conditions of duration, stress, and pitch, serving as a scalar phonological property that distinguishes sounds based on their auditory salience.^[1] This concept captures how certain sounds, such as vowels, produce greater acoustic energy due to their formant structures—resonant peaks in the spectrum resulting from vocal tract configurations—leading to higher intensity levels, often measured in decibels (dB).^[4] For instance, vowels typically exhibit maximum intensity around 36 dB for sounds like /e/, reflecting their rich harmonic content, whereas consonants show lower values, such as 3 dB for /p/.^[1] Acoustically, sonority correlates strongly with intensity (r = 0.97) and formant prominence, where unobstructed airflow allows for sustained resonance with low damping, as opposed to the high resistance in obstruents that flattens the spectrum.^[1] Articulatorily, it relates to the degree of vocal tract openness and airflow, with high-sonority sounds like vowels involving minimal constriction and high airflow rates (e.g., 405.6 ml/sec for English male speakers of high vowels), while low-sonority consonants demand greater intraoral pressure and obstruction.^[1] These definitions are interconnected, as articulatory openness directly influences acoustic output, exemplified by vowels' open configuration enhancing both resonance and perceived fullness.^[4] Perceptually, sonority contributes to the auditory prominence of sounds within syllables, where higher-sonority elements like vowels are judged louder and more salient, facilitating speech decoding and syllable recognition in psycholinguistic tasks.^[1] This perceptual quality arises from the multiplicity and audibility of acoustic cues, making sonorous sounds easier to perceive even in noisy environments.^[4] Importantly, sonority is not an absolute measure but relative within a language's phonemic inventory, varying by segmental context and linguistic system—for example, /h/ may be the most sonorous consonant in English despite being low globally.^[1] This relativity underpins its role in phonotactics, guiding allowable sound sequences across languages.^[1]

Historical Development

The concept of sonority in phonetics originated in the late 19th century with Eduard Sievers' observations on syllable structure, where he noted that sounds between the margins and the syllable peak must exhibit increasing sonority to form well-structured syllables.^[5] Sievers linked this property to the relative audibility of sounds, proposing that more audible segments naturally occupy central positions in syllables.^[6] This early work laid impressionistic foundations for understanding sonority as a gradient quality influencing sound organization, though without quantitative validation. Building on Sievers, Otto Jespersen formalized sonority as a hierarchical scale in 1904, ranking speech sounds from least to most sonorous: voiceless stops, voiceless fricatives, voiced stops, voiced fricatives, nasals, liquids, glides, and vowels.^[1] Jespersen's scale emphasized sonority's role in syllable peaks, where vowels predominate due to their maximal audibility, and provided a structured framework for analyzing phonological sequences across languages.^[7] This contribution shifted discussions toward a more systematic, though still perceptual, ordering of phonetic elements. In the structuralist era, Nikolai Trubetzkoy advanced sonority theory through the Prague School in his 1939 Grundzüge der Phonologie, integrating it with syllable structure by defining the syllable nucleus as the sonority peak essential for syllabicity.^[8] Trubetzkoy's approach connected sonority to phonological markedness and universal patterns, influencing mid-20th-century linguistics by treating it as a key determinant of permissible sound combinations.^[9] The term "sonority hierarchy" emerged in the late 20th century, notably in Hankamer and Aissen's 1974 analysis of phonological rules, amid growing debates on whether the scale reflects universal acoustic principles or language-specific variations.^[10] G. N. Clements refined the concept in 1990 by deriving sonority from binary features in a geometric model, rather than a single multidimensional property, to explain core syllabification processes.^[11] Post-1970s developments marked a transition from impressionistic definitions to empirical acoustic studies, as seen in Steve Parker's 2002 dissertation, which quantified sonority using intensity and duration measures across languages to validate the hierarchy's phonetic basis.^[1]

The Sonority Hierarchy

Standard Ranking of Sounds

The standard sonority hierarchy ranks speech sounds from highest to lowest sonority based on their relative acoustic prominence and articulatory openness, a pattern observed cross-linguistically in phonological structures. At the top are vowels, which exhibit the greatest sonority due to their open vocal tract configuration and sustained resonance, such as low vowels like /a/ and high vowels like /i/. These are followed by glides (/j/, /w/), liquids (/l/, /r/), nasals (/m/, /n/), fricatives (/s/, /f/), and finally stops (/p/, /t/, /k/), which have the least sonority owing to their brief closure and turbulent or abrupt release.^[1]^[11] This ranking aligns with distinctive features in phonological theory, where sonority decreases as sounds deviate from the core properties of vowels. Vowels are characterized as [+syllabic, +sonorant, -consonantal], allowing free airflow and periodic voicing; glides share [+sonorant, -consonantal] but are [-syllabic]; liquids and nasals are [+sonorant, +consonantal] with varying degrees of constriction; while obstruents (fricatives and stops) are [-sonorant, +consonantal], marked by greater obstruction and non-spontaneous voicing, with stops further distinguished by [-continuant].^[12]^[13] Within manner classes, voicing modestly increases sonority, as voiced sounds permit vocal fold vibration that enhances acoustic energy; for instance, a voiced stop like /b/ ranks slightly higher than its voiceless counterpart /p/. However, the hierarchy remains primarily class-based, with manner of articulation overriding voicing effects in cross-linguistic patterns.^[1] Cross-linguistically, such preferences for higher sonority in onsets due to voicing underpin the near-universal CV syllable structure, where low-sonority stops serve as onsets but voiced variants predominate in many inventories to optimize perceptual salience.^[1]^[11]

Numerical Scales and Language Variations

One common numerical approach to modeling the sonority hierarchy assigns ordinal values to major sound classes based on their perceived auditory prominence and articulatory openness. In this scale, vowels are ranked highest at 5, followed by glides at 4, liquids at 3, nasals at 2, and obstruents at 1.^[1] This linear assignment, proposed by Clements, facilitates the calculation of sonority differences within syllables.^[11] Alternative quantitative models derive sonority values from acoustic measurements rather than categorical rankings, emphasizing empirical correlates like intensity. Parker developed relative sonority indices by analyzing spectrograms of speech sounds across languages, finding that acoustic intensity protrusions—peaks in sound pressure level—provide a logarithmic scale that correlates strongly with traditional hierarchies (r ≈ 0.85 for class distinctions).^[14] These indices allow for finer-grained distinctions, such as separating fricatives (mean index ≈ 1.8) from stops (≈ 1.2) within obstruents, and have been validated in cross-linguistic studies of cluster phonotactics. While the standard scale serves as a universal baseline, sonority rankings exhibit language-specific variations in thresholds and internal orderings. In vowel-rich languages like Hawaiian, which restrict syllables to (C)V structures, a high sonority threshold enforces strict rises (minimum difference of 4 units from consonant to vowel), prohibiting any consonant clusters and prioritizing maximal sonority peaks at the nucleus.^[15] Conversely, consonant-heavy languages like Georgian permit complex onsets with minimal sonority rises (as low as 1 unit), allowing sequences such as /brtʃ/ where obstruents and liquids alternate with shallow gradients, as evidenced by electromagnetic articulography data showing reduced gestural overlap in low-rise clusters.^[16] In languages with atypical consonants, such as the Khoisan languages featuring clicks, the hierarchy can appear inverted or extended relative to the standard model. Clicks, functioning primarily as obstruent-like initials (sonority ≈ 1-1.5), often pair with sonorant accompaniments (e.g., nasal or voiced effluxes) that elevate their effective sonority in clusters, enabling sequences like /ŋǃ/ where the click's low base yields to a higher-sonority nasal, diverging from Indo-European patterns.^[17] Typological analyses of databases like UPSID, covering 451 languages, indicate variations from the standard scale, particularly in languages with clicks or dense consonant inventories.^[18]

Applications in Phonology

Sonority Sequencing Principle

The Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP), a foundational constraint in phonological theory, posits that the segments within a syllable must exhibit a specific pattern of sonority values: sonority increases monotonically from the onset consonants to the syllable nucleus (typically a vowel) and decreases monotonically from the nucleus to the coda consonants. This principle ensures that the syllable forms a coherent perceptual unit with a clear sonority peak at the nucleus, reflecting the natural acoustic prominence of vowels over surrounding consonants. First articulated by Eduard Sievers in 1881 and further developed by Otto Jespersen in 1904, the SSP has been formalized in modern phonology as a universal guideline for syllable well-formedness.^[19]^[20] In terms of syllable structure, the SSP governs the maximal expansion of onsets and codas by requiring strict adherence to rising and falling sonority contours, respectively. For instance, in English, the word plant (/plænt/) exemplifies compliance: the onset cluster /pl/ rises in sonority from the stop /p/ (low sonority) to the liquid /l/ (higher sonority), peaking at the vowel /æ/, then falling through the coda /nt/ from nasal /n/ to stop /t/. Conversely, sequences violating this pattern, such as an onset like /str/ (where sonority falls from fricative /s/ to stop /t/ before rising to approximant /r/), are disallowed in many languages or require resyllabification to maintain the principle. The SSP thus predicts that permissible clusters respect the sonority hierarchy, with smaller sonority differences tolerated in some languages but larger rises preferred for optimal structure.^[21] Formally, the sonority profile of a syllable can be represented as a contour plot, where sonority values form an ascending slope to the nuclear peak followed by a descending slope, often visualized in phonological analyses as a "sonority cycle" or wave. This contour model, as elaborated by G. N. Clements, underscores the peak's role as the syllable's perceptual center, with deviations marking structures as less preferred cross-linguistically. Violations of the SSP result in ill-formed or marked syllables, which languages may repair through processes like epenthesis to realign the sonority pattern; for example, in certain English dialects, the cluster in film (/flm/ after vowel reduction) may insert a schwa to yield [fɪləm], restoring a rising-falling contour from the nucleus.^[21]^[22]

Phonotactic Constraints and Exceptions

Phonotactic constraints in many languages enforce the sonority sequencing principle (SSP) by prohibiting sequences that decrease in sonority within syllable onsets, such as the English prohibition against /tl/ in words like tulip, where the stop /t/ followed by the lateral /l* would represent a sonority fall rather than a rise.^[19] In contrast, sonority plateaus—sequences of sounds with equal sonority—are often tolerated in codas, allowing clusters like /pt/ in English apt, where both segments are obstruents of comparable sonority.^[19] Cross-linguistically, adherence to these constraints varies; Finnish exhibits strict compliance with rising sonority in onsets, restricting complex clusters to those with clear sonority ascent, such as /pr/ but not /rt/.^[19] Polish, however, permits partial violations in onset clusters, including some with minimal or absent sonority rises, as in /tw/ or /kr/, reflecting a more permissive phonotactic system.^[19] Notable exceptions occur in "s-inconsonant" clusters across Germanic languages, where sequences like English /sp/, /st/, and /sk/ defy the SSP by maintaining sonority plateaus or slight falls, as the fricative /s/ has higher sonority than the following stops; these are analyzed as extrasyllabic or licensed by language-specific rules.^[19] Another repair strategy involves ambisyllabicity, where a consonant is assigned to both the coda of one syllable and the onset of the next to resolve potential sonority violations, as seen in English happy (/ˈhæp.i/), where /p/ serves dual roles to optimize syllable structure.^[23] In child language acquisition, speech errors often mirror these constraints, with children overapplying sonority principles even to unattested structures; for instance, 4-year-olds show heightened sensitivity to distortions in low-sonority onsets like /lb/, misidentifying them more frequently than high-sonority ones like /bw/, indicating an innate bias toward rising sonority profiles.^[24]

Ecological Influences on Sonority

Climate and Temperature Effects

Climatic conditions, particularly temperature and humidity, influence the sonority profiles of language phonologies through adaptations that optimize acoustic transmission in varying environments. In warmer, more humid climates, languages tend to exhibit higher overall sonority, characterized by fewer consonants, as low-frequency sounds like vowels propagate more effectively in moist air where high frequencies are attenuated.^[25] Conversely, cooler and drier climates favor languages with lower sonority, relying more on obstruents and consonants to enhance signal clarity against greater atmospheric absorption and scattering of sounds.^[26] A comprehensive analysis of 663 languages demonstrated a significant negative correlation between mean annual temperature and measures of consonant inventory size and complexity (p < 0.0001), implying that higher temperatures promote simpler consonant systems to maintain communicative efficiency.^[25] This pattern aligns with the acoustic adaptation hypothesis, which posits that environmental factors shape phonological structures by favoring sounds that minimize degradation during transmission; for instance, in tropical regions, the prevalence of sonorous vowels aids in overcoming humidity-induced frequency loss.^[25] A 2023 revalidation using a larger dataset confirmed these temperature-sonority correlations.^[27] These findings underscore how temperature-driven acoustic properties, such as increased absorption in hot air, selectively pressure languages toward higher sonority hierarchies, though debates persist on whether these reflect direct adaptation or other factors like historical diffusion.^[28] Further evidence comes from acoustic measurements of speech samples across 100 languages, where the sonority score—the proportion of time devoted to sonorous sounds—correlated positively with mean annual temperature (R² = 0.242, p < 0.0001), with warmer locales averaging higher sonority fractions up to 89.64%.^[26] Additionally, historical migration from equatorial origins may have carried high-sonority traits that persisted or adapted in temperate zones, though direct evidence remains limited.^[25]

Vegetation and Altitude Patterns

Research on ecological influences suggests that vegetation density plays a significant role in shaping the sonority profiles of languages, as it affects the acoustics of communication over varying distances. In environments with dense vegetation, such as rainforests, sounds with lower sonority—characterized by greater consonant heaviness and less reliance on high-amplitude vowels—are more prevalent, facilitating short-range interactions where clarity amid foliage absorption is prioritized. Conversely, open landscapes like savannas promote higher sonority sounds, which carry better over distances in less obstructed settings. This pattern aligns with the acoustic adaptation hypothesis, where environmental transmission properties influence phonetic preferences.^[29] A key study by Ember and Ember (2007) analyzed data from 60 societies and found that dense plant cover correlates with reduced sonority levels, as measured by syllable structure and phoneme amplitude, supporting the idea that such econiches limit long-distance audibility and favor compact, less resonant forms. For instance, languages in tropical rainforests exhibit more complex consonant clusters (low sonority) compared to those in arid grasslands. These findings extend prior work on climate but emphasize vegetation as a distinct factor interacting with terrain to constrain sound propagation. Altitude introduces additional pressures on sonority through physiological and aerodynamic effects, particularly favoring low-sonority non-pulmonic consonants like ejectives and glottalics at higher elevations. In regions above 2000 meters, such as the Andes, languages like Quechua incorporate ejectives, which require less pulmonic airflow and are easier to produce under lower oxygen and air pressure conditions, enhancing articulatory efficiency. Everett (2013) demonstrated this correlation using a global sample of 567 languages, showing that 87% of those with ejective consonants are spoken within 500 km of high-elevation zones (>1500 m), compared to 43% without, with ejectives linked to both altitude and regional aridity.^[30] This results in highland languages displaying a notably higher proportion of non-pulmonic consonants, adapting to the energetic demands of thin air.

References

[1]
[PDF] quantifying the sonority hierarchy - Dallas International University
phonetic definition of sonority which covers the exact range of phonological distinctions that need to be made. Consequently, a few linguists have ...
[2]
Sonority - Parker - Major Reference Works - Wiley Online Library
Apr 28, 2011 · Sonority can be defined as a unique type of relative, n-ary (non-binary) featurelike phonological element that potentially categorizes all speech sounds into a ...
[3]
[PDF] Sonority as a Primitive: Evidence from Phonological Inventories
The sonority scale. The sonority scale is a phonological hierarchy of segments ranking sounds (generally speaking) on relative loudness, although exact ...
[4]
[PDF] Phonetic basis of sonority - Nick Clements
nature of sonority constraints across languages (Clements 1990, 291). Not all phoneticians maintain that sonority has no phonetic content, however. Many ...
[5]
7 Does Sonority Have a Phonetic Basis? - MIT Press Direct
Many, from Sievers (1881) onward, have suggested that sonority is correlated in ... sonority peaks should constitute preferred syllable peaks, as required by ...
[6]
On the nature of sonority in spoken word production: Evidence from ...
Within theoretical linguistics, the concept of sonority has been argued to explain such diverse phenomena as syllable structure (e.g., Clements, 1990 ...
[7]
Sonority scale (adapted from Jespersen, 1904; p. 186; also see...
This study focused on how and to what extent phonological syllables, which are essential reading units in French, were accessible to DYS children to segment ...
[8]
[PDF] Principles of phonology - Monoskop
Closely linked with the name of Trubetzkoy is that of Roman Jakobson, his friend and collaborator. He was to become the principal exponent of. Prague phonology ...
[9]
[PDF] Reassessing the Role of Sonority in Syllable Structure
the widely held sonority sequencing principle (Sievers 1881, Jespersen 1904) may be a modality-conditioned effect of aural/oral languages, while sonority's role ...<|separator|>
[10]
[PDF] The Sonority Hierarchy
This theory makes the claim that the only relations among classes which phonological rules need to refer to are cross-classi- fying taxonomic ones; it claims in ...
[11]
[PDF] clements90.pdf
Regarding its substantive nature, I will suggest that sonority is not a single, multivalued property of segments, but is derived from more basic binary.
[12]
[PDF] THE SOUND PATTERN OF ENGLISH - MIT
In the ninth and concluding chapter, a proposal is presented for an extension of phonological theory that takes into account the intrinsic content of features.
[13]
[PDF] Features in Phonology1 - Maria Gouskova
May 21, 2018 · terms of distinctive features, greater sonority can be understood as having more positive specifications for certain manner features. If ...
[14]
Sound level protrusions as physical correlates of sonority
Aug 10, 2025 · In his study, the tightest correlations with sonority classes were obtained for acoustic intensity measurements, a conclusion that was repeated ...
[15]
[PDF] Syllable Typology In many languages, there is substantial evidence ...
The purpose of this survey is to demonstrate the extent to which syllable types vary cross-linguistically, and to highlight cross-linguistic generalizations. In ...
[16]
Sonority sequencing and its relationship to articulatory timing in ...
Mar 15, 2023 · Sonority is an abstract property of speech sounds that can be invoked to explain a wide variety of phonotactic patterns and phonological ...
[17]
Clicks, concurrency and Khoisan* | Phonology | Cambridge Core
May 20, 2014 · Treating clicks as phonemes concurrent with phonemic accompaniments radically reduces the inventory size, so solving the problems of many unsupported contrasts.
[18]
UPSID Info - Phonetik
That is, the group of sounds that appear in 10 or fewer of the 451 languages make up more than 80% of the 919 sounds in the database. Number of segments in a ...
[19]
[PDF] CHAPTER 1 CLUSTER PHONOTACTICS AND THE SONORITY ...
Clements argues, however, that allowing the sonority scale to vary across languages seriously undermines its explanatory power. Clements writes: “… increasing ...Missing: numerical | Show results with:numerical
[20]
nltk.tokenize.sonority_sequencing module
The Sonority Sequencing Principle (SSP) is a language agnostic algorithm proposed by Otto Jesperson in 1904. The sonorous quality of a phoneme is judged by the ...
[21]
[PDF] The Role of the Sonority Cycle in Core Syllabification - Zenodo
Regarding its substantive nature, I will suggest that sonority is not a single, multidimensional property of segments, but is derived from more basic binary.
[22]
[PDF] EPENTHESIS, DELETION AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE ...
(19) Sonority sequencing principle (SSP): sonority must increase towards the peak. (following Clements 1990). We assume the following sonority hierarchy: (20) ...
[23]
Experimental evidence on the syllabification of two-consonant ...
Sonority relations between segment classes have been captured in phonology by the sonority hierarchy ... Ambisyllabicity was investigated in ...
[24]
Phonological universals in early childhood: Evidence from sonority ...
Across languages, onsets with large sonority distances are preferred to those with smaller distances (e.g., bw>bd>lb; Greenberg, 1978).Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[25]
(PDF) Human spoken language diversity and the acoustic ...
Aug 6, 2025 · Several studies posit that part of the variation in sound structure across spoken human languages could likewise reflect adaptation to the local ecological ...
[26]
Language Adapts to Environment: Sonority and Temperature
This study looks at brief samples of spoken material from 100 languages, dividing the speech into sonorous and obstruent time fractions.
[27]
Did The Language You Speak Evolve Because Of The Heat? - NPR
Nov 6, 2015 · People speak very differently depending on where they live, and the climate and environment might have something to do with that.
[28]
Climate, econiche, and sexuality: influences on sonority in language
Jan 1, 2007 · Hypothesis. A warm climate and dense vegetation will be associated with less sonority (183).