In the study of phonotactics, sonority is often closely associated with the syllable. Based on this property, several principles have been established, including those that regulate the distribution of segments within the syllable according to an optimal sonority profile (i.e., the Sonority Sequencing Principle; see Selkirk 1984, Clements 1990, and Blevins 1995) and those that impose a minimum distance between consonants in the onset (i.e., the Minimal Sonority Distance, as described by Steriade 1982, Selkirk 1984, and Zec 2007, among others). There is also Sonority Dispersion, which maximizes the onset-to-nucleus sonority slope, and sonority hierarchy that ranks segments along a scale on the basis of their sonority (Clements 1990, 1992; see also Parker 2002 and 2012 for an overview of the literature).
Over the decades, numerous proposals have enriched phonological theory, aiming to refine the sonority principles to account for segment combinations across languages. Alternative approaches advocate for a reverse statement, termed strength hierarchy (Hooper 1976: 204, Vennemann 1972) or complexity (along with the licensing mechanisms inherent to Government Phonology and Element Theory; see Kaye, Lowenstamm & Vergnaud 1985, Harris 1990, Scheer 1996, 2004, Backley 2011, among others).
In this course, we will review these sonority principles as we test them against various languages. We will also discuss the role of sonority beyond the realm of the syllable, exploring how it serves as a tool that regulates the arrangement of segments within the root. Tashlhiyt Berber is particularly instructive in this regard (Lahrouchi 2010, 2020).

Selected references

Backley, Ph. 2011. An introduction to element theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Blevins, J. 1995. The syllable in phonological theory. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, J. Goldsmith (ed.), 206-244. Oxford: Blackwell.

Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech, J. Kingston & M. Beckman (eds), 283-333. NY: CUP.

Clements, G. N. 1992. The sonority cycle and syllable organization. In Phonologica 1988: Proceedings of the 6th international phonology meeting, W. U. Dressler, H. C. Luschutzky, O. E. Pfeiffer, and J. R. Rennison (eds.), 63-76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harris, J. 1990. Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7: 255-300.

Hooper, J. B. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. NY: Academic Press.

Kaye, J., Lowenstamm, J. & J.-R. Vergnaud. 1985. The Internal Structure of Phonological Elements: A Theory of Charm and Government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305-328.

Lahrouchi, M. 2010. On the internal structure of Tashlhiyt Berber triconsonantal roots. Linguistic Inquiry 41/2: 255-285.

Parker, S. 2002. Quantifying the sonority hierarchy. PhD dissertation, U. Mass., Amherst.

Parker, S. 2012. The sonority controversy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Scheer, T. 1996. Une théorie de l’interaction directe entre consonnes. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris 7.

Scheer, T. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV and why should it be? Berlin / New York: Mouton de Druyter.