Skip to main content Accessibility help

Domain modelling in Optimality Theory: Morphophonological cyclicity vs. stepwise prosodic parsing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

University of Warsaw
E-mail address:


This paper examines opaque examples of phrase-level phonology taken from Chilean Spanish under the framework of Stratal Optimality Theory (OT) (Rubach 1997; Bermúdez-Otero 2003, 2019) and Harmonic Serialism (HS) (McCarthy 2008a, b, 2016). The data show an interesting double repair of the coda /s/ taking place at word edges. It is argued that Stratal OT is superior in modelling phonological processes that take place at the interface between morphology and phonology because it embraces cyclicity. Under this model, prosodic structure is built serially, level by level, and in accordance with the morphological structure of the input string. In this way, opacity at constituent edges can be solved. Stratal OT also provides insight into word-internal morphological structure and the domain-specificity of phonological processes. It is demonstrated that a distinction in this model is necessary between the word and the phrase levels, and between the stem and the word levels. As illustrated by the behaviour of Spanish nouns, affixation and the resultant alternations inform us about the domains to which both morphological and phonological processes should be assigned. Against this background, Harmonic Serialism embraces an apparently simpler recursive mechanism in which stepwise prosodic parsing can be incorporated. What is more, it offers insight into the nature of operations in OT, as well as into such problematic issues as structure building and directionality. Nevertheless, despite the model’s ability to solve various cases of opacity, the need to distinguish between two competing repairs makes HS fail when confronted with the Chilean data under examination.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.


I would like to thank the three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for all their helpful and constructive comments, which greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper. I am also grateful to the Editor Dr S. J. Hannahs for all suggestions concerning the contents of the manuscript. Last but not least, special thanks are due to Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, Janina Mołczanow, Joe Pater and Joanna Zaleska for their feedback on earlier versions of this paper. However, the responsibility for the paper’s contents is solely mine.


Amastae, John. 1986. A syllable-based analysis of Spanish spirantisation. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Corvalán, Carmen Silva (eds.), Studies in Romance linguistics, 321. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura Walsh & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18), 77136. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2003. The acquisition of phonological opacity. In Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.), Variation within Optimality Theory: Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, 2536. Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2006. Morphological structure and phonological domains in Spanish denominal derivation. In Martínez-Gil, Fernando & Colina, Sonia (eds.), Optimality-theoretic studies in Spanish phonology, 278311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2007a. Word-final prevocalic consonants in English: Representation vs. derivation. Presented at the Old World Conference in Phonology 4, Rhodes, 20 January 2007. Handout at 12 September 2018).Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2007b. Diachronic phonology. In de Lacy(ed.), 497517.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Available at (accessed 12 September 2018).Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25.1, 3103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2015. Amphichronic explanation and the life cycle of phonological processes. In Honeybone, Patrick & Salmons, Joseph C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of historical phonology, 374399. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2019. Stratal Optimality Theory. Ms., The University of Manchester. Available at 6 February 2019).Google Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan. 2007. Allomorph selection and lexical preferences: Two case studies. Lingua 117, 903927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert & Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. Postcyclic versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 144.Google Scholar
Borland, Karen. 2004. La variación y distribución alofónica en el habla culta de Santiago de Chile [Variation and allophonic distribution of educated speech in Santiago de Chile]. Onomázein 10, 103115.Google Scholar
Broś, Karolina. 2015. Survival of the fittest: Fricative lenition in English and Spanish from the perspective of Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Broś, Karolina. 2016. Opaque domain modelling in OT: Against stepwise prosodic parsing in Harmonic Serialism. Presented at 24th Manchester Phonology Meeting, 29–31 May 2016.Google Scholar
Broś, Karolina. 2018. Contiguity in prosodic words: Evidence from Spanish. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 54.1, 3782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Repetti, Lori. 2009. Phrase-level and word-level syllables: Resyllabification and prosodization of clitics. In Grijzenhout, Janet & Kabak, Barıs¸ (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 79104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Kristin M. 2012. An acoustic and perceptual analysis of compensatory processes in vowels preceding deleted post-nuclear /s/ in Andalusian Spanish. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 38.1, 3967.Google Scholar
Cepeda, Gladys. 1990. La variación de /s/ en Valdivia: sexo y edad [/s/ variation in Valdivia: Gender and age]. Hispania 73, 232237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cepeda, Gladys. 1995. Retention and deletion of word final /s/ in Valdivian Spanish (Chile). Hispanic Linguistics 6/7, 329353.Google Scholar
Coetzee, Andries & Pater, Joe. 2011. The place of variation in phonological theory. In Goldsmith, John, Riggle, Jason & Yu, Alan (eds.), The Handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn. 401431. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colina, Sonia. 1997. Identity constraints and Spanish resyllabification. Lingua 103, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colina, Sonia. 2002. Interdialectal variation in /s/ aspiration: The role of prosodic structure and output-to-output constraints. In Lee, James F., Geeslin, Kimberly L. & Clements, J. Clancy (eds.), Structure, meaning and acquisition in Spanish: Papers from the 4th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (HLS), 230243. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Colina, Sonia. 2003. The status of word-final [e] in Spanish. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 22.1, 87107.Google Scholar
Colina, Sonia. 2006. Output-to-output correspondence and the emergence of the unmarked in Spanish plural formation. In Montreuil, Jean-Pierre (ed.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 4963. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Colina, Sonia. 2009. Spanish phonology: A syllabic perspective. Georgetown, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2012. The role of the syllable in the structure and realization of sound systems. In Cohn, Abigail C., Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie (eds.), Oxford handbook of Laboratory Phonology, 232242. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul(ed.). 2007. The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Den Os, Els & Kager, René. 1986. Extrametricality and stress in Spanish and Italian. Lingua 69, 2348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinnsen, Daniel A. & Eckman, Fred R.. 1977. Some substantive universals in atomic phonology. Lingua 45, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2009. Harmonic Serialism and stress–epenthesis interactions in Levantine Arabic. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Face, Timothy L. 2002. Re-examining Spanish ‘resyllabification’. In Cresti, Diana, Satterfield, Teresa & Tortora, Cristina M. (eds.), Current issues in Romance languages, 8194. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueroa, Neysa. 2000. An acoustic and perceptual study of vowels preceding deleted post-nuclear /s/ in uerto Rican Spanish. In Morales-Font, Alfonso, Campos, Héctor, Herburger, Elena & Walsh,  Thomas (eds.), Hispanic linguistics at the turn of the millennium: Papers from the 3rd Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, 6679. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn. 2009. Constraints on onsets and codas of words and phrases. Phonology 26, 269302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gietz, Frederick, Jurgec, Peter & Percival, Maida. 2015. Linguistic ShiftWork: Not so strange after all. Shifting in Harmonic Serialism. Presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society (NELS 46), Montréal.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. 1994. The OCP, prosodic morphology and Sonoran Spanish diminutives: A reply to Crowhurst. Phonology 11, 179190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, James W. 1999. Nasal depalatalization no, morphological wellformedness : The structure of Spanish word classes. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 33, 4782.Google Scholar
Henríquez Ureña, Pedro. 1921. Observaciones sobre el español de América [Observations concerning the Spanish of America]. Revista de Filología Española 8, 357390.Google Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio. 1991. Aspiration and resyllabification in Chinato Spanish. Probus 3, 5576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio & Prieto, Pilar. 2014. Lenition of sibilants in Catalan and Spanish. Phonetica 71, 109127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José Ignacio, Simonet, Michel & Nadeu, Marianna. 2011. Consonant lenition and phonological recategorization. Laboratory Phonology 2, 301329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, John T. 2000. Against ambisyllabicity. Phonology 17, 187235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesney, Karen. 2008. Positional faithfulness, non-locality, and the Harmonic Serialism solution. In Lima, Suzi, Mullin, Kevin & Smith, Brian (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 39 (NELS 39), vol. 2, 403416. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel. 1976. Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1999. Resyllabification precedes all segmental rules: Evidence from Argentinian Spanish. In Authier, Jean-Marc, Bullock, Barbara E. & Reed, Lisa A. (eds.), Formal perspectives on Romance Linguistics: Selected papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), 197210. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. & Shaw, Patricia A.. 1985. On the theory of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, 363393. Salford: European Studies Research Institute and University of Salford.Google Scholar
Kimper, Wendell. 2011. Locality and Globality in Phonological Variation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29.2, 423465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three dimensions of linguistic theory, 5786. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute for Advanced Studies of Language.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Neil (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, vol. 1, 131175. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 85138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1999. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17, 351366.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2003. Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Féry, Catherine & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 147182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2013. The residue of opacity. Presented at the Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop 28, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Krämer, Martin. 2001. On obstruent voicing in Breton, German, and Italian. In Holmer, Arthur, Svantesson, Jan-Olof & Viberg, Åke (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund), 3955. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Lenz, Rodolfo, Bello, Andrés & Oroz, Rodolfo. 1940. El español de Chile [The Spanish of Chile]. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Lewis, Anthony M.2001. Weakening of intervocalic /p t k/ in two Spanish dialects: Toward the quantification of lenition processes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Lipski, John. 1996. El español de América [The Spanish of America]. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Lipski, John. 1999. The many faces of Spanish /s/-weakening: (Re)aligment and ambisyllabicity. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier (ed.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: Papers from the 2nd Hispanic Linguistic Symposium, 188230. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lleó, Conxita. 2013. The challenge of lexically empty onsets in first language acquisition of Spanish and German. In Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael A. (ed.), The syllable and stress: Studies in honor of James W. Harris, 187218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Jiménez, Jesús. 2009. Un análisis “óptimo” de la armonía vocálica del andaluz [An ‘optimal’ analysis of vowel harmony in Andalusian Spanish]. Verba: Anuario Galego de Filoloxia 36, 293325.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112, 243280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, Thomas. 1994. Two implosive phenomena and resyllabification in Puerto Rican Spanish. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, Colorado Springs, CO.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16, 331399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. OT constraints are categorical. Phonology 20, 75138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008a. Harmony in Harmonic Serialism. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008b. The gradual path to cluster simplification. Phonology 25, 271319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2010a. Studying Gen. Journal of the Phonetic Society of Japan 13, 312.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2010b. An introduction to Harmonic Serialism. Language and Linguistics Compass 4, 10011018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2011. Autosegmental spreading in Optimality Theory. In Goldsmith, John A., Hume, Elizabeth & Leo Wetzels, W. (eds.), Tones and features: Phonetic and phonological perspectives, 195222. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2016. The theory and practice of Harmonic Serialism. In McCarthy & Pater (eds.), 4787.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Pater, Joe (eds.). 2016. Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. London: Equinox Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J., Pater, Joe & Pruitt, Kathryn. 2016. Cross-level interactions in Harmonic Serialism. In McCarthy & Pater (eds.), 88138.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction (Linguistics Department Faculty Publication Series 14). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst, Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Navarro Tomás, Tomás. 1938. Dédoublement de phonemes dans le dialecte andalou [Phoneme doubling in the Andalusian dialect]. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8, 184186.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Oftedal, Magne. 1985. Lenition in Celtic and in Insular Spanish. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Oslo.Google Scholar
Oroz, Rodolfo. 1966. La lengua castellana en Chile [The Spanish of Chile]. Santiago: Facultad de Filosofía y educación, Universidad de Chile.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2010. Serial Harmonic Grammar and Berber syllabification. In Borowsky, Toni, Kawahara, Shigeto, Shinya, Takahito & Sugahara, Mariko (eds.), Prosody matters: Essays in honor of Lisa Selkirk, 4372. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Pérez, Hernán Emilio. 2007. Estudio de la variación estilística del fonema /s/ en posición implosiva en el habla de los noticieros de la televisión chilena [Study on the stylistic variation of /s/ in syllable-final position in the language of the news broadcasted by the Chilean TV]. RLA, Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 45.1, 101115.Google Scholar
Port, Robert F. & O’Dell, Michael. 1985. Neutralization of syllable-final voicing in German. Journal of Phonetics 13, 455471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Pruitt, Kathryn. 2008. Iterative foot optimization and locality in stress systems. Ms., University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Quilis, Antonio. 1993. Tratado de fonología y fonética españolas [A treatise on Spanish phonetics and phonology]. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Rabanales, Ambrosio. 1953. Introducción al estudio del español de Chile [Introduction to the study of Spanish in Chile]. Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria.Google Scholar
Ramsammy, Michael. 2013. Word-final nasal velarisation in Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 49, 215255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1997. Extrasyllabic consonants in Polish: Derivational Optimality Theory. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Derivations and constraints in phonology, 551581. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 1999. The syllable in phonological analysis. Rivista di linguistica 11.2, 273314.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Glide and glottal stop insertion in Slavic languages: A DOT analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 271317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syllable. In van der Hulst H., Harry & Smith, Norval (eds.), The structure of phonological representations, vol. 2, 337385. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In McCarthy, John J. (ed.), Optimality Theory in phonology: A reader, 464482. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shepherd, Michael A.2003. Constraint interactions in Spanish phonotactics: An Optimality Theory analysis of syllable-level phenomena in the Spanish language. MA thesis, California State University, Northridge.Google Scholar
Słowiaczek, Louisa M. & Szymańska, Helena J.. 1989. Perception of word-final devoicing in Polish. Journal of Phonetics 17, 205212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto-Barba, Jaime. 2011. Variación consonántica en el habla urbana y rural de la Provincia de Ñuble [Consonantal variation in the urban and rural speech of the Ñuble Province]. RLA, Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada 49.2, 111127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strycharczuk, Patrycja & Kohlberger, Martin. 2016. Resyllabification reconsidered: On the durational properties of word-final /s/ in Spanish. Laboratory Phonology 7, 124.Google Scholar
Strycharczuk, Patrycja, van ’t Veer, Marijn, Bruil, Martine & Linke, Kathrin. 2014. Phonetic evidence on phonology–morphosyntax interactions: Sibilant voicing in Quito Spanish. Journal of Linguistics 50.2, 403452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tessier, Anne-Michelle. 2004. Input “clusters” and contrast preservation in OT. In Chand, Vineeta, Kelleher, Ann, Rodríguez, Angelo J. & Schmeiser, Benjamin (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 23), 759772. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Torres-Tamarit, Francesc. 2012. Syllabification and opacity in Harmonic Serialism. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Torres-Tamarit, Francesc. 2014. Phonology–morphology opacity in Harmonic Serialism: The case of /s/ aspiration in Spanish. In Côté, Marie-Hélène & Mathieu, Eric (eds.), Variation within and across Romance languages: Selected papers from the 41st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), 3962. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca & Kessler, Brett. 1995. In defence of an onset–rime syllable structure for English. Language and Speech 38, 127142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oostendorp, Marc. 2008. Incomplete devoicing in formal phonology. Lingua 118.9, 13621374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B.1973. The phonology of reduplication. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Wiltshire, Caroline. 2002. Variation in Spanish aspiration and prosodic boundary constraints. In Satterfield, Teresa, Tortora, Christina & Cresti, Diana (eds.), Current issues in Romance languages: Selected papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), 375389. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Matthew. 2010. On the existence of counterfeeding from the past. Presented at 84th LSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore. [Handout]Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 2007. The syllable. In de Lacy(ed.), 161193.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 33
Total number of PDF views: 204 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 25th March 2019 - 25th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-t4g97 Total loading time: 0.371 Render date: 2021-01-25T12:16:06.220Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Domain modelling in Optimality Theory: Morphophonological cyclicity vs. stepwise prosodic parsing
Available formats

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Domain modelling in Optimality Theory: Morphophonological cyclicity vs. stepwise prosodic parsing
Available formats

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Domain modelling in Optimality Theory: Morphophonological cyclicity vs. stepwise prosodic parsing
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *