Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T17:12:59.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2011

Rachel Walker
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Miriam. 1991. “Macushi,” in Derbyshire, Desmond C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. III, 23–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Adelaar, Willem F. H. with the collaboration of Muysken, Pieter C.. 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alber, Birgit. 2001. “Maximizing first positions,” in Féry, Caroline, Green, Antony Dubach, and Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5. Linguistics in Potsdam 12: 1–19. University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Alderete, John. 2001a. Morphologically Governed Accent in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alderete, John 2001b. “Root-controlled accent in Cupeño,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 455–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1981. “Why phonology isn't ‘natural’,” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 493–539.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2007. “Variation and optionality,” in de Lacy (ed.), 519–36.
Applegate, Richard P. 1971. “Vowel harmony in Chumash,” Berkeley Papers in Linguistics 1: 3–12.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1994. Grounded Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana and Pulleyblank, Douglas 2007. “Harmony,” in de Lacy (ed.), 353–78.
Bach, Emmon. 1968. “Two proposals concerning the simplicity metric in phonology,” Glossa 2.2: 128–49.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2000. Harmony, Dominance and Control. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric and Wilson, Colin. 2000. “Transparency, strict locality and targeted constraints,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 19: 43–56.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2006. Strength and Weakness at the Interface: Positional Neutralization in Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bateman, Leah, O'Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren, and Werle, Adam (eds.). 2007. Papers in Optimality Theory 3. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association Publications.
Beas, Omar. 2000. “Underspecification and vowel elision in Aymara,” ms., University of Southern California.
Beckman, Jill. 1997. “Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization and Shona vowel harmony,” Phonology 14: 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Jill 1999. Positional Faithfulness. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Beckman, Jill, Walsh-Dickey, Laura, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.). 1995. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers: Papers in Optimality Theory. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association Publications.
Beddor, Patrice. 1982. Phonological and Phonetic Effects of Nasalization on Vowel Height. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota. [Reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1983.]Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice 1993. “The perception of nasal vowels,” in Huffman, Marie K. and Krakow, Rena A. (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology, Volume V: Nasals, Nasalization, and the Velum, 171–96. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice, Krakow, Rena, and Goldstein, Louis. 1986. “Perceptual constraints and phonological change: a study of nasal vowel height,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 197–217.Google Scholar
Beddor, Patrice, Krakow, Rena, and Lindemann, Stephanie. 2001. “Patterns of perceptual compensation and their phonological consequences,” In Hume, and Johnson, (eds.), 55–78.
Beddor, Patrice, Harnsberger, James, and Lindemann, Stephanie. 2002. “Language-specific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates,” Journal of Phonetics 30: 591–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belloni, Silvano. 1991. Grammatica Veneta. Battaglia Terme: Editrice La Galiverna.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura. 1995. “Identity effects in morphological truncation,” in Beckman, et al. (eds.), 77–136.
Benua, Laura 2000. Phonological Relations between Words. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Benus, Stefan and Gafos, Adamantios. 2007. “Articulatory characteristics of Hungarian ‘transparent’ vowels,” Journal of Phonetics 35: 271–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benus, Stefan, Gafos, Adamantios, and Goldstein, Louis. 2004. “Phonetics and phonology of transparent vowels in Hungarian,” Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 29: 485–97.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 1990. “The differential sensitivity of consonants and vowels to stress,” Language Sciences 12: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas 1991. “Phonological processing in a syllable-timed language with pre-final stress: evidence from Spanish speech error data,” Language and Cognitive Processes 6: 265–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas 1998. Linguistic Structure and Change: An Explanation from Language Processing. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergem, Dick. 1994. “A model of coarticulatory effects on the schwa,” Speech Communication 14: 143–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 1998. Slavic Prosody: Language Change and Phonological Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethin, Christina Y. 2006. “Stress and tone in East Slavic dialects,” Phonology 23: 125–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette and Garrett, Andrew. 1998. “The origins of consonant–vowel metathesis,” Language 74: 508–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette and Garrett, Andrew 2004. “The evolution of metathesis,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 117–56.
Blumenfeld, Lev. 2006. Constraints on Phonological Interactions. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul 2003. “Nasal harmony in functional phonology,” in Weijer, Jeroen, Heuven, Vincent J. and Hulst, Harry (eds.), The Phonological Spectrum, Vol. I: Segmental Structure, 3–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul 2008. “Emergent ranking of faithfulness explains markedness and licensing by cue,” ms., University of Amsterdam. [Available as ROA 954.]
Booij, Geert. 1996. “Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch,” The Linguistic Review 13: 219–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, S. E. 1988. The Influence of Phonological Structure on Articulatory Organization in Turkish and in English: Vowel Harmony and Coarticulation. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1987. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 14th edition. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine D. 1978. “Tip of the tongue and slip of the ear: implications for language processing,” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 42.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine and Goldstein, Louis. 1986. “Towards an articulatory phonology,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 219–52.Google Scholar
Browman, Catherine and Goldstein, Louis 1989. “Articulatory gestures as phonological units,” Phonology 6: 201–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine and Goldstein, Louis 1990. “Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech,” in Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, 341–76. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger and McNeill, David. 1966. “The ‘tip of the tongue’ phenomenon,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 325–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunelli, Michele. 2000a. Dithionario normativo parlade venete unificàe. www.sitoveneto.com/veneto/dithionario/dithiobaxe1.htm, www.sitoveneto.com/veneto/dithionario/dithiobaxe2.htm. Accessed July 22, 2004.
Brunelli, Michele 2000b. Venetan Language. www.sitoveneto.com/veneto/gram. Accessed November 5, 2001.
Brunelli, Michele 2001. Descriptive Grammar of the Venetan Language. www.orbilat.com/Languages/Venetan/Grammar/index.html. Accessed June 3, 2002.
Brunelli, Michele 2006. Dizsionario Xenerałe de ła Łéngua Vèneta e łe só varianti. Secónda version, www.dizsionario.org. Accessed on November 11, 2008.
Burzio, Luigi. 1997. “Strength in numbers,” in Miglio, Viola and Morén, Bruce (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. Selected Phonology Papers from Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop 1997/University of Maryland Mayfest 1997, 27–52.
Butcher, Andrew and Weiher, Eckhart. 1976. “An electropalatographic investigation of coarticulation VCV sequences,” Journal of Phonetics 4: 59–74.Google Scholar
Byrd, Dani. 2000. “Articulatory vowel lengthening and coordination at phrasal junctures,” Phonetica 57: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calabrese, Andrea. 1985. “Metaphony in Salentino,” Rivista de grammatica generativa9–10: 1–140.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea 1988. Towards a Theory of Phonological Alphabets. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Calabrese, Andrea 1998. “Metaphony revisited,” Rivista di Linguistica 10: 7–68.Google Scholar
Camilli, Amerindo. 1929. “Il dialetto di Servigliano,” Archivum Romanicum 13: 220–71.Google Scholar
Campos-Astorkiza, Rebeka. 2009. The Role and Representation of Minimal Contrast and the Phonetics–Phonology Interaction. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Canalis, Stefano. 2007a. “When a feature is metrical: vowel harmony in two Romance dialects,” paper presented at the 15th Manchester Phonology Meeting, May 24–26, 2007.
Canalis, Stefano 2007b. “Total vowel harmony in two Romance dialects,” paper presented at Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia, Universidade do Minho, Braga, June 25–26, 2007.
Canalis, Stefano 2009. “Post-tonic vowel harmony in some dialects of central Italy: the role of prosodic structure, contrast and consonants,” in Vigário, Marina, Frota, Sónia, and Freitas, M. João (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology: Interactions and Interrelations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carson, Neusa M. 1982. Phonology and Morphosyntax of Macuxi (Carib). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Casali, Roderic. 1997. “Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: which vowel goes?Language 73: 493–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, Roderic 1998. Resolving Hiatus. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Causley, Trisha. 1997. “Featural correspondence and identity: the Athapaskan case,” North East Linguistic Society 27, 93–105.Google Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2000. Lingüística Aimara. Cuzco: Bartolomé de Las Casas.Google Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino López, Alvaro. 2003. “A case of weak triggers: vowel harmony in Jaqaru,” ms., University of Southern California.
Chitoran, Ioana and Hualde, José I.. 2007. “From hiatus to diphthong: the evolution of vowel sequences in Romance,” Phonology 24: 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Taehong and Jun, Sun-Ah. 2000. “Domain-initial strengthening as enhancement of laryngeal features: aerodynamic evidence from Korean,” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 99: 57–79.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Christdas, Prathima. 1988. The Phonology and Morphology of Tamil. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1980. Vowel Harmony in Nonlinear Generative Phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1991. “Vowel height assimilation in Bantu languages,” Berkeley Linguistics Society 17: 25–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N. 2001. “Representational economy in constraint-based phonology,” in Alan Hall, T. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory, 71–146. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. and Hume, Elizabeth V.. 1995. “The internal organization of speech sounds,” in Goldsmith, (ed.), 245–306.
Cole, Jennifer. 1995. “The cycle in phonology,” in Goldsmith, (ed.), 70–113.
Cole, Jennifer 1998. “Deconstructing metaphony,” Rivista di Linguistica 10: 69–98.Google Scholar
Cole, Jennifer and Kisseberth, Charles. 1995. “Restricting multi-level constraint evaluation: opaque rule interaction in Yawelmani vowel harmony,” in Suzuki, and Elzinga, (eds.), 18–38.
Cole, Ronald A. and Jakimik, Jola. 1980. “How are syllables used to recognize words?Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67: 965–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coon, Jessica and Gallagher, Gillian. 2009. “Similarity and correspondence in Chol Mayan,” North East Linguistic Society 38, 203–16.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2000. Consonant Cluster Phonotactics: A Perceptual Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène 2004. “Syntagmatic distinctness in consonant deletion,” Phonology 21: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine. 2001. Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crosswhite, Katherine 2004. “Vowel reduction,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 191–231.
Crowhurst, Megan and Hewitt, Mark. 1997. “Boolean operations and constraint interactions in Optimality Theory,” ms., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and Brandeis University. [Available as ROA 229.]
Curtin, Suzanne. 2002. Representational Richness in Phonological Development. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Czekman, Walery and Smułkowa, Elżbieta. 1988. Fonetyka i Fonologia Języka Białoruskiego z Elementami Fonetyki i Fonologii Ogólnej. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictvo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Jong, Kenneth. 1995. “Supraglottal articulation of prominence in English: linguistic stress as localized hyperarticulation,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97(1): 491–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacy, Paul. 2002. The Formal Expression of Markedness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lacy, Paul 2006. Markedness: Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, Paul 2007a. “The interaction of tone, sonority, and prosodic structure,” in de Lacy (ed.), 281–307.
Lacy, Paul (ed.). 2007b. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Delattre, Pierre. 1966. “A comparison of syllable length conditioning among languages,” International Review of Applied Linguistics 4: 183–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dettweiler, Stephen H. 2000. “Vowel harmony and neutral vowels in C'Lela,” The Journal of West African Languages 18: 3–18.Google Scholar
Dillon, Caitlin. 2004. “Metaphony as morpheme realization, not vowel harmony,” IULC Working Papers Online, Volume IV, www.indiana.edu/~iulcwp.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura. 2006. Canonical Forms in Prosodic Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1997. “‘Scenario’ as a concept for the functional explanation of language change,” in Gvozdanović, Jadranka (ed.), Language Change and Functional Explanations, 109–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dyck, Carrie. 1995. Constraining the Phonology–Phonetics Interface with Exemplification from Spanish and Italian Dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Ellis, Jeffrey. 1953. An Elementary Old High German Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Fanti, Renata. 1938; 1939; 1940. “Note fonetiche e morfologiche sul dialetto di Ascrea (Rieti),” L'Italia dialettale 14: 201–18; 15: 101–35; 16: 77–140.Google Scholar
Farnetani, Edda, Vagges, Kyriaki, and Magno-Caldognetto, Emanuela. 1985. “Coarticulation in Italian /VtV/ sequences: a palatographic study,” Phonetica 42: 78–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fay, David and Cutler, Anne. 1977. “Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 505–20.Google Scholar
Feldman, Laurie B. and Moskovljević, Jasmina. 1987. “Repetition priming is not purely episodic in origin,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13: 573–81.
Féry, Caroline. 1994. “Umlaut and inflection in German,” ms., University of Tübingen.
Finley, Sara. 2008. Formal and Cognitive Restrictions on Vowel Harmony. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Finley, Sara 2009. “Morphemic harmony as featural correspondence,” Lingua 119: 478–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finley, Sara and Badecker, William. 2008. “Analytical biases for vowel harmony languages,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 27: 168–76.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn. 2007a. The Sources of Phonological Markedness. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Flack, Kathryn 2007b. “Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 749–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flack, Kathryn 2007c. “Inducing functionally grounded constraints,” ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Fleischhacker, Heidi. 2005. Similarity in Phonology: Evidence from Reduplication and Loan Adaptation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 1993. “The role of metrical structure in segmental rules,” Masters thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Flemming, Edward 1995. “Vowels undergo consonant harmony,” paper presented at the Trilateral Phonology Weekend (TREND) 5, University of California, Berkeley.
Flemming, Edward 2002. Auditory Representations in Phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Flemming, Edward 2004. “Contrast and perceptual distinctiveness,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 232–76.
Flemming, Edward 2005. “A phonetically-based model of phonological vowel reduction,” ms., MIT.
Fónagy, Iván. 1966. “Electro-physiological and acoustic correlates of stress and stress perception,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 9: 231–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forner, Werner. 1975a. “Metatesi, metafonesi, o alterazione nei dialetti liguri?L'Italia dialettale 38: 77–89.Google Scholar
Forner, Werner 1975b. Generative Phonologie des Dialekts von Genua. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile. 1999. “Prosodically conditioned articulatory variations: a review,” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97: 1–73.Google Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile and Keating, Patricia A.. 1996. “Articulatory strengthening in prosodic domain-initial position,” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 92: 61–87.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. 1981. “Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels,” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 46: 127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A., Napps, Shirley E., and Feldman, Laurie. 1985. “Relations among regular and irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming,” Memory and Cognition 13: 241–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisch, Stefan. 1996. Similarity and Frequency in Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan 2000. “Temporally organized representations as phonological units,” in Broe, Michael and Pierrehumbert, Janet (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon, 283–98. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frisch, Stefan 2004. “Language processing and segmental OCP effects,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 346–71.
Gafos, Adamantios. 1998. “Eliminating long-distance consonantal spreading,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 223–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios 1999. The Articulatory Basis of Locality in Phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios and Benus, Stefan. 2003. “On neutral vowels in Hungarian,” Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 77–80. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Gafos, Adamantios and Benus, Stefan 2006. “Dynamics of phonological cognition,” Cognitive Science 30: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gafos, Adamantios and Lombardi, Linda. 1999. “Consonant transparency and vowel echo,” North East Linguistic Society 29: 81–96.Google Scholar
Galmés de Fuentes, Alvaro. 1960a. “Más datos sobre la inflexión metafonética en el centro-sur de Asturias,” in Fuentes, Galmés (ed.), 11–26.
Galmés de Fuentes, Alvaro (ed.). 1960b. Trabajos sobre el dominio románico leonés, Vol. II. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
Gick, Bryan, Pulleyblank, Douglas, Campbell, Fiona, and Mutaka, Ngessimo. 2006. “Low vowels and transparency in Kinande vowel harmony,” Phonology 23: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather. 1993. On the Configuration of Height Features. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1989. “Autosegmental licensing, inalterability, and harmonic rule application,” Papers from the 25th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part I, The General Session, 145–56.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. (ed.). 1995. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goldstein, Louis. 1977. “Three studies in speech perception: features, relative salience, and bias,” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 39.Google Scholar
Goldstein, Louis 1992. “Comments on chapters 3 and 4,” in Docherty, Gerard J. and Ladd, D. Robert (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody, 120–4. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
González, Carolina. 2003. The Effect of Stress and Foot Structure on Consonantal Processes. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 1999. “The ‘neutral’ vowels of Finnish: how neutral are they?Linguistica Uralica 35: 17–21.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew 2001. “Laryngeal timing and correspondence in Hupa,” in Albright, Adam and Cho, Taehong (eds.), UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 7, Papers in Phonology 5: 1–70.
Gordon, Matthew 2004. “Syllable weight,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 277–312.
Gordon, Matthew 2006. Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew and Ladefoged, Peter. 2001. “Phonation types: a cross-linguistic overview,” Journal of Phonetics 28: 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granda Gutiérrez, Germán. 1960. “Las vocales finales del dialecto leonés,” in Galmés de Fuentes (ed.), 27–117.
Grandgent, C. H. 1927. From Latin to Italian. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandgent, C. H. 2002. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific. [Reprint of the 1907 edition.]Google Scholar
Hagland, Jan Ragnar. 1978. “A note on Old Norwegian vowel harmony,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 1: 141–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Christopher J. 1988. “Integrating diachronic and processing principles in explaining the suffix preference,” in Hawkins, (ed.), 321–49.
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur. 2001. Theoretical and Typological Issues in Consonant Harmony. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur 2004. “Long-distance voicing agreement: an evolutionary perspective,” Berkeley Linguistics Society 30: 130–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur 2006. “Understanding harmony as agreement,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Albuquerque, January 2006.
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur 2007a. “Blocking effects in agreement by correspondence,” Linguistic Inquiry 38: 395–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur 2007b. “On the evolution of consonant harmony: the case of secondary articulation agreement,” Phonology 24: 77–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Gunnar Ólafur 2008. “Diachronic explanations of sound patterns,” Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 859–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardman, M. J. 1966. Jaqaru: Outline of Phonological and Morphological Structure. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, John. 1997. “Licensing inheritance: an integrated theory of neutralisation,” Phonology 14: 315–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. (ed.). 1988. Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hawkins, John A. and Cutler, Anne. 1988. “Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry,” in Hawkins, (ed.), 280–317.
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. “The prosodic hierarchy in meter,” in Kiparsky, Paul and Youmans, Gilbert (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology, Volume I: Rhythm and Meter, 201–60. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce 1999. “Phonetically driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and inductive grounding,” in Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Wheatley, Kathleen M. (eds.), Formalism and Functionalism in Linguistics, Vol. I, General Papers, 243–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce and Steriade, Donca. 2004. “The phonetic bases of phonological markedness,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 1–33.
Hayes, Bruce, Tesar, Bruce, and Zuraw, Kie. 2003. OTSoft 2.1, software package. www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/hayes/otsoft/.
Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert, and Steriade, Donca (eds.). 2004. Phonetically-based Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Hermann, József. 1997. Vulgar Latin. Translated by Wright, Roger. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Herrick, Dylan. 2003. An Acoustic Analysis of Phonological Vowel Reduction in Six Varieties of Catalan. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Holsinger, David J. and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1999. “Toward ‘a complete analysis of the residues’: on regular vs. morpholexical approaches to Old High German umlaut,” in Embleton, Sheila, Joseph, John E., and Niederehe, Hans-Josef (eds.), The Emergence of the Modern Language Sciences: Studies on the Transition from Historical-comparative to Structural Linguistics in Honour of E.F. Konrad Koerner, Vol. II, 239–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 2004. “Harmonic scales as faithfulness,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, Robert B. and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1997. “Umlautless residues in Germanic,” American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 9: 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José I. 1989. “Autosegmental and metrical spreading in the vowel-harmony systems of northwestern Spain,” Linguistics 27: 773–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José I. 1992. “Metaphony and count/mass morphology in Asturian and Cantabrian dialects,” in Laeufer, Christiane and Morgan, Terrell (eds.), Theoretical Analysis in Romance Linguistics, 99–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hualde, José I. 1998. “Asturian and Cantabrian metaphony,” Rivista di Linguistica 10: 99–108.Google Scholar
Hualde, José I. 2004. “Quasi-phonemic contrasts in Spanish,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23: 374–98.Google Scholar
Hualde, José I. 2005. The Sounds of Spanish. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hualde, José I. and Chitoran, Ioana. 2003. “Explaining the distribution of hiatus in Spanish and Romanian,” Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences1,683–6. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth. 1998. “Metathesis in phonological theory: the case of Leti,” Lingua 104: 147–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth 1999. “The role of perceptibility in consonant/consonant metathesis,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 17: 293–307.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth and Johnson, Keith. 2001a. “A model of the interplay of speech perception and phonology,” In Hume, and Johnson, (eds.), 3–26.
Hume, Elizabeth and Johnson, Keith (eds.). 2001b. The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.
Hume, Elizabeth and Seo, Misun. 2004. “Metathesis in Faroese and Lithuanian: from speech perception to Optimality Theory,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27: 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1988. “Underspecification and vowel height transfer in Esimbi,” Phonology 5: 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry 1998. “Positional prominence and the ‘prosodic trough’ in Yaka,” Phonology 15: 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry 2001. “The limits of phonetic determinism in phonology: *NC revisited,” in Hume, and Johnson, (eds.), 141–85.
Hyman, Larry 2008. “Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu,” Linguistics 46: 309–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1988. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko 1989. “A prosodic theory of epenthesis,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 217–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin. 1993. “Licensed segments and safe paths,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38: 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin 1998. “Markedness and word structure: OCP effects in Japanese,” ms., University of California, Santa Cruz. [Available as ROA 255.]
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin 1999. “Realignment,” in Kager, René, Hulst, Harry, and Zonneveld, Wim (eds.), The Prosody–Morphology Interface, 188–217. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin 2003. Japanese Morphophonemics: Markedness and Word Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin 2009a. “The extended prosodic word,” in Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Baris (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Derivations, 135–94. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko and Mester, Armin 2009b. “The onset of the prosodic word,” in Parker, (ed.), 227–60.
Itô, Junko, Mester, Armin, and Padgett, Jaye. 1995. “Licensing and underspecification in Optimality Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 26: 571–613.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1992. “The place of Structure Preservation in diminutive formation,” Phonology 9: 137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C. 1996. “The primacy of primary umlaut,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 118: 69–86.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C. 2003. “The ingenerate motivation of sound change,” in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Motives for Language Change, 199–212. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C. 2004. “The conundrum of Old Norse umlaut: regular sound change versus crisis analogy,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16: 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C. 2009. “Naturalness and the lifecycle of language change,” in Steinkrüger, Patrick and Krifka, Manfred (eds.), On Inflection: In Memory of Wolfgang U. Wurzel, 89–105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K., Davis, Garry W., and Salmons, Joseph C.. 1994. “Blocking environments in Old High German umlaut,” Folia Linguistica Historica 15: 131–48.Google Scholar
Jaberg, Karl and Jud, Jakob. 1928–1940. Sprach- und Sachatlas Italiens und der Südschweiz (AIS). Zofingen: Ringier.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar, and Halle, Morris. 1952. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jarvella, Robert J. and Meijers, Guust. 1983. “Recognizing morphemes in spoken words: some evidence for a stem-organized mental lexicon,” in d'Arcais, Giovanni B. Flores and Jarvella, Robert J. (eds.), The Process of Language Understanding, 81–113. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jesney, Karen. In press a. “Positional faithfulness, non-locality, and the Harmonic Serialism solution,” North East Linguistic Society 39.
Jesney, Karen In press b. “Licensing in multiple contexts: an argument for Harmonic Grammar,” Proceedings of the 45th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Jiménez, Jesús. 1998. “Valencian vowel harmony,” Rivista di Linguistica 10: 137–61.Google Scholar
Jiménez, Jesús and Lloret, Maria-Rosa. 2007. “Andalusian vowel harmony: weak triggers and perceptibility,” paper presented at the 4th Old World Conference in Phonology, Workshop on Harmony in the Languages of the Mediterranean, Rhodes, January 18–21, 2007.
Johnson, Keith and Martin, Jack. 2001. “Acoustic vowel reduction in Creek: effects of distinctive length and position in the word,” Phonetica 58: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian. 1990. “A non-bleeding rule in Modern Greek,” Glotta: Zeitschrift für griechische und lateinische Sprache 68: 124–9.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho. 1995. Perceptual and Articulatory Factors in Place Assimilation: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Jun, Jongho 2004. “Place assimilation,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 58–86.
Kager, René. 1997. “Rhythmic vowel deletion in Optimality Theory,” in Roca, Iggy (ed.), Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, 463–99. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René 2001. “Rhythmic directionality by positional licensing,” handout of a paper presented at the fifth HIL Phonology Conference, University of Postdam, January 11, 2001. [Available as ROA 514.]
Kager, René 2007. “Feet and metrical stress,” in de Lacy (ed.), 195–227.
Kaplan, Aaron F. 2008a. Noniterativity is an Emergent Property of Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Aaron F. 2008b. “Licensing and noniterative harmony in Lango,” North East Linguistic Society 37, 311–22.Google Scholar
Karabay, Fetiye. 2004. “Exploiting motivations of reduplication: the Turkish case,” Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics – 2003, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 46.
Kaun, Abigail. 1995. The Typology of Rounding Harmony: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Kaun, Abigail 2004. “The phonetic foundations of the rounding harmony typology,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 87–116.
Kawahara, Shigeto. 2003. “Root-controlled fusion in Zoque: root-faith and neutralization avoidance,” ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Available as ROA 599.]
Kawahara, Shigeto 2008. “On the proper treatment of non-crisp edges,” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 13: 55–67. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kaze, Jeffery. 1989. Metaphony in Spanish and Italian Dialects Revisited. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Kaze, Jeffery 1991. “Metaphony and two models for the description of vowel systems,” Phonology 8: 163–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A., Cho, Taehong, Fougeron, Cécile, and Hsu, Chai-Shune. 1999. “Domain-initial strengthening in four languages,” UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 97: 139–51.Google Scholar
Keer, Edward. 1999. Geminates, the OCP, and the Nature of Con. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Kehoe, Margaret and Stoel-Gammon, Carol. 1997. “The acquisition of prosodic structure: an investigation of current accounts of children's prosodic development,” Language 73: 113–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempley, S. T. and Morton, John. 1982. “The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly related words in auditory word recognition,” British Journal of Psychology 73: 441–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingston, John. 2007. “The phonetics–phonology interface,” in de Lacy (ed.), 401–34.
Kingston, John and Diehl, Randy. 1994. “Phonetic knowledge,” Language 70: 419–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchner, Robert. 1993. “Turkish vowel harmony and disharmony: an Optimality Theoretic account,” paper presented at the Rutgers Optimality Workshop I (ROW I), October 22. [Available as ROA 4.]
Kirchner, Robert 1996. “Synchronic chain shifts in Optimality Theory,” Linguistic Inquiry 27: 341–9.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert 2001. An Effort-Based Approach to Consonant Lenition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert 2004. “Consonant lenition,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 313–45.
Kitto, Catherine and Lacy, Paul. 1999. “Correspondence and epenthetic quality,” Austronesian Formal Linguistics Association 6: 181–200. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Klein, Thomas B. 1995. Umlaut in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Klein, Thomas B. 2000. “Umlaut” in Optimality Theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, Brad, Coleman, Arnie, and Coleman, Karen. 2007. “Notes on Esimbi phonology and orthography,” private ms., Denver, CO.
Koriat, Asher and Lieblich, Israel. 1974. “What does a person in a ‘TOT’ state know that a person in a ‘don't know’ state doesn't know,” Memory and Cognition 2: 647–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Martin. 2003. Vowel Harmony and Correspondence Theory. Studies in Generative Grammar 66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Martin 2009. The Phonology of Italian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krivitskii, A. A. and Podluzhnyi, A. I.. 1994. Uchebnik belorusskogo iazyka dlia samoobrazovaniia (Textbook of the Belarusian Language for Self-study). Minsk: Vyshèishaia Shkola.Google Scholar
Kurisu, Kazutaka. 2001. The Phonology of Morpheme Realization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter. 1993. A Course in Phonetics. Third Edition. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Lamontagne, Greg and Rice, Keren. 1995. “A correspondence account of coalescence,” in Beckman, et al. (eds.), 211–23.
Landman, Meredith. 2003. “Morphological contiguity,” in Carpenter, Angela, Coetzee, Andries, and Lacy, Paul (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory II: University of Massachusetts-Amherst Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association Publications.Google Scholar
Lausberg, Heinrich. 1939. Die Mundarten Südlukaniens. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 90. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Lisa M. 2001. Consonant Strength: Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, Miyata, Yoshiro, and Smolensky, Paul. 1990. “Can connectionism contribute to syntax? Harmonic Grammar, with an application,” Proceedings of the 26th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 237–52. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1970. Suprasegmentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse and Peterson, G. E.. 1959. “Vowel amplitude and phonemic stress in American English,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 31: 428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, C. S. 1978. Umlaut in Romance: An Essay in Linguistic Archeology. Grossen-Linden: Hoffman.Google Scholar
Li, Bing. 1996. Tungusic Vowel Harmony. HIL dissertations 18. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1987. An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1963. “Spectrographic study of vowel reduction,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 35: 1,773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Björn 1986. “Phonetic universals in vowel systems,” in Ohala, John J. and Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental Phonology, 13–44. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn 1990. “Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory,” in Hardcastle, William J. and Marchal, Alain (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling, 403–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lodge, Ken. 1989. “A non-segmental account of German umlaut,” Linguistische Berichte 124: 470–91.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1994. Laryngeal Features and Laryngeal Neutralization. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda 1995. “Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda 1999. “Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 267–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda 2001. “Why Place and Voice are different: constraint-specific alternations in Optimality Theory,” in Lombardi, Linda (ed.), Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory, 13–45. Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Loporcaro, Michele. 2000. “Stress stability under cliticization and the prosodic status of Romance clitics,” in Repetti, Lori (ed.), Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy, 137–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna. 2002. “Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory,” Lingua 112: 243–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna 2003. Contrast Preservation in Phonological Mappings. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna 2009. “Infixation as morpheme absorption,” in Parker, (ed.), 261–84.
Łubowicz, Anna 2010. The Phonology of Contrast. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
MacEachern, Margaret. 1999. Laryngeal Cooccurrence Restrictions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Magen, Harriet S. 1997. “The extent of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in English,” Journal of Phonetics 25: 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahanta, Shakuntala. 2007. Directionality and Locality in Vowel Harmony. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1987. “New perspectives on the genesis of Italian metaphony,” Transactions of the Philological Society 85: 38–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin 1988. “Armonia regressiva di vocali atone nell'Italia meridionale,” L'Italia dialettale 51, 111–39.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin 1991a. Interactive Morphonology: Metaphony in Italy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin 1991b. “Armonia regressiva di vocali atone nell'Italia centromeridionale: la sua importanza per la teoria della fonologia prosodica,” in Giannelli, Luciano, Maraschio, Nicoletta, Salani, Teresa Poggi, and Vedovelli, Massimo (eds.), Tra Rinascimento e strutture attuali. Saggi di linguistica italiana, 233–9. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin 1995. “Evidence from Italian dialects for the internal structure of prosodic domains,” in Smith, John Charles and Maiden, Martin (eds.), Linguistic Theory and the Romance Languages, 115–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin 1997. “Vowel systems,” in Maiden, and Parry, (eds.), 7–14.
Maiden, Martin and Parry, Mair (eds.). 1997. The Dialects of Italy. New York: Routledge.
Major, Roy C. 1992. “Stress and rhythm in Brazilian Portuguese,” in Loike, Dale A. and Macedo, Donald P. (eds.), Romance Linguistics: The Portuguese Context, 3–30. Westport: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
Majors, Tivoli. 1998. Stress-dependent Harmony. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Mancarella, G. B. 1974. Note de storia linguistica salentina. Lecce: Milella.Google Scholar
Manuel, Sharon. 1999. “Cross-language studies: relating language-particular coarticulation patterns to other language-particular facts,” in Hardcastle, William J. and Hewlett, Nigel (eds.), Coarticulation: Theory, Data and Techniques, 179–98. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marcato, Gianna and Ursini, Flavia. 1998. Dialetti veneti: Grammatica e storia. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William D. 1975. “Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process,” Science 189: 226–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marslen-Wilson, William D. and Welsh, Alan. 1978. “Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech,” Cognitive Psychology 10: 29–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1984. “Theoretical consequences of Montañes vowel harmony,” Linguistic Inquiry 15, 291–318.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1988. “Feature geometry and dependency: a review,” Phonetica 43: 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1994. “On coronal ‘transparency’,” paper presented at the Trilateral Phonology Weekend, January 22, 1994, University of California, Santa Cruz.
McCarthy, John J. 1999. “Sympathy and phonological opacity,” Phonology 16: 331–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2000. “The prosody of phase in Rotuman,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 147–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2003. “OT constraints are categorical,” Phonology 20: 75–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2004. “Headed spans and autosegmental spreading,” ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Available as ROA 685.]
McCarthy, John J. 2007a. “Consonant harmony via correspondence: evidence from Chumash,” in Bateman, et al. (eds.), 223–37.
McCarthy, John J. 2007b. Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008a. “The serial interaction of stress and syncope,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 499–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2008b. “The gradual path to cluster simplification,” Phonology 25, 271–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 2009. “Harmony in Harmonic Serialism,” ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. [Available as ROA 1009.]
McCarthy, John J. In press. “Autosegmental spreading in Optimality Theory,” in Goldsmith, John, Hume, Elizabeth, and Wetzels, Leo (eds.), Tones and Features. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
McCarthy, John J. and Prince, Alan. 1993a. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Rutgers Technical Report TR-3. New Brunswick, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science. [Available as ROA 482.]Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. and Prince, Alan 1993b. “Generalized alignment,” in Booij, Geert and Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, 79–153.
McCarthy, John J. and Prince, Alan 1994a. “An overview of prosodic morphology,” papers presented at the OTS/HIL Workshop on Prosodic Morphology, University of Utrecht.
McCarthy, John J. and Prince, Alan 1994b. “The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology,” North East Linguistic Society 24: 333–79.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. and Prince, Alan 1995. “Faithfulness and reduplicative identity,” in Beckman, et al. (eds.), 249–384.
Meijer, Paul J. A. 1996. “What speech errors can tell us about word form generation: the roles of constraint and opportunity,” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26: 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff. 2008. The Emergence of Distinctive Features. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff and Hume, Elizabeth. 2001. “Considerations of word recognition for metathesis,” in Hume, Elizabeth, Smith, Norval, and Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Surface Syllable Structure and Segment Sequencing, 135–58. Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics (HIL).Google Scholar
Miglio, Viola. 2005. Markedness and Faithfulness in Vowel Systems. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Milberg, W., Blumstein, S., and Dworetzky, B.. 1988. “Phonological factors in lexical access: evidence from an auditory lexical decision task,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 26: 305–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morén, Bruce. 1999. Distinctiveness, Coercion and Sonority: A Unified Theory of Weight. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.Google Scholar
Moreton, Elliott and Smolensky, Paul. 2002. “Typological consequences of local constraint conjunction,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 21: 306–19.Google Scholar
Mpiranya, Fidèle and Walker, Rachel. 2005. “Sibilant harmony in Kinyarwanda and coronal opacity,” paper presented at 28th annual conference of Generative Linguistics in the Old World, University of Geneva, March 31, 2005.
Neira Martínez, Jesus. 1955. El habla de Lena. Oviedo: Instituto de Estudios Asturianos.Google Scholar
Neira Martínez, Jesus 1983. “De dialectología asturiana. La metafonia por /-i/ en los Bables centrales,” Philologica Hispaniensia in Honorem M. Alvar, Vol. I, 485–97. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Nelson, Nicole A. 2003. Asymmetric Anchoring. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2004. Conditions on (Dis)Harmony. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Nevins, Andrew 2010. Locality in Vowel Harmony. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nibert, Holly. 1998. “Processes of vowel harmony in the Servigliano dialect of Italian: a comparison of two non-linear proposals for the representation of vowel height,” Probus 10: 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire and Padgett, Jaye. 2001. “Markedness, segment realization and locality in spreading,” in Lombardi, Linda (ed.), Segmental Phonology in Optimality Theory, 118–56. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ní Chiosáin, Máire and Padgett, Jaye 2009. “Contrast, comparison sets, and the perceptual space,” in Parker, (ed.), 103–21.
Noonan, Michael. 1992. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. 1981. “Lexical retrieval from fragments of spoken words: beginnings vs. endings,” Journal of Phonetics 9: 407–24.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S. G. and Vlugt, N. J.. 1988. “A search for a word-beginning superiority effect,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84: 2,018–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David. 1991. “Vowel geometry,” Phonology 8: 261–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odden, David 1994. “Adjacency parameters in phonology,” Language 70: 289–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John. 1981. “The listener as a source of sound change,” Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, 178–203. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Ohala, John 1993. “The phonetics of sound change,” in Jones, Charles (ed.), Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives, 237–78. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ohala, John 1994. “Towards a universal, phonetically-based theory of vowel harmony,” Proceedings of ICSLP 94 [International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Yokahama, Japan, Sept. 18–22, 1994], 491–4.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, Michael. 2007. “Transparency in Span Theory,” in Bateman, et al. (eds.), 239–58.
Oostendorp, Marc. 1995. Vowel Quality and Phonological Projection. Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1995. “Partial class behavior and nasal place assimilation,” in Suzuki, and Elzinga, (eds.), 145–83.
Padgett, Jaye 1997. “Perceptual distance of contrast: vowel height and nasality,” in Walker, Rachel, Karvonen, Dan, and Katayama, Motoko (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz 5: 63–78.
Padgett, Jaye 2002. “Feature classes in phonology,” Language 78: 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye 2003. “Contrast and post-velar fronting in Russian,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 39–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padgett, Jaye 2004. “Russian vowel reduction and Dispersion Theory,” Phonological Studies 7: 81–96. Tokyo: Kaitakusha Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye and Tabain, Marija. 2005. “Adaptive Dispersion Theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian,” Phonetica 61: 14–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Steve (ed.). 2009. Phonological Argumentation: Essays on Evidence and Motivation. London: Equinox.
Parkinson, Frederick. 1996. The Representation of Vowel Height in Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2004. “Vowel height harmony and blocking in Buchan Scots,” Phonology 21: 359–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2000. “Nonuniformity in English stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints,” Phonology 17: 237–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe 2007. “The locus of exceptionality: morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation,” in Bateman, et al. (eds.), 259–96.
Pater, Joe 2009a. “Morpheme-specific phonology: constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution,” in Parker, (ed.), 123–54.
Pater, Joe 2009b. “Weighted constraints in generative linguistics,” Cognitive Science 33: 999–1,035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Payne, David. 1990. “Accent in Aguaruna,” in Payne, Doris L. (ed.), Amazonian Linguistics: Studies in Lowland South American Languages, 161–84. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph J. 1969. “Vowel-harmony in the speech of the Montes de Pas (Santander),” Orbis 18: 148–66.Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph J. 1994. “Continuity and innovation in Romance: metaphony and mass-noun reference in Spain and Italy,” The Modern Language Review 89: 273–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon. 1996. “On the prosodic representation of clitics,” in Kleinhenz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in Phonology, 102–27. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon 1997. Prosodic Words. Ph.D. dissertation, Amsterdam University. The Hague: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Petrova, Olga, Plapp, Rosemary, Ringen, Catherine, and Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd. 2006. “Voice and aspiration: evidence from Hungarian, German, Swedish, and Turkish,” The Linguistic Review 23: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet and Talkin, David. 1992. “Lenition of /h/ and glottal stop,” in Doherty, G. and Ladd, D. R. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II, 90–117. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L. 1997. “Licensing and alignment: a conspiracy in harmony,” Phonology 14: 437–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L. 2000. “Against featural alignment,” Journal of Linguistics 36: 84–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poser, William J. 1982. “Phonological representation and action-at-a-distance,” in Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part II, 121–58. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1996. “Neutral vowels in Optimality Theory: a comparison of Yoruba and Wolof,” Canadian Journal of Linguistics 41: 295–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas 2002. “Harmony drivers: no disagreement allowed,” Berkeley Linguistics Society 28: 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recasens, Daniel. 1991. “Timing in Catalan,” Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of Phonetic Science, 230–33.Google Scholar
Revithiadou, Anthi. 1999. Headmost Accent Wins: Head Dominance and Ideal Prosodic Form in Lexical Accent Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Russell. 2008. “Vowel harmony as Agreement by Correspondence: the case of Khalkha Mongolian rounding harmony,” paper presented at Trilateral Linguistics Weekend (TREND), University of California, Santa Cruz, May 10, 2008.
Ribezzo, Francesco. 1912. Il dialetto apulo-salentino de Francavilla Fontana. Martina Franca.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1999. “Featural markedness in phonology: variation – Parts 1 and 2,” GLOT 4.7: 3–6; 4.8: 3–7.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren 2007. “Markedness in phonology,” in de Lacy (ed.), 79–97.
Rikoto, Bulus Doro. 2001. C'Lela–English – Hausa Dictionary. Nigeria: Lelna Language Development/Trans. Association Details.Google Scholar
Ringen, Catherine O. and Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1999. “Variation in Finnish vowel harmony: an OT account,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 303–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringen, Catherine O. and Vago, Robert M.. 1998. “Hungarian vowel harmony in Optimality Theory,” Phonology 15: 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Fabio. 1989. “Le ricerche sul dialetto padovano contemporaneo,” in Cortelazzo, M. (ed.), Guida ai dialetti veneto XI, 131–49. Padua: Cooperativa Libraria Editrice Università de Padova.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1956–1961. Vocabolario dei dialetti salentini (Terra d'Otranto). (3 vols.) München: Beck'schen Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, Gerhard 1966. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti: Fonetica. Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Rose, Sharon. 2000. “Rethinking geminates, long-distance geminates and the OCP,” Linguistic Inquiry 31: 85–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon 2004. “Long-distance vowel–consonant agreement in Harari,” Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 25: 41–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon and Walker, Rachel. 2004. “A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence,” Language 80: 475–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon and Walker, Rachel In press. “Harmony systems,” in Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, second edition. Basil Blackwell.
Rosenberg, Sheldon, Coyle, Paul J., and Porter, Walter L.. 1966. “Recall of adverbs as a function of the frequency of their adjective roots,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5: 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthall, Sam. 1997a. Vowel/Glide Alternation in a Theory of Constraint Interaction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosenthall, Sam 1997b. “The distribution of prevocalic vowels,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 139–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakellariades, George. 1985. “A bleeding rule in Modern Greek,” Glotta. Zeitschrift für griechische und lateinische Sprache 63: 111–13.Google Scholar
Salvioni, Carlo. 1894. “L'influenza della tonica nella determinazione dell'atona finale in qualche parlata della valle del Ticino,” Archivio Glottologico Italiano 13: 355–60.Google Scholar
Sanders, Nathan. 2003. Opacity and Sound Change in the Polish Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Sands, Kathy L. 2004. Patternings of Vocalic Sequences in the World's Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Sasa, Tomomasa. 2009. Treatments of Vowel Harmony in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Savoia, Leonardo and Maiden, Martin. 1997. “Metaphony,” in Maiden, and Parry, (eds.), 15–25.
Schwartz, Jean-Luc, Boë, Louis-Jean, Vallée, Nathalie, and Abry, Christian. 1997. “The dispersion-focalization theory of vowel systems,” Journal of Phonetics 25: 255–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, Thomas A. and Ingemann, Frances J.. 1961. An Eastern Cheremis Manual. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1978. “On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure,” in Fretheim, T. (ed.), Nordic Prosody, Vol. II, 111–40. Trondheim: TAPIR.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. “The prosodic structure of function words,” in Beckman, et al. (eds.), 439–69.
Sevald, Christine A. and Dell, Gary S.. 1994. “The sequential cuing effect in speech production,” Cognition 53: 91–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie. 1986. “The representation of phonological information during speech production planning: evidence from vowel errors in spontaneous speech,” Phonology Yearbook 3: 117–49.Google Scholar
Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie 1992. “The role of word structure in segmental serial ordering,” Cognition 42: 213–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silverman, Daniel. 1997. Phasing and Recoverability. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Sluyters, Willebrord. 1988. “Vowel harmony, rule formats and underspecification: the dialect of Francavilla-Fontana,” in Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval (eds.), Features, Segmental Structure and Harmony Processes, Part II, 161–84. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Smith, Jennifer. 2005. Phonological Augmentation in Prominent Positions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1993. “Harmony, markedness, and phonological activity,” paper presented at the First Rutgers Optimality Workshop (ROW 1), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Smolensky, Paul 1997. “Constraint interaction in generative grammar II: local conjunction,” paper presented at the Hopkins Optimality Theory Workshop/Maryland Mayfest 1997, Baltimore, Maryland.
Smolensky, Paul 2006. “Optimality in phonology II: harmonic completeness, local constraint conjunction, and feature domain markedness,” in Smolensky, Paul and Legendre, Géraldine, The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar, Vol. II, 27–160. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul and Legendre, Géraldine. 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spaelti, Philip. 1997. Dimensions of Variation in Multi-pattern Reduplication. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Spotts, Hazel. 1953. “Vowel harmony and consonant sequences in Mazahua (Otomí),” International Journal of American Linguistics 19: 253–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stallcup, Kenneth L. 1980a. “Noun classes in Esimbi,” Noun Classes in the Grassfields Bantu Borderland. (SCOPIL 8), 139–53. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Stallcup, Kenneth L. 1980b. “A brief account of nominal prefixes and vowel harmony in Esimbi,” in Bouquiaux, Luc (ed.), L'expansion bantoue, Vol. II, 435–41. Paris: Société d'Etudes Linguistiques et Anthropologiques de France.Google Scholar
Stampe, David. 1973. A Dissertation on Natural Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago. [Distributed 1979 by Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington.]Google Scholar
Stanners, Robert F., Neisner, James J., Hernon, William P., and Hall, Roger. 1979. “Memory representation for morphologically related words,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18: 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1995a. “Positional neutralization,” ms., University of California, Los Angeles.
Steriade, Donca 1995b. “Underspecification and markedness,” in Goldsmith, (ed.), 114–74.
Steriade, Donca 1999a. “Phonetics in phonology: the case of laryngeal neutralization,” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 25–146.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca 1999b. “Alternatives to the syllabic analysis of consonantal phonotactics,” in Fujimura, O., Joseph, B., and Palek, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 Linguistics and Phonetics Conference, 205–42. Prague: Charles University Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca 2001. “Directional asymmetries in place assimilation,” In Hume, and Johnson, (eds.), 219–50.
Steriade, Donca 2009. “The phonology of perceptibility effects: the P-map and its consequences for constraint organization,” in Hanson, Kristin and Inkelas, Sharon (eds.), The Nature of the Word: Studies in Honor of Paul Kiparsky, 151–79. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth. 1989. “On the quantal nature of speech,” Journal of Phonetics 17: 3–45.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay 1989. “Primary features and their enhancement in consonants,” Language 65: 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struijke, Caro. 2002. Existential Faithfulness: A Study of Reduplicative TETU, Feature Movement, and Dissimilation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suomi, Kari. 1983. “Palatal vowel harmony: a perceptually motivated phenomenon?Nordic Journal of Linguistics 6: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Keiichiro. 1998. A Typological Investigation of Dissimilation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Keiichiro and Elzinga, Dirk (eds.). 1995. Proceedings of the South Western Optimality Theory Workshop. Tucson: University of Arizona Coyote Papers.
Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 1985. “Vowel harmony shift in Mongolian,” Lingua 67: 283–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin Martinez, Michal. 2010. Sources of Non-conformity in Phonology: Variation and Exceptionality in Modern Hebrew Spirantization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1969. Principles of Phonology. Translated by Baltaxe, Christiane A. M.. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Uffmann, Christian. 2004. Vowel Epenthesis in Loanword Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Marburg.Google Scholar
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2001. Patterns of Reduplication in Lushootseed. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2006. “Reduplicative form and the root–affix asymmetry,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 179–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 2007. “Reduplication,” in de Lacy (ed.), 473–93.
Ussishkin, Adam and Wedel, Andrew. 2002. “Neighborhood density and the root–affix distinction,” North East Linguistic Society 32: 539–49.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert M. 1988. “Underspecification in the height harmony system of Pasiego,” Phonology 5: 343–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaysman, Olga. 2009. Segmental Alternations and Metrical Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Venturelli, G. 1974. “Varietà di armonizzazioni vocaliche nella Garfagnana centro-meridionale,” Atti del XIX Congresso internazionale de linguistica romanza 3: 101–4. Naples: Macchiaroli and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vignoli, Carlo. 1925. Il vernacolo di Veroli in provincia di Roma. Rome: Società Filologica Romana.Google Scholar
Vogel, Irene. 1997. “Prosodic phonology,” in Maiden, and Parry, (eds.), 58–67.
Walker, Rachel. 2000a. Nasalization, Neutral Segments, and Opacity Effects. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel 2000b. “Long-distance consonantal identity effects,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 19: 532–45.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel 2000c. “Yaka nasal harmony: spreading or segmental correspondence?Berkeley Linguistics Society 26: 321–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel 2001a. “Positional markedness in vowel harmony,” in Féry, Caroline, Green, Antony Dubach, and Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5. Linguistics in Potsdam 12: 212–32. University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel 2001b. “Round licensing, harmony, and bisyllabic triggers in Altaic,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 827–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel 2004. “Vowel feature licensing at a distance: evidence from Northern Spanish language varieties,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23: 787–800.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel 2005. “Weak triggers in vowel harmony,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 917–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel 2009. “Similarity-sensitive blocking and transparency in Menominee,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco, CA, January 9, 2009.
Walker, Rachel 2010. “Nonmyopic harmony and the nature of derivations,” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 169–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Rachel and Feng, Bella. 2004. “A ternary model of morphology–phonology correspondence,” West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 23: 773–86.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2000. Targeted Constraints: An Approach to Contextual Neutralization in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin 2003. “Analyzing unbounded spreading with constraints: marks, targets and derivations,” ms., University of California, Los Angeles.
Wilson, Colin 2006. “Unbounded spreading is myopic,” paper presented at the workshop on Current Perspectives on Phonology, Indiana University, Bloomington, June 23, 2006.
Wolf, Matthew. 2007. “For an autosegmental theory of mutation,” in Bateman, et al. (eds.), 315–404.
Woock, Edith B. and Noonan, Michael. 1979. “Vowel harmony in Lango,” Papers from the 15th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 20–9.Google Scholar
Wright, James T. 1986. “The behavior of nasalized vowels in the perceptual vowel space,” in Ohala, John. J. and Jaeger, Jeri J. (eds.), Experimental Phonology, 45–67. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wright, Richard. 2004. “A review of perceptual cues and cue robustness,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 34–57.
Yu, Alan C. 2004. “Explaining final obstruent voicing in Lezgian,” Language 80: 73–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Jie. 2002. The Effects of Duration and Sonority on Contour Tone Distribution: Typological Survey and Formal Analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zhang, Jie 2004. “The role of contrast-specific and language-specific phonetics in contour tone distribution,” in Hayes, et al. (eds.), 157–90.
Zoll, Cheryl. 1997. “Conflicting directionality,” Phonology 14: 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl 1998a. Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint-based Framework. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zoll, Cheryl 1998b. “Positional asymmetries and licensing,” ms., MIT. [Available as ROA 282.]
Zuraw, Kie. 2000. Patterned Exceptions in Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Zuraw, Kie 2002. “Aggressive reduplication,” Phonology 19: 395–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuraw, Kie 2007. “The role of phonetic knowledge in phonological patterning: corpus and survey evidence from Tagalog infixation,” Language 83: 277–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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.

  • References
  • Rachel Walker, University of Southern California
  • Book: Vowel Patterns in Language
  • Online publication: 26 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973710.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Rachel Walker, University of Southern California
  • Book: Vowel Patterns in Language
  • Online publication: 26 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973710.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Rachel Walker, University of Southern California
  • Book: Vowel Patterns in Language
  • Online publication: 26 April 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973710.011
Available formats
×