Chapter published in:
Beyond Markedness in Formal Phonology
Edited by Bridget D. Samuels
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 241] 2017
► pp. 121152
References

References

Abney, Steven P.
1987The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosphy.Google Scholar
Anderson, John & Ewen, Colin
1987Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Backley, Phillip
2011An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Nasukawa, Kuniya
2009Representing labials and velars: A single ‘dark’ element. Phonological Studies 12: 3‒10.Google Scholar
Backley, Phillip & Nasukawa, Kuniya
2010Consonant-vowel unity in Element Theory. Phonological Studies 13: 21‒28.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
2004Adjectives, compounds and words. Nordic Journal of English Studies 3(1): 7–22.Google Scholar
2008Exocentric compounds. Morphology 18: 51–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvain & Halle, Morris
1989Why phonology is different. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 51‒70.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1993A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239‒297.Google Scholar
Ewen, Colin J. & Botma, Bert
2009Against rhymal adjuncts: the syllabic affiliation of English postvocalic consonants. In Strength Relations in Phonology, Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds), 221‒250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John A.
1990Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harris, John
1990Segmental complexity and phonological government. Phonology 7(2): 255–300.Google Scholar
1994English Sound Structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2005Vowel reduction as information loss. In Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 259], Philip Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin J. Ewen (eds), 119–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006The phonology of being understood: Further arguments against sonority. Lingua 116(10): 1483‒1494. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Why final devoicing is weakening. In Strength Relations in Phonology, Kuniya Nasukawa & Phillip Backley (eds), 9‒46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Lenition [Intensive Lecture Series]. Sendai: The Graduate School of Tohoku Gakuin University.Google Scholar
Harris, John & Lindsey, Geoff
1995The elements of phonological representation. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 34‒79. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2000Vowel patterns in mind and sound. In Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerry Docherty (eds), 185–205. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce
1995Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, W. Tecumseh
2002The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298: 1569–1579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard & McCully, Christopher B.
1987Metrical Phonology: A Coursebook. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth
2008Markedness and the language user. Phonological Studies 11: 295–310.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry
1995Radical CV Phonology: The categorical gesture. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 80‒116. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry
2011Dependency-based phonologies. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John A. Goldsmith, Allan C. L. Yu & Jason Riggle (eds), 533–570. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ito, Junko
1986Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1975Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51: 639–671. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan
1990‘Coda’ licensing. Phonology 7(2): 301–330. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992Do you believe in magic? The story of s+C sequences. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 2: 293–313.Google Scholar
1995Derivations and Interfaces. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 289‒332. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger
1990Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7: 193–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan
1977On stress and linguistic thythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249‒336.Google Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya
2012Recursion in intra-morphemic phonology. Paper presented at Workshop: Language and the Brain. The 9th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (Evolang IX), Kyoto, Japan, 13 March.
2014Features and recursive structure. Special issue on Features, Martin Krämer, Sandra-Iulia Ronai & Peter Svenonius (eds). Nordlyd 41(1): 1‒19.Google Scholar
2015Recursion in the lexical structure of morphemes. In Representing Structure in Phonology and Syntax, Marc van Oostendorp & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 211‒238. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016A precedence-free approach to (de-)palatalisation in Japanese. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1(1): 9. 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nasukawa, Kuniya & Backley, Phillip
2008Affrication as a performance device. Phonological Studies 11: 35‒46.Google Scholar
2015aHeads and complements in phonology: A case of role reversal? Phonological Studies 18: 67‒74.Google Scholar
2015bSyllables without constituents: Towards melody-prosody integration. Paper presented at the Workshop “Around the syllable: phonetics, phonology and acquisition”, University of Poitiers, France, 13 November.
2016Recursion in element-based prosodic structure. Paper presented at Workshop: Recursion in Phonology. Tohoku Gakuin University, Sendai, Japan, 1 September.
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene
1986Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J.
1992Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. CLS 26: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable, Michael Ziolkowsky, Manuela Noske & Karen Deaton (eds), 319–338. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J. & Kawasaki-Fukumori, Haruko
1997Alternatives to the sonority hierarchy for explaining segmental sequential constraints. In Language and its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 100], Stig Eliasson & Ernst Hakon Jahr (eds), 343‒365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Nancy
2003On the logical order of development in acquiring prosodic structure. In Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honour of Jonathan Kaye, Stefan Ploch (ed.), 29‒54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2004A Lateral Theory of Phonology: What Is CVCV and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O.
1978On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic Prosody II, Thorstein Fretheim (ed.), 111‒140. Trondheim: Tapir.Google Scholar
1980The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.Google Scholar
Takahashi, Toyomi
2009Identity avoidance in the onset. In Identity Relations in Grammar, Kuniya Nasukawa & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 101‒120. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, Hartmut
1994Conventional, biological, and environmental factors in speech communication: A modulation theory. Phonetica 51: 170‒183.Google Scholar
2005Speech considered as modulated voice. Ms, University of Stockholm.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Nasukawa, Kuniya
2017.  In Sonic Signatures [Language Faculty and Beyond, 14],  pp. 146 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 september 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.