Part of
Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 163188
References
Anttila, Arto
2007Variation and optionality. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 519–536. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas Pulleyblank
2015aPhonology without universal grammar. Frontiers in Psychology 6. 1229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015bTonal allomorphy in Kinande. In L. H. Wee & Y. Hsiao (eds.), Capturing Phonological Shades, 76–100. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Becker, Michael, F. Nihan Ketrez & Andrew Nevins
2011The surfeit of the stimulus: Grammatical biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish voicing deneutralization. Language 87(1): 84–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J., T.A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen
(eds.) 2005Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Zsuzsa Londe
2006Stochastic phonological knowledge: The case of Hungarian vowel harmony. Phonology 23: 59–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kye Zuraw, Péter Siptár & Zsuzsa Londe
2009Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85: 822–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kálmán, László, Péter Rebrus & Miklós Törkenczy
2012Possible and impossible variation. In Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi & Péter Siptár (eds.), Current Issues in Morphological Theory. (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 23–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael
2005Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In Laura J. Downing, T. A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 145–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiefer Ferenc
1985Natural morphology. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 35: 85–105.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J
2005Optimal paradigms. In Laura J. Downing, T. A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 170–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky
1993/2004Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder. [Published by Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.]
Rácz, Péter & Péter Rebrus
2012Variation in the possessive allomorphy of Hungarian. In Ferenc Kiefer, Mária Ladányi & Péter Siptár (eds.), Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Selected papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 51–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rebrus, Péter
2000Morfofonológiai jelenségek. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Strukturális magyar nyelvtan III. Alaktan, 763–947. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2013Miért nincs j? In Attila Benő, Emese Fazakas & Edit Kádár (eds.), „…hogy legyen a víznek lefolyása…” Köszöntő kötet Szilágyi N. Sándor tiszteletére, 383–401. Kolozsvár: Erdélyi Múzeum Egyesület Kiadó.Google Scholar
& Péter Szigetvári 2016Diminutives: Exceptions to harmonic uniformity. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 15: 101–119.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter, Péter Szigetvári & Miklós Törkenczy
2012Dark secrets of Hungarian vowel harmony. In Eugeniusz Cyran, Henryk Kardela & Bogdan Szymanek (eds), Sound, Structure and Sense: Studies in Memory of Edmund Gussmann, 491–508. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Ritter, Nancy
2002The Hungarian possessive suffix revisited. In István Kenesei (ed.), Approaches to Hungarian. Volume 8. Papers from the Budapest Conference, 283–307. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2015Monotonicity and the typology of front/back harmony. Theoretical Linguistics 41(1–2): 1–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simonović, Marko
2015Lexicon immigration service: Prolegomena to a theory of loanword integration. Ph.D thesis, Universiteit Utrecht.
Smolensky, Paul
1995On the internal structure of the constraint component of UG. Colloquium presented at the University of California, Los Angeles. [ROA-86.]
Siptár, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2000/2007The Phonology of Hungarian. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca
2000Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Michael Broe & Janet Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5. Acquisition and the Lexicon, 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Törkenczy, Miklós
2011Hungarian vowel harmony. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2963–2990. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Ozburn, Avery
2019. A target-oriented approach to neutrality in vowel harmony: Evidence from Hungarian. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1 DOI logo
Rebrus, Péter & Miklós Törkenczy
2021. Harmonic Uniformity and Hungarian front/back harmony. Acta Linguistica Academica 68:1-2  pp. 175 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 may 2023. 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.