Part of
Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris
Edited by Geoff Lindsey and Andrew Nevins
[Language Faculty and Beyond 14] 2017
► pp. 297320
References (29)
References
Akinlabi, A. & E. Urua. 1993. Prosodic target and vocalic specification in the Ibibio verb. In J. Mead (ed.), WCCFL11: Proceedings of the 11th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1–14. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2002. Foot structure in the Ibibio verb. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 23: 119–160.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Davis, S. & I. Ueda. 2006. Prosodic vs. morphological mora augmentation. Lexicon Forum 2: 121–143.Google Scholar
de Lacy, P. (ed.). 2007. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, M. 2004. A phonetic and phonological study of word-level stress in Chickasaw. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. 2006. English syllabification as the interaction of markedness constraints. Studia Linguistica 60(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, B. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Idem, U. 1994. Phonological processes in the acquisition of liquid stop segments in English by Anaang Speakers. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Feet and metrical stress. In P. de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 195–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keerio, A., L. Dhomeja, A. Shaikh & Y. Malkani. 2011. Comparative analysis of vowels, diphthongs and glides of Sindhi. Signal & Image Processing (SIPIJ) 2(4): 109–119.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 2011. Phonetic Data Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell publishers.Google Scholar
Lindström, E. 2002. Topics in the grammar of Kuot, a non-Austronesian language of New Ireland, Papua New Guinea. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabian broken plurals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 209–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993/2001. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Rutgers Technical Report, TR-3 . New Brunswick: Rutgers University centre for cognitive science.
McCarthy, J. & Prince, A. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. Dickey, & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality theory (pp. 249–384). Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Russell, K. 1997. Optimality theory and morphology. In D. Archangeli & D. Langendoen (eds.), Optimality Theory: An Overview, 102–133. Oxford: Blackwell publishers.Google Scholar
Schane, S. 1973. Generative Phonology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Smith, J. 2002. Onset sonority constraints and subsyllabic structure. Phonologica 1–18.Google Scholar
Sommerstein, A. 1977. Modern Phonology. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Udoh, E. 2010. Documenting phonological rules in a database management system: A study of the Anaang Language. Unpublished M. A. thesis, University of Uyo, Nigeria.
. 2016. The interaction of mapping patterns and constraints in Anaañ reduplication. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.
Udoh, I. 2014. Anaang Phonology. Saarbrucken: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Urua, E. 1999. Length and syllable weight in Ibibio. Studies in African Linguistics 28(2): 241–266.Google Scholar
. 2007. Ibibio Phonetics and Phonology. Port Harcourt: M & J. Grand Orbit.Google Scholar
Zec, D. 2007. The syllable. In P. de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, 161–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar