Part of
Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson
Edited by Roger Böhm and Harry van der Hulst
[Studies in Language Companion Series 204] 2018
► pp. 385430
Anderson, John M.
1987The limits of linearity. In Explorations in Dependency Phonology, John M. Anderson & Jacques Durand (eds), 169–190. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011The Substance of Language, Vol. I: The Domain of Syntax. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011The Substance of Language, Vol. II: Morphology, Paradigms, and Periphrases. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011The Substance of Language, Vol. III: Phonology-Syntax Analogies. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014Graphophonology and anachronic phonology. Notes on episodes in the history of pseudo-phonology. Folia Linguistica Historica 35: 1–53.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Ewen, Colin J.
1987Principles of Dependency Phonology [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 47]. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Jones, Charles
1974Three theses concerning phonological representations. Journal of Linguistics 10: 1–26.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1976Nasal consonants and the internal structure of segments. Language 52(2): 326–344.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backley, Phillip
2011An Introduction to Element Theory. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Banner Inouye, Susan
1989The flap as a contour segment. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 72: 39–81.Google Scholar
Bauer, Gerd
1956The problem of short diphthongs in Old English. Anglia – Zeitschrift für Englische Philologie 74: 427–437.Google Scholar
Bauer, Winifred
1993Maori. London: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennett, William G.
2008Some interesting implications of clicks. Paper presented at Humdrum 2008.Google Scholar
2009Reconsidering nasality in nasal clicks. Paper presented at the 33rd Penn Linguistics Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
2014Some differences between clicks and labio-velars. South African Journal of African Languages 34(2): 115–126.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blaho, Sylvia
2008The Syntax of Phonology: A Radically Substance-free Approach. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Bradfield, Julian
2014Clicks, concurrency and Khoisan. Phonology 31(1): 1–49.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Browman, Catherine P. & Goldstein, Louis M.
1986Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 219–252.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992Articulatory phonology. Phonetica 49: 155–180.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
1974Phonological features: Problems and proposals. Language 50(1): 52–65.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper and Row. Reprinted 1991. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, George N.
1985The geometry of phonological features. Phonology 2: 225–252.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in Laboratory Phonology, I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech, John Kingston & Mary Beckman (eds), 283–333. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999Affricates as noncontoured stops. In Proceedings of LP’98: Item Order in Language and Speech, Osamu Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph & Bohumil Palek (eds), 271–299. Prague: Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
Connell, Bruce
2007Mambila fricative vowels and Bantu spirantisation. Africana Linguistica 13(1): 7–31.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danis, Nick
2015Markedness and complex stops: Evidence from simplification processes (handout). Paper presented at the 8th World Congress of African Languages, Kyoto.Google Scholar
Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed
1985Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7(2): 105–130.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel & van der Hulst, Harry
To appear. On some deep analogies between syntax and phonology. In Morpheme-internal Recursion in Phonology, Phillip Backley & Kuniya Nasukawa eds Berlin De Gruyter
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J.
1983The Turkana Language. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan
2009The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 121]. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan & van der Hulst, Harry
1998Head-dependent asymmetries in phonology. Phonology 15: 317–352.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, San
1994Against contour tone units. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 555–608.Google Scholar
2008Syllable Structure: The Limits of Variation. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011The CVX theory of syllable structure. In Handbook of the Syllable, Charles E. Cairns & Eric Raimy (eds), 99–128. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2016A Theory of Phonological Features. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ewen, Colin J.
1980Aspects of Phonological Structure, with Particular Reference to English and Dutch. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Feinstein, Mark H.
1979Prenasalization and syllable structure. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2): 245–278.Google Scholar
Foley, James
1977Foundations of Theoretical Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gandour, Jack
1974Consonant types and tone in Siamese. Journal of Phonetics 2: 337–350.Google Scholar
Gandour, Jack, Tumtavitikul, Apiluck & Satthamnuwong, Nakarin
1999Effects of speaking rate on Thai tones. Phonetica 56(3–4): 123–134.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glanze, Walter D., Anderson, Kenneth & Anderson, Lois E.
1990Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary, 4th edn. Maryland Heights MO: Mosby.Google Scholar
Golston, Chris & van der Hulst, Harry
1999Stricture is structure. In The Derivational Residue in Phonological Optimality Theory, Ben Hermans & Marc van Oostendorp (eds), 153–174. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew
1998The phonetics and phonology of non-modal vowels: A cross-linguistic perspective. Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) 24: 93–105.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew K.
2006Syllable Weight: Phonetics, Phonology, Typology. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles
2000‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 157–169.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbert, R. K.
1975Reanalyzing prenasalized consonants. Studies in African Linguistics 6(2): 105–123.Google Scholar
1977Phonetic analysis in phonological description: Prenasalized consonants and Meinhof’s rule. Lingua 43(4): 339–373.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Archibald A.
1958Introduction to Linguistic Structures: From Sound to Sentence in English. New York NY: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Hirst, Daniel
1985Linearisation and the single-segment hypothesis. In Grammatical Representation, Jacqueline Guéron, Hans Obenauer & Jean-Yves Pollock (eds), 87–100. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1995Macro segments. Paper presented at Current Trends in Phonology: Models and methods, Royaumont.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1943 [1953]Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Baltimore MD: Waverly Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M.
1992Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066, Richard M. Hogg (ed), 67–168. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M.
2003African languages and phonological theory. Glot International 7(6): 153–163.Google Scholar
2011The representation of tone. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. II, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 1078–1102. London: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iosad, Pavel
2013Representation and Variation in Substance-free Phonology: A Case Study in Celtic. PhD thesis, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1968Extrapulmonic consonants: Ejectives, implosives, clicks. Quarterly Progress Report of the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics 90. (Reprinted in Jakobson, Roman. 32002. Selected Writings, I: Phonological Studies 2, 220–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, Gunnar Fant & Morris Halle
1952Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The Distinctive Features and Their Correlates, 2nd edn. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith
2007Decisions and mechanisms in exemplar-based phonology. In Experimental Approaches to Phonology, Maria-Josep Solé, Patrice S. Beddor & Manjari Ohala (eds), 25–40. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel
1911The Pronunciation and Orthography of the Chindau Language. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger
1985The internal structure of phonological elements: A theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2: 305–328.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Jean Lowenstamm & Jean-Roger Vergnaud
1990Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7.2: 193–231.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keating, Patricia A.
1988Palatals as complex segments: X-ray evidence. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 69: 77–91.Google Scholar
Kehrein, Wolfgang & Golston, Chris
2004A prosodic theory of laryngeal contrasts. Phonology 21(3): 325–357.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hyunsoon & Clements, George N.
2015The feature [tense]. In Features in Phonology and Phonetics: Posthumous Writings by Nick Clements and Coauthors [Phonetics and Phonology 21], Annie Rialland, Rachid Ridouane & Harry van der Hulst (eds), 159–178. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krämer, Martin
2012Underlying Representations. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, Patricia K.
1991Human adults and human infants show a “perceptual magnet effect” for the prototypes of speech categories, monkeys do not. Perception and Psychophysics 50: 93–107.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter
1968A Phonetic Study of West African languages: An Auditory-instrumental Survey. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1971Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1973The features of the larynx. Journal of Phonetics 1(1): 73–83.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian
1996The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter & Traill, Anthony
1984Linguistic phonetic descriptions of clicks. Language 60(1): 1–20.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994Clicks and their accompaniments. Journal of Phonetics 22: 33–64.Google Scholar
Lee-Kim, Sang-Im
2014Revisiting Mandarin ‘apical vowels’: An articulatory and acoustic study. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 44(3): 261–282.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M. & Mattingly, Ignatius G.
1985The motor theory of speech perception revised. Cognition 21(1): 1–36.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Yen-Hwei
2011Affricates. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. 1, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 367–390. London: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lisker, Leigh
1976Phonetic aspects of time and timing. Paper presented at the 100th Meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Society, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda
1990The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 8(3): 375–425.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean
1996CV as the only syllable type. In Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds), 419–442. Salford: European Studies Research Institute.Google Scholar
2003Remarks on mutæ cum liquidā and branching onsets. In Living on the Edge. 28 Papers in Honor of Jonathan Kaye [Studies in Generative Grammar 62], Stefan Ploch (ed), 339–363. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, Ian
1984Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005Issues of phonological complexity: Statistical analysis of the relationship between syllable structures, segment inventories and tone contrasts. Berkeley CA: UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report.Google Scholar
2009Prenasalized stops and speech timing. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 19(2): 57–66.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010Correlating syllable complexity with other measures of phonological complexity. Phonological Studies 13: 105–116.Google Scholar
Malmberg, Bertil
1951Svens Fonetik. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J.
1988Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43: 84–108.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mielke, Jeff
2008The Emergence of Distinctive Features. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Miller, Amanda L.
2017Palatal click allophony in Mangetti Dune! Xung: Implications for sound change. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 47(3): 1–29.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Amanda L., Namaseb, Levi & Iskarous, Khalil
2007Tongue body constriction differences in click types. Laboratory Phonology 9: 643–656.Google Scholar
Morén, Bruce
2003The parallel structures model of feature geometry. Working Papers of Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 15: 194–270.Google Scholar
Piggott, Glyne L.
1988Prenasalization and feature geometry. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 19: 345–352.Google Scholar
Pilch, Herbert
1997Middle English phonetics: A systematic survey including notes on Irish and Welsh loanwords. In Studies in Middle English Linguistics [Trends in Linguistics 103], Jacek Fisiak (ed), 439–468. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poser, William J.
1979Nasal Contour Consonants and the Concept of Segment in Phonological Theory. BA thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas
1986Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiss, Charles
2018Substance free phonology. In The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, S. J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Riehl, Anastasia K. & Cohn, Abigail C.
2011Partially nasal segments. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, Vol. I, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 550–576. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenthall, Sam
1992Prenasalized stops and feature geometry. In Phonologica 1988 – Proceedings of the Sixth International Phonology Meeting, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds), 249–258. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rowicka, Grażyna J. & van de Weijer, Jeroen
1992Nasal vowels in Polish. In Leiden Conference for Junior Linguists, Vol. 3, Sjef Barbiers, Marcel den Dikken & Clara Levelt (eds), 219–231. Leiden: HIL.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth C.
1986The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-linear Phonology. PhD thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Salting, Don
2005The geometry of harmony. In The Internal Organization of Phonological Segments, Marc van Oostendorp & Jeroen van de Weijer (eds), 93–120. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford A.
1984The fundamentals of Particle Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1: 129–155.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheer, Tobias
2004A Lateral Theory of Phonology: What is CVCV, and Why Should It Be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O.
1982The syllable. In The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part 2, Harry van der Hulst & Norval Smith (eds), 337–383. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sloos, Marjoleine, Ran, Yunyun & van de Weijer, Jeroen
Submitted. Illustrations of the IPA: Huangyan Taizhou. Journal of the International Phonetic Association.
Smeets, Ineke
2008A Grammar of Mapuche [Mouton Grammar Library 41]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Norval, de Wit, Heleen & Noske, Roland
1988Yurok retroflex harmony. Ms, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Staun, Jørgen
2013Fission in component-based phonology. Language Sciences 40: 123–147.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
1982Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. PhD thesis, MIT. Published as Steriade, Donca. 1993. Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. & Samuel J. Keyser
1989Primary features and their enhancement in consonants. Language 65(1): 81–106.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N., Keyser, Samuel J. & Kawasaki, Haruko
1986Toward a phonetic and phonological theory of redundant features. In Invariance and Variability in Speech Processes, Joseph Perkell & Dennis Klatt (eds), 426–449. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, Carol & Beckett Herrington, Paula
1990Vowel systems of normally developing and phonologically disordered children. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 4(2): 145–160.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traill, Anthony
1993The feature geometry of clicks. In Linguistica: Festschrift E. B. van Wijk, Paul M. von Staden (ed), 134–140. Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.Google Scholar
1995Place of articulation features for clicks: Anomalies for universals. In Studies in General and English Phonetics: Essays in Honour of Professor J. D. O’Connor, Jack Windsor Lewis (ed), 121–129. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trommelen, Mieke
1983The Syllable in Dutch: With Special Reference to Diminutive Formation. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S.
1939 [1960]Grundzüge der Phonologie (Principles of Phonology), trans. by Christine A. M. Baltaxe. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen
1992Basque affricates and the manner-place dependency. Lingua 88(2): 129–147.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996Segmental Structure and Complex Segments [Linguistische Arbeiten 350]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014aAffricates in English as a natural class. In Above and Beyond the Segments – Experimental Linguistics and Phonetics, Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller & Ellen van Zanten (eds), 350–358. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014bThe origin of OT constraints. Lingua 142: 66–75.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017Emergent phonological constraints: The acquisition of *Complex in English. Acta Linguistica Academica 64(1): 153–165.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen, Nanjo, Kensuke & Nishihara, Tetsuo
(eds) 2005Voicing in Japanese [Studies in Generative Grammar 84]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry
1984Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1993aLes atomes de la structure segmentale: Composants, gestes, et dépendances. In L’Architecture des représentations phonologiques, Bernard Laks & Annie Rialland (eds), 255–290. Paris: Éditions CNRS.Google Scholar
1993bUnits in the analysis of signs. Phonology 10(2): 209–241.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995Radical CV Phonology: The categorial gesture. In Frontiers of Phonology: Atoms, Structures, Derivations, Jacques Durand & Francis Katamba (eds), 80–116. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1996Radical CV Phonology: The segment-syllable connection. In Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, Vol. 1, Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds), 333–363. Paris: CNRS/ESRI.Google Scholar
2000aFeatures, segments and syllables in Radical CV Phonology. In Phonologica, John R. Rennison & Klaus Kühnhammer (eds), 89–111. The Hague: Thesus.Google Scholar
2000bModularity and modality in phonology. In Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, Noel Burton-Roberts, Philip Carr & Gerard J. Docherty (eds), 207–243. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005The molecular structure of phonological segments. In Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity, Phil Carr, Jacques Durand & Colin J. Ewen (eds), 193–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015aThe laryngeal class in RcvP and voice phenomena in Dutch. In Above and Beyond the Segments – Experimental Linguistics and Phonetics, Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller & Ellen van Zanten (eds), 323–349. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015bThe opponent principle in RcvP: Binarity in a unary system. In The Segment in Phonetics and Phonology, Eric Raimy & Charles Cairns (eds), 149–179. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2016Monovalent ‘features’ in phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass 10(2): 83–102.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017aPhonological typology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Typological Linguistics, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds), 39–77. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017bDeconstructing tongue root harmony systems. In Sonic Signatures: Studies dedicated to John Harris [Language Faculty and Beyond 14], Geoff Lindsey & Andrew Nevins (eds), 74–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Asymmetries in Vowel Harmony – A Representational Account. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
to appear. Principles of Radical CV Phonology. Edinburgh University Press.
van der Hulst, Harry & Snider, Keith L.
1993Issues in the representation of tonal register. In The Phonology of Tone: The Representation of Tonal Register [Linguistic Models 17], Harry van der Hulst & Keith L. Snider (eds), 1–27. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry & Jeroen van de Weijer
2018Dependency Phonology. In The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, S. J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds), 325–359. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wetzels, W. Leo
1995Mid-vowel alternations in the Brazilian Portuguese verb. Phonology 12(2): 281–304.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, David L.
2016Old English without short diphthongs: An alternative historical phonology. Anglica – International Journal of English Studies 25(2): 5–29.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard
1997Underspecification and the description of Chinese vowels. In Studies in Chinese Phonology [Linguistic Models 20], Jialing Wang & Norval Smith (eds), 219–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Richard, Maddieson, Ian, Ladefoged, Peter & Sands, Bonny
1995A phonetic study of Sandawe clicks. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics 91: 1–24.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira
1989Contour tones. Phonology 6(1): 149–174.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002Tone. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando
2000Mapudungun [Languages of the World/Materials 74]. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Bassac, Christian
2018. The substance of the lexicon in a Generative Lexicon. In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series, 204],  pp. 201 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 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.