Book contents
- The Lexical and Metrical Phonology of English
- The Lexical and Metrical Phonology of English
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Theories of Phonology
- Chapter 2 Segmental Phonology
- Chapter 3 Syllables and Moras
- Chapter 4 English Stress
- Chapter 5 Prosodic Phonology
- Chapter 6 Lexical Phonology: The Cyclic Rules
- Chapter 7 Word-Level Phonology
- Chapter 8 Further Issues in Phonological Theory
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 June 2022
Book contents
- The Lexical and Metrical Phonology of English
- The Lexical and Metrical Phonology of English
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Preface
- Chapter 1 Theories of Phonology
- Chapter 2 Segmental Phonology
- Chapter 3 Syllables and Moras
- Chapter 4 English Stress
- Chapter 5 Prosodic Phonology
- Chapter 6 Lexical Phonology: The Cyclic Rules
- Chapter 7 Word-Level Phonology
- Chapter 8 Further Issues in Phonological Theory
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Lexical and Metrical Phonology of EnglishThe Legacy of the Sound Pattern of English, pp. 366 - 374Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archangeli, Diana (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and Morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Suzuki, Keiichiro (1997). The Yokuts Challenge. In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, ed. Roca, Iggy, 197–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N. (1973). The patterning of language variation. In Varieties of Present-Day English, ed. Bailey, Richard W. & Robinson, Jay L.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bailey, Don C. (1962). Glossary of Japanese Neologisms. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Benua, Laura (1995). Identity effects in morphological truncation. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, & Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 77–136. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. (2012). The architecture of grammar and the division of labor in exponence. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, ed. Trommer, Jochen, 8–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bing, Janet (1979). Aspects of English Prosody. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1980).Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 206–244. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (1997). Rules in optimality theory: two case studies. In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, ed. Roca, Iggy, 227–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard (1939). Menomini morphophonemics. Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 8, 105–115. Reprinted in Makkai (1972), 58–64.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni Jean (1986). Topics in the Lexical Phonology of English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni Jean (1989). Structure preservation and the syllable coda in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 145–166.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael (1974). The cycle in phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 39–60.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi (1994). Principles of English Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1951). Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2: 225–252.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Hume, Elizabeth V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 245–306. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. & Keyser, Samuel Jay (1983). CV Phonology: a Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, Nelson, Braine, Martin D. S., & Leavitt, Lewis A. (1985). The phonological and metaphonological representation of speech: evidence from fluent backward talkers. Journal of Memory and Language 24: 679–698.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce Theodore (1970). Syntactic and Phonological Phrasing in English. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan (2016). Covert representations, contrast, and the acquisition of lexical accent. In Dimensions of Phonological Stress, ed. Heinz, Jeffrey, Goedemans, Rob, & van der Hulst, Harry, 231–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. (1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving, and Local Transformations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel (1988). English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–539.Google Scholar
Fidelholtz, James L. & Wayles Browne, E. (1971). Oy, oy, oy. In Towards Tomorrow’s Linguistics, ed. Shuy, Roger W. & Bailey, Charles-James N. 159–184. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fudge, Eric C. (1967). The nature of phonological primes. Journal of Linguistics 3: 1–36. Reprinted in Makkai (1972), 500–521.Google Scholar
Furby, Christine E. (1974). Garawa Phonology. Pacific Linguistics, series A, No. 37, 1–11, Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. (1992). English Phonology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. (1999). Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goad, Heather (2012). sC clusters are (almost always) coda-initial. The Linguistic Review 29: 335–373.Google Scholar
Green, Anthony D. (2004). Opacity in Tiberian Hebrew: Morphology not phonology. In Papers in Phonetics and Phonology, ZAS Papers in Linguistics 37, ed. Fuchs, S. & Hamann, S., 37–70. ROA 703-0105.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles (2000). Phonology as cognition. In Phonological Knowledge: Conceptual and Empirical Issues, ed. Burton-Roberts, Noel, Carr, Philip, & Docherty, Gerard 161–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris (1977). Tenseness, vowel shift, and the phonology of the back vowels in modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 611–625.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Idsardi, William J. (1997). R, hypercorrection, and the Elsewhere Condition. In Derivations and Constraints in Phonology, ed. Roca, Iggy, 331–348.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveetti (1985). Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 57–116.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Stevens, Kenneth N. (1971). A note on laryngeal features. Quarterly Progress Reports 101: 198–213. Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1987). An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1984). Constraining Metrical Theory: A Modular Theory of Rhythm and Destressing. PhD dissertation, UCLA. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1999). The Phonology of English: A Prosodic Optimality-Theoretic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W. (1983). Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish: A Nonlinear Analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar (1956). The syllable in linguistic description. In For Roman Jakobson, ed. Halle, Morris, Lunt, Horace G., McLean, Hugh, & van Schooneveld, Cornelius H., 213–221. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1980). A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. PhD dissertation, MIT. (Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1981).Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1982). Extrametricality and English stress. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 227–276.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989a). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989b). The prosodic hierarchy in meter. In Phonetics and Phonology, Volume 1, Rhythm and Meter, ed. Kiparsky, Paul & Youmans, Gilbert, 201–260. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1995). Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2004). Phonological acquisition in optimality theory: the early stages. In Constraints in Phonological Acquisition, ed. Kager, René, Pater, Joe, & Zonneveld, Wim, 158–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoard, James E. (1971). Aspiration, tenseness, and syllabication in English. Language 47: 133–140.Google Scholar
Hoard, James E. (1972). Naturalness conditions in phonology, with particular reference to English vowels. In Contributions to Generative Phonology, ed. Brame, Michael K., 123–154. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. (1942). A system of descriptive phonology. Language 18: 3–21. Reprinted in Makkai (1972), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idsardi, William James (2009). Calculating metrical structure. In Contemporary Views on Architecture and Representations in Phonology, ed. Raimy, Eric & Cairns, Charles E., 191–211. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingria, Robert (1980). Compensatory lengthening as a metrical phenomenon. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 465–495.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1986). Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko (1989). A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 217–259.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jensen, John T. (1990). Morphology: Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jones, Daniel (1966). The Pronunciation of English (fourth edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kager, René (1989). A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based Generalizations in English Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1980). Syllable-structure specifications in phonological rules. In Juncture, ed. Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1994). Evidence for metrical constitency. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth & Jay Keyser, Samuel, 257–273. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles W. (1977). Topics in Phonological Theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Kisseberth, Charles W. (1979). Generative Phonology: Description and Theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968). How abstract is phonology? In Explanation in Phonology, ed. Kiparsky, Paul (1971), 119–163. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1973). Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. In Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, ed. Fujimura, O., 57–86. Tokyo: TEC. Also in The Application and Ordering of Grammatical Rules, ed. Andreas Koutsoudas, 160–186. The Hague: Mouton,Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 421–441.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. Yang, I. S., 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1983). Word formation and the lexicon. In Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. Ingeman, Frances A.. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1985). Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 85–138.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1988). Phonological change. In Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, Volume 1, Linguistic Theory: Foundations, ed. Newmeyer, Fritz, 363–415. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1993). Blocking in nonderived environments. In Phonetics and Phonology, Volume 4, Studies in Lexical Phonology, ed. Hargus, Sharon and Kaisse, Ellen, 217–313. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1995). The phonological basis of sound change. In Handbook of Phonological Theory, ed. Goldsmith, John A., 640–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kirchner, Robert (1996). Synchronic chain shifts in optimality theory. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 341–350.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 291–306.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. (1982). Some Problems in a Theory of Clitics. PhD dissertation, University College, London. IULC.Google Scholar
Klavans, Judith L. (1985). The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language 61: 95–120.Google Scholar
Lazdiņa, Terēza Budiņa (1966). Teach Yourself Latvian. London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Prince, Alan S. (1977). On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar
Łubowicz, Anna (2002). Derived environment effects in Optimality Theory. Lingua 112: 243–280.Google Scholar
Makkai, Valerie Becker (ed.) (1972). Phonological Theory: Evolution and Current Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Malécot, André (1960). Vowel nasality as a distinctive feature in American English. Language 36: 222–229.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach (second edition). München: C.H. Bech’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (1967). Catalan Phonology and the Phonological Cycle. PhD dissertation, MIT. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373–418.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1991). Synchronic rule inversion. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Sutton, Laurel A., Johnson, Christopher & Shields, Ruth, 192–207. Berkleley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1993). A case of surface constraint violation. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38: 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (1994). Remarks on phonological opacity in optimality theory. In Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on Afro-Asiatic Linguistics (1996), ed. Jacqueline Lecarme, Jean Lowenstamm, & Ur Shlonsky 215–243. The Hague: Academic Graphics. ROA-79.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2007). Hidden Generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S. (1986). Prosodic Morphology. MS, University of Massachusetts, Amherst & Brandeis University. Published as Prosodic Morphology 1986, Technical Report #32, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, 1996.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S. (1990). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 208–283.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S. (1993). Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. RuCCS-TR-3.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S. (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, ed. Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, & Urbanczyk, Suzanne, 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA. ROA 60.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. (1968). The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McMahon, April (2000). Lexical Phonology and the History of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mielke, Jeff (2005). Ambivalence and ambiguity in laterals and nasals. Phonology 22: 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka (2014). A Historical Phonology of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Miyamori, Asatarō (1932). An Anthology of Haiku, Ancient and Modern. Tokyo: Maruzen. Reprinted (1970), Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveetti (1986). The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Karuvannur Puthanveetti & Mohanan, Tara (1984). Lexical phonology of the consonant system in Malayalam. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 575–602.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott (1987). Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 485–518.Google Scholar
Newton, Brian (1972). The Generative Interpretation of Dialect: A Study of Modern Greek Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Odden, David (2008). Ordering. In Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena, ed. Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew, 61–120. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Osborn, Henry A. Jr (1966). Warao I: phonology and morphophonemics. International Journal of American Linguistics 32: 108–23.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (1994). Against the underlying specification of an ‘exceptional’ English stress pattern. Toronto Woking Papers in Linguistics 13(1): 95–121.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe (2000). Nonuniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17: 237–274.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. (1947). Grammatical prerequisites to phonemic analysis. Word 3: 155–172. Reprinted in Makkai (1972), 153–165.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. (1980). A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 511–562.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Technical Report 2. Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1976). The Duke of York gambit. Journal of Linguistics 12: 83–102.Google Scholar
Rialland, Annie & Badjimé, Mamadon (1989). Réanalyse des tons du Bambara: Des tons du nom à l’organisation générale du système. Studies in African Linguistics 20: 1–28.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert (1972). A reanalysis of English word stress (part I). In Contributions to Generative Phonology, ed. Brame, Michael, 229–323. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1984). Segmental rules of English and cyclic phonology. Language 60: 21–54.Google Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (1996). Shortening and ambisyllabicity in English. Phonology 13: 197–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubach, Jerzy (2003). Duke-of-York derivations in Polish. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 601–629.Google Scholar
Rydzewski, Paweł (2018). Canadian Raising and Flapping in Derivational Optimality Theory. In Phonology, Fieldwork and Generalisations, ed. Czaplicki, Bartłomiej, Łukaszewicz, Beata, & Opalińska, Monika, 47–64. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth Caroline (1986). The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-linear Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sainz, Susana (1988). A noncyclic analysis of English word stress. Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 3: 1–82.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Nordic Prosody II, ed. Fretheim, T., 111–140 (1981). Trondheim: TAPIR.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980a). Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In Juncture, ed. Aronoff, Mark & Kean, Mary-Louise, 107–129. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1980b). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1982b). The syllable. In The Structure of Phonological Representations (Part II), ed. van der Hulst, Harry & Smith, Norval, 337–383. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984a). Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1984b). On the major class features and syllable theory. In Language Sound Structure, ed. Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard T., 107–136. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Szpyra, Jolanta (1989). The Morphology-Phonology Interface: Cycles, Levels, and Words. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tauber, Abraham (1963). George Bernard Shaw on Language. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Trager, George L. & Smith, Henry Lee, Jr (1951). An Outline of English Structure. American Council of Learned Societies, Washington, DC. Reprinted by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York.Google Scholar
Tryon, Darrell T. (1970). An Introduction to Maranungku, Northern Australia (Pacific Linguistics Monographs, Series B, No. 15), Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert (2008). Why the phonological component must be serial and rule-based. In Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena, ed. Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew, 20–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, John (1936). The Rhyming Dictionary, revised and enlarged by Lawrence H. Dawson. New York: R.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. (1967). Phonological features of tone. International Journal of American Linguistics 33: 93–105.Google Scholar
Withgott, Mary Margaret (1982). Segmental Evidence for Phonological Constituents. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar