Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:07:31.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

David Embick, Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. Pp. xii+218.

Review products

David Embick, Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010. Pp. xii+218.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2011

Bridget Samuels
Bridget Samuels*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
Author's address:Department of Linguistics, University of Maryland, 1401 Marie Mount Hall, College Park, MD 20742, USAbridget@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 714 - 719
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2000. ‘Substance abuse’ and ‘dysfunctionalism’: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the stress & syntax of words. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Mester, R. Armin. 1994. The quantitative trochee in Latin. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 12, 1–61.Google Scholar
Samuels, Bridget. 2011. Phonological architecture: A biolinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Bridget. To appear. Consequences of phases for morphophonology. In Gallego, Ángel J. (ed.), Phases: Developing the framework. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Scheer, Tobias. 2010. A guide to morphosyntax–phonology interface theories: How extra-phonological information is treated in phonology since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaux, Bert. 2008. Why the phonological component must be serial & rule-based. In Vaux, Bert & Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Rules, constraints, and phonological phenomena, 20–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar