Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-lm65w Total loading time: 0.006 Render date: 2025-07-27T01:02:20.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rules of allomorphy and phonology-syntax interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Arnold M. Zwicky
Arnold M. Zwicky
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
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.'

Information

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , September 1985 , pp. 431 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. D. (1977). On the formal description of inflection. CLS 13. 15–44. 15–44.Google Scholar
Janda, R. D. (1983). ‘Morphemes’ aren't something that grows on trees: morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M. & Chukerman, A. (eds), Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 79–95.Google Scholar
Janda, R. D. & Manandise, E. (1985). Zero really is nothing: Basque evidence against ‘Ø-morphemes’ (and also against ‘morphologically-conditioned phonological rules’). In Alvarez, G., Brodie, B. & McCoy, T. (eds), Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus: Ohio State University. 222–237.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. (1985). Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. Orlando FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. (1967). Turkish grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1983). New developments in autosegmental phonology: Consonant mutation. In Barlow, M., Flickinger, D. P. & Wescoat, M. T. (eds), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 2. 165–175. Stanford CA: Student Linguistics Association. Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1967). The main features of Modern Greek verb inflection. FLang 3. 262–284.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1972). Inflectional morphology: a theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1984). Romance disagreements: phonology interfering with syntax. JL 20. 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1969). Phonological constraints in syntactic description. PiL 1. 411–463.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1984a). ‘Reduced words’ in high modular theories: Yiddish anarthrous locatives reexamined. Working Papers in Linguistics 29. 117–126. Columbus: Dept. of Linguistics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1984b). Welsh soft mutation and the case of object NPs. CLS 20. 387–402.Google Scholar