Alber, B. 2001. “Regional variation and edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in standard and Southern varieties of German,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20: 3–41.Google Scholar

Alderete, J. D. and Frisch, S. A. 2007. “Dissimilation in grammar and the lexicon.” In de Lacy, P. (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press: 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bateman, N. 2007. A Crosslinguistic Investigation of Palatalization. Ph.D. dissertation: University of California San Diego.Google Scholar

Booij, G. 1995. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borowsky, T. 1990. Topics in the Lexical Phonology of English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Christen, H. 2001. “Ein Dialektmarker auf Erfolgskurs: Die /L/-Vokalisierung in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 68.1: 16–26.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. 1987. Phonological feature representation and the description of intrusive stops. Parasession on Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society 29–50.Google Scholar

Combrick, J. G. H. and de Stadler, L. G. 1987. Afrikaanse Fonologie. Johannesburg: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Crosswhite, K. 2001. Vowel Reduction in Optimality Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

De Lacy, P. 2006. Markedness. Reduction and Preservation in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Giegerich, H. 1989. Syllable Structure and Lexical Derivation in German. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club Publications.Google Scholar

Glover, J. 2011. “G-spirantization and lateral ambivalence in Northern German dialects,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23: 183–193.Google Scholar

Glover, J. 2014. Liquid Vocalization and Underspecification in German Dialects. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University at Bloomington.Google Scholar

Haas, W. 1983. “Vokalisierung in den deutschen Dialekten.” In Besch, W. et al. (eds.), Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, Vol. II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter: 1111–1116.Google Scholar

Hall, T. A. 1993. “The phonology of German /ʀ/,” Phonology 10.1: 83–105.Google Scholar

Hall, T. A. 1997. The Phonology of Coronals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hall, T. A. 2009. “Liquid dissimilation in Bavarian German,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21.1: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, T. A. 2010. “On the status of [h]~[x] alternations in German dialects: The case for buccalization.” In Fuchs, S., Hoole, P, Mooshammer, C., and Zygis, M. (eds.), Between the Regular and the Particular in Speech and Language. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag: 29–56.Google Scholar

Hall, T. A. 2011. “Vowel prothesis in Walliser German,” Linguistics 49.5: 945–976.Google Scholar

Hall, T. A. 2013. “How common is r-epenthesis?,” Folia Linguistica 47.1: 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamann, S. 2003. The Phonetics and Phonology of Retroflexes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar

Holsinger, D. 2000. Lenition in Germanic: Prosodic templates in sound change. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar

Holthausen, F. 1886. Die Soester Mundart. Norden und Leipzig: Diedrich Soltau’s Verlag.Google Scholar

Hommer, E. 1910. Studien zur Dialektgeographie des Westerwaldes. Marburg: R. Friedrich’s Universitäts-Buchdruckerei.Google Scholar

Jacobs, N. 2005. Yiddish. A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Kager, R. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kahn, D. 1976. Syllable-Based Generalizations in English Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1984. “On the lexical phonology of Icelandic.” In Elert, C. et al. (eds.), Nordic Prosody, Vol III. Stockholm: Almkvist and Wiksell: 135–164.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lavoie, L. 2001. Consonant Strength. Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Mangold, M. 2005. Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache. Duden, Band 6 5. Auflage.Google Scholar

Noelliste, E. 2017. The Phonology of Sonorants in Bavarian German. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Noske, R. 1993. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation. With Studies on the Phonology of French, German, Tonkawa and Yawelmani. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, M. van 2000. Phonological Projection. A Theory of Content and Prosodic Structure. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Paradis, C. and Prunet, J.-F. (eds.) 1991. The Special Status of Coronals: Internal and External Evidence. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 2014. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Robinson, O. 2001. Whose German? The ach / ich Alternation and Related Phenomena in “Standard” and “Colloquial”. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schatz, J. 1897. Die Mundart von Imst. Laut- und Flexionslehre. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar

Schirmunski, V. M. 1962. Deutsche Mundartkunde. Vergleichende Laut- und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Taylor, J. E. 1974. A Generative Phonology of Faroese Utilizing Unordered Rules. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. M. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Trommelen, M. 1984. The Syllable in Dutch: With Special Reference to Diminutive Formation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Trommelen, M. 1989. Lettergreepstructuur en woordcategorie. De Nieuwe Tallgids 82, 64–77.Google Scholar

Tyroller, H. 2003. Grammatische Beschreibung des Zimbrischen von Lusern. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Uffmann, C. 2007. “Intrusive [r] and optimal epenthetic consonants,” Language Sciences 29: 451–476.Google Scholar

Visser, W. 1997. The Syllable in Frisian. Amsterdam Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 2009. “The grammar and typology of plural noun inflection in varieties of German,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 137–173.Google Scholar

Wipf, E. 1910. Die Mundart von Visperterminen im Wallis. Frauenfeld: Verlag von Huber and Co.Google Scholar

Alber, B. 2007. Einführung in die Phonologie des Deutschen. Verona: QuiEdit.Google Scholar

Alber, B. and Meneguzzo, M., 2016. “Germanic and Romance onset clusters – how to account for microvariation.” In Bidese, E., Cognola, F., and Moroni, M. C. (eds.), Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 25–52.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basbøll, H. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Den Besten, H. 2012. “Speculations of [χ]-elision and intersonorantic [ʋ] in Afrikaans.” In van der Wouden, T. (ed.), Roots of Afrikaans: Selected Writings of Hans Den Besten. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 79–93.Google Scholar

Chapman, K. G. 1962. “Icelandic-Norwegian linguistic relationships.” NTS, Suppl. 7.Google Scholar

Conradie, C. 1981. Die ontwikkeling van die Afrikaanse voltooide deelwoord I: 1652–1875. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 21: 275–284.Google Scholar

Conradie, C. 1982. Die ontwikkeling van die Afrikaanse voltooide deelwoord I: 1875–1978. Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 22: 97–109.Google Scholar

Cutler, A. Mehler, J., and Norris, D. 1983. “A Language-Specific Comprehension Strategy,” Nature 304.5922: 159–160.Google Scholar

Fabricius, A. 2002. “Ongoing change in modern RP: Evidence for the disappearing stigma of t-glottaling,” English World-Wide 23.1: 115–136.Google Scholar

Fuchs, S., Brunner, J., and Busler, A. 2007. “Temporal and spatial aspects concerning the realizations of the voicing contrast in German alveolar and postalveolar fricatives.” Advances in Speech–Language Pathology 9.1: 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gick, B. 2002. “The American Intrusive L,” American Speech 77.2: 167–183.Google Scholar

Goad, H. 2011. “sC Clusters.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1123–1142.Google Scholar

Goeman, T. 1999. T-deletie in Nederlandse dialecten. Kwantitatieve analyse van structurele, ruimtelijke en temporele variatie. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Guy, G. 1980. “Variation in the group and the individual: The case of final stop deletion.” In Labov, W. (ed.), Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press: 1–36.Google Scholar

Guy, G. R. 1991a. “Explanation in variable phonology: an exponential model of morphological constraints,” Language Variation and Change 3:1–22.Google Scholar

Guy, G. R. 1991b. “Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology,” Language Variation and Change 3: 223–239.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. 1999. The Phonology of English. A Prosodic Optimality-Theoretic Account. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, T. A. 1992. Syllable Structure and Syllable Related Processes in German. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamann, S. 2003. “German glide formation functionally viewed,” ZAS Papers in Linguistics 32: 137–154.Google Scholar

Herzog, M., Kiefer, U., Neumann, R., Putschke, W., Sunshine, A., Baviskar, V., and Weinreich, U. 1992. The Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry, Vol. I. Historical and Theoretical Foundations. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag and YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.Google Scholar

Hinskens, F. 1992. Dialect Leveling in Limburg: Structural and Sociolinguistic Aspects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar

Hinskens, F. 2009. “Zuid-Afrika en het Afrikaans. Inleidende notities over geschiedenis, taal en letterkunde.” In den Besten, H., Hinskens, F. L. M. P., and Koch, J. (eds.), Afrikaans. Een drieluik. Amsterdam and Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek/ Nodus Publikationen: 9–33.Google Scholar

Issatschenko, A. 1974. “Das ‘schwa mobile’ und ‘schwa constans’ im Deutschen.” In Engel, U. and Grebe, P. (eds.), Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Festschrift für Hugo Moser zum 65. Geburtstag. Düsseldorf: Schwann: 141–171.Google Scholar

Jacobs, N. G. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kager, R. and Shatzman, K. 2007. “Phonological constraints in speech processing.” In Los, B. and van Koppen, M. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 100–111.Google Scholar

Keydana, G. 2011. “Evidence for non-linear phonological structure in Indo-European: The case of fricative clusters.” In Whitehead, B. N., Olander, T., Olsen, B. A., and Rasmussen, J. E. (eds.), The Sound of Indo-European –Selected Papers from the Conference Held in Copenhagen, April 16–19, 2009, Copenhagen Studies in Indo-European 4. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum: 223–241.Google Scholar

Kooij, J. and van Oostendorp, M. 2004. Fonologie. Uitnodiging tot de klankleer van het Nederlands. Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar

Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18.1: 109–145.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 1999. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1969. “Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula,” Language 45:715–762.Google Scholar

Lass, R. 2002. “South African English.” In Mesthrie, R. (ed.), Language in South Africa. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Murray, R. M. and Vennemann, T. 1982. “Syllable contact change in Germanic, Greek and Sidamo.” Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 8: 321–349.Google Scholar

Noske, R. 1992. A Theory of Syllabification and Segmental Alternation. Ph.D. Thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, M. van 2000. Phonological Projection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, M. van 2003. “Ambisyllabicity and fricative voicing in West-Germanic dialects.” In Féry, C. and van de Vijver, R. (eds), The Syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press: 304–337.Google Scholar

Parker, S. 2011. “Sonority.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. London: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar

Rácz, P. 2010. “On the phonotactic judgments of Czech native speakers.” In The Odd Yearbook 8: 79–86.Google Scholar

Rice, C. 2002. “When nothing is good enough: Dialectal variation in Norwegian imperatives,” Nordlyd 31/2: 372–384.Google Scholar

Szigetvári, P. 2016. “The curious case of Cj clusters in English.” In The Even Yearbook 12. Dept. of English Linguistics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. http://seas3.elte.hu/even/2016/16sz.pdf.Google Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Vestergaard, T. 1968. “Initial and final consonant combinations in Danish monosyllables,” Studia Linguistica 21: 37–66.Google Scholar

Visser, W. 1997. The Syllable in Frisian. The Hague: HAG.Google Scholar

Voyles, J. B. 1980. “Reduplicating Verbs in North-West Germanic,” Lingua 52: 89–123.Google Scholar

Wells, J. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wright, J. 1910. Grammar of the Gothic Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bergmann, G. 1989. “Upper Saxon.” In Russ (ed.): 290–312.Google Scholar

Booij, G. 1995. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Booij, G. 1998. “Phonological output constraints in morphology.” In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R.: (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 143–163.Google Scholar

Broselow, E. 1995. “Skeletal positions and moras.” In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell:175–205.Google Scholar

Côté, M-H. 2000. Consonant Cluster Phonotactics: A Perceptual Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Côté, M.-H. 2004. “Consonant cluster simplification in Québec French,” Probus 16: 151–201.Google Scholar

Downing, L. 2006. Canonical Forms in Prosodic Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Durrell, M. 1989. “Westphalian and Eastphalian.” In Russ, (ed.): 59–90.Google Scholar

Freiling, P. 1929. Studien zur Dialektgeographie des hessischen Odenwaldes. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. (ed.) 1995. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Goltz, R. and Walker, A. 1989. “North Saxon.” In Russ (ed.): 31–58.Google Scholar

Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J-R. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Holsinger, D. 2000. Lenition in Germanic: Prosodic Templates in Sound Change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar

Holsinger, D. 2001. “Weak position constraints: The role of prosodic templates in contrast distribution,” Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Papers in Linguistics 19: 91–118.Google Scholar

Holsinger, D. and Houseman, P. 1998. “Lenition in Hessian: The case of subtractive plurals.” Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 159–174.Google Scholar

Hommer, E. 1910. Studien zur Dialektgeographie des Westerwaldes. Dissertation, Philosophische Fakultät der Universität Marburg. Marburg: R. Friedrich’s Universitätsbuchdruckerei.Google Scholar

Hooper, J. 1976. Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der 1984. Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der 1999. “Word accent.” In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 3–115.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der (ed.) 1999. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der and Kooij, J. 1998. “Prosodic choices and the Dutch nominal plural.” In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 187–197.Google Scholar

Itô, J. 1986. Syllable Theory in Prosodic Phonology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Kager, R. 1995. “The metrical theory of word stress.” In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell: 367–402.Google Scholar

Kauschke, C., Renner, L., and Domahs, U. 2013. “Prosodic constraints on inflected words: An area of difficulty for German-speaking children with specific language impairment?” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 27: 574–593.Google Scholar

Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.) 1998. Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Kock, A.1904. “Vocalbalance im Altfriesischen,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 29: 175–193.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 1990. “East Norwegian prosody and the level stress problem.” Unpublished ms., University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Kürsten, O. and Bremer, O. 1910. Lautlehre der Mundart von Buttelstedt bei Weimar. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

Kusmenko, J. 2007. “The origin of vowel balance in Swedish and Norwegian dialects.” In Bull, T., Kusmenko, J., and Rießler, M. (eds.), Språk og språkforhold i Sápmi. Berlin: Nordeuropa-Institut der Humbolt-Universität 235–258.Google Scholar

Kusmenko, J. and Riessler, M. 2000. “Traces of Sámi-Scandinavian contact in Scandinavian dialects.” In Gilbers, D. G., Nerbonne, J, and Schaeken, J. (eds.), Languages in Contact. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi: 209–224.Google Scholar

Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 335–422.Google Scholar

Lavoie, L. 2001. Consonant Strength: Phonological Patterns and Phonetic Manifestations. New York: Garland Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liberman, M. 1975. The Intonational System of English. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Published in 1979 by Garland Press, New York.Google Scholar

Liberman, M. and Prince, A. 1977. “On stress and linguistic rhythm,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar

Löhken, S.1997. Deutsche Wortprosodie: Abschwächungs- und Tilgungsvorgänge. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. 1995. “Prosodic morphology.” In Goldsmith, J. (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell: 318–366.Google Scholar

Murray, R. and Vennemann, T. 1983. “Sound change and syllabic structure in Germanic phonology,” Language 59: 514–528.Google Scholar

Perridon, H. 2002. “The quantity shift in North Germanic,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 56: 69–77.Google Scholar

Philipp, M. and Bothorel-Witz, A. 1989. “Low Alemannic.” In Russ, (ed.): 313–336.Google Scholar

Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 1993. “Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.” Unpublished ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar

Raymond, W., Dautricourt, R. and Hume, E. 2006. “Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors,” Language Variation and Change 18: 55–97.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 1992. Structures in Germanic Prosody: A Diachronic Study with Special Reference to the Nordic Languages. Dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Russ, C. (ed.) 1989. The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Schönfeld, H. 1989. “East Low German.” In Russ (ed.): 91–135.Google Scholar

Smith, L. C. 2007. “Old Frisian vowel balance and its relationship to West Germanic apocope and syncope.” In Bremmer, R., Laker, S., and Vries, O. (eds.), Advances in Old Frisian Philology, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik, Vol. 64 / Estrikken-Ålstråke, Vol. 81. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi: 379–410.Google Scholar

Smith, L. C. 2007. “The resilience of prosodic templates in the history of West Germanic.” In Salmons, J. and Dubenion-Smith, S. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2005: Selected Papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, July 31–August 5, 2005. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 351–365.Google Scholar

Smith, L. C. 2009. “Dialect variation and the Dutch diminutive: Loss, maintenance and extension of prosodic templates.” In Dufresne, M., Dupuis, F., and Vocaj, E. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2007. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 37–46.Google Scholar

Smith, L. C., Champenois, C., C., and Schuhmann, K. 2016. “The role of prosody in shaping German plurals.” Paper presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference (GLAC) 2016, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar

Smith, L. C., Holsinger, D., and Salmons, J. 2005. “The limits of perceptual distinctness: Evidence from West Germanic.” Paper presented at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference (GLAC) 2005, University of California–Davis.Google Scholar

Smith, N. and van Leyden, K. 2007. “The unusual outcome of a level-stress situation: In the case of Wursten Frisian.” The North-western European Language Evolution 52: 31–66.Google Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation of Sound Change: With Special Reference to German, Germanic, Italian, and Latin. Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Versloot, A. 2008. Mechanisms of Language Change: Vowel Reduction in 15th Century West Frisian. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 2001. “How prosody shapes German words and morphemes,” Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 6: 155–184.Google Scholar

Alber, B. 1997a. Il sistema metrico dei prestiti del tedesco. Aspetti e problemi della teoria prosodica. Ph.D. thesis, University of Padova.Google Scholar

Alber, B. 1997b. “Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction.” In Booij, G. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Phonology in Progress – Progress in Phonology, HIL Phonology Papers III. Holland Academic Graphics: The Hague: 1–45.Google Scholar

Alber, B. 1998. “Stress preservation in German loan words.” In Kehrein and Wiese (eds.): 113–114.Google Scholar

Alber, B. 2001. “Maximizing first positions.” In Féry, C., Green, A. D., and van de Vijver, R. (eds.), Proceedings of HILP 5, University of Potsdam: 1–19.Google Scholar

Alber, B. 2005. “Clash, lapse and directionality,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 485–542.Google Scholar

Alber, B., DelBusso, N., and Prince, A. 2016. “From intensional properties to universal support,” Language 92.2: e88–e116.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 1999. “Icelandic and Faroese.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 567–596.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Basbøll, H. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, G. 1999. The Phonology of Dutch. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. 1999. “Swedish.” In van der Hulst (ed.): 554–567.Google Scholar

Burzio, L. 1994. Principles of English Stress. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Harper and Row: New York.Google Scholar

Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Domahs, U., Plag, I., and Carroll, R. 2014. “Word stress assignment in German, English and Dutch: Quantity-sensitivity and extrametricality revisited,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 59–96.Google Scholar

Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and Schlesewsky, M. 2008. “The processing of German word stress: Evidence for the prosodic hierarchy,” Phonology 25: 1–36.Google Scholar

Dresher, E. 2013. “The influence of loanwords on Norwegian and English stress,” Nordlyd 40.1: 55–43.Google Scholar

Duden Aussprachewörterbuch 2005. 6. Auflage. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, and Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, P. 1991. “Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10: 37–64.Google Scholar

Féry, C. 1995. “Alignment, syllable and metrical structure in German,” SfS-Report-02–95, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar

Féry, C. 1998. “German word stress in Optimality Theory,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 101–142.Google Scholar

Gaeta, L. 1998. “Stress and loan words in German,” Rivista di Linguistica 10.2: 355–392.Google Scholar

Giegerich, H. 1985. Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure: German and English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Golston, C. and Wiese, R. 1998. “The structure of the German root.” In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.), Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 165–187.Google Scholar

Gordon, M. 2002. “A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 491–552.Google Scholar

Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J-R. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. 1984. Constraining Metrical Theory: A Modular Theory of Rhythm and Destressing. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. 1999. The Phonology of English: A Prosodic Optimality-Theoretic Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hayes, B. 1981. A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der 1984. Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der (ed.) 1999. Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hulst, H. van der, Goedemans, J-R., and van Zanten, E. (eds.) 2010. A Survey of Word Accentual Patterns in the Languages of the World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hyde, B. 2001. Metrical and Prosodic Structure in Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University. ROA-476.Google Scholar

Hyde, B. 2002. “A restrictive theory of stress,” Phonology 19: 313–360.Google Scholar

Hyde, B. 2007. “Non-finality and weight-sensitivity,” Phonology 24: 287–334.Google Scholar

Hyde, B. 2012. “Alignment constraints,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 1–48.Google Scholar

Hyde, B. 2016. Layering and Directionality: Metrical Stress in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Itô, J. and Mester, A. 2015. “The perfect prosodic word in Danish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38.1: 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janßen [Domahs], U. 2003. Untersuchungen zum Wortakzent im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Doctoral dissertation. University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar

Janßen [Domahs], U. and Domahs, F. 2008. “Going on with optimised feet: Evidence for the interaction between segmental and metrical structure in phonological encoding from a case of primary progressive aphasia,” Aphasiology 22.11: 1157–1175.Google Scholar

Jessen, M. 1999. “German.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 515–545.Google Scholar

Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Ph.D. dissertation. Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Kager, R. 1993. “Alternatives to the iambic-trochaic law,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11: 381–432.Google Scholar

Kager, R. 2007. “Feet and metrical stress.” In de Lacy, P. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press: 195–227.Google Scholar

Kaltenbacher, E. 1994. “Typologische Aspekte des Wortakzents: Zum Zusammenhang von Akzentposition und Silbengewicht im Arabischen und Deutschen,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13: 20–55.Google Scholar

Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R. (eds.) 1998. Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Kleiner, S. 2011–2017. Atlas zur Aussprache des deutschen Gebrauchsstandards (AADG). Unter Mitarbeit von Ralf Knöbl. http://prowiki.ids-mannheim.de/bin/view/AADG/.Google Scholar

Knaus, J. Wiese, R., and Domahs, U. 2011. “Secondary stress is distributed rhythmically within words: an EEG study on German.” In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences 2011. Hong Kong: 1114–1117.Google Scholar

Knaus, J. and Domahs, U. 2009. “Experimental evidence for optimal and minimal metrical structure of German word prosody.” Lingua 119.10: 1396–1413.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lacy, P. de 2007. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 335–422.Google Scholar

Liberman, M. and Prince, A. 1977. “On stress and linguistic rhythm,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar

Lorentz, O. 1996. “Length and correspondence in Scandinavian,” Nordlyd 24: 111–128.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. 1993. “Generalized alignment,” Yearbook of Morphology 1993: 79–153.Google Scholar

McManus, H. 2006. Stress Parallels in Modern OT. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar

Moulton, W. G. 1962. The Sounds of English and German. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Pater, J. 2000. “Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints,” Phonology 17: 237–274.Google Scholar

Prince, A. 1983. “Relating to the Grid,” Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100.Google Scholar

Prince, A. 1990. “Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization.” In Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society: 355–398.Google Scholar

Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. 2004 [1993]. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Riad, T 2013. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rice, C. 1999. “Norwegian.” In van der Hulst (ed.): 545–553.Google Scholar

Rice, C. 2006. “Norwegian stress and quantity: The implications of loanwords,” Lingua 116: 1171–1194.Google Scholar

Speyer, A. 2009. “On the change of word stress in the history of German,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 131.3: 413–441.Google Scholar

Trommelen, M. and Zonneveld, W. 1999. “Dutch.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 492–515.Google Scholar

Vennemann, T. 1990. “Syllable structure and simplex accent in Modern Standard German.” In Deaton, K., Noske, M., and Ziolkowski, M. (eds.), CLS 26-II: Papers from the Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society: 399–412.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Wurzel, W. U. 1980. “Der deutsche Wortakzent: Fakten – Regeln – Prinzipien. Ein Beitrag zu einer natürlichen Akzenttheorie,” Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3: 299–318.Google Scholar

Zonneveld, W. 1999. “Word stress in West-Germanic and North-Germanic Languages: Introduction.” In van der Hulst, (ed.): 476–478.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Auer, P. and Murray, R. W. 2004. “Bavarian isochrony without mora-counting,” Paper presented at Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference 10. Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Bannert, R. 1976. Mittelbairsiche Phonologie auf akustischer und perzeptorischer Grundlage. Ph.D. dissertation, Lund University.Google Scholar

Bannert, R. 1977. “Quantität im Mittelbairischen: Komplementäre Länge von Vokal und Konsonant.” In Dressler, W. U. and Pfeffer, O. E. (eds.), Phonologica 1976: Akten der dritten Internationalen Phonologie-Tagung, Wien, 1–4. September 1976. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck: 261–270.Google Scholar

Basbøll, H. 2005. The Phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Basbøll, H. and Wagner, J. 1985. Kontrastive Phonologie des Deutschen und Dänischen: Segmentale Wortphonologie und -phonetik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Becker, T. 1998. Das Vokalsystem der deutschen Standardsprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Davis, S. 2011. “Quantity.” In Goldsmith, J, Riggle, J., and Yu, A. C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn. Malden, MA: Blackwell:103–140.Google Scholar

Dieth, E. 1950. Vademekum der Phonetik. Phonetische Grundlagen für das wissenschaftliche und praktsiche Studium der Sprachen Unter Mitwirkung von Rudolf Brunner. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar

Dresher, B. E. and Lahiri, A. 1991. “The Germanic Foot: Metrical Coherence in Old English,” Linguistic Inquiry 22: 251–286.Google Scholar

Duden 1990. Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache, 3. edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar

Fleischer, J. and Schmid, S. 2006. “Zurich German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 36: 243–253.Google Scholar

Fulop, S. 1994. Acoustic correlates of the fortis/lenis contrast in Swiss German plosives. Calgary Working Paper in Linguistics 16: 55–63.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2000. “Vowel duration, syllable quantity and stress in Dutch,” ROA-381.Google Scholar

Halle, M. 1977. “Tenseness, vowel shift, and the phonology of back vowels in Modern English,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 611–626.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. 1997. “Vowel quantity and syllabification in English,” Language 73: 1–17.Google Scholar

Harling-Kranck, G.1998. Från Pyttis till Nedervettil. Helsingfors.Google Scholar

Hayes, B. 1989. “Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology,” Linguistic Inquiry 20: 253–306.Google Scholar

Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Heusler, A. 1888. Der alemannische Konsonantismus in der Mundart von Basel-stadt. Strassburg: Trübner.Google Scholar

Hinderling, R. 1980. “Lenis und Fortis im Bairischen,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 47: 23–51.Google Scholar

Kager, R. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 2008. “Fenno-Swedish quantity: Contrast in Stratal OT.” In Vaux, B. and Nevins, A (eds.), Rules, Constraints, and Phonological Phenomena. Oxford University Press: 185–219.Google Scholar

Kleber, F. 2017. “Complementary length in vowel-consonant sequences: Acoustic and perceptual evidence for a sound change in progress in Bavarian German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association: 1–22. doi:10.1017/S0025100317000238.Google Scholar

Kohler, K. J. 1990. “German,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 20. 1: 48–50.Google Scholar

Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18: 109–145.Google Scholar

Krech, E.-M., Kurka, E. and Stelzig, H. 1982. Großes Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2011. “Quantity in Old Norse and modern peninsular North Germanic,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14: 47–80.Google Scholar

Kufner, H. L. 1957. “Zur Phonologie einer mittelbairischen Mundart,” Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 25: 175–184.Google Scholar

Lahiri, A. and Koreman, J. 1988. “Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch,” Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 7: 217–228.Google Scholar

Lahiri, A. and Kraehenmann, A. 2004. “On maintaining and extending contrasts: Notker’s Anlautgesetz,” Transactions of the Philological Society 102: 1–55.Google Scholar

Lahiri, A., Riad, T., and Jacobs, H. 1999. “Diachronic prosody.” In van der Hulst, H. (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 335–442.Google Scholar

Levander, L. 1925. Dalmålet: Beskrivning och historia, Volume I. Uppsala: Appelbergs boktryckeri.Google Scholar

Martens, C. and Martens, P. 1961. Phonetik der deutschen Sprache. Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar

Mees, I. and Collins, B. 1983. “A phonetic description of Standard Dutch,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 13: 64–75.Google Scholar

Moulton, W. G. 1962. The Sounds of English and German. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Moulton, W. G. 1986. “Sandhi in Swiss German dialects.” In Andersen, H. (ed.), Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 385–392.Google Scholar

Nooteboom, S. 1972. Production and Perception of Vowel Duration: A Study of Durational Properties of Vowels in Dutch. Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar

Odden, D. 2011. “The representation of vowel length.” In van Oostendoorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Rice, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blackwell Reference Online, www.companiontophonology.com.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, M. van 1995. Vowel Quality and Phonological Projection. Tilburg University dissertation.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, M. van 2000. Phonological Projection: A Theory of Feature Content and Prosodic Structure. Studies in Generative Grammar 47. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Page, B. R. 2006. “The diachrony and synchrony of vowel quantity in English and Dutch,” Diachronica 23: 61–104.Google Scholar

Penzl, H. 1955. “Zur Erklärung von Notkers Anlautgesetz 2. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 86: 196–210.Google Scholar

Pfalz, A. 1911. “Phonetische Beobachtungen an der Mundart des Marchfeldes in Nieder-Österreich,” Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten.Google Scholar

Pfalz, A. 1913. Die Mundart des Marchfeldes. Vienna: Hölder. Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Vol. 170, 6th Abhandlung.Google Scholar

Reis, M. 1974. Lauttheorie und Lautgeschichte. Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Dehnungs- und Kürzungsvorgänge im Deutschen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar

Restle, D. 2003. Silbenschnitt – Quantität – Kopplung. Munich: Wilhelm Funk.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 1992. Structures in Germanic Prosody: A Diachronic Study with Special Reference to the Nordic Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 1995. “The quantity shift in Germanic: A typology,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 42: 159–184.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 2013. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rowley, A. A. 1989. “North Bavarian.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. London: Routledge: 417–437.Google Scholar

Sanders, W. 1972. “Hochdeutsch /ä/ — ‘Ghostphonem’ oder Sprachphänomen?,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 93: 37–58.Google Scholar

Schaeffler, F. 2005. Phonological Quantity in Swedish Dialects: Typological Aspects, Phonetic Variation and Diachronic Change. Ph.D. dissertation, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar

Scheutz, H. 1985. Strukturen der Lautveränderung: Variationslinguistische Studien zur Theorie und Empirie sprachlicher Wandlungsprozesse am Beispiel des Mittelbairischen von Ulrichsberg/Oberösterreich. Schriften zur deutschen Sprache in Österreich 10. Vienna: Wilhelm Braunmüller.Google Scholar

Seiler, G. 2005. “On the development of the Bavarian quantity system,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Germanic Linguistic and Semiotic Analysis 10: 102–129.Google Scholar

Seiler, G. 2009. “Sound change or analogy? Monosyllabic lengthening in German and some of its consequences,” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 229–272.Google Scholar

Siebs, T. 1969. “Siebs. Deutsche Aussprache: Reine und gemäßigte Hochlautung mit Aussprachewörterbuch.” In de Boor, H., Moser, H, and Winkler, C. (eds.), 19. edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Sievers, E. 1876. Grundzüge der Lautphysiologie zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

Spiekermann, H. 2000. Silbenschnitt in deutschen Dialekten. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Spiekermann, H. 2002. “Ein akustisches Korrelat des Silbenschnitts: Formen des Intensitätsverlauf in Silbenschnitt- und Tonakzentsprachen.” In Auer, P., Gilles, P., and Spiekermann, H. (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, Linguistische Arbeiten 463. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 181–200.Google Scholar

Suzuki, S.1995. “The decline of the foot as a supersyllabic mora-counting unit in Early Germanic,” Transactions of the Philological Society 93: 227–272.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague: Travaux du cercle linguistique de Prague 7.Google Scholar

Vennemann, T. 2000. “From quantity to syllable cut: On so-called lengthening in the Germanic languages,” Italian Journal of Linguistics / Rivista di Linguistica 12: 251–282.Google Scholar

Wängler, H-H. 1974. Grundriß einer Phonetik des Deutschen: Mit einer allgemeinen Einführung in die Phonetik. Marburg: Elwert.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Wiesinger, P. 1990. “The central and southern Bavarian dialects in Bavaria and Austria.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German. London: Routledge: 438–519.Google Scholar

Willi, U. 1995. “‘Lenis’ und ‘fortis’ im Zürichdeutschen aus phonetischer Sicht.” In Löffler, H. (ed.), Alemannische Dialektforschung. Bilanz und Perspektiven. Tübingen and Basel: Francke: 253–265.Google Scholar

Willi, U. 1996. Die segmentale Dauer als phonetischer Parameter von ‘fortis’ und ‘lenis’ bei Plosiven im Zürichdeutschen. Eine akustische und perzeptorische Untersuchung. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar

Winteler, J. 1876. Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzügen dargestellt. Leipzig: Winter.Google Scholar

Abercrombie, D. 1967. Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, B.C. 2016. Laryngeal Phonetics and Phonology in Germanic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Avery, P. and Idsardi, W. J 2001. “Laryngeal dimensions, completion and enhancement.” In Hall, T. A. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 41–70.Google Scholar

Beckman, J., Helgason, P., McMurray, B., and Ringen, C. 2011. “Rate effects on Swedish VOT: Evidence for phonological overspecification,” Journal of Phonetics 39:39–49.Google Scholar

Blevins, J. 2006. “A theoretical synopsis of evolutionary phonology,” Theoretical Linguistics 32: 117–165.Google Scholar

Brown, J. 2016. “Laryngeal assimilation, markedness and typology,” Phonology 33: 393–423.Google Scholar

Cohen, A., Ebeling, C. L., Eringa, P., Fokkema, K., and van Holk, A. G. F. 1959. Fonologie van het Nederlands en het Fries: Inleiding tot de modern klankleer. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar

Collinge, N. E. 1985. The Laws of Indo-European. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cyran, E. 2011. “Laryngeal realism and laryngeal relativism: Two voicing systems in Polish?,” Studies in Polish Linguistics 6: 45–80.Google Scholar

Docherty, G. J. 2011. The Timing of Voicing in British English Obstruents. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dresher, B. E. 2009. The Contrastive Hierarchy in Phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dresher, B. E. and Zhang, Xi 2005. “Contrast and phonological activity in Manchu vowel systems,” The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La Revue Canadienne de Linguistique 50.1: 45–82.Google Scholar

Fourakis, M. and Iverson, G. K 1984. “On the ‘incomplete neutralization’ of German final obstruents,” Phonetica 41: 140–149.Google Scholar

Hall, D. C. 2011. “Phonological contrast and its phonetic enhancement: Dispersedness without dispersion,” Phonology 28: 1–54.Google Scholar

Hall, T. A. 1993. “The phonology of German R,” Phonology 10: 83–105.Google Scholar

Hansson, G. Ó. 2003. “Laryngeal licensing and laryngeal neutralization in Faroese and Icelandic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26: 45–79.Google Scholar

Harris, J. 2009. “Why final obstruent devoicing is weakening.” In Nasukawa, K. and Backley, P (eds.), Strength Relations in Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 9–46.Google Scholar

Helgason, P. and Ringen, C. 2008. “Voicing and aspiration in Swedish stops,” Journal of Phonetics 36: 607–628.Google Scholar

Henton, C., Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I. 1992. “Stops in the world’s languages,” Phonetica 49: 65–101.Google Scholar

Hestvik, A. and Durvasula, K. 2016. “Neurobiological evidence for voicing underspecification in English,” Brain and Language 152: 28–43.Google Scholar

Hoekstra, J. F. 2001. “An outline history of West Frisian.” In Munske, H. H. and Århammer, N. (eds.), Handbuch des Friesischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 722–734.Google Scholar

Holsinger, D. J. 2008. “Germanic prosody and consonantal strength.” In de Carvalho, J. Brandão, Scheer, T., and Ségéral, P. (eds.), Lenition and Fortition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 273–300.Google Scholar

Honeybone, P. 2002. Germanic Obstruent Lenition: Some Mutual Implications of Theoretical and Historical Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar

Honeybone, P. 2005. “Diachronic evidence in segmental phonology: The case of obstruent laryngeal specifications.” In van Oostendorp, M. and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), The Internal organization of Phonological Segments, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 319–354.Google Scholar

Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 1995. “Aspiration and laryngeal representation in Germanic,” Phonology 12: 369–396.Google Scholar

Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 1999. “Glottal spreading bias in Germanic,” Linguistische Berichte 178: 135–151.Google Scholar

Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2003a. “Legacy specification in the laryngeal phonology of Dutch,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 1–26.Google Scholar

Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2003b. “Laryngeal enhancement in Early Germanic,” Phonology 20: 43–72.Google Scholar

Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2007. “Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition,” Phonology 24: 1–25.Google Scholar

Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2008. “Germanic aspiration: Phonetic enhancement and language contact,” Sprachwissenschaft 33: 257–278.Google Scholar

Iverson, G. K. and Salmons, J. 2011. “Final devoicing and final laryngeal neutralization.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C., Hume, B., and Rice, K. (eds.), Companion to Phonology, Vol. III. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Blackwell Reference Online. May 31, 2012: 1622–1643.Google Scholar

Jacewicz, E., Fox, R. A., and Lyle, S. 2009. “Variation in stop consonant voicing in two regional varieties of American English,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 39: 313–334.Google Scholar

Jacobs, N. G. 2005. Yiddish: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. 1949. “On the identification of phonemic entities.” In Selected Writings I: Phonological Studies.The Hague: Nijhoff: 418–425.Google Scholar

Jessen, M. 1998. Phonetics and Phonology of Tense and Lax Obstruents in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kent, R. D. 1997. Speech Sciences. San Diego: Singular.Google Scholar

Keyser, S. J. and Stevens, K. N. 2006. “Enhancement and overlap in the speech chain,” Language 82: 33–63.Google Scholar

Kharlamov, V. 2014. “Incomplete neutralization of the voicing contrast in word-final obstruents in Russian: Phonological, lexical, and methodological influences,” Journal of Phonetics 43: 47–56.Google Scholar

King, R. D. 1980. “The history of final devoicing in Yiddish.” In Herzog, M. I., Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B., Miron, D., and Wisse, R. (eds.), The Field of Yiddish: Studies in Language, Folklore, and Literature, Fourth Collection. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues: 371–430.Google Scholar

Kingston, J. and Diehl, R. L. 1994. “Phonetic knowledge,” Language 70: 419–454.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 2006. “The Amphichronic Program vs. Evolutionary Phonology,” Theoretical Linguistics 32: 217–236.Google Scholar

Kleine, A. 2003. “Standard Yiddish,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 33: 261–265.Google Scholar

Kraehenmann, A. 2001. “Swiss German stops: Geminates all over the word,” Phonology 18: 109–145.Google Scholar

Kraehenmann, A. 2003. Quantity and Prosodic Asymmetries in Alemannic: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kuzla, C., Cho, T., and Ernestus, M. 2007. “Prosodic strengthening of German fricatives in duration and assimilatory devoicing,” Journal of Phonetics 35: 301–320.Google Scholar

Lehmann, W. P. 1986. A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Lisker, L. 1986. “‘Voicing’ in English: A catalogue of acoustic features signaling /b/ versus /p/ in trochees,” Language and Speech 29: 3–11.Google Scholar

Lisker, L. and Abramson, A. 1964. “A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements,” Word 20: 527–565.Google Scholar

Lombardi, L. 1995. “Laryngeal neutralization and syllable wellformedness,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 39–74.Google Scholar

Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mihm, A. 2004. “Zur Geschichte der Auslautverhärtung und ihrer Erforschung,” Sprachwissenschaft 29: 133–206.Google Scholar

Mihm, A. 2007. “Theorien der Auslautverhärtung im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Normsetzung und Sprachwirklichkeit,” Deutsche Sprache 35: 95–118.Google Scholar

Miller, D. G. 2019. The Oxford Gothic Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Oxford, W. 2015. “Patterns of contrast in phonological change: Evidence from Algonquian vowel systems,” Language 91: 308–358.Google Scholar

Park, H., Park, H-J., and Iverson, G. K. 2010. “The frontal and temporal lobe in the identification of laryngeal contrasts,” NeuroReport 21: 474–478.Google Scholar

Pinget, A-F. C. H. 2015. The Actuation of Sound Change. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar

Piroth, H. G. and Janker, P. M. 2004. “Speaker-dependent differences in voicing and devoicing of German obstruents,” Journal of Phonetics 32: 81–109.Google Scholar

Purnell, T., Raimy, E., and Salmons, J. 2019. “Old English vowels: Diachrony, privativity and phonological representations,” Language, Research reports. 95(4). e447–e473.Google Scholar

Purnell, T. C., Salmons, J., and Tepeli, D. 2005a. “German substrate effects in Wisconsin English: Evidence for final fortition,” American Speech 80: 135–164.Google Scholar

Purnell, T. C., Salmons, J., Tepeli, D., Dilara, and Mercer, J. 2005b. “Structured heterogeneity and change in laryngeal phonetics: Upper Midwestern final obstruents,” Journal of English Linguistics 33: 307–338.Google Scholar

Ramsammy, M. and Strycharczuk, P. 2016. “From phonetic enhancement to phonological underspecification: Hybrid voicing contrast in European Portuguese,” Papers in Historical Phonology 1: 285–315. www.journals.ed.ac.uk/pihph/article/view/1704.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 2014. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Riemersma, T. 1979. Sylabysjerring, nazzeljerring, assymljerring. Ljouwert: Koperative Utjowerij.Google Scholar

Roberge, P. T. 1983. “Those Gothic spirants again,” Indogermanische Forschungen 88: 109–155.Google Scholar

Rooy, B. van and Wissing, D. 2001. “Distinctive [voice] implies regressive voicing assimilation.” In A. Hall, T. (ed.), Distinctive Feature Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 295–334.Google Scholar

Rowley, A. R. 1989. “East Franconian.” In Russ, C. V. J. (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German: A Linguistic Survey. Stanford University Press: 394–416.Google Scholar

Schifferle, H. P. 2010. “Zunehmende Behauchung: Aspirierte Plosive im modernen Schweizerdeutsch.” In Christen, H., Germann, S., Haas, W., Montefiori, N., and Ruef, H. (eds.), Alemannische Dialektologie: Wege in die Zukunft. Stuttgart: Steiner: 43–55.Google Scholar

Sievers, E. 1893. Grundzüge der Phonetik: Zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

Simon, E. 2011. “Laryngeal stop systems in contact: Connecting present-day acquisition findings and historical contact hypotheses,” Diachronica 28: 225–254.Google Scholar

Snoeren, N. D., Hallé, P. A., and Segui, J. 2006. “A voice for the voiceless: Production and perception of assimilated stops in French,” Journal of Phonetics 34: 241–268.Google Scholar

Suzuki, S. 1992. “Toward an explanatory account of Thurneysen’s Law in Gothic,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 114: 28–46.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. M. 1985. Frisian Reference Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Vaux, B. 1998. “The laryngeal specifications of fricatives,” Linguistic Inquiry 29: 497–511.Google Scholar

Warner, N., Good, E., Jongman, A., and Seréno, J. 2006. “Orthographic versus morphological incomplete neutralization effects,” Journal of Phonetics 34: 285–293.Google Scholar

Weijer, J. van de and van der Torre, E. J. (eds.) 2007. Voicing in Dutch: (De)voicing – Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Weinreich, Max 2008. History of the Yiddish Language. Edited by Glaser, P., translated by Noble, S.. New Haven: Yale University Press/New York: YIVO.Google Scholar

Wetzels, W. L. and Mascaró, J. 2001. “The typology of voicing and devoicing,” Language 77: 207–244.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd edn. 2000.Google Scholar

Youssef, I. 2010. “Laryngeal assimilation in Buchan Scots,” English Language and Linguistics 14: 321–345.Google Scholar

Zonneveld, W. 2007. “Issues in Dutch devoicing: Positional faithfulness, positional markedness, and local conjunction.” In van de Weijer, J. and E. van der Torre, J. (eds.), Voicing in Dutch: (De)voicing – Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 1–40.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. 1975. “Settling on an underlying form: The English inflectional endings.” In Cohen, D. and Wirth, J (eds.), Testing Linguistic Hypotheses. Washington: Hemisphere: 129–185.Google Scholar

Bach, A. 1921. “Die Schärfung in der moselfränkischen Mundart von Arzbach (Unterwesterwaldkreis),” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 45: 266–290.Google Scholar

Basbøll, H. 2005. The phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Boersma, P. 2017. “The History of the Franconian Tone Contrast.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 27–98.Google Scholar

Botma, B. and Noske, R. (eds.) 2012. Phonological Explorations: Empirical, Theoretical and Diachronic Issues. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. 1973 “Tonal accent rules for compound stressed words in the Malmö dialect,” Working papers 7: 1–35. Lund: Phonetics laboratory, Lund University.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. 1977. Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Bye, P. 2004. Evolutionary Typology and Scandinavian Pitch Accent. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Cajot, J. 2006. “Phonologisch bedingter Polytonieverlust – eine tonlose Enklave südlich von Maastricht.” In de Vaan (ed.): 11–24.Google Scholar

d’Alquen, R. and Brown, K. 1992. “The origin of Scandinavian accents I and II.” In Rauch, I., Carr, G. F., and Kyes, R. L. (eds.), On Germanic Linguistics: Issues and Methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 61–79.Google Scholar

de Vaan, M. (ed.) 2006. Germanic Tone Accents. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Franconian Tone Accents, Leiden, June 13–14, 2003. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik – Beiheft 131. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar

de Vaan, M. 1999. “Towards an explanation of the Franconian tone accents,” Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 51: 3–44.Google Scholar

Dols, W. 1953. Sittardse diftongering. Sittard.Google Scholar

Ejskjær, I. 2005. “Dialects and regional linguistic varieties in the 20th century, Vol. III: Denmark.” In Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E., Karker, A., Naumann, H-P., Telemann, U., Elmevik, L., and Widmark, G. (eds.), The Nordic Languages. An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages, Vol. 2. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 1721–1741.Google Scholar

Gårding, E. 1977. The Scandinavian Word Accents. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Grønnum, N., Vazquez-Larruscain, M., and Basbøll, H., 2013. “Danish stød: Laryngealization or tone,” Phonetica 70.1–2: 66–92.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2000. “The lexical tone contrast of Roermond Dutch in Optimality Theory.” In Horne, M. (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Amsterdam: Kluwer: 129–167.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2012. “Quantity or durational enhancement of tone: the case of Maastricht Limburgian high vowels.” In B. Botma and R. Noske (eds.): 241–254.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2013. “From Cologne to Arzbach: An account of the Franconian ‘tone reversal’.” In Asu, E-L. and Lippus, P. (eds.), Nordic Prosody. Proceedings of the XIth Conference, Tartu 2012. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag: 11–24.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. 2018. “In defense of a dialect-contact account of the Central Franconian tonogenesis.” In Kubozono, H. and Giriko, M. (eds.), Tonal Change and Neutralization. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 350–379.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, C. and Peters, J. (2004). “A tonal analysis of Cologne Schärfung,” Phonology 21.2: 251–285.Google Scholar

Hart, J. ‘t 1998. “Intonation in Dutch.” In D. Hirst and A. Di Cristo (eds.): 96–111.Google Scholar

Haukur, Þ. 2013. Hljóðkerfi og bragkerfi. Doctoral dissertation, University of Iceland.Google Scholar

Hayes, B. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hermans, B. 2012. “The phonological representation of the Limburgian tonal accents.” In B. Botma and R. Noske (eds.): 227–244.Google Scholar

Höder, S. 2014. “Low German: A profile of a word language.” In Reina, J. C. and Szczepaniak, R. (eds.), Syllable and Word Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 305–326.Google Scholar

Hognestad, J. K. 2007. “Tonelag i Flekkefjord bymål,” Norsk lingvistisk tidsskrift 25.1: 57–88.Google Scholar

Hognestad, J. K. 2012. Tonelagsvariasjon i norsk. Ph.D. thesis. Kristiansand, University of Agder.Google Scholar

Hyman, L. M. 1976. “Phonologization.” In Juilland, A. (ed.), Linguistic Studies Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg. Saratoga: Anma Libri: 407–418.Google Scholar

Iosad, P. 2016a. “Prosodic structure and suprasegmental features: Short-vowel stød in Danish,” Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19.3: 221–268.Google Scholar

Iosad, P. 2016b. “Tonal stability and tonogenesis in North Germanic.” In Giles, I., Chapot, L., Cooijmans, C., Foster, R., and Tesio, B. (eds.), Beyond Borealism: New perspectives on the North. London: Norvik Press: 80–98.Google Scholar

Itô, J. and Mester, A. 2015. “The perfect prosodic word in Danish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38.1: 5–36.Google Scholar

Jongen, R. 1972. Phonologie der Moresneter Mundart; Eine Beschreibung der Phonologie der Moresneter Mundart. Eine Beschreibung der segmentalen und prosodischen Wortformdiakrise. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar

Kehrein, W. 2017. “There’s no tone in Cologne: Against tone segment interactions in Franconian.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 147–195.Google Scholar

Kehrein, W, Köhnlein, B., Boersma, P., and van Oostendorp, M. (eds.) 2017. Segmental Structure and Tone. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kingston, J. 2011. “Tonogenesis.” In van Oostendorp, M., Ewen, C. J., Hume, E., and Keren, K. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell: 2304–2333.Google Scholar

Kock, A. 1901. Die alt- und neuschwedische Accentuierung. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner.Google Scholar

Köhnlein, B. 2011. Rule Reversal Revisited: Synchrony and Diachrony of Tone and Prosodic Structure in the Franconian Dialect of Arzbach. Utrecht: LOT. Dissertation Series 274.Google Scholar

Köhnlein, B. 2013. “Optimizing the relation between tone and prominence: Evidence from Franconian, Scandinavian, and Serbo-Croatian tone accent systems,” Lingua 131: 1–28.Google Scholar

Köhnlein, B. 2015a. “An asymmetry in the interaction of pitch and duration,” Diachronica 32.2: 231–267.Google Scholar

Köhnlein, B. 2015b. “A tonal semi-reversal in Franconian dialects: Rule A vs. Rule B,” North-Western European Language Evolution (NOWELE) 68.1: 81–112.Google Scholar

Köhnlein, B. 2016. “Contrastive foot structure in Franconian tone-accent dialects,” Phonology 33.1: 87–123.Google Scholar

Köhnlein, B. 2017. “Synchronic alternations between monophthongs and diphthongs in Franconian: a metrical approach.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 211–236.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2000. The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2006. “Markedness in Urban East Norwegian tonal accent,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29.1: 95–135.Google Scholar

Kristoffersen, G. 2010. Fra jamvekt til etterleddstrykk og tonelag 3: Kvantitetsomleggingen in Ovansiljan. Maal og Minne 2010.2: 1–5.Google Scholar

Lahiri, A., Wetterlin, A., and Jönsson-Steiner, E. 2005a. “Lexical specification of tone in North Germanic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 28: 61–96.Google Scholar

Liberman, A. S. 1982. Germanic Accentology. Vol. 1: The Scandinavian Languages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Meyer, E. A. 1937. Die Intonation im Schwedischen I: Die Sveamundarten. Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Meyer, E. A. 1954. Die Intonation im Schwedischen II: Die Norrländischen Mundarten. Stockholm University.Google Scholar

Morén-Duolljá, B. 2013. “The prosody of Swedish underived nouns: No lexical tones required,” Nordlyd 40.1: 196–248.Google Scholar

Myrberg, S. and Riad, T. 2015. “The prosodic hierarchy of Swedish,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38.2: 115–147.Google Scholar

Myrvoll, K. J. and Trygve, S. 2010. “Tonelagsskilnad i islendsk i Tridje grammatiske avhandling,” Maal og Minne 2010.1: 68–97.Google Scholar

Nörrenberg, K. 1884. “Ein niederrheinisches Accentgesetz,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 9: 402–412.Google Scholar

Oftedal, M. 1952. “On the origin of the Scandinavian tone distinction,” Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 16: 201–225.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, M. van 2005. “Expressing inflection tonally,” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4.1: 107–127.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, M. van 2017. “Tone, Final Devoicing and Assimilation in Moresnet.” In Kehrein et al. (eds.): 237–252.Google Scholar

Peters, J. 2008. “Tone and intonation in the dialect of Hasselt,” Linguistics 46: 983–1018.Google Scholar

Prehn, M. 2012. Vowel Quantity and the fortis-lenis Distinction in North Low Saxon. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation series.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 1998. “The origin of Scandinavian tone accents,” Diachronica 15.1: 63–98.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 2000. “The origin of Danish stød.” In Lahiri, A. (ed.), Analogy, Levelling, Markedness: Principles of Change in Phonology and Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 261–300.Google Scholar

Riad, T. 2013. The phonology of Swedish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ringgaard, K. 1960. Vestjysk stød. Aarhus: Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar

Schmidt, J. E. 1986. Die Mittelfränkischen Tonakzente (Rheinische Akzentuierung). Mainzer Studien zur Sprach- und Volksforschung 8. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Schmidt, J. E. 2002. “Die sprachhistorische Genese der mittelfränkischen Tonakzente.” In Auer, P., Gilles, P., and Spiekermann, H., (eds.), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, Linguistische Arbeiten 463. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag: 201–233.Google Scholar

Schmidt, J. E. and Künzel, H. J. 2006. “Das Rätsel löst sich: Phonetik und sprachhistorische Genese der Tonakzente im Regelumkehrgebiet (Regel B).” In de Vaan (ed.): 135–163.Google Scholar

Smith, N. and Leyden, K. van 2007. “The unusual outcome of a level-stress situation: The case of Wursten Frisian,” NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 52.1: 31–66.Google Scholar

Versloot, A. P. 2008. Mechanisms of Language Change: Vowel Reduction in 15th Century West Frisian. Doctoral Dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Werth, A., 2011. “Perzeptionsphonologische Grundlagen der Prosodie Eine Analyse der mittelfränkischen Tonakzentdistinktion,” Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 143. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Wetterlin, A., and Lahiri, A. 2015. The diachronic development of stød and tonal accent in North Germanic. In: Haug, D.T.T. (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2013: Selected papers from the 21^st International conference on historical linguistics (pp. 53–67). Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Wiesinger, P. 1970. Phonetisch-phonologische Untersuchungen zur Vokalentwicklung in den deutschen Dialekten. Bd. 1: Die Langvokale im Hochdeutschen. Bd. 2: Die Diphthonge im Hochdeutschen. Studia Linguistica Germanica. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ambrazaitis, G. 2009. Nuclear Intonation in Swedish: Evidence from Experimental-Phonetic Studies and a Comparison with German. Travaux De l’Institut De Linguistique De Lund, 49.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 1998. “Toward an analysis of Icelandic intonation.” In Werner (ed.), Nordic Prosody: 7th Conference. Frankfurt, Berlin, and New York: Peter Lang: 49–62.Google Scholar

Árnason, K. 2011. The Phonology of Icelandic and Faroese. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Arvanti, A. in press. “The autosegmental metrical model of intonational phonology.” In Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. and Barnes, J. (eds.), Prosodic Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Atterer, M. and Ladd, D. R. 2004. “On the phonetics and phonology of ‘segmental anchoring’ of F0: Evidence from German,” Journal of Phonetics 32: 177–97.Google Scholar

Bailey, L. M. 1990. A Feature-Based Analysis of Swedish Pitch Accent and Intonation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Delaware.Google Scholar

Bartels, C. 1997. “The pragmatics of wh-question intonation in English,” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 1–17.Google Scholar

Barry, A. S. 2007. The Form, Function and Distribution of High Rising Intonation in Southern Californian and Southern British English. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar

Baumann, S. 2006. “Information structure and prosody: Categories for spoken language annotation.” In Sudhoff, S., Lenertová, D., R. Meyer, Pappert, S., P. Augurzky, I. Mleinek, N. Richter, and Schließer, J. (eds.), Methods in Empirical Prosody Research. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 153–180.Google Scholar

Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. 2005. “The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework.” In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing: Oxford University Press: 9–54.Google Scholar

Bell, L. and Gustafson, J. 1999. “Utterance types in the August dialogues.” In Interactive Dialogue in Multi-Modal Systems: 81–84. www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/archive_papers/ids_99/ids9_081.pdf.Google Scholar

Benware, W. A. 1986. Phonetics and Phonology of Modern German. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Bergmann, P. 2009. “Regional variation in intonation: Conversational instances of the ‘hat pattern’ in Cologne German.” In Kügler, F., Féry, C., and van de Vijver, R. (eds.), Variation and Gradience in Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 377–404.Google Scholar

Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. 2019. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (version 6.1.01). www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1978. “Intonation across languages.” In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford University Press: CSLI: 471–524.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1998. “Intonation in American English.” In D. Hirst and A. Di Cristo (eds.): 45–55.Google Scholar

Britain, D. and Newman, J. 1992. “High rising terminals in New Zealand English,” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 22: 1–11.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. 1977. Swedish Word Accents in Sentence Perspective. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Bruce, G. and Granström, B. 1993. “Prosodic modeling in Swedish speech synthesis,” Speech Communication 13: 63–73.Google Scholar

Bruce, G., Frid, J, Granström, B., Gustafson, K., Horne, M., and House, D. 1998. “Prosodic segmentation and structuring of dialogue.” In Nordic Prosody – Proceedings of the VIIth Conference, Joensuu, 1996. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag: 63–72.Google Scholar

Burkhardt, F. 2017. German text-to-speech. http://ttssamples.syntheticspeech.de/.Google Scholar

Ching, M. K. L. 1982. “The question intonation in assertions,” American Speech 57: 95–107.Google Scholar

Cruttenden, A. 1986. Intonation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dehé, N. 2009. “An intonational grammar for Icelandic,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 32: 5–34.Google Scholar

Dehé, N. 2010. “The nature and use of Icelandic prenuclear and nuclear pitch accents: Evidence from F0 alignment and syllable/segment duration,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 31–65.Google Scholar

Delattre, P. 1965. Comparing the Phonetic Features of English, French, German and Spanish. Heidelberg: Julius Gross Verlag.Google Scholar

Féry, C. 1993. German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Féry, C. 2008. “Information structural notions and the fallacy of invariant correlates,” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55.3/4: 361–379.Google Scholar

Féry, C. and Kügler, F. 2008. “Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German,” Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703.Google Scholar

Fitzpatrick-Cole, J. 1999. “The Alpine intonation of Bern Swiss German.” Proceedings of the XIVth International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS), San Francisco, 941–44.Google Scholar

Fletcher, J., Stirling, L., Mushin, I., and Wales, R. 2002. “Intonational rises and dialog acts in the Australian English map task,” Language and Speech 45: 229–253.Google Scholar

Fox, A. 1984. German Intonation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Fretheim, T. and Nilsen, R. A.. 1989. “Terminal rise and rise-fall tunes in east Norwegian intonation,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 12: 155–181.Google Scholar

Fujisaki, H. 1983. “Dynamic characteristics of voice fundamental frequency in speech and singing.” In P. F. MacNeilage (ed.), New York: Springer: 39–55.Google Scholar

Gårding, E. 1994. “Prosody in Lund,” Speech Communication 15: 59–67.Google Scholar

Gårding, E. 1998. “Intonation in Swedish.” In Hirst, D. and Di Cristo, A. (eds.): 112–130.Google Scholar

Gibbon, D. 1998. “Intonation in German.” In D. Hirst and A. Di Cristo (eds.): 78–95.Google Scholar