Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:36:05.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paul de Lacy (2006). Markedness: reduction and preservation in phonology. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 112.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. xviii+447.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2008

Keren Rice
Keren Rice
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
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
Book Review
Information
Phonology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 361 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

Adelaar, Alexander & Himmelmann, Nikolaus (eds.) (2005). The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Battistella, Edwin L. (1990). Markedness: the evaluative superstructure of language. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette (2004). Evolutionary Phonology: the emergence of sound patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causley, Trisha (1999). Complexity and markedness in Optimality Theory. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Cowan, H. J. K. (1965). A grammar of Sentani. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul (2002). The formal expression of markedness. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Denwood, Philip (1999). Tibetan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duanmu, San (2000). The phonology of Standard Chinese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike (1995). A comparative description of syllable reduction in the Cariban language family. IJAL 61. 62–102.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). JL 42. 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoff, B. J. (1968). The Carib language: phonology, morphonology, morphology, texts and word index. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Holmer, Arthur J. (1996). A parametric grammar of Seediq. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Howe, Darin & Douglas, Pulleyblank (2004). Harmonic scales as faithfulness. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49. 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth (2003). Language specific markedness: the case of place of articulation. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 9. 295–310.Google Scholar
Hume, Elizabeth & Georgios, Tserdanelis (2002). Labial unmarkedness in Sri Lankan Portuguese Creole. Phonology 19. 441–458.Google Scholar
Ikoro, Suanu (1996). The Kana language. Leiden: Research School CNWS.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian (1998). A grammar of Kambera. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian (2005). Kambera. In , Adelaar & , Himmelmann (2005). 709–734.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek (1983). A grammar of Manam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (1998). Coronal epenthesis and unmarkedness. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. 156–175.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda (2002). Coronal epenthesis and markedness. Phonology 19. 219–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. (2003). Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29. 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nababan, P. W. J. (1981). A grammar of Toba Batak. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Linguistics, Australia National University.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Konrad (1926). Lærebok i lappisk. Oslo: Brøgger.Google Scholar
Pham, Hoa (1997). The coronal-velar relationship in Vietnamese dialects. MA forum paper, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Poppe, Nicholas N. (1960). Buriat grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder. Published 2004, Malden, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Prunet, Jean-François (1990). The origin and interpretation of French loans in Carrier. IJAL 56. 484–502.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (1996). Default variability: the coronal–velar relationship. NLLT 14. 493–543.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (1999). Featural markedness in phonology: variation. Glot International 4:7. 3–6, 4:8. 3–7.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren (2007). Markedness. In Lacy, Paul (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 79–97.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. (1998). A grammar of Miya. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Ian R. (1978). Sri Lanka Creole Portuguese phonology. Vanchiyoor, Trivandrum, India: Dravidian Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Svantesson, Jan-Olof, Tsendina, Anna, Karlsson, Anastasia & Franzén, Vivan (2005). The phonology of Mongolian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nicolai S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: van der Hoeck & Ruprecht. Translated 1969 by Christine A. M. Baltaxe as Principles of phonology. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Zobel, Erik (2005). Buol. In Adelaar, & Himmelmann, (2005). 625–648.Google Scholar