Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T14:44:13.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: syntactic influences on phonological rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2020

Ellen M. Kaisse  and
Arnold M. Zwicky
Ellen M. Kaisse
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Arnold M. Zwicky
Affiliation:
Ohio State University and Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Phonological theory asks how phonological shapes are assigned to linguistic units. In this issue of the Phonology Yearbook we bring together examinations of the role that syntactic structure plays in this assignment. The focus is therefore on phenomena that have been labelled, in one framework or another, as external sandhi (as opposed to internal sandhi), phrase phonology (as opposed to word phonology), or postlexical phonology (as opposed to lexical phonology).

Type
Research Article
Information
Phonology , Volume 4 , May 1987 , pp. 3 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Anderson, S. R. (1974). On the typology of phonological rules. In Bruck, A.Fox, R. A. & La Galy, M. W. (eds.) Papers from the parasession on Natural Phonology. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1–12.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. (1978). Tone and syntax in Ewe. In Napoli, D. J. (ed.) Elements of tone, stress, and intonation. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press. 21–99.Google Scholar
Conteh, P.Cowper, E. & Rice, K. (1986). The environment for consonant mutation in Mende. In Dimmendaal, G. J. (ed.) Current approaches to African linguistics. Vol. 3. Dordrecht: Foris. 107–116.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, N. (1979). Fast speech vs. casual speech. CLS 15, 126–137.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. Orlando, FI.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kaisse, E. M. (1986). Locating Turkish devoicing. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 5. 119–128.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1983). Word-formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas. 3–29.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. (1986). Intonational phrasing: the case for recursive prosodic structure. PhY 3, 311–340.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1982). Lexical Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1986). On the relations of IDC-command and government. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 5. 192–206.Google Scholar
Rotenberg, J. (1978). The syntax of phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1972). The phrase phonology of English and French. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published 1980 by Garland, New York.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1974). French liaison and the X notation. LI 5. 573–590.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1978). On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. Distributed 1980 by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1984). Phonology and syntax: the relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. PhY 3. 371–405.Google Scholar
Shih, C.-L. (1986). The prosodic domain of tone sandhi in Chinese. PhD dissertation, UCSD.Google Scholar