Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:57:34.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Goldsmith (ed.) (1993). The last phonological rule: reflections on constraints and derivations. (Studies in Contemporary Linguistics). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. v + 239.

Review products

John Goldsmith (ed.) (1993). The last phonological rule: reflections on constraints and derivations. (Studies in Contemporary Linguistics). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. v + 239.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Jaye Padgett
Jaye Padgett
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
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
Phonology , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , May 1995 , pp. 147 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Bird, S. (1990). Constraint–based phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1989). Licensing, inalterability, and harmonic rule application. CLS 25: 1. 145–156.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1991a). Phonology as an intelligent system. In Napoli, D. J. & Kegl, J. (eds.) Bridges between psychology and linguistics: a Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 247–267.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. (1991b). Dynamic computational models: accent systems and sonority. Paper presented at the conference The Organization of Phonology, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. & Larson, G. (1990). Local modelling and syllabification. CLS 26: 2. 129–141.Google Scholar
Halle, M. & Bromberger, S. (1989). Why phonology is different. LI 20. 51–70.Google Scholar
Ito, J. (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. (1972). Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. & Kay, M. (1994). Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20. 331–378.Google Scholar
Kaye, J. (1990). What ever happened to dialect B? In Mascaro, J. & Nespor, M. (eds.) Grammar in progress. Dordrecht: Foris. 259–263.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Kisseberth, C. (1979). Generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, M. & Rubach, J. (1987). The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Lg 63. 463–497.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I. S. (ed.) Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin. 3–91.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1984). On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, C., Johansson, E. & Strangert, E. (eds.) Nordic Prosody III. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 135–164.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some consequences of Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 5–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kisseberth, C. (1970). On the functional unity of phonological rules. LI 1. 291–306.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, K. (1983). Two–level morphology: a general computational model for word–form recognition and production. Helsinki: Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A., Sanders, G. & Noll, C. (1974). On the application of phonological rules. Lg 50. 1–28.Google Scholar
Larson, G. (1992). Dynamic computational networks and the representation of phonological information. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Maddieson, I. (1984). Patterns of sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, M. & Vogel, I. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris6.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1988). On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6. 71–97.Google Scholar
Prince, A. (1993). In defense of the number i: anatomy of a linear dynamical model of linguistic generalizations. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms, Rutgers University & University of Colorado, Boulder.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. & Zwicky, A. (1986). Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict. Lg 62. 751–773.Google Scholar
Scobbie, J. (1991). Attribute value phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Selkirk, E. O. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolensky, P. (1986). Information processing in dynamical systems: foundations of harmony theory. In Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. (eds.) Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 194–281.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. CLS 5. 443–454.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, K. (1988). Prosodic structure and Lardil phonology. LI 19. 325–334.Google Scholar