Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton July 29, 2021

Bracketing Paradoxes resolved

  • Heather Newell EMAIL logo
From the journal The Linguistic Review

Abstract

Bracketing Paradoxes (BPs) have been the subject of many different analyses since the 1970s. Each of these analyses have included BP-specific machinery to account for the apparent mismatch between the syntactico-semantic and morpho-phonological structures argued to be necessary for a complete analysis of this phenomenon. This article proposes that independently necessary operations and structures in the morpho-syntactic and phonological modules allow for an analysis of BPs that avoids postulating ad-hoc tools. Specifically, a system that includes cyclic (phasal) interpretation of the morpho-syntax in combination with a flat (CVCV) phonological framework avoids the emergence of paradoxical structures altogether. The discussion therefore includes both current morpho-syntactic and phonological analyses of each construction proposed to give rise to a BP; comparatives (unhappier), Level-ordering BPs (ungrammaticality), Phrasal BPs (modular grammarian), Compound BPs (particle physicist), Particle-verbs (podžëg ‘set fire’ [Russian]), and Reduplicated BPs (kwíita-kwíita ‘to pour a bit’ [Kihehe]). The proposal that a flat phonological framework is key in avoiding the paradoxical nature of BPs has implications for the correct structure of phonological representations generally.


Corresponding author: Heather Newell, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada, E-mail:

Many thanks for comments and discussion go to Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, to the audiences at GLOW, MfM, CLA, and MoMOT, to the members of the Tromsø (CASTLFish) and Montreal (WSRG) research groups where this work was presented, and to two anonymous reviewers.


References

Allen, Margaret R. 1979. Morphological investigations. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21(4). 737–778. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025533719905.10.1023/A:1025533719905Search in Google Scholar

Beard, Robert. 1991. Decompositional composition: The semantics of scope ambiguities and ‘Bracketing Paradoxes’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9(2). 195–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00134676.Search in Google Scholar

Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds.), University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18: Papers in optimality theory. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Search in Google Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2011. Cyclicity. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, 2019–2048. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444335262.wbctp0085Search in Google Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The stem-level syndrome. Paper presented as the UPenn Linguistics Department Speaker Series, 19 August. University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2017. Stratal phonology. In Stephen J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory, 114–148. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315675428-5Search in Google Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2019. Challenges to Stratal Phonology (Session 2 handout). Paper presented as part of a Brugmann Fellow course, July. IGRA, University of Leipzig.Search in Google Scholar

Biskup, Petr. 2019. Prepositions and verbal prefixes: The case of Slavic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.255Search in Google Scholar

Biskup, Petr, Michael Putnam & Laura C. Smith. 2011. German particle and prefix verbs at the syntax-phonology interface. Leuvense Bijdragen 97. 106–135.Search in Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy, Vol. 10, 35–71. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Susi Wurmbrand. 2013. Suspension across domains. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed Morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 185–198. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0011Search in Google Scholar

Booij, Geert & Rochelle Lieber. 1993. On the simultaneity of morphological and prosodic structure. In Sharon Hargus & Ellen M. Kaisse (guest eds.), Phonetics and phonology Volume 4: Studies in lexical phonology, 23–44. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-325071-1.50007-8Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2014. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 363–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9227-y.Search in Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2017. Consolidated morphology: A non-distributed, purely syntactic theory of morphology. Ms. University of Delaware. https://udel.edu/∼bruening/Downloads/ConsMorphosyntax1.pdf (accessed 29 January 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Caha, Pavel & Markéta Ziková. 2016. Vowel length as evidence for a distinction between free and bound prefixes in Czech. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 63(3). 331–377. https://doi.org/10.1556/064.2016.63.3.3.Search in Google Scholar

Carnie, Andrew. 1991. A domain based phonology: The evidence from Modern Irish. Proceedings of the Leiden Conference for Junior Linguists 3. 59–76.Search in Google Scholar

Carrier, Jill Louise. 1979. The interaction of morphological and phonological rules in Tagalog: A study in the relationship between rule components in grammar. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1986. Length, syllabification and the phonological cycle in Italian. Journal of Italian Linguistics 8. 5–34.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by Phase. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Search in Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2). 239–297.Search in Google Scholar

Conteh, Patrick, Elizabeth Cowper & Keren Rice. 1986. The environment for consonant mutation in Mende. In Gerrit Dimmendaal (ed.), Current issues in African linguistics, Vol. 3, 107–116. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110883350-010Search in Google Scholar

Cowper, Elizabeth & Keren Rice. 1985. The destruction of tonal structure in Mende. In Studies in African Linguistics: Précis from the 15th conference on African Linguistics, supplement 9, 57–62.Search in Google Scholar

Cowper, Elizabeth & Keren Rice. 1987. Are morphosyntactic rules necessary? Phonology Yearbook 4. 185–194.10.1017/S0952675700000816Search in Google Scholar

De Clercq, Karen. 2013. A unified syntax of negation. Ghent: Ghent University Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Devine, Andrew & Laurence Stephens. 1976. The function and status of boundaries in phonology. In Alphonse Juilland (ed.), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 285–312. Saratoga: Anma Libri.Search in Google Scholar

Downing, Laura J., T. Alan Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen (eds.). 2005. Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267712.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2014. Phase cycles, φ-cycles, and phonological (in) activity. In Sabrina Bendjaballah, Noam Faust, Mohamed Lahrouchi & Nicola Lampitelli (eds.), The form of structure, the structure of forms: Essays in honor of Jean Lowenstamm, 271–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lfab.12.21embSearch in Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus globalism in morphology and phonology (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 60). Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014229.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Embick, David. 1997. Voice and the interfaces of syntax. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Encrevé, Pierre. 1983. La liaison sans enchaînement. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 46(1). 39–66. https://doi.org/10.3406/arss.1983.2176.Search in Google Scholar

Fábregas, Antonio. 2020. Morphologically derived adjectives in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ihll.30Search in Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry A. 1985. Precis of the modularity of mind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8(1). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0001921x.Search in Google Scholar

Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486470Search in Google Scholar

Gribanova, Vera. 2008. Russian prefixes, particles and palatalization in Stratal OT. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA, 217–225. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar

Gribanova, Vera. 2012. Connecting cyclic morphosyntax and morphophonology: Russian Bracketing Paradoxes. Paper presented at Exploring the Interfaces 1: Word structure. McGill University.Search in Google Scholar

Gribanova, Vera. 2013. Verb-stranding verb phrase ellipsis and the structure of the Russian verbal complex. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31(1). 91–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-012-9183-3.Search in Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley, with Tony Bures (eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics: Papers on phonology and morphology 21, 275–288. Cambridge: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2009. Compounding in Distributed Morphology. In Rochelle Lieber & Pavol Štekauer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding, 129–144. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199695720.013.0007Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1). 31–80. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2011.002.Search in Google Scholar

Haugen, Jason D. & Daniel Siddiqi. 2016. Towards a restricted realization theory. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory (Linguistics Today 229), 343–386. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.229.12hauSearch in Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 1978. Word demarcation. In Joseph Greenberg (ed.), Universals of human language, Vol. 2, 443–470. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: a case study of dominance effects. Yearbook of Morphology 1997. 121–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4998-3_5.Search in Google Scholar

Iosad, Pavel. 2010. Right at the left edge: Initial consonant mutations in the languages of the world. In Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (eds.), Rethinking Universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory, 105–137. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220933.105Search in Google Scholar

Iosad, Pavel. 2008. Initial consonant mutation and information flow in Mende. Paper presented at the Old World Conference in Phonology (OCP) 5, 28 January. Université de Toulouse–Le Mirail.Search in Google Scholar

Johnson, Kyle. 2004. Towards an etiology of adjunct islands. Nordlyd 31(1). 187–215. https://doi.org/10.7557/12.25.Search in Google Scholar

Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic heads and word formation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kaisse, Ellen. 1985. Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kalivoda, Nicholas. 2018. Syntax-prosody mismatches in optimality theory. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, Beom-mo. 1993. Unhappier is really a “Bracketing Paradox”. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4). 788–794. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110113242.5.788.Search in Google Scholar

Kaye, Jonathan. 1990. Coda licensing. Phonology 7(1). 301–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700001214.Search in Google Scholar

Kenesei, István. 1995/1996. On Bracketing Paradoxes in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academica 43(1/2). 153–173.Search in Google Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth. 1977. Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. Lexical morphology and phonology. Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL 1981, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin Pub. Co.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. Word-formation and the lexicon. Paper presented at the Mid-America Linguistics Conference. University of Kansas.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17(2–4). 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351.Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Paradigm uniformity constraints. Ms. Stanford University. www.stanford.edu/∼kiparsky/Papers/LexConservatism.pdf (accessed 1 January 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Koopman, Hilda. 1996. The spec-head configuration. In Edward Garrett & Felicia Lee (eds.), Syntax at Sunset 1: UCLA Working Papers in syntax and semantics, 37–65.10.4324/9780203027868-21Search in Google Scholar

Larsen, Bergeton Uffe. 1998. Vowel length, Raddoppiamento Sintattico and the selection of the definite article in Italian. In Patrick Sauzet (ed.), Langues et Grammaire II–III, Phonologie, Vol. 8, 87–102. Paris: Université Paris.Search in Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1983. New developments in autosegmental phonology: Consonant mutation. In Michael T. Wescoat & Michael Barlow (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd West Coast conference on formal linguistics, Stanford: Stanford Linguistics Association.Search in Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1987. An integrated theory of autosegmental processes. New York: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods 2, 419–441. European Studies Research Institute (ESRI): University of Salford.Search in Google Scholar

Lowenstamm, Jean. 1999. The beginning of the word. In John R. Rennison & Klaus Kühnhammer (eds.), Phonologica 1996: Syllables!? 153–166. The Hague: Thesus.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1984a. Tagalog reduplication is affixation, too. In Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1984b. On the nature of grammatical relations (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 10). Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1987. Phonologically induced Bracketing Paradoxes in full morpheme reduplication. In Megan Crowhurst (ed.), Proceedings of the sixth West Coast conference on formal linguistics, 203–212. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1989. Clitics and phrase structure. In Mark R. Baltin & Anthony S. Kroch (eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, 99–116. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2). 201–225.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phases and words. In Sook-Hee Choe (ed.), Phases in the theory of grammar, 191–222. Seoul: Dong-In Publishing Co.Search in Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed Morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–115. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0006Search in Google Scholar

Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Marvin, Tatjana. 2013. Is word structure relevant for stress assignment. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed Morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 79–93. Cambridge: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0005Search in Google Scholar

Matushansky, Ora. 2002. On formal identity of Russian prefixes and prepositions. In Aniko Csirmaz, Zhiqiang Li, Andrew Nevins, Olga Vaysman & Michael Wagner (eds.), MIT working papers in linguistics, Vol. 42, 217–253. Boston: MITWPL.Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 1995. Faithfulness in Prosodic Morphology and Phonology: Rotuman revisited. Ms. University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 1995. An Alignment Solution to Bracketing Paradoxes. In Rachel Walker, Ove Lorentz & Haruo Kubozono (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz 4, 57–71. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Research Center, University of California Santa Cruz.Search in Google Scholar

Mohannan, Karuvannur P. 1982. Lexical phonology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 1996. Incomplete category fronting. SfS report 01-96, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft. Universität Tübingen.Search in Google Scholar

Nash, David G. 1980. Topics in Warlpiri grammar. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology (Studies in generative grammar 28). Dordrecht: Foris.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2005a. A late adjunction solution to Bracketing Paradoxes. In Leah Bateman & Cherlon Ussery (eds.), The proceedings of NELS, Vol. 35(2), 451–462. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Graduate Linguistics Student Association (GLSA).Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2005b. Bracketing Paradoxes and particle verbs: A late adjunction analysis. In Sylvia Blaho, Luis Vicente & Erik Schoorlemmer (eds.), Proceedings of ConSOLE, Vol. XIII, 249–272. Leiden: University of Leiden.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. Montreal: McGill University Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2016a. The Ontology of English morpho-phonology. Paper presented at the 24th Manchester Phonology Meeting (MfM). University of Manchester, 26–28 May.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2016b. The pathology of level-specific morpho-phonology. Paper presented at the Montreal-Ottawa-Laval-Toronto Phonology Workshop (MOLT), 19 March. Carleton University.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2017a. There is no word. In Paper presented at GLOW 40, Leiden, 14 March.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2017b. Nested Phase Interpretation and the PIC. In Heather Newell, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott & Lisa Travis (eds.), The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198778264.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2018. There are no Bracketing Paradoxes, or how to be a modular grammarian. Poster presented at GLOW 41, Budapest.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.589Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2019. Bracketing Paradoxes in Morphology. In Rochelle Lieber (ed.), Oxford encyclopedia of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.589Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2021. Deriving level 1/level 2 affix classes in English: Floating vowels, cyclic syntax. Acta Linguistica Academica 68. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2021.00501.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather & Tobias Scheer. 2017. In Prosodic domains: overthrowing the hierarchy Paper presented at the 25th Manchester Phonology, May 25–27. Meeting University of Manchester.Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather, Máire Noonan, Glyne Piggott & Lisa Travis (eds.). 2017. The structure of words at the interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198778264.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Newell, Heather & Glyne Piggott. 2014. Interactions at the syntax–phonology interface: Evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150. 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.07.020.Search in Google Scholar

Nkemnji, Michael Akamin. 1995. Heavy pied-piping in Nweh. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Odden, David. 1990. C-command or edges in Makonde. Phonology 7(1). 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700001159.Search in Google Scholar

Odden, David & Mary Odden. 1985. Ordered reduplication in Kihehe. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3). 497–503.Search in Google Scholar

van Oostendorp, Marc. 1994. Affixation and integrity of syllable structure in Dutch. Linguistics in the Netherlands 11(1). 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.11.16oos.Search in Google Scholar

Orgun, C. Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology: A declarative theory of phonology-morphology interleaving. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: the role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17(2). 237–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675700003900.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms. MIT.Search in Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1985. Morphology and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 16(2). 193–246.Search in Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological productivity: Structural constraints in English derivation (Topics in English Linguistics 28). Berlin: de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Postal, Paul. 1969. Anaphoric islands. In Robert I. Binnick (ed.), Papers from the fifth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 205–239. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

Pyle, Charles. 1972. On Eliminating BM’s. In Peranteau Paul, Judith Levi & Gloria Phares (eds.), Papers from the eighth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 516–532. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Search in Google Scholar

Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1999. Phonological constraints on English word formation. In Greville G. Corbett, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1998, 225–287. Heidelberg: Springer Netherlands.10.1007/978-94-017-3720-3_10Search in Google Scholar

Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2015. Phonological restrictions on English word-formation. In Peter Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation, An international handbook of the languages of Europe, Vol. 2, 894–917. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110246278-006Search in Google Scholar

Raimy, Eric. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication (Studies in Generative Grammar), Vol. 52. Vancouver: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110825831Search in Google Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian & Peter Svenonius. 2002. The lexical syntax and lexical semantics of the verb-particle construction. In Line Mikkelsen & Christopher Potts (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL [West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics] 21, 387–400. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar

Reiss, Charles. 2007. Modularity in the “Sound” domain: Implications for the purview of universal grammar. In Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, 53–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0003Search in Google Scholar

Rice, Keren & Elizabeth Cowper. 1984. Consonant mutation and autosegmental morphology. In Drogo Joseph, Veena Mishra & David Testen (eds.), Proceedings of CLS20, 309–320. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Rotenberg, Joel. 1978. The Syntax of Phonology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2001. The rhythmic law in Czech: Vowel-final prefixes. In Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghans, Grit Mehlhorn & Luka Szucsich (eds.), Current issues in formal Slavic linguistics, 37–48. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology: What is CVCV, and why should it be?, Vol. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110908336Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2008. Why the Prosodic Hierarchy is a diacritic and why the interface must be direct. In Jutta Hartmann, Veronika Hegedüs & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology, 145–192. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2009a. External Sandhi: What the initial CV is initial of. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 47. 43–82.Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2009b. Representational and procedural sandhi killers: Diagnostics, distribution, behaviour. In Mojmír Dočekal & Markéta Ziková (eds.), Czech in formal grammar, 155–174. Munich: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2011. A guide to morphosyntax-phonology interface theories: How extraphonological information is treated in phonology since Trubetzkoy’s Grenzsignale. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238631Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobas. 2016. Melody-free syntax and phonologically conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 26(3–4). 341–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-016-9283-6.Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias & Eugeniusz Cyran. 2018. Syllable structure in Government Phonology. In Stephen J. Hannahs & Anna Bosch (eds.), The Routledge handbook of phonological theory, 262–292. Oxford: Routledge.10.4324/9781315675428-10Search in Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias & Markéta Ziková. 2010. The Havlík Pattern and Directional Lower. In Draga Zec & Wayles Browne (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The second cornell meeting, 471–486. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Seidl, Amanda. 2001. Minimal indirect reference: A theory of the syntax-phonology interface. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1981 [1978]. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In Thorstein Fretheim (ed.), Nordic Prosody II, 111–140. Trondheim: TAPIR.Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The syntax of words (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 7). Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elizabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & C. L. Alan (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, Second edition, 435–483. Oxford: Wiley.10.1002/9781444343069.ch14Search in Google Scholar

Speas, Margaret. 1984. Navajo prefixes and word structure typology. In Margaret Speas & Richard Sproat (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7: Papers from the January 1984 MIT Workshop in Phonology, 86–109. Boston: IT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1988. Bracketing Paradoxes and the English lexicon. Language 64(4). 663–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/414563.Search in Google Scholar

Sproat, Richard. 1984. On Bracketing Paradoxes. In Margaret Speas & Richard Sproat (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7: Papers from the January 1984 MIT Workshop in Phonology, 110–130. Boston: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Sproat, Richard. 1988. Bracketing Paradoxes, cliticization and other topics: the mapping between syntactic and phonological structure. In Martin Everaert & H. Schultink (eds.), Morphology and modularity: in honour of Henk Schultink, 339–360. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110882674-018Search in Google Scholar

Sproat, Richard. 1992. Unhappier is not a “Bracketing Paradox”. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2). 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(92)90018-e.Search in Google Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Michael B. Broe & Janet B. Pierrehumbert (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology V: Language acquisition and the lexicon, 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Starke, Michal. 2018. Complex left branches, spellout, and prefixes. In Lena Baunaz, Liliane Haegeman, Karen De Clercq & Eric Lander (eds.), Exploring nanosyntax, 239–249. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780190876746.003.0009Search in Google Scholar

Steddy, Sam. 2019. Compounds, composability, and morphological idiosyncrasy. The Linguistic Review 36(3). 453–483. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2026.Search in Google Scholar

Strauss, Steven L. 1982. On “relatedness paradoxes” and related paradoxes. Linguistic Inquiry 13(4). 694–700.Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Russian prefixes are phrasal. Ms. University of Tromsø.Search in Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2016. Spans and words. In Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory: Linguistics today, Vol. 229, 201–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.229.07sveSearch in Google Scholar

Taraldsen, Tarald. 2000. V-movement and VP-movement in derivations leading to VO-order. In Svenonius Peter (ed.), The derivation of VO and OV, 97–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.31.05tarSearch in Google Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In Samuel David Epstein & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism, 251–282. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vogel, Irene. 2009. The status of the Clitic Group. In Janet Grijzenhout & Baris Kabak (eds.), Phonological domains: Universals and deviations, 15–46. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219234.1.15Search in Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “Lexically related” and “Head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2). 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(81)90089-6.Search in Google Scholar

Wurmbrand, Susi. 1998. Heads or phrases? Particles in particular. In Wolfgang Kehrein & Richard Wiese (eds.), Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages. Linguistische Arbeiten, Vol. 386, 267–295. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110919769.267Search in Google Scholar

Ziková, Markéta. 2008. Alternace e-nula v současné češtině. Autosegmentální laterální analýza [E-zero alternation of in contemporary Czech. An autosegmental lateral analysis]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita v Brně dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Ziková, Markéta. 2009. Vowel-zero alternations in Czech double diminutives: from the Havlík to the Lower pattern. In Mojmír Dočekal & Markéta Ziková (eds.), Czech in formal grammar, 237–250. Munich: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Ziková, Markéta. 2012. Lexical prefixes and templatic domains: Prefix lengthening in Czech. In Markéta Ziková & Mojmír Dočekal (eds.), Slavic languages in formal grammar: Proceedings of FDSL 8.5, 325–338. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-07-29
Published in Print: 2021-09-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 3.2.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/tlr-2021-2072/html
Scroll Up Arrow