Adger, David. 1997. VSO order and weak pronouns in Goidelic Celtic. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 42. 9–29.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David. 2007. Pronouns postpose at PF. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 343–349.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, Brian & Chris Golston. 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86. 133–167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, Brian & Chris Golston. 2016. Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin. Phonology 33. 1–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston & Dasha Henderer. 2011. Prosodic movement. In M.B. Washburn, K. McKinney-Bock, E. Varis, A. Sawyer & B. Tomaszewicz (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 231–239. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, Chris Golston & Toru Ishii. 2015. Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33. 47–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnhold, Anja. 2014. Prosodic structure and focus realization in West Greenlandic. In S.-A. Jun (ed.), Prosodic typology II, 216–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arnhold, Anja, Richard Compton & Emily Elfner. to appear. Prosody and wordhood in South Baffin Inuktitut. In M. Keough (ed.), Proceedings of the workshop on structure and constituency in languages of the Americas 21. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics (in press).Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary & Janet Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology 3. 255–309.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner & James McCloskey. 2015. Pronouns and prosody in Irish. In L. Breatnach, R. Ó hUiginn, D. McManus & K. Simms (eds.), XIV International Congress of Celtic Studies Maynooth 2011 Proceedings, 19–74. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner & James McCloskey. 2016. Lightest to the right: An apparently anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47. 169–234.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Ryan, Emily Elfner & James McCloskey. 2017. Prosody, focus and ellipsis in Irish. Ms., Santa Cruz, CA and Toronto, ON, Canada: University of California, Santa Cruz and York University.Google Scholar
Chen, Matthew. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology 4. 109–150.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Laura J. Downing. 2012. Prosodic domains do not match spell-out domains. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 22. 1–14.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Laura J. Downing. 2016. Phasal syntax =cyclic phonology? Syntax 19. 156–191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–156. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra & James McCloskey. 1987. Government, barriers and small clauses in modern Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 173–237.Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren & Jessica Coon. to appear. Deriving verb initial word order in Mayan. Language (in press).Google Scholar
Clemens, Lauren Eby. 2014. Prosodic noun incorporation and verb-initial syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Compton, Richard & Christine Pittman. 2010. Word-formation by phase in Inuit. Lingua 120. 2167–2192.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William E. & Jeanne Paccia-Cooper. 1980. Syntax and speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2003. Phonological phrasing and syntactic derivation. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2013. Autonomy of prosody and prosodic domain formation: A derivational approach. Linguistic Analysis 38. 331–355.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2011. The interaction of linearization and prosody: Evidence from pronoun postposing in Irish. In A. Carnie (ed.), Formal approaches to celtic linguistics, 17–40. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2012. Syntax-prosody interactions in Irish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: Evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 33. 1169–1208.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elordieta, Gorka. 2015. Recursive phonological phrasing in Basque. Phonology 32. 49–78.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Hubert Truckenbrodt. 2005. Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Studia Linguistica 59. 223–243.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny & David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics 31. 1–45.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gee, James Paul & François Grosjean. 1983. Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal. Cognitive Psychology 15. 411–458.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ghini, Marco. 1993. Phi-formation in Italian: A new proposal. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 12. 41–78.Google Scholar
Guekguezian, Peter Ara. 2017. Templates as the interaction of recursive word structure and prosodic well-formedness. Phonology 34. 81–120.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Aaron. 1992. Topics in the syntax and placement of clitics. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Kriszta Szendrői. 2015. A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases. Phonology 32. 79–110.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Kriszta Szendrői. 2017. The syntax-phonology mapping of intonational phrases in complex sentences: A flexible approach. In L. Clemens & E. Elfner (eds.), Special collection: Prosody & constituent structure. Glossa. 2(1). 55.Google Scholar
Huijsmans, Marianne. 2015. Linearization and prosodic phrasing: The case of SENĆOTEN second-position clitics. MA Thesis, University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2007. Major phrase, focus intonation, and multiple spell-out. The Linguistic Review 24. 137–167.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 1992. Weak layering and word binarity. In T. Honma, M. Okazaki, T. Tabata & S.-I. Tanaka (eds.), A new century of phonology and phonological theory. A festschrift for Professor Shosuke Haraguchi on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 26–65. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2007. Prosodic adjunction in Japanese compounds. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 55. 97–111.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2012. Recursive prosodic phrasing in Japanese. In T. Borowsky, S. Kawahara, T. Shinya & M. Sugahara (eds.), Prosody matters. London: Equinox Press.Google Scholar
Ito, Junko & Armin Mester. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124. 20–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2005. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.). 2014. Prosodic typology II: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah & Gorka Elordieta. 1997. Intonational structure in Lekeitio Basque. In A. Botinis, G. Kouroupetroglou & G. Carayiannis (eds.), Intonation: Theory, models and applications, 193–196. Athens, Greece: ISCA.Google Scholar
Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Elisabeth Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24. 93–135.Google Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1989. Syntactic and rhythmic effects on downstep in Japanese. Phonology 6. 39–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kubozono, Haruo. 1992. Modeling syntactic effects on downstep in Japanese. In G. Docherty & D.R. Ladd (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology, vol. II: Gesture, segment, prosody, 368–387. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3. 311–340.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1988. Declination ‘reset’ and the hierarchical organization of utterances. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 84. 530–544.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008 [1996]. Intonational phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1973. Phonetic disambiguation of syntactic ambiguity. Glossa 7. 107–123.Google Scholar
López, Luis. 2009. Ranking the linear correspondence axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 40. 239–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John J. & Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in optimality theory, 249–384. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCloskey, James. 1999. On the right edge in Irish. Syntax 2. 189–209.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myrberg, Sara. 2013. Sisterhood in prosodic branching. Phonology 30. 73–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the morphology and phonology of phases. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Newell, Heather & Glyne Piggott. 2014. Interactions at the syntax-phonology interface: Evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150. 332–362.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pak, Majorie. 2008. The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of english intonation. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet & Mary Beckman. 1988. Japanese tone structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004 [1993]. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University RuCCS Technical Report.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2016. Contiguity theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2017. Deriving contiguity. Ms., MIT. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003289, Accessed January 4, 2018.Google Scholar
Seidl, Amanda. 2001. Minimal indirect reference: A theory of the syntax-phonology interface. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. In M. Aronoff & M.-L. Kean (eds.), Juncture, 107–129. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1981 [1978]. On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure. In T. Fretheim (ed.), 111–140 Nordic prosody. Trondheim: TAPIR.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3. 371–405.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In J. Beckman, L. W. Dickey & S. Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in optimality theory, 439–470. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2009. On clause and intonational phrase in Japanese: The syntactic grounding of prosodic constituent structure. Gengo Kenkyu 136. 35–73.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle & A. Yu (eds.) The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn, 435–484.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth & Koichi Tateishi. 1988. Constraints on minor phrase formation in Japanese. In Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 316–336. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth & Tong Shen. 1990. Prosodic domains in Shanghai Chinese. In S. Inkelas & D. Zec (eds.), The phonology-syntax connection, 313–337. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth & Koichi Tateishi. 1991. Syntax and downstep in Japanese. In C. Georgopoulos & R. Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth & Seunghun J. Lee. 2015. Constituent structure in phonology. Phonology 31. 1–18.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological phrases: Their relation to syntax, focus, and prominence. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 219–256.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1999. Multiple spell-out. In S. D. Epstein & N. Hornstein (eds.), Working minimalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2010. Prosody and recursion in coordinate structures and beyond. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 28. 183–237.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2015. Phonological evidence in syntax. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (eds.), Syntax – theory and analysis. An international Handbook, 1154–1198. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Werle, Adam. 2009. Word, phrase, and clitic prosody in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Windsor, Joseph W. 2017. Predicting prosodic structure by morphosyntactic category: A case study of Blackfoot. In L. Clemens & E. Elfner (eds.), Special collection: Prosody & constituent structure. Glossa. 2(1). 10.Google Scholar
Comments (0)