No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Phonological Markedness Effects in Sentence Formation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2026
Abstract
Earlier research has found that phonological markedness constraints (for example, against stress clash or sibilant sequences) statistically influence speakers' choices between particular syntactic constructions and between synonymous words. In this study, we test phonological constraints not just in particular cases, but across the board. We employ a novel method that statistically models the distribution of word bigrams (consecutive two-word sequences) and how this distribution is influenced by phonological constraints. Our study of multiple corpora indicates that several phonological constraints do indeed play a statistically significant role in English sentence formation. We also show that by examining particular subsets of the corpora we can diagnose the mechanisms whereby phonologically marked sequences come to be underrepresented. We conclude by discussing modes of grammatical organization compatible with our findings.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America
References
Agbayani, Brian, and Golston, Chris. 2010. Phonological movement in Classical Greek. Language 86. 133–67. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, and Golston, Chris. 2016. Phonological constituents and their movement in Latin. Phonology 33. 1–42. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675716000026.10.1017/S0952675716000026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbayani, Brian, Golston, Chris; and Ishii, Toru. 2015. Syntactic and prosodic scrambling in Japanese. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33. 47–77. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-014-9252-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar: A study of Finnish genitives. Variation, change, and phonological theory, ed. by Hinskens, Frans, van Hout, Roeland, and Wetzels, W. Leo, 35–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2016. Phonological effects on syntactic variation. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 115–37. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040845.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto, Adams, Matthew; and Speriosu, Michael. 2010. The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Language and Cognitive Processes 25. 946–81. DOI: 10.1080/01690960903525481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal, and Snider, Neal. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62. 67–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benor, Sarah Bunin, and Levy, Roger. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82. 233–78. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0077.10.1353/lan.2006.0077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blust, Robert. 1979. Coronal-noncoronal consonant clusters: New evidence for markedness. Lingua 47. 101–17. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(79)90031-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, Paul, and Pater, Joe. 2016. Convergence properties of a gradual learning algorithm for harmonic grammar. In McCarthy & Pater, 389–434.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. Pitch accent and sentence rhythm. Forms of English: Accent, morpheme, order, 139–80. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. by Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 59–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Optimal syntax. Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition, ed. by Dekkers, Joost, van, Frank Leeuw, der, and van, Jeroen Weijer, de, 334–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation, ed. by Boume, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene, and Zwarts, Joost, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86. 168–213. DOI: 10.1353/lan.0.0189.10.1353/lan.0.0189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118. 245–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007.10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin. 2019. On the motivation for phonology-free syntax and multiple levels in a derivational grammar. Newark: University of Delaware, ms. Online: https://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/PhonFreeSyntax1.pdf.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2003. The syntax and prosody of weak pronouns in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 547–99. DOI: 10.1162/002438903322520151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. Papers in laboratory phonology I: Between the grammar and the physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary E., 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017.10.1017/CBO9780511627736.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N., and Sezer, Engin. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. The structure of phonological representations (Part II), ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 213–56. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clifton, Charles, Fanselow, Gisbert; and Frazier, Lyn. 2006. Amnestying superiority violations: Processing multiple questions. Linguistic Inquiry 37. 51–68. DOI: 10.1162/002438906775321139.10.1162/002438906775321139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, John, and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1997. Stochastic phonological grammars and acceptability. Computational phonology: Third meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology, 49–56. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W97-1107.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, and Norris, Dennis. 1988. The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 14. 113–21. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.113.Google Scholar
Della Pietra, Stephen, Della Pietra, Vincent J.; and Lafferty, John D.. 1997. Inducing features of random fields. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 19. 380–93. DOI: 10.1109/34.588021.10.1109/34.588021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 555–95. DOI: 10.1162/002438901753373005.10.1162/002438901753373005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi, Josefsson, Gunlög; and Köhnlein, Björn. 2019. Variation in Mainland Scandinavian object shift and prosodic repair. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University, Lund: Lund University, and Columbus: The Ohio State University, ms. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003688.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2005. The decathlon model of empirical syntax. Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, ed. by Kepser, Stephan and Reis, Marga, 187–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197549.187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2019. The decathlon model. Current approaches to syntax: A comparative handbook, ed. by Kertész, András, Moravcsik, Edith, and Rákosi, Csilla, 155–86. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fijn van Draat, Pieter. 1910. Rhythm in English prose. (Anglistische Forschungen 29.) Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Fylstra, Daniel, Lasdon, Leon, Watson, John; and Waren, Allan. 1998. Design and use of the Microsoft Excel Solver. INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics 28. 29–55. DOI: 10.1287/inte.28.5.29.10.1287/inte.28.5.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew, and Daland, Robert. 2009. Linking speech errors and phonological grammars: Insights from harmonic grammar networks. Phonology 26. 147–85. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675709001742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldwater, Sharon, and Johnson, Mark. 2003. Learning OT constraint rankings using a maximum entropy model. Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within Optimality Theory, ed. by Spenader, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders, and Dahl, Östen, 111–20. Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Gunkel, Dieter, and Ryan, Kevin M.. 2011. Hiatus avoidance and metrification in the Rigveda. Proceedings of the 22nd annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, ed. by Jamison, Stephanie W., Melchert, H. Craig, and Vine, Brent, 53–68. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 2016. Input optimisation: Phonology and morphology. Phonology 33. 459–91. DOI: 10.1017/S095267571600021X.10.1017/S095267571600021XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harford, Carolyn, and Demuth, Katherine. 1999. Prosody outranks syntax: An optimality approach to subject inversion in Bantu relatives. Linguistic Analysis 29. 47–68.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. The prosodic hierarchy in meter. Rhythm and meter, ed. by Kiparsky, Paul and Youmans, Gilbert, 201–60. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: The role of optimality theory and inductive grounding. Functionalism and formalism in linguistics, vol. 1: General papers, ed. by Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Noonan, Michael, Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Wheatley, Kathleen, 243–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 2012. The role of computational modeling in the study of sound structure. Paper presented at the Conference on Laboratory Phonology, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Kirchner, Robert; and Steriade, Donca (eds.) 2004. Phonetically based phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, and Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39. 379–440. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Wilson, Colin; and Shisko, Anne. 2012. Maxent grammars for the metrics of Shakespeare and Milton. Language 88. 691–731. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2012.0089.10.1353/lan.2012.0089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. An introduction to natural generative phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Irvine, Ann, and Dredze, Mark. 2017. Harmonic grammar, optimality theory, and syntax learnability: An empirical exploration of Czech word order. arXiv:1702.05793 [cs.CL]. Online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05793.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. The parallel architecture and its place in cognitive science. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 583–605. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0023.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Florian. 2006. Phonological optimization and syntactic variation: The case of optional that. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32. 175–87. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3453.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard, and Rosenbach, Anette. 2006. The winner takes it all—almost: Cumulativity in grammatical variation. Linguistics 44. 937–71. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2006.031.10.1515/LING.2006.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 1996. The phonetics and phonology of Korean prosody: Intonational phonology and prosodic structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, and Martin, James H.. 2019. Speech and language processing. 3rd edn. draft. Online: https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2006. Linear optimality theory as a model of gradience in grammar. Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, ed. by Fanselow, Gisbert, Féry, Caroline, Schlesewsky, Matthias, and Vogel, Ralf, 270–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274796.003.0014.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael, and Kisseberth, Charles. 1977. Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T., 170–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Phonological representations. Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, Osamu, 5–135. Tokyo: Tokyo Institute for Advanced Studies of Language.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles W. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 291–306. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177568.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark, and Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 249–336. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177987.Google Scholar
Liu, Dong C., and Nocedal, Jorge. 1989. On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization. Mathematical Programming 45. 503–28. DOI: 10.1007/BF01589116.10.1007/BF01589116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. Probabilistic linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, 289–341. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew. 2011. Grammars leak: Modeling how phonotactic generalizations interact within the grammar. Language 87. 751–70. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2011.0096.10.1353/lan.2011.0096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Pater, Joe (eds.) 2016. Harmonic grammar and harmonic serialism. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1993. Prosodic morphology: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. (Linguistics Department faculty publication series 14.) Amherst: Department of Linguistics, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor. 1998. Collocations and lexical functions. Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications, ed. by Cowie, Anthony P., 23–53. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/oso/9780198294252.003.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mollin, Sandra. 2012. Revisiting binomial order in English: Ordering constraints and reversibility. English Language and Linguistics 16. 81–103. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674311000293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morley, Rebecca L. 2015. Can phonological universals be emergent? Modeling the space of sound change, lexical distribution, and hypothesis selection. Language 91.e40–e70. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Robert W., and Vennemann, Theo. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure in Germanic phonology. Language 59. 514–28. DOI: 10.2307/413901.10.2307/413901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 2007 [1986]. Prosodic phonology. 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [1st edn., Dordrecht: Foris, 1986.].Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other N effects. The prosody-morphology interface, ed. by René, Kager, 310–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511627729.009.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17. 237–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675700003900.10.1017/S0952675700003900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2016. Universal grammar with weighted constraints. In McCarthy & Pater, 1–46.Google Scholar
Pauley, Andrew, and Syder, Frances Hodgetts. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and communication, ed. by Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W., 191–226. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1993. Dissimilarity in the Arabic verbal roots. North East Linguistic Society 23. 367–81.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993 [2004]. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. RuCCS Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. [Published, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.].Google Scholar
Rice, Curt. 2007. Gaps and repairs at the phonology–morphology interface. Journal of Linguistics 43. 197–221. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226706004488.10.1017/S0022226706004488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Curt, and Svenonius, Peter. 1998. Prosodic V2 in Northern Norwegian. Tromsø: University of Tromsø, ms.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. 2019. Prosodic end-weight reflects phrasal stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 37. 315–56. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-018-9411-6.10.1007/s11049-018-9411-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax: A theory of parallel grammatical representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic grammar: The influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2015. Rhythmic influence on grammar: Scope and limitations. In Vogel & van de Vijver, 179–205.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia, and Knappe, Gabriele. 2018. Synonym selection as a strategy of stress clash avoidance. Corpora and lexis, ed. by Hoffmann, Sebastian, Sand, Andrea, Arndt-Lappe, Sabine, and Dillman, Lisa Marie, 69–105. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. 2017a. Phonological influences in syntactic choice. The morphosyntax-phonology connection: Locality and directionality at the interface, ed. by Gribanova, Vera and Shih, Stephanie S., 223–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210304.003.0009.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S. 2017b. Constraint conjunction in weighted probabilistic grammar. Phonology 34. 243–68. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675717000136.10.1017/S0952675717000136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S., and Grafmiller, Jason. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Paper presented at the 85th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S., Grafmiller, Jason, Futrell, Richard; and Bresnan, Joan. 2015. Rhythm's role in predicting genitive alternation choice in spoken English. In Vogel & van de Vijver, 207–34.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S., and Zuraw, Kie. 2017. Phonological conditions on variable adjective and noun word order in Tagalog. Language 93.e317–e352. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2017.0075.10.1353/lan.2017.0075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shih, Stephanie S., and Zuraw, Kie. 2018. The nature of the phonology-syntax interface, from variable adjective and noun word order in Tagalog. Los Angeles: University of Southern California and University of California, Los Angeles, ms. Online: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/004296.Google Scholar
Péter, Siptár, and Törkenczy, Miklós. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1986. Information processing in dynamical systems: Foundations of harmony theory. Parallel distributed processing, vol. 2: Psychological and biological models, ed. by McClelland, James L., Rumelhart, David E., and the, PDP Group, Research, 390–431. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stanton, Juliet. 2016. Learnability shapes typology: The case of the midpoint pathology. Language 92. 753–91. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2016.0071.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 2001. The phonology of perceptibility effects: The P-map and its consequences for constraint organization. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, ms.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, Tagliamonte, Sali; and Todd, Simon. 2017. Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 2. 1–27. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.310.Google Scholar
Temperley, David. 2009. Distributional stress regularity: A corpus study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 38. 75–92. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-008-9084-0.10.1007/s10936-008-9084-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. [Translated as Principles of phonology, by Baltaxe, Christiane A. M.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.].Google Scholar
Velldal, Erik, and Oepen, Stephan. 2005. Maximum entropy models for realization ranking. Proceedings of the 10th Machine Translation Summit, ed. by Tsujii, Jun-ichi. Online: http://www.mt-archive.info/MTS-2005-Velldal.pdf.Google Scholar
Vogel, Irene, and van, Ruben Vijver, de (eds.) 2015. Rhythm in cognition and grammar: A Germanic perspective. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110378092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Levy, Roger, Melnick, Robin, Zhu, Hanzhi; and Juzek, Tom. 2015. Processing, prosody, and optional to. Explicit and implicit prosody in sentence processing, ed. by Frazier, Lyn and Gibson, Edward, 133–58. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Larry. 2004. All of statistics: A concise course in statistical inference. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-21736-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational investigation of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30. 945–82. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2014. Maximum entropy models (tutorial presentation). Cambridge, MA: Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin, and Obdeyn, Marieke. 2009. Simplifying subsidiary theory: Statistical evidence from Arabic, Muna, Shona, and Wargamay. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, ms.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga, and Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. The phonology-syntax connection, ed. by Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga, 365–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1986. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32. 63–91.Google Scholar
Breiss and Hayes supplementary material
Breiss and Hayes supplementary material
File
140.6 KB
- 8
- Cited by