Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T04:55:45.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diphthongisation and coindexing*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2008

Bruce Hayes
Bruce Hayes
Affiliation:
University of Califonia, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The tree model of segment structure proposed by Clements (1985) is an important innovation in phonological theory, making possible a number of interesting predictions about the form of phonological rules, locality of rule application, and the organisation of the feature system. Clements' proposal has given rise to an expanding literature, including Sagey (1986), Schein & Steriade (1986), McCarthy (1988), Archangeli & Pulleyblank (forthcoming) and other work.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Phonology , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , May 1990 , pp. 31 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, Henning (1972). Diphthongization. Lg 48. 11–51Google Scholar
Anderson, John & Jacques, Durand (1986). Dependency phonology. In Durand, J. (ed.) Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. 1–54.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen (1974). The organization of phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen (1976). Prenasalized consonants and the internal organisation of segments. Lg 52. 326–344.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen (1984). A metrical interpretation of some traditional claims about quantity and stress. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 83–106.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana (1987). Problems for the representation of aifricates. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana & Douglas, Pulleyblank (forthcoming). The content and structure of phonological representations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Oehrle, Richard T. (eds.) (1984). Language sound structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Berschin, Helmut, Josef, Felixberger & Hans, Goebl (1978). Französische Sprachgeschichte. Munich: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Brooks, Maria Zagorska (1964). On Polish aifricates. Word 20. 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Gösta (1970). Diphthongization in the Malmö dialect. Working Papers in Linguistics, Lund University 3. 1–20.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle (1971). Historical linguistics and Quichean linguistic prehistory. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Chambers, W. Walker & Wilkie, John R. (1970). A short history of the German language. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris, Halle (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York:Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1980). Vowel harmony in nonlinear generative phonology: an autosegmental model. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Clements, George N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2. 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. (1986a). Compensatory lengthening and consonant gemination in LuGanda. In Wetzels & Sezer (1986). 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. (1986b). Syllabification and epenthesis in the Barra dialect of Gaelic. In Bogers, Koen, Hulst, Harry van der & Mous, Maarten (eds.) The phonological representation of suprasegmentals. Dordrecht: Foris. 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, George N. & Keyser, S. Jay (1983). CV phonology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles (1969). Simplicity, descriptive adequacy, and binary features. Lg 45.1–8.Google Scholar
Dell, F. & Elmedlaoui, M. (1985). Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7. 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikken, Marcel den & Harry, van der Hulst (1988). Segmental hierarchitecture. In Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval (eds.) Features, segmental structure and harmony processes. Part I. Dordrecht: Foris. 1–78.Google Scholar
Doke, Clement M. & Mofokeng, S. Machabe (1957). Textbook of Southern Sotho grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Donegan, Patricia (1978). The natural phonology of vowels. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University. Published 1985, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Dumas, D. (1976). Quebec French high vowel harmony: the progression of a phonological rule. CLS 12. 161–167.Google Scholar
Dumas, D. (1981). Structure de la diphtongaison québécoise. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 26. 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elert, Claes-Christian (1981). Ljud och ord i svenskan 2. Umeå: University of Umeå.Google Scholar
Fant, Gunnar (1973). Speech sounds and features. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Games, Sara (1976). Quantity in Icelandic: production and perception. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1976). Autosegmental phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1985). Vowel harmony in Khalkha Mongolian, Yaka, Finnish and Hungarian. Phonology Yearbook 2. 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John (1987). Vowel systems. CLS 23:2. 116–133.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Jean-Roger, Vergnaud (1980). Three-dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research I. 83–105.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael (1988). On deriving the well-formedness condition. LI 19. 319–325.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology. Lg 62. 321–351.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1988). Diphthongization and coindexing. Coyote Papers 9. Tucson Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona. 1–35.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. LI 20. 253–306,Google Scholar
Hualde, José (1988). Aifricates are not contour segments. WCCFL 7.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry (1985). A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry (1988). Underspecification and vowel height transfer in Esimbi. Phonology 5. 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko (1986). Syllable theory in prosodic phonology. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Distributed by Graduate Linguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kahn, Daniel (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan (1981). Les diphtongues cachées du Vata. Studies in African Linguistics 12. 225–244.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger (1985). The internal structure of phonological segments: a theory of charm and government. Phonology Yearbook 2. 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael (1970). On the notation of vowel length in Lithuanian. Papers in Linguistics 3. 73–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Rubach, Jerzy (1987). The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Lg 63. 463–497.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul (1968). Metrics and morphophonemics in the Kalevala. In Gribble, C. (ed.) Studies presented to Professor Roman Jakobson by his students. Cambridge, Mass.: Slavica. 137–148.Google Scholar
Kučera, Henry (1961). The phonology of Czech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette (1985). A metrical theory of syllabicity. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Lindau, Mona (1978). Vowel features. Lg 54. 541–563.Google Scholar
Lipski, John (1973). Binarity and Portuguese vowel raising. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 40. 16–28.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean & Kaye, Jonathan (1986). Compensatory lengthening in Tiberian Hebrew. In Wetzels & Sezer (1986). 97–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John (1979). Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John (1986). OCP effects: gemination and antigemination. LI 17. 207–263.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John (1988). Feature geometry and dependency: a review. Phonetica 43. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John & Prince, Alan (forthcoming). Prosodic morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James (1973). On the role of notation in generative phonology. In Gross, Maurice, Halle, Morris & Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul (eds.) The formal analysis of natural languages. The Hague: Mouton. 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascaró, Joan (1983). Phonological levels and assimilatory processes. Paper presented at the 1983 GLOW colloquium, York.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1983). The structure of the melody. Ms, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Odden, David (1981). A CV analysis of vowel length in Kimatuumbi. Ms, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Otero, Carlos (1988). From Latin to Romance: the vowel systems. In Caroline Diphthongisation Duncan-Rose & Vennemann, Theo (eds.) On language: rhetorica, phonologica, syntactica. London: Routledge. 233–256.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert (1969). Geschichtliche deutsche Lautlehre. Munich: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Rischel, Jørgen (1968). Diphthongization in Faroese. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia II. 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochette, Anne (1980). On rules of diphthongization and vowel contraction. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth (1986). The representation of features and relations in nonlinear phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sagey, Elizabeth (1988). On the ill-formedness of crossing association lines. LI 19 109–118.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, Mario (1973). Orthogonality, naturalness, and the binary feature framework. In Kachru, Braj B. et al. (eds.) Issues in linguistics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 798–807.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford (1984a). The fundamentals of particle phonology. Phonology Yearbook I. 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford (1984b). Two English vowel movements: a particle analysis. In Aronoff & Oehrle (1984). 32–51.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford (1987). Diphthongs and monophthongs in early Romance. In Cesaris, Janet de & Kirschner, Karl (eds.) Linguistic symposium on Romance linguistics XVII. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 345–356.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry & Steriadé, Donca (1984). Geminates and structure-dependent rules. WCCFL 3. 263–291.Google Scholar
Schein, Barry & Steriade, Donca (1986). On geminates. LI 17. 691–744.Google Scholar
Schmalstieg, William R. (1964). The phonemes of the Old Prussian enchiridion. Word 20. 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth O. (1988). A two-root theory of length. NELS 19.Google Scholar
Stehl, Thomas (1980). Die Mundarten Apuliens: historische und strukturelle Beiträge. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph (1984). Length as a suprasegmental. Lg 60. 895–913.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1981). Parameters of metrical harmony rules. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1982). Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1984). Glides and vowels in Romanian. BLS 10. 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1985). A note on coronal. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1987a). Locality conditions and feature geometry. NELS 17. 595–617.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca (1987b). On class nodes. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur (1978). On the phonology of Icelandic preaspiration. Nordic Journal of Linguistics I. 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Douglas C. (1984). The pronunciation of Canadian French. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Wetzels, Leo & Sezer, Engin (eds.) (1986). Studies in compensatory lengthening. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony (1981). Study of the Chevak dialect of Central Yup'ik Eskimo. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira (1980). Why Scanian is not a case for multivalued features. LI 11. 432–436.Google Scholar