A.8.4 /-ative/
Like /-atory/, the addition of /-ive/ to stems in /-ate/ produces an adjective or noun. Again, various types appear which often apply to multiple alternate forms of individual words, and disagree between American and British English. All monosyllabic roots show antepenultimate stress:
(A.66)
CVV- 19% lu³crative c‡usative
CVC- 16% f’xative f—rmative h—rtative
CV- 64% n‡rrative nŽgative v—cative fr’cative
Bisyllabic stems show three stress patterns, all of which appear in both American and British, but not always across the same words. Many words show multiple types in any case:
[1,0,2,0]: 18%
[1,0,0,0]: 15%
[0,1,0,0]: 67 %
(A.67)
[1,0,2,0]:
CVC-CVC- 2% c—ntemplaøtive
CV-CVC- 3% ’llustraøtive lŽgislaøtive
CVV-CV- 5% cu³mulaøtive (Br.alt.) ru³minaøtive (Br. alt.)
CVC-CV- 9% ’ndicaøtive (Br. alt.) qu‡ntitaøtive
CV-CV- 81% c—pulaøtive (Br. alt.) gŽneraøtive (Br. alt.)
mŽditaøtive ’mitaøtive pŽnetraøtive
c—nnotaøtive qu‡litaøtive c—mmutaøtive
[1,0,0,0]:
CV-CVC- 8% ’llustrative lŽgislative (Br. alt.)
CVV-CV- 18% cu³mulative ru³minative pe³jorative (Br.)
CVC-CV- 4% qu‡ntitative (Br. alt.)
CV-CV- 70% c—pulative gŽnerative f’gurative
dŽcorative spŽculative n—minative
[0,1,0,0]:
s-CVV- 18% incho³ative accu³sative commu³tative
conno³tative
s-CVC- 35% altŽrnative consŽrvative contŽmplative
aff’rmative inf—rmative dem—nstrative
prevŽntative supŽrlative
s-CV- 46% prov—cative comp‡rative ind’cative
ev—cative impŽrative
Here, many stems with a short vowel are seen that show a long vowel in their unsuffixed forms, although a few alternatively show long vowels as well. What generally distinguishes the last set from the others is that most (but not all) of these stems form suffixless prefixed verbs, while the first two sets are primarily made up of stems that tend to form verbs in /-ate/.
Trisyllabic stems show a similar distribution:
[0,1,0,2,0]: 38%
[0,1,0,0,0]: 43%
[2,0,1,0,0]: 18%
(A.68)
[0,1,0,2,0]:
s-CVV-CV- 25% accu³mulaøtive (Br. alt.) agglu³tinaøtive (Br. alt.)
appre³ciaøtive (Br. alt.)
s-CVC-CV- 8% intŽrpretaøtive (Br. alt.)
s-CV-CV- 67% all’teraøtive (Br. alt.) auth—ritaøtive
sign’ficaøtive (Br. alt.) commŽmoraøtive (Br. alt.)
corr—boraøtive (Br. alt.) degŽneraøtive (Br. alt.)
commu³nicaøtive (Br. alt.)
[0,1,0,0,0]:
s-CVV-CV- 22% accu³mulative agglu³tinative appre³ciative
recœperative remu³nerative vitu³perative
s-CVC-CV- 15% intŽrpretative detŽrminative sub—rdinative
s-CV-CV- 63% all’terative commŽmorative c¯—perative
sign’ficative corr—borative
[2,0,1,0,0]:
s`-s-CVC- 60% ˆrgumŽntative ndem—nstrative rpresŽntative
s`-s-CV- 40% “nterr—gative
In this case, American English appears to favor the variant without stress on the suffix, although there are some forms which retain variants or even prefer it. As was noted above, the morphological issue of whether a stem formed its verb in / ate/ or not appears to be directly linked to whether the antepenult received stress, although this is not a hard and fast rule:
(A.69)
[1,0,2,0] [1,0,0,0] [0,1,0,0]
gŽnerate gŽneraøtive gŽnerative
lŽgislate lŽgislaøtive lŽgislative
comp‡re comp‡rative
consŽrve consŽrvative
’ndicate ’ndicaøtive ind’cative
A.9.1 /-ment/
This suffix is parallel in behavior to /-ate/ and /-ize/ in some ways. When verbal, it takes the main stress in bisyllabic words, but reverts to secondarily stressed status when the word is trisyllabic or greater. In nominals, /-ment/ is only suffixed when the initial syllable of the word is light.
Words in /-ment/ may be divided into two groups, nouns (80%) and verbs (20%), of which the former greatly outnumbers the latter. The verbs show a final stress primarily absent from the nouns and may be treated first:
(A.70) Monosyllabic stems:
[0,1] : 84%
CVV- 11% f¯mŽnt
CVC- 55% augmŽnt fermŽnt fragmŽnt
segmŽnt tormŽnt
CV- 33% cemŽnt lamŽnt fomŽnt
[1,0] : 16% sŽgment (alt.) c—mment
Bisyllabic stems show the pattern [1,0,2], wherein the final syllable shows a full rather than a reduced vowel. There are a few words, like c—mplement, c—mpliment and rŽgiment which show variants with the pattern [2,0,1]. All such verbs have light penults.
(A.71) Bisyllabics: c—mplimnt c—mplemnt d—cumnt
’nstrumnt ’mplemnt —rnamnt
rŽgimnt sœpplemnt
There is also the longer verb expŽriment.
Nouns with monosyllabic stems are primarily initially stressed:
[0,1] : 6%
[1,0] : 94%
The few nouns, like cemŽnt, lamŽnt, which show final stress are also verbs. Other nouns that have corresponding verbs are initially stressed, e.g., ‡ugment, fŽrment, sŽgment, t—rment. These all have heavy initial syllables, in contrast to the finally stressed nouns.
(A.72)
CVVCC- 8% —intment a³ilment ba³ilment
CVVC- 21% ba³sement ca³sement m—vement
CVV- 19% pa³yment mo³ment ra³iment
CVC- 44% fŽrment f’gment fr‡gment
t—rment p’gment g‡rment
sh’pment sŽgment jœdgement
CV- 8% clŽment c—mment
Words showing two syllables preceding the suffix show two stress patterns with the following distribution:
[1,0,0] : 33%
[0,1,0] : 67%
Structurally, almost none of the latter group shows a light penult, the sole exception being the form inclŽment, a prefixed form of the adjective clŽment seen above. However, there are a number of words with antepenultimate stress which do have heavy penults, such as b‡nishment, ch‡stizement, m‡nagement, b‡fflement. In most cases, words with free stems appear to retain the same accentuation as their unsuffixed counterparts. A great many words with penultimate stress show prefixed monosyllabic stems.
(A.73)
[1,0,0] : 24%
CVC-CVV- 5% fr‡nchösement ch‡stösement (alt.)
CV-CVC- 21% m‡nagement g—vernment b‡nishment
sŽttlement w—nderment
CVV-CV- 6% mu³niment nu³triment ru³diment
CVC-CV- 25% ‡rgument ‡rmament Žxcrement
f’rmament ’mplement ’nstrument
CV-CV- 42% d—cument dŽtriment Žlement
f’lament mŽrriment
[0,1,0] : 76%
CVVCC- 10% ann—uncement ann—intment arra³ngement
CVVC- 37% repla³cement conce³alment conf´nement
cons´gnment
CVV- 10% repa³yment empl—yment end—wment
CVCC- 19% adv‡ncement bomb‡rdment comp—rtment
ench‡ntment enf—rcement
CVC- 19% confŽrment entr‡pment fulf’llment
assŽssment
CV- 5% inclŽment
Four syllable words show a similar pattern, but there are a few forms with unusual initial stress:
(A.74)
[0,1,0,0]: 61%
[2,0,1,0]: 32%
[1,0,0,0]: 2% tŽmperament l’neament mŽdicament
[1,0,2,0]: 5% —verstaøtement œnderstaøtement ‡dvert“sement
œndergˆrment rŽconcØlement
The last pattern is an inversion of the expected [2,0,1,0]. Again, words with antepenultimate stress tend to have light penults, end in liquids or be multiply suffixed.
(A.75)
s-CVV-CVC 17% disa³blement enl´ghtenment ent´tlement
acqu´rement enno³blement env´ronment
s-CVC-CVC- 15% disfr‡nchisement enfr‡nchisement advŽrtisement
ab‡ndonment enc’rclement ent‡nglement
bew’lderment
s-CV-CVC- 31% ackn—wledgement emb‡rrassment embŽllishment
enc—uragement devŽlopment emb’tterment
impr’sonment
s-CVC-CV- 16% dis‡rmament re‡rmament presŽntiment
s-CV-CV- 21% emb—diment impŽdiment arb’trament
expŽriment pred’cament
There are apparently no words of the form s-CVV-CV- in this group. The word impŽdiment is notable in that the stem seen in impŽde appears short. Of the words with penultimate stress, most are prefixed monosyllabic stems:
(A.76)
s`-s-CVVCC- 10% prarra³ngement rarra³ngement d“sapp—intment
s`-s-CVVC- 38% prorda³inment rinsta³tement d“senga³gement
nterta³inment ral´gnment
s`-s-CVV- 21% ˜verpa³yment nempl—yment d“send—wment
d“sagre³ement
s`-s-CVCC- 24% rimbœrsement rinf—rcement d“scontŽntment
radjœstment
s`-s-CVC 6% d“sintŽrment
Among longer words, penultimate stress is not found, although some words do show preantepenultimate stress again. Most of the words with penultimate stress actually show a heavy penult, and are in fact prefixed versions of stems seen earlier.
(A.77)
[0,1,0,0,0]: 25% acc—mpaniment imp—verishment
[2,0,1,0,0]: 75% hred’tament d“semb‡rrassment d“sent‡nglement
d“sest‡blishment d“sillu³sionment ndern—urishment
A.10 /-ist/ and /-ism/
As in the / ment/ forms, for / ist/ and / ism/ words, stress appears to be related to the morphological type of the stem being suffixed. Words that are already suffixed tend to maintain that stress pattern, although there are exceptions.
Forms showing a monosyllabic stem are universally stressed with the pattern [1-0,(0)]; forms with light stems make up about a seventh of the group.
(A.78)
CVV- 48% cu³bist cy³clist pa³pist sty³list
de³ism nu³dism ra³cism ‡utist
CVC- 39% ‡rtist b‡ptist lŽftist l’nguist
m‡rxism sŽxism
CV- 13% cŽllist drœggist f‡scist chŽmist
tr‡ppist f‡scism s—phism
Words showing two syllables preceding the suffix show two stress patterns with the following distribution:
[1,0,0] 88%
[0,1,0] 12%
Unlike the words in the /-al/ group above, many of these words showing antepenultimate stress nevertheless have heavy penults:
(A.79)
CVV-CVV- 2% e³g¯tist a³th«ist Župh¬ism ju³daism
CVC-CVV- 5% j’ng¯ist p‡nth«ist h’nd¬ism ‡rchism
CV-CVV- 5% Žg¯ist Žssyist hŽr¯ism
CVV-CVC- 6% sc´entist so³lipsism so³lipsist (alt.)
CVC-CVC- 2% ‡dventist Žxorcist Žxorcism
CV-CVC- 3% c—lumnist s—lipsist ‡narchist m—dernism
CVV-CV- 25% Žucharist b´cyclist ch‡uvinist d´arist
he³donist mo³torist so³cialist fa³talism
re³alism vo³calism n´hilism
CVC-CV- 19% ‡ctivist ‡lchemist ‡rsonist p—rtraitist
f—rmalism sy²mbolism pr‡gmatism
CV-CV- 34% —culist b’gamist b—tanist cl‡ssicist
m—ralist s‡tirist str‡tegist cl‡ssicism
fŽminism m‡sochism fŽtishism c—mmunist
Notable are the short penults seen in s‡tirist, str‡tegist, as compared to s‡töre and strate³gic. A number of words have alternate forms with quantity fluctuations. Also notable is the shortening seen in hŽroism. Many of the words with heavy antepenults that are skipped have similarly stressed stems in isolation, e.g., c—lumn, g—vern, ‡narchy. There are also a number of stems that are already suffixed with /-al/ and /-ent/ type suffixes, e.g., sc’entist, v—calist, ‡ctivist.
Words with penultimate stress are in a minority. Almost all show heavy penults:
(A.80)
CVV- 53% el’tist cart—onist extre³mist esca³pist
mach’nist defe³atism ide³alism surre³alism
CVC- 33% conf—rmist resŽrvist transvŽstism
CV- 13% librŽttist narc’ssist (Br.) narc’ssism (Br.)
Very few forms show a stressed light antepenultimate syllable. Again, many stems are similar to their unsuffixed forms, e.g., defŽat, extrŽme, cart—on, conf—rm. Words with trisyllabic stems show a range of stress patterns:
Trisyllabic stems: [0,1,0,0] 59%
[2,0,1,0] 13%
[1,0,2,0]: 7%
[1,0,0,0] 20%
Words with antepenultimate stress have light penults:
(A.81)
s-CVV-CV- 17% anae³sthetist pod´atrist salva³tionist beha³viorist
illu³sionist rev´valist beha³viorism ide³alism
s-CVC-CV- 26% projŽctionist num’smatist rom‡nticist
mis‡nthropist patŽrnalist obstrœctionism
somn‡mbulism ev‡ngelism
s-CV-CV- 57% seösm—logist ec—nomist phon—logist
exprŽssionist ventr’loquist suprŽmacist
telŽphonist sax—phonist (alt.) emp’ricism
fan‡ticism ant‡gonism met‡bolism
While most words appear to have the same accentuation as their unsuffixed forms, a few, like telŽphonist and alternate British pronunciations of cap’talist and sax—phonist, do not. Fewer words show penultimate stress, most of which have heavy penults:
(A.82)
s`-s-CVV- 32% pˆrachu³tist (alt.) ˜pportu³nist ˆbsolu³tist
˜pportu³nism p˜lythe³ism ˆbsente³eism
m˜nothe³ism
s`-s-CVC- 50% n˜nconf—rmist ˜bscur‡ntist “rredŽntist
pr˜pag‡ndist ˜bscur‡ntism “rredŽntism
s`-s-CV- 18% v“ol’nist clˆrinŽtist
Words like v“ol’nist follow the stress of the simplex v“ol’n, despite the fact that the main stressed syllable is light. A few words show the inverse pattern, with initial stress; all have heavy penults:
(A.83)
s²-s-CVV- 67% p‡rachuøtist m—notheøist m—torcyøclist
m‡nicuørist s‡xophoønist —pportuønism (alt.)
‡bsoluøtism ph‡risaøism
s²-s-CVC- 33% t‡xidrmist mŽtallrgist
Words with the pattern [1,0,0,0], with no secondary stress, primarily show light syllables in the penult.
(A.84)
s²-s-CVC- 13% pr—testantism
s²-s-CV- 77% n‡turalist r‡tionalist fœnctionalist c‡pitalist
sŽparatist f‡voritism ‡lcoholism pœritanism
rŽlativism
Many of these are light bisyllabic stems extended in /-al/ suffixes, e.g., c‡pitalism, rŽlativism, but the suffix /-ate/ appears to show a similar treatment in sŽparatist, similarly the suffix /-ant/ in pr—testantism. Similar patterns are seen for longer words:
(A.85) Four syllables:
[2,0,1,0,0] 89% smif´nalist c˜nserva³tionist trˆnscendŽntalist
ˆnthrop—logist sˆdom‡sochism ˆntisŽmitism
[0,1,0,0,0] 5% sensa³tionalist colo³nialist impe³rialism
mate³rialism
[2,0,0,1,0] 3% cˆricatœrist (alt.) v“olincŽllist ˆnthropom—rphism
[1,0,0,2,0] 1% c‡ricatrist
[1,0,0,0,0] 2% sp’ritualist sp’ritualism
Most longer words are multiply suffixed and follow the stress patterns of the singly suffixed form.
(A.86) Five syllables:
[2,0,1,0,0,0] ˆgricœlturalist c˜ngrega³tionalist c˜nstitu³tionalist
“ntern‡tionalism vangelicalism
[2,0,0,1,0,0] bˆcteri—logist m“crobö—logist phy``siothŽrapist
paøleont—logist ˆutoer—ticism
[0,2,0,1,0,0] bactri—logist (alt.) collˆbor‡tionist env“ronmŽntalism
elctrom‡gnetism
Six syllables: auth˜rita³rianism totˆlita³rianism humˆnita³rianism
Seven syllables: lˆtitdina³rianism
A.11 /-able/
This suffix appears to be similar in realization to the /-ic/ type suffix / ible/, but it maintains a different stress pattern which generally corresponds to words with the orthographic representation ‘-able’. The suffix surfaces as / æbæl/, but the underlying form /-abil/ is suggested by extended forms in / ity/, e.g., chˆngeab’lity /aønï-æb’l-iti/. Forms showing a monosyllabic stem are universally stressed with the pattern [1,0,0] and shows all types of stems:
(A.87)
CVVC- 5% cha³ngeable c—untable
CVV- 29% brea³kable e³quable (alt.) quo³table ca³pable
CVC- 31% s—lvable th’nkable p‡lpable
CV- 25% l’vable fl‡mmable st—ppable pr—bable
sy²llable
As can be seen, there is practically no distinction regarding the distribution of the different stem types, apart from those with extra-heavy stems, which are generally rare in English. Non-Latinate stems combine freely with / able/, which is still derivationally productive.
Words showing two syllables preceding the suffix show two stress patterns with the following distribution:
[1,0-0,0] 31%
[0,1-0,0] 69%
Of the first set, most show a light antpenultimate syllable:
(A.88)
CVC-CVC- 2% c—mfortable
CV-CVC- 3% dŽmonstrable (Br.) l‡mentable (Br.)
CVV-CV- 10% fa³vorable no³ticeable re³asonable v´olable
su³perable
CVC-CV- 31% ‡dmirable ‡ctionable ‡nswerable Žxecrable
m‡rketable sŽrviceable f—rmidable (alt.)
tr‡nsferable (alt.)
CV-CV- 53% ‡pplicable sŽparable p‡latable v‡luable
m‡nageable crŽditable Žnviable ch‡ritable
prŽferable vŽgetable
Quite often, words with final stress fail to maintain that stress in the suffixed form, e.g., prŽferable, tr‡nsferable, ‡dmirable, the latter also showing no trace of the long vowel.
Of the second pattern with antepenultimate stress, a majority of these forms show heavy antepenultimates. Many of these stems are prefixed monosyllables, but a few are bisyllabic but stressed on a light antepenult:
(A.89)
s-CVVC- 4% excha³ngeable surm—untable acc—untable
s-CVV- 40% impla³cable (Br.) inca³pable ame³nable
insa³tiable mainta³inable adv´sable
unspe³akable
s-CVC- 38% imprŽgnable delŽctable accŽptable
transp—rtable dispŽnsable
s-CV- 18% form’dable (alt.) impl‡cable (alt.) impr—bable
transfŽrable (alt.) hosp’table
Note the alternate pronunciation of form’dable, as well as hosp’table, which are stressed on light syllables. Prefixed verbs in this set, unlike the previous, are seen to maintain their stress patterns.
The stress distribution noted above is paralleled by the longer forms. Again, words with light antepenults usually show the final stress pattern [2,0,1,0] while words with heavy penults show [0,1,0,0]. Words multiply suffixed with /-ify/, / ize/ and similar long suffixes show the inverted pattern [1,0,2,0]:
(A.90) Trisyllabic forms:
[0,1,0-0,0] 52%
s-CVV-CV 15% indu³bitable dec´pherable
s-CVC-CV- 35% invœlnerable ext’nguishable unc—nscionable
inc—mparable
s-CV-CV- 50% inŽvitable unŽnviable ab—minable irrŽfutable (alt.)
inv’olable cons’derable irrŽvocable (alt.)
[2,0,1-0,0] 34%
s`-s-CVVC- 8% “ntercha³ngeable nacc—untable
s`-s-CVV- 62% “nconso³lable crtif´able d“sagre³eable
s`-s-CVC- 17% “nelœctable “ncontŽstable
s`-s-CV- 12% “nappl’cable “nhosp’table nforgŽttable
[1,0,2-0,0] 14%
s²-s-CVV- 73% no³tiföable
s²-s-CVC- 12% qu‡ntiföable œnbelieøvable (alt.)
s²-s-CV- 15% cl‡ssiföable rŽcognØzable (alt.) rŽconcØlable
m—nosy``llable
While many monosyllabic stems retain their stress, others, as in alternate pronunciations of irrŽfutable, irrŽvocable, lose theirs.
(A.91) Four syllables:
[2,0,1,0-0,0] “ndef‡tigable “ndec´pherable “next’nguishable
ninh‡bitable “rrec—verable
[0,1,0,2-0,0] irrŽconcØlable (alt.)
[2,2,0,1-0,0] “rrconc´lable (alt.)
[2,0,0,1-0,0] bØodegra³deable
Bibliography
Anderson, S. (1985). Phonology in the Twentieth Century,
Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baayen, R. H., R. Piepenbrock & H. van Rijn (1993). The CELEX Lexical
Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium,
University of Pennsylvania.
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Benua, L. (1995). Identity effects in morphological truncation.
in Beckman, Dickey & Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory
(pp. 77-136). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Bird, S. (1990), Constraint-based Phonology.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Bird, S. & T. M. Ellison (1992). One level phonology.
Research paper EUCCS/RP-51, University of Edinburgh.
Booij, G. (1981). Rule ordering, rule application and the organization of grammars. Phonologica 1980, 45-56.
Booij, G. & J. Rubach (1984). Morphological and prosodic domains in Lexical Phonology. Phonology Yearbook 1, 1-27.
Borowsky, T. (1986). Topics in the Lexical Phonology of English,
Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Borowsky, T. (1989). Structure preservation and the syllable coda in English.
NLLT 7: 145-166.
Brame, M. (1974). The cycle in phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese & Spanish. LI 5.1: 39-60.
Browman, Catherine & Louis Goldstein (1988). Some notes on syllable structure in articulatory phonology. Phonetica 45: 140-155.
Burzio, L. (1993). English stress, vowel length, and modularity.
Journal of Linguistics 29: 359-418.
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organization.
in Hammond & Noonan, eds., Theoretical Morphology.
New York: Academic Press.
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon.
Language and Cognitive Processes 10.
Chomsky, N. (1967). Some general properties of phonological rules.
Language 43.1: 103-128.
Chomsky, N. & M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English.
New York: Harper & Row.
Clements, G.N. (1985). The problem of transfer in nonlinear morphology.
Cornell Working Papers, vol. 7.
Clements, G.N. (1985). The geometry of phonological features.
Phonology Yearbook 2: 225-252.
Clements, G.N. (1990). Vowel height as a hierarchical feature.
Handout, Cornell Linguistics Circle, Oct. 2.
Clements, G.N. (1988). The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification.
in Kingston & Beckman, eds., Papers in Laboratory Phonology 1,
Cambridge, MA: Cornell University Press.
Clements, G.N. & S. R. Hertz (1996). An integrated model of phonetic
representation in grammar. Ms., Cornell University and University of
Paris III.
Clements, G.N. & E. Hume (1995). The internal organization of speech
sounds. in Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp.
70-114). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Clements, G.N. & S.J. Keyser (1983). CV Phonology: a Generative Theory of
the Syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cohn, A. (1989). Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes.
NLLT 7: 167-216.
Cohn, A. & J. McCarthy (1994). Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian prosody. Ms., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Cole, J. (1995). The cycle in phonology.
in Goldsmith, ed., The Handbook of Phonological Theory (pp. 70-114).
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Comlex (1995), The COMLEX English pronouncing lexicon.
Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
Crowhurst, M. & M. Hewitt (1995). Directional footing, degeneracy, and alignment.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 65.
Ellison, T. M. (1995). Phonological derivation in Optimality Theory.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 75.
Freidin, R. (1978). Cyclicity and the theory of grammar.
LI 9.4: 519-549.
Fudge, E. (1969). Syllables.
Journal of Linguistics 5: 253-286.
Fudge, E. (1987). Branching structure within the syllable.
Journal of Linguistics 23: 359-377.
Fudge, E. (1984). English Word Stress.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Golston, C. (1995). Against syllabification.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 95.
Golston, C. (1996), Direct OT: Representation as pure markedness.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 71.
Green, T. & M. Kenstowicz (1995). The lapse constraint.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 101.
Hale, K. (1973). Deep-surface canonical disparities in relation to analysis and
change: an Australian example. In T. Sebeok (ed.), Current Trends in
Linguistics, vol. 9: Diachronic, Areal and Typological Linguistics (pp.
401-458). The Hague: Mouton.
Hale, M. & C. Reiss (1997). Grammar Optimization: The simultaneous
acquisition of constraint ranking and a lexicon. Rutgers Optimality
Archive 231.
Halle, M. (1977). Tenseness, vowel shift and the phonology of back vowels
in Modern English. LI 8: 611-625.
Halle, M. & M. Kenstowicz (1991). The free element condition and cyclic
versus noncyclic stress. LI 22.3: 457-501.
Halle, M. & K. P. Mohanan (1985). Segmental phonology of Modern English, LI 16: 57-116.
Halle, M. & J.-R. Vergnaud (1978). Metrical structures in phonology.
Ms., MIT.
Halle, M. & J.-R. Vergnaud (1987). An Essay on Stress.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hammond, M. (1984). Constraining metrical theory: A modular theory of
rhythm and destressing. Doctoral dissertation, UCLA.
Hammond, M. (1995). There is no lexicon!
Rutgers Optimality Archive 43.
Harris, J. (1985). Spanish diphthongization and stress: a paradox resolved.
Phonology Yearbook 2: 31-45.
Hayes, B. (1981). A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules.
Bloomington, IN: The Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Hayes, B. (1982). Extrametricality & English stress.
LI 13.2: 227-276.
Hayes, B. (1985). Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules.
Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 11.
Hayes, B. (1986). Inalterability in CV phonology.
Language 62.2: 321-352.
Hayes, B. (1987). A revised parametric metrical theory",
NELS 17: 274-289.
Hayes, B. (1989). Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology.
LI 20. 2: 253-306.
Hayes, B. (1995). Metrical Stress Theory.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hung, H. (1994). The Rhythmic and Prosodic Organization of Edge Constituents.
Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University.
Inkelas, S. (1989), Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon,
Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Inkelas, S. (1994). The consequences of optimization for underspecification.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 40.
Inkelas, S., O. Orgun & C. Zoll (1994). Exceptions and static phonological
patterns: cophonologies vs. prespecification.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 124.
It™, J. (1989). A Prosodic Theory of Epenthesis.
NLLT 7: 217-259.
It™, J. & A. Mester (1994). Reflections on CodaCond and Alignment.
Phonology at Santa Cruz 3: 27-46.
It™, J., A. Mester & J. Padgett (1994). NC: Licensing and underspecification in
Optimality Theory. Rutgers Optimality Archive 38.
Jensen, J. T. (1990). Morphology,
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kager, R. (1989). A metrical theory of stress and destressing in English and Dutch,
Dordrecht: Foris.
Kahn, D. (1976). Syllable-based generalizations in English Phonology.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Published 1980, by Garland Publishers, N.Y.
Kaisse, E. & P. Shaw (1985). On the theory of Lexical Phonology.
Phonology Yearbook 2: 1-30.
Kean, M. (1974). The strict cycle in phonology.
LI 5.2: 179-203.
Kiparsky, P. (1973). ‘Elsewhere’ in Phonology.
in Anderson & Kiparsky, eds., A Festschrift for Morris Halle,
New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Kiparsky, P. (1979). Metrical structure assignment is cyclic.
LI 10.3: 421-444.
Kiparsky, P. (1981). Remarks on the metrical structure of the syllable.
in W. Dressler, ed., Phonologica, vol. 3. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker
BeitrŠge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Kiparsky, P. (1982a). Lexical Morphology and Phonology.
in I.-S. Yang, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm,
Seoul, Hanshin Publishing.
Kiparsky, P. (1982b). From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology.
in van der Hulst & Smith, eds., The Structure of Phonological Representations., vol. 1 (pp. 131-175). Dordrecht: Foris.
Kiparsky, P. (1982c), "Word-Formation and the Lexicon",
Mid-American Linguistics Conference, 3-29.
Kiparsky, P. (1982d), Explanation in Phonology.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Kiparsky, P. (1985). Some Consequences of Lexical Phonology.
Phonology Yearbook 2: 85-138.
Kiparsky, P. (1994). Remarks on markedness. Trilateral Phonology Weekend
II. University of California, Santa Cruz.
Lahiri A. & J. Koreman (1988). Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch.
Proceedings of the 7th WCCFL: 217-228.
Lahiri, A. (1991). Abstractness in Lexical Representations.
Handout, University of Edinburgh talk.
Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental Phonology.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Levin, J. (1985). A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Liberman, M. & A. Prince (1977) On stress and linguistic rhythm".
LI 8.2: 249-336.
Maddieson, I. (1985). Phonetic cues to syllabification.
in V. Fromkin, ed., Linguistic Phonetics. Orlando: Academic.
Marchand, H. (1969), English Word Formation.
Munich: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Mascar—, J. (1976). Catalan phonology and the phonological cycle.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Dist. by the Indiana U. Linguistics Club,
Bloomington, Ind.
Matthews, P.H. (1974). Morphology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, J. (1981). A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology.
LI 12.3: 373-418.
McCarthy, J. (1983). Prosodic organization in morphology.
UMOP 8: 61-75.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1986). Prosodic Morphology.
Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Brandeis University.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1988), Quantitative transfer in reduplicative and templatic morphology. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm, vol. 2 (pp.3-35). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1990a). Foot and word in prosodic morphology: the
Arabic broken plural. NLLT 8: 209-283.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1990b). Prosodic Morphology and Templatic
Morphology. In Eid & McCarthy, eds., Perspectives on Arab Linguistics
II, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1992). Constraint interaction in Prosodic
Morphology and Phonology. Handout, Cornell University talk.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1993a). Generalized Alignment. Rutgers Optimality
Archive 7.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1993b). Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint
interaction and satisfaction. Ms., University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, and Rutgers University.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1994). The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality
in Prosodic Morphology. Rutgers Optimality Archive 13.
McCarthy, J. & A. Prince (1995). Faithfulness and reduplicative identity.
in Beckman, Dickey & Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory
(pp. 249-384). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Mester, R. A. (1994). The quantitative trochee in Latin.
NLLT 12: 1-61.
Milliken, S. (1988). Protosyllables: A Theory of Underlying Syllable Structure
in Nonlinear Phonology. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Mohanan, K.P. (1982). Lexical Phonology.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Mohanan, K.P. (1985). Syllable structure and lexical strata in English.
Phonology Yearbook 2: 139-155.
Mšssner, L. (1978). Morphonologie.
TŸbingen: Niemeyer.
Myers, S. (1987). Vowel shortening in English.
NLLT 5, 485-518.
Myers, S. (1991). Persistent rules.
LI 22.2: 315-344.
Nanni, D. (1977). Stressing words in -Ative.
LI 8: 752-763.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1982). Prosodic domains of external sandhi rules.
in van der Hulst & Smith, The Structure of Phonological
Representations, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Foris.
Nespor , M. & I. Vogel (1983). Prosodic structure above the word.
in Ladd & Cutler, eds., Prosody: Models and Measurement.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Nespor, M. & I. Vogel (1986). Prosodic Phonology.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Oehrle, T. (1972). The stress pattern of bisyllabic words in English.
Paper presented at NELS 3, Amherst, MA.
Padgett, J. (1995). Feature Classes.
in Beckman, Dickey & Urbanczyk, eds., Papers in Optimality Theory
(pp. 385-420). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
Paradis, C. (1988). On constraints and repair strategies.
The Linguistic Review 6: 71-97.
Pater, J. (1994). Optionality and Optimality: Syllable weight effects in English
secondary stress. Ms., McGill University.
Pater, J. (1995). On the nonuniformity of weight-to-stress and stress
preservation effects in English. Rutgers Optimality Archive 107.
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language.
Science 253: 530-535.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: the new science of language and
mind. London: Penguin.
Pinker, S. & A. Prince (1991). Regular and irregular morphology and the
psychological status of rules of grammar. Proceedings of the 17th
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 230-251).
Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Poldauf, I. (1984). English Word Stress.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Poser, W. (1982). Phonological representation and action-at-a-distance.
in van der Hulst & Smith, The Structure of Phonological
Representations, vol. 2. Dordrecht, Foris.
Prince, A. (1983). Relating to the grid.
LI 14: 19-100.
Prince, A. (1990). Quantitative consequences of rhythmic organization.
Chicago Linguistic Society 26.
Prince, A. & P. Smolensky (1993). Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in
generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of
Colorado, Boulder.
Rialland, A. (1991). L’allongement compensatoire : nature et modles.
in Laks & Rialland, eds., L’Architecture et la GŽomŽtrie des ReprŽsentations Phonologiques. Paris: Editions du C.N.R.S.
Rosenthall, S. (1994). Vowel/Glide Alternation in a Theory of Constraint
Interaction. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Rubach, J. (1984). Segmental rules of English and cyclic phonology.
Language 60.1: 21-54.
Russell, K. (1995). Morphemes and candidates in Optimality Theory.
Rutgers Optimality Archive 44.
Sainz, S. (1988). A noncyclic analysis of English word stress.
Working Papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 3: 1-82.
Sainz, S. (1992). A Noncyclic Approach to the Lexical Phonology of English,
Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Scobbie, J. (1991). Attribute Value Phonology.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Selkirk, E. (1980). The role of prosodic categories in English word stress.
LI 11.3: 563-605.
Selkirk, E. (1982a). The Syntax of Words.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Selkirk, E. (1982b). The syllable.
in van der Hulst & Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol.2. Dordrecht: Foris.
Selkirk, E. (1984), Phonology & Syntax.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sherer, T. (1994). Prosodic Phonotactics.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Siegel, D. (1974). Topics in English Morphology.
Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Stampe, D. (1972). How I Spent My Summer Vacation.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Stanley, R. (1967). Redundancy rules in phonology.
Language 43.2: 393-436.
Steriade, D. (1987). Locality conditions and feature geometry.
NELS 17: 595-617.
Vennemann, T. (1974). Words and syllables in natural generative phonology.
In Natural Phonology Parasession, pp. 346-374. Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Waugh, L. (1992). Constraints on iconicity in the lexicon.
American Journal of Semiotics, 9.1: 7-48.
Woods, A., P. Fletcher & A. Hughes (1986). Statistics in language studies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yip, M. (1987). English vowel epenthesis.
NLLT 5: 463-484.
Zec, D. (1988). Sonority constraints on prosodic structure.
Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Zec, D. (1990). Closed syllables in Lithuanian.
FLSM: 317-330.
Zec, D. (1994), Coda constraints and conditions on syllable weight.
Ms., Cornell University.
Zec, D. & S. Inkelas (1990). Prosodically Constrained Syntax.
in Zec & Inkelas, eds., The Phonology-Syntax Connectio.n.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zoll, C. (1994a). Subsegmental parsing: Floating features in Chaha and
Yawelmani. Rutgers Optimality Archive 29.
Zoll, C. (1994b). Anchors away: a unified treatment of latent segments and
floating features. Ms., University of California, Berkeley.
Zoll, C. (1995). Conflicting directionality. Ms., University of California,
Berkeley and University of Iowa.
Zoll, C. (1996). Parsing Below the Segment in a Constraint-Based Framework.
Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
|