Advertisement

Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 79–133 | Cite as

Unexceptional segments

  • Maria Gouskova
Article

Abstract

A famous perennial problem in Slavic phonology is yers: vowels that idiosyncratically alternate with zero (e.g., [mox] vs. [mx-a] ‘moss (nom/gen sg)’ alongside [nos] vs. [nos-a] ‘nose (nom/gen sg)’). The widely accepted analysis of these “ghost vowels” is that they must be underlyingly marked as exceptional on a segment-by-segment basis. Moreover, usually they are assumed to be underlyingly representationally defective—either nonmoraic or lacking features (Kenstowicz and Rubach 1987, inter alia). In this paper, I revisit yers from a different perspective. Instead of treating the segments as special, I argue that exceptionality is a property of whole morphemes. This theory of exceptionality has many incarnations (Chomsky and Halle 1968 et seq.), but my version is formalized as Lexically Indexed Constraints in Optimality Theory: in any given language, a universal constraint can be indexed to individual morphemes in the lexicon and ranked in two different positions in the language’s hierarchy (Pater 2000, 2006). In Russian, the relevant indexed constraint is *Mid, which penalizes the peripheral mid vowels [e] and [o]. The general, non-indexed constraint is independently needed to explain vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. The indexed version explains why only mid vowels alternate with zero in Russian. This generalization about yer quality is lost in representational accounts, since any vowel can be labeled as nonmoraic underlyingly. Another unsolved mystery about Russian yers is that only vowels in the final syllable of a morpheme can alternate with zero. This requires a phonological explanation—labeling only the alternating vowels as underlyingly special does not address the position problem.

Keywords

Phonology Morphology Lexical exceptions Minor rules Indexed constraints Ghost vowels Yers Slavic Russian Turkish Hebrew 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adam, Galit. 2002. From variable to optimal grammar: Evidence from language acquisition and language change. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel. Google Scholar
  2. Albright, Adam. 2002. The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. PhD diss, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. Google Scholar
  3. Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20 (1): 1–42. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avanesov, R. I. 1968. Russkoe literaturnoe proiznoshenie [Literary pronunciation of Russian], 6th (1984) edn. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Prosvescenie. Google Scholar
  5. Bach, Emmon, and Robert T. Harms. 1972. How do languages get crazy rules? In Linguistic change and generative theory, eds. Robert P. Stockwell and Ronald K. S. Macaulay, 1–21. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
  6. Bakovic, Eric. 2000. Harmony, dominance, and control. PhD diss, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Google Scholar
  7. Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Vowel reduction in Russian: The categorical and the gradient. Boston, MA. Handout from LSA 78. Google Scholar
  8. Becker, Michael, Nihan Ketrez, and Andrew Nevins. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish devoicing neutralization. Language, 87(1): 84–125. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckman, Jill. 1997. Positional faithfulness, positional neutralization, and Shona vowel harmony. Phonology 14 (1): 1–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beckman, Jill 1998. Positional faithfulness. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
  11. Benua, Laura. 1997. Transderivational identity: Phonological relations between words. PhD diss, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-259, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  12. Bethin, Christina. 1992. Polish syllables: The role of prosody in phonology and morphology. Columbus: Slavica Publishers. Google Scholar
  13. Bethin, Christina. 2006. Stress and tone in East Slavic dialects. Phonology 23 (3): 125–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Blake, Susan. 2001. On the distribution and representation of schwa in Sliammon Salish: Descriptive and theoretical perspectives. PhD diss, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Google Scholar
  15. Blumenfeld, Lev. 2006. Constraints on phonological interactions. PhD diss, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Google Scholar
  16. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 1997. Mostly predictable: Cyclicity and the distribution of schwa in Itelmen. Manuscript, Available as ROA-208 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  17. Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Paradigms (Optimal and otherwise): A case for scepticism. In Inflectional identity, eds. Asaf Bachrach and Andrew Nevins, 29–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  18. Borowsky, Toni. 1989. Structure preservation and the Syllable Coda in English. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7 (2): 145–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brame, Michael. 1974. The cycle in phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese and Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 5 (1): 39–60. Google Scholar
  20. Cable, Seth. 2006. Syncope in the verbal prefixes of Tlingit: Meter and surface phonotactics. Lincom studies in native American linguistics. Muenchen: Lincom Europa. Google Scholar
  21. Casali, Roderic F. 1997. Vowel elision in hiatus contexts: Which vowel goes? Language 73: 493–533. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
  23. Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Papers in laboratory phonology 1: Between the grammar and physics of speech, eds. John Kingston and Mary Beckman, 283–333. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  24. Crosswhite, Katherine. 1999. Vowel reduction in Optimality Theory. PhD diss, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Google Scholar
  25. Crothers, John 1978. Typology and universals of vowel systems. In Vol. 2 of Phonology. Universals of human language, ed. J. Greenberg. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 1988. Investigations into Polish morphology and phonology. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  27. de Lacy, Paul. 2002. The formal expression of markedness. PhD diss, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA. Google Scholar
  28. Dell, Francois, and Elisabeth Selkirk. 1978. On a morphologically governed vowel alternation in French. In Recent transformational studies in European languages. Vol. 3 of Linguistic Inquiry monograph series, ed. Samuel Jay Keyser. 1–51. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  29. Farina, Donna. 1991. Palatalization and yers in modern Russian phonology: An underspecification approach. PhD diss, University of Illinois, Urbana. Google Scholar
  30. Flack, Kathryn. 2007. Templatic morphology and indexed markedness constraints. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (4): 749–758. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fukazawa, Haruka. 1999. Theoretical implications of OCP effects on features in Optimality Theory. PhD diss, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Google Scholar
  32. Gouskova, Maria. 2003. Deriving economy: Syncope in Optimality Theory. PhD diss, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA. Available as ROA-610 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  33. Gouskova, Maria. 2007. The reduplicative template in Tonkawa. Phonology 24 (3): 367–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gouskova, Maria. 2010. The phonology of boundaries and secondary stress in Russian compounds. The Linguistic Review, 17(4): 387–448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gouskova, Maria, and Michael Becker. 2011. Wug-testing Russian yers. Manuscript, NYU and UMass Amherst. Google Scholar
  36. Greenberg, Joseph. 1950. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. Word 6: 162–181. Google Scholar
  37. Gribanova, Vera. 2008. Russian prefixes, prepositions and palatalization in stratal OT. In Proceedings of WCCFL 26, eds. Charles B. Change and Hannah J. Haynie, 217–225. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  38. Gribanova, Vera. 2009a. Phonological evidence for a distinction between Russian prepositions and prefixes. In Studies in formal Slavic phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and information structure: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on formal description of Slavic languages, eds. Gerhild Zybatow, Uwe Junghanns, Denisa Lenertová, and Petr Biskup, 383–396. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Google Scholar
  39. Gribanova, Vera. 2009b. The phonology and syntax of sub-words. Presented at GLOW 32, 16 April 2009. Google Scholar
  40. Gussmann, Edmund. 1980. Studies in abstract phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  41. Halle, Morris. 1973. The accentuation of Russian words. Language 49 (2): 312–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology. In The view from building 20. Essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  43. Halle, Morris, and Ora Matushansky. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (3): 351–404. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hermans, Ben. 2002. Overapplication of yer vocalization in Russian. Linguistics in the Netherlands. Google Scholar
  45. Horwood, Graham. 1999. Anti-faithfulness and subtractive morphology. Manuscript, New Brunswick, NJ. Available as ROA-466 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  46. Howe, Darin, and Douglas Pulleyblank. 2004. Harmonic scales as faithfulness. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 49 (1): 1–49. Google Scholar
  47. Inkelas, Sharon, and C. Orhan Orgun. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71 (4): 763–793. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2007. Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45 (1): 133–171. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Inkelas, Sharon, Orhan Orgun, and Cheryl Zoll. 1997. The implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. Iggy Roca, 393–418. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  50. Iosad, Pavel, and Bruce Morén-Duolljá. 2010. Russian palatalization: The true(r) story. Presented at Old World Conference in Phonology 7. Google Scholar
  51. Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1995a. The core-periphery structure of the lexicon and constraints on reranking. In Papers in optimality theory, eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 181–210. Amherst: GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  52. Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1995b. Japanese phonology. In Handbook of phonological theory, ed. John Goldsmith, 817–838. Cambridge: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  53. Ito, Junko, and Armin Mester. 1999. The phonological lexicon. In The handbook of Japanese linguistics, ed. Natsuko Tsujimura, 62–100. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  54. Jarosz, Gaja. 2005. Polish yers and the finer structure of output-output correspondence. In Proceedings of BLS 31. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Google Scholar
  55. Jarosz, Gaja. 2008. Partial ranking and alternating vowels in Polish. In Proceedings of CLS 43, Vol. 41, 193–206. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Google Scholar
  56. Jones, Daniel, and Dennis Ward. 1969. The phonetics of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  57. Jurgec, Peter. 2010. Disjunctive lexical stratification. Linguistic Inquiry 41 (1): 149–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kager, René. 1997. Rhythmic vowel deletion in optimality theory. In Derivations and constraints in phonology, ed. Iggy Roca, 463–499. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  59. Kallestinova, Elena. 2004. Voice and aspiration in Turkish stops. In Folia linguistica 38: Special issue on voice, ed. Grzegorz Dogil, Vol. 38, 117–143. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  60. Katz, Jonah. 2005. Russian consonant Cvljusters. MIT, Cambridge, MA, Manuscript. http://web.mit.edu/jikatz/www/KatzPhonSquib.pdf, last accessed 09 July 2010.
  61. Kawahara, Shigeto. 2007. On the proper treatment of non-crisp edges. In Vol. 13 of Japanese/Korean linguistics, eds. Mutsuko Hudson Endo, Peter Sells, and Sun-Ah Jun, 55–67. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  62. Kenstowicz, Michael, and Jerzy Rubach. 1987. The phonology of syllabic nuclei in Slovak. Language 63 (3): 463–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kinkade, Dale. 1997. How much does a schwa weigh? In Salish languages and linguistics: Theoretical and descriptive perspectives, eds. Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and Dale Kinkade. Vol. 107 of Trends in linguistics, 197–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. In-Seok Yang, Vol. 2, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin. Google Scholar
  65. Kiparsky, Valentin. 1979. Russian historical grammar, Vol. 1. Ann Arbor: Ardis. Google Scholar
  66. Kirchner, Robert. 1993. Turkish vowel harmony and disharmony: An Optimality Theoretic account. Los Angeles, Manuscript. Available as ROA-4 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  67. Kopkalli, Handan. 1993. A phonetic and phonological analysis of final devoicing in Turkish. PhD diss, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Google Scholar
  68. Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona. 1995. The phonology of stress in Polish. PhD diss, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Google Scholar
  69. Lees, Robert. 1961. The phonology of modern standard Turkish. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. Google Scholar
  70. Levi, Susannah V. 2004. The representation of underlying glides: a cross-linguistic study. PhD diss, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Google Scholar
  71. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  72. Lightner, Theodore. 1965. Segmental phonology of Modern Standard Russian. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  73. Lightner, Theodore. 1972. Problems in the theory of phonology. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Google Scholar
  74. Marlett, S., and Joseph P. Stemberger. 1983. Empty consonants in Seri. Linguistic Inquiry 5: 617–639. Google Scholar
  75. Martínez, Michal T. 2008. Exceptions encoded at the segmental level. In Proceedings of WCCFL 26, eds. Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, 463–470. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  76. Matushansky, Ora. 2002. On formal identity of Russian prefixes and prepositions. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 42, 217–253. Cambridge: MIT. Google Scholar
  77. McCarthy, John J. 2005. Optimal Paradigms. In Paradigms in Phonological Theory, eds. Laura Downing, T. A. Hall, and Renate Raffelsiefen, 170–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available as ROA-485 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu. Google Scholar
  78. McCarthy, John. 2007. Slouching towards optimality: Coda reduction in OT-CC. Phonological Studies (Journal of the Phonological Society of Japan), 7: 89–104. Google Scholar
  79. McCarthy, John J. 2008. The serial interaction of stress and syncope. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26 (3): 499–546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993a. Generalized alignment. In Yearbook of morphology, eds. Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  81. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1993b. Prosodic morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science. Available on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-482, http://roa.rutgers.edu. Google Scholar
  82. McCarthy, John J., and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 18, eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  83. Melvold, Janis. 1990. Structure and stress in the phonology of Russian. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  84. Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Lexical phonology. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Distributed by IULC Publications. Google Scholar
  85. Morén, Bruce. 1999. Distinctiveness, coercion and sonority: A unified theory of weight. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Google Scholar
  86. Padgett, Jaye. 2003. Contrast and postvelar fronting in Russian. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21 (1): 39–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Padgett, Jaye. 2008. Glides, vowels, and features. Lingua 118 (12): 1937–1955. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Padgett, Jaye. 2010. Russian consonant-vowel interactions and derivational opacity. In Proceedings of FASL 18. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  89. Padgett, Jaye, and Marija Tabain. 2005. Adaptive dispersion theory and phonological vowel reduction in Russian. Phonetica 62 (1): 14–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pater, Joe. 2000. Nonuniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17 (2): 237–274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pater, Joe. 2006. The locus of exceptionality: Morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Papers in Optimality Theory III, eds. Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly, and Adam Werle, 259–296. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  92. Pater, Joe. 2008. Morpheme-specific phonology: Constraint indexation and inconsistency resolution. In Phonological argumentation: Essays on evidence and motivation, ed. Steve Parker. London: Equinox. Google Scholar
  93. Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theory. Manuscript, MIT. http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/russmorph.pdf (accessed on June 30, 2010).
  94. Petrova, Olga, Rosemary Plapp, Catherine O. Ringen, and Szilárd Szentgyörgyi. 2006. Voice and aspiration: Evidence from Russian, Hungarian, German, Swedish, and Turkish. The Linguistic Review 23 (1): 1–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Prince, Alan. 2000. Comparative tableaux. Manuscript, New Brunswick, NJ. Available as ROA-376 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  96. Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993/2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell. Distributed in 1993 and as ROA-537 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu. Google Scholar
  97. Rosenthal, Ditmar, and Margarita Telenkova. 2003. Slovarj trudnostej russkogo jazyka, 3rd edn. Moscow: Ajris Press (Iris Press). Google Scholar
  98. Rosenthall, Sam. 1994. Vowel/glide alternation in a theory of constraint interaction. PhD diss, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA. Google Scholar
  99. Rowicka, Grazyna. 1999. Prosodic optimality and prefixation in Polish. In The prosody-morphology interface, eds. René Kager, Harry van der Hulst, and Wim Zonneveld, 367–389. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Rowicka, Grazyna. 2002. Lateral deletion and more or less excrescent schwa in Upper Chehalis. In Vol. 19 of Linguistics in the Netherlands, eds. Hans Broekhuis and Paula Fikkert, 139–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  101. Rubach, Jerzy. 1986. Abstract vowels in three-dimensional phonology: The yers. The Linguistic Review 5 (3): 247–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rubach, Jerzy. 2000. Backness switch in Russian. Phonology 17 (1): 39–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rubach, Jerzy. 2002. Against subsegmental glides. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 672–687. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Scheer, Tobias. 2006. How yers made Lightner, Gussman, Rubach, Spencer and others invent CVCV. In Studies in constraint-based phonology, eds. Piotr Banski, Beata Lukaszewicz, and Monika Opalinska, 133–207. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Google Scholar
  105. Selkirk, Elisabeth, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 1973. How abstract is French phonology? Foundations of Language 10: 249–254. Google Scholar
  106. Shaw, Patricia A. 2002. On the edge: Obstruent clusters in Salish. In Vol. 10 of Proceedings of the workshop on the structure and constituency of the languages of the Americas 7, eds. Leora Bar-el, Linda Tamburri Watt, and Ian Wilson, 119–136. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics. Google Scholar
  107. Siptár, Péter, and Miklós Törkenczy. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  108. Smith, Jennifer. 2000. Lexical category and phonological contrast. In Papers in experimental and theoretical linguistics: Proceedings of the workshop on the lexicon in phonetics and phonology, eds. Robert Kirchner, Joe Pater, and Wolf Wikely. Edmonton: Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta. Google Scholar
  109. Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. PhD diss, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Google Scholar
  110. Steriopolo, Olga. 2007. Jer vowels in Russian prepositions. In Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics. The Toronto meeting 2006, 365–385. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Google Scholar
  111. Svenonius, Peter. 2004. Slavic prefixes inside and outside the VP. Nordlyd 32 (2): 205–253. Google Scholar
  112. Szpyra, Jolanta. 1992. Ghost segments in nonlinear phonology: Polish yers. Language 68 (2): 277–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Tranel, Bernard. 1999. Optional schwa deletion: On syllable economy in French. In Formal perspectives on Romance linguistics, eds. J. Marc Authier, Barbara E. Bullock, and Lisa A. Reed, 271–288. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  114. Ukiah, Nick. 1998. Stress retraction in phrases of the type na den’, za sorok, ne byl in Modern Russian. Russian Linguistics 22 (3): 287–319. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1996. Patterns of Reduplication in Lushootseed. PhD diss, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. Google Scholar
  116. van Eijk, Jan. 1997. The Lillooet language: Phonology, morphology, syntax. Vancouver: UBC Press. Google Scholar
  117. Vasmer, Max. 1958. Russisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Google Scholar
  118. Vlasto, A. P. 1986. A linguistic history of Russia at the end of the eighteenth century. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google Scholar
  119. Wade, Terence. 1992. A comprehensive Russian grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  120. Wolf, Matthew. 2007. For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In UMOP 32: Papers in optimality theory III, eds. Leah Bateman, Michael O’Keefe, Ehren Reilly, and Adam Werle, 239–258. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  121. Wolf, Matthew. 2008. Optimal interleaving: Serial phonology-morphology interaction in a constraint-based model. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Amherst, MA. Google Scholar
  122. Yearley, Jennifer. 1995. Jer vowels in Russian. In Papers in Optimality Theory II (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics), eds. Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey, and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 533–571. Amherst: GLSA Publications. Google Scholar
  123. Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatoljevich. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka [a grammatical dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow: Russkij Jazyk. Google Scholar
  124. Zaliznjak, Andrej Anatoljevich. 1985. Ot praslavjanskoj akcentuacii k russkoj [from Proto-Slavic to Russian accentuation]. Moscow: Nauka. Google Scholar
  125. Zec, Draga. 2002. The role of prosody in morphologically governed phonotactic regularities. In Working papers of the Cornell Phonetics Laboratory 14, 250–277. Ithaca: Cornell Linguistics. Google Scholar
  126. Zoll, Cheryl. 1996. Parsing below the Segment in a Constraint-based Framework. PhD diss, University of California, Berkeley. Available on the Rutgers Optimality Archive as ROA-143, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  127. Zoll, Cheryl. 1998. Positional asymmetries and licensing. Manuscript, Cambridge, MA. Available as ROA-282 on the Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://roa.rutgers.edu.
  128. Zonneveld, Wim. 1978. A formal theory of exceptions in generative phonology. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations