Cross-Modular Parallels in the Study of Phon and Phi

Phi Theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces

Volumn , Issue , 2023, Pages 329-367

  Nevins, Andrew ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

apparent; Conspicuously; domains; phonology; pragmatics

Indexed keywords

EID: 85188373649     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199213764.003.0011     Document Type: Chapter

References (55)

1. Adger, D., and D. Harbour (2007). ‘The Syntax and Syncretisms of the Person Case Constraint,' Syntax 10: 2-37.
2. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The Syntax of Ditransitives. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
3. Anagnostopoulou, E. (2005). ‘Strong and weak person restrictions: A feature checking analysis,' in L. Heggie and F. Ordóñez (eds.), Clitics and Affix Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 199-235.
4. Anttila, A. (2003). ‘Finnish Assibilation,' in M. Kadowaki and S. Kawahara (eds.), The Proceedings of NELS 33. Amherst, MA: GLSA. 13-24.
5. Archangeli, D. (1984). ‘Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology.' Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
6. Arregi, K., and A. Nevins (2006). ‘Obliteration vs. Impoverishment in the Basque g-/z-constraint,' in Penn Linguistics Colloquium Special Session on Distributed Morphology, U. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1: 1-14. (Also available at http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000280)
7. Béjar, S. (2003). ‘Phi-syntax: A theory of agreement.' Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
8. Béjar, S. and M. Řezáč (2003). ‘Person licensing and the derivation of PCC effects,' in A. T. Pérez-Leroux and Y. Roberge (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theory and Acquistion. John Benjamins. 49-62.
9. Bonet, E. (1991). ‘Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance.' Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
10. Bošković, Ž. (2001). On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11. Brown, P., and S. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Cagliari, L. C. (1997). Fonologia do Português: Análise pela geometria de traços. Campinas:Edição do Autor.
13. Calabrese, A. (1995). ‘A constraint-based theory of phonological markedness and simplification procedures,' Linguistic Inquiry 26: 373-463.
14. Calabrese, A. (1998). ‘Metaphony Revisited,' Rivista di Linguistica 10.1: 7-68.
15. Calabrese, A. (2005). Markedness and Economy within a Derivational Model of Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16. Casali, R. (1998). Resolving Hiatus. New York: Garland.
17. Chomsky, N. (2001). ‘Minimalist inquiries: The framework.' Distributed by MITWPL.
18. Chomsky, N. and M. Halle (1968). The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
19. Ciucivara, O. (2004). ‘Syntactic analysis of pronominal clitic combinations in Romanian.' Ms, NYU.
20. Cysouw, M. (2005). ‘Clusivity and Politeness,' in E. Filimonova (ed.), Clusivity. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 73-111.
21. Déchaine, R.-M. (1999). ‘What Algonquian morphology is really like: Hockett revisited,' in L. Bat-El, R.-M. Déchaine, and C. Reinholtz (eds.), MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17: Papers from the Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Native American Languages. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 25-72.
22. England, N. (1983). A Grammar of Mam, a Mayan Language. Austin: University of Texas Press.
23. Farkas, D., and K. Kazazis (1980). ‘Clitic Pronouns and Topicality in Rumanian,' Chicago Linguistic Society 16: 75-82.
24. Fassi-Fehri, A. (1988). ‘Agreement in Arabic, Binding and Coherence,' in M. Barlow and C. A. Ferguson (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language, Stanford: CSLI, 107-58.
25. Fernández-Soriano, O. (1999). ‘El pronombre personal. Formas y distribuciones. Pronombres átonos y tónicos,' in I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, Chapter 19.
26. Francis, N. (1985). ‘Amn’t I, or the hole in the pattern,' in W. Viereck (ed.), Focus on England and Wales. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 141-52.
27. Greenberg, J. (1963). ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the meaning of elements,' in J. Greenberg (ed.), Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 73-113.
28. Gronemeyer, C. (1996). ‘Noun Incorporation in Hopi,' Lund University Working Papers in Linguistics 45: 25-44.
29. Hale, K. (1973). ‘PersonMarking inWarlbiri,' in S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart, andWinston. 308-44.
30. Hall, T., and S. Hamann (2006). ‘Towards a typology of stop assibilation,' Linguistics 44.6: 1195-1236.
31. Halle, M. (1997). ‘Impoverishment and Fission,' in B. Bruening, Y. Kang, and M. McGinnis (eds.), PF: Papers at the Interface. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 425-50.
32. Harbour, D. (2006). ‘Person hierarchies and geometry without hierarchies or geometries.' Queen Mary’s OPAL #6. (Google: qmopals)
33. Harbour, D. (2007). Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Dordrecht: Springer.
34. Harley, H., and E. Ritter (2002). ‘Person and number in pronouns: A featuregeometric analysis,' Language 78.3: 482-526.
35. Hiraiwa, K. (2001). ‘Multiple Agree and the Defective Intervention Constraint in Japanese,' in O. Matushansky et al. (eds.), The Proceedings of the MITHarvard Joint Conference (HUMIT 2000), MITWPL 40. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL. 67-80.
36. Hiraiwa, K. (2004). ‘Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture.' Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
37. Jeanne, L. (1978). ‘Aspects of Hopi Grammar.' Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
38. Kiparsky, P. (1973a). ' “Elsewhere” in Phonology,' in A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93-106, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
39. Kiparsky, P. (1973b). ‘Phonological Representations,' in S. R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory. Tokyo/New York: TEC, 93-106.
40. Krifka, M. (2005). ‘A note on the pronoun system and the predicate marker in Tok Pisin,' in P. Brandt and E. Fuss (eds.), Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 79-92.
41. McCarthy, J., and A. Taub (1992). ‘Review of Paradis and Prunet (eds.), The Special Status of Coronals,' Phonology 9: 363-70.
42. McGinnis, M. (2005). ‘Onmarkedness asymmetries in person and number,' Language 81.3: 699-718.
43. Mohanan, K. P. (1991). ‘On the bases of radical underspecification,' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 285-325.
44. Nevins, A. (2003). ‘Do person/number syncretisms refer to negative values?' Paper presented at the 77th LSA Meeting, Atlanta.
45. Nevins, A. (2004). ‘Conditions on (dis)harmony.' Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
46. Nevins, A. (2006). ‘Dual is still more marked than plural.' Ms., Harvard. (Google: lingbuzz).
47. Nevins, A. (2007). ‘The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects,' Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25.2: 273-313.
48. Noyer, R. (1992). ‘Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure.' Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
49. Ravid, D., and L. Hayek (2003). ‘Learning about different ways of expressing number in the development of Palestinian Arabic,' First Language 23.1: 41-63.
50. Ringen, C. (1975). ‘Vowel harmony: Theoretical implications’ Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University.
51. Sedivy, J. C., M. K. Tanenhaus, C. G. Chambers, and G. N. Carlson (1999). ‘Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation,' Cognition 71: 109-47.
52. Steriade, D. (1995). ‘Underspecification and markedness,' in J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. 114-74.
53. Vinka, M. (2001). ‘Impoverishment as Feature Deletion: dual and plural agreement in Sámi,' Lund University Working Papers in Linguistics 48: 183-91.
54. Yip, M. (1988). ‘The Obligatory Contour Principle and phonological rules: A loss of identity,' Linguistic Inquiry 19.1: 65-100.
55. Yrizar, P. de (1992). Morfología del verbo auxiliar vizcaino: estudio dialectológico. Bilbao Bizkaia Kutxa: Euskaltzaindia.