Editorial: Perspectives on Nordic phonology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7557/12.6242Keywords:
Nordic phonology, Autosegmental Metrical Optimality Theory, FiNo 2020Abstract
In this editorial, we first offer a glimpse of the scope and traditions of studying phonology in the Nordic countries and how these are mirrored in the aims of FiNo and the topics presented at its 2020 workshop. We then summarize the individual contributions to the volume, showing how they connect nicely with an overarching framework, which we call ‘Autosegmental Metrical Optimality Theory’.
References
Basbøll, Hans. 2005. The phonology of Danish. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2018. Stratal phonology. In The Routledge handbook of phonological theory, edited by Stephen J. Hannahs and Anna R. K. Bosch, pp. 100–134. Routledge, Abingdon. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315675428-5.
Broselow, Ellen. 1993. Transfer and universals in second language epenthesis. In Language transfer in language learning (revised edition), edited by Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker, pp. 71–86. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Dresher, B. Elan. 2009. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642005.
Firth, John Rupert. 1948. Sounds and prosodies. Transactions of the Philological Society: 127–152.
Goldsmith, John. A. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Goldsmith, John A. 1993. Harmonic phonology. In The last phonological rule: Reflections on constraints and derivations, edited by John A. Goldsmith, pp. 21–60. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Gouskova, Maria. 2002. Falling sonority onsets, loanwords, and Syllable Contact. CLS 37: 175–186.
Høysgaard, Jens. 1743. Concordia res parvæ crescunt, eller Anden Prøve af Dansk Orthographie. [Reprinted in 1920 in Danske grammatikere IV, edited by Henrik Bertelsen, pp. 219–249. Reitzel, Copenhagen].
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic to lexical phonology. In The structure of phonological representations, vol. I, edited by Harry van der Hulst and Norval Smith, pp. 131–175. Foris, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112328088-008.
Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17: 351–365. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351.
Kock, Axel. 1888. I-omljudet och den samnordiska förlusten af ändelsevokaler. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 4: 141–162.
McCarthy, John J. and Alan Prince. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in prosodic morphology. Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 24: 333–379.
Nespor, Marina and Irene Vogel. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Foris, Dordrecht.
Prince, Alan S. and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Black¬well, Oxford. [First published in 1993 as Technical Report #2, Rutgers University, Center for Cognitive Science]. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470759400.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook 3: 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000695.
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The handbook of phonological theory, edited by John A. Goldsmith, Jason Riggle, and Alan C. L. Yu, pp. 435–484. Wiley-Blackwell. Revised and updated 2nd edition. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444343069.ch14.
Twadell, W. Freeman. 1957. A note on Old High German umlaut. In Readings in linguistics I: The development of descriptive linguistics in America, 1925–1956 (4th edition), edited by Martin Joos. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference laws for syllable structure and the explanation of sound change: With special reference to German, Germanic, Italian and Latin. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849608.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Miguel Vázquez-Larruscaín, Islam Youssef
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
