1987
DOI: 10.1017/cbo9780511753442
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Principles of Dependency Phonology

Abstract: The right of the University of Cambridge to print and sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VIII in 1534. The University has printed and published continuously since 1584.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
169
0
5

Year Published

2003
2003
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 308 publications
(189 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(67 reference statements)
0
169
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The approach also has a clear relationship to structuralist phonology (Trubetzkoy, 1939;Martinet, 1955), as discussed at length by Dresher (2009). Obvious connections also exist with various versions of Dependency Phonology, Government Phonology, and Element Theory (Anderson and Ewen, 1987;Harris and Lindsey, 1995;Backley, 2011) and with Schane's (1984) Particle Phonology. The insistence on phonology as a component with its own, domain-specific representations strongly echoes Foley's (1977) rejection of mainstream generative phonology as "transformational phonetics".…”
Section: Substance-free Representationsmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The approach also has a clear relationship to structuralist phonology (Trubetzkoy, 1939;Martinet, 1955), as discussed at length by Dresher (2009). Obvious connections also exist with various versions of Dependency Phonology, Government Phonology, and Element Theory (Anderson and Ewen, 1987;Harris and Lindsey, 1995;Backley, 2011) and with Schane's (1984) Particle Phonology. The insistence on phonology as a component with its own, domain-specific representations strongly echoes Foley's (1977) rejection of mainstream generative phonology as "transformational phonetics".…”
Section: Substance-free Representationsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Many privative approaches have formalized decrease in markedness as deletion of structure, in particular in the context of Dependency Phonology (Anderson and Ewen, 1987), Element Theory (Harris and Lindsey, 1995) and related theories, cf. Harris (1997Harris ( , 2005Harris ( , 2009Cyran (2010).…”
Section: Markedness Effects and Feature Geometrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compound words with 2 nouns are stressed on the first syllable; otherwise, the second syllable is stressed; Rhythmic pattern Stress-timed language, with the rhythmic pattern based on the regular repetition of the stressed syllables: Pattern {F = [S W]}, (F = Foot, S = strong, W = weak); Intensity: English word stress can be mainly recognized by intensity; therefore, stressed syllable is pronounced with much force, also longer (duration), and higher (pitch). Remembering the four criteria above helps students prevent from the three main types of stress errors: (1). Rhythmic error (no Rhythmic Pattern {F = [S W]}); (2).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the first appearance of the triangular (A I U) model of vowel representation in Anderson and Jones (1974), it has been assumed that phonetic prominence corresponds to structural headedness and phonetic recessiveness to non-headedness or dependent status. Under this assumption, the literature (Anderson and Ewen 1987, Harris 1994, Backley 2011 has claimed that the contrast between two mid vowels such as e-ɛ be accounted for as follows (head elements are underlined).…”
Section: (3)mentioning
confidence: 99%