Introduction

Stratal Phonology is a theory of how phonology interacts with other

components of grammar. Its basic principles are simple: phonology applies
cyclically over domains defined by certain constituents in the morph syntactic
structure of linguistic expressions, and domains associated with constituents of
different rank—stems, words, and utterances—obey different phonological
generalizations. In current versions of the framework, (Kiparsky, 2015: 2-44)
these hypotheses are combined with constraint-based models of phonological
computation, like Optimality Theory. (Hannahs and Bosch, 2018: 100)

The assumption of cyclic application predates the rise of Stratal

Phonology and provides some common ground with several other approaches to
phonology’s upper interfaces: notably, Cophonology Theory and various
phonological applications of Chomsky’s Phase Theory. (Hannahs and Bosch,
2018: 100)

Stratal Phonology differs from these in positing relatively fewer cycles.

The theory also diverges in important ways from its most immediate precursor:
rule-based Lexical Phonology. (Pesetsky, 1979)

First, Stratal Phonology rejects the claims of Strict Cyclicity and Structure
Preservation, which sought to constrain the application of rewrite rules at the
stem level. Secondly, Lexical Phonology simply stipulated a number of important
generalizations about cyclic domain structures, such as the fact that roots do not
define cyclic domains and that stem-level domains are recursive; in contrast,
recent work in Stratal Phonology seeks to derive these observations from
independent facts. The major empirical predictions of Stratal Phonology, which
include Cyclic Containment, the Russian Doll Theorem, and Chung’s
Generalization, are emphasized. Cyclic, in cases of morphosyntactically induced
phonological opacity, a linguistic expression inherits its unclear phonological
properties from a constituent that defines an immediate cyclic subdomain. In
recent years, the proponents of output-output have adduced a number of putative
counterexamples to this prediction. The theory of OO-correspondence asserts,
instead, that the phonological computation may directly refer to a surface base

1
 2

that does not match a constituent of the opaque expression (Kenstowicz 1996,
Burzio 1996, Steriade 1999).

Addressing this debate, by highlighting the divergent empirical

predictions of the cycle and correspondence. As a test case, pay particular
attention to Steriade’s (1999: 2-3) discussion of English affixes with dual-level
behavior, notably -able. Steriade’s analysis uncovers genuine and previously
underappreciated empirical facts, in which the paradigmatic relationships
highlighted by transderivational approaches do play a key role.

However, this term is due to Steriade (2013). Page 4 of 44 roles should be

regarded as taking effect during lexical and morphological acquisition, rather than
in the phonological derivation. This account, when implemented within the
framework of Stratal Phonology, predicts certain empirical observations that are
not captured by OOcorrespondence, such as the fact that stress-affecting instances
of -able suffixation like re.mé.dĭ.a.ble (cf. rémedy) exhibit the same metrical
pattern as forms based on bound roots (e.g. in.dó.mĭ.ta.ble).

From this and other considerations, cyclicity retains an empirical

advantage over OO-correspondence. Finally, if asking whether Stratal Phonology
permits a graceful integration with other components of grammar, particularly
morphology. The theory would be in trouble if it made false assumptions about
morphology, or if it crucially relied on excessively powerful exponence
mechanisms that robbed morphological theory of its empirical content. In this
connection, first, the serial precedence of the stem-level phonology over the
word-level phonology does not depend on level ordering, understood as the
requirement that all stem-level affixes should occur inside all word-level affixes
(Hannahs and Bosch, 2018: 101).

Similarly, Stratal Phonology need not resort to re-bracketing operations to

deal with so-called ‘bracketing paradoxes’ (Kiparsky 1983: 5). More
fundamentally, however, Stratal Phonology does presuppose that it is possible to
demarcate morphosyntax from phonology, for it claims that the morphosyntactic
operations in a language can be sorted into a small number of classes (called
‘levels’ or ‘strata’) according to the phonological processes for which they define
cyclic domains. (Hannahs and Bosch, 2018: 101).
 3

In opposition to other cyclic frameworks like Amorphous Morphology

(Anderson 1992) and Cophonology Theory, suggesting that the best way of
delimiting the roles of morphology and phonology in exponence is by adopting a
strictly modular stance, in which morphology can select and insert morphs, but
cannot alter their phonological content.

This, in turn, favors approaches to apparently nonconcatenative

exponence along the lines of Generalized Nonlinear Affixation (Bermúdez-Otero
2012: 53). The implications for morphology reviewed in page 4 do not exhaust
the predictions of Stratal Phonology. The theory has importance consequences for
many other domains of inquiry. A selection of references is included in the
further reading suggestions at the end of this chapter. (Hannahs and Bosch, 2018).
 4

Chapter I: Feature Geometry and assimilation

1.1 Feature Geometry

We now know that features are organized on auto segmental tiers. The
simplest hypothesis seems to be that every feature occupies its own tier.

However, this still leaves open the question how these tiers are organized
with respect to each other. There is evidence that they are organized in a tree-like
internal structure thus this section of this chapter will discuss the feature tree in
order to comprehend how they are organized. (Oostendorp, 2015)

 The Feature Tree

The next question obviously is whether the Place features are the only
ones which are organized into a separate node. Most phonologists in the feature
geometry paradigm would agree that this is not the case, and that there is more
internal organization to the segment. Although there is no general agreement on
this point, the following structure may be considered as fairly representative for
the mainstream:

(1)
 5

Furthermore, Oostendorp (2015) states that structure is possible; for

instance, Place and Aperture are often combined into a Supralaryngeal node,
combining all the instructions for organs above the larynx. Also, the position of
the features [±continuant], [±nasal] and [±lateral] has been the topic of debate. It
needs to be observed that the claim underlying virtually all work in Feature
Geometry is that the structure in (1) — or whatever should be replacing it — is
universal: if a language has a feature [continuant], it will be organized into the
structure as indicated. A prediction of this model is that all the organizing nodes
should behave like the Place node. There should be processes — for instance of
assimilation — which involve exactly the features that are dominated by some
node and none of the others. We will briefly review some of this evidence for the
Aperture node and the Laryngeal node.

As to the former, consider the following examples from Brazilian

Portuguese (Wetzels, 1995; Clements and Hume, 1995):

2nd person 1st person

/mOr-a-s/ [mOras ‘you /mOr-a-o/ [mOro ‘you

/mOv-e-s/ ] reside’ /mOv-e-o/ ] reside’
/sErv-i-s/ [mOve ‘you move’ /sErv-i-o/ [movo ‘you move’
s] ‘you serve’ ] ‘you serve’
(2) [sErves [sirvo]
]

Like in many (Romance) languages, verbs in Portuguese have a so-called

theme vowel, which behaves in some respects like a suffix, but which at the same
time is determined by the stem: the verb ‘to reside’ has -/a/- as its theme vowel,
‘to move’ has -/e/-, and ‘to serve’ -/i/-. These theme vowel surfaces for instance
in the second person singular, which has the consonant initial suffix /s/, as is
illustrated in the left hand column. However, the first person singular suffix is
-/o/, and this may be a reason why the theme vowel disappears — otherwise we
would again create a hiatus.
 6

But when the theme vowel disappears, something happens to the stem
vowel: it changes from /O/ to [o] in ‘to move’ and from /E/ to [i] in ‘to serve’.
These are changes in vocalic aperture: /O, E, a/ are low vowels ([+low,-high]),

/e,o/ are mid vowels ([-low,-high]) and /i/ is a high vowel ([+high,-low]). What
happens, then, is that the stem vowel takes over the aperture features of the
disappearing theme vowel. In auto segmental terms, we can describe this as
relinking of the Aperture node, rather than the individual relinking of the features
[±high] and [±low].

The argument for the Aperture node thus comes from relinking; we will
provide an argument in favor of the Laryngeal node from neutralization. Korean
has three series of stops, traditionally called voiceless, ‘tensed’ and aspirated
(Rhee, 2002). There is no general agreement as to what exactly are the phonetic
or phonological correlates of these three dimensions, but it is clear that they have
to be described by Laryngeal features. It is also clear that they can contrast in a
position before a vowel:

Lenis fortis aspirated

[pal] [p’allE] [phal]

‘foot’ ‘laundry’ ‘arm’
[tal] [t’al] [thal]
‘moon’ ‘daughter’ ‘mask’
[k1n] [k’1n] ‘string’ [kh1n]
‘root’ ‘big’

(3)
 7

However, at the end of the syllable, we only find the lenis variants:

Lenis fortis aspirated

[cip-to] ‘hous *[cip’] *[ciph]

EMPHATIC’
[mit-to] ‘bottom side *[mit’] *[mith]
EMPHATIC’
[pu@k-to] ‘kitchen *[pu@k’] *[pu@kh]
EMPHATIC’

(4)

This looks very similar to a process which we know from languages such
as Dutch, German, Turkish and Catalan and which is usually called final
devoicing (the example is from Dutch, in case anybody did not realize):

a. Beginning of syllable:

Voiced voiceless

[dAk] ‘roof’ [tAk] ‘branch’

[bAk] ‘bin’ [pAk] ‘suit’

b. End of syllable:
voiced voiceless
*[hᵊnd] [hᵊnt] ‘dog

*[Eb] [Ep] ‘ebb’

(5)
 8

For Dutch — as well as the other languages just mentioned — it may be

assumed that what is going on is that the feature [+voice] gets lost at the end of
the syllable; the remaining structure is then interpreted as voiceless. Korean
shows the same phenomenon, but with one difference: at least two different
features have to be lost — the ones distinguishing tensed and aspirated
consonants from lenis ones. Again, this can be profitably described if we assume
that the relevant rule is something like the following:

(6) “Delink the Laryngeal node from a consonant at the end of the syllable”.

This rule can even be applicable to the final devoicing languages such as
Dutch; in these languages there is only one Laryngeal feature, so it is hard to tell
a priori whether it is just this feature which is delinked, or the node dominating it.
(Oostendorp, 2015)
 9

1.2 Assimilation

Segmented assimilation theory has been a popular explanation for the

diverse experiences of assimilation among new waves of immigrants and their
children. While the theory has been interpreted in many different ways, we
emphasize its implications for the important role of social context: both processes
and consequences of assimilation should depend on the local social context in
which immigrants are embedded. (Xie and Greenman, 2011)

Then Xie and Greenman (2011) assure that we derive empirically

falsifiable hypotheses about the interaction effects between social context and
assimilation on immigrant children's well-being. We then test the hypotheses
using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Our
empirical analyses yield two main findings.

First, for immigrant adolescents living in non-poverty neighborhoods, we

find assimilation to be positively associated with educational achievement and
psychological well-being but also positively associated with at-risk behavior.
(Greenman and Xie, 2008)

Second, there is little empirical evidence supporting our hypotheses

derived from segmented assimilation theory. We interpret these results to mean
that future research would be more fruitful focusing on differential processes of
assimilation rather than differential consequences of assimilation. (Greenman and
Xie, 2008)

Furthermore, there are many forms of assimilation The most common

form involves the movement of place of articulation of the alveolar stops /t/, /d/
and /n/ to a position closer to that of the following sound. For instance, in the
phrase ten cars, the /n/ will usually be articulated in a velar position, /teŋ kɑ:z/ so
that the organs of speech are ready to produce the following velar sound /k/.
Similarly, in ten  boys the /n/ will be produced in a bilabial position, /tem bɔɪz/ to
prepare for the articulation of the bilabial /b/.
(Assimilationphonetics.blogspot.com, 2012)

BEFORE A VELAR (/k/, /g/)

 10

Phoneme Realised as Example

/n/ /ŋ/ bank /bæŋk/

/d/ /g/ good girl /gʊg gɜ:l/

/t/ /k/ that kid /ðæk kɪd/

BEFORE A BILABIAL (/m/, /b/, /p/)

Phoneme Realised as Example

/n/ /m/ ten men /tem 'men/

/d/ /b/ bad boys   /bæb ˈbɔɪz/

hot mushrooms /ˈhɒp
/t/ /p/
ˈmʌʃru:mz/

1.2.1 Alveolar Assimilation:

a. stop regressive place assimilation
The alveolar stops /t d n/ may become bilabial when followed by bilabial
consonants (/p b m/) or they may become velar stops when followed by velars (/k
g/) without altering their voicing. Thus /t/ may become /p/ or /k/.  /d/ may
become /b/ or /g/ and /n/ may become /m/ or /ŋ/.

Examples:

 That man     / ðæt mæn/ > /ðæp mæn/

 That car       /  ðæt kɑ:/ > /ðæk kɑ:/

  Bad boy      /bæd bɔɪ >  /bæb bɔɪ/

  Bad girl       /bæd gɜ:l/ >  /bæg gɜ:l/

 11

  Ten pens     /ten penz/  > tem penz/

  Ten keys     /ten ki:z/   > /teŋ ki:z/  

This process can also affect an entire sequence of two ot three alveolar
stops, so that /nt/. For example, can become /mp/ or/ŋk /. It is extremely unlikely
that only the last of a sequence of alveolar stops will be assimilated. If one is
affected. They all will be affected.

Examples:

Front garden   /frʌnt  gɑ:dn/ > /frʌŋk gɑ:dn/

Couldn`t be    /kʊdnt bi/ > /kʊbmp bi/

Notice that since the alveolar plosives may often be deleted. As we saw in
the previous lesson. There will be quite a lot of intances in which an alveolar
plosive may either be deleted or it may assimilate to the following sound. For
example:

Couldn`t be   /kʊdnt bi/ > /kʊbmp bi/

Cold cream    /kəʊld kri:m/ >  / kəʊl kri:m/

  As anyone can see, in “couldn`t be”. Previous alveolars assimilate both

when /t/ is deleted and when it suffers assimilation too. We will mention these
cases with alternative possible processes in the transcription comments.
(Maidment and Garcia Lecumberri, 2000)

b. .Alveolar fricative regressive place assimilation

The alveolar fricatives /s z/ may become post-alveolar fricatives without
altering their voicing when followed by a palatal approximant (/j/) or a post-
alveolar fricative (/ʃ ʒ/). thus /s/ may become / ʃ/ and /z/ may become /ʒ/.
(Maidment and Garcia Lecumberri, 2000)

Examples:

Is she     / ɪz  ʃi/ >  /ɪʒ  ʃi

Dress shop   /dres ʃɒp/ > /dreʃ  ʃɒp/
 12

In RP English the alveolar fricatives do not become post-alveolar by

assimilation when the following sound is a post-alveolar affricate (/tʃ dʒ/). But in
other accents of English such assimilations are possible. (Maidment and Garcia
Lecumberri, 2000)

c. Alveolar syllabic nasal progressive place assimilation

The alveolar syllabic nasal n may become bilabial (/m/) or
velar (/ŋ/) when preceded by a bilabial or velar plosive in the same word and
followed by a consonant in the same or the next word or by a pause. (Maidment
and Garcia Lecumberri, 2000)

Examples:

Open   /əʊpən/ > /əʊpn/ > / əʊpm/

Bacon  /beɪkən/ > /beɪkn/ > /beɪkŋ/

1.2.2 Coalescence

The alveolar plosives /t/ and /d/ may merge with a following palatal
approximant /j/ to become post-alveolar affricates (/t ʃ/ and /dʒ/ respectively).
This type of coalescence. Although historically found within a word, is only
common in current RP English when the plosive and approximant are in different
words and the approximant is in a grammatical word. (Maidment and Lecumberri,
2000)

Examples:
Don`t you   /dəʊnt ju/ > / dəʊntʃu/
Would you   /wʊd ju/  >  /wʊdʒu/
 13

1.2.3 Voice Assimilation

In current English. Voice assimilation is not very common as a connected

speech process and is restricted to some close-knit structures, such as have to and
of course, in these cases assimilation is regressive and feature which is borrowed
is voicelessness. Thus /v/ becomes /f/ because the following sound, /t/ or /k/, is
voiceless . this sort of voicing assimilation only effects /v/ and /z/.Assimilation of
voiceless to voiced sounds does not occur in present day RP English. (Maidment
and Lecumberri, 2000)

Examples:
Have to          /hæv tu/ > /hæf tu/
Of course      /əv kɔ:s/  > /əf kɔ:s/
Newspaper   /nju:zpeɪpə/  > /nju:speɪpə/

More examples:

/ t / changes to / p / before / m / / b / or / p /

/ d / changes to / b / before / m / / b / or / p /

/ n / changes to / m / before / m / / b / or / p /

/ t / changes to / k / before / k / or /g/

/ d / changes to / g / before / k / or / g /

/ n / changes to /ŋ/ before / k / or / g /

/ s / changes to /ʃ/ before /ʃ/ or / j /

/ z / changes to /ʒ/ before /ʃ/ or / j /

/θ/ changes to / s / before / s /

 14

Chapter II

Stratal-phonology: Main idea, Forms and Use

The main ideas behind Stratal Phonology have a long and complex intellectual
history. According to Kiparsky (1983: 3), the distinction between stem-level and
word-level affixation can be traced back to Pāṇini by way of Bloomfield’s (1933:
209; 1939: 6-9) ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ affixes. Similarly, Booij (1997: 264)
observes that the distinction between ‘lexical’ and ‘postlexical’ phonology was
already codified in the Praguian terms phonologie du mot and phonologie de la
phrase (CLP, 1931: 321, Jakobson, 1931: 165).

The phonological cycle, in turn, is as old as generative phonology itself

(Chomsky et al, 1956: 75). The closest ancestor of current stratal work is to be
found in rule-based Lexical Phonology and Morphology. As noted in page 1,
however, research in Lexical Phonology paid a great deal of attention to
principles like Strict Cyclicity and Structure Preservation, which governed rule
application at the stem level; these hypotheses have since been abandoned
(Bermúdez-Otero, 2013).

Nonetheless, rule-based stratal theories descending from Halle &

Vergnaud (1987) remain in use, particularly in work associated with Distributed
Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, 1994) therefore, the term ‘Stratal
Phonology’ is strictly reserved for work that combines a stratal phonological
architecture with contemporary constraint-based parallelist approaches to
phonological mappings.

This includes not only Stratal OT, but also frameworks where
phonological generalizations are expressed by means of Harmonic Grammar
(Pater 2009) or Maximum Entropy (‘MaxEnt’) modeling (Hayes and Wilson,
2008).

In contrast, the requirement of parallelism excludes a potential

combination of stratification either with Harmonic Serialism (McCarthy 2010) or
with OT with Candidate Chains (McCarthy, 2007).

This exclusion is motivated by the fact that the hypothesis of cyclic

derivation, which is absolutely central to Stratal Phonology, loses much of its
 15

empirical content in frameworks that adopt a serialist approach to phonological

mappings (Bermúdez-Otero, 2013: 90-1).

Similarly, current constraint-based parallelist theories are happily unable

to express invalid claims like Strict Cyclicity or Structure Preservation, whereas
statements like Chung’s Generalization (p: 2.3.3) are derived as theorems.
 16

Conclusion

Stratal Phonology is a theory of how phonology interacts with other

components of grammar. And this approaches to English phonetics concentrate on
vowels and consonants - which in Britain generally means the vowels and
consonants of Received Pronunciation - and scant attention is paid to rhythm and
intonation.

Assimilation is a process by which two- or more- sounds become more

similar to each other. This similarity is achieved by one of the sounds taking
characteristics from the other one. In current English, voice assimilation is not
very common as a connected speech process and is restricted to some close-knit
structures such as have to and of course.
 17

References

Anderson, S. R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Assimilationphonetics.blogspot.com. (2012). Assimilation. [online] Available at:

http://assimilationphonetics.blogspot.com/2012/11/assimilation.html
[Accessed 18 May 2019].

Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2012. The architecture of grammar and the division of labour

in exponence. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology
of exponence (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 41), 8–83.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2013. The stem-level syndrome. Paper presented at the

Speaker Series of the University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Department,
Philadelphia, 11 April 2013. Handout available at www.bermudez-
otero.com/stemlevel.pdf

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1939. Menomini morphophonemics. Travaux du Cercle

Linguistique de Prague 8, 105–15.

Booij, Geert. 1997. Non-derivational phonology meets Lexical phonology. In

Iggy Roca (ed.), Derivations and constraints in phonology, 261–88.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Burzio, L. 1996. Surface constraints versus underlying representation. In Jacques

Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and
methods, vol. 1, 123–41. Salford: European Studies Research Institute,
University of Salford.

Chomsky, N. et al. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. In Morris Halle,

Horace G. Lunt, Hugh McLean & Cornelis H. van Schooneveld (eds.),
For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 11
October 1956, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.
 18

Clements, G. N. & Hume, B. (1995). ‘The Internal Organization of Speech

Sounds’. In: Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological
Theory, pp. 245–306. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

CLP, Cercle Linguistique de Prague. 1931. Projet de terminologie phonologique

standardisée. In Cercle Linguistique de Prague (ed.), Réunion
phonologique internationale tenue à Prague (18–21/XII 1930) (Travaux
du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4), 309–23. Prague: Jednota
československých matematiků a fysiků.

Cohn, A. 1989. Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 7 (2), pp. 200.

Greenman, E. and Xie, Y. (2008). Is assimilation theory dead? The effect of

assimilation on adolescent well-being. Social Science Research, 37(1),
pp.109-137.

Halle, M and Marantz, A. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of

inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from
building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–
76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Halle, M. and Marantz, A. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology.

In Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds.), Papers on phonology and
morphology (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21), 275–88.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics

Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J. 1987. Stress and the cycle. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 45–
84.

Hannahs, S. and Bosch, A. (2018). The Routledge handbook of phonological

theory. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Hayes, B & Wilson, C. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and

phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39 (3), 379–440.
 19

Jakobson, R. 1931. Die Betonung und ihre Rolle in der Wort- und
Syntagmaphonologie. In Cercle Linguistique de Prague (ed.), Réunion
phonologique internationale tenue à Prague (18–21/XII 1930) (Travaux
du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 4), 164–82. Prague: Jednota
československých matematiků a fysiků.

Kenstowicz, M. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to

cyclicity. In Jacques Durand & Bernard Laks (eds.), Currents trends in
phonology: Models and methods, vol. 1, 363–93. Salford: European
Studies Research Institute, University of Salford.

Kiparsky, P. 1983. Word formation and the lexicon. In Francis Ingemann (ed.),
Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, 3–29.
Lawrence: University of Kansas.

Kiparsky, P. 2015b. Stratal OT: A synopsis and FAQs. In Yuchau E. Hsiao &
Lian-Hee Wee (eds.), Capturing phonological shades within and across
languages, 2–44. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Maidment, J. and Garcia Lecumberri, M. (2000). English transcription. 1st ed.

London: Arnold, pp.55-57.

McCarthy, J. J. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in

Optimality Theory. London: Equinox Publishing.

McCarthy, J. J. 2010. An introduction to Harmonic Serialism. Language and

Linguistics Compass 4 (10), 1001–18

Oostendorp, M. (2015). Feature Geometry. In: M. Oostendorp, ed.

Pater, J. 2009. Weighted constraints in generative linguistics. Cognitive Science.

33, 999–1053. Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical
theory. Ms, MIT. Available at:
http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky/russmorph.pdf.
 20

Pesetsky, D. 1979. Russian morphology and lexical theory. Ms, MIT. Available
at http://web.mit. edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky/russmorph.pdf

Steriade, D. 1999. Lexical conservatism in French adjectival liaison. In J.-Marc

Authier, Barbara E. Bullock & Lisa Reid (eds.), Formal perspectives on
Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the 28th Linguistic Symposium
on Romance Languages (LSRL XXVIII), University Park, 16–19 April
1998 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 185), 243–70. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

Steriade, D. 2013. The cycle without containment: Romanian perfect stems. Paper
presented at the 21st Manchester Phonology Meeting, Manchester, 25
May 2013.

Wetzels, L. (1995). ‘Mid vowel alternations in the Brazilian Portuguese verb’.

Phonology, 12: 281–304.

Xie, Y. and Greenman, E. (2011). The social context of assimilation: Testing

implications of segmented assimilation theory. Social Science Research,
40(3), pp.965-984.