Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T15:17:34.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Optimality Theory and Spanish/Hispanic Linguistics

from Part I - Theories and Approaches to Spanish Linguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2018

By
D. Eric Holt
Edited by
Kimberly L. Geeslin
Kimberly L. Geeslin
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Get access

Summary

Since the early 1990s, Optimality Theory has been the dominant framework in which to carry out research in linguistic theory from a generative perspective, particularly in phonology, with extensions and applications to other domains. A particular strength of this constraint-based framework is that it addresses linguistic universals and is inherently comparative/typological, and optimality-theoretic approaches have provided effective analyses of many phenomena in Spanish, both in isolation and across space (diatopically, dialectology), as well as over time (diachrony), and in language learning (development). This chapter offers an introduction to the working of OT, and reviews a sampling of all its applications in all areas of Spanish/Hispanic linguistics.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics , pp. 31 - 51
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, T. (1997). Optimality Theory: An Overview. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bakovic, E. (1998). Optimality and Inversion in Spanish. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., and Pesetsky, D. (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. (2003). Asymmetries in the Acquisition of Consonant Clusters in Spanish. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48 (3–4), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, J. (2005). Sonority Effects in the Production of Consonant Clusters by Spanish Speaking Children. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. (2006). Constraint Conflict in the Acquisition of Clusters in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 523–48.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2006). Morphological Structure and Phonological Domains in Spanish Denominal Derivation. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 278–311.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2007). Spanish Pseudoplurals: Phonological Cues in the Acquisition of a Syntax–Morphology Mismatch. In Baerman, M., Corbett, G., Brown, D., and Hippisley, A. (eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–269.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (forthcoming). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blutner, R. (2000). Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17 (3), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P. and Escudero, P. (2008). Learning to Perceive a Smaller L2 Vowel Inventory: An Optimality Theory Account. In Avery, P., Dresher, B. E., and Rice, K. (eds.), Contrast in Phonology: Theory, Perception, Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 271–302.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (1), 45–86.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (2006). Gender Allomorphy and Epenthesis in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 312–338.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. and Harbour, D. (2012). Contextual Allomorphy. In Trommer, J. (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 195–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, E. and Lloret, M.-R. (2016). Romance Phonology and Morphology in Optimality Theory. In Fischer, S. and Gabriel, C. (eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 113–147.Google Scholar
Bradley, T. G. (2014). Optimality Theory and Spanish Phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8, 65–88. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12065.Google Scholar
Bradley, T. G. and Smith, J. (2011). The Phonology–Morphology Interface in Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization Approach. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4 (2), 247–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, E. (2014). Spanish Secondary Stress without Gradient Alignment. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E., and Rysling, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
Buckley, E. (2016). Foot Alignment in Spanish Secondary Stress. In Heinz, J., Goedemans, R., and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Dimensions of Phonological Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–100.Google Scholar
Caballero, G. and Inkelas, S. (2013). Word Construction: Tracing an Optimal Path through the Lexicon. Morphology, 23 (2), 103–143.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2017). The Role of Prosodic Structure in the L2 Acquisition of Spanish Stop Lenition. Second Language Research, 33 (2), 233–269.Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2006). Optimality-Theoretic Advances in our Understanding of Spanish Syllable Structure. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 172–204.Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2009). Spanish Phonology: A Syllabic Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2011). Spanish Morphophonology. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4 (1), 173–9.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colina, S. (2014). La teoría de la optimidad en la fonología del español. In Cedeño, Rafael Núñez, Colina, Sonia, and Bradley, Travis G. (eds.), Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española (2nd edn). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 291–317.Google Scholar
Cutillas Espinosa, J. A. (2003). Teoría lingüística de la optimidad: fonología, morfología y aprendizaje. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.Google Scholar
Cutillas Espinosa, J. A. (2004). Meaningful Variability: A Sociolinguistically-Grounded Approach to Variation in Optimality Theory. International Journal of English Studies, 4 (2), 165–184.Google Scholar
de Swart, H. (2010). Expression and Interpretation of Negation. An OT Typology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Swart, P. (2007). Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. and Colina, S. (2006). The Interaction between Faithfulness Constraints and Sociolinguistic Variation: The Acquisition of Phonological Variation in First Language Speakers. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 424–446.Google Scholar
Elsman, M. M. and Holt, D. E. (2009). When Small Words Collide: Morphological Reduction and Phonological Compensation in Old Leonese Contractions. In Leow, R., Campos, H., and Lardiere, D. (eds.), Little Words: Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Acquisition. Georgetown University Press, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
Escudero, P. and Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the Gap between L2 Speech Perception Research and Phonological Theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (4), 551–585.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T., Tubau, S., Borràs-Comes, J., and Prieto, P. (2016). Double Negation in Catalan and Spanish: Interaction between Syntax and Prosody. In Larrivée, P. and Lee, C. (eds.), Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives, Language, Cognition, and Mind. Berlin: Springer, pp. 145–176.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2014a). Modeling Individual Variation in Prosody: The Case of Spanish Clitic Left-Dislocations. In Fuchs, S., Grice, M., Hermes, A., Lancia, L., and Mücke, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production, 5–8 May 2014. Cologne: University of Cologne, pp. 114–117.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2014b). The Intonation of Left-Dislocations in Spanish and Other Romance Languages – Experimental and Theoretical Studies on Prosodic Phrasing and Inter-Speaker Variation (Habilitation thesis). Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2016). Inter-Speaker Variation, OT, and the Prosody of CLLD in Spanish. Probus, 28 (2), 293–333.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. and Vanrell, M. (2014). Prosody, Focus and Word Order in Catalan and Spanish: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. In Fuchs, S., Grice, M., Hermes, A., Lancia, L., and Mücke, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production, 5–8 May 2014. Cologne: University of Cologne, pp. 122–125.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. and Vanrell, M. (2015). Oraciones hendidas y otras estrategias de marcaje del foco en español: Una aproximación desde la Teoría de la Optimidad Estocástica. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 13 (2), 39–60.Google Scholar
Flemming, E. (2002). Auditory Representations in Phonology. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C. (2010). On Focus, Prosody, and Word Order in Argentinean Spanish: A Minimalist OT Account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 4, 183–222.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M., and Schwarz, L. (2016). Coactivation in Bilingual Grammars: A Computational Account of Code Mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19 (5), 857–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grau Sempere, A. (2013). Reconsidering Syllabic Minimality in Spanish Truncation. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante, 27, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2001). Optimal Clitic Positions and the Lexicon in Romance Clitic Systems. In Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 205–240.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, L. (2009). Procesos fonológicos utilizados en la formación de hipocorísticos: una aproximación desde la fonología no lineal (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Concepción, Chile.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2005). Structural Markedness and Syntactic Structure. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2007). Prominence Scales and Unmarked Word Order in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25 (2), 235–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2008). Topicalization and Preverbal Subjects in Spanish wh-Interrogatives. In Bruhn de Garavito, J. and Valenzuela, E. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2010). Inputs and Faithfulness in OT Syntax: The Case of Subjects and Topics in Spanish Infinitival Clauses. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 8, 134–154.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R., Arellanes Arellanes, F., and Chávez Peón, M. (eds.). (2015). Nuevos estudios de teoría de la optimidad. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. and Herrera, E. (eds.). (2008). Teoría de optimidad: estudios de sintaxis y fonología. Mexico City: El Colegio de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. and Monforte, J. (2008). La alternancia sujeto inicial/verbo inicial y la Teoría de Optimidad. In Gutiérrez Bravo, R. and Herrera, E. (eds.), Teoría de optimidad: estudios de sintaxis y fonología. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, pp. 61–90.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B. and Bhatt, R. (1997). Optimal L2 Syllables: Interactions of Transfer and Developmental Effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (3), 331–378.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2000). Gradient Well-Formedness in Optimality Theory. In Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F., and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 88–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2000). Comparative Optimality-Theoretic Dialectology: Singular/Plural Nasal Alternations in Galician, Mirandese (Leonese) and Spanish. In Campos, H., Herburger, E., Morales-Front, A., and Walsh, T. J. (eds.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium: Papers from the Third Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2003). The Emergence of Palatal Sonorants and Alternating Diphthongs in Hispano-Romance. In Holt, D. E. (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 285–305.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2004). Optimization of Syllable Contact in Old Spanish via the Sporadic Sound Change Metathesis. Probus, 16 (1), 43–61.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2006). Optimality Theory and Language Change in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Advances in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 378–396.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2015). Historical Sound Change in Optimality Theory: Achievements and Challenges. In Honeybone, P. and Salmons, J. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 545–562.Google Scholar
Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (2012). Grammaticalization as Optimization. In Jonas, D., Whitman, J., and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Kochetov, A. and Colantoni, L. (2011). Place vs. Stricture in Spanish Nasal Assimilation. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28. Available from sites.google.com/site/wccfl28pro/kochetov-colantoni (last access October 9, 2017).Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2004). Language Contact and Spanish Aspectual Expression: A Formal Analysis. Lingua, 114 (9–10), 1291–1330.Google Scholar
LaFond, L. L. (2001). The Pro-Drop Parameter in Second Language Acquisition Revisited: A Developmental Account (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
LaFond, L. L. (2003). Putting the Pieces Together: Second Language Learning of Null Subjects, Inversion, and That-Trace. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H., and Goodluck, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 168–175.Google Scholar
LaFond, L., Hayes, R., and Bhatt, R. (2001). Constraint Demotion and Null-Subjects in Spanish L2 Acquisition. In Camps, J. and Wiltshire, C. (eds.), Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition: Selected Papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121–135.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. (2016). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. From Uni- to Bidirectional Optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.) (2001). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lestrade, S. (2010). The Space of Case (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. (2001). The Interface of Phonology and Syntax: The Emergence of the Article in the Early Acquisition of Spanish and German. In Weissenborn, J. and Höhle, B. (eds.), Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Lexical, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. (2002). The Role of Markedness in the Acquisition of Complex Prosodic Structures by German–Spanish Bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6 (3), 291–313.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. (2006). The Acquisition of Prosodic Word Structures in Spanish by Monolingual and Spanish–German Bilingual Children. Language and Speech, 49, 205–229.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. and Arias, J. (2006). Foot, Word and Phrase Constraints in First Language Acquisition of Spanish Stress. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (ed.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 472–496.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. and Arias, J. (2009). The Role of Weight-by-Position in the Prosodic Development of Spanish and German. In Grijzenhout, J. and Kabak, B. (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–248.Google Scholar
Lloret, M.-R. and Mascaró, J. (2006). Depalatalization in Spanish Revised. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 74–98.Google Scholar
Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.) (2006). Optimality-Theoretic Advances in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (2004). Optimal Paradigms. In Downing, L. J., Hall, T. A., and Raffelsiefen, R. (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 170–210.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (2007). Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. and Pater, J. (eds.) (2016). Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1994). The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. In González, M. (ed.), NELS 24: Proceedings of the North-East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, pp. 333–379.Google Scholar
Morales-Front, A. (2006). Acquisition of Syllable Structure in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 497–524.Google Scholar
Morris, R. (2005). Attraction to the Unmarked in Old Spanish Leveling. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 180–191.Google Scholar
Patin, C., Feldhausen, I., and Delais-Roussarie, E. (2017). Structure prosodique et dislocation à gauche dans les langues romanes et bantu: vers une approche typologique unifiée en OT. In Lemaréchal, A., Koch, P., and Swiggers, P. (eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013), Section 1 : Linguistique générale/linguistique romane. Nancy ATILF, pp. 107–119. Available from www.atilf.fr/cilpr2013/actes/section-1.html (last access October 13, 2017).Google Scholar
Piñeros, C. E. (2000a). Prosodic and Segmental Unmarkedness in Spanish Truncation. Linguistics, 38 (1), 63–98.Google Scholar
Piñeros, C. E. (2000b). Foot-Sensitive Word Minimization in Spanish. Probus, 12 (2), 291–324.Google Scholar
Piñeros, C.E. (2006). The Phonology of Nasal Consonants in Five Spanish Dialects. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 146–171.Google Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder. Revised version published Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roca, I. and Felíu, E. (2003). Morphology in Truncation: The Role of the Spanish Desinence. In Booij, G. and van Maarle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 187–243.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, , (2006). A Paradigm Account of Spanish Number. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 339–357.Google Scholar
Sanz, J. (2015). The Phonology and Morphology of Spanish Hypocoristics (Master’s thesis). The Arctic University of Norway.Google Scholar
Smith, J. A. (2011). Subcategorization and Optimality Theory: The Case of Spanish Diminutives (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., Goldrick, M., and Mathis, D. (2014). Optimization and Quantization in Gradient Symbol Systems: A Framework for Integrating the Continuous and the Discrete in Cognition. Cognitive Science, 38 (6), 1102–1138.Google Scholar
Tesar, B. and Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, J. (2001). Distributed Optimality (Doctoral dissertation). University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Wiltshire, C. (2006). Prefix Boundaries in Spanish Varieties: A Non-Derivational OT Account. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 358–377.Google Scholar
Wolf, M. (2008). Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology–Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. (2016). The Role of Morphology in Optimality Theory. In Hippisley, A. and Stump, G. T. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 550–587.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M. (2011a). A Realization Optimality Theory Approach to Blocking and Extended Morphological Exponence. Journal of Linguistics, 47 (3), 673–707.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M. (2011b). A Realization Optimality Theory Approach to Full and Partial Identity of Forms. In Maiden, M., Charles Smith, J., Goldbach, M., and Hinzelin, M. O. (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–286.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, M. L. (1998). Prosody, Focus, and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×