Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T15:09:44.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computational Universals in Linguistic Theory: Using Recursive Programs for Phonological Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jane Chandlee  and
Adam Jardine
Jane Chandlee*
Affiliation:
Haverford College
Adam Jardine*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University
*
[jchandlee@haverford.edu], [adam.jardine@rutgers.edu]
[jchandlee@haverford.edu], [adam.jardine@rutgers.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents BOOLEAN MONADIC RECURSIVE SCHEMES (BMRSs), adapted from the mathematical study of computation, as a phonological theory that both explains the observed computational properties of phonological patterns and directly captures phonological substance and linguistically significant generalizations. BMRSs consist of structures defined as logical predicates and situated in an ‘if ... then ... else’ syntax in such a way that they variably license or block the features that surface in particular contexts. Three case studies are presented to demonstrate how these grammars (i) express conflicting pressures in a language, (ii) naturally derive elsewhere condition effects, and (iii) capture typologies of repairs for marked structures.

Keywords

phonologycomputationlogicmathematical linguisticselsewhere conditionfeature-based representations

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 97 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 485 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We sincerely thank Siddharth Bhaskar for introducing us to recursive schemes, as well as Steven Lindell, Jeffrey Heinz, Eric Baković, Adam McCollum, Anna Mai, Eric Meinhardt, and the Rutgers Math Ling research group for their input and suggestions.

References

Ao, Benjamin. 1991. Kikongo nasal harmony and context-sensitive underspecification. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 193–96. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178713.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2009. Language universals: Abstract but not mythological. Behavior and Brain Sciences 32. 448–49. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X09990604.10.1017/S0140525X09990604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2000. Harmony, dominance and control. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University dissertation. DOI: 10.7282/T3TQ60BJ.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2006. Elsewhere effects in optimality theory. Wondering at the natural fecundity of things: Essays in honor of Alan Prince, ed. by Baković, Eric, Ito, Junko, and McCarthy, John J., 23–70. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz. Online: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1m56m1ht.Google Scholar
Baković, Eric. 2013. Blocking and complementarity in phonological theory. (Advances in optimality theory.) London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Siddharth, Chandlee, Jane, Jardine, Adam; and Oakden, Christopher. 2020. Boolean monadic recursive schemes as a logical characterization of the subsequential functions. Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA 2020), 157–69. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_10.10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_10.10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_10.10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane. 2017. Computational locality in morphological maps. Morphology 27. 599–641. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-017-9316-9.10.1007/s11525-017-9316-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane, and Heinz, Jeffrey. 2018. Strict locality and phonological maps. Linguistic Inquiry 49. 23–60. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00265.10.1162/LING_a_00265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane, Heinz, Jeffrey; and Jardine, Adam. 2018. Input strictly local opaque maps. Phonology 35. 171–205. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675718000027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandlee, Jane, and Jardine, Adam. 2019. Auto segmental input strictly local functions. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 7. 157–68. DOI: 10.1162/tacl_a_00260.10.1162/tacl_a_00260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2. 113–24. DOI: 10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Aspects of the theory of syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Choti, Jonathan. 2015. Phonological asymmetries of Bantu nasal prefixes. Annual Conference on African Linguistics 44. 37–51. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/44/paper3125.pdf.Google Scholar
Coleman, John, and Local, John. 1991. The ‘no crossing constraint’ in autosegmental phonology. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 295–338. DOI: 10.1007/BF00627405.10.1007/BF00627405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courcelle, Bruno. 1994. Monadic second-order definable graph transductions: A survey. Theoretical Computer Science 126. 53–75. DOI: 10.1016/0304-3975(94)90268-2.10.1016/0304-3975(94)90268-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, Richard T. 1974. Applications of the mathematical theory of linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110908572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, Desmond C. 1985. Hixkaryana and linguistic typology. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Durvasula, Karthik. 2010. Understanding nasality. Newark: University of Delaware dissertation.Google Scholar
Eisner, Jason. 1997. Efficient generation in primitive optimality theory. 35th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 313–20. DOI: 10.3115/976909.979657.10.3115/976909.979657.10.3115/976909.979657.10.3115/976909.979657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisner, Jason. 2000. Directional constraint evaluation in optimality theory. Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2000), 257–63. DOI: 10.3115/990820.990858.10.3115/990820.990858.10.3115/990820.990858.10.3115/990820.990858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enderton, Herbert. 1972. A mathematical introduction to logic. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Engelfriet, Joost, and Hoogeboom, Hendrik Jan. 2001. MSO definable string transductions and two-way finite-state transducers. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2. 216–54. DOI: 10.1145/371316.371512.10.1145/371316.371512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Robert, and Satta, Giorgio. 1998. Optimality theory and the generative complexity of constraint viol ability. Computational Linguistics 24. 307–15. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J98-2006.Google Scholar
Friberg, Timothy, and Friberg, Barbara. 1991. Notes on Konjo phonology. Studies in Sulawesi linguistics, part II, ed. by Sneddon, James Neil, 71–117. (NUSA linguistic studies of Indonesian and other languages in Indonesia 33.) Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Indonesia.Google Scholar
Gerdemann, Dale, and Hulden, Mans. 2012. Practical finite state optimality theory. Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Finite State Methods and Natural Language, 10–19. Online: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W12-6202.Google Scholar
Gold, Mark E. 1967. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10. 447–74. DOI: 10.1016/S0019-9958(67)91165-5.10.1016/S0019-9958(67)91165-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/goldsmith76.pdf.Google Scholar
Gordon, Matthew. 2002. A factorial typology of quantity-insensitive stress. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 491–552. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015810531699.10.1023/A:1015810531699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2019. A subregular bound on the complexity of lexical quantifiers. Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam colloquium, ed. by Schlöder, Julian J., McHugh, Dean, and Roelofsen, Floris, 455–64.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas. 2020. Curbing feature coding: Strictly local feature assignment. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 3:35. DOI: 10.7275/f7y5-xz32.Google Scholar
Graf, Thomas, and Shafiei, Nazila. 2019. C-command dependencies as TSL string constraints. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2:22. DOI: 10.7275/4rrx-x488.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1995. Comments on Burzio (1995). Glot International 1. 27–28.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Idsardi, William J.. 1998. A response to Alan Prince's letter. Glot International 3. 1–22.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Idsardi, William J.. 2000. Stress and length in Hixkaryana. The Linguistic Review 17. 199–218. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical stress theory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2009. On the role of locality in learning stress patterns. Phonology 26. 303–51. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675709990145.10.1017/S0952675709990145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2010. Learning long-distance phonotactics. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 623–61. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00015.10.1162/LING_a_00015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2018. The computational nature of phonological generalizations. Phonological typology, ed. by Hyman, Larry and Plank, Frans, 126–95. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110451931-005.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey. 2021. Doing computational phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey, and Idsardi, William. 2011. Sentence and word complexity. Science 333. 295–97. DOI: 10.1126/science.1210358.10.1126/science.1210358CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey, and Idsardi, William. 2013. What complexity differences reveal about domains in language. Topics in Cognitive Science 5. 111–31. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12000.10.1111/tops.12000CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, Jeffrey, and Koirala, Cesar. 2010. Maximum likelihood estimation of feature-based distributions. Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the ACL Special Interest Group on Computational Morphology and Phonology, 28–37. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W10-2204.Google Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey, and Lai, Regine. 2013. Vowel harmony and subsequentiality. Proceedings of the 13th Meeting on Mathematics of Language, 52–63. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-3006.Google Scholar
Herbert, Robert K. 1986. Language universals, markedness theory, and natural phonetic processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110865936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinnebusch, Thomas J. 1975. A reconstructed chronology of loss: Swahili class 9/10. Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the sixth Conference on African Linguistics) 20. 32–41. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1811/81394.Google Scholar
Huffman, Maria, and Hinnebusch, Thomas. 1998. The phonetic nature of ‘voiceless’ nasals in Pokomo: Implications for sound change. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 19. 1–19. DOI: 10.1515/jall.1998.19.1.1.10.1515/jall.1998.19.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikawa, Shiori, Ohtaka, Akane; and Jardine, Adam. 2020. Quantifier-free tree transductions. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 3:49. DOI: 10.7275/klgj-bq24.Google Scholar
Immerman, Neil. 1980. First-order expressibility as a new complexity measure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/1813/6272.Google Scholar
Jardine, Adam. 2016. Computationally, tone is different. Phonology 33. 247–83. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675716000129.10.1017/S0952675716000129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Adam. 2017a. The local nature of tone-association patterns. Phonology 34. 363–84. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675717000185.10.1017/S0952675717000185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Adam. 2017b. On the logical complexity of autosegmental representations. Proceedings of the 15th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language, 22–35. DOI: 10.18653/v1/W17-3403.10.18653/v1/W17-3403.10.18653/v1/W17-3403.10.18653/v1/W17-3403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Adam. 2019. The expressivity of autosegmental grammars. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 28. 9–54. DOI: 10.1007/s10849-018-9270-x.10.1007/s10849-018-9270-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, Adam, Chandlee, Jane, Eyraud, Rémi; and Heinz, Jeffrey. 2014. Very efficient learning of structured classes of subsequential functions from positive data. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (The 12th International Conference on Grammatical Inference) 34. 94–108. Online: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v34/jardine14a.html.Google Scholar
Ji, Jing, and Heinz, Jeffrey. 2020. Input strictly local tree transducers. Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA 2020), 369–81. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_26.10.1007/978-3-030-40608-0_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas. 1972. Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110876000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511812408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kager, René. 2007. Feet and metrical stress. The Cambridge handbook of phonological theory, ed. by de Lacy, Paul, 195–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486371.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Kay, Martin. 1981. Phonological rules and finite-state transducers. Abstract of paper presented at the 56th annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York. Online: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/1981_searchable.pdf.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Kay, Martin. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20. 331–78. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J94-3001.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1993. Finite-state constraints. The last phonological rule, ed. by Goldsmith, John, 173–94. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1998. The proper treatment of optimality in computational phonology. Finite State Methods in Natural Language Processing 1998. 1–12. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W98-1301.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in generative grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Abstractness, opacity, and global rules. Three dimensions in linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, Osamu, 57–86. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Kobele, Gregory M. 2006. Generating copies: An investigation into structural identity in language and grammar. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: https://linguistics.ucla.edu/general/dissertations/Kobele06GeneratingCopies.pdf.Google Scholar
Koser, Nathan, Oakden, Christopher; and Jardine, Adam. 2019. Tone association and output locality in non-linear structures. Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Meeting on Phonology. DOI: 10.3765/amp.v7i0.4476.10.3765/amp.v7i0.4476.10.3765/amp.v7i0.4476.10.3765/amp.v7i0.4476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsoudas, Andreas, Sanders, Gerald; and Noll, Craig. 1974. The application of phonological rules. Language 50. 1–28. DOI: 10.2307/412007.10.2307/412007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamont, Andrew. 2019. Precedence is pathological: The problem of alphabetical sorting. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 36. 243–49. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/36/paper3468.pdf.Google Scholar
Luo, Huan. 2017. Long-distance consonant agreement and subsequentiality. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1):52. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.42.Google Scholar
McCollum, Adam G., Baković, Eric, Mai, Anna; and Meinhardt, Eric. 2020. Unbounded circumambient patterns in segmental phonology. Phonology 37. 215–55. DOI: 10.1017/S095267572000010X.10.1017/S095267572000010XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Roger F. 1975. Proto South Sulawesi and proto Austronesian phonology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Mohri, Mehryar. 1997. Finite-state transducers in language and speech processing. Computational Linguistics 23. 269–311. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J97-2003.Google Scholar
Moschovakis, Yiannis N. 2019. Abstract recursion and intrinsic complexity. (Lecture notes in logic 48.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108234238.10.1017/9781108234238.10.1017/9781108234238.10.1017/9781108234238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 485–518. DOI: 10.1007/BF00138987.10.1007/BF00138987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1982. Tonal phenomena in Kishambaa. Studies in African Linguistics 13. 177–208. Online: https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/sal/article/view/1117.html.Google Scholar
Odden, David. 1994. Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language 70. 289–330. DOI: 10.2307/415830.10.2307/415830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oncina, José, García, Pedro; and Vidal, Enrique. 1993. Learning subsequential transducers for pattern recognition tasks. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 15. 448–58. DOI: 10.1109/34.211465.10.1109/34.211465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onn, Farid M. 1980. Aspects of Malay phonology and morphology: A generative approach. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.Google Scholar
Orr, Carolyn. 1962. Ecuador Quichua phonology. Studies in Ecuadorian Indian languages, ed. by Elson, Benjamin, 60–77. Norman, OK: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 1999. Austronesian nasal substitution and other N effects. The prosody-morphology interface, ed. by René, Kager, van, Harry Hulst, der, and Zonneveld, Wim, 310–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pater, Joe. 2018. Substance matters: A reply to Jardine (2016). Phonology 35. 151–56. DOI: 10.1017/S0952675717000409.10.1017/S0952675717000409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Amanda. 2017. All dissimilation is computationally subsequential. Language 93.e353–e371. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2017.0076.10.1353/lan.2017.0076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan S. 1980. A metrical theory for Estonian quantity. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 511–62. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178178.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan S. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 19–100. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178311.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. RuCCS Technical Report. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470759400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2011. On the mathematical foundations of Syntactic structures. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20. 277–96. DOI: 10.1007/s10849-011-9139-8.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Natural languages and context-free languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 471–504. DOI: 10.1007/BF00360802.10.1007/BF00360802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggle, Jason. 2004. Generation, recognition, and learning in finite state optimality theory. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation. Online: https://linguistics.ucla.edu/general/dissertations/riggle/riggle04_1up.pdf.Google Scholar
Rogers, James, Heinz, Jeffrey, Fero, Margaret, Hurst, Jeremy, Lambert, Dakotah; and Wibel, Sean. 2013. Cognitive and sub-regular complexity. Formal Grammar: FG 2013, FG 2012, ed. by Morrill, Glyn and Nederhof, Mark-Jan, 90–108. New York: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-39998-5_6.10.1007/978-3-642-39998-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Sharon, and Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80. 475–531. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2004.0144.10.1353/lan.2004.0144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, Gerald A. 1974. Precedence relations in language. Foundations of Language 11. 361–400. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25000783.Google Scholar
Schadeberg, Thilo C. 1982. Nasalization in Umbundu. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 4. 109–32. DOI: 10.1515/jall.1982.4.2.109.10.1515/jall.1982.4.2.109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. The role of prosodic categories in English word stress. Linguistic Inquiry 11. 563–605. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178179.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. On the major class features and syllable theory. Language sound structure: Studies in phonology, ed. by Halle, Morris, Aronoff, Mark, and Oehrle, Richard T., 107–13. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 333–43. DOI: 10.1007/BF00630917.10.1007/BF00630917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Caitlin, and O'Hara, Charlie. 2019. Formal characterizations of true and false sour grapes. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2:41. DOI: 10.7275/vd79-kt51.Google Scholar
Strother-Garcia, Kristina. 2017. Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber syllabification is quantifier-free. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 1:16. DOI: 10.7275/R5J67F4D.Google Scholar
Strother-Garcia, Kristina. 2019. Using model theory in phonology: A novel characterization of syllable structure and syllabification. Newark: University of Delaware dissertation. Online: http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/25084.Google Scholar
Strother-Garcia, Kristina, Heinz, Jeffrey; and Hwangbo, Hyun Jin. 2016. Using model theory for grammatical inference: A case study from phonology. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research (Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Grammatical Inference) 57. 66–78. Online: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v57/strother-garcia16.html.Google Scholar
Viljoen, Johannes, and Amakali, P.. 1978. A handbook of Oshiwambo. Pretoria: University of South Africa.Google Scholar
Vu, Mai Ha, Shafiei, Nazila; and Graf, Thomas. 2019. Case assignment in TSL syntax: A case study. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2:28. DOI: 10.7275/sywz-xw23.Google Scholar
Walker, Rachel. 2001. Mongolian stress, licensing, and factorial typology. Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, ms. Online: http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/183, version date 27 July 2001.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2003. Analyzing unbounded spreading with constraints: Marks, targets, and derivations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, ms.Google Scholar
Wilson, Colin. 2006. Unbounded spreading is myopic. Paper presented at the Current Perspectives on Phonology workshop, Phonology Fest, Indiana University.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 2002. Tone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaleska, Joanna. 2018. Coalescence without coalescence. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig dissertation.Google Scholar