Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-27T02:07:59.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inalterability as prespecification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Sharon Inkelas  and
Young-mee Yu Cho
Sharon Inkelas*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Young-mee Yu Cho*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Sharon Inkelas, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
Young-mee Yu Cho, Department of Asian Languages, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2150
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Geminate inalterability’ is the well-known phenomenon whereby a rule affecting singleton segments fails to alter comparable geminates. Past accounts have attributed inalterability to geminate-specific constraints on rule application. Two new generalizations point in a radically different direction. First, rules respecting inalterability are purely structure-filling (never structure-changing). Second, inalterability occurs also among singletons. We develop a new theory attributing inalterability to prespecification: geminate (and singleton) inalterability follows solely from the Elsewhere Condition. This explains not only the convergence of regular geminates and irregular singletons, but also the asymmetry among rule types sensitive to inalterability. Geminate-specific constraints on rule application are neither necessary nor sufficient to account for inalterability.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 69 , Issue 3 , September 1993 , pp. 529 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by 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 are grateful to Jill Beckman, Gene Buckley, Laura Downing, Andrew Garrett, Bruce Hayes, Larry Hyman, Greg Iverson, Paul Kiparsky, Will Leben, John McCarthy, Orhan Orgun, Jaye Padgett, Alan Prince, Jim Scobbie, Lisa Selkirk, Donca Steriade, Charles Ulrich, Moira Yip, Karl Zimmer, and two anonymous reviewers for stimulating discussion and comments at (many) earlier stages of this work.

The following abbreviations are used in this paper: 1, first person; 2, second person; 3, third person; caus, causative; dat, dative; desid, desiderative; fem, feminine; imp, imperative; indic, indicative; masc, masculine; mid, middle; neg, negative; neut, neuter; nom, nominalizer; obj, object; part, participle; pl, plural; poss, possessive; pres, present; ptcl, particle; sg, singular; subj, subject; TV, theme vowel; UR, underlying representation; vb, verbalizer.

References

Abraham, Roy C. 1946. Dictionary of the Hausa language. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Abraham, Roy C. 1959a. Hausa literature and the Hausa sound system. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Abraham, Roy C. 1959b. The language of the Hausa people. London: University of London Press.Google Scholar
Allen, W. Sidney. 1962. Sandhi: The theoretical, phonetic, and historical bases of word-juncture in Sanskrit. 'S-Gravenhage: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. West Scandinavian vowel systems and the ordering of phonological rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Applegate, Richard B. 1972. Ineseño Chumash grammar. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Archangeli, Diana, and Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1989. Yoruba vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 173–217.Google Scholar
Avery, C. Robert, Bezmez, S.; and Yaylah, M. 1983. Çağdaş Türkçe–İngilizce sözlüğü [Contemporary Turkish–English dictionary]. İstanbul: Redhouse Yayinevi.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1978. Long vowels and stress in Kwakiutl. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, ms.Google Scholar
Bagari, Dauda Muhammad. 1986. Bayanin Hausa: Jagora ga mai koyon ilimin bayanin harshe. Rabat: Imprimerie El Maarif al Jadida.Google Scholar
Bee, Darlene. 1973a. Usarufa distinctive features and phonemes. In McKaughan, 204–24.Google Scholar
Bee, Darlene. 1973b. Usarufa: A descriptive grammar. In McKaughan, 225–323.Google Scholar
Bee, Darlene, and Glasgow, Kathleen Barker. 1973. Usarufa tone and descriptive phonemes. In McKaughan, 190–203.Google Scholar
Bird, Steven. 1990. Constraint-based phonology. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Borman, M. B. 1962. Cofan phonemes. In Elson, 45–59.Google Scholar
Borowsky, Toni. 1986. Topics in English phonology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 1992a. Kashaya laryngeal increments, contour segments, and the moraic tier. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 487–96.Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene. 1992b. Theoretical aspects of Kashaya phonology and morphology. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Bullock, Barbara. 1991. The mora and the syllable as prosodic licensers in the lexicon. Newark: University of Delaware dissertation.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1982. An autosegmental theory of radoppiamento. North Eastern Linguistic Society 12.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu. 1990. Parameters of consonantal assimilation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu. 1991. Voicing is not relevant for sonority. Berkeley Linguistics Society 17. 69–80.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-mee Yu, and Inkelas, Sharon. 1992. Post-obstruent tensification in Korean and geminate inalterability. Paper presented at the International Conference on Korean Linguistics, Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Churma, Donald. 1988. On geminates. State University of New York, Buffalo, ms.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1976. Vowel harmony in nonlinear generative phonology. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1977. The autosegmental treatment of vowel harmony. Phonologica 1976, ed. by Dressier, Wolfgang and Pfeiffer, Oskar E., 111–19. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. Papers in laboratory phonology: Between the grammar and physics of speech, ed. by Kingston, John and Beckman, Mary, 283–333. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N., and Sezer, Engin. 1982. Vowel and consonant disharmony in Turkish. The structure of phonological representations, Part 2, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 213–55. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail. 1987. A survey of the phonology of the feature [± nasal]. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Cohn, Abigail. 1991. On the status of nasalized continuants. Nasals, nasalization, and the velum, ed. by Huffman, Marie and Krakow, Rena. San Diego: Academic Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Cook, Eung-Do. 1987. Sai-sios is a geminated consonant. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 2. 360–66.Google Scholar
Cowan, Ronayne, and Schuh, Russell. 1976. Spoken Hausa. Ithaca: Spoken Language Services.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura. 1990. Problems in Jita phonology. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois dissertation.Google Scholar
Elson, Benjamin Franklin (ed.) 1962. Ecuadorian Indian languages 1. Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of Oklahoma.Google Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. (Croom Helm descriptive grammars series.) London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) 1973. Three dimensions in linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1992. Using networks in a harmonic phonology. Chicago Linguistic Society 28, to appear.Google Scholar
Goller, Theodore R., Goller, Patricia L.; and Waterhouse, Viola G. 1974. Phonemes of Orizaba Nahuatl. International Journal of American Linguistics 40. 126–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1966. A concise elementary grammar of the Sanskrit language. Tr. by Gordon D. Ford, Jr. University, AL: University of Alabama Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, Terab'ata R., Groves, Gordon W.; and Jacobs, Roderick. 1985. Kiribatese: An outline grammar and vocabulary. (Pacific Linguistics series D, 64.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
Guerssel, Mohamed. 1978. A condition on assimilation rules. Linguistic Analysis 4. 225–54.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark. 1990. Preliminaries to the study of the relationship between sandhi and syntax in the language of the Rigveda. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vol. 61, ed. by Forssman, Bernhard, Hoffmann, Karl, and Narten, Johanna, 77–96. München: R. Kitzinger.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Kenstowicz, Michael. 1990. The free element condition and cyclic versus noncyclic stress. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 457–501.Google Scholar
Hammond, Michael. 1989. Lexical stresses in Macedonian and Polish. Phonology 6. 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, James. 1969. Spanish phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1977a. Remarks on diphthongization in Spanish. Lingua 41. 261–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, James. 1977b. Spanish vowel alternations, diacritic features and the structure of the lexicon. North Eastern Linguistic Society 7. 99–113.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1983. Syllable structure and stress in Spanish. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James. 1985. Spanish diphthongization and stress: A paradox resolved. Phonology Yearbook 2. 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1981. A metrical theory of stress rules. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. [Also a 1980 MIT dissertation.].Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1986a. Assimilation as spreading in Toba Batak. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 467–500.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1986b. Inalterability in CV phonology. Lg. 62. 321–52.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 253–306.Google Scholar
Hoff, Berend J. 1968. The Carib language. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1976. An introduction to Natural Generative Phonology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A theory of phonological weight. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1986. Syllable structure in prosodic phonology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko. 1989. A prosodic theory of epenthesis. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7. 217–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 49–73.Google Scholar
Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1991. Core and peripheral lexical domains. University of California at Santa Cruz, ms.Google Scholar
Josephs, Lewis S. 1977. New Palauan–English dictionary. Based on Palauan–English dictionary, by Fr. Edwin G. McManus, S.J. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, Jonathan, Lowenstamm, Jean; and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1990. Constituent structure and government in phonology. Phonology 7. 193–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1982. Gemination and spirantization in Tigrinya. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12. 103–22.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael. 1985. Multiple linking in Javanese. North Eastern Linguistic Society 15. 230–48.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1965. Phonological change. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973a. Elsewhere in phonology. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973b. Phonological representations: Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Fujimura, 56–86.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973c. Phonological representations: How abstract is phonology? In Fujimura, 5–56.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Yang, Im-Seok, 3–91. (Linguistic Society of Korea.) Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2. 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1991. In defense of the number two. Paper presented at the Organization of Phonological Features Workshop, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in non-derived environments. Studies in lexical phonology, ed. by Hargus, Sharon and Kaisse, Ellen. San Diego: Academic Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. The treatment of exceptions. Papers in Linguistics 2. 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi, and Evers, Vincent. 1991. Palatalization and coronality. Phonetics and phonology, vol. 2: The special status of coronals, ed. by Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levergood, Barbara. 1984. Rule governed vowel harmony and the strict cycle. North Eastern Linguistic Society 14. 275–93.Google Scholar
Levin, Juliette. 1985. A metrical theory of syllabicity. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. L. 1967. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lightner, Theodore. 1972. Remarks on exceptions and on co-existent systems in phonology. The Slavic word, ed. by Worth, Dean S., 426–42. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lindskoog, John N., and Brend, Ruth M. 1962. Cayapa phonemics. In Elson, 31–44.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1990. The nonlinear organization of the affricate. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 375–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal features and laryngeal neutralization. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Mascaró, Joan. 1987. A reduction and spreading theory of voicing and other sound effects. Barcelona: Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, ms.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1984. Theoretical consequences of Montañes vowel harmony. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 291–318.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1986a. Lexical phonology and nonconcatenative morphology in the history of Chaha. Revue québecoise de linguistique 16/1.209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1986b. Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 207–63.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency. Phonetica 43. 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Amherst & Waltham, MA: University of Massachusetts & Brandeis University, ms.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1991. Prosodic morphology course handout, Linguistic Institute, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. The phonological component of a grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McKaughan, Howard (ed.) 1973. The languages of the Eastern family of the East New Guinea Highland Stock. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Mester, Armin, and Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Lg. 65. 258–93.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P., and Mohanan, Tara. 1984. Lexical phonology of the consonant system in Malayalam. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 575–602.Google Scholar
Moore, Bruce R. 1962. Correspondences in South Barbacoan Chibcha. In Elson, 270–89.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela, and Ulrich, Charles. 1985. Nasals and nasalization in Western Muskogean. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Myers, Scott. 1991. Persistent rules. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 315–44.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1973. Grades, vowel-tone classes and extensions in the Hausa verb system. Studies in African Linguistics 4. 297–346.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul, and Newman, Roxana Ma. 1977. Modern Hausa-English dictionary. Ibadan: University Press Limited.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. Orhan. 1993. Alterable geminates and the release node. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Padgett, Jaye. 1991. Stricture in feature geometry. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Pāṇini. [1962.] The Ashṭādhyāyi of Pāṇini, vols. I and II. Tr. by Vasu, Srisa. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carole. 1988. On constraints and repair strategies. The Linguistic Review 6. 71–97.Google Scholar
Parsons, Frederick W. 1960–61. The verbal system in Hausa. Afrika und Übersee 44. 1–36.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 1982. Phonological representation and action at-a-distance. The structure of phonological representations, Part 1, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 121–58. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 1984. The phonetics and phonology of tone and intonation in Japanese. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 1986. Syllables. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Poser, William. 1989. The metrical foot in Diyari. Phonology 6. 117–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1984. Phonology with tiers. Language sound structure, ed. by Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard, 234–44. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan. 1985. Improving tree theory. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 471–90.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1991. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New Brunswick, NJ, & Boulder: Rutgers University & University of Colorado, ms.Google Scholar
Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1986. Tone in lexical phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 1990. Predicting rule domains in the phrasal phonology. The phonology-syntax connection, ed. by Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga, 289–312. Stanford, CA, & Chicago: Center for the Study of Language and Information & University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ringen, Catherine. 1982. Abstractness and the theory of exceptions. Linguistic Analysis 10. 191–202.Google Scholar
Ringen, Catherine. 1988. Underspecification theory and binary features. In van der Hulst & Smith, 145–60.Google Scholar
Saib, Jilali. 1974. Gemination and spirantization in Berber: Diachrony and synchrony. Studies in African Linguistics 5. 1–27.Google Scholar
Saib, Jilali. 1977. The treatment of geminates: Evidence from Berber. Studies in African Linguistics 8. 299–316.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, Mario. 1970. A phonology of Italian in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, Barry, and Steriade, Donca. 1986. On geminates. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 691–744.Google Scholar
Schuh, Russell G. 1972. Rule inversion in Chadic. Studies in African Linguistics 3. 379–98.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M. 1991. Attribute value phonology. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Scobbie, James M. 1992. Licensing and inalterability in Tiberian Hebrew. Chicago Linguistic Society 28, to appear.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1980. Prosodic domains in phonology: Sanskrit revisited. Juncture, ed. by Aronoff, Mark, 107–29. Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1990a. A two-root theory of length. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 14, ed. by Dunlap, Elaine and Padgett, Jaye, 123–71. Amherst: Graduate Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1990b. On the inalterability of geminates. Certamen phonologicum: Papers from the Second Cortona Phonology Meeting, ed. by Bertinetto, Pier Marco and Loporcaro, Michele, 187–209. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 1985. Issues in the phonology of Tamazight Berber. Cambridge, MA: MIT, ms.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1982. Greek prosodies and the nature of syllabification. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1987. Greek accent: A case for preserving structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 271–314.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca. 1991. Closure, release and nasal contours. Los Angeles: UCLA, ms.Google Scholar
Tranel, Bernard. 1991. CVC light syllables, geminates and moraic theory. Phonology 8. 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, Nikolai S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologic Prague: Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 7. [Tr. by Christiane A. M. Baltaxe as Principles of phonology, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969.].Google Scholar
Trussel, Stephen. 1986. Kiribati communication and culture handbook. (Peace Corps language handbook series.) Brattleboro, VT: The Experiment in International Living.Google Scholar
Vago, Robert. 1988. Finnish word games. In van der Hulst & Smith, 185–205.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1984. Vowel harmony in Hungarian. Advances in nonlinear phonology, ed. by van, Harry Hulst, der and Smith, Norval, 267–303. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 1988. The geometry of vocalic features. In van der Hulst & Smith, 77–125.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry, and Smith, Norval (eds.) 1988. Features, segmental structure and harmony processes, Part 2. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vogel, Irene. 1977. The syllable in phonological theory with special reference to Italian. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Waksler, Rachelle. 1990. A formal account of glide/vowel alternation in prosodic theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Welmers, William. 1973. African language structures. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Alva, and Wheeler, Margaret. 1962. Siona phonemics. In Elson, 96–113.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1982. Reduplication and C-V skeleta in Chinese secret languages. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 637–61.Google Scholar
Yip, Moira. 1991. Coronals, consonant clusters, and the coda condition. Phonetics and phonology, vol. 2: The special status of coronals, ed. by Paradis, Carole and Prunet, Jean-François, 61–78. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zec, Draga. 1988. Sonority constraints on prosodic structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Zonneveld, Wim. 1978. A formal theory of exceptions in generative phonology. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar