Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Journals
  4. Content listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2098917 results in Journals

Page 437 of 104946

  • LAN volume 71 issue 4 Cover and Front matter

  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 71 / Issue 4 / December 1995
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. f1-f7
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • LAN volume 82 issue 3 Cover and Back Matter

  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 82 / Issue 3 / September 2006
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. b1-b9
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • LAN volume 77 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 77 / Issue 1 / March 2001
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. f1-f3
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Phoneme inventory size and population size

  • Jennifer Hay, Laurie Bauer
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 83 / Issue 2 / June 2007
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. 388-400

  • This short report investigates the relationship between population size and phoneme inventory size, and finds a surprisingly robust correlation between the two. The more speakers a language has, the bigger its phoneme inventory is likely to be. We show that this holds for both vowel inventories and consonant inventories. It is not an artifact of language family.

  • The Morpholexical Nature of English to-Contraction

  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 73 / Issue 1 / March 1997
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. 79-102

  • The forms represented orthographically as 〈wanna〉, 〈hafta〉, 〈gonna〉, 〈gotta〉, 〈oughta〉, 〈usta〉, and 〈sposta〉 have standardly been analyzed as involving a syntactic rule or cliticization operation called to-contraction. Occasionally it has been suggested that the forms in question have been iexicalized', i.e., WANNA and HAFTA are synchronically distinct lexemes from WANT and HAVE. I argue here that neither approach is correct. The syntactic accounts are wrong to assume that the relation between wanna and want to must be syntactic, and the lexicalization accounts are wrong to assume that there is no synchronic relation: the link is one of derivational morphology. A morpholexical rule suffixes /tu/ ~ /tə/ to the base lexemes to form derived lexemes such as WANNA. These to-derivatives are headed morphological structures, as described by Stump 1994. They inflect on their heads, not their edges; they are synonymous with their bases but have different subcategorization and more colloquial style associations. Various morphological and phonological idiosyncrasies indicate that the derived lexemes are morphologically compound, but their sharing of the lexical idiosyncrasies of the base lexemes show that they contain those bases as heads. All the syntactic phenomena that have been claimed to be relevant to the debate over to-contraction fall into place under the assumptions advocated here, and some new insights emerge, particularly with regard to the ‘liberal dialects’ where the pronunciation written 〈wanna〉 has a wider distribution than in most American dialects.

  • The Typology of Voicing and Devoicing

  • W. Leo Wetzels, Joan Mascaró
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 77 / Issue 2 / June 2001
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. 207-244

  • This article provides empirical evidence against the claims that [voice] is a privative feature and that word-internal devoicing can occur in a language without word-final devoicing. The study of voice patterns in a number of languages shows that the feature value [– voice] although it is the unmarked value of the laryngeal feature [voice], can be active phonologically in a fashion parallel to the marked value [+ voice]. Across languages, voice assimilation may occur independently of devoicing and, although it normally affects both [+voice] and [– voice], it may affect only one value in some languages.

Page 437 of 104946