25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

University of Manchester May 25-27 2017

Prosodic domains: overthrowing the hierarchy Heather Newell1 & Tobias Scheer2 1 UQAM, 2Université Côte d'Azur

OUTLINE.

1.0

5.0

Phonological domains. 1.1 The diacritic nature of the prosodic hierarchy: Scheer (2008) 1.2 Phonological domains. Phono-syntactic (non-)isomorphism: Newell (2017a) An alternative: The initial CV Ojibwe hiatus resolution 3.1 The data 3.2 The phono-syntactic analysis: Newell and Piggott (2014) 3.3 An issue: Suffixation inside and outside the phase The CVCV analysis 4.1 Hiatus in Ojibwe : The basics 4.1.1 Suffixation inside and outside the phase, Prefixation inside the phase 4.1.2 Prefixation outside the phase: long vs short vowels Conclusion

1.0

PHONOLOGICAL DOMAINS.

2.0 3.0

4.0

Phonological domains within and across words have been objects of study since the beginning of Generative Phonology (and before). The delimiters of these domains have prominently included the non-segment segments # and +, which were replaced by the Prosodic Hierarchy in the 80s. 1.1

The diacritic nature of the prosodic hierarchy Scheer (2008, 2011 §402, 2012a §93, 2012b) •

In a modular environment, diacritics do not qualify since computational systems (modules) can only understand, parse and process their own proprietary vocabulary.

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting •

• •

1.2

ω, φ etc. are diacritics exactly in the same way as #, + etc.: they play no role in phonological processes that make no reference to morpho-syntactic information. Their only import is the contribution of morpho-syntactic information. ==> ω, φ etc. are not pieces of the proprietary phonological vocabulary. the Direct Effect: diacritics such as ω, φ etc. have no effect by themselves. They therefore make the wrong prediction, i.e. that morpho-syntactic divisions can have any effect and its reverse. o Their effect can be anything and its reverse: a rule (or constraint) mentioning # or ω can make word-initial consonants strong or weak. o This is not how natural language works, though: particular morpho-syntactic divisions do have specific and noninterchangeable effects. The beginning of the word makes consonants strong, never weak. It enforces #TR groups, never #RT groups. It prevents the first vowel from alternating with zero, but never forces it to alternate with zero. o Truly phonological objects are necessarily interpreted by the phonology by their sole presence. They make predictions: anything and its reverse cannot happen in their vicinity. If carriers of morpho-syntactic information is syllabic space (the initial CV), specific predictions are made – for the beginning of the word, these predictions are correct: #C strong, restriction to #TR, first vowels cannot alternate.

The prosodic hierarchy is redundant D'Alessandro and Scheer (2015) •



Newell & Scheer

phase theory (Chomsky (2001) and following) has radically modified the landscape (but this went by and large unnoticed in phonological quarters) o since Lexical Phonology, post-lexical phonology is supposed to be non-cyclic. Hence at and above the word level, chunk definition is ONLY representational, i.e. done by the Prosodic Hierarchy. o phase theory obliterates this idea: it defines phonologically relevant chunks above the word level. o ==> phase theory takes over the function of the Prosodic Hierarchy 2

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

•

1.3

o ==> the Prosodic Hierarchy is redundant and has to go reaction/adaptation of the established Prosodic Hierarchy to phase theory: prosodic islands. o Prosodic islands make prosodic constituency isomorphic with phases: FIRST a phase defines the chunk, THEN this chunk is translated into phonological representations in the form of a unit of the Prosodic Hierarchy. Dobashi (2003), Piggott and Newell (2006), Kratzer and Selkirk (2007), Ishihara (2007), Kahnemuyipour (2009). Survey: Elordieta (2008: 274ff). o ==> abandon of THE fundamental claim of Prosodic Phonology: non-isomorphism. o theory cannot afford to do the same labour twice: if prosodic and phase structure are exactly identical and isomorphic, Occam commands to get rid of one of them. Since phases are independently needed in syntax and the Prosodic Hierarchy has no other purpose in phonology than introducing morphosyntactic information, prosodic constituency has to go. Pak (2008: 42ff), Samuels (2009: 284ff), Seidl (2001).

Phonological domains. Phono-syntactic (non-)isomorphism Newell (2017a) •

•

•

• •



Newell & Scheer

X0 does not define a PWd. It’s both too big and too small. Current theories of the Prosodic Hierarchy do not rest on solid theoretical ground. There is no such thing as word. “The set of Match constraints … exploit… the notions clause, phrase and word, which presumably play a role in any theory of morphosyntax.” Selkirk (2011). word plays no role in any non-lexicalist theory of morpho-syntax (ex. DM: Halle and Marantz (1993), (1994), Nanosyntax: Starke (2009), Caha (2009), Spanning: Svenonius (2016). PWds are both smaller and larger than X0s. Phonological domains are isomorphic with syntactic domains. Selkirk (2011), Newell (2017a)

3

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

2.0

Newell & Scheer

A NON-DIACRITIC ALTERNATIVE: THE INITIAL CV.

• •

There is only one chunk-defining mechanism: phases. ==> no parallel phonology-internal mechanism (prosodic constituency) • Hence phonological domains are isomorphic with syntactic domains. • Syntactic (and hence phonological) domains are created in the syntax: phases. • But not all phases leave a phonological trace: o each individual phase may or may not be specified for phonologically marking its domain with an initial CV (= extra syllabic space). o marking is always initial: there is no phase-final marking. • Phase head marking Scheer (2009, 2012: §307) – phase heads α and δ are endowed with a an initial CV – phase heads β and γ trigger vacuous spell-out at PF





δ → PF + CV γ → PF β → PF









α → PF + CV







4









25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

3.0

Newell & Scheer

OJIBWE HIATUS RESOLUTION.

Ojibwe hiatus resolution is a complex pattern that is sensitive to the syntactic derivation in which it arises, as well as to the phonological shape of affixes. Newell and Piggott (2014). HIATUS VIA

HIATUS VIA PREFIXATION

(A) (B)

V1 and V2 in different cycles

(C)

SUFFIXATION

V1 is long : no resolution

VV-V(V) à VVV(V)

V1 is short: epenthesis

V-Và VdV

A short V1 is deleted if it undergoes spellout in the same cycle as V2 out in the same cycle as V2

(D) Deletion of V2 V-V à V Neither quality nor quantity are significant

V-V à V

Note that hiatus targets both prefixes and suffixes, and that in these cases the root V is always maintained. In root-root compounds hiatus is also resolved via deletion, but V1 may be deleted.1

3.1 (A) (1)

THE DATA. Newell and Piggott (2014) Long V + V, no hiatus resolution gii-aagam-osee à giiaagamosee PAST-snowshoe-walk

‘He walked in snowshoes’ (333)

1 Hiatus resolution also never occurs across a modifier-base boundary. For the particular procedural nature of this boundary see Newell and Piggott (2014), Newell (2009). (i) ni-ini-a:gam-ose: à (nidì)(nì)(á:)(gamò)(sè:) ‘I walked away in snowshoes’ 1-away-snowshoe-walk



5

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

(B)

Newell & Scheer

Hiatus resolved by epenthesis

(2)

(C)

a.

ni-aagam-osee à nidaagamosee, *niaagamosee 1-snowshoe-walk

b.

ni-ga-aagam-osee à nigadaagamosee 1-FUT.PROBABLE-snowshoe-walk

‘I walk in snowshoes’

‘I will (probably) walk in snowshoes’ (355)

Hiatus resolution by Deletion : Prefix in the same cycle as its base

(3)

(D) (4)

3.2

ni-oos à noos 1-father

‘my father’ (349)

Hiatus resolution by deletion : Suffix vowel is deleted (categorical) a.

namee-ag à sturgeon-PLURAL

nameeg

b.

aseemaa-eens à aseemaans tobacco-DIMINUTIVE

‘sturgeons’

(333)

‘cigarette’ (337)

THE PHONO-SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS Newell and Piggott (2014)

At the interpretation of a phase (vP, nP, CP, DP), a PWd is projected. The Ojibwe word emerges as nested PWds within a DP or a CP (see also Compton and Pittman (2010)). Hiatus is resolved only within a PWd. (A) (5)

Long V + V, no hiatus resolution a.

b.



[gii-[aagam-osee]vP ]CP à PAST-snowshoe-walk PW 3 PW PW @ $ (gii) (aa)(gamo)(see)

6

giiaagamose:

‘He walked in snowshoes’ (333)

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

(B)

Hiatus resolved by epenthesis

(6)

a.

b.

•

Newell & Scheer

[ni-[ga-[aagam-osee]vP ]TP ]CP à nigadaagamosee 1-FUT.PROBABLE-snowshoe-walk ‘I will (probably) walk in snowshoes’ PW 3 ni PW à 3 ga PW $ (aa)(gamo)(see)

(7)

Hiatus resolution by Deletion a.

b.

c.

ni-oos à noos 1-father

‘my father’

DP 3 1P pro D ni 3 D nP : … z---- oos [+INALIENABLE] PW @ (noos)





PW2 3 ni PW 3 ga PW % (niga)(daa)(gamo)(see)

When an affix does not meet PWd minimality (it is monomoraic), it merges into the PW it is adjoined to. This post-spell-out Phonological Merger results in epenthesis.

(C)

2

(355)

As the tense and person prefixes are in separate phases, this derivation actually occurs in 3 steps. (i) [(aa)(gamo)(see)]PWd(vP) (ii) (ii) [ga [(gadaa)(gamo)(see)]PWd](TP = complement of CP) (iii) (iii) [ni [ga [(niga)(daaga)(mosee)]PWd]](CP = edge)

7

(349)

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting (D) (8)

Newell & Scheer

Hiatus resolution by deletion: Suffix vowel is deleted (categorical) a.

b.

ni-ʒiiʃiib-im-inaani-ag à niʒiiʃiibiminaanig 1-duck-POSSESSIVE-AGR-AGR

‘our ducks’

DP 3 1P pro D ni 3 D nP 3 n AgrP2 4 Agr2 AgrP1 3 … Agr1 Agr2 # 3 ag Poss Agr1 3 inaani n Poss 3 im √ n DUCK Ø ʒiiʃiib : z -----------------m

c.

•



PW 3 ni PW % (niʒii)(ʃii)(bimi)(inaa)(nag)

According to Newell & Piggott (2014), all suffixes emerge at the right edge of their base due to head movement. Therefore, all suffixes are in the same phase as their base. Hiatus resolution within the spell-out of a phase is always resolved through deletion.

8

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting 3.3

Newell & Scheer

AN ISSUE: SUFFIXATION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE PHASE

The problem with the PWd account •

•

•

We adhere to the above account, but question the appeal to the PH /PWd as the representational device that differentiates the different hiatus resolution environments in the Phonology. A problem with the above account, besides the appeal to the PH, is that not all suffixes in the language emerge in the same phase as their base. Hiatus between suffixes and their base, like between prefixes and their base, should be resolved be epenthesis if the PWd account is correct, but hiatus is never resolved by epenthesis between a suffix and its base. Data from Lochbihler (2017), originally from Kaye and Piggott (1973) demonstrates this distinction. o There are 2 /–i/ suffixes in Ojibwe that trigger palatalization. There is also an apocope operation that can serve to delete both /–i/s on the surface. Some derivations result in transparent surface realizations (9a), and some are opaque (9b). (9)

•

• •



peem-aat-isi-t-i à peemaatisit wh.along-live-VAI-3CONJ-PART

b.

ni-mikʃkaw-at-i à nimiʃkawatʃ 1P-hard-by.cold-VAI

‘he who lives’

‘I am frozen’ (Kaye and Piggott 1973: 356)

Lochbihler notes that the /–i/ that is inside the (vP) domain of its base triggers palatalization before apocope applies, the /–i/ that is outside the domain of its base is deleted before palatalization can apply. (10)

•

a.

a. b.

[[pe:m-a:t-isi-t vP] –i CP] [ni- [mikškaw-at-i vP] CP]

/-i/ ‘RELATIVISER’ /-i/ ‘ANIMATE INTRANSITIVE VERB (VAI)’

If some suffixes can sit outside of the phase to which they merge, then we must re-examine the analysis of the syntactic position of the suffixes in Newell and Piggott 2014. The outer /-i/ suffix; the relativiser, never occurs before a V-final morpheme, so we cannot test how hiatus behaves in examples such as (9/10a) There are other good candidates for suffixes that emerge outside the first phase of interpretation in Ojibwe.

9

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

Newell & Scheer

o Inalienable possessive structures do not motivate n to D movement (as is the case in English – [the phonologist’s [analysis]nP ]DP ). (11)

•

[ni-[akwe:]nP-im]DP à nidawe:m 1-woman-POSS

The productive(syntactic) causative is proposed to sit outside of the inner vP. We can see the effect of this outer spell-out in many languages (Malagasy, Japanese, etc) (12)

(13)

• • •

[ni[gi:we:]vP iʔ-a:]vP ]CP. à nigi:we:ʔa: 1-go home-CAUS-him

‘I make him go home’ (N&P p. 233)

a.

[m-an-fatra vP] à mamatra EVENT-CAUS-measure

‘x measures y’

b.

[[m-an-[fa-i-fatra vP] vP] à mampifatra ‘z makes x be measured’ EVENT-CAUS-EVENT-I-measure (Newell (2017b: 28), from Lisa Travis, field notes)

The Ojibwe causative appears to be semantico-syntactically parallel to the productive causative in languages like Malagasy. We know from (9) that some suffixes are interpreted in a separate phase from their base. Both the POSSESSIVE and the CAUSATIVE suffixes (as is the case for all suffixes) undergo hiatus by deletion. If the Phonological Merger account were correct, these sequences should be resolved via epenthesis (or not at all). (14)

•

‘My wife’

Phase 1 : PWd Const: Phase 2 : PWd Constr: Hiatus Res: Phase 3 :

akwe (akwe) ni-akwee-im ni-(nia)(kwee)(im)-im *(nida)(kwe:)(dim) ---

giwee (giwee) giwee-iʔ-a (giwee)-(iʔ-a)3 *(giwee)(iʔa) nigiwe:iʔa

How can we account for the uniform behavior of hiatus resolution at the right edge as opposed to the varied nature of hiatus resolution at the left edge considering the parallel phonological/syntactic derivations of the outer affixes?

3 Assuming the a is in the phase of cause, which it may not be. Further syntactic analysis is required.

10

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

4.0

Newell & Scheer

THE CVCV ALTERNATIVE

•

In CVCV, as we discussed, languages may opt to mark the beginning of phonological domains (constructed via phase spell-out) with an empty CVunit. This CV unit marks only the left-edge, and is therefore an available explanation for the pattern seen in Ojibwe (following previous analyses, of which a survey is available in Scheer (2012b)) o Note that the phase-based analysis in §3.2 gives us the necessary domains. o The advantage of the CV analysis is its ability to unify the deletion strategy of the inner and outer suffixes without falling afoul of the uniform predictions of Phonological Merger. That is, suffix boundaries are never impacted by a boundary CV since boundary CVs are never distributed phase-finally. o One point before we begin: vowels that are lexically specified for being long may be lexically long (i.e. attached to two vocalic positions) or short. In the latter case they carry a lexical instruction for spreading (while short vowels do not bear this instruction). length distinction expressed by representations in the lexicon long x

x a

short x | a

length distinction expressed by lexical instruction long x | a

short x | a

o That is, association may be under control: the instruction to become long may originate in § the lexicon – in Ojibwe, Ben Si Saïd (2014) § morphology – Guerssel & Lowenstamm (1990), Ben Si Saïd (2010, 2014) § socio-linguistic – liaison without enchaînement in French, Encrevé & Scheer (2005)



11

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting 4.1 • • •

• •

Newell & Scheer

HIATUS IN OJIBWE : THE BASICS

Vowels that alternate with Ø are lexically floating; come with a V position to attach to if they are not deleted. A floating vowel in hiatus is deleted. Hiatus is determined at both the skeletal and melodic tier simultaneously. A melodic vowel sequence triggers the deletion of the affix vowel melody (floating) if the skeletal slot is local (no intervening V slots). A linked vowel is not deleted. (linking occurs after hiatus resolution at spell-out) A strong intervocalic C position is realized (epenthesis) 4.1.1 • •

(15)

HIATUS RESOLUTION VIA DELETION

Suffixation inside and outside the phase; Prefixation inside the phase Vowel hiatus within a phase, and across a suffix-base boundary whether inside or outside the phase, is never mediated by empty CV space. Suffixation : Realization of and Hiatus resolution of short V a.

b.

…

ni-ʒiiʃiib-im-inaani-ag à niʒiiʃiibiminaanig 1-duck-POSSESSIVE-AGR-AGR

C | b

V Ø

C V | i

C | m

V Ø

•

V C V ur a

C | n

V C V C V | G | a g Ø i

C | b

V | i

C | m

V | i

C | n

V C V ur a

C | n

V | i

C V

C | g

V Ø

Hiatus is determined at both the skeletal and melodic tier simultaneously. A melodic vowel sequence triggers the deletion of the affix vowel melody (floating) if the skeletal slot is local (no intervening V slots). (16)

Suffixation : Realization of long V a.



C | n

à

c.

…

C V | i

‘our ducks’

wiigiwaam-eens à wiigiwaameens house-DIM 12

‘little house, outhouse’

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting b.

…

C | m

V Ø

(17)

C | n

V Ø

C V | s Ø

à

c.

…

C V UG e

Newell & Scheer

C | m

V C V ur e

C | n

V Ø

C | s

V Ø

Suffixation : Hiatus resolution of long V a.

aseemaa-eens à aseemaans tobacco-DIMINUTIVE

b. V C V ur … a

C V UG e

C | n

V Ø

‘cigarette’

C V | s Ø

à c. V C V ur … a •

(18)

C V

C | n

V Ø

C | s

V Ø

The affix vowel melody (floating) if the skeletal slot is local (no intervening V slots). Prefixation : Hiatus resolution of short V4 a. ni-oos à noos 1-father

‘my father’

4 The only prefixes that are realized within the phase of their base are the person prefixes, and only in inalienable constructions. All of these prefixes contain short vowels.



13

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting b. C | n c. C | n •

5.1 • • •

(19)

V G i

C

Newell & Scheer

V C V C V ur | o s Ø à

V

C

V C V C V ur | o s Ø

The affix vowel melody (floating) if the skeletal slot is local (no intervening V slots).

PREFIXATION OUTSIDE THE PHASE: LONG VS SHORT VOWELS The empty V of the phase-intial CV intervenes and blocks hiatus resolution via deletion. Long vowels – no resolution because they fill the extra CV space. The initial C of the base is therefore governed (its expression is suppressed) Short vowels – epenthesis before an empty CV because the initial C of the base is licensed and strong, epenthesis is fortition in Ojibwe.

Long vowels: No pre-linking Hiatus, no post-linking Hiatus resolution a. gii-aagam-osee à giiaagamosee PAST-snowshoe-walk

‘He walked in snowshoes’

b. C | g



V GR i

C

V

C

V C V C ur | a g

14

V C V C V C V | | | | ur e a m o s

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting •

Intervening V slot of the initial CV bleeds the environment for hiatus resolution. a lgvt ? C V C V C ur | a g

c. C | g

•

Newell & Scheer

V C V ur i : z--- mlicens

V C V C V C V | | | | ur e a m o s

Linked vowels are not subject to hiatus resolution. The intervening C is governed, and therefore unrealized. (20)

Short vowels: No pre-linking Hiatus, post-linking Hiatus resolution by epenthesis a. ga-aagam-osee à gadaagamosee ‘He will (probably) walk in snowshoes’ FUT.PROB-snowshoe-walk b. C | g

•

V G a

C

V

C

V C V C ur | a g

Intervening V slot of the initial CV bleeds the environment for hiatus resolution.

c. C | g

V g a

C

a--- lgvt ? V

C | d

V C V C ur | a g

: z--mlicens



V C V C V C V | | | | ur e a m o s

15

V C V C V C V | | | | ur e a m o s

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

5.0

Newell & Scheer

CONCLUSIONS •

•

OJIBWE HIATUS RESOLUTION o Phases/cycles play a crucial role in the determination of hiatus resolution in Ojibwe. o A PWd analysis of phonological domains predicts that some suffixes will trigger hiatus resolution via epenthesis, contra the data. o A linear analysis better captures the environments for Hiatus Resolution determined by phases à la N&P. LARGER CONCLUSIONS

o If the Prosodic Hierarchy is not a tenable theoretical construct, we need to take seriously alternate theories of phonological domain construction, like phases + CVCV. o Interestingly, there is a strong cross-linguistic tendency for suffixes to behave as if they were phonologically closer to their base than prefixes. The analysis herein, in addition to offering a modular and syntactically licit account of Ojibwe hiatus resolution, promises an interesting line of research in accounting for this tendency.



16

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

Newell & Scheer

References

Ben Si Saïd, S. (2010). Association sous contrôle grammatical: le cas du A du pluriel externe en kabyle. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57: 432-443. Ben Si Saïd, S. (2014). De la nature de la variation diatopique en kabyle : étude de la formation des singulier et pluriel nominaux. Ph.D dissertation, University Nice Sophia Antipolis. Caha, P. (2009). The Nanosyntax of Case. Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language. M. Kenstowicz. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press: 1-52. Compton, R. and C. Pittman (2010). "Word formation by phase in Inuit." Lingua 120(9): 2167-2192. D'Alessandro, R. and T. Scheer (2015). "Modular PIC." Linguistic Inquiry 46: 593-624. Dobashi, Y. (2003). Phonological Phrasing and syntactic derivation, Ph.D dissertation, Cornell University. Elordieta, G. (2008). "An overview of theories of the syntax-phonology interface." International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 42: 209-286. Halle, M. and A. Marantz (1993). Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. The view from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. K. Hale and S. Keyser. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press: 111-176. Halle, M. and A. Marantz (1994). "Some key features of Distributed Morphology." MIT Worling Papers in Linguistics 21: 275-288. Ishihara, S. (2007). "Major phrase, focus intonation, multiple spell-out." The Linguistic Review 24: 137-167. Kahnemuyipour, A. (2009). The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford, OUP. Kaye, J. and G. Piggott (1973). "On the cyclical nature of Ojibwa T-palatalization." Linguistic Inquiry 4: 345-362. Kratzer, A. and E. Selkirk (2007). "Phase theory and prosodic spellout: the case of verbs." The Linguistic Review 24: 93-135. Lochbihler, B. (2017). Syntactic domain types and PF effects. The Structure of Words at the Interface. H. Newell, M. Noonan, G. Piggott and L. d. Travis, Oxford University Press. Newell, H. (2017). Nested Phase Interpretation and the PIC. The Structure of Words at the Interfaces. H. Newell, M. Noonan, G. Piggott and L. d. Travis, Oxford University Press. Newell, H. (2017). There is no word. Generative Linguistics in the Old World (GLOW). Leiden. Newell, H. and G. Piggott (2014). "Interactions at the syntax-phonology interface: Evidence from Ojibwe." Lingua 150: 332-362. Pak, M. (2008). The postsyntactic derivation and its phonological reflexes, Ph.D

17

25th Manchester Phonology Meeting

Newell & Scheer

dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Piggott, G. and H. Newell (2006). "Syllabification and the spell-out of phases in Ojibwa words." McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 39-64. Samuels, B. (2009). The structure of phonological theory, Ph.D dissertation, Harvard University. Scheer, T. (2008). Why the Prosodic Hierarchy is a diacritic and why the Interface must be Direct. Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. J. Hartmann, V. Hegedüs and H. v. Riemsdijk. Amsterdam, Elsevier: 145-192. Scheer, T. (2009). "External sandhi: what the initial CV is initial of." Studi e Saggi Linguistici 47(a): 43-82. Scheer, T. (2011). A Guide to Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface Theories. How ExtraPhonological Information is Treated in Phonology since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter. Scheer, T. (2012). Chunk definition in phonology: prosodic constituency vs. phase structure. Modules and Interfaces. A. Bloch-Rozmej and M. Bloch-Trojnar. Lublin, Wydawnictwo KUL: 221-253. Scheer, T. (2012). Direct Interface and One-Channel Translation. A Non-Diacritic Theory of the Morphosyntax-Phonology Interface. Vol.2 of A Lateral Theory of phonology. Berlin, de Gruyter. Seidl, A. (2001). Minimal Indirect Reference: a theory of the syntax-phonology interface. London, Routledge. Selkirk, E. (2011). The syntax-phonology interface. The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Second Edition. J. Goldsmith, J. Riggle and A. C. L. Yu. Oxford, WileyBlackwell: 435-484. Starke, M. (2009). "Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to language." Nordlyd 36: 1-6. Svenonius, P. (2016). Spans and Words. Morphological Metatheory. D. Siddiqi and H. Harley, John Benjamins: 201-222.



18