Adger, David. 2007. Stress and phasal syntax. Linguistic Analysis 33, 238–266.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen. 1982. The analysis of French shwa: Or, how to get something for nothing. Language 58, 534–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen. 1985. Phonology in the twentieth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baković, Eric. 2007. A revised typology of opaque generalizations. Phonology 24, 217–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. Forthcoming. Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bickmore, Lee. 1995. Accounting for compensatory lengthening in the CV and moraic frameworks. In Durand, Jacques & Katamba, Francis (eds.), Frontiers of phonology, 119–148. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Blaho, Sylvia. 2008. The syntax of phonology: A radically substance-free approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrick & Krämer, Martin (eds.). 2007. Freedom of analysis? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Broekhuis, Hans, Corver, Norbert, Huybregts, Riny, Kleinhenz, Ursula & Koster, Jan (eds.). 2005. Organizing grammar: Studies in honor of Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Burzio, Luigi. 1994. Principles of English stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Calabrese, Andrea. 2005. Markedness and economy in a derivational model of phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carvalho, Joaquim Brandão de. 2002. Formally-grounded phonology: From constraint-based theories to theory-based constraints. Studia Linguistica 56, 227–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carvalho, Joaquim Brandão de. 2006. Markedness gradient in the Portuguese verb: How morphology and phonology interact. In Fónagy, Ivan, Kawaguchi, Yuji & Moriguchi, Tsunekazu (eds.), Prosody and syntax, 157–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charette, Monik & Göksel, Asli. 1994. Vowel harmony and switching in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 4, 31–52. [Also in Kardela, Henryk & Szymanek, Bogdan (eds.), A Festschrift for Edmund Gussmann, 29–56. Lublin: University Press of the Catholic University of Lublin, 1996.]Google Scholar

Charette, Monik & Göksel, Asli. 1996. Licensing constraints and vowel harmony in Turkic languages. SOAS Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics 6, 1–25. [Also in Cyran, (ed.), 65–88.]Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on Minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, Halle, Morris & Lukoff, Fred. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. In Halle, Morris, Lunt, Horace, McLean, Hugh & Schooneveld, Cornelis van (eds.), For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Churchland, Patricia. 1993. Can neurobiology teach us anything about consciousness? The American Philosophical Association 67.3, 23–40.Google Scholar

Cyran, Eugeniusz (ed.). 1998. Structure and interpretation: Studies in phonology. Lublin: Folium.Google Scholar

Cyran, Eugeniusz. 2003. Complexity scales and licensing strength in phonology. Lublin: Catholic University of Lublin.Google Scholar

Dinsmore, John (ed.). 1992. The symbolic and connectionist paradigms: Closing the gap. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Dresher, Elan. 2003. Contrast and asymmetries in inventories. In Anna-Maria di Sciullo, (ed.), Asymmetry in grammar, vol. 2: Morphology, phonology, acquisition, 239–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dresher, Elan. 2008. The logic of contrast. In Freidin, et al. (eds.), 359–380.Google Scholar

Dresher, Elan. In press. The contrastive hierarchy in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2002. Beats-and-binding phonology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The modularity of the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, Jerry & Pylyshyn, Zenon. 1988. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In Pinker, Steven & Mehler, Jacques (eds.), Connections and symbols, 3–73. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P. & Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa (eds.). 2008. Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner, Howard. 1985. The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, John (ed.). 1995. The handbook of phonological theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gussmann, Edmund & Harris, John. 1998. Final codas: Why the west was wrong. In Cyran, (ed.), 139–162.Google Scholar

Gussmann, Edmund & Harris, John. 2002. Word-final onsets. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 1–42.Google Scholar

Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 1998. Formal and empirical arguments concerning phonological acquisition. Linguistic Inquiry 29, 656–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2000. Substance abuse and dysfunctionalism: Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The phonological enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris. 2008. Reduplication. In Freidin, et al. (eds.), 325–357.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Matushansky, Ora. 2006. The morphophonology of Russian adjectival inflection. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 351–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris & Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Three-dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 83–105.Google Scholar

Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569–1579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hayes, Bruce. 1989. Compensatory lengthening in moraic phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 253–306.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry van der. 2005. Why phonology is the same. In Broekhuis, et al. (eds.), 252–262.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy. 1999a. Head-driven phonology. In Hulst, van der & Ritter, (eds.), 113–167.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy. 1999b. Theories of the syllable. In Hulst, van der & Ritter, (eds.), 13–52.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy (eds.). 1999c. The syllable: Views and facts. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hulst, Harry van der & Ritter, Nancy. 2000. The SPE-heritage of Optimality Theory. The Linguistic Review 17, 259–289.Google Scholar

Hurch, Bernhard & Rhodes, Richard (eds.). 1996. Natural Phonology: The state of the art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Idsardi, William. 2000. Clarifying opacity. The Linguistic Review 17, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaisse, Ellen. 1985. Connected speech: The interaction of syntax and phonology. London & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kaye, Jonathan. 2001. Working with licensing constraints. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna (ed.), Constraints and preferences, 251–268. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaye, Jonathan. 2005. ‘GP, I'll have to put your flat feet on the ground’. In Broekhuis, et al. (eds.), 283–288. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keane, Elinor. 2005. Phrasal reduplication and dual description. In Hurch, Bernhard (ed.), Studies on reduplication, 239–261. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1979. Metrical structure assignment is cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 421–441.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1991. Catalexis. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. On the functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1, 291–306.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. Robert. 1986. Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2 vols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lombardi, Linda. 2001. Introduction. In Lombardi, Linda (ed.), Segmental phonology in Optimality Theory: Constraints and representations, 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lowenstamm, Jean. 1996. CV as the only syllable type. In Durand, Jacques & Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current trends in phonology: Models and methods, 419–441. Salford, England: European Studies Research Institute (ESRI).Google Scholar

Lowenstamm, Jean. 2003. Remarks on mutae cum liquida and branching onsets. In Ploch, Stefan (ed.), Living on the edge: 28 papers in honour of Jonathan Kaye, 339–363. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John. 2002. A thematic guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 2007. Hidden generalizations: Phonological opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Odden, David. 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology 4, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ohala, John. 1972. How to represent natural sound patterns. Project on Linguistic Analysis (Berkeley) 16, 40–57.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, Marc van. 2002. The phonological and morphological status of the Prosodic Word Adjunct. Linguistische Berichte (special issue) 11, 209–235.Google Scholar

Oostendorp, Marc van. 2003. Ambisyllabicity and fricative voicing in West-Germanic dialects. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The syllable in Optimality Theory, 304–337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oostendorp, Marc van. 2005. The first person singular in Dutch dialects. In Bateman, Leah & Ussery, Cherlon (eds.), Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 35), 1–12. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA).Google Scholar

Oostendorp, Marc van. 2006. A theory of morphosyntactic colours. Ms., Meertens Instituut.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005a. The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pinker, Steven & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005b. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for the evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser and Chomsky). Cognition 97, 211–225.Google Scholar

Pöchtrager, Markus. 2006. The structure of length. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Ms., Rutgers University & University of Colorado (ROA version August 2002).Google Scholar

Raimy, Eric. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raimy, Eric & Cairns, Charles (ed.). Forthcoming. Architecture and representations in phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Rice, Curt. 2003. OT, 10 years later. Presented at the PFC [Phonologie du Français Contemporain] conference Phonologie et phonétique du français: Données et théories, Paris, 11–13 December.Google Scholar

Ritter, Nancy. 2006. Georgian consonant clusters: The complexity is in the structure, not in the melody. The Linguistic Review 23, 429–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rubach, Jerzy. 1997. Extrasyllabic consonants in Polish: Derivational Optimality Theory. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Derivations and constraints in phonology, 551–581. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L. & Research Group, the PDP (eds.). 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Exploration in the micro-structure of cognition, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. 2004. A lateral theory of phonology, vol.1: What is CVCV, and why should it be? Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. Forthcoming. How morpho-syntax talks to phonology: A survey of extra-phonological information in phonology since Trubetzkoy's Grenzsignale. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Scheer, Tobias. In press. Generative phonology and its evolution. In Botma, Bert, Kula, Nancy & Nasukawa, Kuniya (eds.), The Continuum companion to phonology. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Smolensky, Paul. 1987. Connectionist AI, symbolic AI, and the brain. Artificial Intelligence Review 1, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smolensky, Paul. 1988. On the proper treatment of connectionism. Brain and Behavioural Sciences 11, 1–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Geraldine. 2006. The harmonic mind: From neural computation to Optimality-Theoretic grammar, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1986. A non-linear analysis of vowel-zero alternations in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 22, 249–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stillings, Neil, Weisler, Steven, Chase, Christopher, Feinstein, Mark, Garfield, Jay & Rissland, Edwina. 1995. Cognitive science: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Szendrői, Kriszta. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 20, 37–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Szigetvári, Péter. 2001. Dismantling syllable structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 48, 155–181.Google Scholar

Szigetvári, Péter & Scheer, Tobias. 2005. Unified representations for the syllable and stress. Phonology 22, 37–75.Google Scholar

Vaux, Bert. 2003. Syllabification in Armenian, Universal Grammar, and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 91–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and recursion. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Lapointe, Steven, Brentari, Diane & Farrell, Patrick (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 216–246. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1986. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Introductory remarks. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 32, 63–91.Google Scholar