Adger, David. 2007. Pronouns postpose at PF. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alber, Birgit. 1997. Quantity sensitivity as the result of constraint interaction. In Booij, Geert & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), HIL Phonology Papers III. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics, 1–45 [ROA 310].Google Scholar

Alber, Birgit. 2001. Regional variation at edges: Glottal stop epenthesis and dissimilation in Standard and Southern varieties of German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 20. 3–41.Google Scholar

Alber, Birgit & Arndt-Lappe., Sabine 2012. Templatic and subtractive truncation. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, Arto. 1997. Deriving variation from grammar. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4: 35–68.Google Scholar

Anttila, Arto. 2007. Variation and optionality. In Paul de Lacy (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnhold, Anja, Braun, Bettina & Romero, Maribel. 2021. Aren’t prosody and syntax marking bias in questions? Language and Speech 64: 141–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920914315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Arregui, Karlos. 2016. Focus projection theories. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark & Fuhrhop, Nana. 2002. Restricting suffix combinations in German and English: Closing suffixes and the monosuffix constraint. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20: 451–490. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015858920912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atterer, Michaela & Ladd, Robert D.. 2004. On the phonetics and phonology of “segmental anchoring” of F0: Evidence from German. Journal of Phonetics 32: 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bach, Emmon & King, Robert D.. 1970. Umlaut in Modern German. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4: 3–21.Google Scholar

Bader, Markus. 1996. Sprachverstehen. Syntax und Prosodie beim Lesen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

Bartels, Christine. 1999. The Intonation of English Statements and Questions: A Compositional Interpretation. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Baumann, Stefan & Riester, Arndt. 2012. Referential and lexical givenness: Semantic, prosodic and cognitive aspects. In Elordieta, Gorka & Prieto, Pilar (eds.), Prosody and Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter/Mouton, 119–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baudouin de Courtenay, Jan. 1895/1972. An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations. In Stankiewicz, Edward (ed. and translator), A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The Beginnings of Structural Linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 144–212.Google Scholar

Beckman, Jill. 1997. Positional Faithfulness. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA [ROA 234].Google Scholar

Bellik, Jennifer, Ito, Junko, Kalivoda, Nick & Mester, Armin. 2022. Matching and alignment. In Kubozono, Haruo, Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (eds.), Prosody and Prosodic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 458–481.Google Scholar

Bennett, Ryan, Elfner, Emily & McCloskey, James. 2016. Lightest to the right: An anomalous displacement in Irish. Linguistic Inquiry 47.2: 169–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benware, Wilbur A. 1980. Zum Fremdwortakzent im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 47: 289–312.Google Scholar

Benware, Wilbur A. 1987. Accent variation in German nominal compounds of the type (A(BC)). Linguistische Berichte 108: 102–127.Google Scholar

Berg, Rob van den, Carlos, Gussenhoven & Toni, Rietveld. 1992. Downstep in Dutch: Implications for a model. In Docherty, Gerard & Ladd, Robert D. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology II: Gesture, Segment, Prosody. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 335–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2018. Stratal phonology. In Hannahs, Stephen J. & Bosch, Anna R. K. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory. Abingdon: Routledge, 100–134.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1930. German ç and x. Le maître phonétique 3: 27–28.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 35–71.Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul. 1998. Functional Phonology: Formalizing the Interaction Between Articulatory and Perceptual Drives. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.]Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & Hayes, Bruce. 2001. Empirical tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32.1: 45–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boersma, Paul & Weenink, David. 2006–2022. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 4.4.27 to 6.1.38) [Computer program]. www.praat.org/.Google Scholar

Braune, Wilhelm. 1961. Althochdeutsche Grammatik, 10th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

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

Bresnan, Joan. 1972. Stress and syntax. Language 48: 326–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruce, Gösta. 1977. Swedish word accent in sentence perspective. In Malmberg, Bertil & Hadding, Kerstin. Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 12. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar

Buckley, Eugene. 2011. Metathesis. In Oostendorp, Marc van, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth V. & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 1380–1407.Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 1997. The 49th Bridge Accent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2016a. (Contrastive) topic. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 64–85.Google Scholar

Büring, Daniel. 2016b. Intonation and Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Büring, Daniel & Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2021. Correspondence between XPs and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 52.4: 791–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burton-Roberts, Noel. 2006. Parentheticals. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bye, Patrick. 2011. Dissimilation. In van Oostendorp, Mark, Colin, Ewen & Elen, V. Hume (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1408–1433.Google Scholar

Bye, Patrick & Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 427–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen, Matthew Y. 1987. The syntax of Xiamen tone sandhi. Phonology Yearbook, 4, 109–150.Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Downing, Laura J.. 2016. Phasal syntax = cyclic phonology? Syntax 19: 156–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Steinberg, Danny D. & Jakobovits, Leon A. (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 183–216.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 89–155.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239–298.Google Scholar

Clahsen, Harald, Rothweiler, Monika, Woest, Andreas & Marcus, Gary. 1992. Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition 45: 225–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clahsen, Harald, Gary, Marcus, Susanne, Bartke & Richard, Wiese. 1996. Compounding and inflection in German child language. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Springer, 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, John & Yallop, Collin. 1990. An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Clements, George N. 1978. Tone and syntax in Ewe. In Napoli, Donna. J. (ed.), Elements of Tone, Stress and Intonation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 21–99.Google Scholar

Clements, George N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. In Phonology Yearbook, 2, 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clements, George N. 1990. The role of the sonority cycle in core syllabification. In Kingston, John & Beckmann, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 283–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clements, George N. & Hume, Elizabeth. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 245–306.Google Scholar

Clements, George N. & Keyser, Samuel J.. 1983. CV Phonology: A Generative Theory of the Syllable. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Coetzee, Andries W. 2006. Variation as accessing ‘non-optimal’ candidates. Phonology, 23.3: 337–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohn, Abigail & McCarthy, John. 1994. Alignment and parallelism in Indonesian Phonology. Ms. Cornell University and University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

Constant, Noah. 2014. Contrastive Topic: Meanings and Realizations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Crystal, David. 1969. Prosodic Systems and Intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

D’Alessandro, Roberta & Scherer, Tobias. 2015. Modular PIC. Linguistic Inquiry 46.4: 593–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, Stuart & Shin, Seung-Hoon. 1999. The Syllable Contact Constraint in Korean: An Optimality-Theoretic analysis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8.4: 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole. 2014. Parentheticals in Spoken English: the Syntax–Prosody Relation [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, Nicole, Braun, Bettina, Einfeldt, Marieke, Wochner, Daniela & Zahner-Ritter, Katharina. 2022. The prosody of rhetorical questions: A cross-linguistic view. Linguistische Berichte 269: 3–42.Google Scholar

Dell, François & Elmedlaoui, Mohamed. 1985. Syllabic consonants and syllabification in Imdlawn Tashlhiyt Berber. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 7: 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobashi, Yoshihito. 2010. Computational efficiency in the syntax–phonology interface. The Linguistic Review 27: 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Domahs, Ulrike, Wiese, Richard, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina & Schlesewsky, Mathias. 2008. Word prosodic hierarchies: Evidence from event-related potentials. Phonology 25.1: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Downing, Laura, Hall, Tracy Alan & Raffelsiefen, Renate, eds. 2005. Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dresher, B. Elan. 2011 The phoneme. In Marc van, Oostendorp, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth & Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U. et al. 2001. The processing of interfixed German compounds. In Booij, Geert & Van Marle, Jan (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1999. Dordrecht: Springer, 185–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duden Aussprachewörterbuch: Wörterbuch der deutschen Standardaussprache. 2005. 6th ed. (Mangold, M. with the Dudenredaktion). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, Peter. 1991. Syllabische Struktur und Wortakzent: Prinzipien der Prosodik deutscher Wörter. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 10: 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eisenberg, Peter. 1998. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort. Stuttgart: Verlag J.B. Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elfner, Emily. 2012. Syntax-Prosody Interactions in Irish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Elfner, Emily. 2015. Recursion in prosodic phrasing: Evidence from Connemara Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33.4: 1169–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-014-9281-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elordieta, Gorka. 2015. Recursive phonological phrasing in Basque. Phonology 32: 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fallon, Paul D. 1993. Liquid dissimilation in Georgian. Eastern States Conference of Linguistics 10: 105–116.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 1993. German Intonational Patterns (Linguistische Arbeiten 285). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 1994. Umlaut and inflection in German. Optimality Archive. Rutgers University [ROA 33].Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 1995. Alignment, Syllable and Metrical Structure in German. Habilitationsschrift, SfS-Report 02–95, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 1997a. Uni und Studis: die besten Wörter des Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 172: 461–490.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 1997b. The prosodic structure of the diminutive suffix -chen. In András Kertész (ed.), Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 5. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Germanistik an der Lajos-Kossuth-Universität Debrecen, 7–16.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 1998. German word stress in OT. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2.2: 101–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 2006. The prosodic basis of topicalization. In Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69–86.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121: 1906–1922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 2016. Intonation and Prosodic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Féry, Caroline. 2017. Die allophonischen Frikative in der Standardsprache und in den hessischen Dialekten In Konopka, M. (ed.), IDS-Jahrbuch 2016. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 41.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline. Forthcoming. Suprasegmental phenomena in Germanic: Intonation. In Hoekstra, Jarich & Höder, Steffen (eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Germanic Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline & Anja, Arnhold. 2019. Verum focus and negation. In Brown, J. M. M., Schmidt, Andreas & Wierzba, Marta (eds.), Of Trees and Birds. A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow. Potsdam. Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 213–229. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank. 2008. Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36: 680–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82.1: 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Féry, Caroline & Schubö, Fabian. 2010. Hierarchical prosodic structures in the intonation of center-embedded relative clauses. The Linguistic Review 27: 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Féry, Caroline & Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. Sisterhood and tonal scaling. Studia Linguistica. Special Issue “Boundaries in intonational phonology” 59: 223–243.Google Scholar

Féry, Caroline, Hohmann, Constance & Stähle, Katharina. 2009. Gradience in phonology: [ŋ] and [ŋk] in Northern German. In Kügler, Frank, Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Variation and Gradience in Phonetics and Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 185–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fleischer, Wolfgang & Barz, Irmhild. 1992. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Edward, Flemming. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18: 7–14.Google Scholar

Fuchs, Anna. 1976. “Normaler” und “kontrastiver” Akzent. Lingua 38: 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuhrhop, Nana. 1996. Fugenelemente. In Lang, E. & Zifonun, G. (eds.), Deutsch – typologisch. Berlin: de Gruyter, 525–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fuhrhop, Nana. 1998. Grenzfälle morphologischer Einheiten. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag.Google Scholar

Fuhrhop, Nana & Peters, Jörg. 2013. Einführung in die Phonologie und Graphematik. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallmann, Peter. 2016. m-Schwäche. In Fuß, Eric & Konopka, Marek (eds.), Genitiv im Korpus. Untersuchungen zur starken Flexion des Nomens im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Geilfuß-Wolfgang, Jochen. 1998. Über die optimale Position von ge-. Linguistische Berichte 176: 581–588.Google Scholar

Gibbon, Dafydd. 1976. Perspectives of Intonation Analysis. Bern: Peter LangGoogle Scholar

Giegerich, Heinz J. 1985. Metrical Phonology and Phonological Structure in German and English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. Onset maximation in German: The case against resyllabification rules. In Eisenberg, Peter, Ramers, Karl Heinz & Vater, Heinz (eds.), Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, 134–171.Google Scholar

Gilles, Peter. 2005. Regionale Prosodie im Deutschen. Variabilität in der Intonation von Abschluss und Weiterweisung. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldrick, M. 2000. Turbid output representations and the unity of opacity. In Coetzee, A., Hall, N. & Kim, J. (eds.), North East Linguistics Society Vol. 30, Article 17. Amherst: GLSA, 231–245.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, John. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Published by Garland Press in 1979.Google Scholar

Goldwater, Sharon & Johnson, Mark. 1993. Learning OT constraint rankings using a Maximum Entropy model. In Spenador, Jennifer, Eriksson, Anders & Dahl, Östen (eds.), Proceedings of the Stockholm Workshop on Variation within OT. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 111–120.Google Scholar

Golston, Chris. 1996. Direct Optimality Theory: Representation as pure markedness. Language 72: 713–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golston, Chris & Richard, Wiese. 1996. Zero morphology and constraint interaction: Subtraction and epenthesis in German dialects. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Springer, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grabe, Esther. 1998. Pitch realization in English and German. Journal of Phonetics 26: 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grammont, Maurice. 1904. La Métathèse dans le parler de Bagnères-de-Luchon. In Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris XIII. Paris: Vve Bouillon.Google Scholar

Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Benzmüller, Ralf. 2005. German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grüter, Theres. 2003. Hypocoristics: The case of u-formation in Bernese Swiss German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Güneş, Güliz. 2015. Deriving Prosodic Structures. Doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. Focus, mode and the nucleus. Journal of Linguistics 19: 377–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. In Roca, Iggy M. (ed.), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Berlin: Foris, 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2022. How metrical is the Autosegmental-Metrical model? Evidence from pitch accents in Nubi, Persian, and English. In Kubozono, Haruo, Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (eds.), Prosody and Prosodic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 143–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos & Chen, Aoju. 2020. The Oxford Handbook of Language Prosody. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gussenhoven, Carlos & Jakobs, Haike. 1998. Understanding Phonology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Hale, Mark & Reiss, Charles. 2008. The Phonological Enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 1989a. Lexical Phonology and the distribution of German [ç] and [x]. Phonology 6.1: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 1989b. German syllabification, the velar nasal, and the representation of schwa. Linguistics 27: 807–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 1992a. Syllable Structure and Syllable-Related Processes in German (Linguistische Arbeiten 276). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 1992b. Syllable-final clusters and schwa epenthesis in German. In Eisenberg, Peter, Ramers, Karl Heinz & Vater, Heinz (eds.), Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, 208–245.Google Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 1993. The phonology of German /R/. Phonology 10.1: 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 1999. Phonotactics and the prosodic structure of German function words. In Hall, Tracy Alan & Kleinhenz, Ursula (eds.), Studies in the Phonological Word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan. 2007. German glide formation and its theoretical consequences. The Linguistic Review 24: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hall, Tracy Alan & Hamann, Silke. 2010. On the cross-linguistic avoidance of rhotic plus high front vocoid Sequences. Lingua 120: 1821–1844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris. 1995. Feature geometry and feature spreading. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 1–46.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris. 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Bruening, B., Kang, Y. & McGinnis, M. (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: Papers at the Interface. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, 425–449.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 111–176.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Stevens, Kenneth N.. 1971. A note on laryngeal features. MIT Quaterly Progress Report 11: 198–213.Google Scholar

Hamann, Silke. 2003. German glide formation functionally viewed. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 32: 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamlaoui, Fatima & Szendrői, Krizsta. 2015. A flexible approach to the mapping of intonational phrases. Phonology 32: 79–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hamlaoui, Fatima & Szendrői, Kriszta. 2017. The syntax–phonology mapping of intonational phrases in complex sentences: a flexible approach. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2: 1–31.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. Distributed morphology. Glot International 4: 3–9.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1980. A Metrical Theory of Stress Rules. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1984. The phonology of rhythm in English. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 33–74.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1986. Inalterability in CV phonology. Languages 62: 321–351.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1987. A revised parametric metrical theory. Proceedings of NELS 17: 274–289.Google Scholar

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

Hayes, Bruce. 1990. Precompiled phrasal phonology. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.), The Phonology–Syntax Connection. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 85–108.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hayes, Bruce & Wilson, Colin. 2008. A maximum entropy model of phonotactics and phonotactic learning. Linguistic Inquiry 39.3 379–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Herrgen, Joachim. 1986. Koronalisierung und Hyperkorrektion. Das Palatale Allophon des /ch/-Phonems und Seine Variation im Westmitteldeutsch. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Erhard W. 1984. Attachment of articles and prepositions in German: Simple cliticization or inflected prepositions. Ohio State University. Working Papers in Linguistics 29: 127–138.Google Scholar

Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1986. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The origin of speech. Scientific American 203.3: 88–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Höhle, Tilman N. 1982a. Über Komposition und Derivation: zur Konstituentenstuktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1: 76–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, Tilman N. 1982b. Explikation für “normale Betonung” und “normale Wortstellung”. In Abraham, W. (ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen: Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung. Tübingen: Narr: 75–153.Google Scholar

Hulst, Harry van der. 1984. Syllable Structure and Stress in Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress. In Hyman, Studies in Stress and Accent 4. University of Southern California, 37–82.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2006. Word-prosodic typology. Phonology 23: 225–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 1997. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study of dominance effects. In Yearbook of Morphology 1997. Dordrecht: Springer, 121–155.Google Scholar

IPdS. 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997. The Kiel Corpus of Read Speech. Vol. I [Kiel-CD #1, #3, #4]. Institut für Phonetik und digitale Sprachverarbeitung der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.Google Scholar

Isačenko, Alexander. 1963. Der phonologische Status des velaren Nasals im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik 16: 77–84. Also published in Hugo Steger (ed.), 1970, Vorschläge zu einer strukturalen Grammatik des Deutschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (= Wege der Forschung 146), 468–479.Google Scholar

Isačenko, Alexander. 1974. Das “Schwa mobile” und “Schwa constans” im Deutschen. In Engel, Ulrich & Grebe, Paul (eds.), Sprachsystem und Sprachgebrauch. Festschrift für Hugo Moser zum 65. Geburtstag. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, 142–171.Google Scholar

Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2022. On the (lack of) relation between syntactic clauses and intonational phrases. In Kubozono, Haruo, Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin (eds.), Prosody and Prosodic Interfaces, Chapter 14. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198869740.003.0014.Google Scholar

Ishihara, Shinichiro & Kalivoda, Nick. 2022. Match Theory: An overview. Language and Linguistics Compass 16.1. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1994. Reflections on Coda Cond and Alignment. In Merchant, Jason, Padgett, Jaye & Walker, Rachel (eds.), Phonology at Santa Cruz, 3. Santa Cruz: Linguistics Researchers Center, University of California, 27–46.Google Scholar

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1997. Sympathy theory and German truncations. In Miglio, Viola & Morén, Bruce (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 5. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press, 117–139.Google Scholar

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1998. The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.), A Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 62–100.Google Scholar

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 1998. Markedness and Word Structure: OCP Effects in Japanese. Ms. University of California, Santa Cruz. [ROA 255 http://roa.rutgers.edu/].Google Scholar

Junko, Ito & Mester, Armin. 2003. On the sources of opacity in OT: Coda processes in German. In Féry, Caroline & van der Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The Syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 271–303.Google Scholar

Ito, Junko & Armin, Mester. 2009. The extended prosodic word. In Grijzenhout, J. & Kabak, B. (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Derivations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 135–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2013. Prosodic subcategories in Japanese. Lingua 124: 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2015. The perfect prosodic word in Danish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38: 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586515000049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ito, Junko & Mester, Armin. 2021. Recursive prosody and the prosodic form of compounds. Languages 6.2: 65. (Special issue on “Syntax-Phonology Interface and Recursivity”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joe. 1992. The place of structure preservation in German diminutive formation. Phonology 9.1: 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iverson, Gregory K. & Salmons, Joe. 2003. Laryngeal enhancement in early Germanic. Phonology 20.1: 43–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Joachim. 1982. Neutraler und nicht-neutraler Satzakzent im Deutschen. In Vennemann, Theo (ed.). Silben, Segmente, Akzente. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 141–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobs, Joachim. 2001. The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39: 641–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1962. Selected Writings 1: Phonological Studies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman, Fant, Gunnar & Halle, Morris. 1951. Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: the Distinctive Features and Their Correlates. Technical Report No. 13, Acoustics Laboratory MIT.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1987. On the Motivation for an Evolutionary Typology of Sound-Structural Rules. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Jannedy, Stefanie & Weirich, Melanie. 2014. Sound change in an urban setting: Category instability of the palatal fricative in Berlin. Laboratory Phonology 5: S. 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jespersen, Otto. 1904. Lehrbuch der Phonetik. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.Google Scholar

Jessen, Michael. 1996. Phonetics and Phonology of the Tense and Lax Obstruents in German. PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar

Jessen, Michael. 1997. Phonetics and phonology of the tense and lax obstruents in German. Arbeitspapiere des Instituts für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung-Phonetik 2: 143–146.Google Scholar

Jessen, Michael. 1998. German. In van der Hulst, Harry (ed.), Word Prosodic Systems in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 515–544.Google Scholar

Jessen, Michael & Ringen, Catherine. 2002. Laryngeal features in German. Phonology 19: 189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jun, Sun-Ah. (ed.), 2005/2014/forthcoming. Prosodic Typology. The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Vols. 1, 2 and 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kabak, Bariş & Schiering, René. 2006. The phonology and morphology of function word contractions in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 9: 53–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kager, René. 1989. A Metrical Theory of Stress and Destressing in English and Dutch. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

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

Kager, René, van der Feest, Suzanne, Fikkert, Paula, Kerkhoff, Annemarie & Zamuner, Tania S.. 2007. Representations of [voice]: Evidence from acquisition. In van de Weijer, Jeroen & van der Torre, Erik Jan (eds.), Voicing in Dutch: (De)Voicing – Phonology, Phonetics, and Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 41–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kahn, Sameer ud Dowla. Forthcoming. The intonational typology of South Asian languages. In Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kahnemuyipour, Arsalan. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected Speech: The Interaction of Syntax and Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kaltenbacher, Erika. 1994. Typologische Aspekte des Wortakzents. Zum Zusammenhang von Akzentposition und Silbengewicht im Arabischen und im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 13.1: 20–55.Google Scholar

Keating, Patricia A. 1987. A Survey of Phonological Features. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, Los Angeles, California 6, 124–150.Google Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael. 1994. Phonology in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-identity and uniform-exponence: Alternative to cyclicity. In Durand, Jacques & Larks, Bernard (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods. Paris: CNRS, 363–393.Google Scholar

Kentner, Gerrit. 2017. On the emergence of reduplication in German morphophonology. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 36.2: 233–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kimper, Wendell A. 2011. Locality and globality in phonological variation. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29.2: 423–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1966. Über den deutschen Akzent. Studia Grammatica 7: 69–98.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. How Abstract Is Phonology? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In Hulst, Harry van der & Smith, Norval (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part I. Dordrecht: Foris, 131–175.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. In Phonology Yearbook, 2, 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Syllables and moras in Arabic. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The Syllable in Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2015. Stratal OT: A synopsis and FAQs. In Hsiao, Yuchau E. & Wang, Lian-Hee (eds.), Capturing Phonological Shades. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2–44.Google Scholar

Klein, Thomas B. 2000. Umlaut in Optimality Theory: A Comparative Analysis of German and Chamorro. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kloeke, Wus van Lessen. 1982. Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie. Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kochetov, Alexei. 2016. Palatalization and glide strengthening as competing repair strategies: Evidence from Kirundi. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 1.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.32.Google Scholar

Kohler, Klaus J. 1977/1995. Einführung in die Phonetik des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar

Kohler, Klaus J. 1984. Phonetic explanation in phonology: The feature fortis/lenis. Phonetica 41: 150–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kohler, Klaus J. 1990. Macro and micro F0 in the synthesis of intonation. In Kingston, John & Beckman, Mary E. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I: Between the Grammar and Physics of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohler, Klaus J. 1994. Glottal stops and glottalization in German: Data and theory of connected speech processes. Phonetica 51: 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kohler, Klaus J. 2007. German. In International Phonetic Association (ed.), Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 86–89.Google Scholar

Kotzor, Sandra, Molineaux, Benjamin J., Banks, Elanor & Lahiri, Aditi. 2016. “Fake” gemination in suffixed words and compounds in English and German. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 140.1: 356–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Krämer, Martin & Zec, Draga. 2020. Nasal consonants, sonority and syllable phonotactics: The dual nasal hypothesis. Phonology 37: 27–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2020. Deconstructing information structure. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5.1: 113 https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.968.Google Scholar

Krech, Lutz-Christian, Krech, Eva-Maria, Kurka, Eduard, Stelzig, Helmut, Stock, Eberhard, Stötzer, Ursula & Teske, Rudi (eds.). 1982. Großes Wörterbuch der deutschen Aussprache (GWDA). Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar

Krech, Eva-Maria, Stock, Eberhard, Hirschfeld, Ursula & Anders, Lutz Christian. 2009. Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch (DAWB). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kügler, Frank. 2007. The intonational phonology of Swabian and Upper Saxon. (Linguistische Arbeiten 515). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kügler, Frank, Baumann, Stefan & Röhr, Christine T.. 2022. Deutsche Intonation, Modellierung und Annotation (DIMA) – Richtlinien zur prosodischen Annotation des Deutschen. In Schwarze, Cordula & Grawunder, Sven (eds.), Transkription und Annotation gesprochener Sprache und multimodaler Interaktion: Konzepte, Probleme, Lösungen. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, 23–54.Google Scholar

Kügler, Frank, Baumann, Stefan, Andreeva, Bistra, Braun, Bettina, Grice, Martine, Neitsch, Jana, Niebuhr, Oliver, Peters, Jörg, Röhr, Christine T., Schweitzer, Antje & Wagner, Petra. 2019. Annotation of German Intonation: DIMA compared with other annotation systems. In Calhoun, Sasha, Escudero, Paola, Tabain, Marija & Warren, Paul (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS). Melbourne, Australia, 1297–1301.Google Scholar

Kürschner, S. 2003. Fugenelemente im Deutschen und Dänischen – eine kontrastive Studie zu einem Grenzfall der Morphologie. Dissertation, Freiburg University. https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/data/1256.Google Scholar

Ladd, D. Robert. 1980. The Structure of Intonational Meaning: Evidence from English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

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

Ladd, D. Robert. 1996/2008. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter & Johnson, Keith. 2006/2011. A Course in Phonetics, 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Ladefoged, Peter & Maddieson, Ian. 1996. The Sounds of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lahiri, Aditi & Jacques, Koreman. 1988. Syllable weight and quantity in Dutch. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association, 217–228.Google Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1984. Phonology: An Introduction to Basic Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Juliette. 1985. A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark Y. 1975. The Intonational System of English. PhD dissertation, MIT. Published in 1978 by Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark Y. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B.. 1984. Intonational invariance under changes in pitch range and length. In Aronoff, Mark & Richard, T. Oehrle (eds.), Language Sound Structure: Studies in Phonology Presented to Morris Halle by His Teachers and Students. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 157–233.Google Scholar

Liberman, Mark. Y. & Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1987. An Integrated Theory of Autosegmental Processes. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Lisker, Leigh & Abramson, Arthur S.. 1964. A cross-language study of voicing in initial stops: Acoustical measurements. Word 20, 384–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lodge, Ken. 1989. A non-segmental account of German Umlaut. Linguistische Berichte 124: 470–491.Google Scholar

Lombardi, Linda. 1990. The non-linear organization of the affricates. Natural Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8.3: 375–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lombardi, Linda. 1991. Laryngeal Features and Laryngeal Neutralization. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar

Lombardi, Linda. 1999. Positional faithfulness and voicing assimilation in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 267–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 1979. On stress and syllabification: A representational theory of syllable weight and its effect on stress. Linguistic Inquiry 10: 443–465.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12: 373–413.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43: 84–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 1996. Faithfulness in Prosodic Morphology & Phonology: Rotuman Revisited. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts [ROA 110 http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html].Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16: 331–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 2000. Harmonic Serialism and parallelism. In Hirotani, Masako (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society 30.2.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 2003. Sympathy, cumulativity, and the Duke-of-York Gambit. In Féry, Caroline & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), The Syllable in OT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–76.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 2010. An introduction to Harmonic Serialism. Language and Linguistic Compass 4.10: 1001–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00240.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1989. Quantitative transfer in reduplication and templatic morphology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm 2. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co., 3–35.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1990. Foot and word in Prosodic Morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 209–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1993a. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince., Alan S. 1993b. Generalized alignment. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 79–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1994. The emergence of the unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. In Gonzalez, Mercè (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 24. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, 333–379.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. & Prince, Alan S.. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Walsh, Laura & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, 249–384.Google Scholar

Macfarland, Talke & Pierrehumbert, Janet. 1991. On ich-Laut, ach-Laut and structure preservation. Phonology 8.1: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maddieson, Ian. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martinet, André. 1961. Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Editura Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne.Google Scholar

Martínez-Paricio, Violeta & Kager., René 2015. The binary-to-ternary rhythmic continuum in stress typology: Layered feet and non-intervention constraints. Phonology 32: 459–504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merchant, Jason. 1996. Alignment and fricative assimilation in German. Linguistic Inquiry 27: 709–719.Google Scholar

Mester, R. Armin. 1990. Patterns of truncation. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 475–485.Google Scholar

Moskal, Beata. 2015. Domains on the Border: Between Morphology and Phonology. PhD Dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Moulton, William G. 1956. Syllabic nuclei and final consonant clusters in German. In Morris, Halle, Lunt, Horace G., van Schooneveld, Cornelis H. & McLean, Hugh (eds.), For Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton, 372–381.Google Scholar

Moulton, William G. 1961. Zur Geschichte des deutschen Vokalsystems. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 83: 1–35. Also in Hugo Steger (ed.), 1970. Vorschläge für eine strukturale Grammatik des Deutschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 480–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moulton, William. G. 1962. The Sounds of English and German. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2020. Inflectional Morphology in Harmonic Serialism. Bristol, CT: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar

Murray, Robert W. & Vennemann, Theo. 1983. Sound change and syllable structure. Language 59: 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Myrberg, Sara. 2013. Sisterhood in prosodic branching. Phonology 30.1: 73–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neef, Martin. 1996. Wortdesign. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Neef, Martin. 1998. The reduced syllable plural in German. In Fabri, Ray, Ortmann, Albert & Parodi, Teresa (eds.), Models of Inflection (Linguistische Arbeiten 388). Tübingen: Niemeyer, 244–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986 [2nd ed. 2007]. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Newell, Heather. 2008. Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Phases. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar

Newell, Heather & Piggott, Glyne. 2014. Interactions at the syntax–phonology interface: Evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150: 332–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noske, Manuela. 1997. Feature spreading as dealignment: The distribution of (ç) and (x) in German. Phonology 14.2: 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nübling, Damaris & Szczepaniak, Renate. 2008. On the way from morphology to phonology: German linking elements and the role of the phonological word. Morphology 18: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Odden, David. 1994. Adjacency parameters in phonology. Language 70.2: 289–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olsen, Susan. 1986. “Argument-Linking” und produktive Reihen bei deutschen Adjektivkomposita. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 5: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olsen, Susan. 1991. Ge-Präfigierungen im heutigen Deutsch. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache 113: 333–366.Google Scholar

Olsen, Susan. 2000. Composition. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology: A Handbook of Inflection and Word Formation Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 897–916.Google Scholar

Ortner, L. et al. 1991. Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache, Vol. 4: Substantivkomposita. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Orzechowska, Paula & Wiese, Richard. 2015. Preferences and variation in word-initial phonotactics: A multi-dimensional evaluation of German and Polish. Folia Linguistica 49.2: 439–486. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2015-0016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oostendorp, Marc van. 1995. Vowel Quality and Syllable Projection. Tilburg: Proefschrift.Google Scholar

Padgett, Jaye. 1991. Stricture in Feature Geometry. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar

Pak, M. 2008. The Postsyntactic Derivation and Its Phonological Reflexes. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Pandey, Pramod. 2014. Sounds and Their Patterns in Indic Languages. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India.Google Scholar

Paradis, Carole & Prunet, Jean-François, eds. 1991. The Special Status of Coronals. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Pater, Joe. 1995. Austronesian nasal substitution and other NC̥ effects. In Beckman, Jill N., Walsh, Laura & Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar

Penny, Ralph. 2002. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Penzl, Herbert. 1949. Umlaut and secondary umlaut in Old High German. Language 25: 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, Jörg. 2006a. Intonation deutscher Regionalsprachen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peters, Jörg. 2006b. Syntactic and prosodic parenthesis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Speech Prosody, 2–5 May 2006, Dresden.Google Scholar

Peters, Jörg. 2014/2021. Intonation. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.Google Scholar

Peters, Jörg. 2016. Intonation. In Wöllstein, Angelika (ed.), Duden – Die Grammatik. Vol 4. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim.Google Scholar

Petrova, Olga, Plapp, Rosemary, Ringen, Catherine & Szentgyörgyi, Szilárd. 2000. Constraints on Voice: An OT Typology. Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.Google Scholar

Pfeifer, Wolfgang et al. 1993. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin. Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD thesis. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Published by New York: Garland Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. & Hirschberg, Julia. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry & Pollock, Martha E. (eds.), Intentions in Communications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 271–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pike, Kenneth L. 1945. The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1986. Das Genus der deutschen Ge-Substantive und Verwandtes (Beiträge zur Vererbungslehre 1). STUF – Language Typology and Universals 39: 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pompino-Marschall, Bernd & Żygis, Marzena. 2010. Glottal marking of vowel-initial words in German. Papers from the Linguistics Laboratory, ZASPiL 52: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Predeck, Kristin. 2022. Vowel Length in German: Use of Quality and Quantity in the Perception of Long and Short Vowels in German. PhD dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan. 1983. Relating to the grid. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 1993/2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1993. Relating words. A model of base recognition. Part I. Linguistic Analysis 23: 3–159.Google Scholar

Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1995. Conditions for Stability: The Case of Schwa in German (Arbeiten des SFB 282, Theorie des Lexikons). Düsseldorf: Heinrich Heine University.Google Scholar

Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2000. Evidence for word-internal phonological words in German. In Thieroff, Rolf, Tamrat, Matthias, Fuhrhop, Nana & Teuber, Oliver (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramers, Karl Heinz. 1997. Die Kunst der Fuge: Zum morphologischen Status von Verbindungselementen in Nominalkomposita. In Dürscheid, C. et al. (eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 33–45.Google Scholar

Ramers, Karl Heinz. 1998. Einführung in die Phonologie. Munich: Fink Verlag.Google Scholar

Ramers, Karl Heinz & Vater., Heinz 1992. Einführung in die Phonologie. Cologne: Gabel-Verlag (= Klage 16).Google Scholar

Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reis, Marga. 1974. Lauttheorie und Lautgeschichte. Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Dehnungs und Kürzungsvorgänge im Deutschen. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar

Riad, Tomas. 2014. The Phonology of Swedish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Riad, Tomas. 2018. The phonological typology of North Germanic accent. In Hyman, Larry M. & Plank, Frans (eds.), Phonological Typology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 341–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax (Kluwer International Handbooks of Linguistics, 1). Dordrecht: Kluwer, 281–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, Orrin. 2001. Whose German? The ach/ich Alternation and Related Phenomena in “Standard” and “Colloquial”. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rochemont, Michael. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1985. Associations with Focus. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rooth, Mats. 2016. Alternative semantics. In Féry, Caroline & Ishihara, Shinichiro (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Röttger, Timo B., Winter, B., Grawunder, Sven & Grice, Martine. 2014. Assessing incomplete neutralization of final devoicing in German. Journal of Phonetics 43: 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rubach, Jerzy. 1990. Final devoicing and cyclic syllabification in German. Linguistic Inquiry 21.1: 79–94.Google Scholar

Rubino, Carl. 2011. Reduplication. In Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. http://wals.info/chapter/27.Google Scholar

Saba Kirchner, Jesse. 2010. Minimal reduplication. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Sagey, Elizabeth C. 1986. The Representation of Features and Relations in Non-Linear Phonology. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Schmerling, Susan. 1976. Aspects of English Sentence Stress. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amanda, Seidl. 2001. Minimal Indirect Reference: A Theory of the Syntax–Phonology Interface. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax. The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1986. On derived domains in sentence phonology. In Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 550–569.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2000. The interaction of constraints on prosodic phrasing. In Horne, Merle (ed.), Prosody: Theory and Experiment. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 231–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 2011. The syntax–phonology interface. In Goldsmith, John A., Jason, Riggle & Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 435–484.Google Scholar

Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie & Turk, Alice E.. 1996. A prosody tutorial for investigators of auditory sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25: 193–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shin, Jiyoung, Kiaer, Jieun & Cha, Jaeeun. 2013. The Sounds of Korean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Sievers, Eduard. 1901. Grundzüge der Phonetik zur Einführung in das Studium der Lautlehre der indogermanischen Sprache 5th ed. (1st ed. 1876 ). Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.Google Scholar

Smolensky, Paul & Legendre, Géraldine, eds. 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von Stechow, A. & Uhmann, S.. 1986. Some remarks on focus projection. In Abraham, W. & de Meij, S. (eds.), Topic, Focus and Configurationality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael B. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology V. Acquisition and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 313–335.Google Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 2001. Directional asymmetries in place assimilation: A perceptual account. In Hume, Elizabeth & Johnson, Keith (eds.), The Role of Speech Perception in Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax, Band I. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar

Stötzer, Ursula. 1975. Die Betonung zusammengesetzter Wörter, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Komposita mit fremden Konstituenten. Unpublished dissertation, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin.Google Scholar

Stötzer, Ursula. 1989. Zur Betonung dreiteiliger Substantivkomposita. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 26: 263–265.Google Scholar

Stupak, Inna V. & Baayen, R. Harald. 2023. An inquiry into the semantic transparency and productivity of German particle verbs and derivational affixation. The Mental Lexicon 17.3: 422–457. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.22012.stu.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomaschek, Fabian, Truckenbrod, Hubert & Hertrich, Ingo. 2015. Discrimination sensitivities and identification patterns of vowel quality and duration in German /u/ and /o/ instances. In Leemann, A., Kolly, M.-J., Schmid, S. & Dellwo, V. (eds.), Trends in Phonetics and Phonology: Studies from German-Speaking Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar

Tomioka, Satoshi. 2010. Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In Zimmermann, Malte & Féry, Caroline (eds.), Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115–138.Google Scholar

Topintzi, Nina. 2010. Onsets: Suprasegmental and Prosodic Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trager, G. L. & Smith, H. L. 1951. Outline of English Structure. Norman, OK: Battenburg Press. Reprinted 1957 by American Council of Learned Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Trigo, Loren. 1993. The inherent structure of nasal segments. In Huffman, Marie & Krakow, Rena A. (eds.), Nasals, Nasalization and the Velum. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 369–400.Google Scholar

Trommer, Jochen. 2020. The subsegmental structure of German plural allomorphy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39: 601–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trommer, Jochen & Zimmermann, Eva. 2014. Generalised mora affixation and quantity-manipulating morphology. Phonology 31: 463–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trubetzkoy, Nikolai Sergejewitsch. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prag (=TCLP 7) (New edition 1958, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen).Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus and Prominence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30.2: 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19: 77–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203: 273–296.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. Phrasal stress. In Brown, Keith (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 9, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 572–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2007. The syntax–phonology interface. In de Lacy, Paul (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2012. Semantics of intonation. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. & Portner, P. (eds.), Handbook of Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2039–2069.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert & Féry, Caroline. 2015. Hierarchical organization and tonal scaling. Phonology 32: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Twaddell, William F. 1938. A note on Old High German umlaut. Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht, deutsche Sprache und Literatur 30: 177–181.Google Scholar

Tyler, Matthew. 2019. Simplifying Match Word: Evidence from English functional categories. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.631.Google Scholar

Ulbrich, Horst. 1972. Instrumentalphonetisch-auditive R-Untersuchungen im Deutschen. Schriften zur Phonologie, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 13. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Vater, Heinz. 1992. Zum Silben-Nukleus im Deutschen. In Eisenberg, Peter, Ramers, Karl Heinz & Vater, Heinz (eds.), Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, 100–133.Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1968. German Phonology. PhD dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1970. The German velar nasal: A case for abstract phonology. Phonetica 22: 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1972. On the theory of syllabic phonology. Linguistische Berichte 18: 1–18.Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1986. Neuere Entwicklungen in der Phonologie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1988. Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation of Sound Change. With Special Reference to German, Germanic, Italian and Latin. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1992. Syllable structure and simplex accent in Modern Standard German. In Ziolkowski, M., Noske, M. & Deaton, K. (eds.), Papers from the 26th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol 2. The Parasession on the syllable in phonetics and phonology, 399–412.Google Scholar

Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and Recursion. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Wagner, Michael. 2020. Prosodic focus. In Gutzmann, D., Matthewson, L., Meier, C., Rullmann, H. & Zimmermann, T. E. (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Semantics. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wagner, Michael. 2021. Leute lasst es knacken! Eine Replik auf Peter Eisenbergs Artikel “Unter dem Muff von hundert Jahren.” Unpublished Ms. Available on lingbuzz https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/006199.Google Scholar

Walker, Rachel & Proctor, Michael. 2019. The organisation and structure of rhotics in American English rhymes. Phonology 36.3: 457–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weber, Albert. 1964. Zürichdeutsche Grammatik: Ein Wegweiser zur guten Mundart (3rd ed., in collaboration with Kurt von Meyer, Ruth Trüb und Eugen Dieth). Zürich: Verlag Hans Rohr.Google Scholar

Wegener, Heide. 1992. Pluralregeln in der mentalen Grammatik. In Zimmermann, Ilse & Strigin, Anatoli (eds.), Fügungspotenzen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wegener, Heide. 1999. Die Pluralbildung im Deutschen: ein Versuch im Rahmen der Optimalitätstheorie. Linguistik online 4.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wegener, Heide. 2003. Entstehung und Funktion der Fugenelemente im Deutschen, oder: warum wir keine *Autosbahn haben. Linguistische Berichte 196: 425–458.Google Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 1986. Schwa and the structure of words in German. Linguistics 24: 697–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 1987. Phonologie und Morphologie des Umlauts im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 6.2: 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 1988. Silbische und lexikalische Phonologie: Studium zum Chinesischen und Deutschen (Linguistische Arbeiten 211). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 1994. Phonological vs. morphological rules: On German Umlaut and Ablaut. In Wiese, Richard (ed.), Recent Development in Lexical Phonology (Arbeiten des SFB 282: Theorie des Lexikons 56). Düsseldorf: Heinrich-Heine-Universität, 91–114.Google Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 1996/2000. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phonological vs. morphological rules: On German Umlaut and Ablaut. Linguistics 32: 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 2001. Regular morphology vs. prosodic morphology? The case of truncations in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13: 131–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 2003. The unity and variation of (German) /r/. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 70.1: 25–43.Google Scholar

Wiese, Richard. 2009. The grammar and typology of plural noun inflection in varieties of German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12.2: 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilmanns, Wilhelm. 1896. Deutsche Grammatik. Zweite Abteilung: Wortbildung. Strasbourg: Trübner Verlag, 2nd ed. 1911.Google Scholar

Wilson, Colin. 2001. Consonant cluster neutralisation and targeted constraints. Phonology 18: 147–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wolf, Matthew Adam. 2008. Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology-Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1970. Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Studia Grammatica VIII. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1980. Phonologie. In Heidolph, Karl E., Flämig, Walter & Motsch, Wolfgang (eds.), Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1998. Drei Ebenen der Struktur von Flexionsparadigmen. In Fabri, Ray, Ortmann, Albert & Parodi, Teresa (eds.), Models of Inflection. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yu, Si-taek. 1992a. Unterspezifikation in der Phonologie des Deutschen (Linguistische Arbeiten 274). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yu, Si-taek. 1992b. Silbeninitiale Cluster und Silbifizierung im Deutschen. In Eisenberg, Peter, Ramers, Karl Heinz & Vater, Heinz (eds.), Silbenphonologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr, 172–207.Google Scholar

Eva, Zimmermann. 2019. Gradient symbolic representations and the typology of ghost segments. In Hout, Katherine, Mai, Anna, McCollum, Adam, Rose, Sharon & Zaslansky, Matthew (eds.), Proceedings of AMP 2018. Linguistic Society of America, https://doi.org/10.3765/amp.Google Scholar