On exceptional stress assignment in Latvian: the case of prefixes

References

• Arad, M. 2003. “Locality Constraints and the Interpretation of Roots.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 737–778. doi:10.1023/A:1025533719905.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arad, M. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bermúdez-Otero, R. In preparation. Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bermúdez-Otero, R. 2012. “The Architecture of Grammar and the Division of Labour in Exponence.” In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, edited by J. Trommer, 8–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bobaljik, J. D. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Borer, H. 2013. Structuring Sense. Vol. 3: Taking form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, L., and L. Downing. 2016. “Phrasal Syntax = Cyclic Phonology?” Syntax 18: 159–191.
   Google Scholar
• Corver, N. 1997. “‘Much’ Support as a Last Resort.” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 119–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Alessandro, R., and T. Scheer. 2015. “Modular PIC.” Linguistic Inquiry 46: 593–624. doi:10.1162/LING_a_00195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiSciullo, A. M. 2005. Asymmetry in Morphology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eckert, R., E. Bukevičiūtė, and F. Hinze. 1994. Die baltischen Sprachen. Eine Einführung. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.
   Google Scholar
• Endzelīns, J. 1922. Lettische grammatik. Riga: Lettisches Bildungsministerium.
   Google Scholar
• Endzelīns, J. 1951. Latviešu valodas gramatika. Riga: Latvijas Valsts izdevniecība.
   Google Scholar
• Gāters, A. 1977. Die lettische Sprache und ihre Dialekte. The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halle, M., and J. R. Vergnaud. 1987. An Essay on Stress. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, B. 2004. “Phonological Acquisition in Optimality Theory: The Early Stages.” In Constraints in phonological acquisition, edited by R. Kager, J. Pater, and W. Zonneveld, 158–203. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holst, J. H. 2001. Lettische grammatik. Hamburg: Buske Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hyde, B. 2012. “Alignment Constraints.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 789–836. doi:10.1007/s11049-012-9167-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Itô, J., and A. Mester. 2009. “The Extended Prosodic Word.” In Phonological Domains: Universals and Derivations, edited by B. Kabak, and J. Grijzenhout, 135–194. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Itô, Junko, and Armin Mester. 2016. “Unaccentedness in Japanese.Linguistic Inquiry.” 47: 471-526.
   Google Scholar
• Kariņš, K. 1996. “The Prosodic Structure of Latvian.” PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, C. 1999. Projecting the Adjective. New York: Garland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, C., and L. McNally. 2005. “Scale Structure, Degree Modification and the Semantics of Gradable Adjectives.” Language 81: 345–381. doi:10.1353/lan.2005.0071.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiparsky, P. 2000. “Opacity and cyclicity.” The Linguistic Review 17: 351–366. doi:10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Paricio, V., and R. Kager. 2015. “The Binary-to-Ternary Rhythmic Continuum in Stress Typology: Layered Feet and Non-intervention Constraints.” Phonology 32: 459–504. doi:10.1017/S0952675715000287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marvin, T. 2002. “Topics in the Stress and Syntax of Words.” PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Mathiassen, T. 1997. A short grammar of Latvian. Columbus: Slavica Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. J. 2003. “OT constraints are categorical.” Phonology 20: 75–138. doi:10.1017/S0952675703004470.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. J., and A. S. Prince. 1993. “Generalized Alignment.” In Yearbook of Morphology 1993, edited by G. E. Booij, and J. van Maarle, 79–153. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J. J., and A. S. Prince. 1999. “Faithfulness and Identity in Prosodic Morphology.” In The Prosody-Morphology Interface, edited by R. Kager, H. van der Hulst, and W. Zonneveld, 218–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nespor, M., and I. Vogel. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Nespor, M., and I. Vogel. 1982. “Prosodic Domains of External Sandhi Rules.” In The Structure of Phonological Representations, pt. 1, edited by H. van der Hulst, and N. Smith, 225–255. Dordrecht: Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. 1991. “Rules of language.” Science 253: 530–535. doi:10.1126/science.1857983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prauliņš, D. 2012. Latvian: An Essential Grammar. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, A. 1983. “Relating to the Grid.” Linguistic Inquiry 14: 19–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince, A., and P. Smolensky. 1993 (2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Repront. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Samek-Lodovici, V. 2005. “Prosody-Syntax Interaction in the Expression of Focus.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 687–755. doi:10.1007/s11049-004-2874-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. 1980. “The Role of Prosodic Categories in English Word Stress.” Linguistic Inquiry 11: 563–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. 1995. “The Prosodic Structure of Function Words.” In UMOP 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, edited by J. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey, and S. Urbanczyk, 439–470. Amherst: GLSA Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Selkirk, E. 1981. “On prosodic structure and its relation to syntactic structure.” In Nordic prosody II, edited by T. Fretheim, 111–140. Trondheim: Tapir.
   Google Scholar
• Steinbergs, A. 1977. “The Phonology of Latvian.” PhD dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
   Google Scholar
• Šurkalović, D. 2016. “The No-Reference Hypothesis: A Modular Approach to the Syntax-Phonology Interface.” PhD thesis, Arctic University of Tromsø. http://hdl.handle.net/10037/8438
   Google Scholar
• Thomason, S. G., and T. Kaufman. 1992. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Truckenbrodt, H. 2006. “Phrasal stress.” In Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, 2nd. Vol. 9. edited by K. Brown, 572ff. Oxford:Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Truckenbrodt, H. 2007. “The Syntax-Phonology Interface.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, edited by P. de Lacy, 435–456. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uriagereka, J. 1999. “Multiple Spell-Out.” In Working Minimalism, edited by S. Epstein, and N. Hornstein, 251–282. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, E. 2007. “Dumping Lexicalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, edited by G. Ramchand, and C. Reiss, 353–382. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar